Wells: “Darwinism is Doomed” because we keep making progress

Posted 27 September 2006 by PZ Myers

There are days when I simply cannot believe how dishonest the scoundrels at the Discovery Institute can be. This is one of them. I just read an essay by Jonathan Wells that is an appalling piece of anti-scientific propaganda, an extremely squirrely twisting of some science news. It's called "Why Darwinism is doomed", and trust me, if you read it, your opinion of Wells will drop another notch. And here you thought it was already in the gutter!

Continue reading "Wells: “Darwinism is Doomed” because we keep making progress" (on Pharyngula)

270 Comments

Mike Elzinga · 27 September 2006

Wow, that IS bizarre. Wells apparently didn't get the gene for brain development but got one for brain atrophy instead.

I recently saw Ann Coulter on television talking to a group of women about her recent book, Godless. She told them that she deliberately tries to annoy liberals. Her comment on the jacket of Wells' book confirms this.

I suspect that these kinds of comments and articles are for evolutionist baiting. In the past this has been a way for them to get heard. If they make a real scientist mad enough, they get a response. Then the ID/creationist pushers use that to claim there is a controversy. They also use the inevitable exchanges that occur to pad their resumes and look like heroes to their constituents.

What they do to the members of the science community is analogous to repeatedly accusing someone of being a child molester or some other type of vile criminal and then using the person's denials to argue that their behavior is suspicious and controversial so that society must take precautions. Given their beliefs that people outside their religious circles are evil, they probably feel this behavior is justified.

Wheels · 27 September 2006

Is the US even "the most scientifically advanced country" still? By the way, does "Ad Populum" mean anything to this man? Also notice that 3/4 of the American people reject "Darwinism," but half of those aren't fundamentalists, which only leaves you with about 37-38 percent who aren't and don't accept "Darwinism." That kinda defeats the appeal to majority opinion. Furthermore the argument doesn't even consider that, if not for the amazingly proficient fundamentalist propoganda, a good number of more mainstream Christians might not be so doubtful. Not to mention completely not mentioning the other factor, the politicization of science.
And that's if you're playing by Well's definitions of "Darwinism," which I doubt was used in the study since the Creationist version of "Darwinism" is quite decidedly not the same thing as Neo (or even paleo) Darwinian research, or mainstream ideas about evolution today.
One wonders how Wells can even make the claim that the American Public isn't "the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be," while out of the same breath calling all "Darwinists" (i.e. the entire biological community with a stastically insignificant deviation) the same thing. Then again, Wells is pretty much good for nothing if it's not making outrageous claims.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 September 2006

Tell it to the judge, Mr Wells.

Oh, wait -- you already DID, didn't you.

How'd that, uh, work out?

Adam Ierymenko · 27 September 2006

Ahh... Jonathan Wells... helping Reverend Moon to complete the failed mission of Jesus Christ (Moon's words) by protecting traditional American Christianity.

http://www.nndb.com/people/578/000118224/

Hint to the wise:

Part of why a lot of people think Christians are fools is their lack of judgement and discernment when dealing with people on their own "side." God, to most religious people, is just the name of a football team they root for. Say "God" and "Jesus" enough and you're rooting for the home team... and for supporters of the home team, the Jesus freaks are willing to look the other way at inconvenient facts like... oh... being a member of a cult run by a tax-evading international criminal who almost perfectly fits the Biblical description of antichrist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon

David B. Benson · 27 September 2006

PZ --- The gutter drains into the storm sewer...

normdoering · 27 September 2006

Mike Elzinga wrote:

I suspect that these kinds of comments and articles are for evolutionist baiting.

I don't think so, myself. I it's they're meant for "the base," the theocratic base of the republican party. It ties to something I saw on Andrew Sullivan's blog: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/09/christianism_wa_3.html

A reader writes: I went to the Family Research Council/Focus on the Family/American Family Association "Values Voters" summit this weekend at the Omni. It is much, much worse than we know. The first woman I spoke to (from Erie, PA) railed on about how Chuck Hagel is a flaming liberal and John McCain should be tried for treason. I thought that maybe I'd run into an isolated crazy. Oh no - it only got worse from there. The level of contempt for anyone who diverges from the Holy Word of W is beyond description. I was sort of 'undercover' so I could just let people talk to me, not leading the conversation, not baiting, and it horrified me to hear how many were perfectly comfortable with any form of torture in the name of patriotism if the Commander In Chief gave it the ok. Meanwhile, in the plenary I got to hear from George Allen on how he's been done wrong by the media and watched a ballroom of about 1,700 people seem to feel permission to let their hate for The Gays run wild every time a black minister hit the stage. (I have my own copy of the very popular brochure, "The Rape of the Civil Rights Movement: How Sodomites Are Using Civil Rights Rhetoric To Advance Their Preference For Sexual Perversion.") There is no room for disagreement, because it is tantamount to evil. Dissent is the same as blasphemy, and everything is approached in orthodox terms. I've always been a conservative because I believe that there is such a think as good and evil and that moral relativism is a crazy road on which logic can rarely stick. I believe in limited government and individual liberty. I know I can do things better than any bureaucracy ever will. But what conservatism has become with these people is horrifying. They'd trade liberty for a handshake from W., compassion for power. And they've got one amazing plan in place to make sure that future generations have a tighter, more limited, and clearly more hostile worldview. I went there hoping to prove myself wrong about what I thought was happening, but I just couldn't do it.

Another journalist friend visited as well. He emailed me about it. 'So you're saying it's as bad as I feared," I asked. "Much, much worse." You can't separate the tactics used by DI from the tactics the republicans use in politics all over the board. They've created an alternate reality where media is concerned.

mplavcan · 27 September 2006

I don't know. Maybe I'm jaded, but it sounds like the same old crap we've been hearing for years. Oh. Wait. It IS the same old crap we've been hearing for years. Reminds me of the line from the movie "Support Your Local Sheriff", in which James Garner replies to a blathering idiot criminal "...hearing you talk like that just makes me feel tired all over..."

Chris · 27 September 2006

Is he trying to claim that since we accept the theory of evolution we're supposed to have every detail of the evolutionary process down? Since we "claim" that evolution is a fact are we supposed to stop researching it? wow I'm astounded, we search for answers just because we find theories we don't stop testing those theories and try to strengthen those theories through further studies. What is this guys field of expertise? cause it sure doesn't include an understanding of the scientific method.

Liz Craig · 27 September 2006

I can't imagine why anyone is amazed at what Wells has said. Look at it this way: the last paying work he did was "managing some lab" after he earned his Ph.D. (but did not bother to stay around UCLA for his "post-doc" period, though he did refer to himself as a post-doc for the requisite five years).

The man has stated publicly that his purpose in getting a Ph.D. in Embryology was to "destroy Darwinism."

Why does anyone on the science side still express disgust at his rantings?

The real question is: how do we be proactive in countering the lies and accusations of the DI, the YECs and others?

I fear that belief will trump reason every time. The only answer seems to be in respectful discourse, which seems well-nigh impossible. They hurl insults, science folk hurl insults.

Has anyone ever been convinced by insults?

Or is respectful dialogue the answer? Heck, I dunno. People who are motivated by fear, and not curiosity or a search for truth, do not seem amenable to scientific arguments.

Perhaps the answer, as long-term as it may seem, is better science education. Not only for students, but for adults, as well.

David B. Benson · 27 September 2006

Liz Craig --- It seems that among the convinced, pure reason has no sway.

Lenny Flank has quoted the following, which I now borrow, hopefully with his permission:
"He convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Fross · 27 September 2006

i listened to a D.I. podcast of Wells reading this article. It's even more entertaining to hear is real voice say these things.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 27 September 2006

There is currently discussion in the scienctific literature re. the long-persisting aether question. There are various theories about where all the matter in the universe is hiding out. "Ether Theory", "Dark Matter Theory", and so on. You ever hear people getting on stumps and having lawsuits over their particular brand of aether? You hear them passionately asserting that their brand is the only proven brand?

There are various theories of evolution. One is named Darwinism.

There should currently be discussion in the scientific literature re. various possible mechanisms of evolution. What's gone wrong?

davey · 27 September 2006

I like the way the article ends and what follows; it gives real insight as to why creationist authors keep it up.

"If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid."

Get Wells' widely popular "Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design"

Shalini, BBWAD · 28 September 2006

[It's even more entertaining to hear is real voice say these things.]

I listened to the podcast too but found it disgusting rather than entertaining.

Torbjörn Larsson · 28 September 2006

Philip:

Aether theories were theories of substances filling the universe to explain light transmission. No "aether wind" (anisotropic transmission due to Earths movement in an aether) was found, and when Einstein found that this unwarranted assumption was also unneeded, those theories died. Modern concepts of space is nothing like it, with the exception of a few fringe ideas.

These ideas are discussed, so are evolutionary ideas. See for example Wilkin's Evolving Thoughts or Myer's Pharyngula blogs for material on those discussions accessible for laymen. Specied definition, cladistics vs taxonomy, evo-devo, Dawkins' gene selection is stuff I've seen since I started reading.

I guess the question is, what is wrong with your reading?

""If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid."

If I were a creationist, I would be stupid. Very stupid.

Torbjörn Larsson · 28 September 2006

"Specied definition" - species definition.

Sir_Toejam · 28 September 2006

There are various theories of evolution. One is named Darwinism. There should currently be discussion in the scientific literature re. various possible mechanisms of evolution. What's gone wrong?

nope there is only one extant theory of evolution, all the others have fallen by the wayside as the evidence simply didn't support them However, there are still discussion in the literature on a near weekly basis wrt to mechanisms. you need to understand the difference between the overall theory, and the mechanisms of selection and mutation that are being tested and discussed in the literature. I'm sure that's asking far too much of you, though, so why don't you be a good little troll and go back to your cave?

Darth Robo · 28 September 2006

"There are various theories of evolution. One is named Darwinism."

The ones that work are "Darwinistic". Get over it.

"There should currently be discussion in the scientific literature re. various possible mechanisms of evolution."

There is. Go read.

"What's gone wrong?"

Evolution produced you.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 28 September 2006

Quote, "If I were a creationist, I would be stupid. Very stupid"

Like, er, Newton, Boyle, Joule, Linnaeus, Mendel, Cuvier, Richard Owen Faraday, Oersted, Pasteur, Coulomb, Franklin, Edison, Kelvin,(arguably)Einstein, Darwin .... .

I think my question is worth repeating. What's gone wrong?

Jack Krebs · 28 September 2006

Very good dissection, using this particular story as an example, of the utterly stupid idea that every new discovery shows that science is wrong because there was something science didn't know. My vote for the stupidist sentence in the article was this one:

It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

Note that "Darwinists" means scientists here - what a slam on the hard working people who are out there trying to figure out how the world works while Wells sits around and writes DI-funded junk for the anti-evolutionist populace.

Darth Robo · 28 September 2006

PBH, I think you'll have a hard time convincing people that many of those on your list are creationists. Not everyone who believes in God is a creationist. I mean, Einstein? Come on!

"I think my question is worth repeating. What's gone wrong?"

Same answer. Who said natural selection was perfect? :-)

guthrie · 28 September 2006

Mr Heywood- the most obvious reply to your question about "What has gone wrong?" is that your well connected and rich friends who think evolutionary biology is wrong have failed to pay out for proper research on alternative theories of evolution.

PZ Myers · 28 September 2006

I like how your list of creationist scientists of high repute is all pre-Darwin, and when you get to post-Darwin scientists you have to invent an out by saying "(arguably)".

Neither Darwin nor Einstein were creationists.

There were very smart people once upon a time who could legitimately favor creationism. This is not true anymore, since we now have a well-established, strong theory that has replaced creationism. Now you need to be obtuse and ignorant in order to be a creationist.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 28 September 2006

So because a pianist is called a pianist, all a pianist can do is play top F? Could the word Creationist possibly cover more than one narrow approach to creation? We have Evolution (an unrolling) now meaning a means of unrolling; we have Species (implying special) being re-defined as an ephemeral concept, we have dogs giving birth to cats and now pianists who can only play top C. What next?

Anton Mates · 28 September 2006

There is currently discussion in the scienctific literature re. the long-persisting aether question. There are various theories about where all the matter in the universe is hiding out. "Ether Theory", "Dark Matter Theory", and so on.
— Philip Bruce Heywood

Heywood, please. The hypothesized luminiferous ether was massless, rigid, incompressible and mediated electromagnetic waves. Currently hypothesized "dark matter" is massive, fluid and does not participate in electromagnetic interactions. The only shared properties between the two are that they're transparent and they're everywhere. I know that to an IDer that's descending to Dembski's "pathetic level of detail," but actual scientists kind of care about the differences.

There should currently be discussion in the scientific literature re. various possible mechanisms of evolution.

Why, hi there, neutral selection! Hello, genetic drift and founder effects! Howdy, sexual selection and horizontal transfer!

Darwin

Um, if Darwin was a Creationist, can Creationists stop complaining about "Darwinism" now?

Anton Mates · 28 September 2006

We have Evolution (an unrolling) now meaning a means of unrolling; we have Species (implying special) being re-defined as an ephemeral concept
— Philip Bruce Heywood

This is almost too cruel...but no, "species" never implied "special." It's Latin, and it originally meant "sight, look, view, idea, notion, semblance, pretence, apparition, dream...." Not "special." Good thing etymology has no real bearing on modern usage or validity of a scientific term, huh?

Michael Suttkus, II · 28 September 2006

"You cannot change the conclusion of the brain by torture; nor by social ostracism. But I will tell you what you can do by these, and what you have done. You can make hypocrites by the million. You can make a man say that he has changed his mind; but he remains of the same opinion still. Put fetters all over him; crush his feet in iron boots; stretch him to the last gasp upon the holy rack; burn him, if you please, but his ashes will be of the same opinion still." - Robert G. Ingersoll The inaccurate version is pithier, of course. :-)

There is currently discussion in the scienctific literature re. the long-persisting aether question.
— Philip Bruce Heywood

Yeah, right. Do you make this stuff up as you go along or is someone feeding it to you?

There are various theories about where all the matter in the universe is hiding out. "Ether Theory", "Dark Matter Theory", and so on. You ever hear people getting on stumps and having lawsuits over their particular brand of aether?
— Philip Bruce Heywood

Dark matter isn't a brand of ether and real science isn't done by lawsuit.

You hear them passionately asserting that their brand is the only proven brand?
— Philip Bruce Heywood

I hear mathematicians asserting that their definition of Pi is the only proven one against pi-redefiners. I hear them insisting that it is impossible to solve the classic "square the circle" problem against pseudomathematicians certain they have overturned 2000 years of mathematical thought by doing it. I hear archaeologists passionately denying ARKeologists and Atlantis idiots. You seem to think this situation is unique. It is not. Every science has its share of idiots demanding that the consensus conclusion is wrong for really stupid reasons. Some new agers are positively certain science denies the existence of Atlantis solely to bolster the "failing patriarchal impositional science paradigm", that is, the idea that we all live in the same universe and we don't each get to make up our own laws of physics. Amerind "creationists" argue that the only reason "western" science believes that North America was colonized by a land bridge is to deny the plain truth that their tribe was created by god on their land, thus claiming it's just anyone's land so we could take it. And they have evidence that land bridges are a lie, just ask them! The only thing keeping lawsuits in these fields from happening is that none of these nuts have the power base in the US to force their nonsense into schools. Believe me, if Indiana had redefined pi as they once tried to do, there would have been lawsuits there and it would say nothing about whether the definition of pi was mathematically settled. Science denial is not unique to creationism, no matter how much you think it is, PBH.

There are various theories of evolution. One is named Darwinism.
— Philip Bruce Heywood

Nope. The only theory named "Darwinism" is pretty much dead since the 1950's when the modern synthesis took hold. Anyone still using the term "Darwinism" after that point can only be described as ignorant, stupid or intentionally deceitful. Which are you, PBH? (Not that they're necessarily mutually contradictory.) Scientists agree on the vast majority of evolutionary theory. Sure, there are details that are disagreed upon (like the power of kin selection), but that's true of every science. So?

There should currently be discussion in the scientific literature re. various possible mechanisms of evolution. What's gone wrong?
— Philip Bruce Heywood

There is discussion about the various possibilities in the literature. ID as proposed by the discoveryless institute is not a scientific possibility. OEC as proposed by your lot is not a possibility at all. Since these things aren't possible and are, in fact, pretty ludicrous, the literature doesn't waste time on them, just like they don't talk about Amerind denial of land bridges, new ager insistence on Atlantis, or the possibility that magic crystals can heal cancer. Your welcome to change this situation by actually doing some science to support your ideas but the Templeton Foundation has been asking you people to take money to do that for years and none of you can even manage a coherent proposal. Sucks to be you, I know.

Could the word Creationist possibly cover more than one narrow approach to creation?
— Philip Bruce Heywood

It's used fairly broadly, including everything from strict Last Thursdayism to Hindu "creationists" insisting that the world is infinitely old and was never created at all. A bit over-broad if you ask me, but that's the usage in these forums.

We have Evolution (an unrolling) now meaning a means of unrolling; we have Species (implying special)
— Philip Bruce Heywood

Species meant a unit of currency. It just means "type", not "special". But why bother learning the truth before making claims! Just make stuff up as you go along. Get over yourself.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 28 September 2006

Guthrie, the first part of your statement is (arguably) a little off the mark but the last part shows acumen. If you press on the link that is my name, and proceed, assisted by said acumen, why, for one, we shan't be talking at cross-purposes, as I find myself doing with those who can't seem to press on links (or is it, find acumen?)

Ah, Einstein. Was he (broad sense) creationist? Difficult question; his Relativity Theory however leaves no doubt as to the modern technical relevance of the Bible. Technical relevance, however, does not prove the Bible. Technicalities are neuter in relation to experiencing the christian religion.

Neither can technicalities be utilized to prove the opposite. That of itself demonstrates that full-on Darwinism must be technically substandard. True Science cannot be harnessed for purposes of idealogical indoctrination.

Michael Suttkus, II · 28 September 2006

Ah, Einstein. Was he (broad sense) creationist? Difficult question;
— Philip Bruce Heywood

Easy question: No.

his Relativity Theory however leaves no doubt as to the modern technical relevance of the Bible.
— Philip Bruce Heywood

LOL! Sure, no doubt, except for the majority of people here finding that preposterous!

That of itself demonstrates that full-on Darwinism must be technically substandard. True Science cannot be harnessed for purposes of idealogical indoctrination.
— Philip Bruce Heywood

Which is why creationists like you have to use false science for those purposes. Please stop.

Caledonian · 28 September 2006

When one's opponents' arguments become indistinguishable from low-level word salad, it's time to stop arguing with them.

Take a look at your last post, Mr. Heywood, and think about why so many people are simply ignoring you.

