ACLU: America's intellectual terrorists?

Please tell me that Michael Maveal is now out of a job. Please?

there seems to be a total knee-jerk hatred of the ACLU by the religious right.

IMO, all other disparaging of the ACLU seems to stem from the ACLU's position on the abortion issue...

once you come down against the religious right on this issue, it doesn't matter what you say after that.

They are "the enemy", and even negative connotations that have absolutely nothing to do with what the ACLU actually does will be attached to them.

Moreover, there is of course pressure from those in politics who would prefer the ACLU simply go away, rather than bring up issues like torture and illegal surveillance. So you get those same politicos contacting their religious right base to inform them how "evil" the ACLU is, which trickles down to the rest of the sheep.

*sigh*

It never ceases to amaze me that these idiots would shoot the very organization that would preserve their rights.

Pluto hasn't been seen?! How the hell does he think Clyde Tombaugh found it? Damn that makes me mad.

I must say I have a problem with these objections to the use of the word "unguided". If science teachers cannot teach that natural evolution is unguided (apparently because some theistic evolutionists believe that even purely natural processes can be supernaturally guided), then can they teach that any process is unguided? Perhaps it is even wrong for teachers to refer to unguided missiles (as opposed to guided missiles), since even those missiles I must say I have a problem with these objections to the use of the word "unguided". If science teachers cannot teach that natural evolution is unguided (apparently because some theistic evolutionists believe that even purely natural processes can be supernaturally guided), then can they teach that any process is unguided? Perhaps it is even wrong for teachers to refer to unguided missiles (as opposed to guided missiles), since even those missiles which we normally call "unguided" may in fact be guided by a supernatural being.

Oops, I made a mess of that last post. Please ignore the repeated bit.

This email was blocked by tps.org's spam filter (I guess sbcglobal.net is a bad address to send from) It was sent to Maveal's boss, Pamela King (pamela.king@tps.org):

From science.enotes.com:

Michael Maveal wants his eighth-grade students at Jones Junior High to know the truth - as he sees it. So, the Toledo Public Schools science teacher tells them that evolution is an unproven theory, as is creation. He teaches them about Nebraska man, a creature rejected by science long ago, to demonstrate the fallibility of evolution. He teaches them that Pluto has never been seen. He teaches them that humans are not animals. He teaches them about the famous scientific hoax, Piltdown man, once purported to be an early human ancestor. "I'm not afraid of dealing with all the fakery that's going on in all the science community," Mr. Maveal said. "We have to present information to the kids so they can make an intelligent decision for themselves. "I tell them what the scientists won't admit."

Teaching scientific hoaxes should demonstrate that science itself is self-correcting. How do you uncover a hoax? With science. Does he teach the children the good side of junk science such as Piltdown Man, the recent stem cell scam or Intellegent Design? When such nonsense comes along, it is viewed as an opprotunity to excel by exposing the fraud thus bettering science.

But I am really writing about the phrase "He teaches them that Pluto has never been seen." How, exactly, does he think we know it is there? I've seen the pictures myself. If Mr Maveal would like, I can direct him to the photos.

"I tell them what the scientists won't admit."

This sounds like a man with a vendetta against science. Such a person should not be teaching the youth of our nation. We have a hard enough task ahead of us, given that India, China and Europe are racing ahead of the United States in every technological field. Left with teachers such as Mr Maveal, this is no mystery.

A good source to find out about what the religious right thinks of the ACLU is to have a listen to the Coral Ridge Hour (it airs on TBN here in the UK 3.00pm on Saturdays).

Some of the recent rantings by D.James Kennedy about the ACLU are, in my opinion, approaching paranoia. He usually covers stories on such subjects as abortion, posting the 10 commandments in courthouses, reading the bible in schools and creationism etc. When things don't go right for them in the courts he blames the ACLU for turning America into a secularist, immoral, and humanistic country !

Yahoo.com is also a bad address. Methinks they are filtering for that poor fellow's name.

Cowards.

you know, I used to think americans were weird, because they shot the doctors performing abortions, and bashed gays. Now I realise that we australians are exactly the same: it's just we've taken longer for these people to be exposed.
We had a vote today in our federal parliament about a pill that enables abortion without surgery. It passed both houses with a clear majority, but the arguments for it were so reminiscent of the arguments for ID that my partner had to tell me to stop yelling at the tv.. The same tactics of saying that it's not about issue A, it's about issues B and C, but when you look at those issues, the only reason why they're a problem is if you have religius beliefs that conflict with them.
I (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) am sick of this obfuscation by religious people to disguise their ideals. Can't we throw them in a river to see if they float, to know they are lying? That's how they conducted business..
We have a catholic health minister saying that the fact that it's an abortion pill is not the issue, it's about parliament being responsible for decisions on these kinds of drugs. I see it as the same as people saying they are not teaching about ID (because that would be wrong), they're teaching about the 'conflicting theories' or some such BS..
Seriously, am I the only one that has had enough of this? It makes me want to convert to Islam, so I can declare a jihad.. Seriously pissed off.
How can we expose these people for the shallow bible-bashers that they are? I need some tools..

I'll bet Michael Maveal spends his spare time searching for fairy godparents.

http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/photo-get-a-brain-morans.jpg

So, DaveyScotty, still pissed off from his recent common descent fiasco, is showing his frustration and ignorance again. What else is new? ;-)

When we had our first child I did an informal survey of the other parents in the maternity ward and I think it's quite correct to refer to a large majority of children as "unplanned"...

I'm going to have to second Richard Wein's comment. You don't have to be a "religion is child abuse!" atheist to insist that evolution be taught as "unguided". In fact, I would go a step further and say that pedagogy requires that it be so taught.

Surely almost all of the contributors and pro-science commenters on PT at one time or another have had a conversation with someone unfamiliar with evolution and sincerely making an effort to understand it, and encountered a question such as the following:

"If X evolved, how did evolution know that the organism was going to need X, and how did it know to provide all the supporting structures for X?"

I submit that the only appropriate, honest response to this very understandable and commonplace misconception must be "evolution doesn't 'know' anything, because evolution is not 'trying' to achieve anything in particular."

Let me state it even more strongly: any student who does not understand that evolution is unguided does not understand evolution.

Richard Wein was also perceptive enough to preempt the natural response of NOMAists, to wit, that "unguided" is a "metaphysical claim" that "goes beyond the science". If that were the case, then all of science (including history and the social sciences) would be forbidden from ever claiming that any phenomena of any kind are "unguided".

I must say I have a problem with these objections to the use of the word "unguided". If science teachers cannot teach that natural evolution is unguided (apparently because some theistic evolutionists believe that even purely natural processes can be supernaturally guided), then can they teach that any process is unguided?

From Richard Wein: I must say I have a problem with these objections to the use of the word "unguided". If science teachers cannot teach that natural evolution is unguided (apparently because some theistic evolutionists believe that even purely natural processes can be supernaturally guided), then can they teach that any process is unguided?

Joseph Goebbels would be proud and George Orwell would be shocked by this clever use of rhetoric and newspeak. As absurd as the claim may be, it will accomplish what it is intended to do -- to keep fundamentalists engaged in the martyr complex so that they are plenty rejuvenated to return America to Christ ... ala election 2006/8.

By the way, if I'm not mistaken the opposite of a "guided" missile is a "balistic" missile, wherein all the "guiding" happens at launch. I don't believe there are any "unguided" missiles, at least not by design. I'd hate to think that any weapon's targeting was left to an unknown and unspecified force.

In one right-wing forum, I posted a long list of cases where the ACLU was explicitly defending the rights of Christians to BE Christians and express their faith without unconstitutional resistance. There are quite a few of these.

The reactions to this post were straight out of DaveScot: The consensus was that the only conceivable reason the ACLU might do this was because they are simply too stupid to realize what they're doing, and defended Christians out of sheer ignorant accident. What ELSE could explain it?

Yes, of course the ID proponents are inserting "unguided" in a deliberate attempt to misrepresent what evolutionary theory says, to make the result easier to attack. If you can't attack what it says, MAKE it say something it does not and then attack THAT. The religious mentality never changes - in their world, things become true because they SAY they're true. It's 'poof' all the way down.

I also agree with Richard Wein; the real issue here is whether "unguided" is being used in an empirical or a metaphysical sense. As usual, creationists are equivocating between the two meanings of the word, which have very different implications, to cause confusion. Perhaps a good way to put it would be to say that evolution is unguided at the level of the organism, i.e., individual organisms cannot evolve based on what they "know" they need. On the other hand, whether evolution as a process in general is unguided is not a question that science can answer. In that sense, the IDers' adding it to the curriculum is an attempt at straw-man creation.

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on February 16, 2006 10:50 AM (e) By the way, if I'm not mistaken the opposite of a "guided" missile is a "balistic" missile, wherein all the "guiding" happens at launch. I don't believe there are any "unguided" missiles, at least not by design. I'd hate to think that any weapon's targeting was left to an unknown and unspecified force.

I believe the issue is the clarification of what we mean by "unguided". If the statement is essentially equivalent to saying "no discernable goal that is detectable with empirical testing" and conforms to methodological naturalism, I don't see a problem. That's basically just saying we can't find a purpose yet, not that it doesn't have one. Unguided in that sense is fine.

— AD

The religious mentality never changes - in their world, things become true because they SAY they're true.

— Flint

AC,

I meant that in a scientific sense we can't find a purpose yet, or perhaps ever. It also clearly abdicates any statement about a supernatural purpose, which science isn't going to speak to. The point is to make clear we aren't saying it has no purpose, just that it has no discernable purpose from the perspective of an individual organism (they don't evolve because they "want" to, or have a "plan"). There's very obviously no statement about whether a God-being could be guiding the process from behind the scenes or not (because you can't test that).

