Note to meteorologists: You're next

The Bible and all real evidence confirms that this is precisely what He did, and indeed: The Earth is not rotating...nor is it going around the sun. The universe is not one ten trillionth the size we are told. Today's cosmology fulfills an anti-Bible religious plan disguised as "science". The whole scheme from Copernicanism to Big Bangism is a factless lie. Those lies have planted the Truth-killing virus of evolutionism in every aspect of man's "knowledge" about the Universe, the Earth, and Himself. (from http://www.fixedearth.com/ )

I hate to say it Nick, but:

"Now, imagine how silly it would seem if Phillip Johnson had said this:"

the fact that you have to point out that it seems sillier to say one over the other kinda defeats the point in a way, yes?

while it is absolutely correct to say (emphasis added):

"What Heddle doesn't provide, and couldn't provide under questioning, was any reason why evolution and meteorology are logically any different with respect to the theism/atheism question. The best he did was bluster "it's obvious."

the question then becomes:

Why does it "seem" silly to swap meteorology for evolutionary biology to begin with, since logically they are no different?

ID's whole support structure is not based on logic, but rather "what seems apparent".

"What ID advocates have to explain is why evolution is different from meteorology with respect to theology. "

but as you saw with Heddle, this won't happen. They won't ever compare things from a logical standpoint, but rather filter it through their perception.

I wonder about the value of pointing out that ID/creationists are illogical. That never ends up being something that affects folks decisions about religion/science issues, unless they typically have some science background themselves.

Can you see what i am getting at?

Now before anyone starts criticising Nick, or saying that ID does not believe in inserting religion in every science, let's hear from William Dembski:

"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory."¹

What ID advocates have to explain is why evolution is different from meteorology with respect to theology.

What Heddle doesn't provide, and couldn't provide under questioning, was any reason why evolution and meteorology are logically any different with respect to the theism/atheism question. The best he did was bluster "it's obvious."

No valid argument moves from Darwinism or evolution to atheism, or from theism to creationism. Johnson's comment - "...then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy" - is absurd. God could have chosen to create through a fully naturalistic, Darwinian process.

That said, it is not an either/or game here. The belief that, e.g., a divine being directed evolution does not commit one to the belief that angels push the planets around or that Poseiden's wrath makes for bad sailing. One could consistently maintain that natural causes and miracles are operative.

Not to mention all those hard working angels flying around and keeping our feet firmly planted on the ground, and the planets in orbit around the sun.

After all, it's no less plausible than our current theories about gravity, no?

"Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory."

So maybe Dave Heddle can explain to us how ID is going to put christ in, hmm...Plate Tectonics? oh, wait, how about Maxwell's Laws?

I think you forgot the most stunning example of biblical meteorology:

"[12] And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
[13] I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
[14] And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
[15] And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
[16] And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
[17] And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."

Here you have an incredibly direct and unambiguous statement -- not an interpretation -- from the mouth of Yahweh himself, saying in no uncertain terms that he is causally responsible for a meteorological phenomenon, and even going a step further by explicitly telling us *why* he did it.

In my high school physics class, we actually spent an entire unit learning about refraction by studying the physics of rainbows. I literally have yet to meet a single creationist who could explain to me why simple refraction is less of a theological problem than evolution, or why unweaving the rainbow by showing how different wavelengths of light behave differently in prisms "impermissibly imports naturalistic metaphysical assumptions".

And let's not pretend that the fact of evolution leaves it no less likely that there is a god. Now that we know there's not the least spot of work for a god to do, let's declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition.

And let's not pretend that the fact of meteorology leaves it no less likely that there is a god. Now that we know there's not the least spot of work for a god to do, weather-wise, let's declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition.

yikes, hedley, the quotes you put in "support" of your argument, er, aren't.

"Sir-toejam, I not only pointed out (in several comments) on the other thread that it was obvious that evolution/meteorology were different with respect to the atheism question, I gave the reason: evolution, dealing with basic questions of life, is more likely to arouse tension with one's theism."

you make my point for me more eloquently that i did in my response to nick.

you don't get that there is, in fact, no logical difference between evolution/meterology. Nick's post above demonstrates this quite nicely.

However, it is VERY clear that you are literally unable to grasp this.

THAT is the point I was trying to make. It makes no difference to folks like yourself that there is no logic to your argument. In your mind, it makes perfect sense.

Thanks for demonstrating that more clearly than i could describe it.

I hope Nick sees now why i thought that addressing the appearance of "silliness" is more important than addressing the logic behind the argument.

Then there's the rainbow. If you want to hear some really creative additions to Genesis, ask a young-Earther how there could be no rainbows for a couple thousand years, until after the Flood. You may get some truly bizarre planetary climate models, involving such things as water soaking up through the ground to keep plants alive (let's see--if there is so much water underground that it soaks UP to the surface, isn't that what we call a bog? Some paradise!), or a "vapor canopy" that watered the Earth with a kind of fog, then fell as the Flood rains. If you think conditions on Venus are hellish, try modeling the atmospheric conditions on an Earth with all the gigatons of ocean water added to the atmosphere! If Adam's descendants were protected from such incredible temperatures and pressures (the natural physical result of such super-greenhouse conditions) by some sort of miraculous intervention, then again this is not creation science, just creation magic. (I've heard creationists attribute the mythical long life spans of Old Testament notables to such atmospheric conditions. I invite them to try it for themselves to see if it promotes longevity.) But the purpose of the rainbow is what really puzzles me. God states (and repeats--Noah must have been a slow learner [or chronically drunk?]) that the rainbow signifies a promise by God that He will never flood out the whole Earth again. Most creationists I know are dead certain that God WILL destroy the Earth (and soon!), but just not with water next time (most seem to favor fire, but personally I expect it to be peanut butter [extra chunky]). But wait--if God reserves the right to destroy all mankind, then what's the point of promising not to use water again? We won't be drowned again, but burnt to cinders? Thanks a lot. And yet more rainbow nonsense: God states multiple times that it will be in a cloud, He will "set [His] bow in the cloud." Rainbows aren't formed or seen "in clouds." They appear when the sun shines on raindrops and is refracted back at the proper angle to the viewer. They are often seen against a backdrop of clouds, but they are not in the clouds. As a matter of fact, the rainbow doesn't even exist where it appears to be! It's an optical illusion that's "in" the light reaching viewers at the proper angle from sun and rain. You can fly a plane through the exact spot where a ground viewer reports seeing a rainbow. You won't see anything around you but air and water. You can also make your own rainbows with a garden hose in full sunlight--no clouds required at all. One more: God states unequivocally that the rainbow is to remind Him of the no-Flood clause. If God has such a faulty memory that He needs such cosmic Post-it Notes, we're in BIG trouble.

Well Bob, "Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory." and that would include Optics.

I Just wanted to tell all of you that Jesus (the loving God that created you)loves all of you and He'll always be waiting for you to turn to Him. And when you do you'll be stoked cuz He loves you more then you can possibly imagine. God bless all of you

cosmic post it notes...

*snicker*

I don't know if there are any South Park fans here, but I remember an episode from the first season where cartman talks about rainbows:

KYLE
Hey Stan, did you see that rainbow this morning?

STAN
Yeah, it was huge!

CARTMAN
Eeh, I hate those things.

KYLE
Nobody hates rainbows!

STAN
Yeah, what's there to hate about rainbows?

CARTMAN
Eeh, you know, you'll just be sitting there, minding your own business, and they'll come marching in and crawling up your leg and start biting the inside of your ass, and you'll be all like "Ay! Get out of my ass, you stupid rainbows!"

STAN
Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?

CARTMAN
I'm talking about rainbows. I hate those frigging things.

KYLE
Rainbows are those little arches of color that show up during a rainstorm.

CARTMAN
Oh, rainbows! Oh yeah; I like those; those are cool.

STAN
What were you talking about?

CARTMAN
Huh? Oh, nothing. Forget it.

d000d you've been in touch with Yahweh?

Did he also have any messages for me about why he designed all this unsightly body hair, or why he designed my irreducibly complex immune system to protect me from all the irreucibly complex bacteria he designed?

[Y]ou don’t get that there is, in fact, no logical difference between evolution/meteorology. Nick’s post above demonstrates this quite nicely.

So in other words, if the entire universe were created by the Creator, then logically it doesn't make much difference which feature of the universe we're talking about - whether it be life or meteorology, or whatever. (Very well stated, I might add.) The only difference I can think of would be that Mr. Heddle is a "life", but he isn't a "meteorology". Maybe it's all about the Mr. Heddle and the Mr. Johnson. Maybe it's all about the IDer, not the IDee.

Having been on the recieving end of Mr. Heddle's debating "skills" on Orac's blog, I am now waiting for the inevitable rebuttal, wherein he launches into another dense patch of Heddlespeak that states when it is finally deciphered, that we are all failing to understand him, followed by a different wording of his initial argument that states the exact same thing, only in more obscure terms, and in a more patronizing, insulting manner. And then he will tell us that we are using the same tired arguments against him, the ones he keeps getting accused of using, time after time...

in other words, the ID movement, in a nutshell labeled "heddle".

...Then Charlie Wagner will show up and say that such a complex system as the Hydrological Cycle, composed of several interlocked parts, with the function of watering plants, could not have arisen without a Designer, according to Nelson's Flaw.

The belief that, e.g., a divine being directed evolution does not commit one to the belief that angels push the planets around or that Poseiden's wrath makes for bad sailing.

Science does in fact lead to atheism. I became an atheist in collage while studying science. Science is an effort to understand the world/universe by accumulating facts and putting them together into theories that best explain how something works. Unlike religion these theories come and go based on facts. And this is the key: if it can't be repeated or demonstrated it isn't science. All anecdotal evidence is rejected.

To me religion (belief in supernatural beings) is fundamentally incompatible with this way of looking at the world. There's nothing but anecdotal evidence for god and all of that is contradictory. There's no there there. Nothing to hang your hat on but a just because argument.

Just because science led YOU to atheism, doesn't mean that atheism flows naturally from it. Have you read this thread at all?

Just because science led YOU to atheism doesn't mean that atheism flows naturally from it. Did you read any of the many posts on this thread that explain why this is so?

Science does in fact lead to atheism. I became an atheist in collage while studying science.

—

There's nothing but anecdotal evidence for god and all of that is contradictory.

—

Somehow us atheists can't seem to grasp that Heddle's god is a god of *biology*, and not a weather god. Once one realizes that Heddle's is the REAL god, his arguments make perfect sense.

Sorry. I didn't think my first post went through.

Comment #30499 Posted by Harq al-Ada on May 16, 2005 07:47 PM (e) (s) Just because science led YOU to atheism, doesn't mean that atheism flows naturally from it. Have you read this thread at all?

According to a literal reading of the Bible, the evidence that God controls the weather is, if anything, much stronger than the Biblical evidence that God specially created organisms.

During the Taliban's reign in Afghanistan, weather forecasting was forbidden. They believed that predicting the future was sorcery, and smashed meteorological offices in 1996, for intruding on the province of God.

The ban on this critical information contributed to crop failures and a plane crash in '98.

"They were allergic to the word 'prediction,'" Abdul Qadeer [head of the country's weather forecasting agency] said of the Taliban's extreme interpretation of Islam.

"They said God only knows prediction, only God knows these things. We
tried to explain that meteorology is not prediction, that it is forecast based on science. It didn't work."

There's a much longer newspaper article about this, but unfortunately it isn't online anymore. I have my own digital copy, but I don't want to break the copyright.

Evolution certainly doesn't imply atheism, but the fact that nature shows no evidence of a God made atheism more plausible. I doubt if many early 19th Century biologists took Genesis literally, but they expected their researches to support some sort of mind operating in the world. When nothing of the kind turned up, it was one of those "dog that didn't bark" things.

I don't see how a naturalistic view of the world can in any way be reconciled with belief in supernatural beings where no evidence is forthcoming. I just don't how they're compatible.

Science may not say anything specifically about god but it does lay out a methodology for discerning how the world works. It does this by insisting on demonstrable evidence and rejecting anecdotal evidence. So while science can't disprove the existence of supernatural beings it does make them seem pretty unlikely.

Heddle: "There is zero biblical evidence, . . . , that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather"

Heddle tells us there's no biblical evidence that God controls the weather, God only controls the weather at certain times.

HEDDLE! - STOP BEIN' A IDIOT!

Weather forecasting under the Taliban. Google is your friend. :)

RBH

Heddley pooted:

"There is zero biblical evidence, in spite of Nick's assertion and Wesley's biblical quote mining, that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather"

I think i just busted a gasket on that one.

thanks, Heddley, for continuing to prove that you have your own special "logic", that is unique to IDers.

"Weather forecasting under the Taliban. Google is your friend. :)"

LOL. perfect.

biblical quote mining. You could grow a lot of turnips with that.

Behe says that go-oops, I mean, The Designer, merely intervened at certain times to build IC structures. Therefore, the analogy is a good one. Trying to argue otherwise would be like, i don't know, trying to argue that something is unlikely, with zero knowledge about its probability distribution. Oh wait...

Behe says that go-oops, I mean, The Designer, merely intervened at certain times to build IC structures. Therefore, the analogy is a good one. Trying to argue otherwise would be like, i don't know, trying to argue that something is unlikely, with zero knowledge about its probability distribution. Oh wait . . .

There is zero biblical evidence, in spite of Nick's assertion and Wesley's biblical quote mining, that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather. Big difference. Just like there is no biblical evidence that God controls the planets motion, micron by micron, but only a passage (the famous one from Joshua) that suggests God can intervene and control the orbits when he chooses. This is far different from Genesis, which makes the claim that God created life supernaturally.

David Heddle wrote: "There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather."

Strange, David, but I thought you knew your Bible. These quotes don't look like announcements of special interventions to me:

Job 5
8I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause:
9Which doeth great things and unsearchable; marvellous things without number:
10Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields:

Psalm 147
8Who covereth the heaven with clouds, who prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh grass to grow upon the mountains.
9He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry.

Matthew 5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Read them in context. Understand the views of the people writing them. The "eternal truths" being presented in the Bible were the opinions of people who really thought that a god was the source of their weather.

It looks like some people think that God will intervene at certain times - on demand. That's better service than my cable company.

http://www.sptimes.com/News/051900/Citrus/Drought_weary_pray_fo.shtml

I'm having a disconnect here.

I seem to recall that a few weeks or months ago, the wise Prof. Heddle argued that ID did not apply to life, but only to the origin of the Universe as a whole. Does anybody remember this? Is there a good efficient way to go back and check? Or am I wrong about this?

rainbow..cosmic post it note

while denying what goes hand-in-hand, that evolution has a bias toward atheism.

Must I explain everything?

Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they're descended from filthy animals.

Like duh!

Matthew 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

"filthy animals."

who's definition NBI (AKA Dave Scott)?

It's your own definition of animals as something "dirty" that makes it a bad thing to have evolved from them.

just your perspective. Science makes no claim as to whether animals are better or worse; another fallacy of yours.

I'm sure you are the type to describe evolution as "leading to a higher form".

Idiot.

Actually it doesn't matter whether or not God controls the weather or simply intervenes from time to time. If either was true it would make meteorology all but impossible to conduct as science.

Sure, you could probably still assume that most of the time a cold front will arrive at a certain place at a certain time, but what about the big stuff, like hurricanes?

