Creationism vs. Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

[cynatnite]

I have to present this as a 5-10 minute powerpoint for Sociology in a month and a half. I've accumulated an enormous amount of books and videos to go over.

I'm in NE TN and there are a few hardcore believers in our class.

Each one is to be defined. Then I am to talk about the pros and cons of each one. Then we present current events.

Now, the pros and cons is what I have an issue with. How do I present a pro concerning creationism or ID? Maybe say, "If you want to remain ignorant to fact, then creationism is the way to go" LOL

Seriously, though. I don't want to offend anyone. I want a thoughtful and objective presentation that puts each one in perspective and shows that evolution is correct.

Anyway, DU has got some of the brightest people on the planet. I could use your input.

[sakabatou]

1. Pro:

Making evolution look better each time creationsism/ID is brought up

[slackmaster]

2. Intelligent design is just Christian creationism repackaged to make it look kind of like science

Terms to search for:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Panda's thumb
"cdesign proponentsists" (spelling corrected - weird but you will understand soon)

[Neurotica]

6. Also look at NCSE's web site--lots of great info

National Center for Science Education

http://ncse.com/

[pokerfan]

19. Also the talk.orgins archive

Index to Creationist Claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[cynatnite]

7. Thanks! n/t

[Zoeisright]

3. I've always thought the fact that the sex drive begins around age 12 but

the brain isn't fully developed until age 25 is one of the best arguments against "intelligent design". The frontal lobe, which tells us consequences for our actions, isn't done growing until you're 25.

Also, why are so many animals carnivores? Why do they have to kill other animals, who suffer horribly, in order to live? Any "intelligent design" would, in my opinion, made animals herbivores.

And, why do babies get cancer? An "intelligent being" certainly wouldn't have designed that. And I don't accept any bullshit about "original sin" causing disease. That's just a get-out-of-jail-free card for "god".

[drmeow]

4. What is the specific class

Sociology covers a lot!

[jpak]

5. Simple: Creationism + ID = BS; Evolution = real science

yup

[Taverner]

8. Difference between Creationism and ID

And there is a difference, even though neither is scientific

Creationism is that stupid stupid belief that the Book of Genesis is all true, Adam was molded from clay, and Eve came from Adam's Rib

ID is acknowledging evolution, but filling in the gaps with 'goddiddit!'

[k2qb3]

26. ID fills in the gaps in scientific knowledge with faith...

Creationism refuses to accept any evidence that contradicts dogma.

It's a question of whether reason trumps faith or faith trumps reason. Once faith trumps reason people are capable of anything.

A lot of people who claim to be ID are really creationists though, it's sort of a spectrum with people all over it from young earthers to true scientists who happen to believe there's a creator at work in all of this.

The most interesting issue is the interaction of faith and reason though, that would be the central theme of my paper.

[HughBeaumont]

9. This may help, although you likely would offend . . .

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Creationism

[some guy]

10. a pro for creationism in terms of sociology.

I'd think in terms of using gods and the wrath of gods to help foster social cohesion and cooperation among people. The cohesion helped to make those societies more stable, and thus they could grow and prosper, rather than foraging on a day-to-day basis. Some days they ate, some days they didn't.

Cohesive societies were able to start farming and herding animals etc, which meant they had more stable supplies of food, and could better support the population.

***
I think intelligent design would be difficult. The only reason it exists, as far as I can tell is to provide false cover for creationism to sneak back into education. Aid and comfort to those who fear evolution will destroy their gods.

[cynatnite]

13. That is an excellent approach.

I really like it and I think I may start with that. It will definitely get me started.

Thank you.

[L. Coyote]

11. I would just say, "The benefit of creationism is

the blindly ignorant can keep their heads under the sands of antiquated belief systems instead of moving out of the Dark Age into 16th century Enlightenment, thus protecting their delicate psyches from admitting there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or a god, and that they are mere mortals who will one day decompose instead of living eternally in that fantasy created to con slaves into accepting their condition and working hard and long to achieve a nebulous reward in the afterlife."