Judging from all the responses, though, I think it's pretty obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that "unguided" in the scientific sense is not "OMFG NO GOD", no matter how badly the ID folks want it to be that.

The idea that evolution is unguided is a reasonable induction, based on the observations of the random events that affect evolution, plus the selective--but by all appearances unguided--pressures that together make up the "evolutionary mechanisms". We do not have to resort to any sort of metaphysics to make the sensible judgment that unguided processes are responsible, we're simply using the positive evidence in hand to make a reasonable, but not absolute, judgment that evolution is as unguided as chemical reactions are.

This is what we're fighting for, in fact, the freedom to infer and to teach what appears to be the case in the observable world. We are not denying that God could have anything to do with chemical reactions, ecology, or evolution, but we are denying that we see God's guidance in these areas. And although it is likely that children need to be more clearly taught that scientific conclusions are indeed limited and that they do not rule out unobserved influences, I cannot think that we have any business suggesting that "guidance" is any more likely, according to the available evidence, in evolution than it is in the test tubes used in chemistry class.

That said, the fact that the pro-ID forces put in the word "unguided" is telling, both because of the typical ignorant lashing out at the "other" that we get from the ID camp, and because most of us wouldn't go to the bother of saying that evolution is "unguided". When one may do so, one simply leaves out the question of "guidance" and merely treats evolution like chemistry, as something where we look to the evidence to make our scientific models. There's no more point to emphasizing the lack of guidance in evolution that we infer from what we observe, than there is in suggesting that evolution may be guided, as a kind of sop to the religionists.

So that I have no problem with saying that evolution is unguided, in the typical contingent and scientific sense that I would claim the behavior of wild albatrosses is unguided. But in most cases it doesn't need to be said, nor should we make a point of stating that evolution is "unguided" (except in special cases). The known unguided mechanisms of evolution ought to be presented in the same manner that the known unguided mechanisms of chemistry are presented--as the best inference that we have at present. If anyone wants to mix up either chemistry or evolution with, say, Hegelian or religious mysticism, that is not really our concern, just so long as they understand what the evidence shows and they have some recognition of how we arrive at such scientific conclusions.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

On the other hand, whether evolution as a process in general is unguided is not a question that science can answer. In that sense, the IDers' adding it to the curriculum is an attempt at straw-man creation.

— Ebonmuse

I have a question that is probably quite a bit off-topic (unless you have a really good imagination that can find connections where they barely exist)

If a math teacher assigned a book for a class to read, and someone wanted to know if the book has been reviewed for its math content validity or value, where would that person look? I teach science, and if a teacher in my school decided to use "Pandas" in a class, I know where to get detailed reviews on the science presented in the book.

I ask this because a math teacher has included Darwin's Black Box by Behe in a reading list (students may choose from this list; it's not assigned). I can read scientific critiques of this book, and in fact as a department we raised the question of the book's value because of its faulty science content, but I am curious why a math class would be interested in the book. I am not a mathematician, so I would have to depend heavily on experts for their take on this matter.

Thanks in advance for any help on this matter.

Hi KL,

As far as I can recall-- it's been a few years since I read it-- "Darwin's Black Box" contains no math whatsoever.

I'm having trouble coming up with any legitimate pedagogical reason why a math teacher would want students to read it. I can't see how it would help them understand mathematics.

As you might imagine, this raises a warning flag in my mind. I'd be concerned that this math teacher has motives that aren't pedagogical, but of course you'd have to check that out to be sure.

The ACLU has been the far right's favorite whipping boy since the '20's when the right decreed it to be an agent of the international communist conspiracy. The view held well into the '60's during which period right wing politicians frequently tried to link it, in the style of Joe McCarthy, to the Soviet Union. Through it all the ACLU defended anyone who's rights were in jeopardy, Christian or non-Christian, left-wing or right-wing, black or white. One of their clients back in the '60's was even that grand Pooh Bah of the right, William F. Buckley, when he was being harrassed for his political views. The far right, Christian and otherwise, always needs an enemy (it's needed for the martyr/persecution complex), preferably one with superhuman malice and cunning. "Evolutionists" and the ACLU currently serve that purpose for many. When god is on your side, your opponents must be in thrall to the devil. The far right's current sway in the White House and Washington, given their proclivity to demonize anyone who disagrees, is why the current atmosphere there is so poisonous.

When IDists denounce Dawkins and Sagan for calling evolution a proven fact, they are actually attacking all physical scientists, because no scientist can prove any physical law or theory will be eternally true.IDists want absolutes, which science will never generate. Science does not provide the kind of eternal verities IDists seek. Every law or theory in science is a temporary truth, a relative truth. It works for now; it is true for now. But that is not to say it will never be enhanced. Scientists gather data and formulate theories based on what they have. As new information is collected, the theory is modified and improved, to take account of new facts. IDists, on the other hand, formulated theories based on personal beliefs, gathered data to corroborate them, and discarded all information to the contrary. Facts were made to fit beliefs, rather than vice verse. Secondly, there are always going to be questions in the physical sciences for which current theories or laws have no provable explanation. That is inherent to the nature of science. And because scientists don't know all, creationists and others of an anti-science propensity will always have a void to exploit. And, of course, historically they have done just that. Quick to provide supernatural explanations for unknown causes or phenomena,(God Of The Gaps) they have specialized in focusing on the weakness of science and asking questions for which scientists had no conclusive proof. The struggle between scientists and supernaturalists has been, and will continue to be, a perpetual process in which supernaturalists are retreating, while naturalists are advancing. Every time naturalists have found answers to the questions of supernaturalists, the latter have moved to new questions. And until naturalists can provide satisfactory explanations for everything, supernaturalists will always have an opening for divine intervention
If one seeks absolutes, statements which are true at all times, under all conditions, then he should stay with supernaturalists such as the creationists. They, alone, provide absolutes: absolutes which are absolutely wrong

My experience, as a member of the ACLU, is that most right-wingers don't know about the cases in which the ACLU has defended Christians or right-wingers. There as two reasons I see for this. The first is that the media popular in heavily right-wing/Christian areas never talk about these cases; e.g., Rush Limbaugh will rant to millions when the ACLU sues a school for required prayer, but not say a word when the ACLU sues a school for trying to prevent private prayer among Christian students.
The second reason is that the ACLU does challange Christians more than people of other faiths. That is because Christians form a political majority in this country, and like every other group in the history of our species, they try to use (abuse?) that power to mold society around them. Thus, Christians as a group possess and use the power to inflict unconstitutional resolutions/laws/etc. on the populace more than any other political group, and so get sued more. Therefore we get the perception of the ACLU as being anti-Christian.

Exactly.

The term "unguided" is the key to the entire debate between cretinism/ID and Science. From everything we know about evolution, there is no reason at all why one species thrives while another perishes. Certainly, there is a cause, but to say that there is a "reason" why a meteorite smashed into earth millions of years ago and wiped out most of the life on this planet is disingenuous at best.

If evolution teaches us nothing else, it is that for 4 Billion years, life on this planet has been firmly out of the anyone's (or thing's) control. In fact, random destruction is what allows so many types of life to exist.

Clearly, an "unguided " history of evolution provides its own set of problems. Unfortunately, even a "guided" history of life on earth should give pause to those who believe that God had anything to do with the history of life on earth. After all, what kind of God would kill off (or allow to be killed off) 99.99% of its creation to arrive at anything, including humans. Is such a God "knowable"? Even more importantly, is such a God worth worshipping?

Guided, unguided; it's all the same to Bible-beaters. If we are here by evolutionary processes, the God of the Bible is dead any way you slice it. Those who hold that one can both believe the Bible is the word of God and believe in the truth of evolution only deceive themselves. Oddly, it is the cretinists who understand this so clearly, as opposed to the biologists, geologists, astronomers, chemists and anthropologists who see no "false dichotomy."

Huh. ACLU Derangement Syndrome, all over again.

So the IDots planted the word 'unguided' Is that what Behe meant by 'purposeful arrangement....'?

Dear B. Spitzer:

Thanks for your input. I was curious and I have no copy of the book near at hand. I teach in a private school, and would never interfere in another teacher's curriculum, but our science department has a problem with a book containing discredited scientific claims being used without any statement or preface regarding its validity.

I ask this because a math teacher has included Darwin's Black Box by Behe in a reading list (students may choose from this list; it's not assigned).

One would think that creationists and other supernaturalists would learn from history and admit they are fighting a losing battle. They may be correct in feeling they can never be eradicated, because science will never explain all, it will never become God; but they must realize their losses will grow with every scientific advance.
As Dawkins said "Indeed, increasing numbers of biblicists are wisely abandoning the ramparts and leaving fundamentalists to cover the retreat".

I guess it's time I become a card-carrying member of the ACLU (I'm embarassed that I'm not currently a member...)

AD,

This is a Calculus course. This book is the only one, I believe, that touches on biological topics. The rest concern physics or mathematics. The teacher is deeply religious, which is okay especially since we are an Episcopal school. I am not sure what his goals are, but we are certainly asking. The seniors in the school are required to take a year-long course in Religion, which is a survey of world religions and in some ways a philosophical and historical exploration of religion as a human experience. We would have the same concerns if this book was used in that course, not because of its religious implications, but because of its scientific claims.

Rush Limbaugh will rant to millions when the ACLU sues a school for required prayer, but not say a word when the ACLU sues a school for trying to prevent private prayer among Christian students.

