It has to be one of the most diabolically clever plans ever enacted. Cunning in its slow execution and fiendish in its cumulative effect on the target population. Devilishly subtle in that Americans are only now waking up to this most wicked of plots. United States, you may have gifted us with Paris Hilton and the vacuous cult of the celebrity however we have retaliated by exporting another creationist to the the US. Given that you have almost half the population not believing in evolution (which is the wrong way to phrase the question but I digress), Aussie creationists are probably the most dangerous cultural weapon ever unleashed.
Andrew Snelling, a fair dinkum Aussie creationist has joined the US mob, Answers in Genesis. He joins another Aussie ex-pat, Ken Ham, who we sent over to the US on a cultural exchange. Being the late 80s, I’m pretty sure we got Action Jackson in return. Reruns on Foxtel reminding us of the stylistic horrors of the 80s are no match for someone who has assisted dumbing down half the population of a major industrialised nation.
Over at Hoyden, tigtog marvels at the cognitive dissonance of one Micheal Egnor, one of the newer creationists. But our own Andrew Snelling offers another wonderful example of the mental flexibility required to hold onto creationist beliefs.
Snelling’s nemesis is Dr Alex Ritchie. Ritchie some years ago wrote about the incredible discovery that there seem to be two Andrew Snellings. Both with identical qualifications and a shared address. One crusaded against the forces of evolution holding that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. The other, publishing in scientific journals, routinely referred to geological formations that are millions of years old. It is incredible that two such people with diametrically opposed views were at the same address. Ritchie points out that the likely scenario is that they are the same person, one who very well knows that the creationist rubbish he espouses has no scientific validation.
Due to Australia’s lack of overt religiosity, creationism has never has made any major inroads. Creationism’s dressed up cousin, intelligent design, has thankfully suffered from the same lack of support.
Alas, Snelling’s type of cognitive dissonance will easily find a home in the US.
Like you said, I think the logical answer to the “two Andrew Snellings” is that 6 day creationism is not going to get published in most respectable peer reviewed journals. I have observed in the media a handful of other scientists who use evolutionary terms etc in their peer reviewed work but are actually creationists.
I’m an evolutionist myself but I’m not too worried about these dissenters (as long as they produce good observational science). I’m hopeful that survival of the fittest will occur between creationist and evolutionary views. I’m all for creationist views to be advanced as they will probably be debunked fairly swiftly.
Clearly the evolutionist Andrew Snelling is the creationist Andrew Snelling’s evil twin, spawn of Satan.
Is he going to take the bad Peter Saunders with him?
So us sending “Neighbours” to the UK doesn’t count?
Fact: 18% of Americans reject the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun, while 8% declined to answer the question. Copernicus would be revolving around his grave.
But what about mutations?
… oh, wait.
Speaking of Egnor, this is an example of the creationist rubbish peddled:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/michael_egnor_wants_to_know_wh.php
Kind of worrying for a brain surgeon saying this shit and operating on people, but then again, according to Egnor’s illogic, he won’t accidently excise your altruistic spot.
(Wonder if he’s got a similiar theory for the G spot. Having orgasms outside the body, (multi-dimensionally so to speak) means the guys are discriminated against Dr Egnor!!!
Can we not use the word “evolutionist” (although it is better I suppose than “Darwinists.”)
They are called biologists. And chemists and paleontologists and so on and so forth. Its like calling physicists ‘gravitationists’ or ‘newtonists’ and is adopting creationist terms designed to confuse the issues.
But anyway Shaun when you started talking about wicked Aussie cultural plans launched on unsuspecting Americans I thought you were talking about this:
http://sidelined.com.au/2007/06/20/poos-blues/
I wasn’t aware that you were so concerned about the alleged works of the devil, Shaun! I would have though an evolutionist like yourself would wonder how a group of human beings had thought creationism up all on their own, and that others had so willingly believed. Giving credit to devils seems unworthy of you, even tongue in cheek.
One of the main things which polarises the US is the conflict between science and belief, which seems to be mostly a panic syndrome emanating from the atheistic science fraternity, and I don’t suppose for a second that folk like Richard Dawkins have left the US market out of their ‘devilish’ plan to build an invisible temple to the secret god/s and religion of anti-creationist atheism, especially amongst those aggressively indignant scientists who have antichrist tendencies, and a massive desire to fully convert the 50% who do believe in evolution.
The constant attack on creationists and Christians in general and our beliefs does nothing to solve your problem. Clearly evolutionists, particularly in the US, haven’t done well enough with their message, even though the school system has almost 100% carte blanche with students, teaching evolution as the only realistic solution to the question of origins and development. Yet, after all this time of almost exclusive control in schools, there are still those who prefer to believe that there is a God, and that He had a major hand in the origin of all things.
Maybe it’s not the devil you should be blaming.
But creationists are not Christians in general FL. They are a subset of Christian beliefs. In fact, there are quite a few Christian scientists who are very active in combating the influence of creationism and intelligent design.
Given that creationists spread deliberate falsehoods and distortions of science and then cry poor ole persecuted us deserve no sympathy.
You may be correct in that science has not done a good enough job in explaining the idea of evolution. However that is not a comment on the validity on science nor does it imply creationism has any truth to its discredited claims.
Oh and see Amanda’s comment regarding the use of “evolutionist.”
Australian creationist missionaries summonsed by god to convert the North American heathen.
Phar Lap is avenged.
Evolutionist, devilutionist, who gives a
monkey’sprimate’s? As if anyone’s going to write down the entire scientific spectrum of lists of ists every time we want to make a point regarding those who are in the evolutionist vs. creationist category.‘Given that creationists spread deliberate falsehoods and distortions of science’, could be equated to ‘given that atheists spread deliberate falsehoods and distortions of Christian beliefs’! That’s not my point, which is that evolutioneriseraters are failing to get their message across, and in the course of defending their position, are coming across like a bunch of stuck-up Pharisees, so how can they hope to gain the ears or hearts of Christians they are attempting to push back into a corner by their possessive, territorial, obsessive possessiveness and aloof, divisive self-interest.
That’s ‘Devolutionist’ to you, Facelift. Are We Not Men?
I suggest you read Shaun’s comment again. Sympathy has nothing to do with science.
Ah right. Andrew Snelling is behaving totally hypocritically when it comes to the science of geology, but it’s the mainstream scientists who are Pharisaical.
Motes and beams, Facelift.
How many times FL do I have to tell you that atheism IS A NON BELIEF. I thought you’d sworn off denseness?
The so called “antichrist tendencies” you refer to are not restricted to Christians. Scientists, particularly biologists, by a vast majority, reject all faith based beliefs which regard ignorance as a virtue and thereby reject methodological naturalism which (inherent in all science) is the foundation of the proven principles of natural selection.