Philip Bruce Heywood · 28 September 2006

I keep being beaten to the button. Here we have classic illustrations of, to repeat my earlier question, "What's gone wrong".
Science education for a start seems to be deficient.
Honesty and openness have gone out the window, in some quarters.

If anyone wishes to research the original and intended application of the term, Species, (for instance) - why, it's open for all to discover. A dictionary could be a place to begin.
Likewise other matters raised, such as the "aether" concept. NEW SCIENTIST and other such publications look into such things, so it's not entirely a dead concept.

It is self-evident that some people who claim to be supporting "Science" are drawing their conclusions from the said aether. One or two cannot have viewed my site, unless they are halucinating. Diligent viewers can find the truth for themselves.

Darth Robo · 28 September 2006

"True Science cannot be harnessed for purposes of idealogical indoctrination."

Irony meter go BOOM! Me buy new one. Send bill to Phil.

"his Relativity Theory however leaves no doubt as to the modern technical relevance of the Bible."

Me buy beer. LOTSA beer!

Darth Robo · 28 September 2006

"One or two cannot have viewed my site, unless they are halucinating."

One or two have seen your site and thought they WERE hallucinating!

bjm · 28 September 2006

Mr Heywood- the most obvious reply to your question about "What has gone wrong?" is that your well connected and rich friends who think evolutionary biology is wrong have failed to pay out for proper research on alternative theories of evolution.

Sadly they know enough NOT to waste their money on pointless research -why waste time/money being SEEN to be attempting something (knowingly doomed to failure, admittedly) when you can fund a PR campaign that SAYS you do, repeatedly? We all know we will never hear anything of substance from these people. It's hard to disengage the mouth when the brain stopped working a long time ago! At least they are good for comic value even if it is wearing thin! Also, Mr Heywood, science has never claimed to have all the answers - that's what makes it appealing. That doesn't make it deficient. Deficiency comes in when you choose to ignore inconvenient knowledge that contradicts your particular worldview.

Lars Karlsson · 28 September 2006

I guess that the fact that the "evidence" for ID is disappearing all the time proves that the "evidence" for ID was quite overwhelming in the first place...
The more you are proved wrong, the more right you are!

Christophe Thill · 28 September 2006

I know it's bad taste to joke about names. I've known it since elemetary school. But still.

I think that Mr Wells is very aptly named. Because, every time he writes something, he really does open wells of stupidity.

Dave Thomas · 28 September 2006

Einstein a creationist? Sorry, no. See these Einstein Quotes for some examples.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. -- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. -- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. -- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. -- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

And many, many more...

Keith Douglas · 28 September 2006

Wheels: The US has the most scientific research done in terms of money, as far as I know, and has many of the world's scientists. But it also has some of the worst adoptions of pseudoscience and antiscientific attitudes of any affluent country. This is why "smash the heathen laboratories and burn the scientists at the stake" is not as far-fetched as it might be elsewhere. Of course, these attitudes are probably symptoms of larger social trends only tangentially related to science.

k.e. · 28 September 2006

Interesting ....Einstein believed in Spinoza's god?...poor guy was hounded for being a heathen.

Me? I beleive Frued's description of how god exists in the minds of men, the individuals projected Ego which collectively he called the Super Ego. Below are some examples.
Choose any suitable one or add your own

Note:Well's god Mammon.. seems to be missing.

Authoritarian God. Angry at earthly sin and willing to inflict divine retribution.

Distant God. A faceless, cosmic force that launched the world but leaves it alone.

Benevolent God. Sets absolute standards for man, but is also forgiving--engaged but not so angry.

Critical God. The classic bearded old man, judgmental but not going to intervene or punish.

Totalitarian God. He is everywhere, and he is watching you.

Multitasking God. Answers prayers by phone, fax and BlackBerry, all at the same time.

Noncommittal God. Loves his children, but isn't "in love" with them.

Passive-aggressive God. "Go ahead, sin if you want to. Don't worry about my wrath."

Obsessive-compulsive God. Washes his hands of us hundreds of times a day.

Narcissistic God. Worships himself.

Codependent God. Enables us to sin so that we'll need him.

Dyslexic God. "For he so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Puppy . . ."

Hypothermic God. "Many are cold, but few are frozen."

Hippocratic God. So powerful, he thinks he's a doctor.

Jewish mother God. "My children--I gave them life, but do they pray?"

Common-law God. Since the beginning of time has assumed sole responsibility for Godlike acts, but has not legally been established as "God."

Customer service God. "Press 1 for the Father, 2 for the Son, 3 for the Holy Spirit."

Unitarian God. Nice enough guy, but doesn't really seem to believe in himself.

Progressive God. Has outgrown the simplistic belief in his own literal existence, considers himself spiritual but not religious.

Liberal God. Commands man to "be fruitless and divide"; is completely self-absorbed yet doesn't believe in himself; wants you to stop sinning but doesn't have an alternative; can't stop yelling, "Satan lied, people died!"

Peace activist God. He's sending you to hell, but he supports the sinners!

Cindy Sheehan God. Wants George W. Bush to tell him what "noble cause" his Son died for.

Darwinian God. Possessed of an exquisite set of irony, he has divided mankind into two groups: those who believe that the most powerful biological force is the tendency of a population to be dominated by its most quickly reproducing members, and those who are actually reproducing.

Planned Parenthood God. One Child is enough.

New York Times God. Is angry only when people question the accuracy of his publication or his wisdom in divulging secret plans devised in the hearts of men.

Reuters God. "One God's terrorist is another's freedom fighter."

Rush Limbaugh God. "Talent on loan from me."

Hippie God. Must have been on something when he created the world.

United Nations God. Reaffirming that you are a sinner, he calls upon you to repent and decides to remain actively seized of this matter. If you ignore his call to repent, he will call upon you to repent again.

CIA God. Knows everything, but lacks the resources to process and analyze it.

George W. Bush God. Responsible only for evil.

Sports God. Similar to Distant God, but occasionally intervenes when a big play is needed.

Hertz Rent-a-God. He puts you in the driver's seat.

Avis Rent-a-God. He tries harder.

Enterprise Rent-a-God. He'll pick you up.

Visa God. He's everywhere you want him to be.

MasterGod. Priceless.

American Express God. Don't leave home without him.

Budweiser God. This God's for you.

Windows God. Plug and pray.

Google God. For those who are always searching.

Frugal God. Jesus saves.

Chairman God. Sets the agenda, but doesn't get involved in day-to-day operations.

Micromanager God. Not a sparrow falls but he needs a report on why, with guidance on what to do about it.

Soccer God. How about a pray date with his Son?

Schroedinger's God. Either exists or doesn't, and the act of looking changes the answer.

As someone famous once said "If a man claims to know what god is ...get him to define it..everyone has a different definition"..er except for two legged sheep

stevaroni · 28 September 2006

Mike Elzinga wrote Is the US even "the most scientifically advanced country" still?

I got the opportunity to lecture in a college in Beijing last December on some technical subjects related to video graphics. The thing that stuck out most for me* was how absolutely ravenous the students were for knowledge. The point was especially driven home when I looked at the standing-room crowd and realized that these were liberal arts students, who had packed an auditorium for several days to hear engineering lectures, in a language that they just barely understood. The questions were subtle and insightful, showing they had listened well. It was impossible not to contrast their attitude with college students back home, which was, to say the least, not flattering for my country. And then I come home to a school board that's trying to decide whether to pretend that simple, easy to verify laws of nature simply don't exist. You tell me where we're going to be in thirty years, because from wehre I sit, the picture does not look all that great. * OK, this isn't exactly true. The thing that I remeber most aobut Beijing were the bathrooms. But that's a different story.

Steviepinhead · 28 September 2006

Thanks, k.e.

Pretty funny list.

Not to mention, food for thought...

Philip Bruce Heywood · 28 September 2006

Notice how the big gun turns up whenever he can see the chance to get in a point, then retreats under cover of disgraceful misinformation and obfuscation by the team. No attempt to correct anyone for technical error except the person who might not hold his religious viewpoint. Does not auger well for Science. If the technical nonsense that has been put up in places here were to surface at a university, questions would rightly be asked about the standards. Well, we expect this would happen.

Robo presumably is still ready to suggest almost anything, from accusing www.creationtheory.com of not existing, to being a flood geology site. Then he implies he knows something about it!

Putting opinions in the mouths of those who have gone before is always a dicy business. The Einstein quotes are good but they are one sided in terms of whether or not Einstein had an underlying belief in something akin to a principle of lawfullness in nature. "God does not play at dice" sort of thinking. We could go on forever on that topic. T. Huxley coined the term, Agnostic; but because someone leaves the question of a Creator aside, does it mean he disowns reason or rationality in nature? Huxley seems to have acknowledged Something. Of course, it could be argued that Darwin was creationist, because he mentioned the Creator. Was he creationist? Crick appears to have turned to Panspermia. Was he perhaps turning to a "scientifically correct" expression of some sort of creationism?
What can be said without dispute is that it is impossible to uphold full-on Darwinism as a proved theory, on the opinions of men such as Richard Owen, Linneaus, Cuvier, Mendel, Faraday, Kelvin, and indeed many other respected people, some of whom were familiar with Darwinism and the biology scene.

Steviepinhead · 28 September 2006

Here's a "standards" test for you, PBH: if we spot you the M - A - R - and the Double, can you tell us what comes next?

Hint, when you complete the word, it rhymes with Heywood.

Steviepinhead · 28 September 2006

"Double-O" that should've been.

Didn't mean to make you hew to too tough a "standard," there, old bean.

Coin · 28 September 2006

Putting opinions in the mouths of those who have gone before is always a dicy business.
— Phillip Bruce Heywood

Why in God's name do you do it then?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 September 2006

Hey Heywood, you're, um, blithering again.

Brit · 28 September 2006

The very tactic of saying that a majority of the population doesn't believe X, therefore, they are smarter than scientists should be an obvious problem. Shall we take a look at the other things Americans don't know and conclude that they don't believe them because they're just too darn smart to believe it?

Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century. ... Dr. Miller's surveys regularly ask people whether they agree that science and technology make life change too fast (for years, about half of Americans have answered yes) or whether Americans depend too much on science and not enough on faith (ditto).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?ex=1159588800&en=87d970f9ec10077e&ei=5070

Mike Elzinga · 28 September 2006

Stevaroni in his comment number 135224 was attributing to me a comment made by Wheels in 134779. One of my Chinese students once referred to an error I had made during a math lecture (I had swapped two math expressions top to bottom on my white board writing) Chinese dyslexia.

But I understand your impressions of the students in China. I have worked with many students from that country, and for the most part, they are eager and curious.

I had the good fortune, after I retired from research, to spend ten years teaching calculus, advanced calculus, and physics to very bright and gifted high school students in a special program for gifted and talented students. It was a very uplifting and optimistic environment.

However, even some of these very bright students were firmly convinced by their churches and parents that evolution was wrong. So it appears that misinformation propagated by the ID/creationist crowd finds resonance with some very bright students. The emotional attachment to religious dogma trumps event the best reason.

Bob O'H · 29 September 2006

United Nations God. Reaffirming that you are a sinner, he calls upon you to repent and decides to remain actively seized of this matter. If you ignore his call to repent, he will call upon you to repent again.
— k.e.

... and once you're repented, sends a priest round to sit outside your house to tell you that you shouldn't do it again. Bob

Darth Robo · 29 September 2006

PBH said:

"Robo presumably is still ready to suggest almost anything, from accusing www.creationtheory.com of not existing, to being a flood geology site. Then he implies he knows something about it!"

I never implied your sight didn't exist. As for implications of what I do or do not know, I simply know that if I wanna learn some science, to stick to those who are scientifically literate. You know, peer review and all that.

You know, I'm beginning to think I might have upset you in some way. :(

Torbjörn Larsson · 29 September 2006

Philip:
"Newton, Boyle, Joule, Linnaeus, Mendel, Cuvier, Richard Owen Faraday, Oersted, Pasteur, Coulomb, Franklin, Edison, Kelvin,(arguably)Einstein, Darwin ..."

Mentioning persons that lived in other eras doesn't imply that creationism seems intelligent today.

Of your list, as I can place them after some googling:
Creationist: Isaac Newton (heretic, inspired pantheists), Robert Boyle (militant anglican/episcopalian, inspired pantheists), Richard Owen (vitalist), Michael Faraday (presbyterian), Einstein (humanist, pantheist).
Not creationist: Hans Christian Oerstedt (naturphilosophie), Benjamin Franklin (freethinker), Albert Charles Darwin (agnostic).
Not placeable: James Prescott Joule, Louis Pasteur, Charles Augustin Coulomb, Thomas Alva Edison, William Thomson Kelvin.

One can certainly discuss Einstein. Naturalistic pantheists, which sees order in nature as proof of something else, is using the design argument from teleology. Design is created, so creationism. (Pantheism seems often to be seen as conflatable to naturalism, as in Wikipedia. That seems wrong to me.)

About 1/4 confirmed creationists, some definitely not. Still having problem reading?

Philip Bruce Heywood · 29 September 2006

Does "peer review" mean ogling the lecturer's mother?

Philip Bruce Heywood · 29 September 2006

Too slow again. My question was to Da'third entry above (I hope).

Philip Bruce Heywood · 29 September 2006

Hey, Lenny, I'm intrigued. What is "blithering" like? Does it go anything like, um, er, BWA -HA -HA-HA ? I don't think that's quite it.

Seriously, blithering somehow reminds me, I now have an (environmentally friendly) valuable cat which jumps on anything that moves (but not birds or wild animals in the scrub) and there was a snake here today. What can be done to stop cats attacking snakes? No, it's not one of the kittens Lenny had when he got reincarnated as a dog for the cause of scientific enquiry. Seriously, anyone got any advice about cats and snakes? The cat cost enough, without having to pay to try to save it from snakebite.

ben · 29 September 2006

"So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk." -Thomas Edison

I'm sure Philip thinks we could argue all day about what Edison meant by this. You can't keep a cat from screwing around with snakes or any other small prey. Buy cheaper cats (why anyone would pay for a cat escapes me--if you've ever noticed, they replicate free of charge).

ben · 29 September 2006

Lord Kelvin was apparently a devout Anglican who said...

"The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism."

On the other hand, he also said:

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.

...so how can you trust anything he said? By IDiot standards of evidence, the existence of that quote alone means that not only was Kelvin wrong about everything he ever thought, it also conclusively proves the validity of any theory that ever competed with anything Kelvin ever thought to be true.

Darth Robo · 29 September 2006

Blithers PBH:

"Too slow again. My question was to Da'third entry above (I hope)."

Still not sure which entry you mean or by whom. Rereading everything, actually I'm still not sure what you're getting at.

"Does "peer review" mean ogling the lecturer's mother?"

If necessary. ;)

Darth Robo · 29 September 2006

PBH:

"Seriously, anyone got any advice about cats and snakes?"

RESPECT the SNAKE! & TAME the CAT!

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

Philip Bruce Heywood · 29 September 2006

Why is it that Pantheism only conjors up in my mind, images of a black-cloaked wrestler from India silently creeping up (on me)and springing, like a giant cat, in the dead of night?

Reading about people's religions has given me the creeps. I think it's upsetting me in some way. I think I'll turn to inflatable naturalism. What the heck is a vitalist?

ben · 29 September 2006

What the heck is a vitalist?

What the heck is Google?

Philip Bruce Heywood · 29 September 2006

If you'll kindly come here and convince the cat to respect the snake and the snake to respect the cat my problem would be solved. It's not really my cat, either, which makes it worse.
Hey, Ben., good thing you weren't on the GREAT EASTERN when Kelvin was supervizing the laying of the first successful North Atlantic cable. You wouldn't have done much for the captain's confidence with those verbalizations. Wonder if anyone else around here, other than me, never said something stupid?

Michael Suttkus, II · 29 September 2006

Not creationist: Hans Christian Oerstedt (naturphilosophie), Benjamin Franklin (freethinker), Albert Charles Darwin (agnostic).
— Torbjörn Larsson

I think Franklin was a Deist (which you may or may not regard as the same thing), and Darwin's position changed during his life. He was pretty Christian at the time he wrote Origin of Species but found he could no longer believe in a personal God after the horrific death of his daughter.

Not placeable: James Prescott Joule, Louis Pasteur, Charles Augustin Coulomb, Thomas Alva Edison, William Thomson Kelvin.
— Torbjörn Larsson

I'm pretty sure Pasteur was a creationist. Kelvin was also a creationist in as much as he rejected evolution. Neither bought any modern form of creationism, having rejected modern YEC and flood geology as inept and silly, but supporting a younger earth than OEC. Kelvin's big thing was his calculations of the age of the earth based on the assumption that it had a starting heat and had been radiating ever since from an initially molten state. With the discovery of radioactive decay, his assumptions were destroyed and his anti-evolution argument died overnight. I'm not aware of him responding to this, however.

Does "peer review" mean ogling the lecturer's mother?
— Philip Bruce Heywood

It's not funny, it doesn't make a serious point, in fact, it seems to be a total non-sequitur. Why does it exist? There are mysteries in the universe mankind was not meant to ponder.

Why is it that Pantheism only conjors up in my mind, images of a black-cloaked wrestler from India silently creeping up (on me)and springing, like a giant cat, in the dead of night?
— Philip Bruce Heywood

No, too easy.

Reading about people's religions has given me the creeps.
— Philip Bruce Heywood

Now that's ironic, given he wants everyone else to read his. Tell me, PBH, didn't your read about other people's religions before you posted your list? Are you admitting that you used an inaccurate source? If not, why not?

I think it's upsetting me in some way.
— Philip Bruce Heywood

You conclude from the fact that it has upset you that it is upsetting. No, too easy.

I think I'll turn to inflatable naturalism. What the heck is a vitalist?
— Philip Bruce Heywood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

Darth Robo · 29 September 2006

"Why is it that Pantheism only conjors up in my mind, images of a black-cloaked wrestler from India silently creeping up (on me)and springing, like a giant cat, in the dead of night?"

That's where the snake comes in handy.

"If you'll kindly come here and convince the cat to respect the snake and the snake to respect the cat my problem would be solved."

I never said the snake should respect the cat. ;)

ben · 29 September 2006

If you'll kindly come here and convince the cat to respect the snake and the snake to respect the cat my problem would be solved

Cats don't respect anything that might be eaten. They just eat it. Snakes don't do respect. Everything's either food, threat, or terrain to them. What kind of snake(s) are you worrying about?

Wonder if anyone else around here, other than me, never said something stupid?

I say stupid things all the time. However, I do try to avoid building those stupid utterances into extensive websites and providing links to those sites every time I post. Do you have in mind some specific things you said here that you now realize were stupid?

