Perspective: Jews & Muslims

Monday, 28 August 2006

From the blog of premierejan.

A commentary on the fighting between Jews & Muslims.

Read the rest of this entry »


Americans View of Islam

Thursday, 9 March 2006

  By Davyd 'Hu

An article in the Washington Post shows that more and more Americans have negative views of Islam, and people of Arab descent. A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC news found that 46% of Americans view Islam as a violent religion. 33% believe that Islalm is responsable for violence against non-Muslims, and one in three Americans have heard negative comments about the religion recently.

An online poll at revealed this:

78% of 27,244 people said that they have unfavorable views of Islam. Why is this? Many people are claiming that this is because of frequent attacks aimed directly at Muslims by the media and politicians. It is true that most Americans don't trust Arab nations or companies, something clearly seen in the ongoing Dubai "negotiation". But does America have good reasons? The whole world has seen the effects of terrorism by Islamic fundementalists. The United States is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are seeing much violence and destruction done by Arabs and Muslim terrorists.

The reactions of thousands of Muslims over the Danish Muhammad cartoons resulted in violence and mass potests certainly dosen't help the public view Islam in a better way.

Ironically, while more people see Islam as a religion of violence and hate, it is the fastest growing religion in the United States, and, depending on who you ask, it might even be the fastest growing religion in the world. So whether you like it or not, Americans are going to have to learn to deal with it.

View the MSNBC poll

Science vs. Christianity

Saturday, 4 February 2006

An article by Davyd ‘Hu


“After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated, they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind”
Albert Einstein

Evolution: “A process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.”

There are many groups, both religious and political, that are trying to stop the teaching of evolution in schools because they feel that it is just a “theory”. These same people want the “theory” of intelligent design taught in public schools. The problem lies in that there is no scientific evidence to support intelligent design. Thus, teaching it in place of evolution could mean teaching religion in our schools, a practice that is highly frowned upon in a nation of freedom. Extreme evolutionists argue that evolution is a proven fact, and that to believe anything different is complete ignorance.

My viewpoint? Why does evolution have to interfere with the beliefs of Christians or any other faith? It shouldn’t and doesn’t.

The theory of evolution is separate from the opinions of how the world and life itself was created (God, the Big Bang theory, etc.). Evolution only describes the changes of living things through genetics over a long period of time. Evolution doesn’t even have to make the claim that the earth is billions and billions of years old. Evolution needn’t take an extraordinary amount of time. It’s results can be seen even after a thousand years, or less. Results that can clearly be seen every day.

For this example, I shall use dogs. There are numerous diverse breeds of dogs, as different as Chihuahuas and Dalmatians. All of these dogs share a common ancestor with Canis lupus, and yet all have great diversity in both physical appearance and genetic makeup. Is this proof of evolution? Not necessarily, but it is certainly evidence.

In any event, I am not here to make anyone believe or disbelieve in evolution; personally, I don’t care what you believe. I just want you to actually think about this instead of believing what others tell you.

Now, let’s look at some creationist opinions and see if they make any sense (don’t worry, we will look at the evolutionist side as well).

The WWCW (World Wide Christian Web) website makes this claim:
“If evolution is true, then there can be NO moral, legal or ethical standards whatsoever that have any real or ultimate significance or meaning, since all of these have arisen from humans at some point in history, and no human is any better than any other human.”

Does this make any sense at all? Is every evolutionist saying that we don’t have souls? Of course not. Evolution does not make a claim that there is no God; it does not make the claim that we are all here by chance. Apparently, the authors at WWCW do not understand evolution and/or have just picked out the parts they wanted so that they might tear scientific theories down to prove the existence of God. They are taking the opinions of certain biologists as scientific fact.

On the other side of the argument, we have people like Dr. D.M.S. Watson who said, “Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (Nature, Aug 10, 1929, p. 233)

Here we are dealing with an ignorant evolutionist. Who knew? These evolutionists refuse to see the whole picture. Evolution does explain the adaptations of a species through time and can even explain the change of genetics in any animal over time, but one thing evolution does not explain the beginning of life.

Until both sides of this argument begin to see things for what they really are, no one is going to get anywhere. Bull headed evolutionists need to stop pretending that they have all the answers, and creationists who insist on spreading their own propaganda as scientific fact need to concede that there are things science actually can explain. Both sides need to realize that there should not be a line between science and religion. Truth is truth, whether scientists or Christians accept it, and constant bickering coupled with the occasional lawsuit is not going to result in anything, except perhaps explosive tempers and more ignorant articles.