The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

The Episcopalians do something impressive

Posted 19 June 2006 by PZ Myers

jefferts_schori.jpg

They've elected a new presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. You have to look at her biography to see why I'm even mentioning a new religious leader:

As a scientist and an Episcopalian, I cherish the prayer that follows a baptism, that the newly baptized may receive "the gift of joy and wonder in all God's works." I spent the early years of my adulthood as an oceanographer, studying squid and octopuses, including their evolutionary relationships. I have always found that God's creation is "strange and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139). ...

The vast preponderance of scientific evidence, including geology, paleontology, archaeology, genetics and natural history, indicates that Darwin was in large part correct in his original hypothesis.

I simply find it a rejection of the goodness of God's gifts to say that all of this evidence is to be refused because it does not seem to accord with a literal reading of one of the stories in Genesis. Making any kind of faith decision is based on accumulating the best evidence one can find what one's senses and reason indicate, what the rest of the community has believed over time, and what the community judges most accurate today.

It's a good thing that article is loaded with Bible quotes and other religious nonsense, or I'd be tempted to become an Episcopalian. Oh, well, even with all the wacky mythological stuff, she still looks like one of the good ones. Congratulations, Dr Jefferts Schori! While I'm not about to join a church, you do exhibit the kind of sensible perspective on the real world I'd like to see much, much more of in religious leaders…although, looking at the comments here, some Christianists are less than thrilled with the election of a rationalist to head a church, while others seem to be enthusiastic.

(via Kynos)

86 Comments

LA Wilson · 19 June 2006

Speaking as a member of the Episcopal Church and as an ardent supporter of Evolution, I am extremely happy with the decision of the of the General Convention with their selection of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA. Best of all, she is from my Ala Marta of Oregon State University, where she had earned her masters and PhD in oceanography.

If there is any hope of putting an end to the mythos that one cannot be a Christian and a supporter of evolution, you will need people like Bishop Schori on your side.

Go Beav's!

mplavcan · 19 June 2006

It's a small world. My wife brought me a document -- I believe from the Daily Kos -- outlining how our illustrious Mr. Ahmanson of DI fame is also bankrolling efforts to split the Episcopal Church because of the gay rights "thing." Normally I brush off that sort of thing, but this was well-documented and detailed, and the refs checked out. The cheerful side of all this is that the EC-USA is not backing down one inch in the face of those attempting to force conservative "orthodoxy" (=conservative ideological politics) down its throat.

As an episcopalion, I am proud to say that our local church (buried in Arkansas, where fundies have real POWER) invited me to speak out about ID and creationism. We packed the hall (standing room only), and the clerical staff and most of the audience were fully supportive of teaching evolution and maintaining good science. Of course, the 250-300 who attended my talk (albeit in a smaller room) was beaten out by the 1000 the attended "Dr." Sharp's presentation at the 1st Baptist Church in Bentonville ("Dr." Sharp has helped to open a new creation science museum in Eureka Springs, AR).

Gene Goldring · 19 June 2006

After reading the 3rd comment I was forced to plug T.O
;) Da devil made me do it....

Sir_Toejam · 19 June 2006

I spent the early years of my adulthood as an oceanographer, studying squid and octopuses, including their evolutionary relationships

squids... hmm, she sure sounds like a FSM plant to me... I wonder if she will manage to convert the entire Episcopal Church to FSM. ;) oh, and LA Wilson is correct, OS is a great place to study marine biology.

rampancy · 19 June 2006

Cue the howls of "Episcopalians aren't *real* Christians!" from the fundamentalists in 3...2...1...

Ritchie Annand · 20 June 2006

mplavcan, my wife witnessed the controversy and split in the United Church a couple of decades back over the issue of ordaining gays. It was amazing to see some of the visceral anti-gay hate around, and that may have actually convinced some members who were initially against it.

There's a link here on the United Church's history on the topic.

Dry history is no substitute for suddenly seeing perfectly reasonable-seeming people drop their masks, though, from the stories my wife has related to me.

There will be a little of that going on, with Ahmanson foaming at the mouth and the foam coming out of the lava tubes of his proverbial Mount Doom. I hope the Episcopalians are able to stay strong when the Hateful Lords of Reconstructionism come to sow seeds of dissent.

Is there a better link about Ahmanson than this?

Katharine Schori sounds like an excellent choice for the leadership. I've seen only a few quotes from her so far, but I'm impressed.

I do wonder wow many people in other churches are muttering their prejudices under their breath simply just because she's a woman.

k.e. · 20 June 2006

...More on Howard Ahmanson Jr. from salon.com Avenging angel of the religious right.