Caledonian · 29 September 2006

Lord Kelvin was apparently a devout Anglican who said... "The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism."
— Ben

Ben makes a very good point. Lord Kelvin noticed several inconsistencies in our understanding of the world that the scientific knowledge of the time couldn't account for... but all of those inconsistencies were rather quickly filled by new phenomena and their consequences. This demonstrates the danger in proclaiming that science cannot account for discrepencies.

Anton Mates · 29 September 2006

Albert Charles Darwin (agnostic).
— Torbjörn Larsson

Albert Charles Darwin?

Anton Mates · 29 September 2006

What can be done to stop cats attacking snakes
— Philip Bruce Heywood

Indoor cat.

roophy · 29 September 2006

Hey, Wood,

What's with the dot at the end of "re." in several of your posts in this thread? "Re" is a word, not an abbreviation.

Michael Suttkus, II · 29 September 2006

"Re." is an abbreviation of "regarding". It is not a word on it's own, though frequently used as such.

roophy · 29 September 2006

"Re." is an abbreviation of "regarding". It is not a word on it's own, though frequently used as such.

"Re" is the ablative of Latin "res", and has always been used as such in English with the meaning of "in the matter of" or similar. I spend too much on beer to be able to afford an OED, and so will yield to a credible quote, but if anybody has managed to sneak "re." as an abbreviation of "regarding" into the accepted language, I wager it is much newer than the original derived from the Latin.

Torbjörn Larsson · 29 September 2006

ben:
Thanks for the input, your google-fu is mightier than mine!

Michael:
"Although Franklin's parents had intended for him to have a career in the church, Franklin said that he became disillusioned with organized religion, after learning about Deism." ( Wikipedia)

You are right, I may have misread that sentence. (Unfortunately, I didn't note my sources. "Freethinker" was from elsewhere.)

Anton:
"Albert Charles Darwin?"

Sorry, Charles Robert Darwin.

I'm pretty sure I copied that from Wikipedia, so perhaps I crossed Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin. The general theory of revolution?

Glen Davidson · 29 September 2006

"Re." is an abbreviation of "regarding". It is not a word on it's own, though frequently used as such.

"Re" is most frequently used in lieu of "in re". Used in this manner, it is indeed the latin for "thing" or "matter". What perhaps should be done, since it is a latin word, is the italicization of "re". However, if one were going to do things right, one would actually write "in re", in which case one should indeed italicize the phrase, at least in formal writing (not necessarily here). Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Glen Davidson · 29 September 2006

Anyhow, the religion of Darwinism is definitely doomed because it wasn't complete when formulated, and has been shown to be inadequate via further developments.

It's just too bad for them that science never adopted the religion of Darwinism, but left that invention to creos and IDists. A religion (most, at least) needs a Satan, of course, and ID can't have the devil as their Satan, hence they took a few things from evolution, coupled with vivid imaginations, and created the demon science that UD constantly complains about. You know, the Darwinism that won't allow itself ever to be questioned, and the one that is wrong both for never changing, and for being all-too-willing to change (Satan shouldn't do that).

This is a familiar practice in Christianity, this re-invention of others' gods as demons and devils. It has rarely, if ever, been honest, and why should it begin to be honest now (which is not to fault the Xians who eschew such dishonesty, of course)? The only thing honest about the affair is their genuine inability to distinguish between science and religion, but their invention of Darwinism the religion necessarily has to be intellectually dishonest, verging on the personally dishonest among the less naive.

Congratulate the dolts on their great victory over the scarecrow. Appearances indicate that burning such scarecrows is all the victory the IDiots can achieve, and hey, they need victories too. Yet how can a victory be so sad?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Michael Suttkus, II · 29 September 2006

"Re" is the ablative of Latin "res", and has always been used as such in English with the meaning of "in the matter of" or similar.
— roophy

Hmm, you're right. Learn something new everyday!

stevaroni · 29 September 2006

What can be done to stop cats attacking snakes
Indoor cat.

Yeah, that's probably much better than what I was going to suggest about the indoor snakes.

stevaroni · 29 September 2006

What can be done to stop cats attacking snakes
Indoor cat.

Yeah, that's probably much better than what I was going to suggest about the indoor snakes.

steve s · 29 September 2006

Wells: "Darwinism is Doomed" because we keep making progress

Paraphrasing the immortal eric cartman, "Well, something is doomed because we keep making progress. It's not exactly 'Darwinism', but it's definitely something."

Philip Bruce Heywood · 30 September 2006

Been away for a day cat still alive sound advice to be got here that's for sure. (Snakes here are Australian Brown).

Ron Okimoto · 30 September 2006

The saddest thing about Wells is that after half a decade of prevarication the scam artists at the Discovery Institute had to lower themselves to backing the kind of junk that Wells and the old scientific creationists were and are putting out. They wanted to take the high ground, but when they realized that they didn't have jack they didn't honestly reevaluate the situation, but decided to go with another con game. All they ended up with was the kind of junk that guys like Wells put out.

You know that they were embarrassed about the change because when they were first hawking the "teach the controversy" replacement scam they had to refer to Wells' junk. They didn't start putting out their own dishonest ofuscation junk until they had to publically admit that ID was going no where in Ohio. It was years after Meyer put up the replacement scam in 1999 that Dembski put out junk like his human origins essay that was pretty much standard creationist obfuscation. Just read his 2001 essay on what to teach at the Discovery Institute and you know that he had bought into the "teach the controversy" replacement scam, but what was he advocating teaching?

It looks like they had a choice at the turn of the century. They could have gone along Denton's route, or they could go with the dubious (in both sanity and honesty) path that Wells was laying down. We all know what they chose, Denton was out and Wells was in. What is even sadder is that they kept using Denton's first book (chocked full of known bogus arguments) and pretended that he had never written his second book, that had pretty much abandoned the most bogus arguments. Ohio and Dover were the results.

My guess is that if they didn't need Wells to perpetrate the con game that they would never associate with the guy. I bet the other fellows at the Discovery Institute don't even respect him.

stevaroni · 30 September 2006

PBH writes: Snakes here are Australian Brown

It's a little OT, but while we're on the subject; I've had the opportunity over the years to do several projects in Australia. Lovely, Lovely place, full of warm, friendly people. Totally enjoyed it. I just have one question; What's with all the things down there that can kill you!? Australia is home to something like 8 of the 10 deadliest snakes. Whereas once you could go snorkeling and only have to worry about the sharks, stonefish, crocodiles, sea-snakes and skin cancer, now you have to keep an eye out for stingrays and instantly fatal micro-jellies! Why does an inch-long jellyfish need venom that can drop a horse at 100 meters!? And don't even get me started on the funnelweb spiders, any description of which seems to begin with the line "...the only spider whose bite is considered life-threatening to a healthy adult". They have fangs bigger my cat! I know this because one of them chased me! I would point out at this time that spiders aren't supposed to chase people, it's supposed to be the other way around, but apparently, this breed feels differently. Kangaroos regularly kick people to death a couple of times a year, and even the freakin' platypus, a creature with no major predators that lives its life hiding in streams and eating crayfish has a poison claw. Sheesh! Mother nature is trying to tell you blokes something.

bjm · 30 September 2006

I see Dembski has finally got his new visionary site up and running Overwhelming Evidence?. What's his message? - "give us your young people.." That sets out their strategy I suppose and is probably the first honest thing they have said, if a little disturbing.

(Interestingly he has also registered www.underwhelmingevidence.com and probably a few other variations I haven't checked. Wonder why that is?)

stevaroni · 30 September 2006

I love that the overwhelmingevidence site opens with a splash page that, among other things, says "Judge Jones: He's a wacky, zany activist, he's a rogue, and he loves that old time Darwininan Religion".

Quite a change from this time two years or so ago, when AIG was singing his praises as the wisest judge since Solomon.

Gee, I wonder what changed their mind?

Michael Suttkus, II · 30 September 2006

I was chased by one of these once:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amblypigid.jpg

Mind you, as scary as they look, they're pretty harmless. I didn't know this when I was five.

I much prefer the bugs that run from you. :-)

Henry J · 30 September 2006

Re "What's his message? - "give us your young people..""

"See? Ar has spoken - he wants your children!"

Henry

bjm · 30 September 2006

It's their last desperate hope of survival. Most people can see it for what it is, once they make the effort so what better way of ~~gaining ground~~ expanding the congregation than to nurture the impressionable minds of the youth. Again, it beats doing any work. Dembski mentioned this earth-shattering project last year and it's even more underwhelming than I thought it was going to be! I know that's hard to believe!

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 September 2006

NOTE TO ALL: Don't you DARE disrespect snakes while I'm around.

;)

Oh, and hey Heywood, you're still blithering.

Michael Rathbun, FCD · 30 September 2006

And don't even get me started on the funnelweb spiders, any description of which seems to begin with the line "...the only spider whose bite is considered life-threatening to a healthy adult". They have fangs bigger my cat! I know this because one of them chased me! I would point out at this time that spiders aren't supposed to chase people, it's supposed to be the other way around, but apparently, this breed feels differently.
— stevaroni

Heh. Wait 'til you encounter a mob of those 2.5 centimeter warrior ants. That was an experience as startling as anything I've had since my first rocket and mortar attack in Viet-Nam.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 September 2006

And don't even get me started on the funnelweb spiders, any description of which seems to begin with the line "...the only spider whose bite is considered life-threatening to a healthy adult".

Only the males. The females stay in their hidey holes and hardly ever come out. It's just a quirk of biochemistry that makes the funnelwebs so dangerous --- their venom just so happens to interact particularly well with primate neurochemistry. To dogs, cats and other nonprimate mammals, they're harmless. I've been bitten by tarantulas a couple times --- hurts, but isn't dangerous. Been zapped too by a few scorpion species (but not the really dangerous ones). Got tagged once by a halfgrown Vietnamese giant centipede. That, uh, hurt. A lot. A *real* lot. Made me glad it wasn't a fullgrown adult. When I was in Nicaragua, I got zapped by a "bullet ant". The name is entirely apt. Owwwwwwww. Only animal that ever put me in the hospital, though, was a halfgrown water monitor that latched onto the base of my thumb. Got four stitches and a nice scar from that. About the only thing that hasn't gotten a tooth into me is a venomous snake. I'm very careful around them. It's just the sublethal critters that I get kind of casual with.

Dr. Michael Martin · 1 October 2006

A study published Aug. 11 in the pro-Darwin magazine Science attributes this primarily to biblical fundamentalism, even though polls have consistently shown that half of the Americans who reject Darwinism are not biblical fundamentalists. Then what the heck are they Wells? Bohemian Backbreathing whale walking alien worshippers?

Could it be that the American people are skeptical of Darwinism because they're smarter than Darwinists think? Hmmm......survey says? Oh wait, where is your survey?

On Aug. 17, the pro-Darwin magazine Nature reported that scientists had just found the "brain evolution gene." There is circumstantial evidence that this gene may be involved in brain development in embryos, and it is surprisingly different in humans and chimpanzees. According to Nature, the gene may thus harbor "the secret of what makes humans different from our nearest primate relatives."

I found this interesting, but more information would have helped us here.

Three things are remarkable about this report. First, it implicitly acknowledges that the evidence for Darwinism was never as overwhelming as its defenders claim. It has been almost 30 years since Gould wrote that biology accounts for human nature, yet Darwinists are just now turning up a gene that may have been involved in brain evolution.

No stuff....just now figuring that out? Wow, and Creation Science is behind the times? Lets try, less talk more finds!

Second, embryologists know that a single gene cannot account for the origin of the human brain. Genes involved in embryo development typically have multiple effects, and complex organs such as the brain are influenced by many genes. The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.

Blubbery. Nothing important here.

Third, the only thing scientists demonstrated in this case was a correlation between a genetic difference and brain size. Every scientist knows, however, that correlation is not the same as causation. Among elementary school children, reading ability is correlated with shoe size, but this is because young schoolchildren with small feet have not yet learned to read --- not because larger feet cause a student to read better or because reading makes the feet grow. Similarly, a genetic difference between humans and chimps cannot tell us anything about what caused differences in their brains unless we know what the gene actually does. In this case, as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."
Well, I'd love to concede here, but the mystery is, whats this article really about?

So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence --- any evidence, no matter how skimpy --- to justify their speculations. The latest hype over the "brain evolution gene" unwittingly reveals just how underwhelming the evidence for their view really is.
Okay? Yes I'm aware, but...your claim matters here because?
The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a materialistic creation myth masquerading as science. It is first and foremost a weapon against religion --- especially traditional Christianity. Evidence is brought in afterwards, as window dressing. yawn

This is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people, who are not the ignorant backwoods religious dogmatists that Darwinists make them out to be. Darwinists insult the intelligence of American taxpayers and at the same time depend on them for support. This is an inherently unstable situation, and it cannot last.

If I were a Darwinist, I would be afraid. Very afraid.

I know you know my stance in the Scientific debate, but you know what? This is why Creation Scientists do not side with ID idiots! Jonathan Wells never ceases to disappoint me. Guess what? What do you Evolutionists have to be afraid of here? Its unfortunately all smoke and mirrors here. There is nothing of substance besides this gene within the brain that has been found or something along the lines. Okay? Not impressed with this at all . IDIOTS! Nothing but political propaganda here folks. Don't pay your taxes to these Evolution fiends! YEAH ID in the schools. How about, evidential support of something here, since you don't want to base it on either the Bible or Evolution?

Dr. Michael Martin · 1 October 2006
Nothing but smoke and mirrors, no data, no numbers, no information, plenty of bald assertions, and a political ploy to take over the classrooms with a mixed up and misconstrued theory neither supported by the Bible or Evolution. Typical Intelligent Design .

Dr. Michael Martin · 1 October 2006
Nothing of substance, typical of Intelligent Design nonmovement within the Scientific Political Ploys of Theistic Evolutionists confused about their stance on whether the Bible or Evolution is correct. No information, no data, just bald assertions. Highly disappointed ONCE AGAIN with Jonathan Wells. By the way, HE HAS A PHD! For crying out loud

Dr. Michael Martin · 1 October 2006
I have to agree with the forum runner here. My respect for Jonathan Wells dropped another notch below the gutter line. Please, next thing you know, Behe's going to open his big mouth again, and then Dumbski will be right there behind him ready to screw up again on his media blog. Same old typical play here.
By the way, where's Mr. Stephen Meyers? Is he out surfing in the Bahamas somewhere?

stevaroni · 1 October 2006
I've been bitten by tarantulas a couple times ... by a few scorpion species ... by a halfgrown Vietnamese giant centipede ... by a "bullet ant"... a halfgrown water monitor
Rev - Ya gotta clean out that garage. :o

Dr. Michael Martin · 1 October 2006
There's really no correlation between Michael Denton and Jonathan Wells. Denton has a brain, Wells left his in the gutter somewhere. Thats about it.

demallien · 2 October 2006
Rev - Ya gotta clean out that garage. :o
— stevaroni
Lol. What do you think he was doing when he got bitten! ;-) Actually, I've often wondered in recent years just why Australia has so many dangerous animals (before that I never realised that Australia was a special case - I thought all schoolkids got lectures on which spiders were dangerous, correct snake protocol, what to do hen a shark was around etc etc etc). To this day I haven't come up with a convincing response - except to note that it's clear that humans didn't evolve anywhere in the neighbourhood.... I figure that as humans have a long history of evolving amongst the other ecosystems of the world that we've been able to adapt to some of the nastier things that those ecosystems may have had in store - but in good ol' Oz, being the Johnny-come-lately, we have NO evolved defences at all...

Michael Suttkus, II · 2 October 2006
Everyplace but Afrida is someplace humanity is a jonny-come-lately. Certainly most species in the Americas aren't evolved around us.
I'm not sure there needs to be a reason why Australia is more poison filled than other areas. Simply put, someplace on earth had to be the worst, why not Australia? Statistics demand that someplace be greatest and someplace be least and humans, being humans, will try to find an explanation for the most.
Speaking of overabundances, Florida has too many poisonous plants. Stepping outside I can find Poison Oak/Poison Ivy, Poison Sumac, Brazilian Pepper, and, my personal least favorite plant in the state, Stinging Nettle (Cnidolscolus stimulosus, which I like to translate as "hurts like you've been struck with a whip"). A little further south you can find Florida Poisonwood. Is Florida unusually poisonous in plants or is this typical of an area?

Anton Mates · 2 October 2006
Australia does have a very large percentage of desert and arid land, and those environments tend to have more venomous creatures because ambush predation's easier than pursuit--you don't risk overheating, dehydration, or excessive energy loss from chasing infrequent prey items.
That wouldn't explain the venomous sea critters, but I wonder if that isn't partially sampling bias--a first world country with extremely crowded beaches is going to report more poisoning incidents anyway. Plus, of course, all Australians are always drunk and trying to play with the pretty octopus.

stevaroni · 2 October 2006
Actually, now that I think about it, I guess it's all relative.
Until fairly recently, Africa was probably the most dangerous place for a protohuman to be. Yes, there were things all over the world that could bite you or poison you, but that was, by and large, an accidental death.
In Africa, on the other hand, there were animals that would active seek you out as prey, at least until humans grew enough brains to decide they had to put a stop to such nonsense.
It must have come as a shock to the first leopard to find this out. His last though was probably something like "I wonder what my lunch is doing with that big stick?"
The fact that we now worry about spiders and jellyfish is actually evidence of an improvement, of sorts, since it means that we aren't worrying about the much bigger threat of lions and wolves anymore.

Anton Mates · 2 October 2006
The fact that we now worry about spiders and jellyfish is actually evidence of an improvement, of sorts, since it means that we aren't worrying about the much bigger threat of lions and wolves anymore.
— stevaroni
Right. And Australia was probably the least dangerous continent to start with, in terms of large predators who could actually stalk you or chase you down. On land, anyway. Nothing but a few giant lizards and marsupial lions to worry about... OTOH, lions and wolves learn to avoid people after a few centuries of hunting; spiders and jellyfish, not so much.

Michael Suttkus, II · 2 October 2006
Australia had several reasonably large predators when humans arrived, including the biggest lizard in world history.
We ate them.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 October 2006

Rev - Ya gotta clean out that garage. :o

Lol. What do you think he was doing when he got bitten! ;-)
No, no -- nearly all of them were pets. :)

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 October 2006
Hey Doc Martin, you haven't answered my simple question yet.
So I'll ask again.
And again and again and again and again, as many times as I need to, until I get an answer.
*ahem*
What, other than your say-so, makes your religious opinions any better or more authoritative than anyone else's?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 October 2006
Hey Doc, do supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?
If so, should they be killed?

Anton Mates · 2 October 2006
Australia had several reasonably large predators when humans arrived, including the biggest lizard in world history. We ate them.
— Michael Suttkus, II
Actually, last I heard, we coexisted with them for several millennia, and their disappearance is more closely linked to climate change, in terms of timing at least. Although I'd be very proud to know a distant relative had taken out a 16-foot monitor lizard with boomerangs.