Don’t for a moment think creationist Christians are being singled out. It applies to witchdocterey of all persuasions that reject Darwinian natural selection by reference to so called holy writ.
Anti-creationism is not the exclusive domain of atheism. The legitimate domain of anti-creationism is SCIENCE, subset BIOLOGY, of which most of the latter practitioners happen to be or tend to be atheists.
(Hate to sound condescending here but there is a direct correlation between high levels of education and lack of religion, which kinda reinforces my point about creationists–dumb fucks who give science an inadvertent accolade by grasping at the straws offered by pseudo-scientific morons like Behe and Dembski.)
Whenever a second tier dumb fuck creationist or ID-ist like Egnor raises his ugly head, you can be sure the Discovery Institute has something to do with it. So perhaps you should focus on their current “devilish” conspiracy to replace science in the classrooms with ID (teach the manufactured controversy) rather than blame science for not being able to overcome, in general, the religious meme “Goddiditall” among the world’s exceptional US ignorati. Ignorance nurtured and exacerbated BTW by (among others and for example) most Republican party candidates for President.
Funnily enough, Peter, they would look at what you write and think and feel compassion for your own ignorance of what they know and believe!
So you say! So you say!
Zarqon,
Exactly my point!
FDG
I don’t think I was saying so, but less ridicule and more understanding might go some way towards building the kind of bridges which would satisfy those who are interested in what science has to offer.
What science has to offer is honesty. The creationists aren’t interested, as they have demonstrated over and over again. Most of them don’t even know how to be honest.
You mean god, the failed hypothesis?
(I wonder if that’s to same degree that a PNG Cargo Cultist has “sympathy” for my “ignorance” to the finer points of what they “know and believe” about the “Cargo”? )
Much misplaced sympathy which is of no account, whatsoever, whatever the delusion FL: the PNG Cargo or the asserted upmarket Daddio Laddio and Spook Cargo.
Even so, PK, most of the Cargo Cultists I’ve met, deluded though they may be in their own way, are clearly far happier than the ultra-deluded Mr. Dawkins. His ship will never come in! Well not a nice ship, anyway. Maybe a barge into the dark mire of screaming souls! The surfacing Dawkins’ party has pooperitis. Not content with wallowing in the muck of their own doubts and disgust they want to discredit anyone who has any kind of faith. Sad indeed.
What do you or he know about faith? You have none.
Ah, the honesty of science, Zarqon. Well, I think science is in general wonderful and has an honest face. I’m not sure that it doesn’t make, from time to time, a host of honest mistakes, but on the whole science is an amalgamation of brilliant investigation and discovery. I’m sure anti-creationist atheist zealots think they’re being honest, and in their own minds they’re totally in the right, just as the Pharisees thought they were in the right, but does that make them any more right about origins than people who appreciate scientific discovery and progress and have faith in a Creator?
So, does having lack of faith make you superior because we have faith? Are you right because you lack faith? Or is the realm of faith merely a place you’ve never entered?
Could that be because they’re all rich, famous, have best selling books published all over the world, live in an advanced post industrial society, appear on TV and in documentaries, are highly respected and well known in the scientific world and have sexy wives like Lalla Ward?
We look at the Cargo cultist faith and know it’s identical in many respects to yours FL. In one sense they’re more practical though , they want the Cargo in this world, your brand of delusion expects Cargo to be delivered in the next (fictitious) world.
Snedden Egnor Behe and Dembski are classic examples of people wanting to insert their version of Cargo Cultism into 150 odd years of non supernatural explanations (and fact) of life on earth. FL’s tacit support of them illustrates Dawkin’s point that moderate religion creates the space for fundamentalists to operate. Christianity (or other theism) can operate without the fundamentalists (creationists and IDers in this instance), but fundamentalists cannot exist without the mainstream.
Ergo, the mainstream is the real and ultimate problem.
I have trouble with this argument Peter. You may as well argue that moderate politics (left or right – it doesn’t matter) creates the space for extremists to operate.
Also implicit in this argument is the idea that removing all religion is some sort of social panacea.
It does when they provide testable and coherent hypotheses. Unlike creationism which basically says that god did it coz the Bible sez so and fails the most basic demands of evidence.
Oh, and can you stop conflating creationists with Christians as a whole and implying that science is inherently atheistic.
You have to ask yourself, PK, in the light of your assertion that moderates, by their faith, harbour militants, what threat creationists pose to you. Are they, with their creation-based fundamentalist ideals, advocating a physically and emotionally destructive, violent terror campaign to obliterate all opposition, or are they using all available funding and resources to peacefully and articulately promote their beliefs?
Is it possible that the involvement of Australians as leaders in the promotion of creationist beliefs has lent some innovation and moderation to the debate from the faith side?
In a free world, is it possible that people who have beliefs can live successfully side by side with those who don’t know if there is a god, or those who abjectly and vehemently do not believe in any religion?
Surely if science has the edge on faith then it will show up eventually, and doesn’t need screamers like Dawkins to howl down believers. Although I have my doubts about this, because as you have implied, science comes after the event, whereas faith precedes the event.
Shaun, where do I imply or say that science is inherently atheistic? I have attempted to be explicitly clear that I don’t believe all science is or scientists are atheistic. If I qualified everything I said there’d be no room to say what I’m saying. Gimme a break!
Are you saying that most Christians don’t believe in a Creator? Strange! I thought that basic belief in the Bible was a prerequisite for being a Christian, and I don’t know about yours, but my Bible is chockablock full of references to God being the Creator, and it is apparently one of the basic tenets of the faith to believe that He created all things.
If the majority of Christians do, therefore, accept that God is also the Creator, then don’t they have creationist beliefs of some sort, whether they believe it’s a literal six day creation, or an allegorical six day (one day as a thousand years) creation, or any other kind of creation which can or not include aspects of evolutionary belief? What are the qualifications you’re putting up for being a creationist?
FL,
The term “creationist” refers to those that hold onto a literal interpretation of Genesis. The use of the term is very clear and specific. Your detour into semantics is a disingenuous dodge.
Websters: creationist: ‘a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis’.
I’m not trying to be disingenuous, or dodge anything. Genesis is open to interpretation, exactly as I described. Or, put it another way, how would you identify Christians who believed in a form of the creation described in Genesis other than a literal six day event, yet still hold to the fact that there is a Creator? Are they also creationists, or is there another descriptor?
FaceLift, those who believe in a Creator without adhering to a strict six-day Genesis interpretation usually fall into the Old Earth Creationist camp or perhaps the Theistic Evolutionist camp or even the Deist camp. However, most such believers in a Creation Event don’t have a problem with perceiving biological evolution as part of the Creator’s method for arriving at human beings, although they may have distinct problems with Natural Selection vs Guided Evolution.