Is it as Pat Robertson once declared? That the power of prayer diverted a hurricane from the shores of his beloved Virgina Beach? Should we install a Neilsen-like monitoring system in people's homes to find out how many people are praying for a storm, hurricane, or tornado bearing down on them to go the other way, so that the meteorologists can factor that into their forcasts?

I suppose one could argue that such miracles are rare--but how do we know? Isn't it time we find out? After all, until we do we may never be able to accurately forecast deadly twisters or hurricanes.

And if the scientists object, let's take it to the public. I'd be willing to bet that, within a few percentages points, as many parents would favor inserting "DI" (divine intervention) into the "atheistic" teaching of meteorology in school science books as favor the introduction of ID into schools.

All joking aside, I suspect that getting ID into schools is just the thin end of Phillip Johnson's "wedge" in more ways than one.

Heddle said that his ID belief is based upon the fine tuning argument. As I recall he indicated that if he could be convinced that fine tuning didn't necessarily require design he'd not argue with RM+NS being responsible for the origin and diversity of life.

I seem to recall that a few weeks or months ago, the wise Prof. Heddle argued that ID did not apply to life, but only to the origin of the Universe as a whole. Does anybody remember this? Is there a good efficient way to go back and check? Or am I wrong about this?

— Air Bear

Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they're descended from filthy animals. Like duh!

Must I explain everything? Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they're descended from filthy animals.

NBI: Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they're descended from filthy animals.

STJ: Science makes no claim as to whether animals are better or worse; another fallacy of yours.

"That's why Phil Johnson objects to evolutionary biology and not metorology --- he has no visceral reaction to materialist weather science. The inconsistency fundamentally irrational."

thanks JRQ; this is the same point i made in my first post to Nick. The question becomes; how to deal with that kind of fundamentally irrational mindset?

toejam - the vast majority of American people understandably believe that monkeys are filthy - ask around if you don't believe me

heck the vast majority of Americans believe the French are filthy - I've smelt a few of them and I must say I have to agree - they think Americans have a bathing fetish and weird aversion to body odor

gee - come to think of it, maybe that explains why old Europe doesn't have any problem believing they're descended from monkeys - they're just following what their nose

LOL!

and please, spare me the technical correction that people aren't descended from monkeys but rather share a common ancestor

The real reason for the ID movement to draw a distinction between evolution and meteorology is that "complexity of life" is their current line in the sand. As Sir_Toejam notes, it's not based on logic.

Meteorology is a battle that the church lost in the distant past. That loss has already been rationalized and the scriptures have been reinterpreted to maintain the illusion of eternal truth. The way David Heddle could ignore the Zechariah 10:1 quote in the original post shows just how well the re-harmonized biblical interpretation has been accepted by those who think they are pulling evidence out of the Bible.

Throughout the twentieth century, most of the church moved their boundaries to make room for nineteenth and early twentieth century science. The battles were drawn out, but more and more evidence favored evolution over creationism. Those with some founding in reality-based thinking reinterpreted biblical creation accounts as poetic descriptions, or metaphors, or spiritual truths. For most, abiogenesis seemed like a good place to draw the next line. The staunch creationists, however, still think they have a hope of reclaiming lost ground. Their main hopes are:
1. camouflage (dressing up like scientists and pretending to do science),
2. propaganda (providing packaged simplistic answers and relying on the fact that when their errors are exposed, most people won't understand the debunking),
3. targeting children.

As elegant as it is, I think the evolution-meteorology argument will have a limited audience. Countering creationist attacks with analogies between meteorology and evolution will only work for people who are smart enough to understand the comparison. For a lot of folks it's telling them that weather (to them obviously natural because even the church agrees) and their own lives (to them obviously miraculous/magical/supernatural) share a common naturalistic explanation. The logic may be impeccable but it doesn't get past their input filters.

Then there are many IDers who are not young earth creationists. In fact, on the physics side, ID is antithetical to young earth creationism

"and please, spare me the technical correction that people aren't descended from monkeys but rather share a common ancestor"

actually, that wasn't what caught my eye about your rather racially bigoted and ignorant post.

why did you bother to post that? to show us what an idiot you are? or to try to claim that the "vast majority" of americans share the same idiotic views as yourself?

I think you would be hard pressed to prove that point, but I'm sure in your mind, everyone thinks just like you do, and those that don't must be just plain wrong, eh?

I notice you didn't deny you were Dave Scott, either. You sure sound a lot like him with every post, each more idiotic than the last.

didn't Dave Scott get banned from here for making comments like the one you just posted?

Sir Toejam -

It's best not to feed the trolls when they open their mouths so wide. Sorry I threw in the first morsel.

But check out not buyin it's website for any hints of DaveScot-ism

Elegant graphics, BTW. Lots of anime, no science or religion or animals except a link to a pet-sitting service and a Unitarian Church(!). No sign of anything to indicate he's anything but a drive-by troll.

Meteorology is a battle that the church lost in the distant past.

— Virge

There is zero biblical evidence, in spite of Nick's assertion and Wesley's biblical quote mining, that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather. Big difference. Just like there is no biblical evidence that God controls the planets motion, micron by micron, but only a passage (the famous one from Joshua) that suggests God can intervene and control the orbits when he chooses. This is far different from Genesis, which makes the claim that God created life supernaturally.

The French are a racial group now?

Guldurn! I always thought French was a nationality.

'Scuse me, toe jelly.

I'll have to plead guilty to being offended by the smell of unwashed human bodies though. Feel free to call me a typical American with a cleanliness fetish if you want. Or even a bigot. Coming from a toejam I consider it a compliment anyhow.

And excuse me for trying to explain to you why Americans single out evolutionary biology to complain about. Feel free to keep blundering about in ignorance wondering why they only pick on evolution.

"Feel free to keep blundering about in ignorance wondering why they only pick on evolution."

gee, thanks for letting us go, NBI. I'm sure we can manage without your wisdom.

toejam - the vast majority of American people understandably believe that monkeys are filthy - ask around if you don't believe me

The real reason for the ID movement to draw a distinction between evolution and meteorology is that "complexity of life" is their current line in the sand. As Sir_Toejam notes, it's not based on logic. Meteorology is a battle that the church lost in the distant past. That loss has already been rationalized and the scriptures have been reinterpreted to maintain the illusion of eternal truth.

"Coming from a toejam I consider it a compliment anyhow."

hey, that's SIR toejam to you.

Is it only me who has the fantasy about a French monkey dressed as a maid?

It's the je ne sais quois combination of naughty-furry-banana that drives me to want to be another species. Yes, I want to punctuate and punctuate and punctuate. Oh, baby!

Do you think that Lucy and her kin tamed fire so they could light up a piece of grapevine after a few hours of Monkey Love? That could be an evolutionary driver.

Meanwhile, me and Bongette have some "survival of the fittest" of our own to discuss.

Bon soir!

Evan Lee writes: "I Just wanted to tell all of you that Jesus (the loving God that created you)loves all of you and He'll always be waiting for you to turn to Him. And when you do you'll be stoked cuz He loves you more then you can possibly imagine. God bless all of you"

And now back to our regularly scheduled program....

NBI writes:

"toejam - the vast majority of American people understandably believe that monkeys are filthy - ask around if you don't believe me

heck the vast majority of Americans believe the French are filthy - I've smelt a few of them and I must say I have to agree - they think Americans have a bathing fetish and weird aversion to body odor

gee - come to think of it, maybe that explains why old Europe doesn't have any problem believing they're descended from monkeys - they're just following what their nose

LOL!

and please, spare me the technical correction that people aren't descended from monkeys but rather share a common ancestor"

Translation: "Don't confuse me with the actual science"

I Just wanted to tell all of you that Jesus (the loving God that created you)loves all of you and He'll always be waiting for you to turn to Him. And when you do you'll be stoked cuz He loves you more then you can possibly imagine. God bless all of you

"But beware. If you let Jesus too far into your life, you may end up like the folks at piney.com. Check out the endless tirades against instrumental music in church (or is it a meta-tirade against the anti-instrumental tirade?). "

or you might decide to take... the exodus:

http://christianexodus.org/

Must I explain everything? Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they're descended from filthy animals. Like duh!

— nbi...or someone...I do wonder who, don´t you?

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all. Ever.

— Rev Dr 30454

...dense patch of Heddlespeak...

— No Personality 30482

Science does in fact lead to atheism. I became an atheist in collage while studying science.

— Brian Andrews 30497

There is zero biblical evidence, in spite of Nick's assertion and Wesley's biblical quote mining, that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather.

This is far different from Genesis, which makes the claim that God created life supernaturally.

However, it is VERY clear that you are literally unable to grasp this.

Why would an omniscient God who supposedly created a clockwork universe with laws fine-tuned for life, feel the need to break his own laws and perform miracles? Guess there were some things he didn't foresee.

There's something to be said about this notion of design by any deity, as I mentioned on another PT thread and can bear repeat here:

"While I concur with the logical undercurrent below squabbles about whether evolution confirms atheism or is not inconsistent with a belief in a deity---that a deity is not proved or disproven with the science of biological evolution, eg. God architecting DNA mutation or not, this would in fact would place any diety's performance level to that capable of a human. ID'ers all---Cordova, Heddle, Dembski---should take note of this. Considering such biological atavisms as the buried eyes of the Mexican Tetra(fish), whale feet, and nearer to home the human tail, any semblance of "design" in these processes of generation bears all the earmarks of trial-and-error algorithmic design, ie. design without foresight. This is science, strident with the theory of evolution, and also has serious implications for traditional religionist who have concepts of a grand "external agent" intimately involved in ongoing changes."

Fantastic topic!

Contrary to what Heddle wants us to believe, I would argue that there is a stronger connection between religion and the weather than between religion and special creation. With all those droughts and floodings causing famine and mass death, there're much at stake pleasing the gods with offerings in order to assure crop growth and to keep those pesky flash-floods away. In this light, it seems reasonable to me that the ID/creationist crowd set their sights on the meteorologists as their primary target!

1) Heddle wrote:

"Sir-toejam, I not only pointed out (in several comments) on the other thread that it was obvious that evolution/meteorology were different with respect to the atheism question, I gave the reason: evolution, dealing with basic questions of life, is more likely to arouse tension with one’s theism."

BS, BS, BS.

Evolution may be different from meteorology in historical or social ways, but NOT in a scientific way.

Heddle should be ashamed of making such an IDiotic argument and trying to muddy the waters.

2) Heddle wrote:

"... more likely to arouse tension with one’s theism."

BS, BS, BS.

With Heddle's brand of theism - maybe. But there are many brands of beliefs in the world, some of which have "god(s)" controlling all weather, others have "god" controlling EVERYTHING. Indeed, many Chistians actually support such a view (BTW, cf. Prov. 16:33). So "undirected" meteorology processes are likely to arouse tension with such kind of theism.

Heddle should be ashamed of the narrowness of his thinking.

> heck the vast majority of Americans believe the French are filthy

What? Most Americans are still filthy racists?

Actually it doesn't matter whether or not God controls the weather or simply intervenes from time to time. If either was true it would make meteorology all but impossible to conduct as science.

In other words, what you have established is that, according to the Bible, God intervened in the whole question of life once as opposed to the multiple times She dealt with the weather. Since this clearly according to the Bible makes God responsible solely for abiogenesis, then nothing in the Bible contradicts evolution. In which case, evolution is 'theism-neutral'.

Why, then, are so many evolutionary biologists, Christians.

seem to recall that a few weeks or months ago, the wise Prof. Heddle argued that ID did not apply to life, but only to the origin of the Universe as a whole.

That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Excellent quotes. They exactly refute Prof. Heddle's assertions about the weather.

Then there are many IDers who are not young earth creationists. In fact, on the physics side, ID is antithetical to young earth creationism

A curious statment, indeed, that an intelligently designed universise could not have been created as described in the Bible.

Contrary to what Heddle wants us to believe, I would argue that there is a stronger connection between religion and the weather than between religion and special creation.

David Heddle saith: "That actually puts you on my side of the argument, for you agree with me that the two (meteorology and evolution) do not have to have exactly the same relationship with respect to atheism, as most everyone else is asserting."

(just be patient while I butcher the language)

Nick said Atheisticness(Meteorology) = Atheisticness(Evolution)
David said Atheisticness(Meteorology) < Atheisticness(Evolution)
Sandor said Atheisticness(Meteorology) > Atheisticness(Evolution)

Then in an amazing puff of logic, David claims that Sandor agrees with him!
He agrees with you because... because... because he thinks you're even more wrong than Nick claimed??

I'm staggered. That is a fine analytical mind you have there, David.
/sarcasm

...goes hand-in-hand, that evolution has a bias toward atheism.

— David Heddle 30508

And let's not pretend that the fact of evolution leaves it no less likely that there is a god. Now that we know there's not the least spot of work for a god to do, let's declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition.

"disproving" my claim that "while denying what goes hand-in-hand, that evolution has a bias toward atheism." Why, then, are so many evolutionary biologists, Christians. Sound argument! Exceptions violate the charge of a bias---I forgot that bias implied unanimity.

There's a reason that denial of science because the artificial whimsy of your personal faith is adversely affected is a bad idea. Well actually there are a very large number of reasons.

Here's just one little one that caught my eye this morning on a news trawl:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4551085.stm

On a related, but seperate note:

Heddle,

Answer the &$£^%ing (stands for "blinking") questions and stop mincing about! You have yet to establish why evolutionary biology is biased towards atheism and meteorology is less so. Oh I know you've waved your hands about and talked utter balls (hereafter read "testiculating") and said that because evolutionary biology deals with "life" that it is somehow special and lovely, but that really doesn't account for your claim. It's an appeal to ignorance and/or prejudice, namely your own.

I read your piece of quasi-theological poppycock about primary and secondary causes, nice evasion, IDist evasive dance pattern number 13874 I believe. The goalposts, as ever, simply move one step back........ You are basically arguing the ever retreating case of the eventual deist or the god of the gaps proponent.

So what is the differnce between the follwing:

Your deity set the universe up to have "the correct number of expanding dimensions" (i.e. physical properties) that produce the inverse square law of gravity (to use your first trite example).

and

Your deity set up the universe to have the physical, chemical and ultimately biological properties that would allow the development of "living" systems and their subsequent evolution.

You have to demonstrate why evolutionary biology as science is manifestly different in some way from other branches of science. You haven't done this.

Because n persons can read books on evolutionary biology become atheists (in an illogical manner as has been pointed out above) does not a case make. Interestingly you have been poo-pooing the things that Nick and others have been saying about reading the bible and concluding that god controls the weather. So where is this evolutionary biology bias to atheism? People thought god created the species individually and because we now know he didn't therefore no god? Oh please. People thought god created the weather and because we now know he didn't therefore no god? Oh double please! Again if god set the universe up for weather without further intervention (unless he REALLY felt like it), then why couldn't/didn't he set the universe up for evolution without further intervention (unless he REALLY felt like it)? Also how do you know this, by what means did you get the answer, and why is your answer more correct than, say, that of the Pope?

By the way, you are clearly not arguing a purely deistic/cosmological ID case. You are specifically arguing for an interventionist deity who twiddled/twiddles still with the development of "living" systems, have you any evidence of said twiddling? BTW the Behe/Dembski/etc nonsense has yet to be more than further testiculating and pointing at gaps in current knowledge, when it constitutes evidence let everyone know.

You have to defend the claim that "God set up the universe to do weather" is manifestly different from "God set up the universe to do evolution". If you are conflating abiogenesis and evolutionary biology, bad puppy, back to school.

