Report #2 on Questions to Calvert

Can somebody help me? WTF is a "non-theistic religion?" Isn't that like "promiscuous celibacy?"

Both the Theravada Buddhists and the Jains are religious without worshiping a deity. It's also possible to believe there is in fact a god and yet not be religious. Religion is best understood sociologically and not in terms of its doctrines. Which is why, by the way, a normal scientific attitude is not a religion. It pertains to a different kind of institution than a religion.

My definition of religion is a stubborn belief in something based on blind faith, which contrary data will not affect. No god or other theistic entity is necessary. Of course, this might not meet Calvert's definition, but I suspect his definition is flexible, depending on the circumstances. That's the problem with arguing with Christians - mere facts will never convince them that they could be wrong, because they're operating on blind faith, and the Bible tells them that blind faith is the way to salvation.

I think I understand why Calvert takes this position. Many Christians (but not all by any means) prefer to avoid difficult questions about their faith. It's understandable because probing beneath the surface can be very uncomfortable.

For example...

Many liberal and moderate Christians believe that God does not intevene in the natural world very often. They believe that miracles are very rare at best - e.g. miraculous healings, being miraculously saved from the jaws of death, etc. But many of these same people believe that God speaks to them and guides them through their lives on a daily basis, often in response to prayer. But how is he supposed to do this? Our minds, our brains are natural constructs that, on the face of it, have no supernatural link or connection. Certainly neuroscience hasn't found one and doesn't assume it exists, and yet somehow this supernatural entity frequently "whispers in our ear". If that is true then some form of miraculous brain manipulation - be it altering brain chemistry or simple firing of neurons - must be going on all the time. So millions, even billions of miraculous interventions are happening every day in our natural world.

That leads to all sorts of other questions about why God is happy to do "tiny" miracles but is reluctant to do bigger ones? There may be a quantative difference, but is there a qualititive one?

(I understand that some Christians would argue that they are merely inspired by events in the Bible and not through some form of communication from God, but I think most would find that an unsatisfying justification of their faith.)

Calvert believes that nature cannot be disentangled from the supernatural because to think otherwise cuts God off from our natural world, making things like faith and prayer pointless and ineffective. The only was to press this point home to the "wayward" theistic evolutionists is to argue for a bigger role for God in the natural world, but he appears to be afraid to approach this from either a scientific or theological direction. I think he realizes that his attempt to bridge the gap between his own faith and the generally accepted nature of science opens up too many tough theological and scientific questions he has no rational answers for.

Secular humanism, atheism, agnosticism, etc. are not religions at all. There can be nontheistic religions--like Buddhism--but a religion implies the adherence to some sort of faith-based dogma. Religious people like to call atheism a religion just to make themselves feel that their beliefs are equal. Nope.

Given this definition of religion, I think that science is definitely anti-religion. Science is the antithesis of that which is faith-based. However, the existence of God and science is not inherently atheistic, because if at some point science pointed to the existence of God (how would it do this, I don't know) we would acknowledge it. Science looks for the most reasonable explanations, and God is not a reasonable explanation for anything that we know of.

So, I do think that religious people--of any degree--cannot maintain their beliefs while acknowledging the supremacy of science. (And scientific reasoning is supreme.)

Error, second paragraph: I meant to say "The existence of God and the supremacy of science is not inherently antithetical."

It is hard to define religion, but it need not involve either a deity or a literal belief based on faith. Mr. Harrison may be closest to the truth saying it has to be understood sociologically or, as I might say, culturally. If anyone is interested, see my Free Inquiry essay, "How to find meaning in religion without believing in God," http://www.mines.edu/~mmyoung/FIarticle.htm, or my IRAS conference presentation, "How to be religious without believing in God - and why," http://www.mines.edu/~mmyoung/IRASconf.pdf. The secular humanists took issue with the first paper, but the Reform Jews and Unitarians at the conference seemed to enjoy the second.

So millions, even billions of miraculous interventions are happening every day in our natural world. That leads to all sorts of other questions about why God is happy to do "tiny" miracles but is reluctant to do bigger ones? There may be a quantative difference, but is there a qualititive one?

— Mike Walker

One sign of whether or not a particular point of view is religious is whether its adherents conduct rituals such as weddings or funerals. So far as I know, biologists haven't developed an Office of the Dead yet. Note, however, that the Soviets did develop liturgies. Their version of atheism really did have a religious dimension.

It is hard to define religion.

Note, however, that the Soviets did develop liturgies. Their version of atheism really did have a religious dimension.

— Jim Harrison

Well, if he wants science to "contain" supernatural causes, seems like (imo) all he'd have to do is find a way of producing repeatable verifiable observations of some of those causes. Or does "supernatural" just mean anything that's either unrepeatable or unverifiable?

Henry

I have been thinking that a personal God conjured by the evangelical Christians - one who wants to be involved with humans in a personal way - is likely to be more interested in the humans who are capable of thinking in rational or scientific ways. After all, the creator is more likely to be delighted in seeing problem solving and discovering than in predictable mouthing of "praise." Another analogy: those of us who are parents enjoy when our children are discovering the world around them. Who needs a child who is constantly asking us for things and telling us how great we are? I imagine that the God that Calvert worships gets a little weary of the narrow-minded creature that Calvert represents.

The notion of the supernatural is always going to be problematic. If it suddently turned out that God was a real being with an effective role in nature, faith, at least in its evangelical form, would be in crisis because the pathos of such religion requires belief in something which is false or at least exceedingly unlikely. The believer is like the cuckolded husband whose expressions of trust in his wife become all the more virtuous the more obvious his spouse's infidelities. Meanwhile, it's hard to imagine Aristotle belting out gospel tunes and falling to his knees to adore the Prime Mover precisely because he actually thought there was a Prime Mover. No need to worry yourself into anemia about it.

Parallel Case: The Amazing Randi made a standing offer of a substantial prize to anybody who could demonstrate supernatural abilities such as ESP or telekinesis. A guy showed up who claimed he could identify the music on vinyl LPs by feeling the grooves with his fingers; and, sure enough, he demonstrated that he could indeed pull the feat off. Which impressed exactly nobody because the whole glammor of supernatural abilities lies in dubiousness. By the way, as I recall, the man who could read the music from the records didn't feel entitled to the prize because he knew he hadn't done anything magical.

That leads to all sorts of other questions about why God is happy to do "tiny" miracles but is reluctant to do bigger ones? There may be a quantative difference, but is there a qualititive one?

— Mike Walker

Jeremy,

What does the God that you believe in actually do? If you give credence to the scientific explanation of things then the only thing God could have effected would have been the initial creation of whatever bundle of cosmic stuff that existed prior to the Big Bang (which I don't think has a substantial scientific theory explaining it yet. Of course, I'm sure that we one day will find one).

Even the most ardent atheist must say that God MAY exist, 'cause there's no proof otherwise, but why make the jump to have faith that there is one?