I hope that covers it :rofl:

[Zebedeo]

12. The way to make an "objective presentation"

is to make a good faith attempt to put your biases aside and present the material OBJECTIVELY. If you are the presenter, and your opinion of ID and creationism is that it is something to be mocked (How do I present a pro concerning creationism or ID? Maybe say, "If you want to remain ignorant to fact, then creationism is the way to go" LOL), you will NOT succeed in making an objective presentation. If you are unable to stifle your biases, you should invite a knowledgeable, articulate speaker who is a proponent of ID and a knowledgeable, articulate speaker who is a proponent of creationism, and let them present those theories, while you present the evolution theory. Or perhaps have a roundtable debate among the three of you. But if you hold such biased views on the topic, and you are the only speaker, and you let your biases infect your presentation, it seems that you will definitely fail in your stated goad to make an "objective presentation."

[cynatnite]

15. Well, it has to be a powerpoint...

I'm not going to start insulting people right of out the gate. I'm also acknowledging my already formed opinions. If I can form an intelligent approach to all three subjects...most especially creationism and ID without allowing my personal opinions to get in the way, I feel it can be a positive experience for everyone...including those believers. I will tread carefully, but I won't stray from the truth either.

[HereSince1628]

14. ID attempts to confound traditional evolutionary explanations

It's strength is the same as those for the argument from design. It rationalizes the yet inexplainable.
That doesn't make the rationalization defensible, but simply recognizes the one thing it is used for.

If you walked through a field and found a turtle resting on it's plastron on top of a fencepost, you'd say the turtle didn't get their by itself.

If you walked in the same field and found a watch, you'd say someone dropped the watch, and that it hadn't evolved there.

The argument used by IDers is often a word written in the sand of a beach. The squiggles are meaningful (at least to a person who can read), they wouldn't mean anything if squiggled another way. Because they have meaning, we would recognize them as a word written down by someone who wanted to leave the word behind for others to see.

Similarly if you found a critical biological mechanism that cannot be reduced to a simpler form still maintain its critical function, the IDers say that is a functionally irreducible unit. If it has critical purpose, it came into existence with that purpose. IDers argue such purpose is endued into the irreducible unit not by evolution but by a designer who understood it's necessity to the thing of which it is a critical part.


The weakness of ID is that no one has yet demonstrated such an undeniably irreducible part.

[LeftinOH]

16. Creationism = Intelligent Design < Evolution

[Neurotica]

17. How are you supposed to be approaching this?

Are you supposed to consider this from a public education perspective, considering the teaching of these topics in science class? They are not really similar, although creationism and intelligent design proponents would have you believe that their ideas are as valid as evolution (or more so) in the science arena.

Evolution is a scientific theory, while I would maybe categorize creationism and intelligent design as philosophies. It's apples and oranges. As others have said, intelligent design is simply a repackaging of creationism to make it more palatable in public school.

The pros of creationism and intelligent design would perhaps involve the religious component if you wanted children to be taught from a certain religious perspective. This, however, is not acceptable in public school.

The cons would be that you would be violating the Constitution (read the judge's opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover for a great summary of the key points here). Also, there are a great many flaws in the bases for these ideas with respect to science and the scientific method.

You can't worry about offending someone. Two are clearly religious in nature and origin, while one is scientific theory based in fact. While evolution and belief in a creator are not mutually exclusive, only evolution belongs in science class.

[RC]

20. "Evolution is a scientific theory..." - - Wrong!

Evolution is a scientific Fact. How evolution works is the theory.

Calling evolution a theory is playing into the Religions nonsense of the Right trying to discredit evolution as not being a fact.

[Neurotica]

23. Evolution "is" a scientific theory

A theory in science is different than the connotation of the word "theory" in other disciplines.

From the National Center for Science Education:

"In the biological sciences, evolution is a scientific theory that explains the emergence of new varieties of living things in the past and in the present; it is not a "theory of origins" about how life began."

You call evolution a "theory" because it is just that in the field of science. You are not playing into the religious right's hand by calling something by its accurate name. Trying to reframe it will simply confuse the issue and perhaps the audience.


(Edited for clarity)

[RC]

30. Evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact.

How it actually works is the theory part. Evolution itself has been proven to be happening and it has been proved to be happening for over 150 years. What goes on during this happening is the theory part.