Quirky millionaire Howard Ahmanson Jr. is on a mission from God to stop gay marriage, fight evolution, defeat "liberal" churches -- and reelect George W. Bush. By Max Blumenthal

And its not just the church he is attacking the whole political religion identity thing (AKA facism) would not be complete without Taking Over the Republican Party "The Grand Old Party is more religious cult than political organization." President of the Alamo City Republican Women's club, 1993 (From theocracywatch.org) ***from the salon article***

... The Episcopal Church split is the best evidence yet that Ahmanson's plan to bring America closer to resembling Calvin's elitist "church of the elect," or what Rushdoony has called a "spiritual aristocracy," is working. The split is also the crowning achievement of Ahmanson's nearly 30-year career in the business of radically transforming the country. Though he still remains an unknown quantity to most Americans, he has surpassed his father's accomplishments, and in the process, vanquished -- or at least tamed -- his personal demons. ...

more from theocracywatch.org half way down here.

What's most significant here, and yet gets almost zero coverage in our media, is the fact that Bush is very closely tied to the Christian Reconstructionist movement. The links between this White House and that movement are many and tight. Marvin Olasky -- a former Maoist who is now a Reconstructionist -- coined the phrase "compassionate conservatism," and was hired by the Bush campaign in 2000 to serve as their top consultant on welfare. Olasky's entire career has been financed by Howard Ahmanson, the California multimillionaire who has said publicly that his life's goal is "to integrate Biblical law into all our lives." Ahmanson funded the far-right seizure of the California legislature back in '94, and is also the main force behind the schism in the Episcopalian church. Also, he appears to be the most important advocate of the so-called "intelligent design" movement, which is creationism. Ahmanson backed Bush in 2000 -- with exactly how much money we don't know -- and is supporting him again.

Troff · 20 June 2006

The only thing I'm not prepared to believe here yet is that Pharyngula's PZM didn't make more of a point of the squid-studying thing, not even on the comments page yet...

:-)

(no, seriously, I love reading Pharyngula. Please, no flames...)

Michael Roberts · 20 June 2006

What's so new about a scientist bishop?

After all John Habgood who was Archbishop of York in the 80s had a Ph D in physiology , and the present Bishop of Chester is a Ph D in Chemistry.

Us Anglicans have a long line of scientific clergy. Lots of geologists in the 19th century - Bcukalnd, Sedgwick Conybeare etc. Even Samuel Wilberforce knew his science - despite his bad press.

Dont forget the Society of Ordained scientists started by Arthur Peacocke in the UK

The list is endless

Frank J · 20 June 2006

I simply find it a rejection of the goodness of God's gifts to say that all of this evidence is to be refused because it does not seem to accord with a literal reading of one of the stories in Genesis.

— Bishop Schori
Nice. Hope she follows it up with "I find it an even greater rejection of the goodness of God's gifts to misrepresent evolution with the new 'don't ask, don't tell' ID scam, whose promoters clearly know that Genesis cannot be taken literally."

Vyoma · 20 June 2006

What's so new about a scientist bishop?... The list is endless

— Roberts
It is, and with good reason, I believe. Despite the efforts of some fundamentalist types and dissemblers, religion and science are not natural enemies, but themselves represent two stages in an evolution of ideas. The people who authored religions were usually trying to understand their world using the best tools they had at the time. They were attempting, in most cases, to work out a way for their people to have a better life. They took as much as they could from direct observation --- even when they didn't truly understand what they were looking at --- and inferred supernatural causation when they couldn't explain what they were looking at in any other way. Science does the same things, but with much more accurate tools and techniques. Our increase in understanding and our ability to draw upon knowledge that the ancient founders of religions didn't have results in a much clearer and more reliable model. I often think about how those who founded religions would react to the advances we've since made in our knowledge were they to somehow be be brought into our own time. I don't think they'd engage in the kind of handwaving in which some of their latter day followers engage. I suspect that they'd more likely embrace the fruits of the same spirit of inquiry today that they embraced, to the best of their ability, in their own time. They'd almost certainly delight in our curing of diseases, our ability to overcome the deprivations of famine, etc. The upshot of this line of thought is that those who reject scientific advancement in the name of fixed ideology not only do a disservice to reason, they do a disservice to religion as well. They reject the very same exercise of the human intellect in pursuit of knowledge and a better life for their people for which the founders of their religion may well have given their lives. I'm glad to see one more religious institution add someone capable of reason and understanding to their roster of leadership.

Adam Ierymenko · 20 June 2006

But Episcopalians are not True Christians(tm)!

In all seriousness though.

I'm not a theologist (or a Christian), but it seems to me that if there is a creator than lying about the nature of the universe is bearing false witness against that creator. If I ever feel some kind of calling to become a Christian, I'll remember which denominations do this and which do not.

Adam Ierymenko · 20 June 2006

"Marvin Olasky --- a former Maoist who is now a Reconstructionist --- coined the phrase "compassionate conservatism," and was hired by the Bush campaign in 2000 to serve as their top consultant on welfare."

Wow... he converted from one fundamentalist authoritarian ideology to another!

There are a lot of ex-Marxists among in the neocon/theocon circles. I guess these sociopaths got disillusioned by the failure of Marxism to bring them power, so they backed another horse.

buddha · 20 June 2006

Despite the efforts of some fundamentalist types and dissemblers, religion and science are not natural enemies, but themselves represent two stages in an evolution of ideas.