The creationists who do have a problem with all theories of biological evolution over deep time are the Genesis 6-days-6000-years literalists, aka Young Earth Creationists, so they are the creationists who get discussed in the context of the evolution-creation controversy.
Honestly, how can you characterise Dawkins as a screamer? His speech is exceptionally mild-voiced and his language is also mild even when he expresses his lack of respect for religious dogma – “rubbish”, “madness”. He makes strong assertions and is unapologetic for them. That’s hardly screaming.
FL,
I’ve already made it clear what the term “creationist” means. I have no interest in your derailment via semantics.
Oh, what a nice man! Thanks for that, tigtog. I think maybe he only screams inwardly or in his books! Perhaps I should have just called him elitist, arrogant and a man on a personal vendetta. Oh, it’s already been said!
Margaret Cook, New Statesman
Now you’re just descending into special pleading.
Why is it academic arrogance for Dawkins to hope that readers might change their beliefs from his book but it’s humble evangelism when Christians hope that readers might change their beliefs from reading a book on Christian themes?
Shaun re:
I appreciate and acknowledge this concern and there is much disagreement on it. Some atheists consider that alliances with the mainstream is necessary to combat fundamentalist creationists. Dawkins calls this the Neville Chamberlain appeasement approach: bending over backwards and maybe even subscribing to the non overlapping magesteria concept (NOMA) of Stephen Gould’s which can be regarded as “appeasement” — to get moderate theism on side. It’s therefore a question of strategy.
The analogy with politics and political extremists to my thinking is tenuous on the basis of autocracy inherent in faith based dogma v democracy. If for example the “punters” think the extremists have gone too far influencing a “moderate” government, they can throw the rascal government out . In religion there is no possibility of throwing religion out because there is not a democratic process that could facilitate such an excision. Normal reaction of theism to extremist is at best the Pontius Pilate act: righteous washing of hands.
I am reminded again of Steven Weinberg in relation to your “social panacea” comment:
FL re
Simple answer. The dumbing down of science as taught in schools to the extent that science and methodological naturalism may, in a world conflagration (theists again) as a trigger, be subjected again to theistic control–( eg. the cretinous arrogance of the dumb fuck theologians in the past who insisted on pain of heresy that the sun revolved around the earth). This threatens a return to the level of ignorance and superstition and hateful acts committed in the name of religion so well documented from the dark ages.. Something we have taken so long to largely, but not completely, expunge.
Empires collapse. Regression is possible with religious nutters in control like Bush, a mirror image version of Middle Eastern despots desirous of being armed to the teeth and well aware of the meaning of “Christian” crusades.
Possible, but not necessarily because the deluded believers have a tendency towards crusades to kill the deluded believer” infidels” of the other faiths. The non believers eschew all of this. The problem always is that the “believers” cannot help themselves but to force their beliefs on others, and going by the creationists and IDers, they fight REALLY DIRTY and sincerely believe the ends justify the means.
Hyperbole. But with others like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, we are doing human-kind a favour in bringing attention to the BULLSHIT that millions of varieties of theism insists on perpetrating: (Salvation only through Jesus; exclusive rights to claim and promulgate morality, salvation only through Mohammad; all seeing invisible man in the sky, eternal damnation; virgin births; transubstantiation,; trinities; mysteries which should not be criticised and must be taken on faith; infalliability of Ratzo with ex cathedra statements, bodily assumption into “heaven”; “sinful” use of condoms to prevent AIDS; the welcoming utility of 77 virgins after blowing oneself up for political causes etc etc ad nauseam.)
Tigtog–very well said your 5.09.
tigtog,
Well if Dawkins thought the same of Christian proseliting I might agree you have a point. Since his aim is not mere conversion from faith, but the complete end of all preaching, espousing spiritual doctrine and even belief in God, the gods, an afterlife, a better life after this life and every other form of religious hope, I think it would be hypocritical for him the think his form of evangelism was exclusively and inherently the only form worth considering, particularly since the only hope it brings is that of annihilation at the end of this life, which might, for many, lead to a greater degree of despair than anyone deserves, or a short, desperate life of misery and deprivation.
Above all belief systems, Christianity, as a matter of great evidence of its real value and impact, has given hope and comfort to countless millions over time, and, notwithstanding the error and stupidity of some religious despots who served themselves and their political aims rather than Christ or the people he came to save, Christianity remains a great lifestyle of hope, deliverance and peace for the great majority of believers, and those who have used it for their own ends at the expense of others will answer for it, but they have never stopped the truth which gives spiritual encouragement, counsel and joy to millions. Dawkins and his followers would end this, and substitute it with what…?
Emphasising the finding of joy and meaning in the demonstrable here and now, rather than waiting to find joy and meaning in a questionable hereafter.
FaceLift, this thread is meant to be about the battle between Young Earth creationism and science in education. Once again, you have come into a thread where the relevant religious position is not one that you claim to share and diverted discussion to your evangelism.
Derailer, thy name is FaceLift.
I didn’t realise Snelling and Ham were involved in the school system in the US. Shaun derailed himself when he made light of their achievements, and the Dawkins connection stirred others somewhat, but is nonetheless relevant to what is being proposed here, since he represents the extreme of (quietly spoken) bigotry amongst those members of the science fraternity who are atheistic.
My point has been that evolutionisators have themselves to blame for having a poor educational model, difficult to understand, and harder to present to the average kid, possibly because there are so many aspects which don’t fit logically, are scientifically intricate, appeal to a large intellect, or require as great a degree of faith as you would need to understand a creationist point of view.
Blaming Ham and Snelling is buck-passing.
Britain’s most dangerous weapon? A soon-to-be-converted Tony Blair. He is flying to the Vatican today to get the pope to baptise him into the Catholic Church.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/tonyblair/story/0,,2108858,00.html
Hypatia, be very worried- they’ll skin you alive if they catch up to you for that!
“Creationism” (actually a dogma or ideology) is a fit subject for philosophy classes,involving issues of structure, to be dealt with by people hopefully well- acquainted with the ins and outs of epistemology, ontology and metaphysics.
From there we have detached science, examining aspects of the material universe (sigh, dichotomies again!) which is seperate to the scientists personal religious beliefs.
Going the other way there is religious dogma, for those who accept that there must be something beyond appearances. Shop around and there is are Polytheisms, Deisms, Monotheisms; all self-referential sets of ideas that offer one answer or another on the basis of certain only speculative “givens”.
A bit like neo liberalism!
You wouldn’t talk Darwinism in an RI class; why would you talk creationism in a science class?
For Creationists out there; listen up!
It’s not secularist “hatred” for Christianity that is the issue, its the attempt by religionists to censor out views that challenge what are by their natures, unproveable dogmas.
