Mike Dunford’s post the other day reminded me of an event a few years ago.
I am married to a 4th grade teacher in southern California. Each year I do two days of “career day” for a total of around 600 kids from Kindergarden through 5th grade. I bring stone tools, and deer bones to pass around, and it is great fun.
I don’t teach archaeology to the kids- I talk about what archaeologists do for a living. Career day is supposed to show kids about different careers- thats why it is called Career Day. I also show them gadgets like a GPS, maps, etc… I also carry around a 500 page thick CRM report that nobody ever bothered to read.
This school might be exceptional, I don’t know. Most of the presenters hang out together in the teacher lounge between sessions (actually that is where we have to stay). While we are there, we get to compare notes and just talk to folks in jobs we rarely get to meet. I have chatted with rock band guitar players, federal judges, M.D.s, chemists, cops, television camermen and “performance” artists all at the same table in the teachers lounge of an elementry school. I look forward to it every year. (One teacher’s family adds a lot to the mix- he brings in three of his brothers, a judge, and an MD, and a producer, plus he leans on them for referrals).
Once a few years ago, this fellow was invited to also present. His name tag said, “Mike *****, Preacher.” I first noticed him because he wouldn’t return a smile. Then I read his name tag, and I thought maybe this isn’t the argument I need today.
He didn’t come to tell kids about being a preacher, he came to preach. And because he had seen my name tag, “Dr. Gary Hurd, Archaeologist,” Preacher Mike (*Made Up Name* if you are out there) determined that he had to preach the evils of Satanist archaeology and ‘evilution’. Several teachers became very concerned, and some students among those that had liked the bones I had showed them and so on, became actually worried that they would go to Hell.
The Assistant Principal came and asked me if I was teaching about the “age of the Earth” or “the origin of life.” I pointed out that neither of these were questions relevant to archaeology which was totally focused on humans and their nearest relations. Plus, Career Day is about telling kids about what your job is (mine was learning about cultures from their material remains and teaching). The AP next asked if I had heard of “Teaching the controversy.” I was now a bit PO’ed, and I said, “Well, I don’t know about “teaching the freaking controversy,” but I do know how to teach the freaking State of California Department of Education curriculum guidelines, and if you want to talk about that I will.” Now, bear in mind that I had met this guy (the AP) several times at career days, at retirement parties, and such. He was a nice guy, but I was totally ready to jump on him. I had carefully avoiding anything not in the state curriculum for those grade levels. (As I was also Education Director of a natural history museum with several thousand school visits per year, I was very dang expert on exactly what the state curriculum guidelines ‘required,’ err ‘suggested’).
I found out weeks later (when the AP and I were out fishing- plus the even more signifigant executive- the head custodian) that “Preacher Mike” had insisted that if the “Evilutionist archaeologist” had been allowed to “preach Satanism” (ie evilution, and ancient (>6k years) Earth) this nitwit’s ‘obligation’ was to try and save the souls of these poor, poor children. End the end, he was tossed off campus because he refused to agree to just talk about his job, and to stop trying to counter the “Satanist message” that existed only in his twisted imagination.
But, let’s consider that twisted imagination. Mike the Preacher believes in a conspiracy against God, inspired by Satan, that has control of the American schools. This Satanist conspiracy has as its agents all scientists and teachers who are actively trying to corrupt innocent children through public education. The fact that Preacher Mike was tossed out of Career Day only reinforced his paranoid delusion.
117 Comments
Gary Hurd · 12 March 2005
Let me add as a comment that using "dirty words" does not help your argument, and can easily be avoided. I don't feel like editing comments, so I will merely delete any that use the typical obscenity, profanity, or blasphemy.
You might be more creative. For example, at career days I get to point out to hundreds of little children that I am an expert on the study of ancient frass. In fact, (I think) I am the only expert on the study of ancient frass. So if I called someone a "fossil frass head," I could be the only expert in the world qualified to disagree with myself.
So you all play nice with the other kiddies- hear?
DonkeyKong · 12 March 2005
Irony
I have never been rabidly anti-evolution until I was exposed to evolutionists like the ones on this site.
I have run into rabid evolutionists before and chalked it up to a bad apple. However I have found the general public online has a much larger percent of rabid anti-creationism than I would have thought possible.
I was raised in a very christian family, my father is a scientist(microbiology) and I have never been taught that anything in the bible requires God to have not acted via evolution over 4 billion years. I believe that my father believes in evolution. I myself find myself talking as though evolution is correct but only in the scientific sense.
But when evolutionists start talking as though religion is the source of all evil, populated by ignorant boobs, and basically not acceptable in modern society. Which is pretty much what your example is about, creationists are bad because I had a bad parent teacher conference day....
That makes me white hot, smoke out the ears mad......
When I see that evolutionists have basically put their eggs into the basket of trying to brainwash my 5 year old neices and SETI sponsered grade 3-9 teaching materials...Calling them names if they believe in God etc....
Why?
Because evolution can't stand on its own? If it really was this juggernaught of science as you have deluded yoursleves into thinking then you could explain it to adult children like you do with all higher science, like quantom mechanics, electromagnatism, relativity, etc etc etc.
Why is a large part of the anti-creation mindset attacking the individuals that believe in 7 day creation? Do you feel better when you bully them with superior arguments than you do when I bully you with superior arguments?
Its ironic really we have all become the mirror image of what we oppose.....
Wesley R. Elsberry · 12 March 2005
Bill Ware · 12 March 2005
DonkeyKong,
We show our love for God by increasing our knowledge of His creation through the study of science which includes biology and the theory of evolution. To deny the reality of what we discover about the world and the universe through science is to show disrespect for the very God Who brought these realities into existence.
Evil is the lack of the knowledge of God. We are all imperfect and fall far short of knowing God fully. Increasing our knowledge of God and His creation does Him great service. Promoting ignorance does just the opposite.
You can revel in the knowledge of God's creation or wallow in the evil of ignorance as you wish. Just don't complain about those of us who prefer the former to the latter.
NelC · 12 March 2005
DK, those accusations are completely without base. Scientists, including evolutionists, post interesting stuff from their work and life on this site, and then people like you with their axe ground on the wrong end attempt to derail any discussion about the posts with your bag of evil debate tricks.
The good folks here don't like paranoids spouting their bile all over these threads, they don't like being accused of being liars and conspirators, they don't like wilful ignorance, they don't like being accused of being the aggressors in this war of ideas -- in short they don't like you. Please go away.
The Messenger · 12 March 2005
[End the end, he was tossed off campus because he refused to agree to just talk about his job, and to stop trying to counter the "Satanist message" that existed only in his twisted imagination.] And once again the evil Christian is maligned without a voice. Too often on this web-site.