We are all naturalists. Fundamentalists like Calvert have been taught not to admit that. But have you ever watched Calvert very closely for a month or two, 24 hours a day?

Unsurprisingly, he behaves a lot like I do except he tells more lies -- and he lies because he understands the principle of cause and effect and he has seen the success such a strategy has had in energizing his less rhetorically skilled followers and encouraging those followers to open up their mouths to recite scripts, and open up their wallets to donate money.

Maybe when Calvert demonstrates his abilities to levitate or communicate with dead people like Fox News expert John Edward, I'll think about joining Calvert's religion with its strange anti-gay anti-science propoganda at its core.

One of my personal objections to ID is that it implies that God must frequently intervene to redirect or "fix" a flawed creation. In contrast, I prefer Howard van Till's idea of a perfectly sufficient creation in which the Universe has been invested by God with all it needs to flourish and evolve.

I thought the administration of PT was a little wacky, but suspending the Bathroom Wall just takes the cake.

Van Till’s conception, like Kenneth Miller’s, is a variant of intelligent-design creationism. Instead of intervening an indeterminate number of times after the supposed creation, this god has front-loaded his or her (or its) universe with everything needed to make the universe come out “right.” How?

He does it by "moving the goalposts" - just as the creationists are inclined to do so often. The difference between Van Till and your average YEC creationist is that Van Till wisely goes straight to the farthest point on the other end of the playing field, namely, the beginning of freakin' time itself - the greatest no man's land of them all. The ID creationists are forever tripping over their own goalposts, but Van Till cleverly removes all the intermediate goalposts and goes straight to the Big Daddy of them all, where nobody can touch it, and where nobody can see him sticking his tongue out at the people who like to see some solid facts, "nya nya nya, you can't get me now!"

He does it by "moving the goalposts" ....

There are millions and millions of people who from a religious point of view do not buy your argument that science is antithetical to theism. I would hope that you would respond to that.

OT, but anyone who wants to get into fantasy baseball, I've set up the Darwin League. Yahoo fantasy baseball. fantasysports.yahoo.com

ID# is 273292

Password is darwin

"Scientific truths are not up for popular vote!"

True. But the ability to broadcast these views -whether in biology classes or Imax movies - can be, along with funding, etc.

What does the God that you believe in actually do?

— Jay Davies

Even the most ardent atheist must say that God MAY exist, 'cause there's no proof otherwise, but why make the jump to have faith that there is one?

Why attack the "God made science" concept? There's no way to really touch it - it's entirely outside of science and logical thinking in general - and it's not dogmatically anti-science. I personally have no particular, pressing reason to believe it's true, but why smack it down?

The question of how different metaphysical systems see the realtionship between the metaphysical and the physical is quite appropriate here at PT, although other aspects of theology may not be. I encourage people who are interested to visit Jeremy's website, and hope he is not discouraged from posting here.

By the way, Buridan's remarks are excessive - he could have made his points in a less inflammatory way. If he retirns to this thread, I hope he considers this.

John Calvert probably does not believe "science is antithetical to theism." And it is not important whether Calvert believes "science is antithetical to theism." I don't like approaching issues through definitions like "science." People use words in different ways. And I don't care if someone classifies "intelligent design" or creationism as "science" or "non-science."

We should teach critical thinking skills and inductive logic. Is that "science?" I don't care. But whether we call it "science" or "non-science," we should teach it.

But I'm not clear what the proponents of "intelligent design" want taught in the public schools. Do they want it taught that a deity turned inert matter (or "nothingness") -- poof -- directly into two human beings? That shouldn't be taught. Whether we call it "science" or "non-science," it shoudn't be taught. Why not? Because it didn't happen. The first organism that we would identify as human was born in the same way I was born.

Some believe that they have been abducted by aliens. But we shouldn't teach in the public schools that some people have been abducted by aliens. Because it didn't happen.

We shouldn't teach kids that the universe may be about 6,000 years old, because it's not. We shouldn't teach kids that some people lived to be 969 years old, because they didn't.

However, we should teach that a self-replicating molecule evolved into all the multicellular organisms to live on earth. It did happen. And it is important and fascinating. Teaching it helps people understand some of the proximate causes of the existence of animals and of humans. Teaching it also advances understanding of the universe and promotes scientific progress. The latter can result in life-saving cures for disease.

Moreover, public schools should not teach the so-called "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. That would be like teaching the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of continental drift or of atomic theory and would give students the idea that common descent is questionable or reasonably doubted, which it is not. It would be like teaching students the strengths and weaknesses of the idea that Lincoln was shot.

It would be fine for teachers to teach that we have a lot to learn about the series of events that caused the first self-replicating molecules on earth. Nevertheless, whether we all evolved from single-celled microorganisms is not an issue.

I've yet to see someone who refers to him or herself as a "proponent of intelligent design" present a clear hypothesis on which event(s) the designer caused. The closest thing I have seen to such a hypothesis is something like the following: In the last 3.8 billion years, a deity or extraterrestrial discretely intervened and caused one or more events that caused some organisms on planet earth to live and/or reproduce, but we have no idea which event(s) the deity or extraterrestrial caused and I'm not going to speculate.

Perhaps I don't know for certain that the above claim is false. The claim may be too vague for me to know for certain that it is false. However, there are some events that clearly did not occur. For instance, a deity did not turn inert matter -- poof! -- directly into the first two humans (one male and one female). The first organism that we would identify as "human" was born in the same way that I was born. The same goes for the first T-rex, the first elephant, the first aardvark, the first ferret, the first pig, etc.

Moreover, I'm justified in believing that the claim as a whole is false, though I don't want to get into that right now.

But the claim shouldn't be taught in public schools. First, it is so vague. Second, it might give students the impression that common descent didn't happen, which it did. Third, I'm justified in believing that the claim as a whole is false.

I am sympathetic with the intelligent design people on one issue. They want their claims assessed in terms of whether the events they referred to actually occurred. I'm willing to do that. I'm not going to dismiss their claims as "non-science." I would something like the following: "No, you are mistaken. The universe is not about 6,000 years old." Or: "No, a deity did not turn dust directly into the first elephant. The first organism that we would identify as an elephant was born."

Some of the events they suggest occurred did not occur. But I'm not going to dismiss their claims as "non-science." But I might say, "Well, that didn't happen. Or at least I am overwhelmingly justified in believing that it didn't happen."

i'm, probably going to get whacked for this, but I spent over 30 years fencing with my father over the theory of evolution. After about five of those years, I let it go and just let him spout off why it couldn't have possibly happened because the bible literally says everything happened in 7 days, etc. at nauseum. By the time he was at the end of his life, until he became demented because of the cancer, he would bring it up and I would just repeat, "We don't need to be discussing this."

You can't argue with stupid/overly faithful people who will not see that there is evidence that evolution happens. The evidence is in the geological and paleontological records, plus the DNA evidence is blatant. Otherwise, is what everyone who studies such things just pulling it out of their ass? (ground, whatever, it's almost all very physical evidence that sensible people cannot refute exists.)