Calling Evolution a theory is to confuse and weaken the argument.

[Viking12]

36. Gravity is a theory too....

Please learn something about science before you pontificate further.

[RC]

41. The existence of gravity is a fact.

Or don't you believe in facts?

Oooo, a big intimidating word 'pontificate'

[Viking12]

53. Oh, I 'believe' in facts. But then again, I know the difference between a fact and a theory

whereas you obviously have no clue. (are those words tiny enough for you to comprehend?)

[RC]

55. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

"Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html


Evolution: Fact and Theory
"Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change."
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html


Evolution as theory and fact
The statement "evolution is both a theory and a fact" is often seen in biological literature.<1><2><3><4><5><6><7> Evolution is a "theory" in the scientific sense of the term "theory"; it is an established scientific model of a portion of the universe that generates propositions with observational consequences. Such a model both helps generate new research and helps us understand observed phenomena.

When scientists say "evolution is a fact", they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical: evolution can be observed through changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations.

Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) <8> even though this cannot be directly observed. This implies more tangibly that it is a fact that humans share a common ancestor with other primates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

[HereSince1628]

27. That all depends on what you mean by evolution and also by

what a "scientific fact" could possibly be. I have a PHD in population biology--the classical genetic mechanics of evolution and I don't think I've ever been called upon to discuss a "scientific fact."

Evolution was once an adjective not a theory. It simply described the NONRANDOM emergence of fossils in time ordered geological sequences.

There is nothing inherently wrong with calling evolution a theory. The semantic trouble with it is not of scientific origin, but rather misunderstanding of what an evolutionary theory is.

Evolutionary theory certainly exists. And it actually integrates many subordinate theories concerning biotic(and for some scientists chemical) evolution. By subordinate theories I suggest microevolutionary theory and macroevolutionary theory. Many nonbiologists, who adamantly support evolution, can't distinguish between the two. And they are different.

People object to theory as it suggests hypotheticals or guesses. But, evolutionary theory still does have hypothetical components. Indeed like most really good theories, it has generated many hypotheses and lots of them are supported...but only tenatively held and are available to being negated. Typically these sorts of evolutionary hypotheses require more sophistication and are more nuanced than a non-evolutionary scientist would care to invest. In my own research, they concerned the evolutionary development of stable strategies of parasitic life-histories, and predictable and testible relationships between factors influences transmission rates and factors resulting in pathogenesis (causes of departures from normal function).

[pokerfan]

33. It is both fact and scientific theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

[Motown_Johnny]

44. +1

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

46. "It's apples and oranges." That was my first though...

but I think I thought more like apples and marbles.

[Neurotica]

18. Another great resource-PBS program on Kitzmiller v. Dover

The program is called "Judgment Day -- Intelligent Design on Trial."

It's a NOVA documentary -- excellent background material on the entire issue!

[pokerfan]

22. Links

Video: http://video.pbs.org/video/980040807 (112 min)
Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_Day:_Intelligent_Design_on_Trial

[cynatnite]

24. I'll look it up...thanks. n/t

[rexcat]

28. Here is the link...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

[Rex]

21. Actually after reading over historical events, the RWing has yet

to mount an argument toward the Intelligent part. God made the angels and failed(Satan). God made humans and failed(Adam&Eve). Got wiped out all the races with a flood and failed(humans, eviler and more conniving than ever). Design literally steals DNA from the term DNA. Um...I cannot rationalize 'controlled insanity' in a supposed advanced civilization. Impossible.

[Arugula Latte]

51. God is supposed to be omnipotent, but he fails and gets his ass kicked by Satan.

"He" is Love, but what kind of a bastard rains down death and destruction on "his" creatures?

Who can make themselves believe this poppycock?

[Viking12]

54. "Could Jesus microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"

One of my favorite koans, courtesy of Homer Simpson.

[DCKit]

25. There has got to be a cartoon for that.

http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=moz35&sz=all&va=creationism+cartoon
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/c/creationism.asp

[Bandit]

29. It is the difference between Scientific Theory and Belief

Just because you believe something does not make it true, however once something has advanced to become scientific theory it is fact....until someone proves different. Fact verses belief...One can not prove either the existence of God or the non existence of God. It is all belief. either you believe or you don't. Gravity is a fact whether you believe it or not, the same with Atomic theory, Atoms can be split in two..fact...Evolution is fact that can be and has been proved time and time again..whether religious people believe it or not..