Buridan · 12 March 2005
I'm starting to change my mind on the whole school voucher thing. Instead of offering them across the board, however, they should be available only to those who have religious objections to public education and only "redeemable" at religious schools. That's where the voucher movement began and why not give them what they want?
Ah, but that wouldn't stop the religious nuts now would it. Their agenda has never been about what's being taught to their kids and vouchers have never been about getting a better education. Here's a quote from fundamentalist Robert Thoburn that says it all:
"Christians should run for the school board. This may sound like strange advice. After all, I have said that Christians should have nothing to do with the public schools. What I meant was that Christians should not allow their children to have anything to do with public schools. This does not mean that we should have nothing to do with them. As I have already said, we should have lots to do with them during school bond elections. Our goal is not to make the schools better.... The goal is to hamper them, so they cannot grow -- grow in evil (drugs, promiscuity, abortion advice, etc.), grow in expense, and (if possible) grow in enrollment. Never lose sight of this long-range goal. Our goal as God fearing, uncompromised... Christians is to shut down the public schools, not in some revolutionary way, but step by step, school by school, district by district."
Buridan · 12 March 2005
Hey Messenger, why the hell do you think "the Christian" is entitled to a voice on the Panda's Thumb? The fact that you people are even tolerated here is a gift. The folks running this site are under no obligation to allow you a voice. Quite frankly, I'm a little surprised they tolerate as much as they do.
Can't you get it through your thick scull that you're a guest here! It's like marching into to someone else's home (uninvited) and bitching about their curtains. If you don't like it just leave!
Ed Darrell · 12 March 2005
Gary,
It's a sad story, really. Here you are doing a great job, giving kids good information and getting them excited about a great career spreading knowledge, and a guy who doesn't know you, doesn't know much about your job, but knows you're a scientist assumes without justification that you're teaching evil stuff.
And then, after that spectacular show of bias, DK makes the same assumptions!
DK: The issue is probably the most important one in this discussion about what should be taught to kids. It's made more difficult because the issue is really about what people assume that isn't true, and how they act on those self-made modern myths.
That's where we need to fight the battle. My "evolution" news search today turned up a couple of letters in the Williamsport (PA) Sun-Gazette. The letter today was from a guy who argued that evolution is pure evil -- he called evolution the "excuse" for Nazi atrocities, and even of genocides committed before Darwin was born. The author didn't hesitate to call evolution a creation of Satan.
(See it here: http://www.sungazette.com/letters/letter_details.asp?letterID=3905&postdate=3/14/2005)
Cool reason won't sway that man from his views -- he didn't get there through the door of education and reason.
DK, your father may be a rational Christian. Good on him for that. He's in the majority among Christians. Thank God.
But the vocal minority of unreasoning and unreasoned creationists is very loud, very demanding, and they won't stop at simple falsehoods to enforce their view that science is evil.
Are you Christian, DK? If so, do you not agree with me that, as Christians, we have a duty to stop such unreasoned, unrighteous actions by Christians?
Cody · 12 March 2005
Irony
I have never been rabidly anti-Christian until I was exposed to Christians like the ones on this site.
I have run into rabid evangelicals before and chalked it up to a bad apple. However I have found the general public online has a much larger percent of rabid anti-evolutionist and anti-science than I would have thought possible.
I was raised in a very Christian family, my father is a Christian and I have never been taught that anything in the Bible requires God to have not acted via evolution over 4 billion years. I believe that my father believes in evolution. I myself find myself talking as though Christianity is correct but only in the Biblical sense.
But when Christians start talking as though evolution is the source of all evil, populated by ignorant boobs condemned to hell, and basically not acceptable in modern, Christian society. Which is pretty much what Donkey's example is about, evolutionists are bad because Donkey had a bad experience on the web.
That makes me white hot, smoke out the ears mad . . . . . .
When I see that Christians have basically put their eggs into the basket of trying to brainwash my relatives and students with pseudo-science...Calling them names if they believe in Darwin etc . . . .
Why?
Because creationism and ID can't stand on their own? If it really was this juggernaught of science as you have deluded yoursleves (my sleeves?) into thinking then you could explain it to adult children like you do with all higher science, like quantom mechanics, electromagnatism, relativity, etc etc etc. (there are apparently some really intense elementary schools out there teaching "quantom mechanics")
Why is a large part of the anti-evolution mindset attacking the individuals that believe in natural selection? Do you feel better when you bully them with threats of hell than you do when I bully you with superior arguments?
Its ironic really we have all become the mirror image of what we oppose . . . ..It's funny, because I was never rabidly anti-Christian until I was exposed to the Christians on this site. Like Donkeykong.
Great White Wonder · 12 March 2005
DonkeyKong · 12 March 2005
Great White Wonder
"DonkeyKong, a well-known liar, launches another"
See its the HS teachers that use McCarthy talk like this that scare rational people.
I am sorry but the evolution/ anti-creationism movement has moven into the realm of the McCarth/Hoover/Stalin etc etc etc. You are literally planning how to brainwash other people's kids at as young an age as possible. If you had the power I believe you would start to put the non-kool aid drinkers in camps, those who can go to college and those who cannot etc etc etc.
Real science can defend itself with real science. Real science can wait till college. Real science is immensly powerful and can be dis-believed only by those who question reality. Your problem is that many very educated people who are very smart also don't buy into evolution at the level you seek.
If you were talking to the HS kids with facts and only facts I wouldn't have a problem with that, but you editorilize.
You don't teach quantom in Gradeschool things like schrodinger's cat and the vast philosophical and moral delima's of quantom physics. Are you anti-science zelots with a beef against quantom physics? Or are kids not ready for certain types of adult delimas?
Likewise trying to brainwash kids at a very young age with a theory that doesn't stand up to critism in the same way that the vast majority of other science does is wrong.
When someone specifically targets kids in their attempt to sway public opinion and uses McCarthy tactics like the above gem, or the evolution is SCIENCE don't question it. Or all the PHds believe in evolution don't question it etc etc etc. These are anti-science teachings you are supporting real science can simply state the facts and let real scientists make up their own mind.
I am not against evolution's supporting data being taught in school because those finds are facts. I am not against explaination that one theory that explains most of that data is evolution. But what most of you want, crave and seem to NEED on some sick moral level is to teach that there is no other alternative. That is simply not science, nor is the lack of exposing the weaknesses in evolution science.
It appears to me that the reason that science has on this issue chosen to endorse evolution so strongly is because if you accept that there is no other higher being in the universe then you eliminate most of the alternatives to evolution. Most of the strongest supporters of the anti-creationism movement have made that religious choice to be athiest as opposed to agnostic or a believer. An athiest is an active disbeliever which is a religious choice and should not be given preferrence in school now matter who it is that expresses it.