One of my favorite high school teachers spoke of the theories of Father Teilhard de Chardin (spelling may be off). That a divine spark was the mover of evolution. But it happened in the due time that it took.

I really don't care what motivated evolution, I just know it happened because the f-ing PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of fossils DNA, etc. says it happend. Science is not religion, religion is not science.

and once again, I say you can't argue intelligently with people that believe something on faith because some butthead preacher told them to believe and ignore the physcial evidence. it's a fallacious argument because you are arguing from two different starting points.

I posted:

"We shouldn't teach kids that the universe may be about 6,000 years old, because it's not. We shouldn't teach kids that some people lived to be 969 years old, because they didn't."

Someone might ask: "Do you know for certain that the universe is not about 6,000 years old and that no person lived to be 969 years old?" If I don't, I am least really really justified in believing it.

I posted: "John Calvert probably does not believe 'science is antithetical to theism.'"

Why is the issue of whether "science is antithetical to theism" important? Why is it something we should focus on? What does it even mean? It's so vague. Is the answer to that question important to what whould be taught in the public schools? I don't think so. But I can't say more about that now.

But I know that a lot of people who are devoutly religious who realize that evolution happened. Including the Pope. But so what?

Evolution happened. Whether that jibes with your religious beliefs or not should not matter in terms of whether it is taught in the public schools. Because evolution did happen. And it's important.

Maybe the claim that the universe is more than 10,000 years old is at odds with your religious beliefs. Well, we should still teach in the public schools that the universe is more than 10,000 years old. It is more than 10,000 years old. And understanding the age of the universe is important.

Van Till's conception, like Kenneth Miller's, is a variant of intelligent-design creationism.

— Matt Young

The difference between Van Till and your average YEC creationist is that Van Till wisely goes straight to the farthest point on the other end of the playing field, namely, the beginning of freakin' time itself - the greatest no man's land of them all.

— 386sx

Two points. The reason all this is important is because Calvert and others are trying to get their ideas inserted into the Kansas science standards. This is not simply a matter of what someone believes, it is a matter of a political attempt to insert a particular religious perspective disguised as "science" into the public education system.

Secondly, my understanding of TE is not that God's influence is moved to the very beginning - some version of deistic front-loading. Rather it is that God is creatively present at all moments, but this presence is manifested through what we perceive as natural processes. The key idea (and I don't mean to be flippant here) is that we are not God, so it is fruitless (spiritually arrogant, in fact) to think that we can understand how his presence is manifested. We are embedded in time, necessarily seeing cause-and-effect relationships that include elements of unpredictability (chance, contingency, etc.). God, however, is conceived to be omnipotent, omniscient, and perhaps most importantly, omnipresent. God "sees" the world as a whole, throughout all of time. What ever we see as we flow through time is not what God sees. Trying to explain how he interacts with the world is pointless.

This is ID's fatal theological flaw in the eyes of many Christians. ID reduces God to a tinkering mechanic, manipulating the otherwise independent physical world on occasional times to help nature do what it can't do by itself, and then stepping back out of the picture. ID is a theology of "punctuated deism."

Methinks phrases like "the first organism we would identify as (whatever)" are misleading. It'd be an arbitrary decision which generation was just barely that type but its parent generation just barely not that type; that "first" one and its parent would both be right on the borderline of qualifying as the named type, as would several generations on either side of them.

Henry

But I'm not clear what the proponents of "intelligent design" want taught in the public schools.

Well, if he wants science to "contain" supernatural causes, seems like (imo) all he'd have to do is find a way of producing repeatable verifiable observations of some of those causes. Or does "supernatural" just mean anything that's either unrepeatable or unverifiable?

Interestingly enough, Bill Harris, the second main ID guy in Kansas, did exactly such a study. Do a google search on William Harris, prayer study and you can read about it.

I’ve heard vague rumors that such an experiment took place, but nothing definite. Anybody know any details?

Many theologians say that, even if you believe in the power of intercessory prayer, such a trial is doomed to failure because it "puts God to the test" - and there are clear instructions in the Bible not to do this.

Air Bear: see also http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html

Jack, inflammatory?! Here on PT?! We tolerate the trolling of people like DaveScot et al and I'm excessive? I probably shouldn't have used the two expletives but they're relatively common around here. I think the more common imputation of "lying" on this website smacks of excess, but then that's my personal bias. To each his own I guess. If the use of "f***" and "S***" offends your sensibilities, then I offer my apologies.

In any event, I think the premise underlying your statement about millions and millions of people believing science and theism are compatible is a red herring, certainly from a scientific perspective. The threads on PT too often launch into theological tangents even when topics speak to nothing theological. I'm certainly prepared to engage in theological discussions, I have formal training in this area, but it would be nice to have a place where evolution and its discontents (science and religion if you like) can be discussed without getting into theological hair splitting. Having a discussion about religion in whatever context is not the same as having a theological discussion -- judging from content, most people on this site seem to miss this basic distinction -- they're completely different animals. There are many sites that discuss theology in the context of science but I was under the impression that PT did not bill itself as one of those sites. If I'm mistaken please let me know.

"Scientific truths are not up for popular vote!" True. But the ability to broadcast these views -whether in biology classes or Imax movies - can be, along with funding, etc.

— Dan S.

Intelligent design is not necessarily supernatural. If intelligence evolved naturally, as Darwinists insist, then intelligent design can also be a natural process.

QED

You can't have your cake and eat it too, boys and girls.

A scientific experiment on the healing power of prayer would be an excellent test. Of course, it would have to be set up very carefully: seriously-ill patients who could either be cured or not (unless we want to make it really hard, with terminally-ill patients), varying "dosages" of prayer, a control group, and especially the assurance that the ill patients do not know they are being prayed for. I've heard vague rumors that such an experiment took place, but nothing definite. Anybody know any details?

Intelligent design is not necessarily supernatural. If intelligence evolved naturally, as Darwinists insist, then intelligent design can also be a natural process. QED

The threads on PT too often launch into theological tangents even when topics speak to nothing theological. . . . it would be nice to have a place where evolution and its discontents (science and religion if you like) can be discussed without getting into theological hair splitting. . . . There are many sites that discuss theology in the context of science but I was under the impression that PT did not bill itself as one of those sites. If I'm mistaken please let me know.

Intelligent design is not necessarily supernatural. If intelligence evolved naturally, as Darwinists insist, then intelligent design can also be a natural process.

"Intelligent design is not necessarily supernatural."

By definition, no; in practice, yes. The intelligent designer invoked by the Discovery Institute and it's fellows is nothing if not God.

Jon Davies: Science looks for the most reasonable explanations, and God is not a reasonable explanation for anything that we know of.

continues: So, I do think that religious people---of any degree---cannot maintain their beliefs while acknowledging the supremacy of science. (And scientific reasoning is supreme.)

