As a Christian and a scientist, I find the continued ignorance portrayed by fellow Christians to be painful. How can it be that they have been led so astray that they are willing to undermine Christian faith with their foolish words? I have quoted from "The Literal Meaning of Genesis" by St Augustine (A.D. 354-430) before"Evolution is just another one of Satan's lies to get people to believe there is no God," Laura Lopez, a mother of three from West Palm Beach who opposes the proposed new standards, told my colleague Marc Freeman.
When Christians make foolish comments about issues of science and fact, the repercussions extend beyond the issue of science and affect how non-Christians perceive the Christian faith. Calling it an issue of academic freedom merely serves to hide the underlying ignorance and foolishness. As Christians we can either allow ourselves to be willing tools or accept our responsibilities. And yet we see well meaning Christians denigrating evolutionary theory by "playing on lay notions of "theory" (See for instance "Evolution toward Neutrality: Evolution Disclaimers, Establishment Jurisprudence Confusions, and a Proposal of Untainted Fruits of a Poisonous Tree " by Asma T. Uddin in bepress Legal Series, Paper 1260, 2006) In his opening statement in Kitzmiller, plaintiffs' attorney Rothschild stated it as followsUsually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
and Judge Jones in his ruling elaboratedIntelligent design is not identical in every respect to the creation science previously addressed by the Supreme Court in Edwards and other courts, but in all essential aspects, it is the same. Intelligent design really is a perfect example of evolution. Throughout this century, religious opponents of evolution, concerned that evolution contradicts a literal reading of the Bible and promotes cultural decay, have employed varying tactics to denigrate or eliminate the theory of evolution in the minds of young students. They have tried forbidding the teaching of evolution, promoting creationism or creation science as an alternative to evolution, and singling out evolution for special criticism. Each of those tactics have been found unconstitutional by courts. Confronted with that inhospitable legal environment, creationists have adapted to create intelligent design, creationism with the words "God" and "Bible" left out. They have promoted a book, Of Pandas and People, that invokes a master intellect that shapes clay into living form and then says, we're not referring to anyone in particular. This clever tactical repackaging of creationism does not warrant different treatment under the Constitution. The intelligent design movement has argued and we expect you will hear defendants argue in this courtroom that intelligent design has improved on creationism by developing a scientific argument for design. Defendants' own experts call it science in its infancy, and if this is true, there is no educational purpose in test-driving it with high school students. But intelligent design is not science in its infancy, it's not science at all. You will hear from Kenneth Miller, a biologist; Kevin Padian, a paleontologist; Robert Pennock, a scientific philosopher; and Brian Alters, an expert on teaching science. They will testify about how science is practiced and taught, why evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as a scientific theory, and why intelligent design has no validity as a scientific concept.
Similarly, the judge in Selman v. Cobb County ruled that:The purpose inquiry involves consideration of the ID Policy’s language, “enlightened by its context and contemporaneous legislative history[,]” including, in this case, the broader context of historical and ongoing religiously driven attempts to advance creationism while denigrating evolution.20 Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1300; Edwards, 482 U.S. at 590-92, 594-95 (in addition to “[t]he plain meaning of the [enactment’s] words, enlightened by their context and the contemporaneous legislative history,” Supreme Court also looks for legislative purposes in “the historical context of the [enactment], and the specific sequence of events leading to [its] passage”);
Most recently, the Florida Board of Education is considering adding the same 'denigrating' language to their science curriculum to appease a small but vocal group of confused Christians. Unable to argue in favor of scientific theories supporting their religious worldviews, they instead follow the lead of the Discovery Institute, to argue the teachings of the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory. Historically and from a legislative and judicial perspective, this argument amounts to little more than a poorly hidden attempt to denigrate evolutionary theory and has little to do with issues of academic freedom or scientific accuracy. Historically, creationists have attempted various approaches to introduce their religious viewpoints into the science curriculum. In Scopes, the approach was to introduce statutes prohibiting the teaching of evolutionary theory. While the courts initially accepted the clearly religiously motivated statute as constitutional, it was eventually struck down. Undeterred, creationists continued with a variation on the theme and proposed the "balanced treatment" approach which was eventually struck down in Edwards v Aguillard. Faced with yet another defeat, the creationists continued to introduce 'evolution disclaimers' to denigrate evolutionary theory, allowing for the possibility of Biblical Creation. Invariably, one does not have to dig deep, to get to the real motives behind such proposals. Parents, religious people, school boards and legislators are often unable to hide their real motives which invariably point to a religiously motivated foundation. Intelligent Design, which initially arose out of hopes that a scientific theory of Biblical Creation could be formulated in a neutral fashion, failed to deliver and instead returned to the well tested position of 'fair and balanced treatment', a position which had been found to be unconstitutional. Despite attempts to argue that Intelligent Design provides secular purposes, the courts have found that such purposes must be genuine and not a sham (Freiler 185 F.3d ("the avowed purposes must be sincere and not a sham")). From a historical perspective, Intelligent Design Creationism is clearly linked to a religious rather than a secular purpose, as was so well demonstrated in Kitzmiller by Barbara Forrest whose testimony was so devastating that the defense council attempted to have her testimony ruled inadmissable. The recent developments in Florida and the reactions from Intelligent Design Creationists shows how their efforts have obviously backfired when the board accepted a 'compromise' and added 'theory of' in front of evolution. Indeed, evolution is and remains the foundation of biology and now the ID movement is faced with that which they so desperately tried to avoid, showing that ID is a competing theory to the mainstream theory of evolution, a task for which it is ill equipped. It's now clear that the Discovery Institute was counting on Fred Cutting to further their case in Florida:To the contrary, evolution is the dominant scientific theory of origin accepted by the majority of scientists. While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, this Sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community for the benefit of the religious alternatives. By denigrating evolution, the School Board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the Sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories.