Sure, the evolution of ideas goes like this: religion is authority; science is the rejection of authority.

I suspect that they'd more likely embrace the fruits of the same spirit of inquiry today that they embraced, to the best of their ability, in their own time.

Yeah, religionists were always interested in free inquiry:

Prophets or interpreters of dreams may promise a miracle or a wonder, in order to lead you to worship and serve gods that you have not worshipped before. Even if what they promise comes true, do not pay any attention to them. The Lord your God is using them to test you, to see if you love the Lord with all your heart. Follow the Lord and honour him; obey him and keep his commands; worship him and be faithful to him. But put to death any interpreters of dreams or prophets that tell you to rebel against the Lord, who rescued you from Egypt, where you were slaves. Such people are evil and are trying to lead you away from the life that the Lord has commanded you to live. They must be put to death, in order to rid yourselves of this evil. Even your brother or your son or your daughter or the wife you love or your closest friend may secretly encourage you to worship other gods, gods that you and your ancestors have never worshipped. Some of them may encourage you to worship the gods of the people who live near you or the gods of those who live far away. But do not let any of them persuade you; do not even listen to them. Show them no mercy or pity, and do not protect them. Kill them! Be the first to stone them, and then let everyone else stone them too. Stone them to death! They tried to lead you away from the Lord your God, who rescued you from Egypt, where you were slaves. Then all the people of Israel will hear what happened; they will be afraid, and no one will ever again do such an evil thing. When you are living in the towns that the Lord your God gives you, you may hear that some worthless people of your nation have misled the people of their town to worship gods that you have never worshipped before. If you hear such a rumour, investigate it thoroughly; and if it is true that this evil thing did happen, then kill all the people in that town and all their livestock too. Destroy that town completely. Bring together all the possessions of the people who live there and pile them up in the town square. Then burn the town and everything in it as an offering to the Lord your God. It must be left in ruins forever and never again be rebuilt. Do not keep for yourselves anything that was condemned to destruction, and then the Lord will turn from his fierce anger and show you mercy. He will be merciful to you and make you a numerous people, as he promised your ancestors, if you obey all his commands that I have given you today, and do what he requires.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 June 2006

What's so "impressive"? The fundies have always made up just a tiny minority of Christian denominations; most Christians, worldwide, have always thought the fundies were nutters; and the vast majority of Christians accept all of science, including evolution, and have no gripe with any of it.

"religion" =/= "fundamentalist"

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 June 2006

Is there a better link about Ahmanson than this?

The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris's book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. "There can be no separation of Church and State," Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) "Christians," a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, "are called upon by God to exercise dominion." (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning. According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the "Godly" have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: "The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God's People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ's feet, the end shall come." (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) "Christian Reconstructionism," another pamphlet says, "is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God . . . Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint." (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the "enemies" which must be "put under Christ's feet" if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God. In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban. While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", and Morris's son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR's Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR's "curriculum director" until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" (COR, July 1986), and the "Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview" (COR,1989), which declares, "We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man." ("Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8). The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for "intelligent design theory", is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory" (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security "reform", and (anti) environmentalist organizing). Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation -- a major Reconstructionist think-tank -- for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", intelligent design "theorist" Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, "My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives." Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine). Some of Ahmanson's donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation "Fieldstead" is Ahmanson's middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI's shining stars. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. He sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute. Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself. However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was. So it's no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

Frank J · 20 June 2006

With all this $ that Ahmanson is throwing around, is there any word on whether he paid the Dover legal fees?

k.e. · 20 June 2006

Boy, you've got to get up early to beat Lenny ..or live in another time zone...snickker :>

science nut · 20 June 2006

My hat is off to the Episcopal Church and to the appointment of Katharine Jefferts Schori. My hat is also off to the Episcopal Catechism of Creation (Part II: Creation and Science) that states in part, "The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook."

This is part of a Q & A section at:

http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm

The above quote comes from the following Q & A section:

"Does the Bible teach science? Do we find scientific knowledge in the Bible?

Episcopalians believe that the Bible "contains all things necessary to salvation" (Book of Common Prayer, p. 868): it is the inspired and authoritative source of truth about God, Christ, and the Christian life. But physicist and priest John Polkinghorne, following sixteenth-century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, reminds us Anglicans and Episcopalians that the Bible does not contain all necessary truths about everything else. The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God's universe in nature not Scripture."

Clearly their church has found the reasoning that keeps their faith from conflicting with all that nature reveals to science.

Aagcobb · 20 June 2006

With all this $ that Ahmanson is throwing around, is there any word on whether he paid the Dover legal fees?
I can't imagine he would give his money to the ACLU, especially after the creationists were voted off the Dover School Board. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if he provides funding to the Thomas More Law Center, which represented the creationist school board, though it was founded by another right-wing billionare, Tom Monaghan.

k.e. · 20 June 2006

With all this $ that Ahmanson is throwing around, is there any word on whether he paid the Dover legal fees?