Bynoceros: If we are here by evolutionary processes, the God of the Bible is dead any way you slice it. Those who hold that one can both believe the Bible is the word of God and believe in the truth of evolution only deceive themselves.

Interesting to note that the ACLU has been supportive of Rush Limbaugh as he is fighting to keep his medical records private in his prescription drug case. If the ACLU really was the enemy of the political right, why would they be supporting him?

I believe the issue is the clarification of what we mean by "unguided". If the statement is essentially equivalent to saying "no discernable goal that is detectable with empirical testing" and conforms to methodological naturalism, I don't see a problem. That's basically just saying we can't find a purpose yet, not that it doesn't have one. Unguided in that sense is fine. But if you mean "unguided", as in there can be no possible guidance because there is no God, then that's kind of nuts. It's something you cannot prove any more easily than ID. So, basically, saying unguided

As Dawkins said "Indeed, increasing numbers of biblicists are wisely abandoning the ramparts and leaving fundamentalists to cover the retreat".

— JonBoy

Michael Maveal wants his eighth-grade students at Jones Junior High to know the truth - as he sees it. So, the Toledo Public Schools science teacher tells them that evolution is an unproven theory, as is creation. He teaches them about Nebraska man, a creature rejected by science long ago, to demonstrate the fallibility of evolution. He teaches them that Pluto has never been seen. [It has.] He teaches them that humans are not animals. [We are.] He teaches them about the famous scientific hoax, Piltdown man, once purported to be an early human ancestor. "I'm not afraid of dealing with all the fakery that's going on in all the science community," Mr. Maveal said. "We have to present information to the kids so they can make an intelligent decision for themselves.

KL,

I cannot think of any specific mathematical relevance that Behe's book would have to a calculus course. I have taught lab classes for introductory level calculus at the college level and have a mathematics degree, so you can consider it at least a half-assed professional opinion.

If you are concerned about it, I would suggest two potential avenues for further investigation:

- Ask the teacher in question, in a very neutral and non-biased manner, why he included the book. He might well have a good reason, and you don't know until you ask, I suppose.

- Having done that, if he doesn't have one, I'd express concern based on the false scientific claims and lack of relevance to the class. From my understanding, most private catholic and non-fundamental christian schools I have dealt with in the past have possessed very strong scientific integrity and knowledge. Hopefully this is the case where you are as well.

PvM,

Even more complicated is the fact that many theistic scientists would use the apparent "unguided" nature of evolution on a natural level as evidence of the "guided" nature of evolution on a theistic/supernatural level.

Speaking philosophically, I have heard the argument that the incredible number of chances that would be required for humanity to evolve (and likewise, similar arguments about the universe as a whole in light of its complexity) as dictated by scientific principles is evidence that there must be a supernatural designer working behind the curtain. In other words, instead of evolution contradicting God, evolution is, in fact, evidence for God. Most of them would point out, though, that they are not concluding that using scientific methods. Yet, these people say evolution is an unguided process!

The point is to be careful what we mean about guidance, which is to say "We observe no natural evidence that evolution is guided to any purpose other than survival". That's all - no mention of a guiding/creator being who could very well be working in non-natural ways. There's just no way to observe/test that.

Kind of makes the argument about contradicting God ridiculous once you understand what "unguided" really means. Likewise, EVERYTHING in science is unguided in that regard - there is no scientific theory that ascribes a supernatural final cause to anything.

There are AFAICT only two senses in which the claim that evolution is unguided is a "metaphysical claim" that "goes beyond what science can tell us." ....The other sense is a generally theistic one where "designed" and "guided" are conceptual honorifics --- they're anthropomorphic shorthand and loose analogies with the design activity of normal naturalistic human designers and guiders, employed because our finite minds cannot generate an adequate linguistic description of the process. This sense is essentially one of theological noncognitivism; to say "evolution is guided" is not even to state a choate truth-functional description of the world per se, but to express the speaker's awe and wonder at the grandeur of the unfolding universe.

— A.L.R.

I'm deeply troubled by the implication that science ought to walk on eggshells to avoid giving offense to anyone whose religious beliefs employ euphemistic language involving designers or guiders.

— A.L.R.

ISTM that if science can challenge the empirical claims of YECism, then it ought to be allowed to challenge the empirical claims of Intelligent Design...

— A.L.R.

Using the word "unguided" is simply inviting confusion. Its a bad idea in a grade school class.

1. As has already been pointed out at length, it suggests metaphysical speculations that have no place in a science class.

2. It suggests that evolution is random, which is simply not the case.

Please, lets agree to have a firewall between what is actually science, and speculations about belief systems that individuals like Richard Dawkins might want to draw from it. I don't think the public is totally to blame for thinking that evolution teaches atheism. I think the scientific community is to blame for not being clear and consistent with our language.

B. Spitz,

No offense intended. My wife is of the same persuasion as you, and I tell the same thing to her (much to her chagrin).

However, I have yet to read a reconciliation of the Bible and modern science that is anything other than sophistry. From before Augustine on, apologists have hemmed and hawed their way around mutually exclusive propositions; From earths on the backs of turtles to angels pushing around planets to God refraining from craps to Overlapping Magesteria.

Either the world was created in six days or it wasn't. Either there was a Global Flood or there wasn't. The walls of Jericho really did fall because Israelites marched around them seven times blowing horns or the city of Jericho had already been destroyed when the tribes of Judah came upon them fifty years after the fact.

My point is that when we begin deciding what's true about the Bible and what's allegory, where do we stop? The one thing cretinist have going for them is that they are consistent in their belief concerning the infallibility of the Bible. If the Bible is fallible (or, I'm sorry, "allegorical"), then why should we believe any of it? It's one thing for Solomon to only rule a pfiefdom of mesopatamia instead of being the richest man on earth. It's quite another for the Creation story to be a complete fabrication, and even worse for Jesus to speak of Global Floods that never happened. Jesus IS GOD; if he talks about a Global Flood, and there was no Global Flood, then what?

At any rate, my main point is that most world religions have us at the center of the universe. As we learn that there is no center of the universe, or that we are not the finished product of a Creator (but rather a transitory species on the path to some other species which itself will not be the final product), the truth these religions becomes more and more suspect, which is why this wording is so important to the ID folks.

38 Nobel prize winning scientists wrote a letter to the Kanas BoE stating that evolution was understood to be an unguided, unplanned process. The ID minority included what 38 of the world's greatest living scientists said was how evolution was understood.

Maybe you and Jack and egbert should argue with them about how evolution is understood by "science" instead of with the ID minority or with DaveScot.

Perhaps it is even wrong for teachers to refer to unguided missiles (as opposed to guided missiles), since even those missiles which we normally call "unguided" may in fact be guided by a supernatural being.

I'd hate to think that any weapon's targeting was left to an unknown and unspecified force.

spitzer

There is a great deal of irony in this. When a scientist makes a statement about a topic on which he has no training--- for which he can marshal no scientific tests or evidence--- about which there is no consensus among biologists--- that scientist is taken to be an unquestionable authority whose words are perfectly correct. But when that same man makes a statement about the evidence supporting the theory of evolution--- a topic on which he is profoundly well-informed, for which there is an immense amount of hard fact, and on which there is no serious doubt within the scientific community--- then, in the creationist's eyes, his authority crumbles into dust and his knowledge is puffery, hardly worthy to be shrugged aside.

There's no irony in it once you understand there's a religious agenda influencing how evolution is understood. Atheism is of course a religion for this purpose, the conviction (based upon faith, not science) that God does not exist. 72% of NAS scientists are positive atheists and although I couldn't find the percentage of the Wiesel 38 that are positive atheists I'd bet at least 72% of them are. There are people on BOTH sides of this debate that are letting their religious beliefs pollute their scientific knowledge. If you think it's only bible bangers that have an agenda you're wrong. Science is agnostic. Unfortunately the majority of the worlds top scientists are not agnostic. It's become a little club for atheists at the top and while they let in doubters (22% of NAS scientists are agnostic) only 7% believe in God. So if you want into the club you better keep your God tucked out of sight like a good little sheep.

38 Nobel prize winning scientists wrote a letter to the Kanas BoE stating that evolution was understood to be an unguided, unplanned process.

Perhaps it is even wrong for teachers to refer to unguided missiles (as opposed to guided missiles), since even those missiles which we normally call "unguided" may in fact be guided by a supernatural being.

— Richard Wein

AD

Please define "unguided" and "unplanned".

What's the problem, is english not your native language or did you forget how to use a dictionary?

If you think it's only bible bangers that have an agenda you're wrong. Science is agnostic. Unfortunately the majority of the worlds top scientists are not agnostic.

— sonofblast

It's become a little club for atheists at the top and while they let in doubters (22% of NAS scientists are agnostic) only 7% believe in God. So if you want into the club you better keep your God tucked out of sight like a good little sheep.

Bynocerous wrote:

Either the world was created in six days or it wasn't. Either there was a Global Flood or there wasn't. The walls of Jericho really did fall because Israelites marched around them seven times blowing horns or the city of Jericho had already been destroyed when the tribes of Judah came upon them fifty years after the fact.

My point is that when we begin deciding what's true about the Bible and what's allegory, where do we stop?

And earlier:

Oddly, it is the cretinists who understand this so clearly, as opposed to the biologists, geologists, astronomers, chemists and anthropologists who see no "false dichotomy."

This is why I strongly suspect that at least a few of the "atheists" who post here are really Christian fundies pretending to be atheists, and posting nonsense in order to make atheists -- and this blog -- look stupid, sow discord within the pro-science camp, and reinforce the worst Christian stereotypes of atheists.