It seems that the Florida State Board of Education did not consider the alternative proposal to be 'excellent', well aware of the history and motivations of the Intelligent Design Creationism. And while it is clear that the addition of the term 'theory' was motivated not by science but by religious concerns, it is also clear that the compromise is considered yet another defeat for Intelligent Design Creationism. On the Discovery Institute's Center forSome time ago, Mr. Cutting inquired with us for information about solid evolution education, and we were happy to supply it, along with input on his draft Minority Report. Mr. Cutting has submitted an excellent proposal, which we hope will be considered seriously by members of the Florida State Board of Education.
Note how the statement by the NAS is about the fact of evolution, a fact which even ID Creationists seem to accept although they argue, without much evidence, that the mechanisms involved should include the supernatural. To counter the NAS's observation that evolution is by any and all standards a fact, Casey Luskin confuses this with the mechanisms of evolution which include but are not limited to Darwinian evolution. Yes, there are some questions amongst scientists as to the relative importance of Darwinian selection versus other mechanisms but few doubt the reality of Darwinian selection as observed in so many aspects of biology. Such confusion between the fact of evolution, which as explained by the NAS, is supported by data from many different sources, and the theory of evolution which provides an explanatory framework for said observations. Until ID Creationists can familiarize themselves which these important distinctions, they will continue to argue a strawman argument, feeding the fears and ignorance of those who do not understand the difference between science and religion. Luskin end with a complaintFlorida’s biology classrooms will follow the dogmatism of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which recently published a booklet, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, similarly proclaiming that “[t]here is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution” because “no new evidence is likely to alter” it. Contrary to what the NAS and the Florida Science Standards assert, there are fundamental questions among scientists about Darwinian evolution.
But ID is ill equipped for any debate over evolution as expressed by ID proponents themselves For instance, Young Earth Creationist and Discovery Institute Fellow Paul Nelson observedNo wonder Darwinists confidently declare there is no debate over evolution: they shut down such debate and prevent it from taking place.
Source: Touchstone Magazine interview, Date: July/August 2004 Or Philip "Father of ID" Johnson who lamentedEasily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" - but as yet no general theory of biological design.
— Paul Nelson
Source: Michelangelo D’Agostino In the matter of Berkeley v. Berkeley Berkeley Science Review, Issue 10, 2006 these comments mirror the observation by Bruce Gordon who wrote:I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world.
— Philip Johnson
Source: Bruce Gordon Intelligent Design Movement Struggles with Identity Crisis Research News & Opportunities in Science and Theology. January 2001, p. 9 No wonder that the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design Creationists are worried.Design theory has had considerable difficulty gaining a hearing in academic contexts, as evidenced most recently by the the Polanyi Center affair at Baylor University. One of the principle reasons for this resistance and controversy is not far to seek: design-theoretic research has been hijacked as part of a larger cultural and political movement. In particular, the theory has been prematurely drawn into discussions of public science education where it has no business making an appearance without broad recognition from the scientific community that it is making a worthwhile contribution to our understanding of the natural world.
— Bruce Gordon
292 Comments
Glen Davidson · 20 February 2008
At least such people actually have an explanation, however flimsy and ad hoc, for why evolutionary theory exists, which is that Satan told a lie to deceive humanity.
The IDists, by contrast, have no way to explain why biologists accept MET. I mean, how are we even imagined to have come up with such a notion, given that supposedly it makes no sense? So let's see, what we say is that we're utilizing normal evidence, and not presupposing that similar evidence (say, between microevolution and macroevolution) comes from dissimilar causes, when we and they lack any evidence for such claims.
That is to say, not only don't the IDists explain the evidence, they don't tell us how we've been faulty in our inferences from the evidence--they just have their pseudo-mathematical numbers that are meant to tell us that contrary to all of the evidence backing MET, it nevertheless didn't happen in that way. Prediction borne out by the evidence means nothing, which is convenient from the other direction as well, considering that they have no predictions borne out by the evidence.
