Liberals seem to believe that all Tories are right wing nutbars who believe in the Literal Bibical Creation. I believe people of all political stripes mostly accept the Theory of Evolution.
Do Conservatives believe in Creationism?
- Thread starter Uncle_Jalapeno
- Start date
Interesting question; while many people suggest a majority of conservatives are religious nuts, I think there's a wide spectrum in most political parties.
Think about it: most Liberal leaders are Catholics, and the Catholic church isn't the most progressive, is it?
Trying to mix religious views and political stances is a waste of time.
Think about it: most Liberal leaders are Catholics, and the Catholic church isn't the most progressive, is it?
Trying to mix religious views and political stances is a waste of time.
I've voted Conservative in the past and am an atheist.
the two principal figures in the history of the left in Canada. Tommy Douglas in the NDP and J.S. Woodsworth in the CCF were both religious ministers.
The ReverendTommy Douglas, NDP idol, , was a Bible toting minister.
the two principal figures in the history of the left in Canada. Tommy Douglas in the NDP and J.S. Woodsworth in the CCF were both religious ministers.
The ReverendTommy Douglas, NDP idol, , was a Bible toting minister.
I think the correlation goes the other way: those who believe in literal creation as described in the Old Testament (in two inconsistent stories, I might add) are more likely to be politically and socially conservative, sometimes to the point of being nutbars. Extreme religious belief usually leads to ideological conservatism, but I seriously doubt the converse is true.
Re: RE: Do Conservatives believe in Creationism?
Thank you for pointing that out.
Not only was Tommy Douglas a bible-toting minister, he was a bible-toting Baptist fundamentalist minister.
Calberty said:
Thank you for pointing that out.
Not only was Tommy Douglas a bible-toting minister, he was a bible-toting Baptist fundamentalist minister.
Got a cite for that, Calberty? Douglas was in no sense a religious fundamentalist. About homosexuality, for instance, he said this, consistent with the more "liberal" view of it at the time:
"Instead of treating [homosexuality] as a crime and driving it underground we ought to recognize it for what it is. It's a mental illness; it's a psychiatric condition which ought to be treated sympathetically, which ought to be treated by psychiatrists and social workers." - Said in the 1968 Leaders debate on the proposed Omnibus bill to decriminalize homosexuality, according to this: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas
I doubt many would subscribe to that view now, probably including Douglas if he were still with us. Remember that was over 35 years ago. Time and attitudes change.
"Instead of treating [homosexuality] as a crime and driving it underground we ought to recognize it for what it is. It's a mental illness; it's a psychiatric condition which ought to be treated sympathetically, which ought to be treated by psychiatrists and social workers." - Said in the 1968 Leaders debate on the proposed Omnibus bill to decriminalize homosexuality, according to this: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas
I doubt many would subscribe to that view now, probably including Douglas if he were still with us. Remember that was over 35 years ago. Time and attitudes change.
Dexter Sinister said:
I'll have to disagree with you here.
Christian fundamentalism means a belief in the five "fundamentals";
-an inerrant bible
-the Virgin birth
-the Vicarious atonement
-the Resurrection
-the Second Coming
All these things are basics of the Baptist faith, and if Tommy Duglas did not believe them, he would not have been a minister of that faith.
Another tenet of the Baptist faith is "love the sinner, hate the sin", which might explain his "advanced" attitude. (for 1968)
RE: Do Conservatives beli
Here's an article I wrote on the subject recently:
Flaws Found in Intelligent Design Theory.
In an announcement sure to rock the scientific world, Dr. Jack Harvey, a noted biochemist, claims he has found several flaws in the scientifically regarded theory of "intelligent design".
"There are several aspects to the theory that just don't fit together", Dr. Harvey claims. "Penguins, for example. Why would any intelligent being design such a bird, unless as a cruel joke". Harvey claims that the birds awkward motions and inability to fly are not intelligent at all. "In fact, Dr. Harvey continues, "this bird is the work of a total moron".
Dr Harvey also claims that mosquitos, flies and many forms of bacteria are also not intelligently designed. "Not to mention ostiches", Harvey says, "Have you ever seen a more ridiculous looking animal?"
Harvey claims that even human beings have faults which a truly intelligent being would have solved before being placed on Earth. "Some humans are fine", he said, "while others tend toward obesity or develop some sort of illness. A truly intelligent creator would not have allowed such discrepancies".
Dr. Rob Weinstein, a respected molecular biologist, disagreed with Harvey's statements. "Harvey has no idea what he's talking about", Weinstein stated, "even the smartest of us make little mistakes. To err is human!"
Some scientists say that Havey's claims bolster the ridiculous idea of "evolution".
Here's an article I wrote on the subject recently:
Flaws Found in Intelligent Design Theory.
In an announcement sure to rock the scientific world, Dr. Jack Harvey, a noted biochemist, claims he has found several flaws in the scientifically regarded theory of "intelligent design".
"There are several aspects to the theory that just don't fit together", Dr. Harvey claims. "Penguins, for example. Why would any intelligent being design such a bird, unless as a cruel joke". Harvey claims that the birds awkward motions and inability to fly are not intelligent at all. "In fact, Dr. Harvey continues, "this bird is the work of a total moron".
Dr Harvey also claims that mosquitos, flies and many forms of bacteria are also not intelligently designed. "Not to mention ostiches", Harvey says, "Have you ever seen a more ridiculous looking animal?"
Harvey claims that even human beings have faults which a truly intelligent being would have solved before being placed on Earth. "Some humans are fine", he said, "while others tend toward obesity or develop some sort of illness. A truly intelligent creator would not have allowed such discrepancies".