There seems to be a deluded notion that science which has not been supported by Jewdaism/Christianity for centuries and owes a large amount of its current success to being defended by christians who would not tolerate ignoring Gods science laws for the current dogma of the time. It is not an accident that science has been thriving longer under Christianity than under any other system, Christianity is the most pro-science enviornment in the world.
Evidence the athiest enviornment where questioning is critised, dogma is raised to the level of sacrosanct and dissent is opposed by trying to brainwash little kids.
Gary Hurd · 12 March 2005
Following the link Ed provided, I noticed this lovely "christian" message, One nation under God! which advocates physical violence aginst non-Christians.
DaveScot · 12 March 2005
"openly rejected Creationism"
She learned a valuable lesson. Do not be a lone voice openly attacking the beliefs of a large group, in their physical presence, without an exit strategy.
DonkeyKong · 12 March 2005
Great White...
When you tell a story about an individual and attach him to a group you are really telling two stories.
One about the individual which I don't defend one bit, unless the author was less than honest about his presentation which I do not have sufficient support for or against. I can imagine an evolution presentation that would be unsuitable for school due to anti-religious insingations that are not scientific, again I have no evidence for or against the author giving that presentation except his word that he didn't and the pastors reaction as though he did. Given enough examples using different people for both roles I am sure a rational person will see that sometimes the story teller is the villian and sometimes the pastor reacting is the villian. Again I make no judgements regarding who is right as I simply do not know one way or the other.
Second about the group. The above story wasn't about Mike the jerk in my town. It was about "Pator" Mike. When you paint an individual portrait thats between you and Mike but when some of the ink ends up on me then its my business too. As such I expressed why a rational person such as myself who is basically not opposed to evolution becomes as anti-evolution as I have and how my anti-evolution stance is very similiar to the anti-creation stance in that both have a foundation outside of science.
Science makes no judgements, it predicts future information. Once science has been shown to consistently in every permutaion predict a set of future information flawlessly then it is often applied backwards but for that we should use a different word because forward looking science and backward looking science have dramatically dramatically different batting averages....
DaveScot · 12 March 2005
NelC
Read the welcome message. Panda's Thumb's primary mission is to be critical of the so-called antievolution movement. The fact that antievolution comments are allowed, near as I can tell, is so that it doesn't become an incestuous mutual admiration society. That's a good thing. It shows, contrary to popular belief, that evolutionists aren't ALL about censoring opposing views wherever they find voice. Evidently they only want it censored in 9th grade biology classes and peer reviewed science journals...
Buridan · 12 March 2005
Dave, your attempt at playing the martyr is really pathetic. You must enjoy it because you keep coming back for more.
In any event, I would really like to see your exit strategy in action. And don't let the door hit you on the backside on your way out.
Dan S. · 12 March 2005
"Real science can wait till college. "
Are you KIDDING? What next - real math can wait 'til college? real history can wait 'til college? real reading can wait 'til college?? That's absurd! And why should science education be the exclusive preserve of the college educated?? Yes, you're a troll, but even trolls have standards . . .
. . .well, they don't, I guess is the point, but still . . .
If anything, we need better science education earlier, at the point when kids are more naturally scientists in a way . . .
"If you were talking to the HS kids with facts and only facts I wouldn't have a problem with that, but you editorilize."
Kinda like that O'Reilly nonsense a little bit ago (though that was much worse) - science education isn't facts and only facts. Can you imagine any class that was facts and only facts, without any "editorializing"? Feh.
"You don't teach quantom in Gradeschool things like schrodinger's cat"
Nice kitty . . well, evolution is really a high school topic. It's also the fundamental idea behind all of modern biology. Plus, it's not as conceptually screwy. Also less likely to lead to the needless tragedy of pet cat deaths . .
" But what most of you want, crave and seem to NEED on some sick moral level is to teach that there is no other alternative."
At this point, there doesn't appear to be any real scientific alternative. If one pops up, it'll get taught at the hs level, though probably with the inevitable lag time, once it convinces the scientific community. Read up on the history of plate tectonics. Why don't you folks understand this??? Why do you seem to want, crave, and NEED on some sick moral level to believe that your view is being unjustly oppressed by an evil conspiracy? Seriously.
"It appears to me that the reason that science has on this issue chosen to endorse evolution so strongly is because if you accept that there is no other higher being in the universe then you eliminate most of the alternatives to evolution"
Well, there's still the 'Powerful Aliens Did It!!" theory . . .
Your formulation doesn't make sense. You seem to want to say that science is endorsing *atheism* so strongly because then you eliminate most of the alternatives to evolution (which doesn't even describe Dawkins, I think). Or possibly that science has a vested interest in atheism therefore it endorses evolution which . . etc. Huh? Conspiracy theories again. Face it, science is endorses evolution so strongly because as far as anyone can tell, it's the best scientific explanation. Science is an integral part of America's rise as a world power. Why do you hate America?
(Look, I'm sick right now. It messes up my sense of humor)
You have heard that evolution and belief in god/gods is not mutually exclusive, right?
"An athiest is an active disbeliever which is a religious choice and should not be given preferrence in school now matter who it is that expresses it. "
As an athiest - crap, now I'm misspelling it! - atheist, I'm very, very careful about this. If I were to attack students' religious beliefs or try to promote atheism as a belief system, I *hope* I would at best be placed in notice, and, if I made a habit of it, certainly dismissed.
I think this is a case of projection. Some kinds of religious people, like Messenger on the other thread, would like nothing better than to spend lots of time in the public schools preaching the Gospels constantly (with words), in any subject where it could be possibly invoked, so they assume that all atheists would do the same thing. Silly people! -Although now that I think about it, I find it rather insulting in a way.
"Most of the strongest supporters of the anti-creationism movement have made that religious choice to be athiest as opposed to agnostic or a believer. "
Hmm. Is that actually true? It seems vaguely logical - that people who have both scientific and 'religious' objections to this nonsense would be most vocal in attacking it - but you might get a lot of folks who are apalled at what damage the uninformed are doing to their beliefs, and concerned about people rejecting religion because it becomes even more closely associated with this sort of medieval anti-modern knownothingness.
"There seems to be a deluded notion that science which has not been supported by Jewdaism/Christianity for centuries and owes a large amount of its current success to being defended by christians who would not tolerate ignoring Gods science laws for the current dogma of the time. "
Grammar-checker, DonkeyKong, grammar checker. It may save your soul (especially if God is really picky about these sorts of things - although given that He apparentlyused singular "their" , I guess not.
And it's Judaism. If you have to get it wrong, Judyism is at least cute. Jewdaism sounds like something you'd find in a badly spelled anti-semitic rant . . .
You are expressing, however poorly, a really interesting question - how much was the development of modern science influenced by the concept of a comprehensible, predictable universe organized by God's laws. However, now that you've touched it, it's mother won't take it back, so that intriguing bit of historical speculation will now wither and die from lack of attention. Good going, DK!