I simply can't help noticing the similarity between the passage quoted above and the rhetoric of the fundies: the same willful ignorance of what others really believe; the same all-or-nothing interpretation of the Bible; the same refusal to consider non-literal interpretations, for the same frightened-sounding reason ("Where do we stop?"); the same insistence that evolution denies "the God of the Bible;" the same insistence that creationists understand something that scientists are trying to deny or ignore; and the same dogged insistence, ignoring readily-available evidence to the contrary, that all Christians believe and behave as he demands.

An atheist dictating how other Christians reconcile faith with fact? That's even more ridiculous than a fundie doing the same thing!

What purpose can possibly be served by "atheists" insulting the beliefs and intelligence of people on their own side? There can be only one answer: to undermine the solid coalition of honest scientists and honest persons of all faiths, who will otherwise kick the faux-Christian con-artists out of power for good.

Posted by Bill Gascoyne on February 16, 2006 10:50 AM By the way, if I'm not mistaken the opposite of a "guided" missile is a "balistic" missile, wherein all the "guiding" happens at launch.

about 'sonofblast' we know one thing--he has not spent any time in higher science education and research. Or he would know that there are no religious quizes.

What's the problem, is english not your native language or did you forget how to use a dictionary?

So...an "atheist" alleges that faith and science can never be reconciled; and a creationist (Larry sonofblast Farfalarfalicious perhaps?) alleges that most scientists are rabid atheists who force each other to keep their true faiths hidden or face dire (unspecified) consequences.

Coincidence? I don't think so. The creationists need a God-denying atheistic scientist to make themselves look like innocent victims of persecution, and a real one wasn't available -- so they made one up.

Atheism is of course a religion for this purpose...

So...an "atheist" alleges that faith and science can never be reconciled; and a creationist (Larry sonofblast Farfalarfalicious perhaps?) alleges that most scientists are rabid atheists who force each other to keep their true faiths hidden or face dire (unspecified) consequences.

— Raging Bee

Too much bandwidth is being wasted on the use of the word "unguided." Yes, from a biologist's perspective, it's most appropriate to call evolution "unguided," but from the layman's perspective, such usage is misleading. To the biologist it simply means that there is no empirical access to any guiding force; evolution simply meanders across its potential a full 360° depending on the pressures to which a given species (or as Dawkins would have it, a gene) is subject. To the promoters of ID, and anyone within hearing distance of their screeds (including impressionable children), it's a theological statement that there is no god. Since that's a misinterpretation of the scientist's meaning, it's best avoided in introductory instruction---and in state syllabi. And that's precisely why the Kansas BOE majority and the writing committee minority wanted it in there---to mislead the flock with a false statement about evolution.

To continue a marginally relevant sub-thread, I recall that in the early does of the space program the talking heads on the television used the phrase "go ballistic" to mean that a missile had consumed the fuel in its manouvering rockets or for some other reason would no longer be controlled. Its furhter flight would depend entirely on the current trajectory and any outside forces acting on it.
I guess that could be an analogy for JAD's front-loading spiel.

RagingBee,

First off, I'm not an atheist. Second off, I believe that faith and science cannot be reconciled any more than Xtianity and Islam can be "reconciled."

One can believe in God and believe in Science. Moreover, one can believe that God got involved with humans 6 million years ago or so. What one cannot do, in my opinion, is juxtapose the message of the Koran/Bible/Torah onto the findings of modern science. I guess that most of the Koran/Bible/Torah appears to be made up or designed to promote a specific political message, but COULD still be true in the important parts (which important parts those are varies by who you are, I guess). And there COULD be an invisible, incorporeal, heatless fire-breathing dragon in my garage.

Like Dawkins, whom I don't think anyone considers to be a troll, I don't understand how one can be a True Believer and accept modern science. That's it

Religious conservatives around the country are up in arms over a Wisconsin bill that would ban the teaching of intelligent design as science in the state's public schools. Focus on the Family, the evangelical Christian advocacy group led by founder James Dobson, panned the legislation this week on its Web site. "If you can't beat them, keep them from showing up for the game," the group opined. "That's the tack Wisconsin evolutionists and liberal lawmakers are taking in attempting to ban the study of intelligent design in public schools." Baptist Press, the online wire service of the Southern Baptist Convention, based in Nashville, also was critical. It called the introduction of the bill by Democratic Rep. Terese Berceau "an unprecedented political move to protect evolution."

"faith and science can never be reconciled"

Of course they can't. Science is founded upon systematic doubt and testing. Faith is a rejection of doubt.

Christianity explicitly condemns doubt and praises faith. What kind of Christian are you, Raging Bee, to deny the words of Christ?

Bynocerus wrote:

I don't understand how one can be a True Believer and accept modern science.

Well, if you don't understand the subject, perhaps you should shut up about it, instead of going off-topic, insulting beliefs you admittedly don't understand, and making an ass of yourself.

Once again, you're sounding like a creationist: argument from ignorance and/or incredulity. We've seen it here before, remember?

However, I have yet to read a reconciliation of the Bible and modern science that is anything other than sophistry. From before Augustine on, apologists have hemmed and hawed their way around mutually exclusive propositions; From earths on the backs of turtles to angels pushing around planets to God refraining from craps to Overlapping Magesteria.
My point is that when we begin deciding what's true about the Bible and what's allegory, where do we stop?

Bynocerous, if the descent into allegory panics you so much, perhaps that is a psychological issue which you should attempt to remedy before posting on a public board. Allegory, symbolism, and metaphors are all common nowadays, and have been for quite some time.

I believe you are saying that because Genesis states that God created various bits of creation on specific days, all Christians who believe in the "infallibility" of the Bible must believe that all of creation was completed in exactly six twenty-four hour days. (Or perhaps less, if God paused for a snack once in a while.)

All Christians do not, in fact, believe that the earth was created in exactly 144 hours. While I will not make a blanket statement and say that NO Christians believe that, I will say that those Christians who interpret every piece of the Bible exactly literally are in the extreme minority. You might notice them by the fact that they kill anyone they see with a tattoo.

From what I can see, your argument against ID depends upon the following points:
1) Christianity is null because you, specifically, cannot accept that God exists, OR that religion can be reconciled with Science.
2) Christianity would be null anyway, because all Christians interpret the Bible exactly literally, being somehow possessed of the same, strange fear of allegory you are possessed of, and because the exact text of the Bible does not hold with what Science tells us about Creation.
3) Because ID is espoused by Christians, and Christianity is proven void in points 1 and 2, ID is wrong.

ID may, in fact, BE wrong. However, your way of proving this is roundabout, illogical, and insulting to Christians.

Posted by Raging Bee on February 16, 2006 04:21 PM (e) So...an "atheist" alleges that faith and science can never be reconciled; and a creationist (Larry sonofblast Farfalarfalicious perhaps?) alleges that most scientists are rabid atheists who force each other to keep their true faiths hidden or face dire (unspecified) consequences. Coincidence? I don't think so. The creationists need a God-denying atheistic scientist to make themselves look like innocent victims of persecution, and a real one wasn't available --- so they made one up.

Once again, Caledonian and BWE loudly condemn just about every religious/spiritual belief ever held by humans, and once again they prove that they are just as ignorant, intolerant, narrow-minded, and insultingly self-important as the worst of the faithful -- whom they don't even bother to single out from the best.

Every time the religion-bashers trash belefs of which they are clearly ignorant and/or uncaring, we point out that it's not as simple as they say it is, and their only response is to keep repeating the same insulting -- and observably wrong -- generalizations over and over again, all the while pretending that bashing "myths" proves them more intelligent than the rest of us.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: these religion-bashers sound and act an awful lot like the "true believers" they pretend to condemn while making them look smart. Whose side are they on? Who benefits from this off-topic sniping? Is this a bit of COINTELPRO from the IDiots?

--- and observably wrong ---

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that these myths including the bible/koran/torah/all-the-others crumble upon even the most superficial inspection. THey have no authority, no factual accuracy and most of all are being employed with all of their inanities mostly by asses who want to make a world where people can be controlled.

Sabri,If I may be permitted to join the fray? You said," that those Christians who interpret every piece of the Bible exactly literally are in the extreme minority".so, where does that place their faith?
If various parts of scripture are not to be taken literally,then what parts are,and who makes that decision, do we use the bible as a menu to satisfy our own religious appetites?
Any book claiming a woman turned into a pillar of salt (Gen. 19:26), the sun went backward 10 degrees on the sundial (2 Kings 20:11), and quails came from the sea (Num. 11:31) is going to have great difficulty demonstrating its scientific precision to any reasonably scientific mind.
However, it is interesting to note how the struggle between science and the Bible has evolved. Originally, scientific findings were denounced as blasphemous lies. But as science has expanded and the evidence has mounted, many apologists have adopted a more realistic stance. They have increasingly rewritten the Bible by either changing literal statements to figurative meanings or alleging, "What the Bible really meant was..." For example, they assert the seven days of Creation weren't really days; they were eras or epochs. When the Bible describes miracles it doesn't mean to imply they exist. It is merely relating instances in which naive people were fooled by trickery and other mechanisms.
"In other words, the standard has been changed; the ancient is measured by the modern, where the literal statement in the Bible do not agree with modern discoveries, they do not change the discoveries, but give new meanings to the old account. We are not now endeavoring to reconcile science with the Bible, but to reconcile the Bible with science. How any, individual who posses a logical mind and yet also manages to entertain this ancient mythology in a similar context has all ways eluded me

If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, "move from here to there," and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.

And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. And immediately Jesus stretched forth [his] hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples said unto him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said unto them, "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." And after eight days again his disciples were within, / and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in their midst and said, "Peace be unto you." Then said he to Thomas, "Reach hither thy hand and thrust it into my side, and be not faithless, but believing." And Thomas answered and said into him, "My Lord and my God." Jesus saith unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet believeth."