So that by comparison, I'd say that the notion that evolution is merely Satan's lie and that we're all just deceived, is a simple and rational explanation. The only problem being that there is no evidence for this assertion, and it leads only to propping up a priori biases rather than to understanding. Still beats ID, though, since all of its "arguments" only lead to propping up a priori biases and not to understanding, but the supporting dishonesty and ignorance is far more complicated and based on demonstrably bad thinking.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/3yyvfg
Stacy S. · 20 February 2008
Oh! You hit the nail on the head here!
" But tricked by whom? Certainly not the scientists who proposed the wording of the new standards, and certainly not the scientists who spoke out in favor of the new standards. "
29 of the 30 writers of the standards did NOT approve of the changes that the BoE made themselves!
James F · 20 February 2008
PvM,
Thank you for a thorough and thoughtful post. If you aren't one already, might I suggest that you sign up to be a scientific consultant for the Clergy Letter Project? We need people who are well versed in both science and Christian faith to help combat the false dichotomy between evolution and religion.
raven · 20 February 2008
IVORYGIRL · 20 February 2008
One of the pro science speakers at the board meeting I think
it was Dr Jonathan Smith from the Florida Citizens For Science
mentioned the "Wedge Document" and gave some very damming quotes.In a room full of people who tried to pretend that they had no religious motivation for what they were doing (surreal because everyone knew they were there for precisely that reason) Smith and Martinez forced the point that they were doing it for religious reasons.
Julie Stahlhut · 20 February 2008
Stanton · 20 February 2008
From the creationists I've spoken to face to face, most of them don't want to go back to living in a time where the leading causes of death were disease, famine, diarrhea and speaking one's mind (one of them just didn't care). They have simply blinded themselves to the painful, yet subtle fact that the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis (and the literal interpretation of certain sections of the rest of the Bible) is scientifically sterile.
Stanton · 20 February 2008
James McGrath · 20 February 2008
Thank you for this wonderful piece! Creationists of various sorts are trying to use evolution as a way of distracting the devout from all the things the Bible says are important (like social justice and concern for the poor) that they are neglecting. It is so sad to see how many people, in their ignorance not only of science but the Bible, fall for it. From a Christian perspective, as well as a scientific one, young-earth creationism and intelligent design are dishonest, offensive, and immoral. The day will come when Christians in the future will look back on this as yet another blemish in the history of things Christians have done in the name of their faith.
David B. Benson · 20 February 2008
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have no advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites
--- Thomas Jefferson in "Notes on the State of Virgina, 1781--2.
gabriel (Dennis R. Venema, Trinity Western University) · 20 February 2008
PvM, thank you for this post. It echoes my sentiments exactly. I sent Mr. Martinez a thank-you email last night and apologized for the behavior he has had to endure at the hands of believers. It's shameful, really.
James, I appreciate the Clergy Project as well. Thank you for your work on it. I am willing to offer my services if desired, but I am certainly not a "name brand" scientist - just a young PI at a primarily undergraduate, evangelical Christian university (in Canada).
I'm wondering if it might be a good time for some of of us who care about this issue to work on some evolution / theistic evolution materials for the Christian school / home-schooling system. From time to time I meet homeschooling parents who, in the absence of any other materials, simply swallow AiG stuff without question, or use materials from Bob Jones University. Same thing for the Christian school system. They don't really have any other options at present, except for the brave who teach from "secular" materials (not likely).
Imagine a scenario where a concerned, educated parent at a Christian school could point to Christian educational materials that employ sound evolutionary science - science vetted and approved by secular institutions, but presented in a framework that is non-threatening to Christian faith. Imagine the students learning what real science is all about, instead of being indoctrinated with pseudoscience. Imagine those students, inspired by what they have learned, going on to careers in science. Imagine those students, twenty years from now, standing up for a sound education in science for their own children.
I wonder if the NSCE would be interested in exploring such a venture?
PvM · 20 February 2008
raven · 20 February 2008
gabriel (Dennis R. Venema, Trinity Western University) · 20 February 2008
Whoops, make that the NCSE, of course.
Stanton · 20 February 2008
James McGrath · 20 February 2008
Dennis, if there's any way I can usefully be involved in the project you're suggesting, let me know - I'd do so enthusiastically!
James F · 20 February 2008
Dennis,
As a biology department chair at an evangelical Christian university, you are eminently qualified to be a Clergy Letter Project scientific consultant. There are nearly two dozen consultants at Canadian colleges and universities. Bear in mind, too, that's it about being "on call" as a resource, as well as just publicly standing in solidarity with other scientists ready to aid the cause.