You also have to defend the claim that "god set up the universe to do weather as a secondary cause means that meteorologists can study it purely naturalistically" is manifestly different from "god set up the universe to do evolution as a secondary cause means that biologists can study it purely naturalistically".

The fact that your problems with evolutionary biology are entirely due to your religious faith are so obvious it borders on the offensive. Stop pretending that you are presenting scientific arguments or that you have a scientific case, because you don't.

You have to defend the claim that "God set up the universe to do weather" is manifestly different from "God set up the universe to do evolution". If you are conflating abiogenesis and evolutionary biology, bad puppy, back to school.

Meteorology is a battle that the church lost in the distant past. That loss has already been rationalized and the scriptures have been reinterpreted to maintain the illusion of eternal truth. The way David Heddle could ignore the Zechariah 10:1 quote in the original post shows just how well the re-harmonized biblical interpretation has been accepted by those who think they are pulling evidence out of the Bible.

— Virge

And all along, biblical scholars have asserted that this was a general statement meaning that God bestows general providential blessings upon the wicked as well as the righteous. Thank you for pointing out that it really is only about rain.

— Heddle

Type 1 diabetes as a survival mechanism?

http://nytimes.com/2005/05/17/health/17diab.html

You comments are as dumb here as they were on Orac's blog. I wouldn't of thunk it possible.

NBI -

There's always some group of people against whom bigotry is sanctioned. It's always immoral to make bigoted generalizations about people based on their ethnicity, nationality, or "race". Those who make viscious comments about "the French" today merely reveal themselves as the moral equivalents of those who made (and make) similar comments about African-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish Americans, Asian-Americans and so on at different times. A bigot is a bigot. Not that you appear to be a Christian, but let me point out, Christianity not only teaches that God loves the French, but that you must love them too, to be a good Christian.

Animals are not "filthy". At any rate, you, I, and everyone who posts on this board is an animal, and a primate, and that's true even if humans were created 6000 years ago, if they were "designed", or if they evolved.

The theory of evolution doesn't "teach children" that humans are descended from earlier species, it teaches EVERYONE - correctly - that the evidence is overwhelming that humans (like all other life) descended from earlier species.

I asked you on another board why you laced your posts with insults, boasts, and immature commentary. I guess you don't need to answer that now.

Heddle -

You haven't just moved the goal posts, you've changed the whole game. It's meaningless now anyway, but...

Not only did you claim that evolution "promotes atheism", you told me I was being "ridiculous" when I corrected you! And that's back there in writing.

Now you shift to the claim, essentially, that "when atheists illogically claim that science supports their philosophical stance, they are more likely to refer to evolution than to meteorology". While this may or may not be true, the obvious question is "so what?".

And the obvious points remain that...
1) The theory of evolution has nothing to do with atheism or religion whatsoever
2) It is inconsistent to suggest that the theory of evolution conflicts with a religious stance, but that meteorology or any other branch of science does not, because the methods that led to the development of modern meteorology WOULD INEVITABLY LEAD to the theory of evolution as well. A religion which is "contradicted" by "evolution" is contradicted by all of science. And, I would add, a person whose faith will crumble if they accept the evidence for evolution has a spiritual problem, not a scientific problem.

MWNP,

I cannot say why some people take some verses literally and others do not.

There probably are many people that take Genesis and most of the verses Nick quoted literally--those that deal with supernatural intervention.

Other "weather" verses they will see as metaphors for God's providence and common grace.

However, nobody takes every verse literally.

Nick and Wesley's argument is that if you take the Genesis account literally (actually, only to the point that God created the species supernaturally) then, by their reckoning, it obviously and logically follows that since Christ claims to be a vine, then your same hermeneutic demands that you believe grapes can be plucked from him.

Heddle, let me see if I can get you to see things from my perspective. Johnson argues that evolution promotes atheism (or is equivalent to atheism) because it uses naturalism. That is, evolutionary biologists rely on natural causation to explain their subject matter. Now we all know that what he really believes is that evolution promotes atheism because it is contrary to his own interpretation of Christian metaphysics. That being the case, the only reasonable response is, "So what?" Most Christians don't adhere to that interpretation, and science is not beholden to religious metaphysics anyway.

But the argument that Johnson advances in public is not that his own religious metaphysics are offended (which, afterall, would fail to impress the Supreme Court), but rather that evolution makes the assumption of naturalism. That is, it contains its own metaphysical system and is therefore biased in terms of metaphysical belief. Now, to see whether or not this argument holds up, all we have to do is to look to other sciences to see if evolution is somehow different in its basic methodology. Turns out that it's not different at all. All natural sciences, including meteorology, medicine, geology, etc. rely on natural causation to explain their respective subject matter. Therefore, if there is something metaphysically biased about using natural causation, then all of science is at fault. Johnson is welcome to argue that science in general needs to be done away with, but this is not what he argues. He limits his complaints about the insidious effects of naturalism to evolution. This is inconsistent.

It doesn't matter for our purposes if Johnson, or atheists for that matter, think that evolution promotes atheism because it is contrary to religious belief in a way that meteorology isn't. If Johnson wants to argue that, he's welcome to do so. But of course that would make his religious agenda rather overt. So he's chosen a different tact. His strategy is not to argue merely that the conclusions of evolutionary science contradict religious belief, but rather that the assumptions are inherently anti-religious to begin with. If he can argue that the assumptions are themselves biased, then he can claim that religion, right or wrong, isn't getting a fair shake. For purposes of both the law and public relations, that's much better than simply saying that he doesn't like what he sees. But the whole point of Nick's post and the ensuing discussion is that the assumptions that Johnson objects to (i.e. that natural causes responsible for natural phenomena) are not unique to evolution. Hence, Johnson's basic argument is either wrong, or he's being inconsistent by not applying it to other sciences like meteorology.

I hope that clears things up.

Congratulations, Mr. Heddle. Instead of answering my question, you dodged it. It's good to see that there are universal constants, even on the internet.

There is zero biblical evidence, in spite of Nick's assertion and Wesley's biblical quote mining, that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather.

Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they're descended from filthy animals. 

— not buyin' it

I hope that clears things up.

Must I explain everything? Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they're descended from filthy animals. Like duh!

— not buyin it

Johnson argues that evolution promotes atheism (or is equivalent to atheism) because it uses naturalism. That is, evolutionary biologists rely on natural causation to explain their subject matter.

NBI: Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they're descended from filthy animals.

STEVE R: Therefore, if there is something metaphysically biased about using natural causation, then all of science is at fault. Johnson is welcome to argue that science in general needs to be done away with, but this is not what he argues. He limits his complaints about the insidious effects of naturalism to evolution. This is inconsistent.

Steve Reuland,

That's an impressively clear exposition, thank you. The scientific method, applied to everything we can observe, leads to innumerable (and tentative) conclusions. Some of those conclusions conflict with the religious convictions of some people.

For Johnson, this causes a bit of a problem. If all of these conclusions were arrived at using the same method, and he strongly agrees with (or is not offended by) *most* of the conclusions, he shouldn't wish to discard the method itself. Yet there is no possible non-religious basis for extracting what he finds religiously unacceptable from what he finds religiously neutral. And he's well aware that if he uses his religious convictions as the measure of what's acceptable, the courts will promptly reject his arguments.

Perhaps for Heddle, the problem is not so acute, because Heddle is free to admit that he's using his religious doctrines to determine which parts of science are acceptable, and which parts conflict with his interpretation of those bits of scripture he considers worth not ignoring. What Heddle struggles with is his entirely understandable certainty that his personal religious needs are somehow objectively, generally valid. To him, the distinctions he draws are stone obvious, even though to most of us they are arbitrary and irrational.

For Johnson, there simply is no honest solution. But Johnson is both a lawyer and a Believer, so honesty isn't relevant. What's relevant to Johnson is what his target audience WISHES to hear.

Westmoreland county in South-West Pennsylvania gets more rain, snow, and higher incidences of wind damage than anywhere else in the immediate area.

Conclusion
Westmoreland County must be chock full of pagans, athiests, and/or materialists and this is Gods vengance!

PS If you believe that then I have very nice bridge, I could sell you.

Virge, in 30551, makes a very good point.

We have the fight with biology because in every other discipline, biblical literalists, save for a few fringe elements, have lost. And lost badly.

Jehovah is no longer the old testament all powerful "big guy in the sky" ready to smite your enemies for you. The Earth is no longer the center of the universe. The world is no longer flat. He doesn't make thunder and lightning. He doesn't make plants grow or animals give birth. He didn't flood the world. He didn't make snakes into sticks. There are rational explantions, repeatedly observed for 9 of the 10 plagues visited on Egypt and the last is, frankly, unbelievable as the record seems to indcate that there were no Jews in ancient Eygpt, nevermind one as a "Prince of Egypt."

Eventually, the creationists fear, the Christian religion will go the way of the Sumerian or Nordic gods. Interesting fables for archeologists discussing irrational primitive belief structures of their less-enlightened ancestors.

What we have now is religion fighting for its life, making a last-ditch attempt to knock one of the underpinnings of science down - evolution. Some moral/tactical victory they desperately need in light of the string of major defeats they've already suffered over time.

For all the controversies over these issues, however, there is a basic philosophical point on which the evolutionary biologists all agree. Some say new mechanisms have to be introduced and others say the old mechanisms are adequate, but nobody with a reputation to lose proposes to invoke a supernatural creator or a mystical "life force" to help out with the difficulties. The theory in question is a theory of naturalistic evolution, which means that it absolutely rules out any miraculous or supernatural intervention at any point. Everything is conclusively presumed to have happened through purely material mechanisms that are in principle accessible to scientific investigation, whether they have yet been discovered or not.

RGD,

Please--just read what you quoted. Do you really think that he, in the midst of discussing evolution, life, etc., --that suddenly he makes a generic declaration against all science?

You are quote-mining.

Heddle

"Johnson is certainly free to think, without violating the rules of logic, that evolution, because of its use of natural means, "undoes" God in the vital area of life itself, and in doing so promotes atheism. And at the same time, he can believe that meteorology, also working through natural processes, does not in any manner usurp God, and hence does not promote atheism."

He's free to think whatever he wants, but this isn't logical. It's inconsistent, faithless, and cowardly.

What you're saying that he's saying is, in essence, THAT SCIENCE SHOULD NOT STUDY LIFE, because if it does, any explanation it produces will "usurp God". Science can study other things, since to you, "usurping God" as a direct magical explanation of the weather is somehow less serious than "usurping God" as a direct magical explanation for physical bodies of living things.

The scientific methods that produce meteorology will INEVITABLY lead to the recognition of evolution, if applied to the study of life. The only way you can try to have one without the other is to try to stop scientists from studying any aspect of life (certainly including all of modern medicine and veterinary medicine). But that would be a fool's paradise, since Johnson would surely know that his shelter from scientific ideas about life would be enforced censorship of what would otherwise inevitably appear. His only CONSISTENT choice is to deny all of science.

Incidentally, if Johnson announced tomorrow that his philosophy compelled him to vote Democrat, would you still support his logic?

It has been my overwhelming experience that scientists and especially those that understand evolution are not predominantly atheists. Many scientists have looked at matter, energy, the birth of the universe and the birth of life and have seen God emerge more clearly than ever before. The fact is that a vast number of scientists thankfully see God and the Old Testament very differently than fundamentalist Christian conservatives do.
Unfortunately though, for most conservative bible-quoters, anyone that questions God's word or searches for an alternative explanation to the bible is atheist. To them, any belief in God that doesn't jive with their reading is on the golden path to Hades. This view flirts dangerously with intolerance to theistic pluralism if you ask me. Do you think evolution is the fundamentalist Christian conservatives' only target? It isn't a far leap from attacking evolution to attacking other religions.
We've already seen blatant bigotry coming from anti-evolutionists; the leap isn't a far one at all.

Incidentally, if Johnson announced tomorrow that his philosophy compelled him to vote Democrat, would you still support his logic?

Comment #30593 Posted by David Heddle on May 17, 2005 04:57 AM (e) (s) Sandor: Contrary to what Heddle wants us to believe, I would argue that there is a stronger connection between religion and the weather than between religion and special creation. That actually puts you on my side of the argument, for you agree with me that the two (meteorology and evolution) do not have to have exactly the same relationship with respect to atheism, as most everyone else is asserting.

"evolution, dealing with basic questions of life, is more likely to arouse tension with one's theism"

And if Virge is correct....

— Flint

What [the believer] struggles with is his entirely understandable certainty that his personal religious needs are somehow objectively, generally valid. To him, the distinctions he draws are stone obvious, even though to most of us they are arbitrary and irrational.

Rilke's Granddaughter -

I just have to point out that the quote from Johnson you give above catches him, unsurprisingly, in the act of building a very dishonest straw man.

"The theory in question is a theory of naturalistic evolution, which means that it absolutely rules out any miraculous or supernatural intervention at any point"

Of course, science does not and cannot 'rule out any miraculous or supernatural intervention', an impossible task for anyone, and doubly so for science, which doesn't presume to study the miraculous or supernatural in the first place. Actually, if this is what Johnson is worried about, he can relax :-). But of course it isn't.

Science provides explanations for natural phenomenae that don't REQUIRE miraculous or supernatural interventions.

Of course, Johnson and Heddle's true goals are some combination of the following -
1) To bolster their own quavering faith by trying to "prove" to themselves that God is "necessary" for physical reality.
2) To bolster their own egos by proving themselves "as smart as scientists"
3) To forcibly compel others to pretend to agree with their stated beliefs
4) To follow the rules of the "conservative movement", ever-fearful that they may find themselves ostracized for independent thought.

Johnson is certainly free to think, without violating the rules of logic, that evolution, because of its use of natural means, "undoes" God in the vital area of life itself, and in doing so promotes atheism. And at the same time, he can believe that meteorology, also working through natural processes, does not in any manner usurp God, and hence does not promote atheism.

— Heddle

Comment #30600 Posted by David Heddle on May 17, 2005 07:01 AM (e) (s) [...] Virge, That's one way to spin it. My way is: David and Sandor: Evolution != Meteorology Nick: Evolution = Meteorology

Heddle,

But again you evade. I'm sure an expert like yourself will realise the difference between providing an answer to a question (i.e. responding to it) and actually answering it.

You are merely repeating the same canard, i.e. that because evolutionary biology deals with the development of "living" things and meteorlogy deals with weather they are principally different in a scientific sense. It's this distinction you haven't shown. This is explicitly stated AGAIN in your comment:

"That's one way to spin it. My way is:

David and Sandor: Evolution != Meteorology
Nick: Evolution = Meteorology"

The inference being that meteorology utilises and is based on a fundamentally different set of scientific principles than evolutionary biology is. Demonstrate that this inference is correct! You are claiming things are different without establishing how and why and on what basis you think they are different.

The fact the meteorology deals with rain and evolutionary biology with bugs (to take two examples) is irrelevant. They are both specific fields of study which utilise the scientific method, the findings of one are attained in the exact same manner as the findings of the other (given standard trvial technical details, i.e. you won't get much direct information about nested hierarchies by looking at how much rain has fallen in Droitwich). The scientific method that underpins particle physics is not in anyway different from that which underpins synthetic organic chemistry, or for that matter evolutionary biology. It is this fact that you are arguing against.