However, it is interesting to note how the struggle between science and the Bible has evolved. Originally, scientific findings were denounced as blasphemous lies. But as science has expanded and the evidence has mounted, many apologists have adopted a more realistic stance. They have increasingly rewritten the Bible by either changing literal statements to figurative meanings or alleging, "What the Bible really meant was..." For example, they assert the seven days of Creation weren't really days; they were eras or epochs. When the Bible describes miracles it doesn't mean to imply they exist. It is merely relating instances in which naive people were fooled by trickery and other mechanisms.

Yes, the Church has undergone a radical transformation. However, this is only one of several transformations since the time of, say, Galileo. The Protestant Reformation was one of these transformations. Theology is always evolving, and always changing. Just because the Vatican, at one point, decried astronomy as heresy, and now some Christians read the Bible metaphorically does not mean that every Christian will start out with hard line, literal interpretations of the Bible and gradually, over time, come to see the error of their ways.
I understand that you take issue with those who try to reconcile faith and science, but that does not mean that the task is impossible, or that those who try cannot reason scientifically.
Science, unless I misunderstand, attempts to describe the is, not the why (unless the, "why" stems from another process which is, for example: when I drop a plate, it falls on the floor because of gravity). Why is it impossible to accept science, and also have faith? Does the presence of faith denote an inherently flawed mind?

Science, unless I misunderstand, attempts to describe the is, not the why (unless the, "why" stems from another process which is, for example: when I drop a plate, it falls on the floor because of gravity). Why is it impossible to accept science, and also have faith? Does the presence of faith denote an inherently flawed mind?

— Sabri

I view the ACLU as a litigational terrorist, which to me also makes the ACLU an intellectual terrorist.

The ACLU is entitled to its opinions on establishment clause issues. Sometimes I agree with the ACLU on those issues and sometimes not (for example, I am strongly against school prayer). What I do not agree with is the ACLU's abuse of the legal system to intimidate and rob governments by lawsuits and threats of lawsuits over establishment clause issues. Such intimidation and robbery is enabled by a law and a Supreme Court decision ( Blum v. Stenson ) authorizing the awarding of attorney fees -- which are often exorbitant -- to the ACLU and other non-profits ( especially Americans United for Separation of Church and State) that provide free legal representation in civil rights cases. The ACLU and others drive up these attorney fees by having a grossly excessive number of attorneys on the case -- a grand total of 9-10 plaintiffs' attorneys of record (ACLU plus AU plus Pepper-Hamilton LLP) in the Dover case and 6 attorneys of record in the El Tejon (Lebec), Calif. case, which did not go to trial. The ACLU was even able to intimidate the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors over a small Christian cross in the Los Angeles County seal, and no local government in America has deeper pockets than Los Angeles County (the county budget in a recent year was around $15 billion). The county had a good case -- the cross was just a symbol of the role of the Spanish missions in local history -- but the board of supervisors voted 3-2 to remove the cross.

A bill has been introduced in Congress to end the awarding of attorney fees to winning plaintiffs in establishment clause cases. See --
http://www.legion.org/?section=pub_relations&subsection=pr_listreleases&content=pr_press_release&id=289

-- and --

http://www.legion.org/includes/printable_version.php?content=aclu_magarticle

I think that the ACLU et al. may have killed the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Comment #80454 Posted by A.C. on February 16, 2006 08:09 PM (e) I view the ACLU as a litigational terrorist, which to me also makes the ACLU an intellectual terrorist.

Science is based on systematic doubt, observation, and experimentation. It rejects dogma in favor of evidence. Faith is based on belief in spite of uncertainty and doubt (and the rejection of the two), the authority of human organizations, and the rejection of evidence and observation.

The ACLU and others drive up these attorney fees by having a grossly excessive number of attorneys on the case --- a grand total of 9-10 plaintiffs' attorneys of record (ACLU plus AU plus Pepper-Hamilton LLP) in the Dover case and 6 attorneys of record in the El Tejon (Lebec), Calif. case, which did not go to trial.

I view the ACLU as a litigational terrorist, which to me also makes the ACLU an intellectual terrorist.

— A.C.

Oops, I was right. Sorry to point out the obvious.

Count me with those who see no problem in calling evolution "unguided."

The fact is, available evindence clearly indicates that evolution is unguided. There is no evidence of a guiding intelligence.

I suppose we could say evolution is "apparently" unguided, but should that really be necessary? Where do we draw the line on such qualifications?

Lightning strikes are also "apparently" unguided, even though they're decidedly non-random. We can predict that lightning is more likely to strike in certain places (tree tops, lightning rods) or times (during thunder storms). [We can make similar statements about likely and unlikely results of evolution in specific situations.] But we can't predict exactly where and when lightning will strike.

Should we therefore take care to say the lightning strikes are "apparently" unguided? Must we bend over backwards to acknowledge that some god might be controlling lightning strikes in a way that is beyond our ability to detect?

I don't see why. I would certainly never claim that anything in science disproves any religion. But I also don't see why routine scientific statements should be phrased to explicitly leave room for some religious belief.

Category error. It is only viable that science contradicts faith if everything faith addressed was testable via science and everything scientific had a viable faith-based alternative.

— AD

I also think you are badly misrepresenting faith, but that's another story entirely.

the only problem i ever had with the use of the word "unguided" when speaking of evolutionary theory is it tends to make folks focus on the mutation mechanisms, rather than the selection mechanisms.

most creationists would prefer to focus on the 'random mutation' aspect, and make you forget about the other half of the equation.

Selection itself is far from a random process, and one could technically use the term "guided" in a colloquial, secular sense; but of course NOT as a metaphysical term. It's poor terminology to use in any case, as it typically implies a goal oriented procedure in most folks' minds.

for example, simplistically we could say that the actions of a predator on a specific population de-facto act as selective "guidance" of a trait, provided we also specify that there is no "goal" in mind. Indeed, the "guidance" of the trait in question would act to thwart the fitness of the predator in the long term, so obviously it wouldn't be correctly termed a goal-oriented process.

In practice, I've never seen the term actually used to describe selection pressures in real world studies, nor have i seen the term "unguided" used either, for that matter, when speaking of any mechanism of evolution in a published article.

so, after all that, if push comes to shove, i guess i would be against the general usage of the term "unguided" because:

-it's hard to avoid the metaphysical implications of the word in a large proportion of the audience such language is targeted to

-it tends to focus the initial argument on the "random" part of the evolutionary process.

Science and religion are incompatible if their methods are mutually exclusive. They are. They do not actually come into conflict unless their fields of application overlap. If religion makes any statements about the real world, it's stepping onto science's territory. Religions that do not are meaningless. Therefore, all meaningful religious statements come into conflict with science.

Judging from your intellectual performance thus far, I look forward to your attempt to "represent" faith.

guide n. ... 4. Any contrivance serving to steady or direct the motion of something, to guide a tool or instrument, to mark a position, etc.

While I suppose natural selection might be thought of as a 'contrivance' directing the motion through fitness space, far too many people would confuse this with meaning 1. One who guides, as tourists in a strange land or hunters in a forest.

Better to call it simply 'natural selection' and avoid the use of either 'guided' or 'unguided' in the same way and from somewhat the same reasons 'random' ought to be avoided.

Science and religion are incompatible if their methods are mutually exclusive. They are. They do not actually come into conflict unless their fields of application overlap. If religion makes any statements about the real world, it's stepping onto science's territory. Religions that do not are meaningless. Therefore, all meaningful religious statements come into conflict with science.

Caledonian, you seem to want religion to fit into a neat little box so you can point at it and say, "Wrong!"

Religion does not demand that one make blanket statements about the real world without careful observation or checking and re-checking of facts. If I tell you that the sky is blue, and it is indeed blue, which I deduced by observing it, does that mean I'm stepping into science's territory? And that, only because I am a Christian? Does anyone other than a scientist intrude upon science's territory when making an observation? What about a scientist who is also a Christian? Or Jewish? Or Muslim?

Your definition of religion does not fit every religion, Caledonian, and thus your if-then line of reasoning does not hold.

A.C. wrote: I view the ACLU as a litigational terrorist, which to me also makes the ACLU an intellectual terrorist.

Bynoceros: Like Dawkins, whom I don't think anyone considers to be a troll, I don't understand how one can be a True Believer and accept modern science. That's it

when we begin deciding what's true about the Bible and what's allegory, where do we stop?

At the risk of inflaming this situation any more, I think Caledonian has a point.

Science does a much better job of explaining the material world - the aspects of the world that everyone can experience - than religion ever has.

Religion may explain other (spiritual) aspects of life that science can not, but these are aspects that each person experiences differently, or not at all.

Sure, there are people who can reconcile religion and science, but I doubt they're ever doing religion and science at the same time (at least, not if they're doing them well).

As for "unguided" and "unplanned", I think they're acceptable but unnecessary descriptions of the evolutionary process (you'll have a hard time convincing me that mass-extinctions are part of any "plan").

But hey, I'm just a guy who's homozygous recessive for the god gene.

Steve Reuland

I'm a very successful agnostic scientist. Is the the "you people" that you had in mind?

atheists and theists: a pox on both your houses

AD

I didn't use "unplanned" and "unguided". The 38 Nobel prize winners that wrote to the Kansas BoE used those words. I was quoting them. I was quite clear about the source.