Secularists themselves often sit back on a summer night gazing at the sky and wondering how something could have come from nothing, too ( or is that the other way ’round ). And any secularist who claims that God does not exist is probably as foolish as any religious who claims She does!
There is this line between the scientifically verifiable and that which must remain speculative and why fundamentalists can’t stick with spiritual values rather than tampering with mundane secular life, is beyond me. If secularists are happy with the “here and now”, be happy for them and accept their choice, which is the same as choice you had made to make, but differently, as a sort of investment of faith that may be rewarded in the future .
As an atheist I have to say that Dawkins should stick to his knitting. His book is ignorant nonsense.
Celebrity Atheist Wallows in Mammon
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118247644823044329.html?mod=todays_us_marketplace
It’s extraordinarily logical FL, and no faith at all is required of people of good will to understand it: simply logic and methodological naturalism, which applies to all science. It can be hard work however for those without the grounding it it from a secondary school level.
Darwins’s discovery of evolution by natural selection was arguably the most important scientific discovery, ever, in the history of humankind because it explained for the first time so much about how all living things evolved from a single self replicating molecule. (Note that how this molecule came into existence–abiogenesis–is not part of evolutionary theory, it’s a separate scientific argument from the Urey-Miller experiment and pure probability, and it only had to occur once)
To the question: “Evolution has not been, and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution (beyond trivially small change), much less test it experimentally.”
A good answer, if you are interested, is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
Peter,
If religion was eliminated from society tomorrow, good people would continue to do bad things in the the name of newly adopted secular causes. All it takes is one cult of personality gaining critical mass and away you go. It is an all too common human problem that will not go away even without religion as a facilitator. I do find this part of Dawkins’ argument to be quite naive. But I would say that as I’m a pluralist and reckon that Gould’s NOMA was not a bad idea that needs some tweaking.
With regards to moderate Christians washing their hands of the extremists, people like Pat Wallis and Chris Hedges are Christians who have expressed and documented their concern about the excesses of the fundamentalists.
FL, you say:
Balderdash FL. School boards fight constant battles with creationists who want to dumb down the science curriculum which affects the teaching of science. And the theory of evolution is a complex, multi-disciplinary idea. A simple summation (descent with modification) can contain the the essence of evolution but the details need some intellectual effort.
As for the “aspects that don’t fit logically” your assertion has no evidence. That fact is that people like Snelling and Ham are at fault. Their stupidity or duplicity regarding science is not something that can easily be explained away with glib answer for the intellectually disinterested.
Shaun, re:
Assume that a secular society operates under utilitarian principles with Kantian (an individual cannot be used as a means to a utilitarian end) side constraints. Newly adopted or not, how could a member of such a secular democratic society justify, for example, a ban on condom use preventing AIDS in Africa–(presently killing millions), or a fatwa death sentence on Salmon Rushdie on the basis of his “heresy” of that very same secularism?
In both cases, there is a presumption (or claim) to infalliability and an arrogant claim to declare by “holy” fiat what is moral. That’s fricken evil to many secularists.
Crime OTOH, while it is a social construct and relative chronologically, is consistently regarded as against the common utilitarian good. No “criminal” normally justifies killing by an appeal to secularism or even atheistic secularism. But religious leaders always have justified killing by reference to “holy” writ and/or human declared dogma. Crusades ancient and modern (neocon/Christian fundamentalists/Zionist fundamentalists v Islamic fundamentalists) are evidence of this.
[Abandon your wife and children and family to follow a new testament zealot purportedly born of a virgin? (which is more rational, that the natural laws were suspended or a Jewish minx told a porky?)--where's the love and utilitarianism in that?--Again a positively evil thing to say, but declared to be virtuous within the fold. Old testament: kill your own son on the basis that a voice speaks in your deluded mind to offer a perfect sacrifice--WTF???]
While there are indeed some secularists who may commit crime, the numbers who justify it on the basis of a new “good” secular cause must be small, relative to the murderous “swallowing camels” approach and constant latent threat of theistic beliefs.
Stalin is oft quoted as an atheist who committed monstrous crimes as some sort of justification that atheists are intrinsically evil. Nobody would argue that Stalin was building a “good” secular society along the same lines as ours. Stalin, like Mao, built up their personality cults and killed millions as class enemies but I don’t think anyone could label either of them as good people doing evil, including their victims. Neither of them claimed supernatural holy writ for their actions.
Weinberg’s “it takes religion” for “good” people to commit evil, therefore holds IMO. “Holy” writ allows them to do so, and many revel in it, including Al Queda types and Bushco “god told me to smite Saddam and I smote him”–It’s the perfect excuse to commit evil but call themselves moral and good.
One wonders what will be the Christian response to Bushco telling us next:
That’s the latent threat that all theism, with its “goodness” represents to all life on earth. Secular humanism would undoubtedly IMO make a better fist of it to remove the latent threat of wiping ourselves out with nukes.
The second tier examples of Egnor, Snelling, Behe, Dembski and the Discovery Institute promote faith and a designer over reason and fact. Their anti-science narrative dumbs down the kids who are/will be conditioned to accept that the “designer” speaks to their side only. I’ll go with the secularists: no way are they as mad as the theists.
So, Shaun, how many schools here or in the US actually use the creation model, or even the ID model as curriculum? Since the answer will be round about none, apart from maybe in some Christian based private schools, I don’t suppose indoctrination with creationism is an issue in most schools, which deals a blow to your premise that School boards have such a struggle maintaining the ‘faith’ on evolution as the standard teaching for origins and development of species in schools.
This means that the science faculty in the average county or State school system has somewhere between eight and ten years to pump their cause – a significant amount of time to get across the ‘essence’ of evolution, and its ‘complex, multidisciplinary ideas’. This being the case, I continue to put it to you, that if 50% of the US still prefers the creation account, despite its virtual elimination from the school curriculum as a science based subject for many years now, then the evolution message is lacking something profound, particularly in light of the fact that most media presentations in the various sciences under the evolution umbrella push the evolution message fervently.
So what is it the continues to pull people towards the faith option, and the need to believe there is actually design, purpose and a Creator, rather than a series of unplanned, random, aeon-lasting mutations, adaptations and events?
FL, you may not have been paying much attention when you first heard the story of the Trojan Horse.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=19&articleID=0006D234-4BE9-1CC6-B4A8809EC588EEDF
Not to mention the 2004 Dover decision, where Mr Behe went BooHoo on being ripped apart on his pseudo scientific twaddle.
Shorter FL: While I take vicarious utility in creationists pushing my theistic barrow, the fact they haven’t succeeded (yet) in teaching creationism as science (of which I among many remain in wilful ignorance), proves it’s not a threat, to secularist infidels.
To the first part, a choice or combination of three words only FL: Ignorance. Stupidity. Laziness.