Michael Suttkus, II · 3 October 2006
My "we ate them" was a bit simplistic.

Ben Z · 3 October 2006
My respect dropped a whole notch!...well not actually. Doesn't this get old at some point for you guys?

stevaroni · 3 October 2006
My "we ate them" was a bit simplistic.
I've heard that 16 foot long monitor lizard tastes a lot like chicken.

Henry J · 3 October 2006
Are you sure it isn't the chicken that tastes a lot like the lizard? :)

Michael Suttkus, II · 3 October 2006
Never!
Well, briefly, I got really tired of the whole mess after the jabby/suicide fiasco, but that was more to do with other things going on in my life at the time. Luckily, I had a good friend to put me back on the True Path.
Other than that, it's a blast. I mean, you get to shoot fish in a barrel and feel you've contributed to a sane society while doing it. How can asking people if mangroves are faster than velociraptors get old? :-)

ben · 3 October 2006
I've heard that 16 foot long monitor lizard tastes a lot like chicken
The 16-foot monitor heard the same thing about you.

stevaroni · 3 October 2006
The 16-foot monitor heard the same thing about you.
I saw a t-shirt once, related to a sci-fi tv series, that said something like "Before you go meddling in the affairs of dragons, remember that you are crunchy and taste good with mustard".

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
Obviously to say that everything is relative is false because if that were so, that would be an absolute, making the statement false.
What can be said is that it is absolutely certain that the Intelligent Design side consists of a bunch of idiots caught behind the times :).

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
What, other than your say-so, makes your religious opinions any better or more authoritative than anyone else's?
Demonstrative evidence in History, Science, Archaeology. What makes my presuppositions better? I am perfectly justified in arguing that Jesus Christ is the truth. HE claims so, and I have no reason not to believe it. Other religious claims state that they "have" the truth, but if so, why then not follow Jesus Christ since he "is" the truth. This in no way proves Religious Pluralism mind you, as that would be an abuse of etymology (since historically we can only truly connect Jesus Christ to the Bible). They still have an issue since the religious claims for truth are completely and radically different, thus making the competing claims for truth contradictory. Outright rejection of who Jesus Christ is as pertained to the Bible is simply a choice to live in denial. Its not my say so, see for yourself: John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father EXCEPT through me."
This means Jesus Christ is the only way to live, he is the one and only truth, and he is the life and reality that we live in. If we choose to stray from this, we do not go to God. In other words, we are separated from God, and we are following a delusion.
Okay, as far as the other question about whether the Bible states we should burn witches.....I believe I already mentioned this was taken out of context. Christianity does not state that we are to burn witches. Its a situation in which basically, its a form of capital punishment that was used at the time. Now you're saying, "how in the world could we condone such a thing" but then again, imagine a world that has no access to guns, electric chairs and such. Thats they way they conducted capital punishment, and it was approved through the words of God himself, and signed by the Israelites, thus it was known as the "Israelite Covenant." It was the law that the Israelites lived back then. Christians are more confined to the New Testament Law, which Jesus Christ came to fulfill. Basically, if its changed in the New Testament, we do not follow it because the laws may have been changed by Jesus himself. Since he is God, he has ever right to do that. This is why I mentioned you should go to the New Testament in this case. Since this was a form of Capital punishment though, I doubt Jesus would have a need to say anything disregarding this rule, as it is still applicable to our society today.

GuyeFaux · 3 October 2006
I am perfectly justified in arguing that Jesus Christ is the truth. HE claims so, and I have no reason not to believe it.
I can't tell if this guys being serious or not... My sarcasm-meter is on the fritz.

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
I can't tell if this guys being serious or not... My sarcasm-meter is on the fritz.
What reason do you have for denying Christ's resurrection?
Why don't you just give me a really great non pseudocholastical answer here. Not some G.A. Wells (math major) or Earl Doherty (not a scholar) pseudoanswer.
If I am to be intellectually honest, thats the only conclusion I can seriously come to.

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
I can't tell if this guys being serious or not... My sarcasm-meter is on the fritz.
What reason do you have for denying Christ's resurrection?
Why don't you just give me a really great non pseudoscholastical answer here. Not some G.A. Wells (math major) or Earl Doherty (not a scholar) pseudoanswer.
If I am to be intellectually honest, thats the only conclusion I can seriously come to.
Why do we keep getting off topic here? This is supposed to be a Wells-bashing thread here.

Darth Robo · 3 October 2006
"I am perfectly justified in arguing that Jesus Christ is the truth. HE claims so, and I have no reason not to believe it. Other religious claims state that they "have" the truth, but if so, why then not follow Jesus Christ since he "is" the truth."
Wow. Just wow.

Darth Robo · 3 October 2006
And then this just appeared:
"What reason do you have for denying Christ's resurrection?"
Wow. Just wow.

bjm · 3 October 2006
He obviously hasn't read Dawkins' new book yet!

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
OKay, so you're willing to reject the claims of roughly 10 people who stated that a man who declared himself God could rise from the dead based around the appearances in front of 500 other men who also believed he was God and was also seen and believed to be God despite the testimony of women of the day AND an empty tomb on top of all of that?
Silence is acceptance. Find a source from the time period of 37 A.D. to 100 A.D. that rejects that Christ rose from the dead in any sense.

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
ROFL...OH PLEASE, Richard Dawkins?
Is that the best you can do?
Their argument is that an a priori adherence to materialism is necessary to protect the very existence of science. If design in biology is real, then the Designer also might be real, and scientific materialists contemplate this possibility (if at all) with outright panic. Science will come to a screeching halt, they insist, because everybody will stop doing experiments and just attribute all phenomena to the inscrutable will of God.
Nonsense. On the contrary, the concept that the universe is the product of a rational mind provides a far better metaphysical basis for scientific rationality than the competing concept that everything in the universe (including our minds) is ultimately based in the mindless movements of matter. Perhaps materialism was a liberating philosophy when the need was to escape from dogmas of religion, but today materialism itself is the dogma from which the mind needs to escape. A rule that materialism should be professed regardless of the evidence, says Behe, is the equivalent of a rule that science may not contradict the teachings of a church. "It tries to place reality in a tidy box, but the universe will not be placed in a box."
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9610/reviews/johnson.html

GuyeFaux · 3 October 2006
Silence is acceptance.
Still can't tell...

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
The Anthropic principle, that the cause must be greater than the effect, disproves Dawkins hypothesis, due to the fact that matter can not think, and beings can. Thus, a higher being is the only way to attribute this cause.

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
You are going to have to do much better than that to impress me.

GuyeFaux · 3 October 2006
The Anthropic principle, that the cause must be greater than the effect...
Ah, so *that's* what the anthropic principal is. Thanks for clearing that up.

bjm · 3 October 2006
Is that the same ten people who saw Elvis last week? It's not real and I, personally, don't need it to be but if that's what get's you out of bed of a morning then each to his own.

Nurse Bettinke · 3 October 2006
Ach! My poor misguided Michael.
Yelling offstage: "Hey, you butterfly-net boys! He's not on that 'Alack!' thread anymore! He here is over!"
Please to be helping the customer assistance attendants with ~~herding~~ ~~rounding up~~ ~~retrieving~~, er, escorting our poor Michael-troll back to the Trollheim Sanatorium & Pharmacia.
I, you, thank very much.

David B. Benson · 3 October 2006
GuyeFaux --- Dr. M+M is the WINDY troll who has escaped from an older thread and is now spreading his trollisms all over this one. He's actually kinda funny if you just leave him to spout to himself...

stevaroni · 3 October 2006
What reason do you have for denying Christ's resurrection? Why don't you just give me a really great non pseudoscholastical answer here.
Well, I guess the simple answer is that resurrection has never been demonstrated. All the objective evidence says that once you're dead, you're dead. A little quick math says that maybe 200,000 people die each day. 1.4 million souls each week. 75,000 in America alone. Yet of all those dear departed, not one of them ever managed to send back some clear, unambiguous, message from the great beyond. Not one pastor trying to sooth his flock. Not one husband telling his wife where the paperwork was stashed. And, in my opinion, the most damning - not one scientist trying to set the record straight once and for all. No note from Newton, no sign from Socrates, no iota from Einstein. I gotta think that Thomas Aquinas and Paley might want to weigh in on the matter. But nada. I dunno, it's not conclusive proof that there is nothing going on out there in the great beyond. It could be, after all, that there is an afterlife, but something prevents communication from coming back. But really, I think the odds are pretty slim that nobody up there has found a way to drop us a line. After all, they have most of the great minds to figure it out, and unlike us, they know for sure that we're down here.

Darth Robo · 3 October 2006
Doc Martin sez:
"You are going to have to do much better than that to impress me."
Who said anyone is here to impress you?
"OKay, so you're willing to reject the claims of roughly 10 people who stated that a man who declared himself God could rise from the dead based around the appearances in front of 500 other men who also believed he was God and was also seen and believed to be God despite the testimony of women of the day AND an empty tomb on top of all of that?"
Yes.
Was there any testimony from these people on record other than the bible? Was there any evidence that this dude actually rose from the dead other than some people's say so? Was there any evidence that this dude who declared himself God was God other than his own say so? There have been plenty of egyptian tombs that have been found over the years. Does this mean that all bodies that were inside them actually rose from the dead and went to heaven?
"The Anthropic principle, that the cause must be greater than the effect, disproves Dawkins hypothesis, due to the fact that matter can not think, and beings can. Thus, a higher being is the only way to attribute this cause."
Aren't 'Beings' as you've termed them here made of matter? Just because YOU can't deal with the idea that thought can be naturally occurring, then the only way is to attribute this to a higher cause that cannot be observed in any empirical manner?
Your ability to make a lack of evidence become evidence impresses me.
(And dudes, why is there no comments box in the anti-evo's in uk thread? I got an insult over there and it demands a retort! :-( )

Steviepinhead · 3 October 2006
As long as we're gonna go majorly OT--and, no, M&M or Fruit Loop or whatever your name is, that doesn't mean "Old Testament"--couldn't we at least talk about the Sex Pistols?
Or gerbils?
Or something more interesting than Michael Martooni's latest rave-up for Pie-Sky-Guy?

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
IN the meantime, lets look at some of the articles on Dumbski's site today :).

stevaroni · 3 October 2006
Darth wrote... There have been plenty of egyptian tombs that have been found over the years. Does this mean that all bodies that were inside them actually rose from the dead and went to heaven?
Actually, now that you mention it, those guys also claimed that they were gods, and would rise form the dead. And they had lots of followers who believed them. Enough to build some really big piles of rock. (Actually, it might not be a good thing to follow leaders who claim they are gods and will rise from the dead, look at David Koresh, the Bob Jones thing in Guiana, and more recently, the Raelians)

stevaroni · 3 October 2006
As long as we're gonna go OT ... couldn't we at least talk about ..something more interesting
Don't blame me, I had us dragged way off to left field where we were happily speculating about whether giant extinct Australian lizards tasted like chicken, and whether they thought we need mustard? Then Doc dropped the unpunctuated, stream-of-consciousness God-bomb.

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
There have been plenty of egyptian tombs that have been found over the years. Does this mean that all bodies that were inside them actually rose from the dead and went to heaven? (oh no, the genetic fallacy again.)
Your ability to make a lack of evidence become evidence impresses me. - prove that statement using tangible evidence :).
Aren't 'Beings' as you've termed them here made of matter? Just because YOU can't deal with the idea that thought can be naturally occurring, then the only way is to attribute this to a higher cause that cannot be observed in any empirical manner? - "Naturalism of the gaps" "Higher" being as I have termed is not made of matter.
Actually, now that you mention it, those guys also claimed that they were gods, and would rise form the dead.
And they had lots of followers who believed them. Enough to build some really big piles of rock. (This is great, except it commits a genetic fallacy, whether or not this did or did not occur does not belittle my faith of truth in the least).
WOW! Incredible observations. G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty thought the same way :).
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
Now can we PLEASE get back on track here guys :).

GuyeFaux · 3 October 2006
DMM, please learn to quote so I can tell when your incoherent ramblings begin and end.

Steviepinhead · 3 October 2006
I carefully explained to him how to quote on the old thread.
He can link, so as much of a maroon as he may be, he could quote to if he wanted to.
He just can't be bothered. Very impolite, methinks.

Nurse Bettinke · 3 October 2006
Out of the way, could you nice fellows please yourselves move?
Interfering with nice staff guys in the white cloaks, you are, yes!
The more around him you dance, the longer it is us taking to up-round him, this poor boy!

David B. Benson · 3 October 2006
steviepinhead --- Are you sure he could? Windy trolls have rather limited mental capabilities...
GuyeFaux --- I heartily recommend not feeding the troll. He booms along jus' fine all by his lonesome...

Lenny's Pizza Guy · 3 October 2006
This guy is so boring, even Lenny can't be bothered.
And I for one am getting hungry.
Let's abscond, shall we, and leave the maroon, the boys in white, and the Valkyrie-looking nurse-lady to their jollies.
Pizza's on me tonight! But only over at our joint--not here! Anywhere but here!

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
I'd like to know the deal here guys......why are we not harping on Wells here? Is this like, "Hey, there's a Christian, a YECS at that, lets attack him" day or something?

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
I'm not here to make enemies, I thought I made that explicitly clear from the beginning.

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
Of your list, as I can place them after some googling:
Creationist: Isaac Newton (heretic, inspired pantheists), Robert Boyle (militant anglican/episcopalian, inspired pantheists), Richard Owen (vitalist), Michael Faraday (presbyterian), Einstein (humanist, pantheist).
Not creationist: Hans Christian Oerstedt (naturphilosophie), Benjamin Franklin (freethinker), Albert Charles Darwin (agnostic).
Not placeable: James Prescott Joule, Louis Pasteur, Charles Augustin Coulomb, Thomas Alva Edison, William Thomson Kelvin.
One can certainly discuss Einstein. Naturalistic pantheists, which sees order in nature as proof of something else, is using the design argument from teleology. Design is created, so creationism. (Pantheism seems often to be seen as conflatable to naturalism, as in Wikipedia. That seems wrong to me.)
Einstein was the one who disproved Pantheism funny enough, I'm really shocked to see this critique in the first place. He believed in God, just not the Christian God.
Charles Darwin is most definitely NOT a Christian, though he started out a Christian, and dropped his beliefs for his own personal ventures.
Isaac Newton's claims for being a heretic are true. However, not in the sense that would disqualify him from being a Creation Scientist. See: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1177/
This provides a good Biographical overview.
I'd give a better and more comprehensive list though, say something like this: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2084

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006
"Of your list, as I can place them after some googling:
Creationist: Isaac Newton (heretic, inspired pantheists), Robert Boyle (militant anglican/episcopalian, inspired pantheists), Richard Owen (vitalist), Michael Faraday (presbyterian), Einstein (humanist, pantheist).
Not creationist: Hans Christian Oerstedt (naturphilosophie), Benjamin Franklin (freethinker), Albert Charles Darwin (agnostic).
Not placeable: James Prescott Joule, Louis Pasteur, Charles Augustin Coulomb, Thomas Alva Edison, William Thomson Kelvin.
One can certainly discuss Einstein. Naturalistic pantheists, which sees order in nature as proof of something else, is using the design argument from teleology. Design is created, so creationism. (Pantheism seems often to be seen as conflatable to naturalism, as in Wikipedia. That seems wrong to me.)"
Einstein was the one who disproved Pantheism funny enough, I'm really shocked to see this critique in the first place. He believed in God, just not the Christian God.
Charles Darwin is most definitely NOT a Christian, though he started out a Christian, and dropped his beliefs for his own personal ventures.
Isaac Newton's claims for being a heretic are true. However, not in the sense that would disqualify him from being a Creation Scientist. See: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/117...
This provides a good Biographical overview.
I'd give a better and more comprehensive list though, say something like this: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/208...

Dr. Michael Martin · 3 October 2006

Michael Suttkus, II · 3 October 2006
I am perfectly justified in arguing that Jesus Christ is the truth. HE claims so, and I have no reason not to believe it.
— Dr. Michael Martin
Bran is the truth. He said so, I have no reason not to believe it. He died to save England and his head spoke for years after his death. Even now, his power protects England from conquest! Plus, worshipping Bran means you get hot Celtic babes and beer. CONVERT NOW AND GET A FREE KEYCHAIN!

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 October 2006
(snip Doc Martin's big long incoherent sermon that nobody reads anyway)
Well Doc, I *still* simply don't believe that you are infallible, nor do I believe that your Biblical interpretations or religious opinions are any better or more authoritative than anyone else's. ThM or no ThM. (shrug)
I'm *still* waiting to hear why I *should* think you are infallible. (And I'd like a more coherent reason than "Jesus says so" -- after all, Jesus tells ME that you are full of crap, and who am I to disagree with Jesus?)
Oh, and I'm *still* waiting to hear from you if (1) supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?, and (2) if so, should they be killed?
I want to see just how nutty you really are . . . .

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 October 2006
worshipping Bran means you get hot Celtic babes and beer.
Well, I certainly do like the "beer" part, but alas I was never much into redheads. So it's Aphrodite worship for me. :)

Sir_Toejam · 3 October 2006
Plus, worshipping Bran means you get hot Celtic babes and beer. CONVERT NOW AND GET A FREE KEYCHAIN!
only if i can trade the latter in for the former.

Sir_Toejam · 3 October 2006
I'd like to know the deal here guys......why are we not harping on Wells here? Is this like, "Hey, there's a Christian, a YECS at that, lets attack him" day or something?
It actually is "burn a YEC week". didn't you get the memo? It's also "round up the Insane day", which give you a double hit. better get out now while you still can claim false victimhood, rather than real victimhood!

stevaroni · 3 October 2006
Rev Flank writes... (do) supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?, and (2) if so, should they be killed? Sir_Toe writes... It actually is "burn a YEC week".
Guys, Guys, you two are so close to a working answer here...

Sir_Toejam · 4 October 2006
Guys, Guys, you two are so close to a working answer here...
let's see... If he floats... he's made of wood! and so...

fnxtr · 4 October 2006
stevaroni:
It must have come as a shock to the first leopard to find this out. His last though was probably something like "I wonder what my lunch is doing with that big stick?"
OH MY GOD*cough*HA HA HA HA!! *cough* *cough*...stop it I can't breathe... you gotta learn not to sneak up on people with stuff like that.

fnxtr · 4 October 2006
Dr. Martin:
What's the difference between believing in the God of Abraham because you read the Bible, and believing in Zeus because you read the Iliad???
Grains of history in both, and a bunch of superstitious nonsense piled on top of both.
And both assembled from garbled oral histories by credulous populations.
And face it, the writers of the Bible wrote it for a reason: to make more converts.
Not exactly what the modern world would call unbiased reporting.
This is your idea of The Truth?

fnxtr · 4 October 2006
Sorry.
Trollnip fell out of pocket into blog.
But that's the last of it.
fnxtr

Darth Robo · 4 October 2006
"Plus, worshipping Bran means you get hot Celtic babes and beer. CONVERT NOW AND GET A FREE KEYCHAIN!"
Okay, now I really got a problem. The FSM has some serious competition! Can't I worship both?