Come on people, where in the Bible does it say THAT? Suckers!

Jake · 20 June 2006

Don't you think you're treading into DaveScot territory by claiming to not be religious while promoting religious figures?

k.e. · 20 June 2006

Well we all know Dave S. Springer is AC/DC on those issues (smirk).

Peter Henderson · 20 June 2006

I don't think the fundies are going to be too pleased at her election:

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060620/NEWS07/606200330/1009

I always take a look at AIG's website on most days to see what nonsense and lies have been posted there. I would say that most of their articles are directed at other Christians who don't think as they do (ie the compromisers !). I'm sure there will be something about this in the coming days.

My wife by the way, goes to the local Church of Ireland, the equivalent in this country. I've met the minister on a number of occasions and found him to be a very warm and genuine person. The sermons on a Sunday morning are actually fairly evangelical.

quork · 20 June 2006

This is a nice slap in the big fat face of the Fundies!

Moses · 20 June 2006

Myers, you are so easy. A gal picks up a squid or an octopus and you're in love...

Mats · 20 June 2006

The vast preponderance of scientific evidence, including geology, paleontology, archaeology, genetics and natural history, indicates that Darwin was in large part correct in his original hypothesis.
Typical Darwinian elephant hurling. Was Darwin "in large part correct" or was Darwin mostly wrong ?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 June 2006

Was Darwin "in large part correct" or was Darwin mostly wrong ?

BWA HA HA AHA HA AH AHA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!

B. Rainey · 20 June 2006

While Katharine Jefferts Schori may be well learned in science, she nevertheless takes a very unscientific position on matters of human sexuality.

First, I am not a creationist, nor am I a fundamentalist. But Jefferts Schori has publically said that a person's sexual orientation is a gift. She has said that people come into this world with affections aimed at different people and that some COME INTO THIS WORLD WITH AFFECTIONS DIRECTED AT PERSONS OF THEIR OWN SEX.

"Affections" is an open-ended term. Are EROTIC affections automatic and inborn? Does this mean that she believes everyone is born with his/her sexual orientation? The problem with the inborn sexual orientation theory is that it has no scientific basis. Even in an era of overpopulation, why should anyone be born with a same-sex "affection" and at the same time perfectly normal sexual organs capable of reproduction?

Barbara R.

KiwiInOz · 20 June 2006

Darwin's Ghost, the updated version of the Origin of Species, by Steve Jones, is a good reference by which to determine whether Darwin was wrong or right in his thinking.

I'd put more 'faith' in Jones' book, than in that religious apologetics website. And apologise they should!

Sir_Toejam · 20 June 2006

The problem with the inborn sexual orientation theory is that it has no scientific basis.

arguably, yes it does, unless you choose to completely ignore all of the genetic studies and developmental studies suggesting such.

Julie Stahlhut · 20 June 2006

Mats wrote:
Was Darwin "in large part correct" or was Darwin mostly wrong ?
From the referenced website:
The people who died in the World Trade Center were not the least fit for survival. Some died because they were unlucky. Some died because they were brave. None died because they were unfit for survival in a big city environment.
Well, despite the appalling syntax, they're at least they're a teensy baby step along the way to understanding what "genetic drift" means.

Bill Gascoyne · 20 June 2006

Boy, if science ever does find a "gay gene" (OK, don't flame me, I know it's more complex than that, twin studies, developmental influences, etc., etc.) the Religious Right is going to throw a huge fit. Perhaps that's one of the reasons they're so anti-science; they're afraid that even more of their cherished prejudices beliefs will get shot down.

Shalini, BBWAD · 20 June 2006

[Perhaps that's one of the reasons they're so anti-science; they're afraid that even more of their cherished prejudices beliefs will get shot down.]

It's a serious case of paranoia they've got. They're living in fear.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 20 June 2006

Boy, if science ever does find a "gay gene" (OK, don't flame me, I know it's more complex than that, twin studies, developmental influences, etc., etc.) the Religious Right is going to throw a huge fit. Perhaps that's one of the reasons they're so anti-science; they're afraid that even more of their cherished prejudices beliefs will get shot down.

Well, that's the odd thing about bigotry -- it lives on no matter what. If there is no "gay gene", the fundies can crow about how it's a "sinful lifestyle choice". And if there IS a "gay gene", then they'll crow about how it's a "disease" that needs to be "cured". Bigots don't need scientific justification for their bigotry. Nor can any science end it. (shrug)

normdoering · 20 June 2006

Sir_Toejam wrote:

The problem with the inborn sexual orientation theory is that it has no scientific basis.

arguably, yes it does, unless you choose to completely ignore all of the genetic studies and developmental studies suggesting such. True, but the way she said it wasn't scientific. She spoke not from a scientific view point but from a "I know God's mind" point of view.