To the second “random” bit, it demonstrates your apparent (wilful?) fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection, which is anything BUT random. As to “unplanned”, does that also apply to the planning that planned your “designer”? –but I digress, that’s a cosmological area that is not part of evolution of life on earth. Natural selection is however never planned, and it is a proven mechanism.
[Some "designer" BTW who let some 95%? of all species die out and only became known to some selected remainder of anthropoid common-ancestor-descended people as of 2000 years ago, who could have been Neanderthals but for a slightly higher birth rate, or by an accident of birth brought up in the "wrong" faith?]
So, PK, you bog yourself down in your own befuddling terminology unable to convince me of what you’re talking about! I rest my case!
You went clean off the radar screen to chase your own tail, or was it tale? I was talking about currently accepted evolution curriculum used in schools to teach origins, regardless of court challenges, attempts to reintroduce creation theory, etc. Do 50% of Americans still believe in a Creator despite the prominence of evolution teaching in US schools? Is that the fault of Ham or Snelling, or the Discovery Institute, or the way evolution is presented, or even because students either can’t grasp what is being said because it is so befuddling, or because they don’t give a rip?
Are you trying to make natural selection intelligent design?
(1) on Cargo cultism and Christianity: “Give us this day our daily bread”
(2) on “Science is atheistic” : The subject of science is repeatable phenomena, which is naturally atheistic until deities stop being merely noumena (although prayers being answered better than chance by chi-squared testing would make it a phenomenon). Generally the Creationists also lack a corrective mechanism to change their views even in debates that stick to noumenal paradigms, such as the nature of the trinity or deciding which side they come down on for each of Abelard’s questions.
Drat, forgot to say it would be interesting to see if Creationists (justifying their position from biblical inerrancy) also use wheels based on pi=3 and can resolve the famous thermodynamic agument that heaven must be hotter than hell.
The Council Of Europe is unequivocal:
FL, re;
Agreed, you rest your case on wilfulness and denseness: you don’t even bother to learn the terminology. I’ll put it to you this way in Paulian terms: “Faith, hope and charity (love) but the greatest of these is charity.”
You don’t recognise a “charity” of scientific truth, recognised BTW by your co-religionists, the Catholic church (John-Paul II) . Ergo, your faith according to Paul’s logic , even though you may remove by faith alone (but haven’t done so) “mountains” in attempts to denigrate evolutionary facts, your faith is worthless, “it profiteth you nothing”
Yes, yes and yes but in the latter, along with the likes of the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells and Ted Haggards who pervert the political system and bend Republicans to their perverted beliefs: shafting the blame to secular education is disengenuous, to be mild.
Contradiction in terms. Natural selection is an engine, a mechanism which has nothing to do with “design” or designers.
Actually Paul, apart from being one of the first biblical spammers with his arguably unsolicited letters to the Corinthians (Reply: tell him to shut the f*** up, it’s not addressed to me) got it halfway right.
In other words, many of us can and do spit the comforter or dummy of religion. Face to face with reality and evolutionary fact. Spat the dummy simultaneously on Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of the garden.
Creationists, IDers, FL and many others remain and cling to a teleological dummy of hope and comfort and “safety” in numbers. They cling to an explanation of an afterlife that allows them the ultimate cop-out in this, the only world, they will ever know. They wilfully refuse to allow scientific fact to get in the way of their “holy” scripture (Catholics and some other theists excepted).
Pathetic. Lamentable.
[Get a life in the real universe, (inclusive of evolutionary fact on earth) that doesn't owe us an explanation for our existence, nor has allowed for an exception for one species' immortality.]
PK, you know nothing about my faith. If you understood the Christian faith you’d be less inclined to attack it in the way you do, or blame it for the world’s woes, as Dawkins does, or hang it on America’s problems. The dummy you spat was religion, not faith. When you know the difference I’d love to engage you in a healthy, or even robust discussion over scripture. Until then I’ll let you go lest you make a complete ‘dummy’ of yourself.
I have a life, and it’s full and enjoyable, based in the here and now, with a hope for the future, thank you!
Three pertinent bits from “Uncyclopedia” (The Uncyclopedia is a wikipedia satire, using the same software).
Uncyclopedia Creationism
Organized religion
יהוה (The Artist Formerly Known as God)
Enjoy
Debatable, but do let me know more when your faith has removed that “mountain” of evolutionary fact.
Through Paulian dark glass, not ‘face to face’ Facelift, otherwise you’d find it too shocking!
Actually you’ve given me an idea FL. An evolutionary “Bible”
And you continue to push natural selection as intelligent design, PK! I think you’re in danger of evolving into a proudling! Watch out for that banana skin one of us primates left behind!
Peter,
While the Catholic attitude towards AIDS has hampered the battle in Africa so did secular adoption of AIDS denialism as policy, especially by the South African government.
My point is that unfortunately people will make irrational decisions whether religion exists or not. Yes we can posit philosophically idealized societies but that they are fantasies. Even in a secular democracy, people will still find a way to engage collectively in irrational behaviour.
FL, you do remember the Dover trial don’t you? Or the continued controversy of textbook “warning” stickers? In the US it is a constant battle as a cursory look at this page (just for 2006 shows). The fact that textbooks have been dumbed down to appease certain religious shows how little you actually know about the topic at hand.
This is not the case FL. Space in the biology curriculum is a battle as is not having to rewrite texts to appease religious fundamentalists. And when the pseudo-science of creationist gets support via misguided notions of balance from the media and politicians (along with low levels of scientific illiteracy) it becomes a PR battle. Unfortunately slick and glib comments by creationists (the infamous “Gish Gallop”) do quite a lot of harm as they often require substantial effort to rebut.
But as Peter has pointed out, you seem unwilling to engage with the fundamentals of evolution. Science does have terminology and concepts that require an effort to properly grasp. Not understanding this is not the fault of science but one of intellectual laziness.
If you do want to understand the concepts, read blogs like Pharyngula or The Loom where evolutionary concepts are quite succinctly explained for those willing to expend a modicum of intellectual effort.
Well, at least you put up friendly, sensible arguments, Shaun. I don’t mind engaging with any fundamentals, but I take exception to being called dense, disingenuous or unintelligent for having faith. I don’t think it helps. Which is another point to make here. Part of the problem is an unwillingness by both sides to live on the same planet together, and the tussle for the minds of minors is intensifying. Neither wants the other to be present in schools.
You’ll argue ’til you’re blue in the face to keep Creation, or even it’s watered down cousin, ID, out of the classroom, unless it is packaged some other way, and most Christians, and even people from other Abrahamic religions, would prefer some reference to the creation account, but the science fraternity ain’t gonna have a bar of it, and until they do, or the whole world switches to one understanding or the other, the stand-off will continue.