Unplanned the opposite of planned and unguided means the opposite of guided. They used both together as descriptive adjectives describing how the process of evolution was understood.

planned

adj 1: designed or carried out according to a plan; "the planned outlays for new equipment" [ant: unplanned] 2: planned in advance; "with malice aforethought" [syn: aforethought(ip), plotted]

guided

adj : subject to guidance or control especially after launching; "a guided missile" [ant: unguided]

Ergo, one may easily deduce the meaning used by the Wiesel 38 as not subjected to control or designed in advance.

Happy now?

guided vs. unguided

The lightning analogy is a great one.

Science is about demonstration not arguments from ignorance. What repeatable test demonstrates that lightning strikes are unguided? [sound of crickets chirping]

It would be more accurate to say that lightning is unpredictable. But that's not quite right because we can predict that lightning won't come out of a clear blue sky. It is somewhat predictable.

Likewise there is no repeatable test that can demonstrate that evolution is unguided or unplanned. Similarly, there is no test that can demonstrate mutations are random. It would be better to say unpredictable mutations and that evolution is understood to be an unpredictable process. That isn't wholly accurate as some bits of evolution are vaguely predictable (less predictable than lightning though). Given neodarwinian evolutionary theory's inability to predict anything about future emergence of new species it begs the question of what an undemonstrable narrative of biological history that makes no predictions of the future has to offer in the way of practical value. I can't think of any except as "intellectual fulfillment" for atheists. LOL

Caledonian, you in particular seem convinced that science and faith are trying to do the same job, and that they're therefore unavoidably in conflict with one another. I would encourage you to consider a different perspective.In my experience, science and faith are working at right angles to one another.

— B. Spitzer

Bynocerus wrote:

I don't understand how one can be a True Believer and accept modern science.

— Raging Bee

Well, if you don't understand the subject, perhaps you should shut up about it, instead of going off-topic, insulting beliefs you admittedly don't understand, and making an ass of yourself. Once again, you're sounding like a creationist: argument from ignorance and/or incredulity. We've seen it here before, remember?

Religious faith is not primarily belief in a set of intellectual propositions. It's more a matter of committing to--- or having confidence in--- a set of meanings, priorities, and values.

— B. Spitzer

there seems to be a total knee-jerk hatred of the ACLU by the religious right.

atheists and theists: a pox on both your houses

Science does a much better job of explaining the material world - the aspects of the world that everyone can experience - than religion ever has.

Religion may explain other (spiritual) aspects of life that science can not, but these are aspects that each person experiences differently, or not at all.

This is equivocation on the word "explain". Religions may make claims about "other aspects of life", but they dosn't offer explanations in the sense that the word is used in science.

Like Dawkins, whom I don't think anyone considers to be a troll, I don't understand how one can be a True Believer and accept modern science.

Hi

I must admit I didn't expect such an apparently clear word as guided to be a source of such controversy.

I'm uncomfortable with "unguided" because it describes the process rather than the outcome. In my view, the process is not so much guided as constrained in the sense of Dawkin's "Mount Improbable".

I look at natural selection as non-teleological rather than unguided.

At the risk of being the subject of Raging Bee's ire, I would suggest that theistic evolutionists regard the evolution to be both guided (however subtly) and teleological (however vaguely). IDiots, as far as they can be said to think coherently at all, seem to believe there is some guidance (in the past? now?) and some outright interference (how? when? to what effect?) again with the ultimate aim of producing the epitome of creation (I'm pretty sure they mean me).

From Eugene Lai:

Religious faith is not primarily belief in a set of intellectual propositions. It's more a matter of committing to--- or having confidence in--- a set of meanings, priorities, and values.

In your religion, that is most probably true. But bear in mind that you are now making a generalisation that you accuse others of making. In your religion, your religious view is akin to a buffet dinner - you pick what you like from the table and ignore the rest. This is a factual descriptive statement. Feel free to educate me why this is false. If anyone takes this as insulting I seriously suggest he/she to unwind.

So there would otherwise be no tension between two modes of thought that explicitly renounce the other's methods?!

That's rather like saying there's no tension between the UNCF and the KKK.

Very interesting. So incompatible methods automatically means mutual exclusion? So cooking and eating raw are mutually exclusive, because the method used is incompatible, even if applied to different objects? I find this to be a highly problematic definition of mutual exclusion. Mutual exclusion, to be precise, means that if one thing occurs then the other thing cannot possibly occur. Obviously, since we have theistic scientists, I believe that you have some explaining to do about why science and religion are mutually exclusive. Are all of them not scientists, or are all of them not actually religious and just deluding themselves into thinking they are religious? Or is it on a case by case basis?

Eugene Lai: read the posts to which I had responded. Do the words "willfully ignorant" and "myth" stand out at all? Those words were clearly intended to insult a HUGE, undifferentiated mass of people and their beliefs. That is what I meant by "insulting." You may not understand "willfully ignorant" to be an insulting phrase, but trust us on this, most people with lives and jobs do. Any further questions?

How does admitting not understanding something lead to making an ass of oneself?

It doesn't -- unless one has already pretended to understand the subject and made ignorant and ridiculous statements about it, BEFORE throwing up one's hands and sighing "I just don't understand it -- it's making my head hurt!" The religion-bashers also compounded their asshattery by repeating -- again -- the same ignorant statements AFTER admitting their cluelessness and being corrected by more than one respondent. (Thanx, AD, Sabri, Spitzer, et al, if they don't listen it's not your fault. Like the song says, you can gain some satisfaction thinking "Jesus, at least I tried.")

(PS for Caledonian: which words of Jesus am I denying? And what makes you think I'm a Christian?)

In fact, the religion-bashers have pretty much proven by their dogged dogmatism that they're really not interested in dialogue or new information, and are thus no more worthy of our time than the flat-earthers in Australia. They are either ridiculous trolls, hijacking nearly every thread with their private grudges and obsessions; or creationist provocateurs typing from a script.

I really don't know how to explain this to the religion-bashers any more simply than this: I was there and you weren't. I have experienced life, interacted with people not exactly like myself, listened to the experiences and insights of others, read books and newspapers; and I can say the following with absolute confidence: spirituality and spiritual power are real (even if this or that god isn't); not all spiritual truth comes from holy books or churches (ever heard of "revelation?"); myths and legends can be "true," and beneficial, on more than the literal level; not all people who open themselves to spirit, or rely on a "higher power," are stupid; true spirituality can open minds to new knowledge and wisdom, not close them; not all faiths demand that we shut down our brains; science and faith can indeed be reconciled, and very often are; spiritual truth is no less real or relevant to human lives than scientific/material truth; and it is possible to experience such truth in churches (I prefer the big Gothic variety), mosques, fellowship, dreams, timely use of hallucinogens, and even in the sack.

Raging B
Yes and even the sack --where dreams and myth come from.
Are you just offended because (as far as I can ascertain)you think that myth in the popular vernacular means a lie ?
If that is the case why get so excited ?
Just the joy of kwowing what you know should be enough should it not ?

Cue Lenny

Cue Lenny

planned adj 1: designed or carried out according to a plan; "the planned outlays for new equipment" [ant: unplanned] 2: planned in advance; "with malice aforethought" [syn: aforethought(ip), plotted] guided adj : subject to guidance or control especially after launching; "a guided missile" [ant: unguided]

I really don't know how to explain this to the religion-bashers any more simply than this: I was there and you weren't. I have experienced life, interacted with people not exactly like myself, listened to the experiences and insights of others, read books and newspapers; and I can say the following with absolute confidence: spirituality and spiritual power are real (even if this or that god isn't); not all spiritual truth comes from holy books or churches (ever heard of "revelation?"); myths and legends can be "true," and beneficial, on more than the literal level; not all people who open themselves to spirit, or rely on a "higher power," are stupid; true spirituality can open minds to new knowledge and wisdom, not close them; not all faiths demand that we shut down our brains; science and faith can indeed be reconciled, and very often are; spiritual truth is no less real or relevant to human lives than scientific/material truth; and it is possible to experience such truth in churches (I prefer the big Gothic variety), mosques, fellowship, dreams, timely use of hallucinogens, and even in the sack.

— Raging Bee

Don't look at ME ---- If the theists and the atheists really want to force the rest of us to listen to their pointless Holy Wars, *I* can't do anything to shut them up. All I can do is point out (again) that shooting people who are *on our side* is . . well . . really really stupid. Like two fighting dogs, just let them keep barking till they're tired, then they'll be quiet for a while and we can go on with our business. (shrug)

Raging Bee wrote: I really don't know how to explain this to the religion-bashers any more simply than this: I was there and you weren't. I have experienced life, interacted with people not exactly like myself, listened to the experiences and insights of others, read books and newspapers; and I can say the following with absolute confidence: spirituality and spiritual power are real (even if this or that god isn't); not all spiritual truth comes from holy books or churches (ever heard of "revelation?"); myths and legends can be "true," and beneficial, on more than the literal level; not all people who open themselves to spirit, or rely on a "higher power," are stupid; true spirituality can open minds to new knowledge and wisdom, not close them; not all faiths demand that we shut down our brains; science and faith can indeed be reconciled, and very often are; spiritual truth is no less real or relevant to human lives than scientific/material truth; and it is possible to experience such truth in churches (I prefer the big Gothic variety), mosques, fellowship, dreams, timely use of hallucinogens, and even in the sack.

So when is the ACLU going to protect our children from being told they are unplanned and have no purpose and must believe the religion of Dawkin's god?