Jon Davies [#21988]: What does the God that you believe in actually do?

continued: but why make the jump to have faith that there is one?

Fair enough Jack. It was a moment of frustration on my part regarding a more general trend here on PT and not necessarily directed toward you. Please accept my apologies.

This is an excellent post, in my opinion, not because I necessarily agree (or disagree) about the particular religious beliefs you describe, but because of the way you differentiate science from religion, with an emphasis on choice, in a way that doesn't set scientific belief against religous belief.

Long ago, when I was an anthropology student, I wrote a paper where I made a distinction that has stayed with me for many years: scientific belief is confirmed and religious belief is affirmed. We make choices about how to live and how to see the world that go beyond anything that can be empirically confirmed. The existential dilemma is that we have to make such choices - not choosing is not a choice. Therefore, we must do our best to choose beliefs that we can live with - a circular task (as you note), because we also have to choose what we can live with.

This is the real topic we (as a society and a world) should be discussing, in my opinion, ID is a terribly time-wasting effort which not only distracts us from real science, it more importantly distracts us from discussing genuine issues about how we should live. Setting religion against science harms both.

Furthermore, it won't do any good to address them by just dismissing all religious/theological belief as silly superstition. This is a political campaign, and if science is pitted against God, science will lose.

Jon Fleming -- thanks for the Columbia "study"

If this is how the mainstream media report on the healing power of prayer:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293237/

then science education has a real uphill battle.

Jon Fleming -- thanks for the Columbia "study"

If this is how the mainstream media report on the healing power of prayer:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293237/

then science education has a real uphill battle.

I wish Stan Gosnell could find another term to use instead of lumping biblical literalists and fundementalists together with those of us who are far more reasonable as "Christians"

Re: 22112.

Well, within the confines of being Christians, we have the same problem that evolutionary biologists have. Should we spend all of our time countering the voices of those who misrepresent us and our positions, or do we just get on with our work because the alternative ceases to be interesting, productive, or even noticed? Moderates in Christianity in America suffer the same problems as Moderates in politics (I'm one of them, too) -- its hard to even seem to have any voice at all when all that surrounds you is loud extremism in all directions.

I say what I can, when I can (I am here, aren't I?) when the moment is right, when (as my faith puts it) I am called to speak. However, I can't be the voice of reason against Christian extremism 24/7. I have a job, a family, and like others on here more directly addressing the biological issues, I eventually tire of repeating the same arguments to every new (Moore's Law 18 months) generation of the misinformed.

Not every moderate or mainstream Christian *wants* to get involved. To do so, without some discipline and awareness of what one is getting into, could lead to anger and hate and such things are to be avoided if possible. There are times to be angry and to express that anger (Christ was not exactly whistling dixie when he overturned the money lenders' tables), but without discipline and some experience at rhetoric and maintaining objectivity, it can grow into hate speech as bad as that coming from the religious-right. As a Christian, I would not wish such a fate on any. I know many who don't like the way things are, but can not express it without an anger that eats at them and destroys them from within or an immaturity that leaves them looking even more the fools. I accept that they, and we, are better off ignoring it as best they can.

I share the concerns of Joe Shelby and "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank. Other than their beliefs regarding deity, theists and non-theists can have many common interests. Atheists (such as myself) need to recognize that, in situations such as the creation/evolution debate, we need all the allies we can get. Divisive, derogatory comments about theism in general (as opposed to particular brands of theism) only make the battle against the formidable enemy we face more difficult. I hope Joe and Lenny will repeat their comments whenever they see anyone cross the line. PT is NOT the place to debate theism/atheism.

The National Center for Science Education presents a very good model for the way theists and atheists can work together for common goals. For example, see the May-Aug. 2004 issue of the "Reports of the National Center for Science Education" (unfortuantely not available online, if you don't have it, you should join and order a copy) which is almost entirely devoted to discussing science-religion issues. It includes reviews of a number of books by Christains explaining how they are able to reconcile evolution with their faith.

And of course the contributors to PT includes both theists and atheists.

The reason all this is important is because Calvert and others are trying to get their ideas inserted into the Kansas science standards. This is not simply a matter of what someone believes, it is a matter of a political attempt to insert a particular religious perspective disguised as "science" into the public education system.

re Joe Shelby in 22073

This is a wise description of the place and role of science and religion in human life. Contrary to what some people here may believe, science is not supreme in human life; art, religion, social relations, technology, and other aspects of human existence have their own sets of knowledge, meaning, and use. But within the realm of science, the rules of science apply, whatever anyone thinks. These rules include observation, conclusions based on observation, and operational naturalism. Whatever one may feel or believe about God's actions in the world, a scientist must deal only with observable, repeatable, "natural" or "natural-like" effects. If such effects were to include the healing power of intercessory prayer, well so be it, though such effects have not been reliably observed.

The big problem these days, the big threat to science, is that some religiously-motivated people are trying to force religious ideas into the scientific realm, specifically in the areas of the origins and develoment of living things. They have chosen to get their foot in the door at the point of biology classes in public schools, because non-scientists have influence over public education in the form of school boards.

If pro-evolution posters at PT are strident, it is partly because there are so many intellectually dishonest attacks on evolutionary science these days. The distortions, misrepresentations, and intellectual dishonesty of the critics of evolution are outrageous and offensive at a gut level to anyone who loves science. And there are some pro-evolution people who are strident and rude beause, well, they're just strident and rude. But such people are everywhere; check out any bulletin board for examples of at least a few such people. My own neighborhood forum his GWWs and JASs. And scientific atheists have as much right to their beliefs as anyone else, even if most people don't agree.

As long as the attacks on evolution and science in general from DI and others continue at this level, those who love science will need to continue to fight back. Persistence pays off, and repetitiveness is its tool. Just look at any special-interest magazine over the period of a year or so, and you'll start to find the same articles over and over again.

Longhorn's points are very good. The assumption that scientists ought to be concerned about the religious sensibilities of those who may have trouble with evolution in particular or science in general, and then to suggest they do their best to convince them that science is compatible with religion, is a bit much. I don't see that happening any time soon.

Negative comments toward religion here on PT are almost always, if not always, directed toward the extreme fringes of Christianity because that's where the anti-evolution movement is located. To suggest that such comments impugn religious beliefs more generally simply misconstrues the context of those remarks. I will not pull any punches when it comes to these religious nuts, a description that is rather mild in my book.

They certainly have no qualms with attacking me on all sorts of levels. I'm now receiving emails from these people with viruses attached. It's a rather silly form of expressing their opposition but I take it as a badge on honor. It does, however, demonstrate the measures they'll employ in their fascist attempts to have their way. So, if you deem that my or anyone else's remarks toward these nutcases in some way reflects negatively on religious belief as a whole, then there's not much I can or will do to temper that impression.