So why doesn’t the science fraternity box a little smarter, or even show a dab more understanding, and let undeniable science facts be presented as facts, then have evolution theory presented as an option and creationism as another understanding in a different stream. That way, if evolution is truly the only scientific explanation it will surely appeal to the intellect of students. But no, you won’t even come to that party, so on we go…and people like Dawkins,and his disciples, like PK here, will attempt to gain ground by slamming faith, and lose ground with Christians in the process.
FaceLift wrote:
This is a nice idea, but not particularly workable. Evolutionary theory provides a nice framework for testable predictions (so it’s useful science). Creationism does not, therefore it isn’t science. I’m happy for the kiddies to learn about creationism, but this misrepresentation of the argument that it must be creationism OR evolution must be stopped. There is no either/or. There is science and there is faith, and faith has no place in science (and science has no place in faith). When you want to make medicines or study the heritability of particular genetics, you will look to evolution to help, not creationism to obscure.
Please, stop this insistence that there must be an either/or position of creationism. It isn’t science and it isn’t even particularly good religion. I’m sure your faith is a wonderful comfort, but it’s of little use in science.
And of course, evolutionary theory has brought us the testable prediction of a doomsday bird-flu epidemic, which has nicely provided millions of dollars for those institutions which need funding to carry on their experimental work, having also, by coincidence, come up with the apparently testable prediction, but how likely is a bird-flu epidemic, given that necessary mutations are only predictable on the basis of PK’s famously touted natural selection, which may or may not occur, or may take aeons?
I wasn’t pressing for an either/or, us or them, position. You read that into what I said. I was pushing for an bipartisan understanding of every possibility, in pre-uni education only. Not all science is dependent on evolution theory for it to be understood. Many aspects of science sit well with Christian belief. Faith itself is not based on scientific evidence. Besides this, useful testable predictions were around long before Darwin.
Agreed Shaun, but perhaps secular South Africa has changed it’s mind by now. By way of comparison, once the Pope has declared ex-cathedra, it might take a thousand years for them to decide that it was a “non core” ex-cathedra statement. (Makes Ratty look good that does, if such a thing is possible!)
Indeed. My point was that religion gives the ultimate and false rationalisation “I speak for god/god told me to do it” and being god’s agent, by definition: “I’m good and cannot ever commit evil.”
FL re:
Call it “good cop/bad cop” routine, if you like FL.
Present trends (Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and their popular best selling books) indicate a backlash against the creationist, dumb fuck Republican party moronic fuelled intended theocracy for the USA. One more Bush appointed member on the US Supreme Court and hey presto, there will be a US theocracy. That’s how close it is for creationists not to be struck down, but vindicated the next time they mount another case like Dover, lose and take it to the Supreme Court.
I rather suspect by your comments so far, that you take a vicarious utility in that FL.
It’s really quite simple. Religious classes for the creationists and science classes for science and teaching.
If you are arguing that creationists or IDiots deserve a foothold in the science classes, then you will confirm beyond any doubt whatsoever, that you are indeed dense, disingenuous and unintelligent.
One last chance to “redeem” yourself FL.
PK,
Since when did you have power over all the ‘chances’… BUT…
From you, I’ll take that as a major concession! And no mention of classes on evolution theory…I’ll take that, too!
I’ve not argued on this thread for creation teaching in science classes, by the way!
‘Sam Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens and their popular best selling books’ don’t amount to a hill’o'beans, as they say in the Bible Belt! The news is that they’ve been bought a) by atheists to brush up on atheist talk, and b) the religious right to find out what the atheists are talking about!
When they sell as many copies as, say, the LaHaye/Jenkins ‘Left Behind’ series you’ll have minor boasting rights. Or the Bible, which is still consistently the number one best seller at all times – still around 20 million a year in the late nineties!
The Top 10 Bestselling Books of All Time (according to IPL):
1. The Bible
“No one really knows how many copies of the Bible have been printed, sold, or
distributed. The Bible Society’s attempt to calculate the number printed
between 1816 and 1975 produced the figure of 2,458,000,000. A more recent
survey, for the years up to 1992, put it closer to 6,000,000,000 in more than
2,000 languages and dialects. Whatever the precise figure, the Bible is by far
the bestselling book of all time.”
Make that voluntary religious classes for the creationists. Science classes, including biology/evolution for science (without creationist school boards screwing around with the text books.)
One fact among all the fiction it contains FL. And a sad reflection on the advance of humankind, that so many prefer the unscientific account of Genesis to scientific fact.
Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are/were at the top of best seller lists. People who kept their non beliefs hidden are “coming out” in response to such books. Some who were religious waverers are dropping their delusional beliefs. The response by religious has been largely hysterical by virtue of their belief that religion should never be criticised, and if it is, the confected screams of “unfair” rent the airwaves.
All in all, a backlash is on, and some good work being done to help rid the world of bible based beliefs. (I recommend recycling those bibles BTW, into briquettes, the heat generated thereby will most likely be the only honest thing a bible has ever done.)
(And the commercial opportunities for those briquettes FL, are endless even for the believers.
“Evolutionary Brand Holey Smoke” Briquettes)
Facelift wrote:
It’s tantamount to exactly the same problem as believing that creationism and evolution are somehow on the same level of credibility. They are not, never will be and despite the popularity of the execrable “left behind” books (pushing a weird doctrine that very few mainstream christians believe anyway) and the ever decreasing credibility of Dembski et al and their ever diminishing “god of the gaps”, nobody should be pushing the idea that creationism is any kind of alternative to science.
Ever.
I’m not interested in burning Bibles, but putting them into the “fiction” section of the library is a better alternative. Right next to those other massive selling books by Stephen King, Clive Cussler and J.K. Rowling, who prove beyond all doubt that if you sell lots of books, you must be telling the truth.
Such bitter speak!
PK,
Your needle is stuck, Peter! How many times do you need to be told? People don’t buy or read Bibles as scientific manuals. They buy Bibles usually because they have experienced a spiritual reformation in their lives and want to know the precepts of their new found faith, or because they are members of Christian families who cherish their times of reading godly wisdom they can apply to their lives through understanding and living by concepts such as love, mercy, grace, forgiveness, peace, etc., etc.. There’s far more to scripture than the Creation account. Please don’t make the mistake of judging those with faith according to your dull, nay, dead, unbelief. We get stacks of insight out of our Bibles every day.
Of course, many Bibles are bought by people who need a new one because their old one is worn out, which is testimony to time spent reading and studying. Which nobbles David Rubie’s theory that the Bible is no more than a fictional novel akin to Harrry Potter, etc.! When Harry’s fictional legend is broken down into chapter and verse to better catalogue its content for quality personal study time and spiritual application you may have a point.
Selling lots of Bibles, David, is, however, evidence of the Bible’s continuing popularity amongst adherents. And, by the way, our faith is not just about ‘comfort’.