If you are saying something along the lines of "because evolutionary biology deals with living things and the origin of species it is different from meteorology which deals with clouds, and because people care more about living things than clouds they will be more likely to be come atheists because of evolutionary biology" then you are doing nothing more that appealing to prejudice and/or ignorance. Logical fallacy wouldn't you say?

If instead you are saying, as alluded to above, that the fundamental scientific method underpinning evolutionary biology is different from that of meteorology, then, as I said you have to demonstrate that. Note that simply testiculating and saying that evolutionary biology deals with living things, falls into the first "if" catagory I mention above.

As for your comments on self consistency, you have to demonstrate why it is constistent to take one part of the bible literally and one part of the bible metaphorically or allegorically. This is partly what Lenny and chums are referring to. You have to demonstrate why and on what basis we can take the bible literally regarding the origins of life and species etc and then take the bits about the weather as allegory. You also have to demonstrate that your view of the bible is the correct one. I am not (nor in fact is anyone else) the one demanding a hyper-literal interpretation of anything, or indeed that god controls every raindrop (nice strawman btw). You are positing that god is a primary cause of organismal diversity and a secondary cause of weather. We are asking on what basis can you justify that claim.

What I AM demanding is that IF one interprets some passages of the bible literally when they conflict with the observed data (and thus disagrees with the observed data on that biblical basis) THEN why doesn't one also interpret other equally clear passages of the bible literally when these also conflict with the data (and thus agrees that these passages are allegorical or metaphorical passages). It's this perennial dichotomy from which you are running. Why take this passage literally and that one metaphorically when they are both a) clearly referring to natural phenomena, b) clearly contradictory of the scientific data gathered to date, and c) at least equally explicit?

Why do you have to justify this? Because you are disagreeing that the scientific method that underpins evolutionary biology is identical to that of meteorology. You are being asked to demonstrate why and on what basis your are disagreeing, especially as the evidence points the other way.

You are making fundamental claims about the nature of reality, i.e. that the scientific method which underpins meteorology is different from that which underpins evolutionary biology.

So, in summary, you are either:

1) Making the claim that evolutionary biology are different because they deal with different aspects of the natural world, and that since evolutionary biology deals with the development of living things over time it is inherently more likely to upset people's animistic prejudices and ignorance of the natural world and lead them to conclude that various types of theism are wrong and therefore atheism is the only consistent position.

This is a trivial appeal to popular ignorance/prejudice. Basically a whine, so not worth bothering with.

2) Making the claim that the fundamental scientific method is different for different fields of science.

This requires justification which you have not supplied.

3) You are claiming that the specific methodologies of different scientific disciplines differ and therefore they are likely to differ in their degree of conflict with religious worldviews.

This is a special case of 1) above.

In addition to these you have to establish why and on what basis one may read a passage of the bible and claim it to have it's literal meaning and read another equally specific passage and claim it to have a purely allegorical or metaphorical meaning. If others may read the bible and conclude differently from you, why are you right and they wrong or they right and you wrong? You both cannot be right because what you are saying is mutually contradictory, e.g. god could not have individually created each species AND at the same time each species evolved by purely naturalistic means without any input from god. You are making a concrete claim, so defend it in a concrete manner. You say this is literal but that is allegory, show us how you have decided which is which and how it can be done.

To finish, it isn't that I have to step out of any box Heddle, nor about the passionate nature of any disagreement, it's about you being fundamentally inconsistent and dishonest to suit your case. Or at leaat that's the charitable interpretation.

David, you are truly a moron. I am sorry to have to say this.

Is there any creationist who knows what the Bible is about?

The question I asked, Heddle. How does our pointing out an example of our claim that IDers pick and choose their topics by completely different standards then the ones they claim to use invalidate our argument? They have as much biblical support to go after meteorology, which uses the same naturalistic process, as they do to go after evolutionary biology. Further, no one would deny that the gaps in meteorology are much more profound. And yet they don't. Explain this, and explain it in a way that doesn't disprove the IDers' claim that their objections are scientific. If you can't do that, give up.

This is of course operating on the assumption that you are a decent, honest individual, something I'm finding to be a rather epic leap of faith.

What about his certainty makes it 'entirely understandable'?

Why 'needs' instead of 'beliefs'; are there scientfic 'needs'?

Are 'personal' and 'objective' antithetical; isn't your belief that the moon is a celestial body both yours and objective?

'Most of us', I take it, refers to the patrons of PT and not the billions of believers world-wide.

Please define 'rationality' as it is used here.

To bolster their own egos by proving themselves "as smart as scientists"

The question I asked, Heddle. How does our pointing out an example of our claim that IDers pick and choose their topics by completely different standards then the ones they claim to use invalidate our argument? They have as much biblical support to go after meteorology, which uses the same naturalistic process, as they do to go after evolutionary biology. Further, no one would deny that the gaps in meteorology are much more profound. And yet they don't. Explain this, and explain it in a way that doesn't disprove the IDers' claim that their objections are scientific. If you can't do that, give up.

Science provides explanations for natural phenomenae [sic] that don't REQUIRE miraculous or supernatural interventions.

it doesn't take "evolution" to destroy faith. The Bible itself, when fully read and understood from a non-"inconsistencies rationalized away" perspective does a far, far better job.

— Moses

Ahh, Mr. Heddle, that must be surprise for you. Complex sentences that aren't being used to obscure the fact that there isn't an argument behind them.

If, as you claim, you are not arguing ID is a science, then what, praytell, are you arguing? I've watched your claims go hither and yonder, up the stairs and through the back gate, and I have never gotten the foggiest clue what it is exactly that you're arguing for. Whenever anyone tries to pin you down so that there's an actual claim to argue, you declare that they've gotten it wrong, and then offer no clarification.

Now, explain--if you don't think ID is a science, then why do you persist in using scientific terms and scientific arguments to defend it? What is the point? You throw around the term 'science-based philosophy', but you give no definition, no argument that your views should be seen in such a way. If you actually want to discuss things with people in a meaningful way, then tell us what you mean, and stop this endless obsfucating.

RGD, Please---just read what you quoted. Do you really think that he, in the midst of discussing evolution, life, etc., ---that suddenly he makes a generic declaration against all science? You are quote-mining

"Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they're descended from filthy animals."

It occurs to me that children are pretty filthy animals already. Nose-picking, diaper-soiling, dirt-eating, drooling, puking kids. Cleanliness isn't innate to being human; it's part of being an adult. So are a lot of other "noble" qualities that are people display, like politeness and civility. We call these behaviours 'refined' because they have to be learned and practiced; they're not inherent to humans, and you don't suddenly get them one day when Jesus decides to dwell in your heart.

I'm no more ashamed to have had a common ancestor with other animals than I am to have once been a child.

"I am a scientist, but I never had a goal of being as smart as a scientist. I have never found scientists to be demonstrably cleverer than those of other professions."

You may have training in science but that doesn't necessarily make you a scientist. You strike me as one of those who resent that science is sometimes viewed as being on a higher plane than superstition. A science text or the Bible, David; which do you have greater use for?

You may have training in science but that doesn't necessarily make you a scientist.

A science text or the Bible, David; which do you have greater use for?

"Teach the conflicts" was first proposed by Gerald Graff almost 20 years ago; his strategy applied to teaching not just history but all of the humanities. At a time when the humanities were engaged in a protracted battle between traditionalists and postmodernists, Graff offered a way out; he argued that honesty requires teaching about debates among schools of interpretation. Not surprisingly, some traditionalists objected, on the grounds that teaching the conflicts was a subversive way to advance the forces of relativism---and some postmodernists objected on the grounds that traditional approaches to "truth" had been rendered obsolete. Yet teaching the conflicts indisputably makes for great pedagogy because it calls on students to engage in critical thinking themselves.

— Jon Wiener

It turns out to be very difficult to teach multiple perspectives---those of housewives, feminists, slaves, workers, farmers, native Americans, free blacks in the antebellum South, Hispanics, plantation owners---when students don't have a basic grasp of the events and ideas, the scaffolding of American history. If you don't know the central events and players---the central narrative---it is difficult to understand the views and behaviors that diverge from the central narrative. How can you teach "multiple perspectives" when students don't know what happened in the first instance? Nor is it so easy to "teach the conflicts." When we teach the Holocaust, do we give equal time to those who deny that it even happened? When we teach about McCarthyism, do we give equal time to his supporters? When we teach about the Ku Klux Klan, should there be any time for their defenders? Should there be equal time for abolitionists and pro-slavery voices?

Many scientists find their passion for nature in the belief that one Supreme Creator created LAWS that govern, for example, the weather. They, and most theists, regard these secondary forces as examples of God's power and majesty. Yet from what I have read in the Bible, I cannot find one verse, song, poem, or hymn of praise for these natural laws as God's handywork (I'm referring to natualistic forces, not the "I command it" legalisms that litter the Bible.) With all the references to weather, it's obvious that this omission is due to the (inspired?) writers ignorance of said laws. Heddle is not only wrong about the nature of many of the weather references in the Bible, he also seems unaware that those references that are metaphors are indeed about weather, but are often poetic "placeholders" for the authors' ignorance. The Bible may be useful for faith, but it's crippled for naturalistic investigation.

Literalists ignore these problems and abandon literalism when it comes to weather because pure naturalistic methodology has a better chance of saving their lives, their property, and the lives of their loved ones. But talk about Origins, and a strict literalism suits their tender insecurity much better. It's never been about God. It's always been about THEM.

These parallels are more apparent than real.

First, is there a genuine conflict, among specialists in the field, substantial enough so that it would be perverse to pretend otherwise at the high school level? Well, how substantial is enough? If only .0001% (that is, one in ten thousand) specialists hold the "conflicting position" in their own field of practice, is that enough? ID doesn't even reach that level. In other words, there is no conflict here. The conflict creationists are ginning up is between those whose religious beliefs require everything to be filtered through their doctrine, and those who think science *means* science. And this conflict (which IS a real conflict) is not a scientific conflict, and doesn't belong in science class.

Second, even assuming a genuine controversy exists, how much scaffolding is required before the student has enough context to understand its nature? Presumably someone could make a strong case that if the controversy is central enough and opinion is divided evenly enough (among practicing specialists), no presentation of the topic would be possible unless the controversy were included. The controversy in that case IS the scaffolding, or at least an essential part of it.

In fact, this is the whole point of comparative religion classes. Comparative religion can't be usefully studied from the perspective of "here is God's Truth, here is how other faiths wallow in error." But if religious doctrines are taught dispassionately (here's what religion A believes, here's religion B, here's C etc.) then ID would fit right in. Even at the high school level, it might make sense to present some views of the historical genesis of the various doctrines. And in this context, it would make sense to present ID as an outgrowth of "scientific creationism" motivated by the perceived legal constraints of preaching it as science.

Similarly, some hypothetical class on comparative politics might explore the political goals of the KKK, McCarthy, the Holocaust deniers, the slaveholders, etc. These people did and do exist, and their political goals made sense to them. Same with kings and a nobility.

As many have pointed out, the Christian god (and many if not most others) started out as a weather god, because weather is very important to agrarian peoples.

— Flint

Personal religious needs are perforce not objective. Please do not confuse being objective with being correct.

And the reason those adjectives apply is, most of those billions do not feel the personal requirement to reject reality in favor of memorized doctrine. There is no inherent reason why reality and belief should conflict, UNLESS one's beliefs are factually wrong. In that case, they are not rational.

...is that enough? ...divided evenly enough...

Flint, great comments, thanks. You're right about the apparency of the parallels, and my intent is not to draw a direct analogy, but simply draw attention to an article that was using arguments that sound eirily similar to the evolution/creation debate.

I think there is a basic lesson to be drawn from the discussion that in order for students to be able to be discerning about issues either historical or scientific, they first need a grounding in hard facts without influence from other philosophies. That's easier to do in science thanks to methodological naturalism. But, history class is another subject close to creationist hearts due to the fact that one of their favorite arguments is that past scientists were Christians.

Anyway, I didn't walk away from religion and become an atheist because of a tramautic event, like a death or something.

For me, it was the absolute incorrectness of the Bible.

Two weeks later I met a nice Jewish girl, started dating and, fairly soon after, converted.

"What percentage of scientists would have to advocate intelligent design for the conflict to be 'substantial'?"

only one, finley. Not even 1%... just one scientist.

However, that one scientists would actually have to produce a testable theory, along with requisite distinct predictions.

the only reason ID is even being debated is because of its POLITICAL impact, not its scientific impact...

because it has none, doofus.

I am a Christian and an avid science fan. I am 15 years old but probably know alot more on this subject then most people. I would like some one to tell me some "proof" of evolution so I can further my learning in this subject. Thank you.

However, that one scientist would actually have to produce a testable theory, along with requisite distinct predictions.

— STJ

Paul, I'm glad you put "proof" in quotes - since science never actually "proves" anything - it just strives for the best testable explanation to fit the facts. Some good evidence for evolution includes: the fossil record - specifically the chronological appearance of features and geographic location; the close alignment of genotypic and phenotypic trees; the observation that genetic variation and natural selection occur and do not have any mechanistic restraints; and the geographic alignment of biodiversity. You might go look at www.takorigins.org - it has excellent resources on the subject.

There are no fossil's! and geological reasons of "layers in the rock being era's or year's" are wrong!

"This requirement, of course, is another instance of naturalistic question begging."

no, finley, that's simply the scientific method. We've had this debate with you before, many times.

We have often asked you to review what science actually is and does, but obviously you prefer to argue science from outside of what it is.

so, again, by your methods and by your arguments, you look far more like an IDer to me than anything else.

It's very simple, all you or any IDer has to do is show how there is ANY postive scientific theory, and scientists would welcome it with open arms.

Instead, all we get is false criticism, philosophical musings, and arguments based on mostly misinterpretations of religious belief.

if you want to argue scientific value for something, you have to understand how science works to begin with.

If you try to identify science as some kind of ridiculous cabal of mutually affirming blind zealots... I'd say you are speaking of the ID side of things, not science.

go visit a science department at a university and at least try to learn something before trying to describe what science is without having the slightest apparent idea.

I think you meant layer's, Paul.

actually, steve, i think he meant to say:

"it's time for my pills now"

It's never been about God. It's always been about THEM.

That's ridiculous.

The oldest texts of the Hebrew canon (Genesis and Job), for example, present God as a creator.

'Subjective truth' is a contradiction in terms.

I suspect you are confusing 'objective' with 'verifiable', and reducing verification to observation through the senses. Illicit moves, one and all.

Is there are democratic element here? Majorities and supermajorities? What percentage of scientists would have to advocate intelligent design for the conflict to be 'substantial'?

history class is another subject close to creationist hearts due to the fact that one of their favorite arguments is that past scientists were Christians.

Seriously though Paul, there are several good introductions to evolution which you are old enough to read. I would suggest:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465044263/qid=1116360291/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/102-1059645-6481766?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060958502/qid=1116360291/sr=8-6/ref=pd_csp_6/102-1059645-6481766?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Evolution is such a huge bunch of science, that asking people for internet comments is not a good way to get an introduction. Those two books will do so.

I just don't get it I may not be a scientist but I do have a right to an opinion and as I said I am only 15! I was just saying that there is no known fossil of a stage in between 2 diffrent animals that I know of. Is this true?

Paul, I don't like to tell people "read the FAQ" but in this case I suggest you check out www.talkorigins.org first.

nope.

there is a fairly decent summary of fossil transitions over at talkorigins.org.

you can find lots of evidence of other types there too. you might need to read the books referenced by steve to fill in your understanding a bit.