Quite frankly, I don't have any obligation to worry about anyone's religious beliefs, left, right, center or wherever they fall along the religious continuum. That's their business not mine. That may not be the best strategic approach to this public debacle given the present mood in this country, but I will not be backed into a corner and forced to play nice with these people because it's the Christian thing to do or because conservatives reign supreme in the land. I'll choose my ethic and my level of civility of my own accord and if that doesn't sit well with folks -- too bad.

This is a political campaign, and if science is pitted against God, science will lose.

— Jack Krebs

If the time comes when science is censored or restricted due to what science claims, then begins the road of replacing scientific rationality with superstition, occultism, and religious zealotry. The religious right in this country are attempting to build that road and they've been marginally successful in small pockets. The solution is not to sway public opinion so this road never gets built, but to keep possibility of those conditions from ever arising. There are very good reasons for maintaining academic freedom in this country.

— Buridan

"The big problem these days, the big threat to science, is that some religiously-motivated people are trying to force religious ideas into the scientific realm, specifically in the areas of the origins and develoment of living things."

Science is a big and complex endeavor, so it's easy to over-generalize, but I'm not sure that religious fundamentalism is the biggest threat to science. It is a threat, to be sure, but it's not nearly as serious (at least in this country) as people make it out to be. I think the bigger threats facing science are internal: it's arrogance and insularity. I see too much of the "we're scientists, let us do what we want with your (taxpayer) money, and leave us alone" attitude, combined with what seems to be an ever-widening knowledge gap. As science gets more complex, the gap between the understanding of scientists and the general public gets larger. This means that it's harder for scientists to explain what they are doing, so they don't try as hard to explain & teach, which causes their rhetorical skills to diminish, which widens the knowledge gap. Like I said, it's easy to overgeneralize, but I see these trendlines as possibly heading for a nasty collision at some point.

Obviously, PT is dedicated to closing this gap, but it often seems like a drop in the ocean.

Just having finished reading through this entire thread, I am moved to express a word of thanks to those participating and moderating. With only a couple of minor hiccups of smoldering rhetoric, this is perhaps the most reasonable discussion of the relevence of the religious issue that I have read on a site of this type. Thanks all!

This is a political campaign, and if science is pitted against God, science will lose.

— Jack Krebs

By forcing them to choose (when in reality there is no such choice that must be made), we can only push them into the IDer's camp and out of ours.

But as long as those of you 'who are far more reasonable' allow the fundamentalists and literalists to be the only voice heard, how can I know you even exist? Until you speak out against those idiots you have no choice but to be lumped together with them, if you call yourself a Christian. They are the only voice being heard, and it's your fault. (You in the plural figurative sense)

this, of course, is utter crap because there are many, many of us scientist/Christians who have done battle with YECs. You must be wearing blinders.

GWW,

You might start with Hugh Ross's site. Hovind has called him a heretic for his old-earth cosmological ID beliefs, and Ross has debated him on national tv. (Hovind and most PTers are united in their opposition to Hugh Ross.)

Joe Shelby wrote: The bible in no way EVER stated that Blind Faith is the way into salvation

Jeff,

If I understand you correctly, you are offering these passages as evidence that the bible calls Christians to ignore science and live on blind faith. If that is not your point, then I apologize for not understanding you.

None of these passages even remotely support such a view. "Worldly" knowledge warned against are false doctrines such as gnosticism or antinomianism, or worldly wisdom that advises denial of God or of multiple ways to salvation. In other words, it is not science but false religions that are warned against.

If you want details, passage by passage, I suggest we move to the Bathroom wall when it reopens.

Contrary to "blind" faith, you are to love the Lord with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind. (Mark 12:30)

"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Dover, PA pastor and parent Ray Mummert -- source

Negative comments toward religion here on PT are almost always, if not always, directed toward the extreme fringes of Christianity because that's where the anti-evolution movement is located. To suggest that such comments impugn religious beliefs more generally simply misconstrues the context of those remarks.

— I

Negative comments toward religion here on PT are almost always, if not always, directed toward the extreme fringes of Christianity because that's where the anti-evolution movement is located. To suggest that such comments impugn religious beliefs more generally simply misconstrues the context of those remarks.

— I

If you want details, passage by passage, I suggest we move to the Bathroom wall when it reopens.

That doesn't sound like you're turning away from godless chatter.

You might start with Hugh Ross's site. Hovind has called him a heretic for his old-earth cosmological ID beliefs, and Ross has debated him on national tv. (Hovind and most PTers are united in their opposition to Hugh Ross.)

Heddle wrote: None of these passages even remotely support such a view. "Worldly" knowledge warned against are false doctrines such as [...]

By the way, Heddle...

I will not let the science fallacies of the bible rest, until you acknowledge them, so prepare yourself for more on how the bible says that genetic engineering is impossible, and how clouds are made of water vapor, and how it is possible to make fresh water out of salt water.

I will not let this rest until you admit that the bible is fatally flawed when it comes to simple science realities.

You can ignore all you want, but that doesn't make the falsehoods of the bible go away.

(Seen any falling stars lately?? I guess it is a good thing that gravity is a myth just like evolution, since the gravity of a falling star would shred this planet to molecules)

and how clouds are made of water vapor, and how it is possible to make fresh water out of salt water

This is best exemplified in James 3:12, where this infallible voice of God states that there are no such thing as desalination plants, and that it is impossible to make fresh water out of salt water.

⁹With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God's likeness. ¹⁰Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be. ¹¹Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? ¹²My brothers, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water. (James 3:9-12)

It simply isn't true and it's not my job to worry about your overly sensitive religiosity. Most reasonable people of faith are not threatened by such characterizations because they don't see any connection between themselves and the religious right. I'm sorry you feel otherwise.

You may think that science ought to mollify the fears of such fringe elements by coddling their paranoid worldview but I don't. If you think that such indulgences will bring about a meeting of the minds, you really don't understand the religious right. Suggesting that we play nice with these religious nuts because to do otherwise will damage scientific credibility or our image is ridiculous.

Negative comments toward religion here on PT are almost always, if not always, directed toward the extreme fringes of Christianity because that's where the anti-evolution movement is located. To suggest that such comments impugn religious beliefs more generally simply misconstrues the context of those remarks.

If the scientific community deems your (pl.) silly beliefs as irrelevant, stupid, primitive, irrational, or whatever, that's your problem not ours. Go pontificate your superstitions to someone who gives a shit. In the mean time, you religious nuts are wasting our time.

Why do you think that because this country has a sizable population of religious believers, that science must be mindful of this fact when they conduct their business? Some would construe this as a veiled threat -- "you better pay attention to us religious believers because we're a sizable and powerful lot, and if you don't take our concerns seriously we'll take your funding away or pass legislation that forces you take us seriously . . . " This is the same old nonsense that has underwritten the religious right's power base for years and now that they have their political messiah in the White House, they're going to use this club for as long as they can. Well, I'm tired of it and I'm tired of conservatives telling liberals to play nice while they play dirty.

I don't believe that bad science and ID creationism apologetics are fundamental aspects of evangelical Christianity but the absence of a website like the one I'm imagining sort of suggests that I'm wrong.