Facelift wrote:
Nope. Evidently it’s also about self delusion too. Why so little faith in your own religion? Won’t it be “self evident” that the lord has brought his inerrent truth via the divinely inspired translations of this book and evolutionary theory can have no effect on this faith?
I find it endlessly amusing that the bible is so subject to earthly interpretation. Is god just playing tricks? Like when he buries dinosaur bones and fakes up their ages to test faith? Surely if the bible is that powerful, you’d all at least be able to agree amongst yourselves before setting of to convert heathens.
Which mob of christians is telling the truth that I should sign up to? The biblical literalists? The wishy-washy anglicans? The elect vessel Bruce Hales? Catholics and the physical transmutation of bread and wine into a blood and flesh feast? What about Pat Robertson, piously calling for the death of people while sucking cash from his gibbering followers? Shall I read the Watch Tower or the extra bits of testament from the mormons? Should I follow a bible that includes the apocrypha or not? Am I to take anything from the gospel according to judas? Is the modern bible the end product of an ancient conspiracy to exclude gnostic teachings or was the one true faith divinely inspired to remove the bits that didn’t fit? Is Hillsong ignoring the teachings on poverty or enacting them by impoverishing happy clappers by ripping them off with dvd’s, useless books and tithing? Should I be stoning homosexuals and making sacrifices or does the new covenant give me license to selectively ignore the old testament depending on which bits I like? Of the two genesis stories, which one is right, when? Who exactly did Cain get married to again?
As you can see, I’m terribly confused by the truth according to the bible. So many truths, so little time.
Look, David, Peter, I’ll get the blame for derailing the thread if we’re not careful! I’ve tried to stay relatively on subject, but you are clearly keen to test your anti-christian theories out on someone.
David, I would say you pay too much attention to the media, and antichrist authors actually, and believe their ‘truth’ whilst missing the point of the Bible, which (I think) you seem not to know much about.
You can’t claim to be ‘confused’ by something you’ve never read or studied. You’re actually confused by the limited substance of people who attack Christianity but leave out the central truths, which they don’t understand anyway, because, as I have said repeatedly, it’s not about science or intellect, it’s about faith, and without faith all this anti-Bible railing sounds and looks silly to anyone who has faith. I can’t help that, but I’m just trying to help anyone who’ll listen to get over the fact that faith is real and totally valid, and the wrong actions of people or groups in the name of their ‘faith’ doesn’t invalidate the reality or substance of the faith of those who actually adhere to the code.
And if you think you can disprove the validity and inherent truths of the Bible or the existence of God by having an alternative theory about the origin of life, or by coming up with some smart-alec anecdotal quotes and quips about scripture, you really are being as naive and deluded as you claim believers are.
So be confused if you have to, but you really don’t have to!
Facelift wrote:
A quick point: evolution doesn’t cover abiogenesis (the origin of life) – those are two different things altogether and conflating them is an old creationist trick. The bible doesn’t have to be 100% factual to be useful, and scientific theories that contradict literal interpretations of the bible do not disprove god or anything of the sort.
I have read the bible as it turns out, which is more than can be said for the spoon fed dullards who line up at Hillsong every weekend and ask somebody to read and interpret it for them while handing over their cash.
I am, however, very interested in this idea of yours that there is an unerring code based on faith, but still in the dark on whose code and whose faith is the right one. How do you know yours is correct, how did you choose it and which one is it?.
When we get a definitive call on whether the christian creation story is meant to be taken literally or figuratively, you can teach that version in school. Until then, get your story straight with the other christians first.
What is it with atheists always wanting to call the tune? Bossy lot. Probably why they spend so much time railing at God.
Clue 1: It ain’t MY code. Clue 2: Denominationalism and intellectual theology have nothing to do with the existence of God. Clue 3: I didn’t choose God.
Facelift, you didn’t answer the question:
Which denomination is the right one (i.e. which one do you follow?) How did you choose it? How do we know you made the right choice?
Getting personal! Drawing me in, spider!
There is no denomination which is ‘right’ above others. You’re a bit behind what is happening, David.
‘Denominations’ are increasingly being overtaken by movements which cross over and envelop the old denominational lines. So, for instance, Saddleback Community Church, overseen by Rick Warren, can be intrinsically Baptist yet have an influence over many denominations worldwide, and there are many other movements within movements.
Meanwhile, Pentecostalism and charismatic influences are touching every stream, and drawing strength from some of the traditions in the process.
The days of ‘we’re right and you’re wrong’ are long over, and church groups are increasingly putting differences behind them and moving ahead with common goals.
I didn’t actually ‘choose’ this life. God came into my life when I wasn’t looking, and I’m glad he did. He influenced me into the stream I’m in because he has a purpose for my life amongst this people. All I chose to do is follow. Just think of us as tribe under the same national identity. That doesn’t make us THE right ones as if we had some exclusivity. In fact I rather enjoy the kinship of different streams, and the differences are only a problem if we attempt to dismiss others’ point of view.
There are 2 billion Christians worldwide, so you’d expect diversity, and, yes, a few family squabbles along the way. I’m sure the ‘evolution’ and ‘atheist’ families have a few differences from time to time, but does that cause you to opt out or denounce them?
Finally, you don’t know, and probably never will, that I made the ‘right choice’! From my perspective all that counts is that I’m sure, absolutely sure, but that’s to my personal advantage. I just know it hasn’t done me or my family or friends any harm whatsoever, rather, faith has enhanced the quality of our relationships and life. So, that’s me, but it’s for you to sort your own life out.
I’m a Pentecostal, as many may know from this site.
Facelift wrote:
No – because science thrives on differences of opinion – that’s what makes it a powerful tool for describing the naturalistic world. Faith won’t produce medicines, but science will.
Would I expect a diversity of opinion from 2 billion people reading ostensibly the same book? Definitely yes if it was the work of man, definitely no if it was the work of a god. Why does your god have so much trouble making his intentions clear? Even the object of the original post (snelling) seems to have a contradiction at his core: is it six literal or six figurative days and what does god do when he’s resting anyway? Dream up more dastardly schemes to trick people into thinking the earth is ancient? What a prankster he is, it must be part of his plan to humour us into an everlasting agony in the fiery pits of hell.
DR
…is a bit like saying faith won’t produce wheat’n'meat but farming will. Your worldview is so materialistic I’m not surprised you managed to read the Bible and completely fail to understand faith. There is more to our existence that the material. Just think about it! That would be a start!
You are saying that life is EITHER faith OR science, but clearly that is not the case. Faith is spiritual. Science is material. Faith and science exist side by side. We live in a material world, but the spiritual dimension coexists with the material, whether you believe it or not. I hate to burst your bubble, but your faith, or doubts, or logic, or even your reasonings, are not required for there to be a spiritual reality.