Paul, if you would like to talk my yahoo screen name is spirit_plumber and i am on right now.

If anyone has MSN I would like to talk to them add me paulnvolk@hotmail.com

I just don't get it I may not be a scientist but I do have a right to an opinion and as I said I am only 15! I was just saying that there is no known fossil of a stage in between 2 diffrent animals that I know of. Is this true?

I have a question, can a majority of scientists be wrong like a majority of people?

Flint,

Your example of voices in the head is a silly invention of your own fancy. Instead, try this one out: Please produce an 'objective' argument for the belief in the veracity of memory. And if you cannot, please be consistent and label such a belief 'irrational'. Then do the same with your belief in the veracity of sense-perception, and the belief that past results are a valid basis for prediction, and the belief that events cause other events, etc., etc.

Just to tell you "freelunch" There is more evidence for creation then for evolution.(excuse My spelling)

So what you are trying to tell me guys is: Nothing produces everyything
Non-life produces life
Randomness produces fine-tuning
Chaos produces information
Unconsciousness produces consciousness
and Non-reason produces reason

Is that what you are trying to tell me by the "theroy" of evolution?

Your example of voices in the head is a silly invention of your own fancy.

Ok, paul, you threw down that gauntlet.

can you back that up?

show us the evidence for creation.

you can do it one piece at a time if you like.

actually, this is a rather off topic discussion for this place, I created a new topic over here:

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=14

click on the thread i created for you and post your evidence for creation there.

cheers

Just to tell you "freelunch" There is more evidence for creation then for evolution.

There is more evidence for creation then for evolution.

Come back when you know better.

— Flint

finley, you couldn't phrase an objective argument if your life depended on it.

I don't know why Flint always gives you as much credit as he does.

So what you are trying to tell me guys is: Nothing produces everyything Non-life produces life Randomness produces fine-tuning Chaos produces information Unconsciousness produces consciousness and Non-reason produces reason Is that what you are trying to tell me by the "theroy" of evolution?

Finley:

I attempted to discuss things with you. You rejected a little of what I said, ignored the rest, and attempted to change the subject. Your faith is a silly invention inside your own head. Come back when you have evidence otherwise. If you find someone willing to discuss something with you, next time don't give them the runaround. Again, come back when you know better. Your desperation to fabricate the supernatural to buttress your delusions is growing stale. If you have something to say based on evidence (look it up), maybe someone else will play with you.

I go to a poblic school same as most of you I have my own values and I am young I might have been told a lie but I don't know what do you think I came here in the first place? I am sorry. I also know that as you make new discoveries for evolution creationst's are disproving some of yours and making know discoveries of there own. do you agree?(excuse spelling)

Freelunch evolution is random and is by what I have been told about the origin of us right now!!! I will explain to you what all those things mean if you tell me which one you don't get the most.

paul -

creationists have never made any contribution to science. never.

they do attempt to falsify evolution for their own gain, but again, their falsifications are not based on evidence, but rather incorrect interpretations of evidence.

if you would like, you can post a list of the things you feel support creation theory in the thread i made for you, and I'm sure myself and others will show you where the evidence leads.

This is not about logic. This all about control, just as religion has been for eons. Simple minded religous leaders (SMRLs) fear the loss of control if they lose the simplistic supernatural explanation. If the masses are smarted and better educated the SMRLs are out.

BTW: I read a totally reverse bit today. An ID advocate wrote that an example of science theory chaging was Galileos discovery that the earth rolved around the sun. This person claimed that is the science establishment rejected the change - odd but it was a pope that jailed Galileo. (The argument was that it is common for scientists to reject new theories)

And that is another why I dislike creationists. They not only lie, they lie to people who don't know better, who start repeating the lies as facts...

"creationists have never made any contribution to science. never." you sir are wrong for if this is true you too have done nothing but misintrpret the evidence. so there.

Paul--saying "you're wrong" doesn't make a person wrong. You need to explain how their wrong for such an accusation to carry any weight.

I also know that as you make new discoveries for evolution creationst's are disproving some of yours and making know discoveries of there own. do you agree?(excuse spelling)

Man with No Personality please give an example before you say something like that.

Paul,

I'm afraid it's true. Creationists have never made one single contribution to science. But rather than either take our word for it or deny it blindly, how about if you present something you think creationists have contributed. You know, use *evidence* to support this claim. Take it from me, the people here are suckers for evidence, they check it out in detail every time because they can't help themselves!

Just one contribution. Name it, and support it.

Paul, people are lying to you because they want to control you and have power over you.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00197.htm

This evolution/creationism "controversy" has absolutley nothing to do with science and everything to do with power politics.

You have to ask yourself: why do they want this power so bad that they will lie to innocent people to get it?

"creationists have never made any contribution to science. never." you sir are wrong for if this is true you too have done nothing but misintrpret the evidence. so there.

Man with No Personality please give an example before you say something like that.

[Flint=quote]Again, come back when you know better.

Strike two.

You've recognized the difficulty, but rather than face it head-on, you've resorted to ad hominem remarks.

Assuming Flint has refused to play ball, can any among you give an 'objective' argument for the belief in the veracity of memory?

Paul, people are lying to you because they want to control you and have power over you.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00197.htm

This evolution/creationism "debate" has absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with power politics.

You have to ask yourself, why do those people want that power so badly that they will lie to innocent people in order to get it?

Rilke's Granddaughter we have want an example Darwin once said "if it could be demonstrated that a complex organ which could not have been possibly "Changed slowly"(evolution) my theory would break down." This has been done numerous times by biochemist Michael Behe.

finley, imo, based on the sum of your posts over the last month, ad hominem remarks are all your arguments deserve.

if you wonder why Flint, or the rest of us have "refused to play ball", it's because your rules are inane.

Globigerinoides It is Ok sense this is making my faith in God even stronger seeing how these people are so wrong! ya I am not afraid to say evolution is wrong!

"This has been done numerous times by biochemist Michael Behe."

actually, no, it hasn't. Behe's arguments hold very little water; I'm sure someone can reference you to the many explanations posted of why Behe is incorrect in his assumptions and conclusions.

If you truly feel you can comprehend Behe's argument, then I'm sure you will be able to understand why he is wrong as well.

I'm sorry, but you are sounding more and more like a troll, and less and less like someone who actually wants to learn.

I gave you an opportunity and a place to have a discussion about specific pieces of evidence that you think support creationism, but you refused to go there and present it. Instead, you continue to presume that you, 15 years old and all, can come here and think your knowledge of evolutionary theory is so vast that we must all be wrong.

doesn't make sense, does it.

I guess i should just delete the thread i made for you.

If creation is a lie prove it!

Paul

I am 13 years old and also go to public school like you. I am sorry your school did not teach you how to spell good. Also I am sorry that you do not have good science classes. All the stuff you are saying sounds really dumb, especially for a 15 year old.

At my school we learned how some kids have really religious parents who sort of brainwash them into believing all kinds of stuff. Or else they learn wrong stuff at churches or clubs. Like there is a guy at school in the 9th grade named Bruce who is gay and the Bible Club kids are always trying to save him and tell him he's sick. And then the teachers told the religious kids to stop it and then some of the religious parents complained to the Principal! I saw Bruce one time in the hall and his eyes were really red like he was crying and he was telling a teacher about some guys that were calling him names.

Anyway, you seem like a nice guy but it sounds like someone has been telling you lies about scientists. You should try harder to figure out who is doing that because for some science jobs you need to know more facts.

Steve

You are wrong!!! But i do not hold that against you.

I go to a poblic school same as most of you I have my own values and I am young I might have been told a lie but I don't know what do you think I came here in the first place? I am sorry. I also know that as you make new discoveries for evolution creationst's are disproving some of yours and making know discoveries of there own. do you agree?(excuse spelling)

Freelunch evolution is random and is by what I have been told about the origin of us right now!!! I will explain to you what all those things mean if you tell me which one you don't get the most.

Paul, an additional suggestion for your reading list - "Eats Shoots and Leaves".

Face it, Paul, you have been lied to by people who want to control you.

How can we have a democracy if a large group of voters are just puppets, as you are being trained for, Paul?

Paul. Stop writing "you are wrong". Explain what is wrong, and how it is wrong. You obviosuly have no clue what the theory of evolution actually is. Please, go to www.talkorigins.org and read the frequently asked questions. It will answer any questions you have. It also has articles completely debunking Behe and his ridiculous arguments. Some of the articles are long and it will take you a while to get through everything. We'll still be here if you have any questions when you're done. See you in a few weeks.

Rilke's Granddaughter we have want an example Darwin once said "if it could be demonstrated that a complex organ which could not have been possibly "Changed slowly"(evolution) my theory would break down." This has been done numerous times by biochemist Michael Behe.

If creation is a lie prove it!

We get some insight here into the value of Behe and those like him. His claims are fatuous, of course, and quite thoroughly discredited, but only if you happen to fall on one side of what amounts to a swearing contest. Some scientists have found God, others claim otherwise, nobody without a degree in microbiology or some closely related subject is qualified to judge which scientists are more nearly correct. If you've been taught a proper sense of "Christian persecution" then it's easy: Here we have a Christian being badmouthed by a whole gang of God-hating atheists for the usual crime of telling God's Truth. Admit it, that's a whole lot easier than getting an advanced degree in biochemistry.

And even a 15-year-old can "believe in" Behe, and think it's science and therefore evidence. The Gish Gallop will live forever.

Paul, people are lying to you because they want to control you and have power over you. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0505/S00197.htm This evolution/creationism "debate" has absolutely nothing to do with science and everything to do with power politics. You have to ask yourself, why do those people want that power so badly that they will lie to innocent people in order to get it?

The truly sad part, from my point of view, is that Paul probably hasn't even read anything by Behe - he's just parroting information gleaned off some web-site.

Oh, yes, RG. I mean it was rather obvious that the creationist slogans Paul rattled off were somebody else's work, because once he ran out of them, it was back to "you're wrong!"...

Many organized religions have a strong "mind control" element to them - hardly conducive to intelligent or free thinking. Religion can be a very effective means of controlling people.

I answered numerous times: though both are sciences, the subject matter are vastly different and that there is no reason to assert, as Nick did, that there is no difference in how they relate (or not) to atheism.

What question did I dodge? Ask me just the question so I am sure what it is, without having to wade through a bunch of crap, and I'll answer.

Assuming Flint has refused to play ball, can any among you give an ‘objective’ argument for the belief in the veracity of memory?

Do you really think that he, in the midst of discussing evolution, life, etc., ---that suddenly he makes a generic declaration against all science?

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences. Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology. Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions. Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth. Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature.

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Governing Goals * To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies. * To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. Five Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory. * To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science. * To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda. Twenty Year Goals * To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science. * To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts. * To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

Strong methodological naturalism at its finest.

Paul, here are some quotes from your hero Behe. Read them and understand them. He does not say what you seem to think he says.

Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism
Response to "Not (Just) in Kansas Anymore" by Eugenie C. Scott, Science (May 2000)

Michael J. Behe
Science Online
July 7, 2000

Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."

From "Darwin's Black Box"
Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. (p. 5)

From "Darwin's Black Box"
"I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent." (p.176)

"I dispute the mechanism of natural selection, not common descent." in Reply to My Critics, Biology and Philosophy 16, p697, 2001.

Christianity Today, August 12th 2002
"A Nuclear Bomb" For Evolution?: Critics of Darwinism say skull's discovery isn't all it's cracked up to be

by Todd Hertz

Behe said ID is "several levels of biology removed from the hominid versus chimp distinction." The point of contention between evolution and intelligent design is whether design or chance guided human development?not how humans developed.

"Darwin's claim to fame was not so much that he thought that organisms might have evolved from common ancestors," Behe said. "Other people had put forward other theories but had always invoked guiding intelligence. His main point was that it might happen by chance."

Darwin's Black Box, Reviewed by Kenneth R. Miller
(as published in Creation / Evolution Volume 16: pp, 36-40 [1996])

Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe's "Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, "scientific creationists" should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had "much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us (1)," that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a "common ancestor." In plain language, this means that Michael Behe and I share an evolutionary view of the natural history of the Earth and the meaning of the fossil record; namely, that present-day organisms have been produced by a process of descent with modification from their ancient ancestors. Behe is clear, firm, and consistent on this point. For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species.

But hey, there is no need to take my word for it what Behe's opinion is about common descent, human evolution, and young-earth creationists. You can write to him and ASK HIM YOURSELF, just like I did. His email address is: mjb1@lehigh.edu . Write to him. Ask him. Tell us what answer you get.

Paul the kiddie writes :

"There are no fossil's! and geological reasons of "layers in the rock being era's or year's" are wrong!"

I'm sorry, Paul, but your claims to know more than the average person about evolution or geology are nonsensical. You aboviously know nothing about them.

You can grow up ignorant, or you can actually read geology books written by geologists and books on evolution written by biologists.

Its your choice. But simply putting an "!" at the end of sentence suggests that you have no argument to make, just that you're being argumentative.

If you don't want to be treated like a kid, don't act like one.

RGD, ... You are quote-mining.

If you wish to continue along those lines, Mr. Finley, give an 'objective' argument that you are not a butterfly dreaming that is a man.

— Mr. Personality

The first use of 'objective' should have square-quotes around it: 'objective'.

Ugh: make that 'scare-quotes'.

Damn it all: "...for all that, I still know that I am not a dreaming butterfly."

When is an editing feature going to be introduced?!

There is zero evidence, in spite of your assertions and quote mining, that David Heddle uses a computer. There is only evidence that David sits down at certain times to use a computer.

Paul's like Charlie Wagner, without the self-aggrandizing "law".

Comment #30705 Posted by Paul on May 17, 2005 03:36 PM (e) (s) So what you are trying to tell me guys is: Nothing produces everyything Non-life produces life Randomness produces fine-tuning Chaos produces information Unconsciousness produces consciousness and Non-reason produces reason Is that what you are trying to tell me by the "theroy" of evolution?

Popular apologist Lee Strobel promotes ID in The Case for a Creator (Zondervan, 2004). In a recent interview with Servant magazine, he stated: "Recently a hundred scientists with doctorates from leading institutions signed a full-page magazine ad that said: 'We are skeptical of the claims of Darwinism.' In effect, they said the emperor of evolution has no clothes. Christians who blindly accept what they were told in school about evolution and try to reconcile it with their faith don't understand that the best evidence does not support the claims of Darwinism, it points toward intelligent design." Strobel added: "To embrace Darwinism . . . you would have to believe that nothing produces everything, non-life produces life, randomness produces fine-tuning, chaos produces information, unconsciousness produces consciousness, and non-reason produces reason. I just don't have enough faith to believe that."

Please produce an 'objective' argument for the belief in the veracity of memory. And if you cannot, please be consistent and label such a belief 'irrational'. Then do the same with your belief in the veracity of sense-perception, and the belief that past results are a valid basis for prediction, and the belief that events cause other events, etc., etc.

Finley, assuming that we can't verify the veracity of our memories, and that our sense perceptions are meaningless, what leads you to believe your world-view rather than any other? And why should anyone choose to agree with you?

— nihilan

My point to Flint (borrowed from Plantinga) is that there are a number of truths we can be said to know, a number of beliefs that are rational, that have no 'objective' basis (Flint's sense of 'objective'), e.g., that memory is an accurate guide to past events, that sense-perception is reliable, etc., etc. The point here is that 'verified by observation' is not the only measure of truth.