"Christianity is the most pro-science enviornment in the world."
Sometimes, Donkey. Sometimes. Now where did I put that Indigo Girls tape . . . ?
"Evidence the athiest enviornment where questioning is critised, dogma is raised to the level of sacrosanct and dissent is opposed by trying to brainwash little kids."
I don't know about brainwashing, but somebody needs a good cerebral scrubbing, preferably with soup and warm water - maybe it will help loosen some of the gunk. Or at least help with the spelling and grammar?
DonkeyKong is a very appropriate name for the whole anti-evolution effort, bringing to mind the oldy-but goody of a game where poor Mario just trying to climb a little higher constantly has to dodge barrels being tossed at him for no apparent reason. You could read the whole thing as an allegory - but I'll spare everyone from that horrible fate and just post this . . .
Messenger · 12 March 2005
Buridan, Thank you for the gift of your tolerance. I have learned a lot from all of you here, not about evolution, but about evolutionist. I will go away quietly. The Messenger
Buridan · 12 March 2005
Thank you. Dave, it's your turn...
Greenman · 12 March 2005
DaveScot wrote: "She learned a valuable lesson. Do not be a lone voice openly attacking the beliefs of a large group, in their physical presence, without an exit strategy."
Yeah, let's not forget what happened to the thousands of folks throughout history who made the mistake of rejecting Christian dogma. Burning, hanging, stoning, torture, maiming, excommunication, etc, etc. I suppose this young lady got off fairly easy. And I didn't see anything in the post suggesting she was "attacking the beliefs" of anyone. Rejecting something doesn't necessarily constitute "attacking" it.
It seems that DaveScot thinks the type of treatment this girl received was perfectly acceptable and reasonable. I can just picture the sneer on his face as he made that post. I pray that DaveScot doesn't someday find himself in the minority of a group displaying a tenth the intolerance of Christianity throughout history.
Incidentally, I proudly display a Darwin Fish on my vehicle right in the heart of Jesus Fish country and I have had my views (understanding and acceptance of evolution theory) thoughtlessly and visciously attacked. Without exception it has been painfully obvious that those doing the attacking hadn't the slightest understanding of the theory nor any intention of trying to understand it. Their unquestionong minds were simply locked by their dogma.
I can't remember who said it but they said it well, "God, protect me from your followers."
Ken Willis · 12 March 2005
I recently listened to a 6-hour lecture titled The Theory of Evolution--A History of Controversy by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia. It was on CD's produced by The Teaching Company. Professor Larson is a lawyer not a scientist, and the subject is history not science. Nevertheless, for a layman such as myself I thought it was great. He covered the history of all the various anti-evolution movements and has a good command of the science involved. I found out that I was lucky to have been in High School during the years 1959-1963 because those years were a brief hiatus from anti-evolution forces and evolution was taught openly during those years.
What was most enlightening for me was that the current anti-evolution arguments are not new. So-called "Intelligent Design" is really just a bit of old-time religious creationism presented in the language of modern bio-chemistry.
I'm a proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy myself but I am saddened when my fellow right wingers fall for the dishonest pandering made to them by the likes of Demski, Behe, Johnson and Wells.
darwinfinch · 12 March 2005
The self-declared Xians who attack the information on this site have never been less honest or persuasive than on this thread.
How DO these trolls live with such hypocrisy? I can only believe they enjoy it, since their tone rings drips with an almost evil insincerity.
We're into a space here similar to Twain's in describing the (no doubt sincere, if completely hypocritical) attitude of the leaders of Hannibal when he was a child in defense of slavery, "How could they lie so? The result of practice, no doubt.
These Xians are the ones who abuse Christ's teachings to a degree impossible for a non-believer. They can, with a smirk, cast the first stone, and many, many others (from a safe and anonymous place, counting on the "sense of fair play" and "respect" of their opponents) while always claiming suffering on a scale Jesus himself perhaps never approached due to the mildest response, or the most minor burst of anger.
Have these sad, grinningly vicious masks of people nothing in life to cherish and enjoy? Do they take no pleasure in discovering exactly how fascinating the Universe and their own minds are? Are they so proud, or so afraid, to see Humanity as a small, if interesting to itself, part of what exists?
None of these are rhetorical questions. The three self-declared critics of "evil Evolution" on this thread cannot understand them. In their pride.
Your Conscience · 12 March 2005
These posts are all the same:
1. Science is good and honest
2. Evolution (the all encompassing metaphysical theory)is science.
3. Therefore people who question evolution are bad and dishonest.
The Comments:
1. The open-minded sceptic - "Hey guys, maybe evolution has some scientific validity issues? Maybe we should recognize its limitations as a theory?"
2. The Darwinian Fundies - "How dare you question science. You must be a troll. It's too late for you, but give us your kids and we will 'educate' them"
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil" (somewhere in the bible)
Darwinian Fundie · 12 March 2005
Hey, Your Conscience -
How dare you question science. You must be a troll. It's too late for you, but give us your kids and we will 'educate' them.
Grey Wolf · 12 March 2005
Weird. My consciense usually doesn't try to lie to me. Not to mention that normally uses my native language. I wonder if this is, in fact, yet another fundamentalist hoping against all reason that if he claims often enough that evolution is not the closest theory to what is really going on, it will eventually be true? But the Powers That Be In This Forum have asked to try a simple test, which I have liked. Go read TalkOrigins ( http://www.talkorigins.org ). Once you've been there and read everything (I managed in under two months, but I admit I didn't read through much of the fine detail of the longest articles), and still feel that you have a point, be back and explain it.
Until you do, your straw man is only laughable. There are scientific sissues with evolution, and everyone here (that aren't trolls) admits it. Just not the ones you'd like. Just because scientists aren't sure just how important geographical separation is to evolution compared to other mechanisms, it doesn't make facts like speciation or common ancestors any less proven beyond all but the tinniest sliver of doubt (which remain in all sciences).
Please prove that you're not going to be yet another troll.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Your Conscience, ca 1632 · 12 March 2005
These posts are all the same:
1. Science is good and honest
2. Heliocentrism (the all encompassing metaphysical theory)is science.
3. Therefore people who question heliocentrism are bad and dishonest.
The Comments:
1. The open-minded sceptic - "Hey guys, maybe heliocentrism has some scientific validity issues? Maybe we should recognize its limitations as a theory?"
2. The Galilean Fundies - "How dare you question science. You must be a troll. It's too late for you, but give us your kids and we will 'educate' them"
Great White Wonder · 12 March 2005
David Heddle · 12 March 2005
If the story of Pastor Mike is true, then as a conservative Christian I for one would without reservation condemn his actions. His manners are bad and his theology is seriously flawed (A preacher cannot save anyone's soul. Besides, Satan is not after anyone's soul--what would he do with it? There is no such concept as Satan battling for human souls in the bible. In fact, Satan has to ask permission to mess with Job or Peter.)