Jefferts Schori has publically said that a person's sexual orientation is a gift. She has said that people come into this world with affections aimed at different people and that some COME INTO THIS WORLD WITH AFFECTIONS DIRECTED AT PERSONS OF THEIR OWN SEX.

I agree with the conclusion, but not with the method of arriving at it.

Rob Rumfelt · 20 June 2006

Many people aren't aware that famed Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, didn't have a problem with evolution either.

Corkscrew · 20 June 2006

Mats:

a) Proof by URL is going to carry absolutely zero weight in this forum. I suggest you quote a section you feel you can defend and work from there.

b) The question isn't whether Darwin was correct - the vast majority of scientific hypotheses, by the very nature of science, are incorrect. The question is whether his hypothesis was more accurate than those of his predecessors. The answer is a definitive "yes".

Sir_Toejam · 20 June 2006

Many people aren't aware that famed Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, didn't have a problem with evolution either.

you should tell that to AFDave over on the ATBC area. He often uses CS Lewis to support his YEC postion. as if Lewis was some kind of respected authority, for some reason. go figure.

Sir_Toejam · 20 June 2006

the Religious Right is going to throw a huge fit.

studies suggesting a genetic basis for sexual behavior (the famous twin studies) have already been released by NIH. and the right already threw a fit about it. do a google search; not hard to find.

antiPZ · 21 June 2006

Im a scientist and atheist but pz repulses me, he has to insult and sneeer even when people like this bishop show some nice behavior. Surely to him Gandhi was just an asshole and whatever the dalai lama can say is superstitious crap. He spends 90% of his blog attacking religion and whats left is for real evolution. With scientists like these people are forced to make a choice, only PZ does not seem to realize people who do not side with his chauvinistic ranting will not disappear into thin air. Its very damaging to the evolution cause that he has nothing better to do and choses to entertain himself by looking for fight and bleeding noses. Writing post after post on Ann coulters profound thoughts, for example, must be facinating, huh?. Then you wonder why liberals may sometimes come off as vacuous... well there are some who are just that.

normdoering · 21 June 2006

antiPZ wrote:

Im a scientist and atheist but pz repulses me, he has to insult and sneeer even when people like this bishop show some nice behavior. Surely to him Gandhi was just an asshole and whatever the dalai lama can say is superstitious crap.

Ghandi an asshole? The Dali Lama full of superstitious crap? Are you sure you don't have PZ confused with Christopher Hitchens? Remember what Hitchens said about Mother Teresa.

Popper's Ghost · 21 June 2006

Im a scientist and atheist

— antiPZ
Apparently you're so dumb that you actually believe that anyone would believe that, when it's obvious that you're actually an illiterate moron.

PZ Myers · 21 June 2006

I'm afraid I had to move the whiny comments by AntiPZ to the bathroom wall. There was serious concern that if we met, the resultant explosion would destroy the entire blogosphere.

normdoering · 21 June 2006

But, PZ, is Ghandi an asshole? Is the Dali Lama full of superstitious crap? And what about Mother Teresa?

Arden Chatfield · 21 June 2006

Well thats interesting because unlike Popper's ghost, I did not feel the need to add any insults. Go ahead, PZ, strike this one out now. I know your kind. Confirm my predictions, give me the satisfaction.

I wonder if this guy is the troll 'Jason' from Pharyngula? Certainly has the same tone of whiny, sarcastic persecution...

k.e. · 21 June 2006

antiPZ seems2B a theist sin-tist (with a lisp)

Peter Henderson · 21 June 2006

Re:"Many people aren't aware that famed Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, didn't have a problem with evolution either."

Apparently other preachers, such as Charles Hodge and B.B.Warfield, didn't have a problem with "millions of years" or evolution either !

k.e. · 21 June 2006

Dang antPiZ U seem to have a problem inhabiting that EV0 cockroaches body. IF you must swap from 1st person to 3rd person, do it without losing your appendages.

FAKE

k.e. · 21 June 2006

Ah a sheep, NOW I get it.

Careful not to jump before you get to the gate....you'll never know a good projection when you see it.

Time to change hands, antPiZ.

Popper's Ghost · 21 June 2006

Basically that if your´re not bent on insulting religion, you can´t be a scientist or an atheist.

Uh, no, it's because you can't spell, punctuate, or think rationally that it isn't believable that you're a scientist. You might well be an atheist, but it seems more plausible that you're lying about that too.

k.e. · 21 June 2006

? Dumb enough

AntPiZ

You do that all by yourself.

Convincingly.

Arden Chatfield · 21 June 2006

Am I the only one who thinks that AntiPZ sounds like he's about 15?

neo-anit-luddite · 21 June 2006

Nah.

S/he hasn't claimed to be '1337' yet...