Please produce an 'objective' argument for the belief in the veracity of memory. And if you cannot, please be consistent and label such a belief 'irrational'. Then do the same with your belief in the veracity of sense-perception, and the belief that past results are a valid basis for prediction, and the belief that events cause other events, etc., etc.

There are other objections to Foundationalism. It's not a settled question.

Reading steve's explanation, my scenerio above sounds similar to a coherentist's explanation...at least, that seems similar to how I meant it.

JRQ,

One problem, if I may, is that the present is constantly becoming the past. The instant after you remove your keys from the counter, the fact that they were there to begin with becomes a posit of memory. Thus, if the keys being on the counter did provide a verification of the memory that that's where you left them, such verification would only be valid (if at all) in an instant, and then it itself becomes a memeory.

What's more, does the fact that my keys on in the kitchen really verify my memory that that's where I left them. Perhaps I really left them in the living room, and my wife moved them to the kitchen counter, etc.

Finally, a good deal of our memories, perhaps the vast majority, are not even verifiable in an instant because they cannot be checked against current facts. That I was in the kitchen five minutes ago, for instance, cannot be verified by the current facts. My memory is all I have.

No, the veracity of memory has to be a starting point of rational enquiry. It cannot be established by something more basic. There is nothing more basic.

Read my next post, and then you'll better understand my aim.

Finally, a good deal of our memories, perhaps the vast majority, are not even verifiable in an instant because they cannot be checked against current facts. That I was in the kitchen five minutes ago, for instance, cannot be verified by the current facts. My memory is all I have.

No, the veracity of memory has to be a starting point of rational enquiry. It cannot be established by something more basic. There is nothing more basic.

"does the fact that my keys on in the kitchen really verify my memory that that's where I left them"

perhaps not, but:

1. you could test for residue to see if your keys were where you thought they were, using the scientific method and a suitable device to sample with.

2. who gives a shit? Whatever point you are trying to make with this is totally superfluous. Why don't you do what you did when you first came here and take superfluous discussion to the bar. anyone interested can follow you there.

David Heddle wrote: "That's one way to spin it. My way is..."

David, it saddens me to see you quote-mine yourself, and then claim that your original argument agreed with Sandor despite the fact that it was diametrically opposed to Sandor's position. You could have recovered from that with a mea culpa. You would have only conceded a point that everyone else had already marked against you. Instead you dug yourself in deeper.

I've changed my mind about you. When you were trolling on Pharyngula I thought you were merely muddled. It now seems that you have such a lust for public argument and linguistic legerdemain that you are prepared to present absurd falsehoods, and dismiss them as "spin".

Is this the way you present the gospel in your "He Lives" life? Or is there another, more honest personality in control when you preach? What kind of preacher allows that level of personal dishonesty to be exposed in public and dismisses it out of hand?

I've had discussions with Christians who have insufficient critical thinking skills to be accused of dishonesty. They are committed and passionate about what they believe and can't comprehend the arguments and the evidence that show them to be in error. I disagree with them, and I dislike what they do with children's brains, but I respect their integrity.

Do you need sermon suggestions for your Sunday life? Perhaps try looking up "within full of dead men's bones".

It's not naturalistic science that leads people to atheism; it is exposure of the lies of the church.

No, the veracity of memory has to be a starting point of rational enquiry. It cannot be established by something more basic. There is nothing more basic.

One problem, if I may, is that the present is constantly becoming the past. The instant after you remove your keys from the counter, the fact that they were there to begin with becomes a posit of memory. Thus, if the keys being on the counter did provide a verification of the memory that that's where you left them, such verification would only be valid (if at all) in an instant, and then it itself becomes a memeory.

What's more, does the fact that my keys on in the kitchen really verify my memory that that's where I left them. Perhaps I really left them in the living room, and my wife moved them to the kitchen counter, etc.

Finally, a good deal of our memories, perhaps the vast majority, are not even verifiable in an instant because they cannot be checked against current facts. That I was in the kitchen five minutes ago, for instance, cannot be verified by the current facts. My memory is all I have.

The take-home message, so we don't get lost in philosophizing, is that it's not clear that knowledge exists entirely divorced of observation.

But anyway, Finley and the Kansas school board can argue all they want that science should be expanded to include untestable magic elves, it's just not going to happen, because that stuff just gets in the way.

In a practical sense, it's been painfully obvious since at least the beginning of recorded history that our perceptions are unreliable, our memories are not trustworthy, our logic is often hostage to our preferences, and all of this makes us pretty inadequate as measuring and recording instruments. Any trial lawyer is aware that there will be as many different versions of an event as there are eyewitnesses, and these versions can vary by surprising amounts.

Science, recognizing this, takes multiple procedural precautions in an attempt to at least partially neutralize these things. We publish our findings so that those with different preferences can examine them. We specify exactly how our data were collected, so that unconscious introductions of systematic bias (nearly always present) can be identified, and perhaps canceled out with a different collection procedure. We have developed double-blind methodologies. We encourage active informed debate wherever any valid cause exists to debate. We have learned to construct tests of our hypothesis that do not corroborate the hypothesis as the default (and preferably, are constructed to discredit rather than support the hypothesis under test). I'm sure there are many other techniques, both obvious and subtle, that the practice of science brings to bear on our inability to avoid being subjective.

In other words, science regards our fallibilities as a problem that can be minimized if properly recognized and addressed. The goal is to avoid making stuff up and then finding pseudo-philosophical rationalizations for reifying our fantasies. To me, it's pretty self-evident that Plantinga has started by decreeing his superstitions to be "self-evident truths which don't require justification" because he's well aware that there IS no justification. Then, working backwards, there obviously must be some truths that "just are", detached from any possible verification. The alternative would be to admit error, something religious faith prohibits above all else.

But once we concede that some facts need no verification, observation, measurement, or anything else external, how can we decide which are "real" imaginary facts, and which are only imaginary imaginary facts? I guess we do this through "religious experiences". Which of course are totally unrelated to all of the other "experiences" which result from neurological malfunction. How do we know they're unrelated? We SAY SO! How else. And how is saying so different from make-believe? This is another way of asking why there are more than 10,000 Christian sects in the US alone. What YOU believe is make-believe, what *I* believe is "self-evident truth requiring no justification."

Apparently this is hard to outgrow.

What was it Dawkins said?

Something to the effect of, "no one is a relativist at 30,000 feet."

"Veracity" of memory? Just a minute -- I need to plotz and fan myself to prevent fainting.

Human perception is notoriously unveracious (is that a word?).

Two of my favorite examples, from flying: Pilots learn to watch the instruments that tell them where the horizon is, especially when their visibility is obscured. When flying, expecially while turning, one "perceives" down to be the direction one sits. There were a lot of pilots who flew in to the ground after trying to turn in clouds before attitude indicators became rather standard. Turning in a cloud, one's memory and perception of which way is down, becomes clouded.

The second example: Navy pilots learn to follow the radio signals and other navigation aids to land on aircraft carriers, and not to do it by sight. In pilot training, one lands on long runways on the ground. Aircraft carrier runways "look" too short. But there is a fine optical illusion a pilot can create to make the runway look longer. If the pilot drops lower than the safe descent line, the carrier deck "looks" longer. Alas, the aircraft will smack into the side of the ship and the pilot will die -- but it "looks" right.

Memory? That's just old perceptions. If perceptions can be wrong, and if memory drifts . . . well, you get the picture. There is reality more reliable than memory, especially for things in the past.

"The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (13 Mar 01)

False \False\, a. [Compar. Falser; superl. Falsest.]

[L. falsus, p. p. of fallere to deceive; cf. OF. faus, fals, F. faux, and AS. fals fraud. See Fail, Fall.]

1. Uttering falsehood; unveracious; given to deceit; dishnest; as, a false witness. [1913 Webster]

evidently so, though it is not used often at all.

Memory? That's just old perceptions.

It's not naturalistic science that leads people to atheism; it is exposure of the lies of the church.

Ed, I hope you never use the term "Navy pilots" in a bar full of Navy aviators.

If anyone invoked it, verificationism is pretty much roundly rejected, because we do hold certain beliefs in rational esteem that do not submit to justification in the verificationist sense, such as supporting the general reliablity of the senses. There's nothing out of left field about Micheal Finley's appeal to foundational preconditions for rationality that do not meet a verificationist criteria, though I haven't read all the posts here to determine what line of reasoning he was responding to. It's a popular approach to the problem of infinite regress. However, there's no real need to have a foundationalist vs. coherantist debate here, as neither matters for any relevant question at hand as best I can tell.

If he tries to stretch this discussion into a Plantinga style argument for the "proper basicality" of his religious belief, he's gone out into the realm of poor argumentation, as bad to epistemology as ID is to biology, but this blog is not appropriate for such discussion. (*cheap shot*) I don't see the chain to discussion that would send him off on that argument.

But, on the plus side, something like Plantinga's "Naturalism Defeated" is more appropriate for this weblog, and it'll be fun to see if he ever plans on trotting it out. Plantinga fans are fun amd disorienting if you do not have a grasp on the technical subject matter.

Comment #30779 Posted by Steve U. on May 17, 2005 07:58 PM (e) (s) There are other objections to Foundationalism. It's not a settled question. I hope they settle it soon so I can know that I am not a dreaming butterfly. My God, what if I never pupate?

"Meteorology is a battle that the church lost in the distant past. That loss has already been rationalized and the scriptures have been reinterpreted to maintain the illusion of eternal truth."

Isaac Asimov once wrote that meteorology was the first battle between science and religion and religion lost decisively. When Franklin invented the lightning rod, many sermons were preached against them - they were an attempt to deflect lightning bolts, which God used to punish sinners. So few churches put up lightning rods. Meanwhile, ordinary people noticed that lightning rods worked pretty well and started putting them up all over the place. Eventually, churches were getting hit by lightning bolts more often than any secular buildings. After a while, preachers (at least those who hadn't been killed by lightning) stopped preaching against lightning rods.

Comment #30817 Posted by djmullen on May 18, 2005 04:41 AM (e) (s) [...] few churches put up lightning rods. Meanwhile, ordinary people [...] started putting them up all over the place. Eventually, churches were getting hit by lightning bolts more often than any secular buildings.[...]

Nick and Wesley's argument is that if you take the Genesis account literally (actually, only to the point that God created the species supernaturally) then, by their reckoning, it obviously and logically follows that since Christ claims to be a vine, then your same hermeneutic demands that you believe grapes can be plucked from him.

— David Heddle

That same person might also conclude that the bible does not teach that God actively controls every subsequent raindrop, unless you demand that they be hyper-literal like this silly post with Wesley's bible quote mining attempts to do.

— David Heddle

Wesley:

Your premises and David's premises are completely different. David's conclusion follows from his own premises, which are:
1) The doctrine of my faith teaches that God created Man as-is and gave him a soul.
2) Evolution disagrees with this doctrine.
3) The doctrine of my faith is infallible.
4) There is no requirement that this doctrine be consistent with anything. Not with reality, not with scripture, not even with itself.
5) Therefore, evolution is wrong.

You will notice that meteorology is not mentioned. Therefore it is irrelevant.

But, on the plus side, something like Plantinga's "Naturalism Defeated" is more appropriate for this weblog, and it'll be fun to see if he ever plans on trotting it out. Plantinga fans are fun amd disorienting if you do not have a grasp on the technical subject matter.

— Osmo

The problem is simple. In many instances creationists accept that God set things in motion (also known as front loading). Few creationists claim that God keeps adjusting the orbits of planets to make them circular... And while astronomy is accepted by most creationists, they reject the idea that evolution can be explained in terms of natural processes. When people point out these inconsistencies, creationists seem flustered and end up creating all kinds of strawmen.

Plantinga's version concludes that, if naturalism and evolution are true, then it is unlikely (or inscrutable) that human reason is capable of arriving at truth.

It isn't just that people occasionally make mistakes, but that the human reasoning faculty seems to follow heuristics that lead to systematic error (Kahnemann, Tversky, and Slovic KST82). It would be no surprise, from an evolutionary point of view, if human beings had highly reliable devices for forming beliefs about practical issues that affect survival and reproduction, but are rather less gifted when it comes to matters of philosophy, theology, and theoretical science.

Anyhow, if evolutionary theory does say that our ability to theorize about the world is apt to be rather unreliable, how are evolutionists to apply this point to their own theoretical beliefs, including their belief in evolution? One lesson that should be extracted is a certain humility -- an admission of fallibility. This will not be news to evolutionists who have absorbed the fact that science in general is a fallible enterprise. Evolutionary theory just provides an important part of the explanation of why our reasoning about theoretical matters is fallible. Far from showing that evolutionary theory is self-defeating, this consideration should lead those who believe the theory to admit that the best we can do in theorizing is to do the best we can. We are stuck with the cognitive equipment that we have. We should try to be as scrupulous and circumspect about how we use this equipment as we can. When we claim that evolutionary theory is a very well confirmed theory, we are judging this theory by using the fallible cognitive resources we have at our disposal. We can do no other. Plantinga suggests that evolutionary naturalism is self-defeating, but that traditional theism is not. However, what is true is that neither position has an answer to hyperbolic doubt. Evolutionists have no way to justify the theory they believe other than by critically assessing the evidence that has been amassed and employing rules of inference that seem on reflection to be sound. If someone challenges all the observations and rules of inference that are used in science and in everyday life, demanding that they be justified from the ground up, the challenge cannot be met. A similar problem arises for theists who think that their confidence in the reliability of their own reasoning powers is shored up by the fact that the human mind was designed by a God who is no deceiver. The theist, like the evolutionary naturalist, is unable to construct a non-question-begging argument that refutes global skepticism.

You've missed the thrust of my argument. I am not playing the Cartesian skeptic. Of course I can't give an objective argument to that effect, but for all that, I still know that I am a dreaming butterfly. My point to Flint (borrowed from Plantinga) is that there are a number of truths we can be said to know, a number of beliefs that are rational, that have no 'objective' basis (Flint's sense of 'objective'), e.g., that memory is an accurate guide to past events, that sense-perception is reliable, etc., etc. The point here is that 'verified by observation' is not the only measure of truth. This should be sufficient to establish a category of truths that cannot be justified by science, but are nonetheless objective (in my sense). The next question, then, is how we know such truths, and are there others.

Michael,

"Plantinga's version concludes that, if naturalism and evolution are true, then it is unlikely (or inscrutable) that human reason is capable of arriving at truth. Therefore, because statements about naturalism and evolution are products of human reason, their truth should be doubted."

Naturalism is used in the production of medicine. Earlier today I took some Paracetemol for a headache, now my headache is gone; the medicine (and presumably the naturalistic principles behind its derivation) has been successful. Doesn't this refute Plantiga's argument (or at least render it rather meaningless in all but the most esoteric of circles)?

PS, I've never dipped into an argument like this before and freely admit to being something of an ignoramus in matters of a philosophical nature.

Sorry if I sound pedantic but, assuming you were a dreaming butterfly you'd have to have pupated already. Else you'd be a caterpillar dreaming he was a butterfly dreaming . . .

David's [conclusion]: Biology promotes atheism, but meteorology does not.

But in fact, I do not support Johnson's statement. I do not, in any way shape or form, believe that evolution promotes atheism.

Your premises and David's premises are completely different. David's conclusion follows from his own premises, which are: 1) The doctrine of my faith teaches that God created Man as-is and gave him a soul. 2) Evolution disagrees with this doctrine. 3) The doctrine of my faith is infallible. 4) There is no requirement that this doctrine be consistent with anything. Not with reality, not with scripture, not even with itself. 5) Therefore, evolution is wrong.