Dr. Rob Weinstein, a respected molecular biologist, disagreed with Harvey's statements. "Harvey has no idea what he's talking about", Weinstein stated, "even the smartest of us make little mistakes. To err is human!"
Some scientists say that Havey's claims bolster the ridiculous idea of "evolution".
Fine Colpy, but you've defined the term in such a way as to make yourself right, though I doubt very much that Douglas subscribed to Biblical inerrancy. There's no evidence of that in any of his speeches or public pronouncements that I'm aware of.
Fundamentalism is a term popularly used to describe strict adherence to Christian doctrines based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. That usage derives from a late-19th- and early-20th-century inter-denominational Protestant movement that opposed accommodating Christian doctrine to modern scientific theory and philosophy.
Tommy Douglas was not a fundamentalist in that sense and he did not campaign holding a Bible. He disliked the fundamentalist Bible thumpers typified by his contemporaries like William Aberhart and Ernest Manning. He was a classic liberal Christian who would probably be in the United Church today.
But we're getting a little away from the original topic of this thread.
edited to make it clearer what I was responding to...
Fundamentalism is a term popularly used to describe strict adherence to Christian doctrines based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. That usage derives from a late-19th- and early-20th-century inter-denominational Protestant movement that opposed accommodating Christian doctrine to modern scientific theory and philosophy.
Tommy Douglas was not a fundamentalist in that sense and he did not campaign holding a Bible. He disliked the fundamentalist Bible thumpers typified by his contemporaries like William Aberhart and Ernest Manning. He was a classic liberal Christian who would probably be in the United Church today.
But we're getting a little away from the original topic of this thread.
edited to make it clearer what I was responding to...
Dexter Sinister said:
Fair enough, I was being quite specific. I drew my five "fundamentals" from a piece in a history text that spoke of the original coe beliefs of the "Fundamentalist" movement in the early 20th Century. And your point is well taken, the word now means something quite a bit broader, and refers to a more narrow-minded philosophy than originally.
Despite his tolerance, I don't think Tommy would be United, though.
Colpy said:
Yeah, on thinking it over I have to agree, you're probably right about that. Ol' T.C. was a man of firm convictions, and the doctrines of the United Church got so watered down in the unification process that, as I've posted elsewhere, you could be anything short of a raving atheist and they'd let you in.
The defining characteristic of fundamentalist Christianity in contemporary terms seems to me to be the belief in Biblical inerrancy and a very strict and literal interpretation of scripture, and that's not consistent with what I know of Douglas. A modern fundie, for instance, would most likely simply cite passages from Leviticus and state that homosexuality is a sin (in fact I've seen bumper stickers to that effect) and that's the end of the discussion. Douglas had a more complex and nuanced view of it, which was typical of him on most issues, though still limited by the information and understanding of things that was available at the time.
It's been a long time since I heard anybody seriously profess the "mental illness" view of homosexuality, these days it's either a sinful choice or a genetically determined part of a person's nature we have no option but to accept as just the way things are, depending on your point of view. Actually I think that's too simplistic as well, there are more than two genders and more than two sexual orientations, but that's a subject for another thread, which I don't propose to start. I have nothing to say about them beyond acknowledging and accepting their existence.
No points for guessing where I stand on it. :wink:
I don't see that there has to be one or the other....
The fact we have life has to have come from some form of design and I believe we are not necessarily the end result viewing our failures. For example we still kill each other.
I think we are ongoing in terms of evolution and yes I think there is an intelligence governing it, however it also allows free will and choice - that being part of how we evolve.
And creationism? The design had to start somewhere didn't it - why make a big deal of it with the stories of the bible - I think we all probably started in the mud with the rest of the life forms.
Humans have got to stop thinking they are the final stage of being.
The fact we have life has to have come from some form of design and I believe we are not necessarily the end result viewing our failures. For example we still kill each other.
I think we are ongoing in terms of evolution and yes I think there is an intelligence governing it, however it also allows free will and choice - that being part of how we evolve.
And creationism? The design had to start somewhere didn't it - why make a big deal of it with the stories of the bible - I think we all probably started in the mud with the rest of the life forms.
Humans have got to stop thinking they are the final stage of being.
That statement proves Harvey's ignorance about the penguin. The penguin is perfectly suited to his environment. The penguin can swim better and faster than most fish which are it's prey. In the water, where they spend most of their time, they are anything but awkward.
Rejection of science is not just confined to Biblical and Koranic literalists. Every religious tradition has it's share of simpletons. There are New Agey types who don't believe in the validity of the scientific method as well. Dexter Sinister is correct in that "Fundamentalism" refers to a specific American 19th century departure from mainstream Protestantism, and can't be simply equated to Biblical literalism, evangelical Christianity, or "Born-againism".
Creationists, intelligent-designers, geocentrists, flat-earthers, Reiki practitoners, crystal-power types, astrologists, palm-readers and the like will always be with us: such is the nature of the Bald Ape.
They will never parley their political influence into intellectual acceptance, because their days are done. They (or close sousins) have been the dominant beliefs in various cultures and have all been replaced by beleifs which are consistent with the demands of evidence, experiment and reason.
Hasta la vista, babies!
Creationists, intelligent-designers, geocentrists, flat-earthers, Reiki practitoners, crystal-power types, astrologists, palm-readers and the like will always be with us: such is the nature of the Bald Ape.
They will never parley their political influence into intellectual acceptance, because their days are done. They (or close sousins) have been the dominant beliefs in various cultures and have all been replaced by beleifs which are consistent with the demands of evidence, experiment and reason.
Hasta la vista, babies!