That said, I have to say I view the entire account with skepticism. It's just too darn convenient, and I have read too many convenient anecdotes of encounters with fundamentalist preachers on this site. Too many descriptions of "I walked away from Christianity when I heard a preacher preach that {interracial marriage is a sin, the bible teaches of Caucasian racial supremacy, etc.}
Gary Hurd · 12 March 2005
Well, David your skepticism seems to be a faulty faculty. You "swallow a camel and strain at a gnat." I got most of the story second hand, as I said, but I can attest to everything I personally experienced.
And it was Preacher "Mike" not Rev., not Fra., "Preacher." I thought that was interesting too, and one of the reasons other than his apparent hostility, that I didn't make any further effort to talk with the man beyond saying "Hello."
Creationists' facility at denial, and ability to cast personal aspersions with an air of wounded innocence is legendary. Thanks for providing such a fine demonstration.
Your Conscience · 12 March 2005
Criticising Evolution (common desecent and speciation) is like criticizing heliocentrism. Hmmm.... Did someone mention a STRAW DUMMY. People don't question heliocentrism because it can be tested and verified in many ways. Now common descent and speciation. Nope, never seen anything close to testing and verifying that theory. Have seen some pretty cool drawings of ape-like creatures turning into humans based on fossilized bone and tooth fragmants. Creative imagination does not equal good science.
Why do Darwinian fundamentalists believe that people who don't worship naturalism simply need more education. I was exposed to your religion all through school and college and never bought into. Perhaps people like me have an evolved genetic allele that rejects overly rational thinking regarding human origins. This protective mechanism allows us to buy into religious myths that create stable families, promote reproduction, and thus pass on this genetic 'defect'. If you want to convert me to Darwinism, I may need gene therapy, cause your educatin didn't work.
Joe McFaul · 12 March 2005
Your Conscience:
Take a zero.
Fundamentalists *also* challenge heliocentrism.
see The Geocentric Challenge
Please come back and report to us when you've won the $1000 by demostrating that heliocentrism can be "tested and proved in many ways."
Ron Zeno · 12 March 2005
Where's that "Troll Begone" when you need it? ;)
First, if the "Preacher" cannot hold himself to the same standards of "Career Day" as the other presenters, he should be asked to leave. No need to let someone undermine the educational experience.
Second, at some point, these "Career Day" experiences have to differentiate between professions (careers requiring a minimal competency and that hold their membership to a defined and enforced code of conduct and ethics) vs other career choices. Perhaps not at fourth grade, but certainly by high school. At the early ages, I'd assume most of the focus is just in getting the children excited about the possibilities. Eventually, they need to be exposed to what it takes to obtain and continue a career of choice.
Russell · 12 March 2005
edge · 12 March 2005
steve · 12 March 2005
Joe, if you liked that Catholic Apologetics website, you might like one I posted recently to the Bathroom Wall.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 12 March 2005
steve · 12 March 2005
Teach the Controversy!
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 12 March 2005
Henry J · 12 March 2005
To put in my two cents here, I think there's a big difference between criticizing, and accusing most of those in the relevant fields of routinely missing obvious factors that would change their basic conclusions if they'd only pay attention.
Henry
David Heddle · 12 March 2005
Rev,
The bible. His theology is flawed by testing it against the bible. After all, he, (or rather this stereotype mythical fundamentalist preacher out of central casting,) having claimed the mantle of Christian, would be judged according to the book he would hold up as authoritative. I should think that was obvious.
Russell · 12 March 2005
Jelly · 13 March 2005
Steve,
I disagree. Teach science in public school and discuss the controversy at home. I don't want my children learning about God in public school. It's my responsibility to teach my children about God.
Respectfully,
Jelly
David Heddle · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
Your Conscience · 13 March 2005
Gee rev, who get to decide what is a valid scientific method? Especially when it comes to common origin and speciation.
Please be specific
As far as heliocentrism goes:
1. A few fringe groups question it.
2. These fringe groups also question evolution.
3. Thus people who question evolution must also question heliocentrism.
Gee your logic is stunning.
The truth is that scientist and other educated people have been questing the claims put forth by evolution biologists ever since the time of Darwin.
What the old "rev" fails to understand is that the claims made by him and other Darwinian fundamentalists are not science but religion. His self-defeating arguments are quite humorous.
Your Conscience speaking
Grey Wolf · 13 March 2005
YC, please explain how heliocentrics (I'm assuming heliocentrics are people who think the sun is the centre of the universe. Never heard of them. Links, anyone, please?) and creationists are different. I'll get you started:
- They both object to a well studied, very solid scientific theory on religious reasons
- They both are convinced that they hold the Truth
- Neither have even the smallest bit of evidence in their favour
- Both have been thoroughly demonstrated false again and again
Since you find them so very different, there must be some subtle difference outside all those similarities. please be a good chap and tell us, will you?
The only difference I can think of is that thanks to Einstein's relativity theory, heliocentrism is actually "true" in the sense that it fits the data. Of course, it is more complicated than our current explanaition, so by using the Razor it should be discarded except for specific applications - but at least they do fit the data and were in fact a proper scientific hypothesis. Creationists don't even get that far.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Russell · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
Michael Rathbun · 13 March 2005
The questions indeed do boil down to "authoritative" versus "experimental" methodologies for getting an accurate picture of the world.
Who can forget that sad moment in history when the hierarchy of the French Academy appealed to the King to defend sacred Phlogistonist Orthodoxy against the perverse and heretical novelties of Oxidationism?
The Army was deployed to quell the riots, the Oxidationists uproared the unwashed common people, who long had been chafing under the yoke of academic oppression. The conflict spread rapidly, and soon the entire continent was engulfed in the Wars Of Dire Combustion, raged for decades.
Compare this raw appeal to authority with the thougtful, experimental method pioneered by the great (some might even say immortal) Elijah, recounted in the peer-reviewed literature at 1 Kings 18:22 - 40. Or the elegant and peaceful way in which the various trinitarian issues were settled finally long, long ago.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
Ken Shackleton · 13 March 2005
steve · 13 March 2005
Gary Hurd · 13 March 2005
So far not one person has pointed out what I thought was the most interesting point: Preacher Mike's notion (at least one that I think he had based on experience) was that there is a public school conspiracy aginst him and his ilk was reinforced.
I am sure that he went home even more certain that there is a big evil Darwinist/Satanist conspiracy, and that was what prevented him from delivering his message.