— GWW

Um, "thanks." That site is like one of your comments on roids.

I think a good case can be made that the Bible assumes that the Earth is flat (Jesus taken to the High Mountain, God dwelling above the circle of the Earth etc). But the criticism of James 3 is stretching things. At face value I think it is true that fresh and salt water cannot flow from the same spring - how could they (at least not simultaenously)? To read it as if James were saying that fresh water cannot be made from salt water is well over the top.

Like Caesar's wife those of us who are interested in making the case for evolution and against ID must be above reproach. That's because ID-ers in general will take any real or imagined instance of avoiding the question, waffling, etc. and use (or abuse) it to launch an accusation of outright dishonesty.

Mike,

We do disagree on tactics. But you're still suggesting that because the religious right are a religious (Christian) subset and because the majority of Americans are religious (Christian), we need to be sensitive to these fringe elements because the way we address them will spill over into the mainstream. That is, despite disagreements from within the broader fold, Christians (whatever the persuasion) more readily identify themselves from within this fold than not. Hence, scientists (or anyone outside the fold) "attacking" the religious right is interpreted differently from so-called "domestic disputes" among Christians. In fact, you go so far as to hint at the problematic nature of distinguishing between the religious right and other believers.

I think you're mistaken on this score. It assumes a level of unity among "believers" that just isn't there. Mainstream believers (traditionally identified as mainline denominations) are far more distressed about the rise of the religious right than non-believers, and many would be deeply offended at the suggestion of such a commonality. Nevertheless, this it seems to me is beside the point.

What you're essentially suggesting is that the debate be framed in religious terms because that's where the opposition lies; that we should engage these folks because we've been asked to do so by them; that for the "public health" of the scientific enterprise we better approach these fanatics with kid gloves, otherwise we'll get stomped; and that because religion is a dominant feature of this society, science needs to be concerned about these sensibilities and not ignore them. Of course, this is the same sort of special pleading that conservatives have successfully used over and over again, and for some reason liberals are still mesmerized by this fallacy.

Your whole strategic focus is to keep the issues within a religious framework. That's exactly where the anti-evolutionists want this battle to be fought. It would put science at a distinct disadvantage from the very beginning to the very end. It would be a no-win scenario no matter how you slice it.

Religion has always enjoyed a free ride in this country and that free ride continues unabated today, in fact more so -- we're not labeled the most religious country in the world for nothing. Science is not interested in religion qua religion and should not be. Consequently, we should not get into discussions or debates that are predicated on religious beliefs. It leads nowhere because there's nowhere for it to go within science. This is where the public appeals ought to be directed, and not in some forced and disingenuous attempt to collapse science and religion into a happy partnership.

Finally, I'm baffled as to why you think all of this is gratuitous ignoring of religion. Why isn't this charge made against structural engineers or accountants? Should structural engineers consider the merits of religion when designing bridges for instance? Oh well, I guess its just a matter of time before poets, musicians, literary critics, artists, et al start demanding that science pay attention to them or that particular scientific theories are hostile to such endeavors. You're creating straw men.

Mike,

We do disagree on tactics. But you're still suggesting that because the religious right are a religious (Christian) subset and because the majority of Americans are religious (Christian), we need to be sensitive to these fringe elements because the way we address them will spill over into the mainstream. That is, despite disagreements from within the broader fold, Christians (whatever the persuasion) more readily identify themselves from within this fold than not. Hence, scientists (or anyone outside the fold) "attacking" the religious right is interpreted differently from so-called "domestic disputes" among Christians. In fact, you go so far as to hint at the problematic nature of distinguishing between the religious right and other believers.

I think you're mistaken on this score. It assumes a level of unity among "believers" that just isn't there. Mainstream believers (traditionally identified as mainline denominations) are far more distressed about the rise of the religious right than non-believers, and many would be deeply offended at the suggestion of such a commonality. Nevertheless, this it seems to me is beside the point.

What you're essentially suggesting is that the debate be framed in religious terms because that's where the opposition lies; that we should engage these folks because we've been asked to do so by them; that for the "public health" of the scientific enterprise we better approach these fanatics with kid gloves, otherwise we'll get stomped; and that because religion is a dominant feature of this society, science needs to be concerned about these sensibilities and not ignore them. Of course, this is the same sort of special pleading that conservatives have successfully used over and over again, and for some reason liberals are still mesmerized by this fallacy.

Your whole strategic focus is to keep the issues within a religious framework. That's exactly where the anti-evolutionists want this battle to be fought. It would put science at a distinct disadvantage from the very beginning to the very end. It would be a no-win scenario no matter how you slice it.

Religion has always enjoyed a free ride in this country and that free ride continues unabated today, in fact more so -- we're not labeled the most religious country in the world for nothing. Science is not interested in religion qua religion and should not be. Consequently, we should not get into discussions or debates that are predicated on religious beliefs. It leads nowhere because there's nowhere for it to go within science. This is where the public appeals ought to be directed, and not in some forced and disingenuous attempt to collapse science and religion into a happy partnership.

Finally, I'm baffled as to why you think all of this is gratuitous ignoring of religion. Why isn't this charge made against structural engineers or accountants? Should structural engineers consider the merits of religion when designing bridges for instance? Oh well, I guess its just a matter of time before poets, musicians, literary critics, artists, et al start demanding that science pay attention to them or that particular scientific theories are hostile to such endeavors. You're creating straw men.

A (my) Church Speaks:

The Episcopal Church of the United States has published a Catechism on Creation which carefully draws the line between science and theology, including giving the history of when the church rejected certain dogmas such as young-earth creationism. Typical with theistic evolution, it tries to make clear the separation between the Truths of science and the Truths of theogology and how the two are not in conflict.

Little of it will be surprising to those who've followed this debate for a while, but its well-written and has only a couple of factual errors (more like simplifications that can be or might have been misinterpreted).

The "further reading" section does list the talk.origins archive and quite a few good references. It has a separate section on ID and YEC, indicating its separation from the scientific view, and even includes a few (IMHO not nearly enough) of the works critical of the ID movement.

I think you're mistaken on this score. It assumes a level of unity among "believers" that just isn't there. Mainstream believers (traditionally identified as mainline denominations) are far more distressed about the rise of the religious right than non-believers, and many would be deeply offended at the suggestion of such a commonality. Nevertheless, this it seems to me is beside the point.

— Buridan

What you're essentially suggesting is that the debate be framed in religious terms because that's where the opposition lies; that we should engage these folks because we've been asked to do so by them; that for the "public health" of the scientific enterprise we better approach these fanatics with kid gloves, otherwise we'll get stomped; and that because religion is a dominant feature of this society, science needs to be concerned about these sensibilities and not ignore them.

Of course, this is the same sort of special pleading that conservatives have successfully used over and over again, and for some reason liberals are still mesmerized by this fallacy.