Michael Suttkus, II · 4 October 2006
Well, I certainly do like the "beer" part, but alas I was never much into redheads. So it's Aphrodite worship for me. :)
— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Celtic girls are mostly dark haired and, in any event, more than smart enough to use hair dye. Plus they have Irish accents and don't speak Greek.
Plus, worshipping Bran means you get hot Celtic babes and beer. CONVERT NOW AND GET A FREE KEYCHAIN!
— Sir_Toejam
only if i can trade the latter in for the former.
Which are you trading in, keychain or beer? :-)
What's the difference between believing in the God of Abraham because you read the Bible, and believing in Zeus because you read the Iliad???
— fnxtr
There is no difference, both are quite silly things to do. The correct thing to do is to believe in Bran because you read him in the Mabinogion. I would have thought this was obvious. I mean, come on, free keychain!
Okay, now I really got a problem. The FSM has some serious competition! Can't I worship both?
— Darth Robo
Well, I have not personally been touched by His Noodly Appendage, but I'm given to understand he's a fairly easy going sort. Bran, of course, is part of a pantheon himself, so hardly likely to complain if you have a little pasta in your diet.

fnxtr · 4 October 2006
Both Bran and Pasta can be part of a healthy diet.
Anything's got to be better than the Diet of Worms. Ew.

stevaroni · 4 October 2006
Okay, now I really got a problem. The FSM has some serious competition! Can't I worship both?
Fear not.The FSM is a fairly reasonable goddess, and, much like the gods of old shared mount Olympus, She's happy to occasionally have a bit of company in Her Holy Cupboard. In fact, there are even quiet rumors of a discreet tryst between her and Bacchus, because he always knows where to get the best chianti. She does get a little touchy about direct competition though, for instance, the Japanese nymph of tofu better not come poking around or it'll get ugly. But generally, like most of us, she's OK with anyone who always shows up bringing cold beer.

Michael Suttkus, II · 4 October 2006
Fear not.The FSM is a fairly reasonable goddess, and, much like the gods of old shared mount Olympus, She's happy to occasionally have a bit of company in Her Holy Cupboard.
— stevaroni
Goddess? I didn't realize FSM was female! Forgive me, your carbohydrateness!

Coin · 4 October 2006
Goddess? I didn't realize FSM was female! Forgive me, your carbohydrateness!
Uh oh. I smell schism.

Henry J · 4 October 2006
Re "Uh oh. I smell schism."
Er, maybe a silly question here - but what does schism smell like? ;)

Michael Suttkus, II · 4 October 2006
Burning heretics, naturally.

stevaroni · 4 October 2006
Burning heretics, naturally.
In this case, sautee'd with shallots and garlic. Mmmmm, heritics in garlic sauce....

Sir_Toejam · 4 October 2006
Which are you trading in, keychain or beer? :-)
the keychain, for both of the others. hey, I wan't both my titties AND my beer. in the immortal words of Zappa: http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Frank-Zappa/Titties-Beer.html

Steviepinhead · 4 October 2006
Lenny, in # 137080:
Oh, and I'm *still* waiting to hear from you if (1) supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?, and (2) if so, should they be killed? I want to see just how nutty you really are ....
I think Nurse Bettinke's poor little nut-house escapee did try to respond to you, back up the thread in # 137152. I quote the response (brackets indicate minor corrections and attempts to make some sense out of M&M's otherwise-incoherent word salad; to that same end, I have also added paragraph breaks: since these are all mine, they are not signalled):
Okay, as far as the other question about whether the Bible states we should burn witches.....I believe I already mentioned this was taken out of context. Christianity does not state that we are to burn witches. It[']s a situation in which basically, it[']s [burning, apparently] a form of capital punishment [for the offense of being a witch, apparently] that was used at the time. Now you're saying, "how in the world could we condone such a thing" but then again, imagine a world that has no access to guns, electric chairs and such. That[']s they ["the" intended, apparently] way they conducted capital punishment, and it was approved through the words of God himself, and signed by the Israelites, thus it was known as the "Israelite Covenant." It was the law that the Israelites lived back then [in Old Testament days?]. Christians are more confined to the New Testament Law, which Jesus Christ came to fulfill. Basically, if it[']s changed in the New Testament, we do not follow it because the [Old Testament?] laws may have been changed by Jesus himself. Since he is God, he has ever[y] right to do that [to Old Testament "laws," apparently and not, one supposes, to Caesar's laws]. This is why I mentioned you should go to the New Testament in this case. Since this was a form of Capital punishment[,] though, I doubt Jesus would have a need to say anything disregarding this rule [allowing for capital punishment for witches?], as it [the rule allowing for capital punishment for witches?] is still applicable to our society today. [Say what?]
First off, Michael, in addition to getting with the common courtesy of learning how to quote--as has been kindly suggested and explained more than once--you also need to learn to hit "Enter" twice, occasionally. This will have the effect of breaking your text up into paragraphs, for easier readability. Not that anyone will. Read them, that is, but still... Second, dude, you need to learn the difference between the possessive "its" (no apostrophe) and the contraction "it's" (apostrophe, standing for "it is"). This is hard stuff, pretty esoteric and sophisticated grammar, kind of runs against the fundamentalist grain, we realize. But still... Now, getting to the gist: M&M seems to be saying that, no, "we" Christians certainly wouldn't burn witches nowadays. And the only reason witches were barbarically burned in the "good old days" is that those po' ol' Israelites simply didn't have access to our modern "humane" methods of capital punishment (one of many little things that "OT god-guy" seems to have overlooked when setting up the whole "chosen people" gig). Since Jesus is NT god-guy, though, he would of course have had every right to override the previous covenant between OT god-guy and the Israelites as to witches and burning. But since post-NT societies still endorse capital punishment, and since (one gathers) Jesus didn't come amongst us to reform the contemporary legal system of the duly-empowered civil authorities--but to do, uh, whatever else it was that Jesus did come here to do--then probably Jesus wouldn't have any problem with applying capital punishment (i.e., execution) to witches. Instead of burning them, though, Michael seems to think, Jesus--and thus contemporary Christians--would probably prefer to escort witches off the mortal coil in some more socially-acceptable, "humane" manner, such as via gun or electric chair. So, Lenny, if I've correctly parsed Michael's "thinking" here--admittedly a challenge; there are many points where I could conceivably have gone astray--then, (1) he does believe in witches and (2) he does believe that God wants us to kill them, but (3) he certainly doesn't think they should be burned, for heaven's sake. Just shot. Or zapped. Whew! Guess all you gay people can breathe a big sigh of relief: no stones for y'all, so just kwitcher bitchin'. So, to return to your final question, Lenny:
I want to see just how nutty you really are ....
--I think we can conclude that Nurse Bettinke's elusive charge is "really, really nutty."

stevaroni · 4 October 2006
Oh, and I'm *still* waiting to hear from you if (1) supernatural witches and witchcraft exist?, and (2) if so, should they be killed?
So... why would a real witch let herself be killed? I mean, when you're starting out and you don't have very many witch-y skills, then nobody is likely to notice you're a witch, and once you've got enough practice to qualify for membership in the guild and people start to notice all the flying brooms and talking cats and such, you ought to be able to use your juju to fly out of there and save your own ass. Am I missing something here?

Torbjörn Larsson · 4 October 2006
"they have most of the great minds to figure it out"
And all the time in the afterworld. And no distractions, like pizza or sex.
"Einstein was the one who disproved Pantheism funny enough"
Just as I thought I was out, they pull me back in!
There is no proof or disproof of religions available today, though most of their concepts are debunked. Pantheism is in better shape here than christianism, for example. Granted, Einstein was a humanist, but why should he try to disprove his own view? Put up.
"Charles Darwin is most definitely NOT a Christian, though he started out a Christian, and dropped his beliefs for his own personal ventures."
IIRC, Darwin's nonbelief is thought to be brought about by the death of his child. Shut up.
"Isaac Newton's claims for being a heretic are true. However, not in the sense that would disqualify him from being a Creation Scientist."
No, but it puts some doubt if he would be one of the great Icons of Creationism.
Your nurse Bettinke now, I think she could be a hot icon any day. Come on now, admit it, you think so too!!!

Darth Robo · 4 October 2006
"And all the time in the afterworld. And no distractions, like pizza or sex."
Sounds like hell to me! :-(

fnxtr · 4 October 2006
I think I read it elsewhere on PT:
Nuttier than squirrel poop.

Steviepinhead · 4 October 2006
Sex, a distraction? Arguably. At least, there's still a live issue as to how and why it evolved.
Pizza? Sorry, but if there's such a thing as a "holy sacrament" of evolution, pizza is definitely right up there with beer.
But I've gotta agree that Nurse Bettinke is probably one hot babe: I kind of picture her like this--
http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/h/hela.htm

Darth Robo · 4 October 2006
"Known Relatives: None, allegedly Loki (father), Angrboda (mother, deceased)"
But I thought Heywood was Loki's younger, dumber brother. You mean, they're related?!?
(I'm not sure I'd call her hot, by the way. She looks a little scary to me... )

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 October 2006
I think Nurse Bettinke's poor little nut-house escapee did try to respond to you, back up the thread in # 137152.
Sorry, I missed it, what with his incoherent formatting and atrocious spelling . . . But indeed it does look as though Doc does think that (1) yes, supernatural witches and witchcraft do exist, and (2) yes, they should be killed. Since I didn't mention "burning", I don't know why he went off on a rant about it. But since he thinks witches should be killed, but not burnt (apparently), I am wondering when we can expect AIG to publish the new updated 21st century version of the Malleus Maleficarum . . . ? After all, if there are witches out there, doesnt' AIG want us to find them and give them what they deserve? (snicker) (giggle) So my suspicion was correct after all. Doc is indeed completely and totally bonkers. Witches, indeed. . . . .

Torbjörn Larsson · 4 October 2006
"At least, there's still a live issue as to how and why it evolved."
I just think the meaning of "biology blog" hit me. In the other end.
Oh well, I can always go back to dream of Nurse Bettinke/Hela. I pictured her more like a blond german nurse though. I guess I have to mentally undress some of that cloth... why, Bettinkaa[snip due to content of sexual and/or violent nature]!!!
Sheez! Now I'm *sure* MM will be mad.

Sir_Toejam · 4 October 2006
Am I missing something here?
let's see... -flying brooms -talking cats -Juju nope. I think you got it covered.

Torbjörn Larsson · 4 October 2006
"I just think the meaning of "biology blog" hit me."
Umm, sorry. Seems like Bettinka got me a bit excited.
I mean't to say 'I think the meaning of "biology blog" just hit me'.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 October 2006
I believe I already mentioned this was taken out of context.
Would you mind explaining to me within what, um, context it WOULD be OK to kill people for witchcraft? Please be specific and as detailed as possible. This should be good . . . . . .
Christianity does not state that we are to burn witches.
Right. We should just "not suffer them to live". So killing them is OK. But burning them is apparently not. Got it. I take it, then, that it would be just swell and fine to, say, shoot them or electrocute them or give them a lethal injection, right? (snicker) (giggle) Oh, and since it's in the Old Testament, we don't have to follow it anymore. And it doesn't matter that the Genesis story is in the Old Testament. Oh, and all those laws against homosexuality and masturbation, they're in the Old Testament too, but you DO have to follow THOSE. Uh, except for the ones about leprosy -- you don't have to follow those. (snicker) (giggle) No WONDER everyone thinks that fundies are idiots. But gee, that raises yet another question for you, Doctor Your Holiness. You see, my esteemed learned infallible theologian, who alone amongst us mere mortals hath the divine capacity to declare what is and what isn't "True Christianity"(tm)(c), it says in my Bible:
I Corinthians 14:34-35 34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Corinthians, as I am sure a learned Biblical expert like you would know, is in the, uh, New Testament. So what's the word, Your Holiness? Should women be allowed to speak in church? Do tell, Your Holy Eminence. . . . . . What does your Holy ThM degree say? Does "women should shut up in church because it's shameful for them to speak" meet with God's approval (or at least YOUR approval --- but then, you don't see any difference whatever between your opinion and God's opinion, do you)? (snicker) (giggle) This should be lots of fun . . . . . .

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 October 2006
So... why would a real witch let herself be killed?
Heretic. The answer to all of your Demon-inspired objections and questions which impede the holy task of hunting witches can be found in the Malleus Maleficarum, which the holy brothers at AIG are currently in the process of updating and revising (with the help of God and/or Doc Martin -- makes no difference which, since they both think the same). Read it and repent of your heresy, oh infidel. Or else we'll torture you and then burn you alive. Uh . . . I mean we'll extraordinary rendition you and use coercive interrogation techniques, and then give you a nice clinical lethal injection.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 October 2006
It actually is "burn a YEC week".
MEMO: Jesus says he doesn't want us to burn them any more. He says we should shoot them instead. It's much more Christian, ya know.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 October 2006
Burning heretics, naturally.
See above.

Anton Mates · 4 October 2006
So... why would a real witch let herself be killed?
— stevaroni
A fairly common theological argument at the time (as you can see in the Malleus) is that witches couldn't actually do all that much, but were deluded by Satan into thinking they could. However, a) they were still sinning by the acts they thought they were committing, and b) they could really do enough stuff (like crop damage) that the rest of us should still be pissed off at them. It's a very useful argument.

demallien · 4 October 2006
What's the difference between believing in the God of Abraham because you read the Bible, and believing in Zeus because you read the Iliad???
— fxtnr
Oo! oo! Can I answer that one? The difference is that reading the Iliad shows greater literary taste! Do I get a prize?

Anton Mates · 5 October 2006
Oo! oo! Can I answer that one? The difference is that reading the Iliad shows greater literary taste!
— demallien
Also, neither the Iliad itself or its Greek audiences claimed that it was divinely-provided, absolute truth. The Greeks never went for the modern fundamentalist's triumph of circular reasoning, "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says so."

Ed Darrell · 5 October 2006
Our own Doc Martin said:
Charles Darwin is most definitely NOT a Christian, though he started out a Christian, and dropped his beliefs for his own personal ventures.
Seriously? Where in the world could one ever find evidence to support such a ridiculous claim? Consider: Darwin never left the church. Darwin raised his kids as Christian. Darwin tithed to his death. Darwin was active in parish affairs to his death. Darwin supported missionaries and several Sunday school classes, financially, to his death. Darwin's funeral was a state affair (meaning, with the Church of England's official presence, as well) and he is interred in Westminster, near Newton -- with Christian hymns at the funeral written just for the event. Not Christian? Who among Christians is, then? I see why Lenny hopes this fellow returns.

Torbjörn Larsson · 5 October 2006
Ed:
"His belief continued to dwindle over the time, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."[5]" ( Wikipedia)
Indeed, who among christians are really christians - it seems too easy to be labled such.

Torbjörn Larsson · 5 October 2006
Oh, and just in case:
"Despite this hope, very similar stories were circulated following Darwin's own death, most prominently the "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915 which claimed he had converted on his sickbed.[6] Such stories have been propagated by some Christian groups, to the extent of becoming urban legends, though the claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians. His daughter, Henrietta, who was at his deathbed, said that he did not convert to Christianity.[7]"

guthrie · 5 October 2006
Apropos of the various themes of this thread:
I know an Australian, who tells of how when he was new to this country, (UK) went paintballing or similar, and whilst being shot at jumped into this large patch of green stuff to hide. It turned out he jumped into a large nettle patch. Needless to say he wasnt happy.
As for witches, I understand that they were actually strangled, and their corpse was burnt.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 5 October 2006
As for witches, I understand that they were actually strangled, and their corpse was burnt.
Depends. In the US, at least, they were hanged, not burnt (everyone knows about the Salem witch trials, but few people know that at least 20 other people were executed for witchcraft in the American colonies in the years previous to the Salem trials). In Europe, they were usually burnt, but whether they were strangled first depended on whether they confessed. If they did, they were strangled just as the flames were lit. If they were "unrepentent", though, they were burned alive. The idea was that by burning them to death, the Church was preparing them for what Hell would be like.

Michael Suttkus, II · 5 October 2006
So... why would a real witch let herself be killed? I mean, when you're starting out and you don't have very many witch-y skills, then nobody is likely to notice you're a witch, and once you've got enough practice to qualify for membership in the guild and people start to notice all the flying brooms and talking cats and such, you ought to be able to use your juju to fly out of there and save your own ass. Am I missing something here?
— stevaroni
There were various explanations for how the powerful witches could be killed by mortals. Most supernatural monsters have really wimpy weaknesses. Vampires fear a simple cross, garlic and wooden stake available to any peasant. Traditional werewolves feared a variety of herbs (now largely forgotten in favor of the less easily accessed silver). Ghosts couldn't cross lines of salt on the floor. Rock salt pretty much killed EVERYTHING. Witches were no exception. In some places, it was believed witches were powerless when bound, or when bound with a cross (put in the bindings), or as long as a cross was presented at them. In other places, their magic ability to escape was used against them. Remember the dunking stools? The logic here is simple: A real witch won't let herself drown. If she floats, she's made of wood... No, wait, wrong movie. If she floats, she's used her powers to save herself, so must be burnt. If she drowns, she's innocent. (It was not actually necessary for her to die drowning, but it wasn't exactly uncommon.) It's also worth remembering that witchcraft wasn't seen like modern superpowers, where superman just takes off and flies. Spells involved bubbling cauldrons, recipes, and a lot of time. The only quick power I can think of that was generally attributed to witches was the Evil Eye, and there were hundreds of remedies for that (crossing your fingers, wearing your cloak inside out, and, of course, crosses). Plus there were special prayers the clergy could say to protect themselves from demonic powers, subdue witchly powers, or to allow them to view naked witch bodies without sin while interrogating them. Mind you, special prayers are not magic spells. Nope, not at all. All this is in addition to Anton Mates' comments, of course.
Depends. In the US, at least, they were hanged, not burnt
— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Most of the confessed witches were hung. Several were just left in prison (where some were later released as I recall and one died of pneumonia). One died during interrogation: he was crushed under a board that people were piling stones upon.
In Europe, they were usually burnt,
— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Because Europeans are lousy environmentalists! You can reuse the rope!
but whether they were strangled first depended on whether they confessed. If they did, they were strangled just as the flames were lit. If they were "unrepentent", though, they were burned alive. The idea was that by burning them to death, the Church was preparing them for what Hell would be like.
— 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
It was also widely believed that the flames had a purifying effect. If life is enough of a suffering, you don't need punished in heaven! The witch was being burned for her own good! Burn the sin out!
Also, neither the Iliad itself or its Greek audiences claimed that it was divinely-provided, absolute truth. The Greeks never went for the modern fundamentalist's triumph of circular reasoning, "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says so."
— Anton Mates
Ironically, the Bible doesn't say it's true. In fact, the Bible never self-references at all. The closest you get is a passage in second Timothy referring to scripture as being valid for religious purposes, but without any clear cut definition of what scripture is supposed to be (it's unlikely the author considered his own work scripture, for example). There is certainly no reason to consider any one compilation of Judeo-Christian texts "THE" Bible. Not that you can get fundamentalists to understand this. My take on the preposterous series of events that must underlie a belief in a literal Bible can be found here: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/a_little_more_i.html#comment-133963

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 6 October 2006
Gee, Doc Martin seems to have, um, run away.
Imagine that.