DonkeyKong · 13 March 2005
Gary
Picking the wackiest person in a group and then trying to tie the feelings of the group to that person is invalid.
Evolutionists as defined by those who get EXCITED about evolution tend to be anti-creation 7 day or 4 billion years. This view leaks through into their writings.
The following are phrases you will have heard although not word for word.
1) Evolution is proven. Science doesn't prove things as any SCIENTIST can tell you.
2) Evolution is a fact. By even the most liberal definition of fact you would have to greatly reduce the scope to find a fact in the evolution theory, the dropping of biogenesis is a tacit admission by your side to this effect.
3) Evolution from dust to man is plausible and the majority of scientists believe it. This one is only brought up in the classroom or in private and not so much in writting because biogenesis is basically impossible based on all current mechanisms of science.
4) Evolution's supporting data precludes a 7 day creation. This is a religious belief wether you believe science is against it or not. As an American I have a right for you not to be telling my kids that their religious beliefs are wrong while they are too young to be able to fight a fair fight regarding the merits of your evidence.
5) Evolutions reliance on a unexplained LUCA and an unexplained Natural Selection function both of which are needed to over come the staggering complexity of even the simpliest life are nothing to worry about...nothing to see here. You guys really don't want to talk about what you are saying happened because the scale of what you propose is obviously more unlikely that your data to support at this juncture.
6) ID is not science and is silly in a way that evolution is not silly.
The MAJORITY of the people who choose to discuss evolution from the pro evolution stand point are anti-God. Those who don't have a beef with the God concept talk about the data and the small effect not the large and vaguely hocus pocus evolution from LUCA who evolved from dirt but we don't want to go there cause even we know it looks silly from a science perspective.
The legit scientists don't have a moral problem with teaching Evolution along with teaching that evolution is a weaker than normal scientific theory for the following reasons
1) Evolution has changed the details of the Natural selection function over time. The actual concept of Natural selection cannot be disproven based on how it is phrased, the current massive lack of evidence to support is explained as give it more time etc. Only the details can be disputed because the detailed variants make predictions. the existance of gene competition, disease resistance, food competition, mate competition all show that there is substiantial change over time in this aspect of evolution.
2) Evolution deals only with data and tests from the past. As such if the theory keeps changing with new input there will come a time that no new input is possible and the theory will be believed true even though it is untestable. That isn't what science is about.
3) The inability to evolve anything of any complexity is at odds with how frequent evolution should occur. Or even simple lab experiments showing a mutation rate consistent with predictions etc etc etc.
4) Evolution relies at its core on we are here there is no God the only way we could get here is a random process therefore we have overcome whatever unlikelyness is needed to create us no matter how how massively unlikely that is.
5) A lack of a detailed theory of evolution other than a collection of fossils. The old church theory that the planets rotate around the earth fit the existing data very well yet was completely false. Meeting the data is not what science is about. Science is about PREDICTING FUTURE data, evolution fails at this and curiously tries to forget the many predictions that are false. If you have 10 theories on how big the human genome should be relative to bacteria having one of them be more or less correct is basically a function of guessing, the next detail will be guessed by the next 10 people etc etc etc.
6) Real mature science uses numbers because numbers force a specificness that mature science can accomadate. Evolution avoids numbers because using a single number increases the number of guesses you need to make by a factor of 10 and that would be too noticable even to kids.
In closing, Nobody noticed because at its core Evolution really is TRYING to discredit creation. The science may one day be there to back your assertions but before that time the athiest slant of evolution is visible and real.
Again wether you were the cause of your clash with the pastor or not is something I cannot tell from a distance, I can however say that in my experience the evolution side is currently pushing more than the creation side on this one.
Gary Hurd · 13 March 2005
OK, I got dibs on this.
edge · 13 March 2005
freelunch · 13 March 2005
DonkeyKong,
It is apparent that you are far too ignorant of science for anyone here to have reasonable discussion about the history of life on earth with you. Your statements about what science says and does and your criticisms of evolution betray a profound misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection tells us, what evidence exists for this theory, and why religious doctrines have nothing to do with science. While you claimed to be moderate on this, your behavior shows that you are not. People started to make a reasonable effort to inform you, but you have chosen to remain ignorant, repeating erroneous statements that Creationists repeat for themselves so they don't have to admit that their doctrines are false.
If you can only take one concept away from this discussion today, recognize this:
You are not talking about science, you are talking about your religious beliefs.
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
Dan S. · 13 March 2005
"4) Evolution's supporting data precludes a 7 day creation. This is a religious belief wether you believe science is against it or not"
You're saying that 7day creation is a religious belief? Ok, you get the Obvious Prize! Or do you mean that believing that the supporting data precludes a 7 day creation is a religious belief? That makes no sense. Based on our current understanding of how the world works, it certainly is hard to reconcile the two. Either a lot of science is really, really wrong, or there's someone up there having a big laugh about all the red herrings . . .
"1) Evolution has changed the details of the Natural selection function over time. "
And of course science isn't supposed to ever change, right?
"6) ID is not science and is silly in a way that evolution is not silly."
Actually, this is great! This is what we should do - just call ID silly. A lot.
"4) Evolution relies at its core on we are here there is no God "
Well, modern science does rely on methodological naturalism. Beyond that, I don't see where you get this from. This is something you believe. In reality, the status of God doesn't affect evolution any more than any other bit of science. A god working by the rules (or above them, in some incomprehensible way) would not contradict any of this (although science obviously has nothing to say about this, any more than a hockey ref can comment on a monopoly game.
Gary Hurd · 13 March 2005
Hey, I had dibs!
You guys take all the fun.
Gary Hurd · 13 March 2005
DonkeyKong · 13 March 2005
Gary
1) Science holds to the best theory that can PREDICT future results, otherwise its all story telling. Evolution predicts nothing ID doesn't also predict therefore they are both equally science and both equally belong in school.
2) Ah "change in the frequencey of alleles within a population over time produced by mutation winnowed by natural selection resulting in reproductive isolation of subpopulations (specieation)" please provide evidence of thing being observed. This is one of the key points that we disagree on, one does speciation EVER occur and much more importantly does speciation occur at the FREQUENCY necessary to lend credibility to evolution from LUCA. Some numbers are in order on this one...
3) Abiogenesis then...don't fall into the sophist trap that ignorance of the vocabulary is ignorance of the concept. Quoting the definition of biology was a cute touch.... Here is the definition of the scientific method do you notice the element that evolution is lacking?
Scientific method as defined by websters dictionary.
"principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"
4) You have no right to preach your anti-religious beliefs in school either. That is what you are trying to do, and not to adults but to gradeschool kids. You are the athiest big brother....20 years late.