[darkstar3]

31. In my experience, history is the only way to approach this subject from a non-biological POV.

I'm assuming that, since this is a Sociology class, there will be no need for you to explain each hypothesis/theory in-depth, since two of them have no depth, and evolutionary biology is a subject that requires an entirely different setting. Therefore, were I in your situation, I would start with history. Don't make it a dry X vs. Y debate or recitation of facts, just tell the story. One of my greatest teachers did his best work in storytelling, and that was in a Social Studies class.

Obviously you'd have to flesh it out more than this simple outline, but you could tell students how humankind has searched since before written history for the origins of our species, our planet, our universe, and the meaning of it all. How creationist myths have evolved over time (wink, wink) from things like Chaos and pantheons to monolithic deities that exist outside of this universe. How Creationism as we know it today was cemented into the minds of the Western world by the rise of Christianity, and first effectively challenged by Charles Darwin and his discovery of evolution through the beaks of finches. How evolution has been supported through the fields of biology and archeology, and how common misconceptions about missing fossils and common ancestors have helped make the theory controversial. How Intelligent Design grew out of a combination of this controversy and its original form of Creationism. Finally, you could explain to the class that Creationism and ID are rooted entirely in Western religious belief, and evolution is rooted in scientific study, and then ask the class how the religious beliefs of only SOME people can be taught in public schools while still respecting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Just my $0.02.

[wickerwoman]

32. Check out "Four Horsemen" on Youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E

Great discussion with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens on the most common objections they hear to evolution and how they deal with them.

There are other debates on youtube including one where the same four guys were invited to debate religious leaders (and generally mop the floor with them). Worth watching to see how "the other side" usually argues.

Here's a good one:

The Big Debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-S7M0KZTsU

[Wait Wut]

34. I don't know.

But, I really, really want to be in that class. Sounds like a fun and challenging assignment!

[JoePhilly]

35. I have a serious high level view for you on this ...

1) Creationism is based on a specific biblical interpretation. Earth is 6000 years old. God did it. So on.

2) Intelligent Design is a reformulation of Creationism adding "some" recognition of scientific findings of the last 2000 years. God, becomes THE "designer", and the time frame may be different. But the "designer" made people "different" from all other life forms.

3) Evolution, is based on decades of scientific research across many fields. Contrary to the belief of many, Evolution says nothing about the existence of a "God". As a true scientific theory, it only includes that which can be readily observed. And you can't see God. Evolution's data and its ability to "predict" is unmatched by any other similar theory, including ID.

The key difference between Evolution and the other two, is that it is based not only on observation, but it can also be tested based on predictions. Evolution has predicted many things that were only discovered later. Neither Creationism or ID can do that.

Also, those who propose ID tend to focus not on the STRENGTH of their theory, but on "gaps" in evolution. When you turn that around, and you "demand" that ID explain it's gaps ... it fails miserably. As a simple example ... what evidence does ID provide to show that the intelligent designer is "God" versus an intelligent alien species.

You might want to read the legal outcome of the case in Dover PA from a few years ago ... where they found that the texts for ID had been altered because the original drafts used the term "creationism". The authors decided to HIDE creationism under the veil of ID.

As for "pros" ... one pro of bringing ID into the class room would be to FORCE IT to adhere to the same level of scientific rigor that evolution goes through. Currently, ID is really little more than an "opinion" driven from a religious perspective. Putting it up to real scientific scrutiny would force ID to defend its own gaps, rather than relying on gaps in evolution for its source of support.

[Viking12]

37. Describing the contrast as differing epistemic systems is a good approach

A straight forward approach, "here's what they believe and how they come to believe it" would both impress the professor and allow the 'objectivity' the OP is seeking.

[JoePhilly]

40. Very true, altough for a 5-10 minute pitch ... it might be hard ...

but that would depend on the level of the class.