Sir_Toejam · 6 October 2006
...or to allow them to view naked witch bodies without sin while interrogating them.
Cardinal Biggles... Fetch the comfy chair!

Henry J · 6 October 2006
Re "or to allow them to view naked witch bodies without sin while interrogating them."
Bodies of witch gender? ;)

Michael Suttkus, II · 6 October 2006
Well, the short answer is Yes.
The longer answer is to note that nearly all of the anti-witchcraft hysteria was focused on women. Women who got out of line. Women who didn't keep to their place. Women who went around tempting innocent men or priests, causing these poor men to have bad thoughts of sexual activity (i.e., being attractive).
The women must be punished for causing bad thoughts like that.
So, mostly women.
Ladies, on behalf of the male gender, I'd like to apologize for at least the last four millennia. I swear will do the next four better.

Dr. Michael Martin · 6 October 2006
Hello to all of the PT bullies :).
Well, I've been away on a business trip the last few days, so I'm sorry I haven't gotten back to your Panda's Thumb debacle of poisoning the well. As far as your scholarship skills on the Bible, you're not really impressing the Biblical scholars by taking one passage from the Bible and taking it out of context: http://www.tektonics.org/af/flanksteak.html.
(that being made sure to be directed towards the claims that Lenny Flank makes about the Bible).

I might also add that to respond to the Egyptian comments, same old stuff different day my friend:
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lynchmob.html Nothing new here at all.

Lynch has already been stomped upon.

I would recommend studying Biblical Hermeneutics before critiquing the Bible any further. I have some excellent websites if you wish to study up on them.

God bless,

Dr. Michael Martin PHD ThM
AIG Ministries - staff editor

GuyeFaux · 6 October 2006
I would recommend studying Biblical Hermeneutics before critiquing the Bible any further. I have some excellent websites if you wish to study up on them.
And this has exactly what scientific bearing? And cue the "Rev" with the "why should we care about..."

Dr. Michael Martin · 6 October 2006
Seriously? Where in the world could one ever find evidence to support such a ridiculous claim?
Consider: Darwin never left the church. Darwin raised his kids as Christian. Darwin tithed to his death. Darwin was active in parish affairs to his death. Darwin supported missionaries and several Sunday school classes, financially, to his death. Darwin's funeral was a state affair (meaning, with the Church of England's official presence, as well) and he is interred in Westminster, near Newton --- with Christian hymns at the funeral written just for the event.
Not Christian? Who among Christians is, then?
I see why Lenny hopes this fellow returns.
Well, I'm back :).
Who among Christians is Christian? The ones who follow Orthodox Christianity and not Heretical Christianity.
Darwin's story goes as such: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/689
Enough of this poisoning the well, most of these stories, as much as I hate to state this, is based around mythology. Darwin abandoned his beliefs in pursuit of his own personal gain.
His wife would have put great emphasis on it for sure: It should be noted that for most of her married life Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles's views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did.
It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.
What you are referring to is what his WIFE was responsible for, and not Charles Darwin. His family was Christian, however, the myth that Darwin was a Christian is purely fantasy.
Okay, so if you wish to start ranting on about the Salem Witch trials, that certainly has a lot to do with 1st century Christianity doesn't it? Especially considering that it occurred in the 1850's (SWT). This is purely a genetic fallacy and tells us nothing about whether or not the belief in the subject (Christ) is true or not. We also see a whole lot of witch burning in the New Testament, do we not?
There were a lot of things that applied to the Israelites that do not apply today. For instance, if you would review the chapter of Leviticus 20, you would see where I am coming from. The moral code has changed according to God's will in modern society. This doesn't mean that we support moral relativism however, only up to the point of Jesus Christ and his statements are any of the moral points correct (and of course of the early church as far as Paul and the NT writers, as they were driven by the Holy Spirit).
The penalty in the OT was death through burning and suffering/death. However, the penalty NOW for doing these things and not repenting is eternal punishment and separation from God. Thats the difference between now and then. Christ's coming has resolved many of those issues (as I stated beforehand). In the OT, being homosexual resulted in physical death, and of course, ultimately in eternal separation from God. In the NT, we see that it just prevents people from going to heaven, and no longer entails that death is necessary for being homosexual. It is still however, a sin, and that does not, and will not ever change.
So any correlation that is presupposed about the SWT being associated with the Christian worldview in any way should quickly be abandoned.

Dr. Michael Martin · 6 October 2006
And this has exactly what scientific bearing?
And cue the "Rev" with the "why should we care about..."
I can't make you care. What I can say though is that the imminent danger of eternal punishment is certainly not appealing to me in the least however. Thats the punishment for not accepting this easy gift of salvation. How hard could it be? Submit your life to Christ, and nothing to worry about, right? Not to mention, its the only worldview with any kind of logical, experiential and sensical clarity and consistency in the world.

Dr. Michael Martin · 6 October 2006
The Scientific bearing is where I was trying to keep the conversation. It was Dr. Lenny Flunk who wished to change the subject on us.

Dr. Michael Martin · 6 October 2006
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3058/
For more on Darwin read above. Wickedpedia is notorious for getting things wrong.

Dr. Michael Martin · 6 October 2006
Its amazing how many people love to associate Christianity, and even try to bring Christianity into the light of politics. Yet, from the Christian worldview, we debunk both Conservatism and Liberalism political views.
Is this not ironic? Just, perhaps a bit?

Dr. Michael Martin · 6 October 2006
And I might add, whether or not Hitler was a Christian (though it is clear that he was NOT one) has no bearing on whether or not the Christians are right or not as well. We quite frankly could care less, but simply reinforce this just for the mere fact of keeping the facts straight. It is recognized once again as a genetic fallacy.

Dr. Michael Martin · 6 October 2006
People should a) either study exegesis before critiquing the Bible in any way or b) just keep these forums like this strictly about Evolution, and perhaps if you wish, politics. I have no need for either one, but in the very least, I believe you should be respectful of my worldview. I do not condone your worldview, but however, will remain respectful of it nonetheless. If you wish to become a Christian however, I will be more than happy to show you the way there. My e-mail is mmartinyale@yahoo.com. Feel free to drop a comment any time, so long as its clean in nature. I'm happy to help people who are open minded and seeking. My purpose here is to talk about Science however, so lets get back to the subject at hand.

David B. Benson · 6 October 2006
Dr M&M escaped AGAIN!
Nurse ...

GuyeFaux · 6 October 2006
Submit your life to Christ, and nothing to worry about, right?
Sounds like Pascal's wager.

Nurse Bettinke · 6 October 2006
Oh, Mikey! Thank goodness, I thought lost you I had!
Now, dear, please to stay right there, only for just a minute, thank you!
Shouting offstage, "Boys! Boys! I him have found, our lost boy! He's here over! Please to make quick with the nets!

stevaroni · 6 October 2006
whether or not Hitler was a Christian
No, Hitler was not a Christian. He just called himself a Christian because it was good for his image. Unfortunately, and all too common occurrence. Real Christians, in my experience, don't call themselves much of anything. They just do stuff Jesus would have been proud sharing his name with.

Coin · 6 October 2006
Okay, okay... back up. "Dr." Martin, I'm still confused about this:
Okay, as far as the other question about whether the Bible states we should burn witches.....I believe I already mentioned this was taken out of context. Christianity does not state that we are to burn witches. Its a situation in which basically, its a form of capital punishment that was used at the time. Now you're saying, "how in the world could we condone such a thing" but then again, imagine a world that has no access to guns, electric chairs and such. Thats they way they conducted capital punishment, and it was approved through the words of God himself, and signed by the Israelites, thus it was known as the "Israelite Covenant." It was the law that the Israelites lived back then. Christians are more confined to the New Testament Law, which Jesus Christ came to fulfill. Basically, if its changed in the New Testament, we do not follow it because the laws may have been changed by Jesus himself. Since he is God, he has ever right to do that. This is why I mentioned you should go to the New Testament in this case. Since this was a form of Capital punishment though, I doubt Jesus would have a need to say anything disregarding this rule, as it is still applicable to our society today.
I am having a lot of trouble understanding what this paragraph even says. It sounds an awful lot like you're saying the argument isn't over whether witches should be killed, but how witches are be killed, and then you end by saying "it" (which is... rules about witchcraft? rules about the appropriate way to kill witches condemned to death? what?) is "still applicable to our society today." I am very puzzled as to what this is trying to say. Could you please clarify a few things? 1. Is it your opinion that "witchcraft" should be illegal? 2. Would you say it is the opinion of Christianity that "witchcraft" should be illegal? 3. Is it your opinion that "witchcraft" should be a capital offense? 4. Would you say it is the opinion of Christianity that "witchcraft" should be a capital offense?

Anton Mates · 6 October 2006
No, Hitler was not a Christian. He just called himself a Christian because it was good for his image. Unfortunately, and all too common occurrence.
— stevaroni
He called himself one in private too. He seems to have thought he was a Christian, and a better one than anyone else because he saw through all that commie crap Paul had added to the story of the real Jesus--who of course was an Aryan race warlord. Yes, I'm pretty confident the historical Jesus would be rather confused by the idea that he went to war with the Jews....
Real Christians, in my experience, don't call themselves much of anything. They just do stuff Jesus would have been proud sharing his name with.
I scourge bankers and drive pigs to suicide every day! Don't even try to tell me I'm missing the point!

Michael Suttkus, II · 6 October 2006
I'm sorry, Dr. Martin, but you're going to suffer eternal punishment. Bran will send you to Anwnn for not accepting his mercy. How can you take this risk? Surely you dare not fail to worship Bran!

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 6 October 2006
Hi "Doc".
Should women be allowed to speak in church?
Thanks for not answering.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 6 October 2006
Okay, so if you wish to start ranting on about the Salem Witch trials, that certainly has a lot to do with 1st century Christianity doesn't it?
Not terribly bright, are you, Doc . . . I wasn't talking about the Salem trials or about 1st century Christianity, Doc. I am talking about TODAY. Do you think supernatural witches and witchcraft exist TODAY. If so, do you think they should be killed. What's so goddamn difficult about your answering those two simple questions, Doc? Got something to hide, do ya? Oh, and do you think women should be allowed to speak in church (TODAY)? Keep evading if you like, Doc. I'll just keep asking.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 6 October 2006
I'm happy to help people
And who the hell are you, again . . . . ? And what, again, makes your religious opinions any more authoritative than anyone ELSE's with a ThM from a Bible college somewhere (most of whom think you're full of crap)?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 October 2006
Submit your life to Christ
Does that also mean submiting my life to AiG? Sorry, but I don't believe that YEC's are Christ. Just as I don't believe that you are infallible. Or any more holy or authoritative than anyone else is. (shrug)

jeffw · 7 October 2006
I can't make you care. What I can say though is that the imminent danger of eternal punishment is certainly not appealing to me in the least however. Thats the punishment for not accepting this easy gift of salvation. How hard could it be? Submit your life to Christ, and nothing to worry about, right?
This is actually the most insidious and despicable aspect of christianity, and if I'm not mistaken, islam as well. The subjugation and submission of one's will. That's how they get you to "believe" - the carrot and the stick. It has nothing to do with logic, reason, or science. It's an animal thing, playing on primal fears. I suspect it's origins lie in the need for ancient tribal elders to control their people. Christianity screams for your submission - "not my will but thine". And if the lord is your shephard, what does make you? Baaaaaaahh.
Not to mention, its the only worldview with any kind of logical, experiential and sensical clarity and consistency in the world.
What a joke. You must be insane. Logic, experimentation, clarity, and consistency are mutually exclusive with most religions, especially christianity.

Sir_Toejam · 7 October 2006
You must be insane.
surely you guessed that before now?

jeffw · 7 October 2006
surely you guessed that before now?
Yeah, there were a few clues. Unfortunately, it implies that a significant portion of the population is also clinicly insane. A rather dangerous state of affairs. Most of us have also guessed that before now. Interesting thing, though: if religion were to suddenly vanish from the face of the earth, it would leave an enormous power vacuum. I'm not sure that what would replace it would be benign, or even any better.

Sir_Toejam · 7 October 2006
Interesting thing, though: if religion were to suddenly vanish from the face of the earth, it would leave an enormous power vacuum. I'm not sure that what would replace it would be benign, or even any better.
personally, I've never agreed that it was the religion itself to blame, per se, or at least the basic principles involved. it was always the human pychology surrounding it; the unnecessary embellishments that force one into a particular line of thinking. The need to spin reality so it doesn't interfere with belief. Moreover, I think there is a psychological predisposition for some to get "addicted" to religions that do provide rigid lines of thought. Hence, I think the whole "scientology" movement is a perfect example of where folks predisposed to being attracted to these kinds of things would end up without the traditional religious factions. IOW, they would simply make up something to fit. Is scientology better or worse than evangelical xianity?

Michael Suttkus, II · 7 October 2006
it was always the human pychology surrounding it; the unnecessary embellishments that force one into a particular line of thinking. The need to spin reality so it doesn't interfere with belief.
— Sir_Toejam
I point out in passing that my admittedly limited experience with Eastern religions suggests that they are, in general (enough weasel words yet?) less virulently anti-other-religions than the great Western religions. I'm not sure why this is.
Moreover, I think there is a psychological predisposition for some to get "addicted" to religions that do provide rigid lines of thought.
— Sir_Toejam
You can find the same addiction outside of religion, of course. Look at the various scientists in history who got stuck on an hypothesis and couldn't accept that it was later found wrong.
Is scientology better or worse than evangelical xianity?
— Sir_Toejam
Well, I say worse, but that's just me being really ticked off at the "scien..." in their name. Well, then again, when was the last time the wacko Christian wing pulled anything like Operation Snow White or Operation Freakout. The Fair Game Law seems pretty equivalent to some fundamentalist behavior, but I can't recall any fundamentalist group being dumb enough to codify it.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 October 2006
I point out in passing that my admittedly limited experience with Eastern religions suggests that they are, in general (enough weasel words yet?) less virulently anti-other-religions than the great Western religions. I'm not sure why this is.
That's mostly because the Asian traditions don't actually teach anything, or require one to believe in anything. So there's nothing there to be "anti" about. :) Once one gets to the top of the mountain, the view is the same, and the Asian traditions don't really care *how you get there*.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 October 2006
Well, I say worse, but that's just me being really ticked off at the "scien..." in their name. Well, then again, when was the last time the wacko Christian wing pulled anything like Operation Snow White or Operation Freakout. The Fair Game Law seems pretty equivalent to some fundamentalist behavior, but I can't recall any fundamentalist group being dumb enough to codify it.
It's a good thing that the Scientology cult has always been much more interested in soaking money from the stupid than it has been in real political control (though they do virtually have veto power over the Clearwater, Florida, municipal government). If the Scientologists *really* sought widespread political control, it would take guns to stop them.

Darth Robo · 7 October 2006
Okay, now I'm scared of scientologists even more than fundies.

Sir_Toejam · 7 October 2006
Okay, now I'm scared of scientologists even more than fundies.
be scared of the underlying psychology, not the particular manifestation it takes.

Sir_Toejam · 7 October 2006
I point out in passing that my admittedly limited experience with Eastern religions suggests that they are, in general (enough weasel words yet?) less virulently anti-other-religions than the great Western religions. I'm not sure why this is.
I'd bet that if you asked the chinese government, they would say the exact reverse. Falun Gong springs to mind.

Michael Suttkus, II · 7 October 2006
Falun Gong is definitely three kinds of nuts, and there are numerous other examples (like the nuts who gassed the Japanese subway a few years back), but by and large, even their nuts (yogic flyers, finger readers) are just run of the mill pseudoscientists rather than politically organized fundamentalist nutjobs threatening to take over nations and eradicate the freedom to believe anything other than their narrow ideology.
This may just be an expression of my ignorance, however.

Darth Robo · 7 October 2006
Sir_Toejam said:
"be scared of the underlying psychology, not the particular manifestation it takes."
True. It is the reason why fanatics freak me out. 'I work with a 'born again' Christian, nice bloke, couldn't harm a fly. I've always deliberately avoided any kind of philisophical discussion with him, but others haven't. When discussing subjects of a profound nature, he has an unnerving capacity to be able to tell someone in no uncertain terms that they are going to hell (he's said this to a number of people). He's not nasty or rude, but just straightforward about it. And later on, can still speak to you in a totally friendly manner as if the previous discussion hasn't even happened.
Mostly, people humour him but it's like there is some disconnection in his brain that's not quite in touch with reality. He has his slightly warped belief which you can see in his eyes. And it's a little bit disturbing.

Sir_Toejam · 7 October 2006
Mostly, people humour him but it's like there is some disconnection in his brain that's not quite in touch with reality. He has his slightly warped belief which you can see in his eyes. And it's a little bit disturbing.
I find the subject quite fascinating, actually. I've only studied a bit of psychology myself (it's a great idea to do so if you go into the field of behavioral ecology, and a pyschologist was on my thesis committee), and I've been slowly tracking down the literature in this area. However, it's just a hobby, and with no direct institutional access, it goes slowly.

Jim Harrison · 7 October 2006
I hate to admit it, but I think Panda's Thumb is doomed. Unless some stalwart ID supporter or young earth creationist is willing to jump into these comment threads with some new material, the site is going to be just too dull to visit. For real biology, after all, one reads the journals.