Popper's Ghost · 21 June 2006

a common spat

A what? Here we have a raving lunatic who defines himself relative to PZ and invades a PZ thread to post a nutball rant full of all sorts of insulting claims about PZ, then says "I did not feel the need to add any insults", and then calls his raving drooling spew "a common spat". Lessee, thumbing through the dictionary ... "spat: a quarrel about petty points". No, there's no quarrel here, there's recognition of a nutball as a nutball, and the nutball seems to think his points are rather significant, not petty. But, oh dear, here I go, invoking rational thinking at every step, and anyone can see right through that.

normdoering · 21 June 2006

AntiPZ wrote:

I'm not dumb enough to invoke "rational thinking" on my side ...

Okay, I'll go out on a limb and agree with those who say AntiPZ is neither an atheist or a scientist. That stuff about not invoking "rational thinking" he wrote pretty much proves it.

Moses · 21 June 2006

Comment #107180 Posted by AntiPZ on June 21, 2006 12:28 PM (e) Sure, I can't spell, but I'm not dumb enough to invoke "rational thinking" on my side on a common spat like this...But laas, what would religion-bashers do if they could not invoke rational thinking at every step, you know, like a magic wand? I wonder if they are just dumb enough not to realize anyone can see through that.

I have to commend you for your boorish posts and responses. You managed to pull-in quite a few intelligent and rational individuals with your classic, narcissistic troll-gambit.

normdoering · 21 June 2006

Moses wrote:

You managed to pull-in quite a few intelligent and rational individuals with your classic, narcissistic troll-gambit.

Including you it seems. Now, back to the relevant questions: Was Ghandi an asshole? It seems to me he might have been on occasion. I saw the movie in it there was a Hindu who confessed to Ghandi he had killed a Muslim boy and so Ghandi tells him that he must raise his own son as a Muslim. Was that assholish or was it Solomon-like wisdom? How do you suppose that kid is going to feel being raised in faith his father doesn't believe in? I don't know. Is the Dali Lama spreading superstitious crap? Maybe some, but less than your average American Christian I think. Just how good is the best that religion has to offer? I've never been impressed.

Popper's Ghost · 21 June 2006

According to wikipedia. Gandhi made this somewhat aholy remark ("kaffir" is a derogatory term for Africans):

Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.

OTOH, he had some rather non-dogmatic things to say about his Hindu religion and religion in general:

"Thus if I could not accept Christianity either as a perfect, or the greatest religion, neither was I then convinced of Hinduism being such. Hindu defects were pressingly visible to me. If untouchability could be a part of Hinduism, it could but be a rotten part or an excrescence. I could not understand the raison d'etre of a multitude of sects and castes. What was the meaning of saying that the Vedas were the inspired Word of God? If they were inspired, why not also the Bible and the Koran? As Christian friends were endeavouring to convert me, so were Muslim friends. Abdullah Sheth had kept on inducing me to study Islam, and of course he had always something to say regarding its beauty". (source: his autobiography) "As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side".

As for the Dalai Lama spreading superstitious crap, mostly he spreads an anti-nuclear and anti-war message.

normdoering · 21 June 2006

PopGhost wrote:

As for the Dalai Lama spreading superstitious crap, mostly he spreads an anti-nuclear and anti-war message.

Well, I haven't found a lot yet, but I did dig this up: http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/1999/8/9_1.html

...in recent teachings the Dalai Lama has denounced abortion as a sin against "non-violence to all sentient beings," opposed contraception and criticized proponents of euthanasia - much as the pope has done. Although he has affirmed the dignity and rights of gays and lesbians, he has condemned homosexual acts as contrary to Buddhist ethics. Indeed, during a teaching in San Francisco in 1997, he was surprised to find himself criticized by gay Buddhists.

Anyone else find negatives in the best religion has to offer?

Wheels · 21 June 2006

I don't know if either Buddhism or the Dalai Lama represent "the best religion has to offer." I generally don't hold religions or their members above the expected behavior of any other human division or its constituents, though.

Re:"Many people aren't aware that famed Christian writer, C.S. Lewis, didn't have a problem with evolution either." Apparently other preachers, such as Charles Hodge and B.B.Warfield, didn't have a problem with "millions of years" or evolution either !

— Peter Henderson
And neither does Pentecostal preacher Dr. Bob Bakker. I always like to bring him up since he is, in fact, a notorious paleontologist who gets a lot of "talking head" time on popular science programming. Another goodie to bring up is the man who gave shape to the Big Bang idea, an ordained priest by the name of Georges-Henri Lemaitre (so much for that "atheistic" theory, although most Fundies may dismiss it because of the Catholicism). In fact, I'm sure it would be enormous fun (and mainly non-productive) to construct a list of famous biologists, paleontologists, geologists, astronomers, etc. who were strictly Christian and didn't worry about the ramifications of evolution or deep time. Experience has lead me to the conclusion that it will all fall on deaf ears, though.

buddha · 21 June 2006

Was Ghandi an asshole?