Your whole strategic focus is to keep the issues within a religious framework. That's exactly where the anti-evolutionists want this battle to be fought. It would put science at a distinct disadvantage from the very beginning to the very end. It would be a no-win scenario no matter how you slice it.

Finally, I'm baffled as to why you think all of this is gratuitous ignoring of religion. Why isn't this charge made against structural engineers or accountants? Should structural engineers consider the merits of religion when designing bridges for instance? Oh well, I guess its just a matter of time before poets, musicians, literary critics, artists, et al start demanding that science pay attention to them or that particular scientific theories are hostile to such endeavors. You're creating straw men.

Heddle:

Wow! I am impressed, both you and I agree to a large extent about many passages of the bible being metaphorical. I like that particular one (just like I like to use Jude 1:12) because it can be read as either methaphorical, by more "sophisticated" readers, or literal, by more devout readers.

This is true even to the point that there are even Christians who believe that the character and life of Jesus was entirely metaphorical, like was Noah and Adam and Eve. Christianity runs along a very broad spectrum; there are King James Only-ists who believe ever letter of the English KJV is literally true, and there are the AiG types of Christians who believe a total literal interpretation and will go so far as to "make up" "science" to support their claim (ala radioactive decay is not constant). I was raised Catholic, and was taught that much of the bible is, in fact, metaphorical; so I know all-too-well what your position entails. It means that any part that is "uncomfortable" becomes an imperfect metaphor, while the rest remains infallible. (The problem being, is that means the "Truth" of the bible is nothing more than a moving goalpost.)

Finally I have two comments to your post:
1) It is true that the bible can be quoted, and that quote is used completely out of context. Christians do that all the time. It is, in fact, non-Christians who do their best to take quote in context. Whether or not James 3:12 was taken out of context by me, regardless it is a false metaphor, and thus a poor choice of words by God's voice (in James).

Metaphors are, I agree, mostly imprecise, and I will also agree that they can imply an unintended meaning that is counter to its intended point. I will further agree that they have limited use in getting a specific point across but beyond that are useless.

2) For the record, I did not come up with that particular example, and I know very well that it has been used and rebutted many times over the last two millennia.

But you see, dear David, it was a mataphor describing the flawed nature of "science" in the bible. Obviously any bad science in the bible is nothing but a metaphor when presented to Christian believers.

*That* was my "gotcha"..... Interpret the bible however you want, everyone else does too!

Jeff,

I don't understand it when you say "Whether or not James 3:12 was taken out of context by me, regardless it is a false metaphor, and thus a poor choice of words by God's voice (in James)."

How is it a false metaphor? The desalination thing is absurd because James wasn't saying that you couldn't produce pure water from salt water. If this is the point you're making then I'd say it's a gross distortion. If it isn't your point then could you elaborate? How can a spring simulaneousy produce salt and fresh water?

Also, technically desalinated water isn't fresh water. It's purified water.

Obviously any bad science in the bible is nothing but a metaphor when presented to Christian believers.

It is always easy to fall back on "you can interpret the bible however you like."

I'll go out on a limb. The "Rev Dr. Lenny Flank" never agrees with me. But I am willing to be that even he will agree with me this time, that the statement in James, especially when viewed in context, is a metaphor, not a scientific claim and as such has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the bible is compatible with science. It is not a statement which virtually anyone (except you, it would seem) would take so literally as to interpret it as a technical denial of the feasibility of desalination.

OK, with that dizzying exegesis I'll concede that I lost the bet that Rev agrees with me in this one instance. It was a fool's wager, to be sure.

Although he might agree with me. I'm not sure if he agrees with nobody or with everybody.

But you're still suggesting that because the religious right are a religious (Christian) subset and because the majority of Americans are religious (Christian), we need to be sensitive to these fringe elements because the way we address them will spill over into the mainstream. That is, despite disagreements from within the broader fold, Christians (whatever the persuasion) more readily identify themselves from within this fold than not. Hence, scientists (or anyone outside the fold) "attacking" the religious right is interpreted differently from so-called "domestic disputes" among Christians. In fact, you go so far as to hint at the problematic nature of distinguishing between the religious right and other believers. I think you're mistaken on this score. It assumes a level of unity among "believers" that just isn't there. Mainstream believers (traditionally identified as mainline denominations) are far more distressed about the rise of the religious right than non-believers, and many would be deeply offended at the suggestion of such a commonality. Nevertheless, this it seems to me is beside the point. What you're essentially suggesting is that the debate be framed in religious terms because that's where the opposition lies; that we should engage these folks because we've been asked to do so by them; that for the "public health" of the scientific enterprise we better approach these fanatics with kid gloves, otherwise we'll get stomped; and that because religion is a dominant feature of this society, science needs to be concerned about these sensibilities and not ignore them. Of course, this is the same sort of special pleading that conservatives have successfully used over and over again, and for some reason liberals are still mesmerized by this fallacy.

Mike,

On your first point: mainline protestant declines actually plateaued during the 90's and the precipitous rise among conservative protestants is no longer gaining at the rates it did in the 80's. Much of this depends on how you slice the ecclesiastical pie, but according to conventional measures, we're beginning to see some stabilization. Nevertheless, in terms of absolute numbers, mainline protestants still constitute the clear majority.

Second point: clearly religion is part of the mix, we wouldn't be talking about it if it wasn't, but acknowledging that does not at all suggest that the debate therefore needs to be framed with due consideration for the concerns of the religious right. It's a religious issue for them and it's not for us. Not only is it unnecessary for us to give any ground on this point, it's crucial that we don't because this is exactly the point of dispute. Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with religion. The religious right has constructed this as a religious issue and that's exactly what we're arguing against. There is no false dichotomy here. Science didn't define the parameters of this conflict. We didn't pick this fight! So any dichotomy, false or otherwise, is not our doing.

Third point: again, I'll repeat what I said before. We're told we need to play nice while the other side is given carte blanche politically. It just isn't going happen and it's kind of silly to ask us to do so. We'll construct our playbook you construct yours (pl.).

Forth point: exactly! It isn't about science at all! But it will be science that loses if they succeed. Science is being held hostage by a group of people who see it as their mission to transform the whole of society into a theocracy -- science is just one leg of a broader culture war that the religious right believes is divinely mandated. We didn't ask for this.

Fifth point: do you really realize what you're saying here? Insofar as a religious group can muster the political clout to demand that they have a legitimate standing (no pun intended) in the engineering of bridges, e.g., designing bridges via biblical instructions, then yes they ought to be taken seriously. You can't be serious. Moreover, you simply cannot remove the process of designing bridges from this analogy (as you have) because the religious right are asking that evolutionary biology change its science to fit its religious worldview.

Last point: conduct on this site has no direct demonstrable impact on what the general public thinks about this issue. Nearly everyone hear (I would guess 95% conservatively) has already made up their mind on this issue and will not be persuaded otherwise -- it happens but extremely rare. To say that my conduct or anyone else's conduct on this site will reflect poorly on science among the general public is not true and you know that.