Torbjörn Larsson · 8 October 2006
MM:
"Enough of this poisoning the well, most of these stories, as much as I hate to state this, is based around mythology. Darwin abandoned his beliefs in pursuit of his own personal gain."
I say again:
"While on the Beagle Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality, but had come to see the history in the Old Testament as being false and untrustworthy.
Upon his return, he investigated transmutation of species. He knew that his clerical naturalist friends thought this a bestial heresy undermining miraculous justifications for the social order and knew that such revolutionary ideas were especially unwelcome at a time when the Church of England's established position was under attack from radical Dissenters and atheists. While secretly developing his theory of natural selection, Darwin even wrote of religion as a tribal survival strategy, though he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver.[4] His belief continued to dwindle over the time, and with the death of his daughter Annie in 1851, Darwin finally lost all faith in Christianity." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_darwin )
What you linked to seems to be confirmed by Wikipedia, which could happen since you probably didn't write it. Your repeated claim about Darwin's loosing faith due to gain is not corroborated.
"Wickedpedia is notorious for getting things wrong."
If you think Wikipedia is wrong, you should take it up with them. The rest of us use it as an open source dictionary. It is mostly correct - the use of references makes it easier to check veracity. It is mostly unbiased - due to the public process.
"Creation on the web" is a biased source, so it has no value as a reference.
"the myth that Darwin was a Christian is purely fantasy"
Darwin was a first christian anglican, later an agnostic. "In later life, when asked about his religious views, he wrote that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.""
"whether or not Hitler was a Christian (though it is clear that he was NOT one)"
Do you notice how unsure you seem?
Hitler seems to have been a christian reformist. "Adolf Hitler was brought up in his family's religion by his Roman Catholic parents, but as a school boy he began to reject the Church and Catholicism. After he had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.
In later life, Hitler's religious beliefs present a discrepant picture: In public statements, he frequently spoke positively about the Christian heritage of German culture and belief in Christ. Hitler's private statements, reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious but also anti-Christian man. However, in contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or neo-paganism, and possibly even ridiculed such beliefs in private, but rather advocated a "Positive Christianity", a belief system purged from what he objected to in traditional Christianity, and reinvented Jesus as a fighter against the Jews." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler )

fnxtr · 8 October 2006
Hmmm... so hitler called himself a christian to further his political and social agenda, and for personal power.
Wasn't the first. Won't be the last.
The opportunistic christians who tried to make the link between Darwin and hitler are just plain lying. Again.
But whether they really are christians -- or whether hitler was -- is kind of for other christians to decide, innit?
Just askin'.

Anton Mates · 8 October 2006
I point out in passing that my admittedly limited experience with Eastern religions suggests that they are, in general (enough weasel words yet?) less virulently anti-other-religions than the great Western religions. I'm not sure why this is.
— Michael Suttkus, II
Well, there's certainly been tons of bloody religious conflict in the East. In modern times you've got Hinduism vs. Islam vs. Sikhism in India and Kashmir, Buddhism vs. Hinduism in Sri Lanka, Buddhism vs. Islam in Thailand, Maoist communism vs. pretty much everyone else in China, etc. In earlier eras there were periods of violent Taoist repression of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity in China; see for instance the "Three Disasters of Wu." (The Taoist-Buddhist rivalry is still a popular theme in kung fu flicks.) And the rival Buddhist sects in Tibet fought for centuries until the Gelugpa sect (to which the Dalai Lamas belong) consolidated its power over the country in the 17th century. However, AFAIK very few of those conflicts were motivated primarily by differences in doctrine. Rather, religious differences contributed to ethnic or political conflicts--those jerks next door dress funny and eat nasty food and want their weird tribal chieftain to run the country instead of our noble Gods-given ruler and they worship strange gods with disgusting rites. As Lenny said, Christianity and Islam are pretty exceptional in the degree to which they demand correctness of religious belief; most other religions historically only cared to suppress undesirable religious activity. So when they were on top, they persecuted other religions less thoroughly (burn down their temples, slaughter their priests, but don't worry too much about the occasional secret ceremony in somebody's basement); and when they were on the bottom, they didn't mind feigning allegiance to the dominant religion as much.

Sir_Toejam · 8 October 2006
But whether they really are christians --- or whether hitler was --- is kind of for other christians to decide, innit? Just askin'.
better to ask whether Hitler was a true Scottsman.

Glen Davidson · 8 October 2006
I think that what we can learn from the history of the Nazis and the rest of the two millenia of Xianity is that Xianity seeems to reach its universalist and peaceful ideals best under Enlightenment conditions. The Xians who fought the Nazis were generally appalled at Xians who followed Hitler's lead, even if they had anti-Semitic tendencies themselves.
Perhaps the Enlightenment is something of the proper denouement of Xianity? One would like to think so, though I think the evolution of ideas is too convoluted to say that such a result is necessarily what would be expected from Xianity.
My point is other than that. Obviously, Xianity in Germany did not prevent Xians from following Hitler, and Xianity outside of Germany did not sway Christians toward accepting Nazi propaganda. The difference appears to be due to the influence of Enlightenment ideals in most of Europe and in America, vs. a Germany that had lagged in picking up on the Enlightenment, and reacted against it to some extent, most notably during the Nazi years.
If Christians really want to make Xianity into something that tends more to follow Xian ideals, they would thus do best to push for a solid empirical approach to life--and even to religion. Therefore they will eschew the anti-rational beliefs of IDists, New Agers, and other pseudoscience-inclined species of belief, thereby moving us away from the irrationalism that spawns dangerous movements.
The "true Scotsman fallacy" can be overplayed, after all. To some extent we do rule out the claims of certain credentialed scientists as being "non-scientific", for there are certain criteria that we think that scientists should espouse when speaking "as scientists". Then when Ken Miller suggests that cosmological ID is supposed to be persuasive, or Phil Skell unites with the negative claims of JAD, we have legitimate reasons to deny the scientific nature of the particular remarks to which we object.
But we are able to judge certain claims by credentialed scientists mainly because we generally maintain the standards of science. Xianity will have to maintain certain standards as well if it wants to claim to be on the side of the angels in truth (small "t") and in universalist justice.
And both small-t truth and universalist justice are best served by Enlightened Xianity, not by anti-empirical Xianity. The issue here is not Nazism vs. anti-Nazis, either. That is too contrived and stark a dichotomy.
What matters is that Xianity must understand the world as it is, thus empirically, if it is going to treat both the natural world, and the peoples of this world, honestly, truthfully, and justly. Equality under the law, and universalist understanding of the world, go hand in hand, and an empirical understanding of the world is essential for meting out justice and for doing science (the two combine in practice when the justice system resorts to science to decide certain matters).
So the question is not whether or not Xians are this or that, but whether or not Xianity is willing to uphold the empirical standards that will make Xianity into something close to the ideals that it claims.
Without accusing the IDists of being Nazis, which they are (usually) not, they stand against Xianity at its best. Rather than characterizing organisms, including humans, according to empirical understandings, they wish to proclaim humans to be something that the evidence shows them not to be, designed entities. Such a falsification of humanity is not itself fascist or any such thing. However, if humans are to be judged by anything other than "objective" empirical standards, the door is opened to injustice, as well as to untruth.
Germany was not especially anti-Semitic prior to Hitler, relative to other European countries. Indeed, it has been argued that they were less so, though I have no independent way of checking out those claims. The problem, other than the perceived injustices of the Treaty of Versailles, appears to be the rejection of Enlightenment ideals, the very ideals that gave us science, and yes, "Darwinian" evolution.
Again, I am not calling IDists Nazis, however they seem not to recognize the dangers of undermining science and the Enlightenment as well as they should. The YECs quite wretchedly deny science's conclusions, and somewhat its practices, yet they naively claim to be simply using science to come to the "right conclusions". The IDists, on the other hand, are the ones who pointedly fault empirical science as "materialism", and wish to return the intellectual milieu of the West into one that understands both astrology and ID as "science". Thus they deliberately undermine the judicial, political, and scientific underpinnings of the West that rejected pseudoscience and Nazism. And they do this in order to maintain a "design hypothesis" against which the evidence points.
The fact is that the IDists, who are not Nazis and not even consistently against science, are willing to throw overboard virtually everything that is good about the West, including the implementation of Xian ideals via the rational stance. It is a shame that such a huge bias against sound biological conclusions exists that they would prefer to undermine what is good in Xian belief and in Western society, all to prop up a belief that cannot even charitably be labeled as "science".
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Dr. Michael Martin · 8 October 2006
Hey guys,
Yup, I'm back again, good to see you one and all. I would like to first state, from what I noticed out of Stevearoni's statement, "No, Hitler was not a Christian. He just called himself a Christian because it was good for his image. Unfortunately, and all too common occurrence.
Real Christians, in my experience, don't call themselves much of anything. They just do stuff Jesus would have been proud sharing his name with."
I'm still not very good at this citation stuff. I would like to formally state though that Steve, this is a very honest response. Though it is important to recognize that experience is not in itself self interpreting (your use of my experience here), I will state that this is probably the most honest and straight forward answer I've received on this site. Real Christians are not to be of the ways of the world. Real Christians have no need to be. They are to be pleasing in the sight of Jesus Christ. Thats all there is to it. So from an outsider looking in, this is justifiable, and understandable why you'd perceive this in such a way. As far as the Hitler comment, this gives me more hope at least that Creation Science and Evolution agree on this one topic if nothing else. For that matter, I can state that my respect for you has greatly gone up and that you are making a positive reflection on behalf of the Evolution community itself. Good deal there.
Most of the rest of the comments such as, "Jesus told us to shoot people" are pretty humorous to say the least. As far as the bran comment, well, if you happen to have some supported documentation of his claims, I might be so inclined to believe them. Jesus however, has a one up on you here in that he fulfilled 300 prophecies 700 years before his very birth. Such an act can only be considered a miracle in and of itself. If you think this is bizarre enough to put into National Enquirer, perhaps reading something like this from an educated sources would help you see otherwise:
http://www.tektonics.org/af/berryr01.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/mpberry.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/topix.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof1.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/falsechrist.html
As well, we can also look at: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html
A measured timeline of History can help us first off: http://www.cynet.com/jesus/timeline/time.htm
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/parallel/timeline/index.html
http://www.calvarytucson.org/timeline.htm
Record keeping can really go back extensively in regards to Historicy. Amazingly enough, these are the confirmed events.
To follow the timeline of when the Bible was written, take a look at:
http://www.allabouttruth.org/when-was-the-bible-written-faq.htm
http://www.scborromeo.org/truth/b3.htm - likely written by a Catholic supporter or Biblical Skeptic. He makes a very bald jump from the Gutenberg case. However, if need be, I can address that issue as well. The important part is the when of the Bible. Its also covered here: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hardingk01.html
http://www.crivoice.org/bibledate.html
http://www.foundationsforfreedom.net/References/OT/OTSurvey/English_Bible_Books.html
Those should be good enough. Here's an extra bonus: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=694 http://www.xs4all.nl/~knops/timetab.html
This is a bit off topic here, but also take a good look at Josh McDowell's research on worldviews as noted here: http://www.josh.org/download/pdf/Worldviews.pdf. Who knows, maybe this will enlighten a few people.
Now, if we can all show a bit of the same respect that Stevearoni has shown towards me here, I don't see why we can't get along on this site. If nothing else, we can see that Steve is being Intellectually honest here, and thats basically good enough for me. Whether I agree with his conclusions or not is a different issue. However, I do respect him insomuch as he at least intends on treating me with at least an ounce of dignity and respect as is due to any human being.

Dr. Michael Martin · 8 October 2006
Glen excellent review on Nazi Germany and Xianity (either Christianity or Xianity works fine, as this is generally noted to be a Greek deitical formation in the first place). Interesting perspective, and I found it to be very thought provoking :). I agree with you on the ID movement. However, I in no way support ID, Pantheism or any of the Enlightenment ideas period. I am not anti-Science in the least. I do not believe in a flat earth. I do not believe in a geocentric universe. I follow most of what you would consider "scientific" by today's standards. I differ in two areas however. 1) I believe that Evolution is not required in Science, that Microbiology is the centerfold of Science and that Creation Science and Microbiology are more compatible with one another and 2) That the earth is only 6-10,000 years old as I have no further evidence to conclude that its any older than such a date. I am a Young Earth Creation Scientist, and am so after doing a very thorough and honest investigation of all sides of the Scientific coin if you will. I do not care if you have accepted Evolution after honestly investigating all sides, though I am thoroughly convinced that after doing such an investigation with an open and intellectually honest mind, that one would be compelled to follow Creation Science. This is all I ask any member of this site in the first place, is to at least acknowledge that I have rejected Evolution after a thorough and heavily calculated research from many different perspectives (roughly 50 religions and Philosophies and of course ID, Evolution, Progressive Creationism, Theistic Evolution, Young Earth Creation Science, and even wildly enough SETI). If you wish to differ in opinion, there is not much I can say except I respect your choice to do so, though it may not be right. However, in the same regard, I do not feel as if it would be necessary for people to regard me as anything "less than human" if you will for not accepting the conclusions that you have. I have legitimate reasons for rejecting them, and that is my prerogative in the matter as well. I will say that we both agree on several key points. We both disagree with Intelligent Design as being a PseudoScientific movement, as well as disagreeing with Progressive Creationism and SETI as being legitimately Scientific. With that said, I believe in this matter we should move forward and away from religion if we are going to state anything except Scientifically related issues regarding this matter. I have an e-mail address for those issues if you so desire them being covered. I see no need for anybody to attack me for my religious convictions, nor my Scientific beliefs. I as such, will address matters on this site in an objective and honest manner. I have no intentions on malignantly "beating down Atheists" if you will on this site. Again my intention is not to hurt, but rather help Pandas Thumb in the attack against the Unintelligently designed movement.
God bless,
Dr. Michael Martin PHD, ThM

Dr. Michael Martin · 8 October 2006
The YECs quite wretchedly deny science's conclusions, and somewhat its practices, yet they naively claim to be simply using science to come to the "right conclusions".
Ahhh, one objection here I might add. Naively is probably not the best word here. More accurate in interpreting the evidence is what would be better suitable here. We also use the Bible as the foundation of our "right conclusions" so by no means can we truly state that we are being naive in the very least. Foundationalism is what the YEC side supports, as opposed to Nonfoundationalism usually found on the side of the Evolution side.

Dr. Michael Martin · 8 October 2006
Most of the Enlightenment rejections come as according to problematic philosophical issues that result from the Enlightenment as well I might add. Empiricism, Logical Positivism, Rationalism, Existentialism Agnosticism, Skepticism and Postmodernism have all been found to be self refuting from the Philosophical spin of things. If they are against Philosophy, then the conclusion is they do not exist, and therefore can not follow into the Scientific realm of thought. I have been looking for counters in order to reinforce what could possibly legitimize the positions. This in fact stunned me as I could seriously find NONE WHATSOEVER! The Christian Philosophical, Theological, Metaphysical and Epistemological side was so great, that I had no choice but to accept it as the only true conclusion of the bunch. With that, the Ontological side was supported as well, giving rise to my belief in Creation Science, and a Young Earth.

Glen Davidson · 8 October 2006
I do not care if you have accepted Evolution after honestly investigating all sides, though I am thoroughly convinced that after doing such an investigation with an open and intellectually honest mind, that one would be compelled to follow Creation Science. This is all I ask any member of this site in the first place, is to at least acknowledge that I have rejected Evolution after a thorough and heavily calculated research from many different perspectives (roughly 50 religions and Philosophies and of course ID, Evolution, Progressive Creationism, Theistic Evolution, Young Earth Creation Science, and even wildly enough SETI).
I don't know why anyone supposes that we do not know creation science in our rejection of it (not stated, but implied). I grew up YEC, and have seen the lengths to which people go to shield their beliefs from the apparent weight (extreme in the case against YECism) of the evidence. And I most certainly do not credit anyone's rejection of evolution based upon a rejection of Enlightenment standards. I know philosophy, and have encountered several before on PT who insist that philosophy and its assumptions trump evidence and the logical models based upon those evidences. But of course (because I knew science first, not secondarily to philosophy) the philosophy I have studied was directly opposed to the primacy of philosophical assumptions, and instead questioned philosophy to its very foundations, finding them lacking (this is not to reject philosophy by any means, however its contributions involve the interface between human understanding and human perception, as opposed to privileging understanding over perception).
Empiricism, Logical Positivism, Rationalism, Existentialism Agnosticism, Skepticism and Postmodernism have all been found to be self refuting from the Philosophical spin of things. If they are against Philosophy, then the conclusion is they do not exist, and therefore can not follow into the Scientific realm of thought. I have been looking for counters in order to reinforce what could possibly legitimize the positions. This in fact stunned me as I could seriously find NONE WHATSOEVER!
You seem to have a fixed view of what "philosophy" is. I do not. As universal stances, I would agree that all of the above are indeed self-refuting, which hardly bothers me at all. In continental philosophy the usual position is indeed to reject "philosophy", at least as it is traditionally conceived, instead dealing with the relative merits of the various stances and claims. That is to say, the various forms of philosophy really do not hold up to questioning, hence we reject its claims, not our perceptions and understandings of the world. Only a creationist/logocentrist assumes that when philosophy fails, opt for philosophy (again, we do so to some extent, but only carefully and conservatively). We know very well that "Philosophy" relies upon assumptions which have no basis in perception, and that the unobserved "God" who serves as the "Substance" underlying said "Philosophy" is an essentially Creationist Being invoked to hold together a non-empirical worldview. When Logos fails to conform to the world, we reject Logos. When the creationist notes that Logos does not conform to the world, he rejects the evidence of the world. Even a pious religionist like Kant recognized how illegitimate the latter stance is. However, many do not, preferring the creations of speech (like "God", the Good, "Being", or what have you) over the evidence of their senses. One cannot argue the logocentrist down from his position, however, as his unsupported assertions comprise the very framework of his understanding. Thus questioning his worldview is impossible for him, making Creation the default position. I have generally avoided any long discussion of these matters with those dedicated to a logocentric worldview, as they generally expect me to give as much weight to a Philosophy which starts with unevidenced assumptions as I do to philosophical considerations which question those assumptions to the ground (the history of philosophy is particularly used by us to show the contingency of traditional "Philosophy"). And I cannot begin with anything except questioning (though not the basic beginnings of thought, like perception and the ways that we necessarily think), rather than with ancient assertions. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

jeffw · 8 October 2006
Foundationalism is what the YEC side supports, as opposed to Nonfoundationalism usually found on the side of the Evolution side.
"Foundationism" in mythology, and in the writings of ignorant and cruel men who lived thousands of years ago, in unenlightened times. Not much to support you, there.
I have been looking for counters in order to reinforce what could possibly legitimize the positions. This in fact stunned me as I could seriously find NONE WHATSOEVER!I have been looking for counters in order to reinforce what could possibly legitimize the positions. This in fact stunned me as I could seriously find NONE WHATSOEVER!
Maybe the problem is with the seeker of knowledge, and not the knowledge itself. A perfectly rational explanation for being "stunned".

Michael Suttkus, II · 8 October 2006
Bran fulfilled many prophecies as documented in the Mabinogion. Just like Mohammed fulfilled many prophecies as documented in the Koran. In fact, pretty much every holy book on the planet features characters fulfilling prophecies. Hercules fulfilled prophecies, for that matter. And he's a god now, it says so right in the story about Hercules.