And, of course, easier for you to understand; the emotional, mental, sensual, cognitive dimension of man exists. Do you have a ’science’ for this? And life; what is your accurate, proven ’scientific’ explanation for the real, undeniable ‘fact’ of the existence of life, your own life, any life of any life-form; The essence of life; the beginning of life; the origin of life, and the sustenance of life?
And science which produces medicine is good, but a merry heart, so the proverb says, does good like a medicine!
Facelift wrote:
Yep – perhaps I should get a pentecostal to speak it in tongues for me.
Ask and ye shall receive apparently. What the hell is this all about other than a bit of glossolalic gumpf?
and…
In this case, we should exhort all scientists to use a bible rather than waste all that time on experiments and research. Especially that stuff that causes cognitive dissonance in people of little faith. I still don’t understand why evolutionary theory is so threatening for american style religions. Is it the monkey thing?
I don’t need supernatural beings to have a merry heart – just being alive does that for me.
DR
You should know. Your mob made it up. Everything you said on that last comment is complete nonsense, and shows you must have speed-read the Bible, or read it in a negative, critical manner, but if it makes you merry to rail at God, who am I to keep you from your medicine?
Speaking in tongues. Now there’s phenomenon you’ll never understand this side of a dramatic conversion. I knew you’d have ago at something I mentioned. As I said, you only show your ignorance with your attacks, and I know you won’t stop until you think you’ve had this rapturous victory over a Christian, which serves no purpose, since I can’t be bought, fraught or taught by your kind of logic.
Stay merry, Dave. It might keep you until someone lets you in on the truth. Until then, like PK, watch out for the banana skin.
Better still, enjoy this moment of sensuality and spiritual release!
Facelift wrote:
and
Only in the context of trying to tease out the basis of your creationism. Faith healing and tongue speaking are old-school bunkum and if the same people who are railing against evolutionary theory are gibbering in their churches and rapturous at the flaming tongue of spirit licking the erogonous zones of their soul, I’ll put creationism in in the same basket. Personally, I blame that renowned kiddie fiddler Frank Houston for this poisonous, faithless brand of christianity that has infected our society.
It’s little more than a massive triumph of stupidity over reason, and sadly has very little to do with religion or the fine tradition of christian apologetics that manages to fit science and faith together without the special appeal to modern miracles that the faithless require.
Oh well, that settles it then, Dave, theological expert and renowned debunker of Pentecostalism – not! Rail on like an overcoked steam engine. Speaking in tongues is beyond your limited understanding because you can’t, so those who do must be wrong… or something! How logically sound! It only shows how far you are from the station.
Facelift, posting on religious subjects for you at LP seems like a big call for help. If you need help getting away from the AOG, there are support forums you can find
here
There are plenty of people to help you, you can thank me later.
Never been a member of the AOG, Dave. If you knew me as a commenter you’d know that I sometimes post on Christian issues as a voice of support for Christians whom I see as wrongfully maligned, because I think I have something worth saying which might be of interest to people, or simply because the posts are about faith related issues I’m interested in. This is a post on science, religion and culture wars. Why wouldn’t I comment, and why would it be a cry for help?
No, don’t answer that!
Goodbye, Dave!
So guys…
I can’t be arsed reading up the whole thread. Can you cut to the chase and tell me if there’s a divine creator?
FDB wrote:
Here’s the skinny: if you gibber and praise de babby jebus, yes. Otherwise, it’s up to you.
I’d have to agree with tigtog that altruism isn’t an exterior force. Interestingly it comes from being fully right – Fr. legal phrase l’autrui, or in full, le bien, le droit d’autrui (just kidding)! There is something inbuilt, perhaps to do with the conscience, which causes us to want to care, serve, love, guard, protect, and is an instinct which comes from, possibly, as Shaun will no doubt be discovering, parental guardianship, which can be tender and loving, but at the same time fiercely protective.
Except creationists who believe the book of Genesis.
The core or non-core (empty) promises/”truths” as interpreted by who exactly?
National identity? Tribe? Youfella buggarup fren Papua New Guinea? Wontok Christian fren (sedikit Cargo fella tasol, em i spak na long-long) bilong me, bilong youfella, ol i no bilong Tribe na nasional bilong you?
Henry VIII and Elizabeth I would be rolling on the floor with that one.
FDB, the probability of it is so low such that it is almost certain that a designer does not exist. A unified grand theory based on the new string theory, may well unite gravitational, electromagnetic, and quantum theory, possibly in the next hundred years or even less. This will most likely explain the why of the “universe out of nothing” concept, which we know now conceptualise as the zero balance of known energy in the universe less the negative energy of gravitational force of stars and other bodies. The gaps are narrowing on so many scientific fronts, particularly cosmology. The “devil dodgers” days are numbered IMO.
The NYT has a review of Behe’s second book, The Edge of Evolution by Dawkins. (Times Select, payment required but a link here to an excerpt):
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/06/now_behe_is_thrown_to_the_wolv.php#more
(back on topic BTW–we’re not arguing atheism here).
Behe makes the claim ( erroneous, disingenuous–Darwin had no knowledge of the mechanisms of genetic mutations at that time) that among Darwin’s 3 concepts of: descent with modification, natural selection and mutation, that mutation (random) is insufficient; as Dawkins puts it “He thinks there are not enough mutations to allow the full range of evolution we observe.”
Dawkins responds to this with the following:
It should be noted, by creationists who hang onto the man’s pseudo scientific rubbish, in the hope of establishing a scientific basis for their delusional beliefs, that Behe’s “own department of biological sciences at Lehigh University, has publicly disowned him, via a remarkable disclaimer on its Web site: ‘While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally and should not be regarded as scientific.’ ”
Behe, Dembski, and the Aussies Ham, Snelling: peas in a pod, but collectively adding up to scientific perversion beyond belief.. Go Dawkins and Associate Professor PZ Myers!!!
Ken Ham in full flight.
(Warning: Not cat safe).
And does not one wonder from time to time that there may be a certain amount of hubris (The ancient Greeks knew a thing or two about the whole Gods/humans interface) inherent in the creationist/ID view that the whole universe was manifested in order just for a particular clade of primates to worship their god?
“What has the study of biology taught you about the Creator, Dr. Haldane?”
“I’m not sure, but He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles.”
Hey Nabs, have you been away on a secret mission or just keeping a low profile while naturally selecting traceable delectable pulchritudinous and passing on genetic mutatables?
(or both?)
Good to see Nabs back no matter where his secret mission has taken him.
(Not that I’m saying he was on a secret mission.)
Lying abroad and laying a broad, yes.
Le Nab est forminable or Ein Zwie…Funf? (not les Rosbifs we trust)