Your premises and David’s premises are completely different.

Actually David thinks he's being clever by jumping back and forth between some hypothetical Philip Johnson premises and some hypothetical David premises and some hypothetical who knows what in the heck premises, and then when he's cornered on one set he can then fall back on another set and tell people "hey you got the wrong set, pal" and they should have read his blog and whatever, and yes, I know, it's all very confusing.

yes, I know, it's all very confusing.

A person might, in good faith, believe that evolution promotes atheism

...a devil’s advocate type argument is lost on the PT regulars ...

If someone is going to put forward a devil's advocate argument then I don't think it would be unreasonable to assume that somebody else is going to argue against it if they should happen to have some objections to it. Anyways, perhaps a couple of your own premises, namely:

"the relationship between evolution and atheism is not the same"

"evolution has a bias toward atheism"

may have caused some of the confusion. Cheers!

David's: Biology promotes atheism, but meteorology does not.

— I

Unfortunately the conclusion that you have associated with me, as I have already demonstrated, is a lie.

— David Heddle

So someone could, self-consistently, believe that evolution promotes atheism and meteorology does not.

— David Heddle

I guess Heddle doesn't actually believe something, he's rather saying that other people might legitimately be considered to believe things which Heddle himself has not actually SAID he agrees with. But of course people might believe in almost any nonsense without violating the rules of logic. Why would Heddle be so careful to select evolution as the proposition other people might logically reject? Could it possibly be because Heddle thinks he is erecting a smokescreen behind which he can hold nonsensical positions with impunity? That way, his faith is never actually questioned, because everyone's guess about what he means can be answered with "Ha ha, you missed me, it's all your fault!"

His problem is, nobody is fooled by his doubletalk. We all know what he means. He finds evolution offensive to his sensibilities. He doesn't find the weather offensive. Phrasing this inconsistency by saying "Philip Johnson might logically think X" might mislead Heddle himself. Nobody else.

O David H.,

It is truly amusing to watch you go through these incredible mental gymnastics to deny reality in favor of your comfortable Belief System, merely because it teaches that your fragile little ego, buffeted as it is by a cold, indifferent and tempestuous world, is more important in the general scheme of things than it really is.

But a caution for you: such delusions of grandeur on your part make you vulnerable to those who would manipulate you for their own political and/or economic gain.

Flint,

It's ok, I'm used to PT enforcing on one what it wants a person to believe, not what that person actually believes. It's the third time for me:

Heddle: Verification of parallel universes would, for me, falsify ID
PT: No it wouldn't

Heddle: I do not believe ID is science
PT: Yes you do

Heddle: I do not believe evolution promotes atheism
PT: Yes you do

Heddle:

OK, you're being much to clever and subtle for us. Verification of parallel universes would not falsify ID. I understand you believe otherwise, but your misunderstanding is irrelevant. ID proponents make the claim that ID is science, but it is not. Whether ID proponents actually believe it's science is problematic, because ID proponents tend not to understand what science is. What you believe about whether ID is science is irrelevant. It's not science.

Your position on the relationship between evolution and atheism is unfathomable. If you say you don't believe this, why do you keep raising this point? Why do you draw any distinction between biology and meteorology in this respect? There is no necessary implied relationship of any kind between evolution and atheism. If you agree, good for you. You are correct. You certainly sounded like you felt otherwise. Repeatedly. When everyone misunderstands your position, chances are you expressed it poorly.

Matthew 7:3-5 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

— Bible Gateway

Am I wrong for believing in God?

Am I wrong for believing in God?

No, but you may not be right in believing that the Bible trumps a lot of hard work in biology, physics and so on. I personally believe in God but I really don't talk about it when I'm discussing the physical universe. So do most Chatolics, for example.

That evolution has to be equal to atheism is, flat out, a lie -- it's mostly promoted by creaitonists who want to make evolution look bad and a few hardcore atheist who stretch their usually commendable logic a little too far.

That evolution has to be equal to atheism is, flat out, a lie --- it's mostly promoted by creaitonists who want to make evolution look bad and a few hardcore atheist who stretch their usually commendable logic a little too far.

Am I wrong for believing in God?

— TAS

I like Kay's point, I think it should be PT's creed:

Evolution -> atheism is:
a) A lie when spoken by creationists
b) Logic stretched a little too far when spoken by an evolutionist

Kay wrote: That evolution has to be equal to atheism is, flat out, a lie --- it's mostly promoted by creaitonists who want to make evolution look bad and a few hardcore atheist who stretch their usually commendable logic a little too far.

Heddle wrote: I like Kay's point, I think it should be PT's creed: Evolution -> atheism is: a) A lie when spoken by creationists b) Logic stretched a little too far when spoken by an evolutionist

Am I wrong for believing in God?

Kay: "That evolution has to be equal to atheism is, flat out, a lie --- it's mostly promoted by creaitonists who want to make evolution look bad and a few hardcore atheist who stretch their usually commendable logic a little too far."

You are right. you can be a christian and still believe that evolution is right. This just means you are not paying attention to what the bible says.

You are right. you can be a christian and still believe that evolution is right. This just means you are not paying attention to what the bible says.

And let's not pretend that the fact of evolution leaves it no less likely that there is a god. Now that we know there's not the least spot of work for a god to do, let's declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition.

. . . like the Pope and those other, what, billion+ Christians who don't think like TAS . . . You guys really crack me up.

— AN

Heddle, no amount of obfuscation can change the fact that those two quotes can be compared and illustrate your dissembling - oh, heck, your lying - in a very final way.

Finley, you are following the same path of lies. Acceptance of (not "belief in") evolution is much easier to define and verify that your esoteric non-definition of what is "supernatural" and even of what is "god".

The problem is that whenever people stop defining things clearly, everything gets muddy. Your ideas, Mr. Finley, are a fine example of this.

They have to be lightly scolded for "stretching their usually commendable logic a little too far"---can't have any of that PR-damaging evolution == atheism coming from within the camp.

And let's not pretend that the fact of evolution leaves it no less likely that there is a god. Now that we know there's not the least spot of work for a god to do, let's declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition. They have to be lightly scolded for "stretching their usually commendable logic a little too far"---can't have any of that PR-damaging evolution == atheism coming from within the camp.

Acceptance of (not "belief in") evolution is much easier to define and verify that your esoteric non-definition of what is "supernatural" and even of what is "god".

— AN

I'm still curious where you'd put evolution on a scale of 1 to 100 in terms of its ability to "promote" atheism

²⁸and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. ²⁹"My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. (John 10:28-29, NASB)

What's even more nonsensical is to pretend like the word 'god' is meaningless. Better take it up with the lexicographers.

Finley writes "As for muddy definitions, let's examine those of 'evolution' and 'species', etc."

Yes lets. The definitions aren't muddy, in particular the process of biological change makes the defintion of species difficult to implement. If living things were truly created within "independent kinds", there wouldn't be that problem.

This a problem biologist are happy to live with. Its a problem that shouldn't exist under creationism or intelligent design.

Unless of course the "intelligent designers" decided to make their designs look like they evolved.

Does that make me a theist?

Mr Filney

Surely you must see that the extent in any individual of a belief in God is a genetic variable. A strategy that has helped the human species survive by promoting social cohesion. This inherent tendency will therefore colour all our thinking and limit our objecivity.

Apologies Mr Finley

See? The bible teaches that evolution cannot snatch anyone away.

Please note that really is no clear line between most scientific fields. For example, the climate (a part of meteorology) is a noticeable factor in evolution. Changes in ecologies (a part of evolutionary theory) can affect climate (where do you think all those flapping butterflies come from?).

Climatology is also a science that uses evolutionary discoveries to aid it in its understanding of past climates, and evolution uses information from climatology to aid its understanding of past ecologies.

To separate these disciplines as distinct and stand-alone "sciences" is to miss the point that all of Science is linked together in innumerable ways. To dismiss evolution because it is naturalistic is to dismiss all of Science. Some may wish to pick and choose the science that they like, and that is their personal choice. However, if they want to teach my grandchildren their personal choices of ignorance, they are in for a fight.

Shenda

No, it makes you confused. You're missing some valuable semantic distinctions (equivocity, analogy, focal meaning, etc.).

These combined with an occasional visit to mass would clear things right up.

Surely you must see...

Huh. Is this Bible Interpretation according to Alfred E. Newman?

Darwin's theory undermines teleology in a way that meteorology does not. That is why the former is a threat to Christianity and the latter is not.

Goes way, way back, dude.

1) Some are chosen before the foundation of the earth 2) Those chosen will respond 3) They cannot be snagged away So, once again, evolution cannot make someone an athiest.

What's way back?

What goalpost was moved?

Did it just seem like the time to make that charge?

Therefore, because statements about naturalism and evolution are products of human reason, their truth should be doubted.

It's ok, I'm used to PT enforcing on one what it wants a person to believe, not what that person actually believes.

Dr. Blowhard,

What is your doctorate in? Is it honorary, mail-order, etc.?

Essentially the doctrine is "predestination." If you believe the doctrine (I do)

That is certainly a relatively modern concept compared to the idea that understanding the environment in which you live is helpful to survival and health!

No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be here preaching all the time, since anything you say is utterly totally completely irrevocably irrelevant to what anyone here does (or can) think or believe.

"Dr. Blowhard,

What is your doctorate in? Is it honorary, mail-order, etc.?"

I'd be careful about questioning credentials if i were you, Mr. "B.S." means "bachelor in science".

Do you know how old the concept that "understanding the environment in which you live is helpful to survival and health!" is? Why it might be ancient.

1) Some are chosen before the foundation of the earth 2) Those chosen will respond 3) They cannot be snagged away So, once again, evolution cannot make someone an athiest.

— David Heddle

Am I chosen, Hedley?

How do you know?

Am I chosen, Hedley?

well, by your own assertion, if someone can't become an atheist if they are "chosen" how are we to know if someone is "chosen" in order to test that assertion?

From: Gary Hurd [mailto:garyhard@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 4:39 PM To: heddle@fbyg.org Subject: Heddle, you are a punked liar Heddle, you are a punked liar. Oh, I already said that. I look forward to someday meeting you.

I think David should be banned for posting a private email message to an open forum.

I don't. I have done so. When Casey Luskin emailed me unsolicited, asking me Steve Why O Why could you imagine that our IDEA club is some kind of religious organization, what in the world gave you that crazy idea, Steve? I posted them here, because it was a good example of a creationist lying.

(IDK Casey, maybe you being a minister with no scientific training, starting a club to promote creationism? Maybe that tipped me off? Or the fact that in other venues you promoted ID as science for christians, etc.? )

The second unsolicited email was removed by one of the PT overlords, but I wasn't banned.

No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't be here preaching all the time, since anything you say is utterly totally completely irrevocably irrelevant to what anyone here does (or can) think or believe.

What is your doctorate in? Is it honorary, mail-order, etc.?

I wouldn't say that Heddle is a liar.

Look at those statistical arguments. To call something likely or unlikely, you should have an idea of the distribution. The better info you have about the distribution, the better you can know likeliness. Heddle tried to argue for a while around here, that you can estimate that getting a result in a certain interval is unlikely simply on the basis of the decimal places of the interval in the mks system, with no information at all about the distribution.

Now, that's not a lie. It's obviously wrong. A lie is said with the intent to decieve someone. If David could see how wrong that was, there's no way he'd try to pass that off on scientifically-trained people. It's simply unimaginable that he could know how horrible an argument that is, and still try to sell it to anyone who's had a stat class. So the only explanation, is that his religious beliefs are overwhelming anything that gets in their way.

Dembski is a liar. He knows how bad his arguments are, and that's why he avoids the scientific press, and bloats his arguments with hundreds of pages of Complex Specified Filler. Try to argue with it, and it looks to hoi polloi like a scientific controversy.

Am I chosen, Hedley?

How should I know?

I wouldn't say that Heddle is a liar.

"I don't. I have done so. "

well, i was adding reasons to ban heddley, because he contributes nothing of value here, not even amusement.

besides which, I guess you haven't guessed yet that even tho you might not have been banned, posting private emails is totally innapropriate.

Thus evoution cannot *) promote atheism (as in contribute to the progress or growth of atheism) *) make someone an atheist

Now, that's not a lie. It's obviously wrong. A lie is said with the intent to decieve someone.

I don't think that you should expect privacy if you send someone an unsolicited communication with the intent to mislead. I have no remorse, and would do it again. Casey Luskin and co are dangerous charlatans.

Darwin's theory undermines teleology in a way that meteorology does not. That is why the former is a threat to Christianity and the latter is not.

An evolutionary perspective undermines religious belief by removing some of the grounds that previously supported it.... ....The most important point of intersection (between science and theology) has to do with purposive explanations of natural phenomena. For theology it is no small matter whether nature is interpreted teleologically. When the world is interpreted non-teleologically--when God is no longer necessary to explain things--then theology is diminished.

"I realized . . . that if the pure Darwinist account was accurate and life is all about an undirected material process, then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy..." And now you can see why Johnson is indeed correct. One more example, if you please: "So God created man in His own image, in theimage of God he created him, male and female he created them." Gen. 1:27 "Haven't you read," (Jesus) replied, "that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female?" (Matt. 19:4) "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God. Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us." (Stephen J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, p.267.

for good measure, please note that Gould specifically is saying that SCIENCE (viz., the science of biology), not his own personal philosophy, is what ~eliminates~ our status as specifically being created by, and in the image of, God

Arun Gupta: Darwin's theory undermines teleology in a way that meteorology does not. That is why the former is a threat to Christianity and the latter is not.

FL: Thank you, Arun Gupta. That IS the correct approach, imo, in order to torpedo the "meteorology argument" scam. Why? Because the evolutionists have graciously supplied more than enough torpedoes for the job, of course.

A meteorological perspective undermines religious belief by removing some of the grounds that previously supported it . . . . . . . .The most important point of intersection (between science and theology) has to do with purposive explanations of natural phenomena. For theology it is no small matter whether nature is interpreted teleologically. When the world is interpreted non-teleologically---when God is no longer necessary to explain things---then theology is diminished.

FL quoting Rachels: ….The most important point of intersection (between science and theology) has to do with purposive explanations of natural phenomena.

Yeah, natural phenomena such as the things that meteorology explains.

Fact is, Meteorology doesn’t carry all that philosophical baggage.

That's because you don't want it to.

Doesn’t need to. At all.

Neither does playing marbles. Big whoopy-doo.

FL,

What a load of philosophical b______t.

Teleology is the position that there is design, purpose, directive principle, or finality in the works and processes of nature, and the philosophical study of that purpose.

So you are stating, flat out, that there is design, purpose, directive principle and finality in weather? What is the goal of weather? Where is your evidence that it is directed? I seem to recall a couple of years ago a church devestated by a tornado with the congregation still in it. Was that directed? What was its purpose? How does your unwarranted assumption square with the modern understanding that small, random fluctuations can give rise to larger, organized weather systems?

Your assertion that nature is teleological is JUST a belief, and not a very well-supported one at that.

FL: Fact is, Meteorology doesn't carry all that philosophical baggage. 386sx: That's because you don't want it to.

Globigerinoides: So you are stating, flat out, that there is design, purpose, directive principle and finality in weather? What is the goal of weather?