DaveScot, If I don't get a response from you as to why my comments are being censored, I will be forced to start spreading the word about your actions. This is absolutely inexcusable and hypocritical. I have done nothing to get myself banned! egbooth Well let's run down the list. Pick any one or more of the following: trite, derivative, boring, ignorant, wrong, hysterical, hyperbolic... read the comment moderation policy on the sidebar. I'm under no obligation to provide you with a soapbox. You got a chance to speak your mind. Now take it somewhere else. -ds Comment by egbooth --- February 15, 2006 @ 10:15 pm

Why don't you put up my original comment that I posted this morning and let your reader's decide whether I was on a soapbox or not. I'm an editor. My job is to make people's words disappear before others see them. You're blaming Panda's Thumb for being censors...how is this any different? I'm up front about it. A bold-lettered statement above every comment submission box says comments are moderated. Comment moderation policy is in the sidebar on the right. The least you can do, DS, is tell me why... I don't have the time. Give me a chance. You may find out that we agree on more than you think (e.g., getting Atheism out of science). You get a chance with every comment. I don't stop anyone from submitting them. If I don't think it's constructive for any reason it gets flushed. I will however see about putting a link to the moderation policy above the comment submission form so it's clear what the rules are. -ds Comment by egbooth --- February 16, 2006 @ 1:05 am

As entertaining as that is, it more properly belongs on the 'Uncommon Pissant' thread at 'After the Bar Closes'.

I will put it there too, but it's relevant to this thread because PvM mentioned Egbooth's correction of DaveScot in the original post, which correction no doubt led to his eradication.

off to AtBC

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=43f5bccf98b4e4d9;act=ST;f=14;t=1274;st=690

Our business then is to find a way for folk who buy into a particular religious dogma to come to peace with science so that we can just teach our kids good science?

Science and faith are not necessarily reconcilable.

Science and MY faith are indeed reconcilable: I believe God gave us large brains so we could perceive, record, reason, and understand the world in which we exist (the Book of Duh, 23487:67). Your faith is your problem.

Faith would have you believe that evolution is a "guided" process and evidence points to "unguided".

Mine wouldn't, and neither would that of any of the Christians, Jews and Pagans I've known. Neither would that of the Catholics and Lutherans who explicitly said that honest science was okay with their God. Who are you talking about? Telling other people what they believe is a fundie thing. Whose side are you on?

If you use science, you are contradicting faith and vice-versa. It is not shooting those on our side. It is deciding whether faith has a place in a worldview that looks to evidence to explain natural phenomena.

My faith has a place in my worldview, and I look to evidence to explain both natural phenomena and alleged human actions.

You can repeat the same obvious falsehood as many times as you like, in as many different permutations as you can think of (can't DaveScot or Karl Rove write you a better script?), but they're still obvious falsehoods -- or, at best, meaningless overgeneralizations.

One last thing: anyone who still believes that faith and doubt are irreconcilable needs to get a life. The two are opposite, and often opposing, but it's more of a balance or Yin/Yang thing; or, to get all Hegelian on you, Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. Comprendez?

I am a religion basher

So when is the ACLU going to protect our children from being told they are unplanned and have no purpose and must believe the religion of Dawkin's god?

Comment #80437 Posted by Raging Bee on February 16, 2006 06:35 PM (e) Once again, Caledonian and BWE loudly condemn just about every religious/spiritual belief ever held by humans, and once again they prove that they are just as ignorant, intolerant, narrow-minded, and insultingly self-important as the worst of the faithful --- whom they don't even bother to single out from the best. Every time the religion-bashers trash belefs of which they are clearly ignorant and/or uncaring, we point out that it's not as simple as they say it is, and their only response is to keep repeating the same insulting --- and observably wrong --- generalizations over and over again, all the while pretending that bashing "myths" proves them more intelligent than the rest of us.

I have posed this question many times, on many posts, and never seem to get a solid response.If you are religious and have faith,on which premise do you base your faith? Family tradition,Sunday school, your parents indoctrinated you ,the bible? All you can possibly know about your beliefs, comes from it's Scriptures, the validity of your beliefs depend upon the validity, reliability and accuracy of its Scripture.
Once conceding there are errors in your particular religious writings, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true, if you admit some parts are false. If you are a Xtian, how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is an,"inaccurate" depiction of God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may just as well be worshiping a Christ of your own imagination,The flying Spaghetti Monster,or King Aurthur. Any faith must have a under pinning, a foundation on which it is built,without that foundation the system has an obvious fatal flaw. To live in an ideological cocoon with all the accompanying feelings of superiority and reassurance,seeking to prove their own convictions,may be fine for some, but in reality it is nothing more than self delusion.

Raging Bee is a druid not a christian.

If you are religious and have faith,on which premise do you base your faith?

Common sense, common decency (including a sense of personal responsibility), bits of wisdom received from wherever/whoever, and the voice of the spirit within me.

All you can possibly know about your beliefs, comes from it's Scriptures, the validity of your beliefs depend upon the validity, reliability and accuracy of its Scripture.

Who are you to say what someone else can "possibly know?" Who are you to say where someone else's beliefs come from? Spiritual truth can come from just about anywhere, from my own holy writ, to someone else's holy writ, to a tale told by some guy in a pub, to years of everyday life-experience, to a Narcotics Anonymous meeting, to a Grateful Dead song, to a face seen in the bark-pattern of a tree while tripping on LSD.

Once conceding there are errors in your particular religious writings, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true, if you admit some parts are false[?]

Again, the answer is: Common sense, common decency (including a sense of personal responsibility), and the voice of the spirit within me. Also, there's a difference between "errors," "differing interpretations," "falsehoods," "multiple meanings," "ambiguities" and "peripheral stuff." It's a difference that extremists of all faiths, including atheism, refuse to acknowledge publicly.

When you first caught your parents making a mistake, did you panic and lose your ability to trust them right then and there? Or did you take it as one more step on the road to maturity?

PS: Yes, BWE, I'm a Druid. Kudos for reading what I actually said. Now here's the trick question: which Scripture am I getting my belief from?

Faith would have you believe that evolution is a "guided" process and evidence points to "unguided".

— BWE

I'm uncomfortable with "unguided" because it describes the process rather than the outcome. In my view, the process is not so much guided as constrained in the sense of Dawkin's "Mount Improbable". I look at natural selection as non-teleological rather than unguided.

— Mike Kelly

If you are religious and have faith,on which premise do you base your faith? Common sense, common decency (including a sense of personal responsibility), bits of wisdom received from wherever/whoever, and the voice of the spirit within me.

You are claiming wisdom from experience rather than faith.

No, I'm claiming wisdom from BOTH, sometimes separately, sometimes interacting.

Your faith appears to be faith in the reality of your experience rather than faith in a "scripture" whether druid or whatever.

Actually, it's both: the teachings of holy men & women, combined with -- and augmented by -- the life-experience of myself and others.

...But faith in gOD the sky daddy or some specific way as the ONLY way is quite different than faith in your own experience.

The two are different, but not mutually exclusive or incompatible. People mix the two all the time, whether they admit it or not.

And, at the moment science is the best tool we have for discovering what gOd is.

Remind us what "science" has told us about God again? "At the moment," science has discovered NOTHING about God. That's what the big ID debate is about, remember? As a "tool" for "discovering what God is," science is, by its own explicit admission, totally useless.

One thing we can observe is that the stories handed down are from a pre-rational time and are utterly, totally and completely man-made and are almot completely false.

And your point is...? Why are you so obsessed with the literal truth or falsehood of these stories, when most persons of faith treat them as symbolic, informative or allegorical fiction anyway? Asatruar don't look for historical proof that humans were ever menaced by frost-giants; Hellenic Pagans aren't looking for fossilized remains of the Hydra; nor do most Christians seem to care exactly who the "prodigal son" was; we tell such stories to illustrate larger points.

And PvM, Dave Scot and Billy Dembski and those actively trying to push the "ID sciences" ( I love typing that) can reconcile their faith with "fancy footwork" but the vast majority of IDers do not. Sure God could have done whatever but the evidence does not show that to be the case.

And science is concerned with the evidence. Since the evidence actually seems to point to that not being the case, one who were following the system of proof and evidence would have to conclude that whatever god may be, god does not appear to be what anybody who tries to pin it down thinks it is.

Therefore, although we can talk about god, is is roughly equivelant to talking about string theory between preschoolers or perhaps even hrndlingdon. Not that we can never answer our questions about universal cosmic consciousness or whatever but that we can't right now at least. And, at the moment science is the best tool we have for discovering what gOd is. One thing we can observe is that the stories handed down are from a pre-rational time and are utterly, totally and completely man-made and are almot completely false.

As Ayala and Ruse have argued however, the constraints can cause natural selection to appear to be teleological because its "result" is function... ...So guided and unguided can be easily reconciled when realizing that unguided means "apparent or internal teleology" and guided means "final teleology" or external teleology

In the mean time ID activists remain empty handed in their thesis.

What I am arguing is that science cannot address these issues. And as such science and religion need not be in conflict.

— PvM

Mike Kelley: "Thanks for the link."

I looked back through this entire thread and could not find it. Thanks.

I really don't know how to explain this to the religion-bashers any more simply than this: I was there and you weren't. I have experienced life, interacted with people not exactly like myself, listened to the experiences and insights of others, read books and newspapers; and I can say the following with absolute confidence: spirituality and spiritual power are real (even if this or that god isn't)

— Raging Gnat

Mike Kelley: "Thanks for the link." I looked back through this entire thread and could not find it. Thanks.

— David B. Benson

They need not be, but particular religions force a conflict when they make claims that are flatly contradicted by scientific findings.

— AC

Of course religion and science are in conflict, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what they conclude. It's how they make the conclusions that's important. Those methods are not compatible.