Just the discussion of knowledge based on experience versus knowledge based on belief, and how one demonstrates (or even proves) ones versus the other, is its own college level class.

But, cynatnite might be able to mention it in a simple way. If you put these on a continuum, Creationism is on the far side of BELIEF, ID is slightly to the right of that (recognizing some scientific evidence), and then Evolution is WAY over on the left, dependent on observation and evidence.

These discussion are why the "threat" of schools teaching ID don;t scare me. My kids would be ready to deconstruct ID when it is placed side by side.

[cynatnite]

38. Thank you...

This is all very helpful.

[JoePhilly]

43. Happy to help ... its a very interesting topic area.

[immoderate]

45. You could take a "people" approach...

I like some of the suggestions above, especially darkstar3.

You could present the outlook of each type. Present that person's world view. Lends itself to PPT shows, I think.

--imm

[Motown_Johnny]

39. be sure and list ALL the Creation theories

not just the Judeo-Christian one


There is exactly the same amount of evidence for all of them. Please make that clear at the start.


The Pro for Creationism is that a Deity has miraculously revealed how it created the universe to some mere mortal. If you are completely devoted to that Deity, and the teachings which accompany that belief, then you tend to be a Creationist.

I can't think of any nicer way to put it without elevating one myth over another.

[JoePhilly]

42. Another key point ... Creationism discusses how the Universe came to be ...

Evolution does not.

Evolution does not get into why there are so many galaxies, so many stars, or where they came from. Only Creationism does.

Intelligent Design usually does not get into that. It (usually)only deals with why there are people and what makes them "special".

[Motown_Johnny]

47. Plus Genesis actually contradicts itself

in regards to Lilith and Eve (among other things). It could be a way to knock down all the attacks about how evolutionists can't explain every little thing (yet).

[Arugula Latte]

50. Also, Genesis contains two contradictory creation stories

It should point out that the Judeo-Xtian creation myth has two separate versions slapped side by side in Genesis. So, if it's god's word, how do these fundies explain the different stories?:

Interestingly, the Book of Genesis contains two different creation stories. There is general agreement amongst scholars that Genesis 2:4b to 3:24 was written during the time of King Solomon, about 950 BCE. Scholars refer to Genesis 2 as “J” for Jahweh, the German spelling of Yahweh. Genesis 1 (1:1 to 2:4a) is called “P”, for Priestly account; it was written about 550 to 400 BCE, much later than Genesis 1.

Here is a condensed version of the two creation stories placed side by side (From Ancient Myth and Modern Life, p63c):

Gen 2:4b-23 (circa 950 BCE) / Gen. 1:1-2:4a (circa 550 to 400 BCE)

1. Heavens and earth / 1. Primeval ocean, formless earth, light formed to separate day and night

2. Mist to dampen ground / 2. Firmament created in primeval ocean – water above and below

3. Man (Adam) molded from earth / 3. Waters gathered, earth appears,earth vegetation created

4. Garden planted including / 4. Sun, moon, stars created tree of knowledge

5. Rivers of Eden / 5. Birds and sea creatures created

6. Assignment of Man /6. Animals created as gardener

7. Beasts, birds molded from the earth / 7. Humans created from the earth

8. Woman formed from Adam's rib / 8. Sabbath created

http://www.philosophylounge.com/robert-richert-bible-creation/

[JoePhilly]

52. Yup, the order is different ....

I like how LIGHT isn't first.

God made things, and then needed the light to see that "it was good".

[Arugula Latte]

48. self-delete

[Puzzler]

49. You might want to include several other accounts of creation ...

... along with the Biblical one.

[forty6]

56. Your best resource is on Youtube... hundreds of evolution videos, and..

videos knocking ID and Creationism.

But if this a SOCIOLOGY course, you might want to look at those social subgroups, factions, whatever who subscribe to Creationist/ID theories.... show how closely they align with fundamentalist Christians, (and perhaps some Muslims), but seldom align with Judaism, Buddhism etc. You might want to see how they break out in the political spectrum, (almost always to the right wing side), how their views of any social science discoveries are more skeptical than their views of the biological sciences, (medicine, dentistry, etc) where they expect medicine to provide the perfect answers, keep them alive until 100+.