5) Last, Univeral, Common, Ancestor, the majority of my views have been formed in talking with PHd level scientists over many years. Your continued appeal to authority is consitent and weak, please try harder and lets do this science thing.... My falling to your level for this reply is only so that you can understand that whatever little I am the scientist because of the 3 letters game you play in the rest of your life is not impressive to me. The real brains behind evolution know that there are staggering problems that have not been answered regarding the mutation rate needed from LUCA to human or even from Ape to Human. Scientists were SHOCKED at how complex the simpliest organisms are and how unlikely their abiogenesis would be that they dropped the whole concept from the evolution movement. I KNOW MORE that what you are used to dealing with so BLUFFING is ineffective.
6) ID is not science, the majority of evolution is not science. If that is what you mean by agree then we are fine. However if you intend to seperate religion and science then I would be happy with a law that puts any educator in jail if they make evolution statements labeled as science that cannot be tested as such. This would allow evolution as science to be taught but would remove the BS that most evolutionists claim and cannot back up. The majority of evolution is claims without a specific test or prediction of future results that has been confirmed. For example, Ape->Human is consistent with fossil data IF mutation rates are between a high and low threshold. I am happy with Humans may have evolved from Apes. But if you teach that Humans DID evolve from Apes you go to jail. If you object to this line then your objections to ID are not motivated by science and are more likely an indication of your own RELIGIOUS beliefs.
I said
"
The MAJORITY of the people who choose to discuss evolution from the pro evolution stand point are anti-God."
You said
"This is a falsehood. That is the nice way of saying "a lie." Since I am sure that you have been told that this is a falshood, to continue to repeat it is a lie."
Since I have been told its a lie and reject your assertion then I am lying?
Are you unable to understand that two people can DISAGREE without either one of they LYING?
Or do you have a GOD complex and think that your saying it makes it so? Your evolution logic is slipping into your debating skills.....
Gary Hurd · 13 March 2005
David Heddle · 13 March 2005
Your Conscience · 13 March 2005
Why do you rant at Donkey Kong?
Clearly the fact that some object to common descent and speciation is some sort of evolved DNA preserving mechanism. Those who just don't get the overwhelming logic of your arguments must be have a "god" gene. What you need to do is develop sample DNA from creationists and develop a gene chip with their profile. Then require an amniocentesis on all pregnancies to identify those suffering from the "god" gene for extermination.
This may be far more effective than trying to educate kids with evolution. Its been pretty darn ineffective, otherwise we still wouldn't be having this debate 150 years since Darwin (bless his name) enlightened us. Perhaps your barking up the wrong tree. Its genetic not environmental! Education doesn't work!
DonkeyKong · 13 March 2005
Gary
1) The whole point of science is not to explain past data, thats history, otherwise ID is equally valid to evoultion. The purpose of science is to predict future data. A history of poor predictions indicates a high liklyhood of a new revision in the future. Will it be like microsoft? Evolution 2005 get your patch that fixes the Natural selection bug...
2) Apeal to authority all over the place Gary "Wrong, and wrong. Evolution had clear implications, which were found to be correct. This happened generations ago! This is may be why many people of the creationist sort, think that this was "in the past" because in a sense it was in the past. This was all demonstrated in the past- a long time ago- before you were born." Evolution was demonstrated? you can make a man from a monkey? or are you talking a frog from a tadpole? If it was so long ago has everyone forgottne how to demonstrate it? Is that why no one can produce mutation rates or numbers when I ask?
3) You claim evolution is domonstrated. You claim evolution is internally consistent. There exists a range of mutation rates that is possible given our enviornment and a range that is impossible. Please state your range of possible mutation rates. I CANNOT DISPROVE WHAT YOU WILL NOT STATE, HENCE YOU ARE NOT TALKING SCIENCE.
4) Evolution relies, at its core, on "we are here, there is no God, the only way we could get here is a random process, therefore we have overcome whatever unlikelyness is needed to create us, no matter how how massively unlikely that is".
5) You can take any pre-existing set of data and affix an infinite number of theories that all predict the existing data 100% accuratly. Evolution's failure to be in theory falsifiable is the same. You can't disprove natural selection because when you do it just changes the details and comes back. Evolution resists predicting those details. Until Natural selection is testible (in such a way that failur and success are both possible) it is not science.
6) I have several books on genetics and evolution. But since yours have numbers in them why is it hard to write what the mutation rate is? Is there something you are trying to HIDE? Serioulsy I used numbers to show how evolution is very unlikley but I will admit it is no more unlikley than randomly picking the same atom in the universe 21.5 million times.
edge · 13 March 2005
edge · 13 March 2005
Lynn S · 13 March 2005
I haven't read all of these comments - there are too many - but I've read enough to figure out that this discussion is just bizarre like all "religion vs. science" discussions.
Not all Christians are nuts but if you denounce the few that ARE nuts, the nuts always PRETEND that you are talking about ALL Christians. Get this straight, all you Nuts: you DO NOT represent all Christians. How DARE you try to pretend that you do!? If there is any evil it is you.
As for the schools, I think all children should be required to go to public school. More and more kids are being home schooled and going to religious schools and it's scary to think about what will become of the country when this inadequately educated generation is running things.
Henry J · 13 March 2005
Gary,
Re "that I won't even guess what you might think that "LUCA" might mean."
I think it was "Last universal common ancestor".
Henry
Henry J · 13 March 2005
Gary,
Re "that I won't even guess what you might think that "LUCA" might mean."
I think it was "Last universal common ancestor".
Henry
Gary Hurd · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
Michael Rathbun · 13 March 2005
. Your notions may differ significantly.Air Bear · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
Air Bear · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 13 March 2005
Jim Harrison · 13 March 2005
The Jewish Bible is an anthology of the best of (mostly) Hebrew literature. The rabbis realized that parts of it were highly difficult to assimilate to their religious outlook---e.g. Job, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs--but they had too much integrity to them away in view of their obvious merit. Trying to convince yourself that this heterogenous mass is actually a seamless whole requires an enormous amount of special pleading and forced interpretation.
If you really want to be able to read the Bible, the first thing you need to do is lose your faith.
Dan S. · 13 March 2005
"My name is LUCA . . ." (a la the Suzanne Vega song)
I have to go to bed.
Maybe PT should get a disemvowelment option? (ie: 4) vltn rls, t ts cr, n "w r hr, thr s n Gd . . .." ) Or better yet, if somebody could whip something up that would insert phrases like "I (heart) Stephen Jay Gould!! He's my favorite!!!" into offending posts? It might be wrong, but it would be funny!
. . .y'know, if you do a yahoo search on disemvowelment, it asks you if you maybe *really* meant to look for disembowelment? Sick, sick search engine . . . .
steve · 13 March 2005
primitive persons living 400, 500, 969 years...
If you can believe that, believing in ID is no problem.