My apologies, Raging Bee. Based on your previous posts, I had assumed you were a fundamentalist Christian. I had no idea that you had joined one of the few religious movements with even less intellectual rigor than the fundies.

one of the few religious movements with even less intellectual rigor than the fundies.

"No way. druids are experiencial not dogmatic." Is that a dogma I see before me, a compartmentalization of the mind? Let me grasp thee...

That's just a dogma in another form -- and lacking totally in intellectual rigor. Why am I not surprised?

to paraphrase an old bit:

I think your Karma is running over his dogma.

I also think you missed the fact that BWE was trying to lighten the mood a bit.

as a general suggestion, it always seems to work better to take these "dogma fights" to the ATBC arena.

free for all barking there.

Eugene Lai: read the posts to which I had responded. Do the words "willfully ignorant" and "myth" stand out at all? Those words were clearly intended to insult a HUGE, undifferentiated mass of people and their beliefs. That is what I meant by "insulting." You may not understand "willfully ignorant" to be an insulting phrase, but trust us on this, most people with lives and jobs do. Any further questions?

— Raging Bee

I really don't know how to explain this to the religion-bashers any more simply than this: I was there and you weren't.

I can say the following with absolute confidence: spirituality and spiritual power are real (even if this or that god isn't); not all spiritual truth comes from holy books or churches (ever heard of "revelation?"); myths and legends can be "true," and beneficial, on more than the literal level; not all people who open themselves to spirit, or rely on a "higher power," are stupid; true spirituality can open minds to new knowledge and wisdom, not close them; not all faiths demand that we shut down our brains; science and faith can indeed be reconciled, and very often are; spiritual truth is no less real or relevant to human lives than scientific/material truth; and it is possible to experience such truth in churches (I prefer the big Gothic variety), mosques, fellowship, dreams, timely use of hallucinogens, and even in the sack.

Yes, I'm making a generalization about the nature of faith. But it's one that holds up under close analysis, and it applies to faith in general, not just to my faith. Even those believers--- Biblical literalists, for example--- who view religious documents as 100% factually correct are not primarily interested in the factual content. The primary role of the Bible in their lives always seems to be that it sets up a framework of meaning.

— B. Spitzer

The "buffet dinner" analogy has always seemed strange to me. You seem to be implying that there are only two options: either you accept a religious text as 100% accurate or you "pick what you like". The implication of "pick what you like" is that you just keep the bits which please or gratify you, in a very self-interested way.

My point is that we don't accept or reject the claims of a historical document based on whether or not they're pleasing to us. We accept or reject them based on our best assessment of their accuracy. That's how I approach the Bible and the Christian tradition in general. I treat it seriously, and with great respect, but I'm also always trying to examine my understanding of it as impartially as I can, and some parts I have a lot more confidence in than others.

So I would say that your statement about my religious view is incorrect, because I'm not picking "what I like". I'm trying to build a view of the world that has intellectual integrity to it. Really, I don't see that this is all that different than how anyone else puts together their view of the world.

If not for the cultural turf war, I doubt there'd be much tension between the two.

PvM wrote: What I am arguing is that science cannot address these issues. And as such science and religion need not be in conflict. AC (not Larry) replied: They need not be, but particular religions force a conflict when they make claims that are flatly contradicted by scientific findings.

Spitzer,

I agree completely. A large part of the issue is properly defining the process and framing the debate, and preventing those who wish to twist things on either side from doing so.

I have seen arguments between radical atheistic scientists and radical fundamentalist christians, and the result is very amusing but logically and factually laughable. When people take the time to properly define terms and processes in a way that actually conforms with reality, most of the debate falls apart before it starts. "Teach the controversy" and what not become meaningless, and science also does not speak to God.

Now, if a specific holy book makes falsifiable claims and people want to take those literally, however, the response really does become "Too bad". If it was your religion that 1 + 1 = 4, then we should still not teach that in school.

Even if intellectual propositions is not the primary interest, it never stops any one expressing them based on their religion belief. So whether it is primary or secondary or tertiary is not relevent.

Close, but I come from the other direction. I am more interested in the bits that you reject, the bits that you ignore (those that you read once and never come back to). I assert that there are bits you ignore because you don't want to tackle them.

Put it this way, do you believe in any thing in the bible that is not pleasing to you, then? And what do you do about that?

I have this assertion. In a non-theocracy, even a deeply religious one like the USA, if any opinion is supported only by religious faith and nothing else then it is always wrong. Put it another way - if an opinion can be justified by a secular reason other than a religious one, the secular reason is universally used in lieu of the religious reason.

When science tries to play the role of religion, I would argue that the effects can be just as damaging for science education as the effects of religion trying to fill the role of science. There's an interesting book review in today's New York Times that eloquently discusses many of the relevant issues. (I think registration is required--- I'm sorry, but I don't recall how to work around that. Can someone help me out?) One of my concerns is that, when writers like Daniel Dennett conflate evolution with atheism, it provides very powerful ammunition for antievolutionist extremists, because Dennett makes their claims about science and ideology appear accurate. The way I see it, extremists like Daniet Dennett and extremists like Phillip Johnson are engaged in this weird symbiosis, each validating the other. (If you want a more inflammatory metaphor, compare it to Osama bin Laden and G.H.W. Bush, who are probably one anothers' best recruiters.)

The orthodoxies of evolutionary psychology are all here, its tiresome way of roaming widely but never leaving its house, its legendary curiosity that somehow always discovers the same thing. The excited materialism of American society --- I refer not to the American creed of shopping, according to which a person's qualities may be known by a person's brands, but more ominously to the adoption by American culture of biological, economic and technological ways of describing the purposes of human existence --- abounds in Dennett's usefully uninhibited pages. And Dennett's book is also a document of the intellectual havoc of our infamous polarization, with its widespread and deeply damaging assumption that the most extreme statement of an idea is its most genuine statement. Dennett lives in a world in which you must believe in the grossest biologism or in the grossest theism, in a purely naturalistic understanding of religion or in intelligent design, in the omniscience of a white man with a long beard in 19th-century England or in the omniscience of a white man with a long beard in the sky.

2. Fourteenth-Fifteenth centuries: the previous world view begins to fall apart. * Improprieties on the part of the churchmen cause rebellion; Martin Luther calls for a complete break from papal Christianity. * The men who defined reality for centuries lose their credibility. * The clear consensus about the nature of the universe and humankind's purpose here collapses. * Scientific discoveries proved that the realities about our world as maintained by the Church were incorrect: the Earth is not the center of the universe, for ex. * All ideas about the world taken for granted now need new definition, especially the nature of God and our relationship to God. 3. Modern Age: a growing democratic spirit and a mass distrust of papal and royal authority. * Definitions of the universe based on speculation or scriptural faith are no longer automatically accepted. * To avoid some new group stepping in to control reality as the churchmen did, a method of consensus-building (the scientific method: testing an idea about how the universe works, arriving afterward at some conclusion, and then offering this conclusion to others to see if they agree) was developed. * Explorers were sent out to the world, armed with the scientific method, to find out how it works and what it means that we find ourselves alive here. * We sent these explorers out to bring back a complete explanation of our existence, but because of the complexity of the universe they weren't able to return right away. # When the scientific method couldn't bring back a new picture of God and of mankind's purpose on the planet, the lack of certainty and meaning affected Western culture deeply. 1. We needed something else to do until our questions were answered. 2. We shook off our feeling of being lost by taking matters into our own hands, by focusing on conquering the Earth and using its resources to better our situation. 3. This focus became a preoccupation. We lost ourselves in creating a secular society, and economic security, to replace the spiritual one we lost. 4. The question of why we were alive, of what was going on here spiritually, was slowly pushed aside and repressed altogether. 5. We've forgotten that we still don't know what we're surviving for.

I'm deeply troubled by the implication that science ought to walk on eggshells to avoid giving offense to anyone whose religious beliefs employ euphemistic language involving designers or guiders.

— A. L. R.

Ironically though, even an unguided missile has a purpose, in that some person intended it to hit some target. In that sense it is "guided".

— Steve Reuland

failing to "protect our children from being told that they are unplanned and have no purpose".

I agree. As far as I can see, the main objection to the word "unguided" arises because some theistic evolutionists want to accept the scientific conclusion that evolution is a purely natural process while still holding on to their religious belief that it is supernaturally guided. This seems to me to be a claim that evolution is both guided and unguided at the same time. If I've misinterpreted the T.E. position, I hope someone will enlighten me.

Edit:

Somehow my last bit didn't show up. It was this:

As a result, I don't think there's an objection from any TE's about saying evolution is naturally unguided. There would be an objection about saying evolution is supernaturally unguided (what basis does science have to judge that one way or another? is the argument...).

Thus, the objection to "unguided" alone is probably on the basis that it's way too vague and prone to being (deliberately) misrepresented by fundamentalists as atheistic. I doubt anyone would object to something like:

"Evolution is unguided on a natural level, but supernaturally, science has no basis to determine any method or level of guidance that may or may not exist."

Cumbersome, obviously, but would clear up any attempts to color it as atheism.

AD, if TEs believe that evolution is guided by God, then how can they accept that it is a "natural" process? How can a supernaturally guided process be "natural"?

AC wrote:

...But if you wall it off with "I was there and you weren't", then we have reached the ultimate dead-end.

What you mean "we," paleface? I'm still moving on; the religion-bashers are the ones hitting dead-ends by refusing to acknowledge the experiences of others.

Eugene Lai wrote:

Did your god or "spirit" tell you where I was? How do you know?

The fact that you and other religion-bashers are making overly-broad generalizations that are observably wrong, is sufficient proof that you have not been where I've been. (And it's not that I've been anywhere extraordinary -- my experiences come from everyday life!)