You might also like to look at the education and background of evolution believers, more college educated, more coming from liberal families, more former Catholics, ...see what you can find and share it with us!

[SoCalDem]

57. Selective Ignorance

SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-31-07 08:45 PM
Original message

Move over, Intelligent Design.. Meet, Selective Ignorance.


Selective Ignorance is the technique invented by, and now practiced widely, by republicans everywhere.

SI is what allows them...no, ENCOURAGES them to simultaneously embrace two opposing philosophies , and to bifurcate their thinking processes.

SI is what causes them to march in parades, carrying woefully misspelled signs, as they protest abortion, while at home, their 14 year old granddaughter recovers from a "D&C" performed by the family doctor...for "female troubles".. Her "troubles" started when Uncle Fred took her camping with his family.


SI is what causes them to repeatedly vote against school levies, and then to complain loudly at school board meetings about the deplorable state of their schools, and the threatened demise of their beloved football program...

The eventual solution has to be to de-fund the public school, fire the union teachers, and start up a voucher program. Of course, the vouchers are probably only worth enough for a storefront-Jesus school or a co-op quasi home-school system. These same people will now demand that their children still be welcomed into the athletic programs , and the extra-curricular programs of the shcools they left behind..

SI is what allows them to send in their hard-earned money to support candidates who promise to close those borders, but when it comes time to vote, they always come up short on delivering. It's a moot point anyway, since SI devotees often have no qualms about "getting themselves a Mexican" from Home Depot, if they need some hard landscaping done....or their car waxed cheaply...or their garage cleaned out..or their roof repaired..


SI makes it possible for them to repeatedly elect gay congressmen and senators, while these same voters feel perfectly okay about getting drunk and bashing a few "gays" when the opportunity arises.

The same SI allows those elected gay officials to portray themselves as NOT GAY..NO WAY , in order to get elected, and then live unhappy, closeted lives..always one "incident" away from being exposed. They spend their time in office pretending to be the "confirmed bachelor", or worse yet, find some desperate woman willing to play the part of devoted wife.

SI is also what causes them to sacrifice their long-held beliefs , and to be willing to support multiply divorced, lifestyle-challenged candidates, when no other republican is available.


SI allows them to praise big business and to pretend to follow the intricacies of the stock market because they have a 401-k, and it will somehow make them rich. It allows them to demonize unions, because they might have to pay those "damned union dues", and lord-knows , they don't want some union boss telling them how to vote. Little do they know that their beloved 401-k's are morphing into 001-k's. SI tells them that as long as Maria & Erin are smiling and flirting with them, everything's gonna be okay.

SI lets them love their guns, and still be worried when they send their young 'uns off to college . Of course the solution they come up with , is to arm the teachers AND students.

SI can turn a campus into a shooting gallery, but at least their son/daughter is locked & loaded.

SI allows them to love their God, while actively hating other people for not loving the same God.

SI allows them to think at, as Christians, they are the favored ones, while at the same time, believing that God created everyone, and everything.

SI allows them to feel free to destroy nature, and still find enough animals to hunt, and fish to catch.

SI allows them to eschew evolution, yet accept the fear of evolving mutations of Bird Flu and other pandemic possibilities. It allows them avoid science, and then run to science to cure what ails them.

SI allows them to fight like maniacs to deprive already-born children of food, shelter & a decent education, while claiming to want to preserve pregnancies of women they don't know, will never meet, and never plan on supporting.

SI makes it possible for them to value huge tax cuts for rich people, and meekly accept pay cuts for themselves. It makes them happy to HAVE a job..any job, even if it means that the profits of the company they work for, are never distributed to them and their families.

SI makes them crave the biggest baddest car/SUV/truck, and gives them license to bad-mouth people who choose smaller, safer, cleaner forms of transportation. SI allows them to feel superior, even if they have to choose between braces for their kids, and gas for the cars.

SI gives them a euphoric lift when they deliver a crushing blow to an opponent, even if the opponent was right. SI is what makes them savor pyrrhic victories, as they watch their own world crumbling around them.

SI is also what creates the illusion that they are the majority, instead of a cacophonous minority, hurling insults and epithets at the rest of civilization.