Reflections of Ghandi:

In relation to the late war, one question that every pacifist had a clear obligation to answer was: "What about the Jews? Are you prepared to see them exterminated? If not, how do you propose to save them without resorting to war?" [...] But it so happens that Gandhi was asked a somewhat similar question in 1938 and that his answer is on record in Mr. Louis Fischer's GANDHI AND STALIN. According to Mr. Fischer, Gandhi's view was that the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which "would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler's violence." After the war he justified himself: the Jews had been killed anyway, and might as well have died significantly. One has the impression that this attitude staggered even so warm an admirer as Mr. Fischer, but Gandhi was merely being honest. If you are not prepared to take life, you must often be prepared for lives to be lost in some other way. When, in 1942, he urged non-violent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 June 2006

Well, it's nice to see the pointless holy war at the opposite pole, for a change.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 21 June 2006

Anyone else find negatives in the best religion has to offer?

Is this some sort of surprise for you? Humans are humans, after all. There are negatives in EVERYTHING. Just ask all those atheists in the former USSR.

Shalini, BBWAD · 21 June 2006

[any other lamb of PZ's herd wanting to show up and confirm what I say about their brainwashed dichotomous thinking?]

Funny. I was under the impression that any 'thinking' on antiPZ's side is likely to fizz out his remaining brain cell(s).

normdoering · 21 June 2006

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:

Is this some sort of surprise for you?

Nope. It's just not talked about much. I expect them to have human failings - bad ideas, superstitions, body odor and what not. In general even atheists treat Ghandi and the Dali Lama with kid gloves. It's hard to dig up the negatives on these guys because people don't want to see them. For the most part there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in digging up their dirty laundry even here. I'm sure there's a lot more but no one really cares much.

Rob Rumfelt · 21 June 2006

The "Rev Dr" indeed has it right. There are negatives in everything and everyone. Humans will always find a windmill of their choosing to tilt at.

Sir_Toejam · 22 June 2006

. Science mostly works several domain-leaps away from the complex realities of human interactions,

well, except.. sociologists psychologists many economists behaviorists etc., etc. I think you have a bit narrower view of science than you perhaps should, and sell most scientists a bit short on their ability to wax philosophical as well.

If we were to make a list of cool things gandhi or the dalai lama have said, I have no doubt that it will greatly exceed the list of the uncool.

and the same would hold true of scientists. I like this quote from Huxley: "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." - Thomas Huxley

Sir_Toejam · 22 June 2006

Wheel's got a very good point there, too

which one?

BWE · 22 June 2006

Comment #107351 Posted by Sir_Toejam on June 22, 2006 12:40 AM (e) . Science mostly works several domain-leaps away from the complex realities of human interactions, well, except.. sociologists psychologists many economists behaviorists etc., etc. I think you have a bit narrower view of science than you perhaps should, and sell most scientists a bit short on their ability to wax philosophical as well.

[aghast] hunh? Blink blink [aghast] I did PolySci for an udergrad and I can say with some confidence that my opinion is that social (soft) sciences are dancing in the light just beyond the realm of the hard sciences.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 June 2006

It's just not talked about much. I expect them to have human failings - bad ideas, superstitions, body odor and what not. In general even atheists treat Ghandi and the Dali Lama with kid gloves. It's hard to dig up the negatives on these guys because people don't want to see them. For the most part there doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in digging up their dirty laundry even here. I'm sure there's a lot more but no one really cares much.

It's all a theist plot.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 22 June 2006

many economists

Back in my Wobbly days, I told an entire roomful of economists that they weren't actually scientists. Then added that they were just apologists for the existing social order. They didn't invite me back the next year. (grin)

Peter Henderson · 22 June 2006

"If you've got an 'Ology you're a scientist"

Actress Maureen Lipman in the classic BT ad. 'Ology

http://www.robertcraven.co.uk/thedc-ology.php

AntiPZ · 22 June 2006

I'd agree that nowadays more scientists move into the philosophical and moral, but none has achieved much yet in dealing with real human problems, and I can´t think of any with the notoriety of gandhi or the dalai. Good for them, but they are newcomers, kiddos led by the hand when compared with the millenary traditions from which the dalai or gandhi derive their inspiration. And then of course, most scientists also question the motivations and objectivity of these more morally concerned scientists, they find them too lefty, postmodern, or whatever. Of course, unless they preach some politically incorrect BS. You just need to state something scientific-looking and politically incorrect to make it seem "very objective". Gandhi did not face such a bias to creating an ideal, that is, the temptation of bonking on the table about "just how things ARE", a typical scientific crutch.
Let's be sincere, science is not about moral authorities (and most scientists dont want to be either) . Morality does not need a scientific justification, it can be there, but it is not crucial.
How about this, by Gandhi
"in the end deceivers deceive only themselves"

neo-anti-luddite · 22 June 2006

Wow. Most trolls don't give up that quickly.

improvius · 22 June 2006

I'd agree that nowadays more scientists move into the philosophical and moral, but none has achieved much yet in dealing with real human problems, and I can´t think of any with the notoriety of gandhi or the dalai.

— antiPZ
I can only assume you're referring to the "scientists" who join the ID movement.

Arden Chatfield · 22 June 2006

Do you think AntiPZ may actually be Dave Scot going deep undercover?