Once again, context is important here. PT is a place to blow off steam, to have lively debates, to discuss current issues in evolution and creationism, and to try to look smart and marvel in one's own cleverness. I have fun doing all the above and that's why I participate -- to have fun, be informed, and learn something. This discussion has actually been one of the more fun ones for me. Thanks.

Probably part of our disagreement comes from the fact that I'm politically and theologically conservative, so a) I don't see my position as "special pleading", and b) I don't feel threatened by the religious right, since, in most cases apart from evolution, I'm part of it. But apart from that, I still think my advice has strategic merit if I try to look at things from your perspective. But perhaps I'm not correctly perceiving your perspective, or perhaps my views are clouding my judgement.

One other thing. The postmodernist critique of science is a load of crap.

1. Evolution isn't real science. 2. Evolution is incompatible with religious belief. 3. It's only fair to teach both sides.

Rev, I think you're mixing up posts. You're quoting me and my comments were addressed to Mike S. No problem. It seems that there are 4 or 5 different conversations going on at the same time.

Heddle wrote: I think what you are saying is that "anything" can be taken as a metaphor. I think that is an unfair criticism, though an easy one to make. It is always easy to fall back on "you can interpret the bible however you like."

DavidF wrote: How is it a false metaphor? The desalination thing is absurd because James wasn't saying that you couldn't produce pure water from salt water. If this is the point you're making then I'd say it's a gross distortion. If it isn't your point then could you elaborate? How can a spring simulaneousy produce salt and fresh water? Also, technically desalinated water isn't fresh water. It's purified water

Back to DH: What you need is an explicit statement against science or an observation that is in violation of science where no miracle is implied or called for, and no reasonable metaphor is being employed.

Rev, I think you're mixing up posts. You're quoting me and my comments were addressed to Mike S. No problem. It seems that there are 4 or 5 different conversations going on at the same time.

(I'll not dispute the varying translations of this passage, some say both salt water and fresh water cannot come from the same spring, and some say that fresh water cannot come from fresh water-its that silly interpretation thing; what did God actually say, and what did he actually mean???)

DavidF wrote: I've just checked 18 different translations online and they all say from the "same spring", "same opening," "same hole" or similar. Have a look online. None carry the meaning that fresh water cannot be extracted from salt water. Can you provide an example otherwise? The vast preponderance (100%) as far as I can see) seem to be in favor of James being correct

Jeff,

Interesting. First, you raise this precise issue to make a point. Once it's challenged then the question suddenly becomes "sophomoric" and "irrelevant." Perhaps you should have chosen your examples more carefully. As it is, resorting to insults to make your point hardly advances your case.

As I stated, a preponderance, which means the vast majority, of examples that I have found - and also which you have now reported - speak of water coming from an orifice which makes a natural analogy with the mouth. If a single orifice can simultaneously produce brine and fresh water then do enlighten us. Granted it's not 100% as you have found a lone exception in the NASV which does not refer directly to an orifice. Maybe there are others too. However, the Interlinear versions I've found also use the word fountain/spring (or similar) explicitly as here:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1112196194-4878.html#12

But, with all documents that have been translated over thousands of years there is bound to be some uncertainty. To go for the jugular on Bible inerrancy and scientific accuracy on what is, at best, a minor point of translation is foolhardy. Especially when any idiot can see well enough what James was alluding to. Have you never come across teachers who use such analogies? I'd yell at a student who was doing a titration using tap water instead of distilled water, perhaps even saying, "you can't get distilled water out of the tap." If you were one of my students I'm sure I'd be regaled with your cry that "H2O is H2O, my friend!!!!!" By the way, I do congratulate you on knowing the chemical formula for water and very much admire your helpful mnemonical mantra, viz., H2O is H2O!!!! I'll work at trying to remember that. But you seem to be ignoring the fact that water contains some D2O as well. Are we to conclude that you are scientifically ingnorant since, while H2O is H2O (!!!!) water is not usually exclusively H2O.

I also find it remarkable that you are so literal that you cannot recognize a distinction between everyday usage and precise scientific usage. Perhaps you would have been happier if James had added a footnote to the congregation pointing out that in the 20th century desalination plants, reverse osmosis, deionization etc. would detract from the analogy he was making.

He believes in the Bible, and he has the bravery to defend his belief. In this, he proudly stands almost alone. He knows that the salvation of the world depends upon a belief in his creed. He knows that what are called "the sciences" are of no importance in the other world. He clearly sees that it is better to live and die ignorant here, if you can wear a crown of glory hereafter. He knows it is useless to be perfectly familiar with all the sciences in this world, and then in the next "lift up your eyes, being in torment." He knows, too, that God will not punish any man for denying a fact in science. A man can deny the rundity of the earth, the attraction of gravitation, the form of the earth's orbit, or the nebular hypothesis, with perfect impunity. He is not bound to be correct upon any philosophical subject. He is at liberty to deny and ridicule the rule of three, conic sections, and even the multiplication table. God permits every human being to be mistaken upon every subject but one. No man can lose his soul by denying physical facts. Jehovah does not take the slightest pride in his geology, or in his astronomy, or in mathematics, or in any school of philosophy -- he is jealous only of his reputation as the author of the Bible. You may deny everything else in the universe except that book.

Fifth point: do you really realize what you're saying here? Insofar as a religious group can muster the political clout to demand that they have a legitimate standing (no pun intended) in the engineering of bridges, e.g., designing bridges via biblical instructions, then yes they ought to be taken seriously. You can't be serious.

— Buridan

Last point: conduct on this site has no direct demonstrable impact on what the general public thinks about this issue. Nearly everyone hear (I would guess 95% conservatively) has already made up their mind on this issue and will not be persuaded otherwise -- it happens but extremely rare. To say that my conduct or anyone else's conduct on this site will reflect poorly on science among the general public is not true and you know that.

This discussion has actually been one of the more fun ones for me. Thanks.

I simply point out that politically I am to the left of Che Guevara (WAY to the left)...

—

Like I said, I've had several people tell me they were turned off by the rabid anti-creationist or anti-religious rhetoric they've seen on sites like PT.

A policy of appeasement will never bring us peace because the Creationists are more upset by tut-tutting condescention than active hostility. Most of us are not village atheist types who think it is a priority to denounce Christianity. We've simply noticed that traditional religion is irrelevant to understanding nature. Since our indifference arouses more anger than any overt opposition, it hardly helps to keep repeating the mantra about the compatibility of religion and evolution. Religion is compatible with evolution in the same sense that Hopi rain dances are compatible with meterology.

I thought the administration of PT was a little wacky, but suspending the Bathroom Wall just takes the cake.

— Steve

I simply point out that politically I am to the left of Che Guevara (WAY to the left) . . . You need a better example of a leftist - Guevara was just a thug, and a not particularly intelligent one. At least Castro has the advantage of being a somewhat intelligent thug.

DavidF wrote: As it is, resorting to insults to make your point hardly advances your case