Dr. Michael Martin · 8 October 2006
Sounds like you are using a lot of those "unevidenced" assumptions to refute those "unevidenced" assumptions :).
Oh, and uh, huh? Kant's Epistemology is self refuting?
An unfixed Philosophy that is presuming itself to be fixed? Yikes, that doesn't work either Glenn.
That...uh, kinda blasts you in the foot.
Foundationalism from a Mythological standpoint? Thats nice, we actually have evidence to support the Bible. What does Mythology have to support it? Try refuting the oodles of Theological, Philosophical, Logical proofs, Scientific, etc. arguments.
A nonfoundationalistic stance is a foundationalistic stance that is self refuting.
That was the trick to that one my friend. YOUR argument in effect does not work :).

Dr. Michael Martin · 8 October 2006
Bran fulfilled many prophecies as documented in the Mabinogion. Just like Mohammed fulfilled many prophecies as documented in the Koran. In fact, pretty much every holy book on the planet features characters fulfilling prophecies. Hercules fulfilled prophecies, for that matter. And he's a god now, it says so right in the story about Hercules.
Might you be so kind to point these out to me?

Dr. Michael Martin · 8 October 2006
Maybe the problem is with the seeker of knowledge, and not the knowledge itself. A perfectly rational explanation for being "stunned".
OOO ad hominem, don't wanna go that direction.

Dr. Michael Martin · 8 October 2006
You seem to miss the point behind Philosophy. It is to ground knowledge, not destroy. Deconstructionism is what you wish to avoid if thats the case, to which we respond by deconstructing it. Skepticism, we just remain skeptical of it. Its Philosophically and Psychologically useful :).
Now, if you wish to assume that evidence is necessary and your Physicalistic point of view is correct, by all means, give me some evidence that proves that the Physicalistic point of view is the only one that is correct. Mind you, this would include that you not use the spoken language to prove it, just as a hint :).

Dr. Michael Martin · 8 October 2006
And I most certainly do not credit anyone's rejection of evolution based upon a rejection of Enlightenment standards. I know philosophy, and have encountered several before on PT who insist that philosophy and its assumptions trump evidence and the logical models based upon those evidences. But of course (because I knew science first, not secondarily to philosophy) the philosophy I have studied was directly opposed to the primacy of philosophical assumptions, and instead questioned philosophy to its very foundations, finding them lacking (this is not to reject philosophy by any means, however its contributions involve the interface between human understanding and human perception, as opposed to privileging understanding over perception).
That wasn't what I was saying at all. Please re read my response.
Questioning eh? What are you doing when you question something? You are employing the laws of logic. Apparently you are not aware of the intent and practicality behind the laws of logic are you?
For instance, in order to question, "Is that a log?" That imploys the law of noncontradiction. To not employ it, your induction would then be, "Is that a log, is that not a log?" Thats also ridiculous and self refuting.
Your problem with Continental Philosophy is that I have already covered EVERY piece of it that there is necessary to refute :). It essentially amounts to the same exact thing as Postmodernism.

Dr. Michael Martin · 8 October 2006
That is simply playing word games there. Very Intellectually dishonest thing to do.

Dr. Michael Martin · 8 October 2006
Continental Philosophy = Postmodernism
At any rate, I'm outtie. Got a big conference tomorrow with Dr. Russ Humphreys as a guest speaker. You might remember him as the one that tried to provide the 8 year old Dave Thomas's argument (no sources cited, no credentials mentioned, no strong evidence provided) against his model for the origination of the universe :).
Later on guys. Good luck tackling that stuff there, and maybe tomorrow, I'll have a whole slew of evidence.

Sir_Toejam · 8 October 2006
would somebody please ban this idiot?
let him claim martyrdom so he can move on and stop flooding all the posting areas with diarrhea already?

Marek 14 · 9 October 2006
Instead of banning, would it be possible to limit him to one or two posts per day? The problem with him is mainly with the numerous posts where one long one would be sufficient (i.e. easier to skip).

Michael Suttkus, II · 9 October 2006
His primary problem is that he won't do proper quotes. It's not hard! There's a guide to the markup right there above the box you type in! My fully scientific Annoyance Index confirms he would be 82.3% less annoying if he just learned how to use the quote tags.
I guess he hasn't let Bran into his heart.

ben · 9 October 2006
maybe tomorrow, I'll have a whole slew of evidence
And maybe pigs will evolve wings by sunup, too.
I guess he hasn't let Bran into his heart.
I thought Bran was more for the Digestive System.

Michael Suttkus, II · 9 October 2006
Bran is good for all of you!

Glen Davidson · 9 October 2006
Sounds like you are using a lot of those "unevidenced" assumptions to refute those "unevidenced" assumptions :).
Maybe you should learn some philosophy (you know I don't believe the claims you make of education (you don't even know how to properly reference) and of knowledge), and discover just what is known, what can be known, and what is possible. Much is "unevidenced", but "inter-subjectively" sound. You wouldn't know about these things, would you?
Oh, and uh, huh? Kant's Epistemology is self refuting?
Is that all you know about it? And anyhow, why are you too ignorant to recognize the validity of Kant's critique of your mendacious "philosophy"? You're like the other IDiots/creationists who have come by, you fail even to understand my point about Kant (Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc.), instead droning out the feeble criticisms that are all you "know" about his work.
An unfixed Philosophy that is presuming itself to be fixed? Yikes, that doesn't work either Glenn.
Of course it doesn't. That's how it's obvious that such a fiction is your responsibility, not mine.
That...uh, kinda blasts you in the foot.
Have you ever thought of trying to learn how to understand what is being fed to you, instead of spitting it out for not conforming to your own expectations? No, didn't think so. You're a simpleton. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Glen Davidson · 9 October 2006
You seem to miss the point behind Philosophy. It is to ground knowledge, not destroy.
Fine words from someone who doesn't understand philosophy. Philosophy's purpose is to ground what can be ground, and to recognize what cannot be so grounded. People like you understand the first part, and fail to acknowledge the importance of the second part. This is why you insist on a simplistic fictional view, rather than being open to the varieties of experience, of knowing, of mental states, and of thought.
Deconstructionism is what you wish to avoid if thats the case, to which we respond by deconstructing it.
You're the dolt who thinks that continental philosophy is deconstructionism. I pointedly avoided espousing such a feeble and bankrupt form of "thought" (it has its merits, but not enough that the continent would continue to concern itself with it (it's gone American/provincial)). And you simply are too dull and dishonest even to recognize the many better strains of continental thought that are out there. Again, your lack of education is apparent.
Skepticism, we just remain skeptical of it. Its Philosophically and Psychologically useful :).
And can you only respond in cliches? I'm rather guessing the answer is "yes".
Now, if you wish to assume that evidence is necessary and your Physicalistic point of view is correct, by all means, give me some evidence that proves that the Physicalistic point of view is the only one that is correct.
I denied the soundness of your criteria in the previous post, but you're too ignorant and callow to do anything but demand mindless adherance to your logocentric demands anyhow. I can demonstrate the power and soundness of "physicalism" quite well, but not to mindless bleaters from the old schools of philosophy. There is a reason why science doesn't take philosophy seriously very often, and mainly it is due to people like yourself (while I doubt your education in philosophy, I can see that your mindless adherance to its claims is unwavering). However, in its modern (and non-deconstructionistic) forms it can guide science, something that needs to be stated, the more so after you spout your medieval claptrap.
Mind you, this would include that you not use the spoken language to prove it, just as a hint :).
I understand that you're too stupid to understand that I am not a deconstructionist. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Glen Davidson · 9 October 2006
Continental Philosophy = Postmodernism
Yes, I'm sure that that's all you know about it, dullard. I stick mainly with the Nietzschean strain. Heidegger said it best when he criticized Nietzsche for not breaking with the old tradition of philosophy, that is, he (like Kant) stayed with the normal lines of thought and empiricism, rather than fictionalizing the world like Heidegger did. I don't suppose you could say anything intelligent about Deleuze and continental philosophy? Or phenomenology? No? You're obviously talking out of your abundant ignorance, blithering from your narrow "education" in the truth which cannot be questioned.
At any rate, I'm outtie. Got a big conference tomorrow with Dr. Russ Humphreys as a guest speaker. You might remember him as the one that tried to provide the 8 year old Dave Thomas's argument (no sources cited, no credentials mentioned, no strong evidence provided) against his model for the origination of the universe :).
You're blithering again.
Later on guys. Good luck tackling that stuff there, and maybe tomorrow, I'll have a whole slew of evidence.
You understand "evidence" about as well as you read. Like an eight-year old. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Glen Davidson · 9 October 2006
would somebody please ban this idiot? let him claim martyrdom so he can move on and stop flooding all the posting areas with diarrhea already?
— Sir
Well, it wouldn't hurt to ban him. He prattles like a parrot, unable to understand anything outside of his fundie world, and as certain in superiority of knowledge as "Michael" (or Piltdown Syndrome) or Neurode, which apparently is all that the medieval forms of philosophy are capable of providing--certainty in ignorance. The repetition of their "clear and distinct" unquestioned and unquestionable truths gives comfort to their lack of ability to understand all others. Furthermore, because they claim that their fictions are the basis for all knowledge, they feel free to declaim against any merely empirical approach that actually leads to knowledge. As we noted with Michael (can't remember his last name right now) and Neurode, it's so much mental masturbation. They have their unquestioned truths and the imperialism and priestly hierarchies that gave rise to those "truths" become their demands upon all others. We sort of do need creationists for this forum to work, but when they are too stupid/superior to understand anyone who has a broader grasp of philosophy and/or science, there isn't much to be gained by "discoursing" with such an idiot.
Instead of banning, would it be possible to limit him to one or two posts per day? The problem with him is mainly with the numerous posts where one long one would be sufficient (i.e. easier to skip).
— Marek
Yeah, that might do it, too. Then again, maybe we should just ignore the unteachable geek. I myself didn't bother to respond to him in the first place, and it was only because he responded to me that I later had to address his parroting of the philosophies we learned about only to demonstrate how vapid and meaningless they were. It's rather detestable to hear from Neurode, Michael, or this cretin, how superior their exploded nonsense is. Comment #138149 Posted by Michael Suttkus, II on October 9, 2006 07:25 AM (e)
His primary problem is that he won't do proper quotes. It's not hard! There's a guide to the markup right there above the box you type in! My fully scientific Annoyance Index confirms he would be 82.3% less annoying if he just learned how to use the quote tags. I guess he hasn't let Bran into his heart.
Nah, the biggest problem is that he's a simpleton who has a few restricted ways of responding to anything that is written, and he simply repeats those at every turn. Granted, he'd be less annoying if he could even learn to format properly. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

PvM · 9 October 2006
Fascinating Michael Martin is handling Glenn :-) And Glenn is responding in his usual manner...
This is quite enjoyable as it shows once again the shallowness.

PvM · 9 October 2006
That the earth is only 6-10,000 years old as I have no further evidence to conclude that its any older than such a date. I am a Young Earth Creation Scientist, and am so after doing a very thorough and honest investigation of all sides of the Scientific coin if you will.
— Michael Martin
These statements seem to be self contradicting. You cannot hold to a young earth and claim that you have done a thorough and honest investigation of all sides of the scientific coin and then claim that you have 'no further evidencve to conclude its any older than such a date". Scientifically speaking the case against a young earth is overwhelming.

Glen Davidson · 9 October 2006
Fascinating Michael Martin is handling Glenn :)-
Just an attack, eh Pim? Again you show your inability to judge, and your hatred of learning. Christ, you can't even spell my name right, let alone understand what "handling" means, dolt.
And Glenn is responding in his usual manner...
Which you don't understand, any better than you understand science. Why don't you stick to your apologetics, or get some education?
This is quite enjoyable as it shows once again the shallowness.
Pim gloats as an ass-hat babbles on. Showing his abysmal shallowness, to use his own words. Or, if you have anything intelligent to say, Pim, say it. Mere attacks only indicate how little you are able to comprehend and to respond, much as in the past. Should I just point out how often religionists are responsible for such despicable displays? I know that all are not, but too many are. There would be some cause to ban you for being a troll, Pim (if not enough). And apparently you manage to disagree with the dolt Martin scientifically, while showing your usual uncomprehending contempt toward myself. Naturally, since you were never able to respond at all well to what I had written, preferring to banish what I wrote to allowing it to point up the dishonesty of your reply to me: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=452a34db848adbe5;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=810 (about a fifth or fourth of the way down) And guess what, Pim? You don't get to censor me here. You can demonstrate your lack of learning all you wish, sans the capacity to wipe out the many discrepancies from the truth in your replies to me. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

PvM · 9 October 2006
A predictable response. I really should stop pushing Glenn's buttons but it's so much... well fun..
While Glen(n) is self destructing, it's time to finalize my long promised posting.

Glen Davidson · 9 October 2006
By the way, Pim, thanks for again being on the side of the stupid and the prejudiced. It's not surprising, however it is gratifying, that your blind hatred of me for calling you on your dishonesty would lead you first to attack me, instead of the dolt who you are supposed to be against as a "scientist".
I like the credentialism, too, that you used in favor of the mindless BS of "Dr. Martin". I don't doubt that your scholastic mind will always prefer credentials to truth, even though you yourself ended up pointing out how blatantly uninformed Martin is. I suppose that you, who know nothing of philosophy, will maintain that the egregious Martin is still more informed about these mattethan I am (though if you knew anything about it you'd recognize how uneducated Martin is), even though I am the defender of science. Then again, you certainly aren't much of a defender of science.
Your prejudices nearly put you beyond the range of science in the ideal sense.
And just think, if you knew when not to write, I wouldn't be responding to your BS right now. I would have left you alone in your ignorance if you simply had known when to shut up. Instead you sided with the creationist against me, demonstrating once again that your personal agenda is more important to you than is any respect you might have for the truth.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Glen Davidson · 9 October 2006
A predictable response.
Then why didn't you predict it? Oh, that's right, you make statements, you don't worry if they're true, you don't back them up, you simply act like the ID side acts. You couldn't predict the first thing that I write, because you don't understand it. That's why you hate it, and me, and rely on fallacies to substitute put-downs for your lack of intelligence and learning.
I really should stop pushing Glenn's buttons but it's so much... well fun..
You really get off on your dishonesty, don't you Pim? Since you can't banish what I write here, and you can't write anything intelligent in response to what I wrote, you simply attack, with the usual disregard for truth. Now your mis-spelling of my name is intentional, to compound your usual ignorance and lack of acuity. And you were the one who was worried about "attacks", when all you are capable of countering me with are fallacies and egregious attacks. You're about the worst offender on the matter of civility, as you do nothing but attack, no matter how dishonest you must be in your attacks.
While Glen(n) is self destructing, it's time to finalize my long promised posting.
Sure, no doubt. And I'm sure that you are a credible person on this forum. You accused PG, myself, and others of simple ad hominem attacks, another thing you couldn't back up. Indeed, I had argued with intelligence and learning about many subjects, generally avoiding attacks. So no wonder you didn't back up that particular lapse from the truth, eh? But you don't understand what I write, and you hate what you don't understand, much as the IDists do. So I'm "self-destructing" because of the mindless attacks of the egregious Pim. What a hypocrite, above all in his supposed piety about responding with respect to other people. He has never been able to do so himself, which is the only reason why I had to call him on his many lapses from the truth, his fallacies, and his incapacity at understanding science, philosophy, etc. Note that he doesn't even attempt to back up his statements, evidently because he knows that he cannot. But then he didn't even begin to use argumentation or evidence, resorting to his usual tack, sheer blind prejudice. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 October 2006
I hate to admit it, but I think Panda's Thumb is doomed.
I think you're right. After all, there's not much use for an anti-creationist/ID forum when creationist/IDers are dead, dead, dead. Give it 20 years, when they're back with a new scam, and PT will once again become its old self. In the meantime, we have no oen left to fight with but each other.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 October 2006
I'll have a whole slew of evidence
Where are the witches, Doc. And should women be allowed to speak in church?

Darth Robo · 10 October 2006
"I hate to admit it, but I think Panda's Thumb is doomed."
It may be true that ID is dead, but the fundies will never go away. If you're looking for fun, there's always www.fstdt.com

Glen Davidson · 10 October 2006
"I hate to admit it, but I think Panda's Thumb is doomed." It may be true that ID is dead, but the fundies will never go away. If you're looking for fun, there's always www.fstdt.com
Let's hope that PT is doomed, as that would tend to indicate that ID is moribund, if not actually dead. I, for one, have preferred arguing ID over arguing YEC because it seems virtually pointless to argue with those who can't see that the earth is old, or that life has changed over time (viz. AFDave on AtBC). UD has sometimes crowed that the anti-IDists are dependent upon ID to be anti-IDists. Typical brilliance. Of course we're anti-ID simply because IDists are fighting science, but we'd like for science to not be questioned and the conditions would exist so that being anti-ID is unnecessary. That said, we do not really need IDists or creationists over here for PT to function. The stone walls against normal scientific practice, and standard scientific evidence, erected by nearly all of them has made almost all of the encounters with IDists useful only to show to lurkers how immune to science they really are. But they do that on UD without our help. To point up the fact that we don't need IDists here, the usual way PTers have of responding to UD now is via AtBC's "Uncommonly Dense" thread. They don't allow us to answer their claims on their forums, a few truly egregious trolls have been bounced off of PT, and the rest of the UDers are as unwilling to face us here as they are at UD. Guess I'll have to check out your address. Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

GuyeFaux · 10 October 2006
Fascinating Michael Martin is handling Glenn :-) And Glenn is responding in his usual manner... This is quite enjoyable as it shows once again the shallowness.
This is a nit-witted thing to say. The trouble with a guy like Dr Martin is that he sounds like he knows what he's talking about (he's fooled PvM, by the look of it), and the fallacious things he says actually require non-trivial argumentation. In other words, Dr. Martin's refutations require depth.

David B. Benson · 10 October 2006
"ID is dead." or moribund...
But remember, ZOMBIES!

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 October 2006
It may be true that ID is dead, but the fundies will never go away.
Neither will the geocentrists. (grin) But without the political support of the Republicrat Party, the fundies are nothing but a sewing circle. And I have the feeling that the Republicrat Party is, very shortly, not going to be in any shape to help the fundies. Even if they WANTED to (which they don't).

Henry J · 10 October 2006
Re "But remember, ZOMBIES!"
Got Zombies? Call Buffy!
Henry

Michael Suttkus, II · 11 October 2006
ID was already the zombified corpse of "Scientific Creationism", which was the zombified corpse of Creationism, a la Morris, which was the zombified corpse of Price's creationism, which was the zombified corpse of...
And the fundamentalists claim they object to black magic with all that necromancy going on!

Wells: &ldquo;Darwinism is Doomed&rdquo; because we keep making progress

270 Comments

Wells: “Darwinism is Doomed” because we keep making progress