...this is the Finley's primary goal...

yup, we're all just cranks here, finley. why don't you go play over at Dembski's site along with the other members of pee-wee's playhouse like Dave Scott and Salvador?

...along with the other members of pee-wee's playhouse...

Steve U.:

"What you guys really want is to discover a talking snake"

If Frank Zappa had written Genesis, it would go, "Now this is a snake talkin', understand?"

well, your philosophy is nothing more than public masturbation, just like that of dembski and that sycophant salvador, so the analogy seems to fit quite well.

Now if only the mastubatory claptrap you spout as legitimate philosophy were considered indecent exposure...

Like everybody else in these parts. Mr. Findley sometimes makes the mistake of assuming that everybody else is riding the same hobby horse he came in on. For example, it makes perfectly good sense to deny that references to God as storm god are fundamentally metaphorical if (but probably only if) you buy into a Catholic-style of exegesis for which the source is always scripture + tradition. No wonder Mr. Findley once recommended that somebody attend mass in order to clarify the nature of God! I personally believe that you can't really begin to read the Bible until you lose your faith, but I recognize he would probably insist with some justice that is just my hobby horse.

That said, I think Mr. Findley does get treated discourteously. It's not his fault that this venue is no place to discuss philosophy. On the other hand, it might not be a bad thing if he noticed that some of us chose not to try to pull rank on nonphilosophers, perhaps because we recognize that the technicalities are not only inexplicable to outsiders but often enough irrelevant to the central issues. (Yeah, I know that suggestions also needs to be argued for.)

That there is a danger of "allowing a divine foot in the door" in evolution but not meteorology is only because Christians have piled onto one doorstep and not the other; in reality, BOTH doors lead into the house.

— JRQ

Sober’s is the best critique of Plantinga’s argument. Basically, Sober challenges Plantinga’s Bayesian approach, but admits in the concluding paragraph that Darwinists should treat the general problem as real.

— Michael Finley

Wonderful idea SEF!

Not a new idea though - quite an old one for me and I've seen other people independently think of it too. It's very contentious in its most extreme form of course.

However, there's a delicious irony in proposing that all consent forms include a phrase that the person signing acknowledges this treatment was based on science X (eg the germ theory of disease and the theory of resistance evolving through evolution). Since, unlike the anti-evolution disclaimers proposed for science books trying to manufacture a controversy and distinction which doesn't exist, it is obvious that anyone denying the reality, relevance and importance of the licensed testing leading to a medical treatment is a crackpot (eg those untested and futile or dangerous homeopathy, ozone and colloidal silver treatments). The legislation (such as it is in the UK and I think in the US) already supports the concept of making things clear to the patient, so that they be as informed as possible as to what they are permitting (otherwise most medical treatment would count as assault).

you can be a christian and still believe that evolution is right. This just means you are not paying attention to what the bible says.

— TAS

Even Jesus's own words about the origin of humanity are blown off by evolutionists.

A meteorological (substituted for "evolutionary") perspective undermines religious belief by removing some of the grounds that previously supported it.

Is there an anthropologist in the house? My understanding is that some people performed rain dances, and others made sacrifices (sometimes of people) because these behaviors derived from a model in which the god(s) controlled the weather. Thus, it was necessary to persuade the gods to accomplish weather modification. This model seems not too different from FL's model, except FL's gods have lost interest in climate control but still pay attention to biology. Basically, the model says that gods have super powers but normal human motivations and emotions, and therefore begging, bribing, and beguiling ought to work. Consistent, universal failure of this model doesn't deter FL a bit. What is it that's said of doing the same thing over and over in the hopes it will work next time?

The single meaningful difference between biology and weather is that WE are biological, and therefore any statement about biology says something about us personally. Clearly, we have a few contributors who just do not wish to hear these statements, who find them offensive. When they start justifying denial of observational reality by creating fictional characters, putting words into the mouths of those characters, and then quoting those words as support for their positions, they have gone well around the bend. What biology has learned about FL (and Finley and Heddle) remains the case no matter how creatively or imaginatively they seek to escape it.

In other words, it's obvious to you. It's not obvious to me. I think the current craze to explain every human belief and behavior in terms of genetic expression is a silly fad. I grant that religious belief is beneficial for the cohesion of society. I believe, however, that this is an effect and not a cause of religious belief.

Re "Why christians perceive the threat to telology from evolution as greater than that from meteorology is another issue, but objectively the threat is the same."

Creationists aren't objective. ;)

"But where are the specific meteorologists, articles, textbooks, popular books, who provide the specific examples of the "removing" part when you put in the phrase "meteorological perspective"?"

Conversely, FL, you are stating here that modern meteorology asserts that weather is purposeful, directed, and designed for a final goal. That is the only alternative if you claim that meterology does not "remove" teleology! Care to cite literature that backs up this claim?

FL: But where are the specific meteorologists, articles, textbooks, popular books, who provide the specific examples of the "removing" part when you put in the phrase "meteorological perspective"?"

HENRY: Creationists aren't objective. ;)

"2) They are aware how extraordinarily inconvenient it would be to give up the benefits they already enjoy from from research in other fields.
"

as sef pointed out, I think it needs to be made clear that it also would be extraordinarily inconvenient for them to give up the benefitis they already enjoy from research in evolutionary biology as well.

JRQ said:

"Modern christians have ganged up on evolution to the exclusion of the other areas because:
1) The implications of evolution are still subjectively offensive to them."

This last part is very well put. Evolution simply makes Evangelicals *uncomfortable*.
So it's been singled out by them as a handy place to try and seize control of
people's perceptions of what counts as reality, which is something they feel the urgent need to do anyway.

What percentage of scientists would have to advocate intelligent design for the conflict to be 'substantial'?

Specifically, the evolutionists have kindly supplied definite, textbook-taught statements that prove and illustrate their total denial of teleology, thus showing that Phillip Johnson's quoted "realization" was (and is) in fact quite correct. These total-denial-of-teleology statements have been specifically quoted in this forum before, including statements from Futuyma's textbook Evolutionary Biology 3d ed. (" . . . a completely mindless process"); Mayr's SciAm article "Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought" (and also Mayr's book What Evolution Is); Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" thesis (which dovetails seamlessly with the other evo-statements); and finally, the evolutionist James Rachels: An evolutionary perspective undermines religious belief by removing some of the grounds that previously supported it . . . . . . . .The most important point of intersection (between science and theology) has to do with purposive explanations of natural phenomena. For theology it is no small matter whether nature is interpreted teleologically. When the world is interpreted non-teleologically---when God is no longer necessary to explain things---then theology is diminished.

Along the lines of this thread, here's one for the Physicists.

Check out this page, then scroll down to the image at the bottom.

As a physicist, I think I would have been more worried if "relativity" had been spelled correctly.

For more on wacky creationist physics models, visit Common Sense Science!

-Dave

Science removes all kinds of teleology.

Comment #31141 Posted by Dave Thomas on May 19, 2005 06:34 PM (e) (s) Along the lines of this thread, here's one for the Physicists. Check out this page, then scroll down to the image at the bottom.

Science removes all kinds of teleology. ~Really~? Citation please . . .

— FL

Purposeful design and teleology are not the same. There can be teleological explanations without the assumption of intelligent design.

Take embryogenesis for example. The embryo has an inherent trajectory, so to speak, towards the mature organism. Accordingly, the form of the mature organism is present, in some sense, in the embryo; and the embryo is 'headed in' the direction of the mature organism, the telos or end result of the embryo. Such a teleological explanation that is compatible with materialism.

Finley: Do you think you could give me a teleological explanation of the transformation from a tuna sandwich into a nice damp turd?

Purposeful design and teleology are not the same

— Michael Finley

I SAID: Science removes all kinds of teleology. FL: ~Really~? Citation please . . . JIM WYNNE: It doesn't remove teleology, it does continually prove that purposeful design is not a necessary consideration, however.

FINLEY: Purposeful design and teleology are not the same.

The title of this thread unfortunately misses one vital point, although evolution remains a major target for creationists / ID'ers there also remains another current target - Astronomers (or to be picky - Cosmologists), perhaps a multi-disciplinary board would be a good idea, as ultimately all science will be a target for them.

Quote - First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

Perhaps better paraphrased as - First they targetted biology, and I did nothing as I was not a biologist....

look, before you go and get bogged down in a discussion about the definition of "teleology", here is a well considered delving into it (with references, no less):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

this is a decent treatise on the history of the term and its usage in the biological sciences.

look, before you go and get bogged down in a discussion about the definition of "teleology", here is a well considered delving into it (with references, no less):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

this is a decent treatise on the history of the term and its usage in the biological sciences.

To put it a bit more directly, there are specific doctrinal reasons that the teaching of evolutionary biology will generate more unease than the practice or teaching of meteorology, at least amongst some kinds of believers and, especially, their preachers/teachers.

Removing a deity from immediate and direct personal responsibility for the weather was an issue quietly disposed of, without great effect, in an earlier era. Benjamin Franklin was involved, as has been earlier noted. In general, however, this removal had little serious, lasting theological effect.

Geology and evolutionary biology, however, create very serious problems for certain doctrinal systems that depend upon a particular set of literal interpretations of Christian scripture, in that they touch upon the notional foundations of vital core elements of the belief system.

To consider one of these elements: according to some New Testament verses, death entered the world when sin entered the world. Therefore it is not possible for fossil remains, if they are indeed those of deceased living things, to be older than the time of the Incident in the Garden. Simply not possible.

If you teach children in school that we have direct evidence that there have been organisms living (and, more especially, dying) on Earth for hundreds of millions of years when we know for a fact that the earliest humans appeared about six thousand years ago, then their acceptance of the unquestionable truth of the literal account of the Incident in the Garden, the Fall of Man and the whole scheme of redemption is subject to challenge.

This is not cool.

This is qualitatively different from tacitly ceding moment-by-moment control of the weather.

"Geology and evolutionary biology, however, create very serious problems for certain doctrinal systems that depend upon a particular set of literal interpretations of Christian scripture, in that they touch upon the notional foundations of vital core elements of the belief system."

indeed. you point out the crux of the problem in the emphasized section.

there were plenty of sects who depended on literal interpretations of the weather, too. In fact, there still are some, as was mentioned earlier in the thread (scroll up a ways).

"This is qualitatively different from tacitly ceding moment-by-moment control of the weather."

no, it's not. You have not provided any evidence to indicate otherwise. You have only shown that just like those who believe in the literal god-controlled meterology (again, see above), those that have selected those particular elements of the bible concerning biology to be literal are just as "offended".

Your viewpoint is subjective, not objective in stating there is a qualitative difference between "meteorological" literalists and "creation" literalists.

objectively, the case has been clearly made that there is no qualitative difference.

In fact, it goes to show why there are so many Christian "sects" to begin with... subjective interpretation of biblical elements.

“This is qualitatively different from tacitly ceding moment-by-moment control of the weather.” no, it’s not. You have not provided any evidence to indicate otherwise. You have only shown that just like those who believe in the literal god-controlled meterology (again, see above), those that have selected those particular elements of the bible concerning biology to be literal are just as “offended”.

— Sir_Toejam

"And as an anecdotal point in the "evolution promotes atheism/unbelief" hoo-hah, I will note that it was almost a decade after my deconversion that I finally became convinced that natural selection as an undirected, natural process was an adequate mechanism for producing the variety of life presently observed, from a common ancestor."

well, as they say, "good on ya".

Yes, evolutionary theory, like relativity theory, is complex and hard to explain in as short a time span as most folks seem to give their attention to these days.

it doesn't surprise me it took ten years for you to be convinced.

I've been studying it for over 20 years myself, and still don't feel i have a full grasp of all the primary literature.

It's one of the reasons that I get so angry at people like FL and Sal, who come in here and think they know all about evolutionary theory and can discredit it with idiotic, illogical, fallacious arguments after reading "the last chapter of Origin of Species" (direct quote from Sal).

cheers

it doesn’t surprise me it took ten years for you to be convinced.

— Sir_Toejam

Well, I think you have found a decent resource in PT should you ever have questions related to evolutionary theory. Lots of knowledgeable folk lurking about.

cheers

Yes, evolutionary theory, like relativity theory, is complex and hard to explain in as short a time span as most folks seem to give their attention to these days.

Yes, evolutionary theory, like relativity theory, is complex and hard to explain in as short a time span as most folks seem to give their attention to these days.

But won't a typical anti-evolutionist just say that's talking about micro- and not macro-evolution?

Henry

'I realized . . . that if the pure Darwinist account was accurate and life is all about an undirected material process, then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy. Here was a chance to make a great contribution.'

Evolutionary theory is built upon the scientific method and is science, it still has theological implications. Intelligent design theory is also built upon the scientific method and is science, but it too has theological implications. Both are scientific, but both have religious implications. Evolution postulates that humans originated due to the Darwinian mutation-selection mechanism, and thus arose through processes which were not influenced by an intelligent agent--many see this implying that we were created by processes that did "not have us in mind." Under intelligent design, humans exist because an intelligent being did "have them in mind." Intelligent design theory is also based upon empirical evidence and the scientific method, yet intelligent design also has theological implications: we are because a designer "deliberately put us here."

Evolutionary theory is built upon the scientific method and is science, it still has theological implications. Intelligent design theory is also built upon the scientific method and is science, but it too has theological implications. Both are scientific, but both have religious implications.

SALVADOR: Do you oppose the offering of courses on Intelligent Design and/or Creationism in the Philosophy and Religion Departments of secular universities? DR. SCOTT: No. They are quite appropriate for such courses. In general, in American universities, Religion departments offer scholarly analysis of religion, rather than devotional study, for which one would seek a seminary. Certainly the c/e controversy is a public controversy that bears studying as a public controversy (that's why I wrote my book, after all!) Whether ID is a valid scientific or philosophical or theological approach can also be determined at the university level, and certainly is more appropriately determined there than by the local school board.

DR SCOTT: Ironically, from the standpoint of evolution education, it is far preferable to have anti-evolutionary ideas expressed and debated at the university than in the local school board meeting.

I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science. -- Charles Darwin

I don't have to defend myself from Casey Luskin. Cranks and liars fail on their own. IDiots have been failing way back to the days when they called themselves creationists. I'm sure Casey was a crank long before he emailed me pretending (or misunderstanding) that ID was purely scientific (or scientific at all), and he will be a crank long after I'm gone.

It is kind of painful, though, to read about Casey in the same thread as Dembski's Sancho Panza saying things like "The internet will not be the primary means IDists engage their detractors." Makes my head hurt worse than last night's Stolichnaya did.

WASHINGTON - Two days before Sen. Rick Santorum introduced a bill that critics say would restrict the National Weather Service, his political action committee received a $2,000 donation from the chief executive of AccuWeather Inc., a leading provider of weather data...

Why not? The arguments are identical, nearly.

Scientist: If the Designer is so intelligent, how do you explain monsoons?
ID Meteorologist: Sin! Anyway monsoons can't form from random, undirected chance processes.
Scientist: So how does it happen, according to IDM "theory"?
ID M: Naturalistic weather doesn't happen.
Scientist: No, I mean, what does your theory say Does happen?
IDM: Not naturalistic weather. Can't happen. Besides, naturalistic weather would be like a tornado going through a junkyard, and...uh...throwing stuff around.

Luskin writes, "No offense Nick, but you should have contacted me first before assuming you were accurately representing my views."

And yet, what does he have to say about the following?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/26

Spacy Luskin¹.