Air Bear · 13 March 2005
Yes, Dan S., even DonkeyKong would agree that you need to go to bed ;-)
Ron Zeno · 13 March 2005
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
steve · 13 March 2005
Ron:
Dang. That's a great list.
Wayne Francis · 13 March 2005
DK's post hurt my head from the incoherent babbling. I'm going to guess, by the same level of bad grammar etc, that CY is DK too.
Both like to use big grown up scientific words in their posts when they clearly have no concept of what they are actually talking about. Therefore from this time forward I'm filtering out DK's and CY's comments so I don't listen to/read them anymore.
As to David Heddle. You say that you can look to the Bible to decide who is right on a religious claim. That the Bible either addresses that claim or it does not. Who says that the Bible is correct? Why is the Christian Bible so much more accurate then any other religion's religious text? The Bible has clearly changed over time. Many parts have been added to over the years. If the Bible was really the word of God why would man need to add to the bible over time? Why would man have to alter the word of God to clarify God's word? Heck many biblical historians believe that the 10 commandments where altered over the years.
You have, and correct me if I'm wrong, have said that you interpret the Bible. Thus how your interpretation of the Bible is any better then someone else's interpretation is a personal opinion.
Bill Ware · 14 March 2005
Air Bear,
"This morning I heard a sermon proclaiming the Lutheran doctrine of "salvation by Grace alone". The highly learned pastor argued that we cannot "choose" to accept Christ,..."
Arg. We cannot be saved by choosing to accept Christ. This is not enough on its own. It would mean that salvation would be in our hands when it is not. It is in God's hands, through God's grace that we are saved.
Believing the "right things" is no guaranty. God has the final say. See Matthew 7:22-24
Ed Darrell · 14 March 2005
jeff-perado · 14 March 2005
Trying to reconnect David Heddle's infallible Bible back to science, and tie that in to "testable" claims, let us consider some of the New Testament science:
Jude 1:12 speaks of "waterless clouds" Now obviously science has proven this one false, since all clouds are made of water vapor, by definition, the Bible is flat out wrong. It gets even more silly when those who claim that the Bible meant (i.e. they interpreted it to mean somthing it did not say) clouds that were not rain clouds. since they interpreted the bible, simply to match it to reality, it loses its infallibility instantly. Thus it is wrong, and thus, according to Dave, one cannot claim that it can be correct about the characteristics of God (he failed to take his own statement to its logical conclusion: that if the bible is wrong, then it fails to support the existence of God.)
James 3:12 proudly proclaims two scientific falsehoods:
First, (the second one listed in the text) that "Nor can salt water produce fresh". James, God's voice in this book of the infallible Bible, falsely claims that fresh water cannot be produced from salt water. I guess God forgot to mention that us mere humans would be building huge desalination plants in the future to do exactly that. James was wrong, thus God was wrong. Another incorrect piece of science that proves David's "infallible Bible" very fallible indeed.
Second, "Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs?" Need I remind David, or anyone for that matter, that this is a trivial matter for genetic engineering to accomplish. The only reason it has never been done, is, "what would be the point?" Indeed, there is no need to do the gene splicing necessary to make a fig tree produce olives, so why bother. But since it requires no new technology, just the genome maps of figs and olives, to accomplish, this one is wrong as well. Science CAN do it, there is just no reason TO do it! But just like we've made zebra fish that glow, engineered plants that produce their own pesticides, bacteria that eat oil, etc., and etc.; we could make a grape vine prodice figs. Science proves the bible wrong, and if it is wrong, then it is fallible.
I could go on. I mean Jesus' own claim about mustard seeds is well known. Then there are his faith-based claims; that believers could defy medical science, and drink poison is one of these. Care to test test the infallibility of the bible David, and drink a bottle of Drano? (No, please don't try this, death is pretty final.)
So, now we have come full circle David. We have seen that not only is the bible interpreted (what are waterless clouds?), but that it is not testable for infallibility (because those tests fail), that it doesn't measure up to scientific testability at all (since science can test a hypothesis -- can fresh water come from salt water), but that it fails miserably when faced with the facts of the world.
I guess the last refuge would be for a more "liberal" view of the Bible, that is pulling away from its infallibility, and take it to be what most Christians take it for; a "get to know your god through storytelling and analogy book."
jeff-perado · 14 March 2005
I forgot to add my really snarky bit,
RE: Jude 1:12. ....Or maybe God was referring to the clouds on Venus or Titan....
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 14 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 14 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 14 March 2005
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank · 14 March 2005
Marek14 · 14 March 2005
If I understand logic a bit, it's not possible to argue the truthfulness of any book based on the book alone - unless you want to be caught in a tautology "The book is true because it says it". Kinda as the sentence "This sentence is true," can be true or false - it can't be decided.
To determine the Bible as infallible and true, it seems one needs some other source. I think that for the fundamentalists, it's usually their own mind. They replace the simple tautology with a more complex one, "I believe the Bible to be true, and what I think is right, because it's in agreement with the Bible."
Do I understand this right?
Bill Ware · 14 March 2005
Buridan · 14 March 2005
Hey folks, could you help me out here? I'm looking for the Panda's Thumb website - it's a website devoted to issues surrounding evolution and creationism and run by people in the sciences.
I see that "The Panda's Thumb" is in the title but you're obviously a theology website judging by the content. It's really odd. I swear this was the correct URL.
David Heddle · 14 March 2005
steve · 14 March 2005
The Panda's Thumb? I've heard of that place. Unstructured free-for-all overwhelmed by trolls and troll-feeders. Why would you want to go there?
steve · 14 March 2005
Buridan · 14 March 2005
Indeed!
Emanuele Oriano · 14 March 2005
Grey Wolf · 14 March 2005
Ron Zeno · 14 March 2005
As much as I hate troll-feeding, or letting trolls divert discussions in any way, I do think it useful to understand and explore the differences between science and religions, since most who are pro-IDC (Intelligent Design Creationism) don't understand those differences, and a few very influential pro-IDC people are using that ignorance as part of their main strategy for promoting their agenda.
Science is based upon standards of evidence, logic, assessment, and ethics. Religions as a whole are not, though some individual, specific religions may have some standards, especially of ethics and logic.
The pro-IDC arguments are based on putting their religious viewpoints (which are based on little or no discernable standards of any kind, certainly not logic nor ethics, let alone evidence or assessment) on equal standing with other religions ("We're all Christians." "We all believe in the Bible.") and even science itself ("Darwinism is a religion." "IDC is science."). Once people accept those deceptions, the pro-IDC argument continues with asking for equal treatment.
David Heddle · 14 March 2005
Gary Hurd · 14 March 2005
OK, maybe I asked for it, maybe I didn't.
It doesn't really matter to me.
I am pulling the plug on this one.
Say ByeBye.