Sir_Toejam · 22 June 2006

I did PolySci for an udergrad and I can say with some confidence that my opinion is that social (soft) sciences are dancing in the light just beyond the realm of the hard sciences.

then you should look a bit harder. One of my oldest friends did his PhD in cognitive psychology. Trust me, it was as "hard-sciency" as any experiments run in the chemistry or biology depts. check out some of the heavier theoretical psych journals sometime. IMO a scientist is simply someone who uses the scientific method to orderly address questions arising from observation. plenty of participants in the fields i listed do just that. besides which, it's obvious that antipz was utilizing the "ivory tower" projection; commonlly seen among folks who haven't a clue what scientists do for a living, or how they do it. His underlying point being that only religious icons have ever contributed to "humanity" in any social sense. Which I know you don't agree with, nor do I.

Sir_Toejam · 22 June 2006

Good bye folks, this blog is simply useless.

well, something around here is completely useless, but I don't think it's the blog.

Sir_Toejam · 22 June 2006

It is impossible to respond and have conversation if PZ insists in wiping out perfectly good messages.

oh? like this gem, you mean?

any other lamb of PZ's herd wanting to show up and confirm what I say about their brainwashed dichotomous thinking?

which wasn't wiped out, obviously, but moved to the BW, where it belongs. the only reason i resurrect it is to counter your "perfectly good messages" claim. PZ, feel free to move it back if you wish.

Coin · 22 June 2006

then you should look a bit harder. One of my oldest friends did his PhD in cognitive psychology. Trust me, it was as "hard-sciency" as any experiments run in the chemistry or biology depts.

— Sir_Toejam
That's cognitive psychology though. I think it's fair to say that what cognitive psychologists are doing is fundamentally different from what political science persons are doing, and that the first is probably science and that the second is probably not. Psychology is a bit odd to classify because it started out as a science so soft it practically wasn't science at all, but has gotten harder and harder with time until parts of it could practically be reclassified as biology. Sociologists are in a similarly strange place because they utilize the scientific method, back up their conclusions with experimental data, and are expected to apply scientific rigor to their data and analysis. But then they're allowed, maybe even expected, to sometimes use this scientific analysis as a basis for forming decidedly non-scientific conclusions, without ever leaving the realm of sociology. Economists... I have no idea anymore what it is economists are doing. This isn't to say what "soft scientists" are doing isn't important, or useful, and it isn't to say that economists or sociologists are doing something bad if they sometimes make nonscientific arguments with scientific components to them. But I think it's important to keep a mental distinction between the things that qualify as soft and hard sciences. This isn't to belittle the soft sciences. It's just to keep things clear. I also think it's important to remember that at some point there does have to be some boundary to "science", and some group of things which aren't even soft sciences even if they aspire to be so, if "science" is going to be a useful word at all. Otherwise we might as well just go ahead and count comparative religion as a science. Why not?

cephalopods don't deserve a monster like you piggybacking on their coolness... It is impossible to respond and have conversation if PZ insists in wiping out perfectly good messages.

— AntiPZ
It would help if you'd put some effort into making a lick of sense in those posts that aren't just hurling insults. For example, look at your last post still in this thread. To whom or what exactly do the terms "more scientists", "most scientists", "these more morally concerned scientists", "political correctness", and "politically incorrect" refer to? Is the "bias" you say Ghandi faced a bias for, or against, "creating an ideal", and was Ghandi a follower of or an opponent of this bias? This is all so vague and so full of debate-club buzzwords that it seems it could be arguing practically anything. I know who Ghandi is, but other than that the post practically seems like a mad lib.

Coin · 22 June 2006

If some of my retorts seem nonsensical, it is because lame ole PZ is dipping the scissor all the time.

— AntiPZ
Hm. Perhaps. But I think it's because they're just poorly written.

Shalini, BBWAD · 22 June 2006

[See, PZ wipes out the quotes where you can tell most clearly I'm a scientist and atheist,]

What?! There are actually some of those?

*snicker*

PZ Myers · 22 June 2006

This "AntiPZ" bozo is going to get consistently deleted from these threads, and I'd appreciate it if people would stop engaging him.

Here's the bathroom wall. Play with him there.

AntiPZ · 22 June 2006

Of course there is aboslutely nothing of mine at the bathroom wall to play with. You know, total disappereance of what PZ does not want you to see.

[ I know he's an atheist and a scientist, he says, but this is just too stupid to bear anymore. Yes, all of his posts have been forwarded to the bathroom wall. You just have to be marginally clever enough to navigate to the end of the long list of comments piling up there. ]

[ This is quite enough. If anyone else wants to wrestle with this clown, do it on the bathroom wall...here, it's going to get the thread closed. ]

normdoering · 22 June 2006

AntiPZ wrote:

... there is aboslutely nothing of mine at the bathroom wall to play with.

Do you know about this site AntiPZ? http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=449af7742f9c19fd;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=480 Go there.