I suggest that you contact the head of the CLP, Michael Zimmerman (mz@butler.edu), who, like James McG, would also be a great resource for the Christian school/home-school materials you are proposing. It is definitely worth contacting NCSE about it as well. Good luck!
gabriel (Dennis R. Venema, Trinity Western University) · 20 February 2008
James & James,
Thanks for the input. I've emailed Michael Z. to offer my assistance with the CLP. James McG, thanks for the email.
If anyone else is interested in kicking around ideas for home school / Christian school materials, drop me a line, and we'll see where it goes from there.
dennis.venema[at]twu.ca
David Buller · 20 February 2008
Thanks for the post, Pim. It's great to hear this balanced approach towards both science and Christianity. If more people took this reasonable approach (both theists and atheists) the whole war over creationism would be on its way to resolution. There's a lot that needs to change among many theists (think Ken Ham) and many atheists (think Richard Dawkins). For all Dawkins knowledge of evolutionary biology, his ignorance and distaste for theology is driving a wedge between the worlds of science and faith. The same is most certainly true of people like Ken Ham, whose highly selective version of young-earth Christianity and antagonism towards true science are widening the chasm immensely.
The world needs a few more open-minded thinkers (regarding science and theology) -- thinkers like Ian Barbour, John Polkinghorne, and from the other side, Michael Ruse.
A textbook project that would present mainstream science from a Christian perspective would be a great step toward producing the type of thinkers that make Christianity relevant in a scientific age. I remember the topic came up on the email discussion group of the American Scientific Affiliation a year or so ago. It would be a great idea indeed.
Mike Elzinga · 20 February 2008
JuliaL · 20 February 2008
This is an excellent review-and-summary post. Thanks.
Bill Gascoyne · 20 February 2008
harold · 20 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 20 February 2008
I must confess that I'm still looking for "The God Delusion" in paperback, but from what Dawkins I've read, I think part of his complaint has to do with the fact that society seems to give freer rein to such bad behavior if it is motivated by religion than if it is motivated by something else. Thus the attack is on the behavior indirectly via that which seems to persuade society to tolerate it.
jeh · 20 February 2008
They get these opinions from reading the "primary literature" (that is, Jack Chick tracts). I remember coming across a "Christian" graphic novel that revealed that evolution was dreamed up by Satan and his minions at the Tower of Babel.
David Merritt · 20 February 2008
Ravilyn Sanders · 20 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 20 February 2008
David Buller · 20 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 20 February 2008
gabriel (Dennis R. Venema, Trinity Western University) · 20 February 2008
Paul Burnett · 20 February 2008
Jean-Guy Niquet · 20 February 2008
Just honestly curious here, how can people know that evolution is true and still be Christians? If you are the product of an evolutionary process, then why do you need a savior (no sin from Adam involved anymore)? Unless to you being a christian just means to love your neighbor like yourself, then ok, but it's not what I think being a christian means.
I am on the side of evolution by the way.
Pvm · 20 February 2008
Pvm · 20 February 2008
Jean-Guy Niquet · 20 February 2008
David Buller · 20 February 2008
H. Humbert · 20 February 2008
David Buller · 20 February 2008
David Buller · 20 February 2008
Jean-Guy Niquet · 20 February 2008
Thank you David for taking the time to write an exhaustive answer. I was also cutting corners by bringing what may look like an argument from AiG in my question, and no it was coming from me. I can understand that some people may still be christians based on 1, 2 or 3 or others. I have to admit though that the original story and the gospels need quite some reworking to fit those interpretations. Well, I just think that supposedly inspired writings could have be written in a clearer way if the eternal fate of the reader is at stake, but it's just me.
I feel like my questions are "hijacking" this thread so let's move on ...
David Buller · 20 February 2008
Gene Goldring · 20 February 2008
H. Humbert · 20 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 20 February 2008
raven · 20 February 2008
PvM · 20 February 2008
Bobby · 20 February 2008
Didja see the sarcastic pro-science editorial in the Miami Herald?
Alan C. · 20 February 2008
Bill G., I think you are correct on the basics of Dawkins' stance in GD; his strident stance is because of the strident stance of the opposite camp, and his vehement opposition to the Gould "Non-Overlapping Majesteria" (NOMA) approach to a reconciliation between religion and science. Many posters on this thread have commented favorably on NOMA (or at least didn't object too much), even if they didn't use those words.
The refreshing tone of the religious people on this thread alone (besides refreshing my faith in the essential decency of humans) should be shaken in the face of those folks that tried to dilute the standards here in Florida. Their faith isn't shaken by science, indeed, is strengthened by awe at the wondrous ways God works. Their belief in the validity of their fundamental teachings transcend narrow, literal reading of their holy book for incidental detail and elevate those to a non-deniable fact. (Reminds me of middle and high school students who haven't read their assigned literature, consult the Cliff Notes on who did what to whom, and presume this is the whole story, writing their book report as that were the only important points.)
These people who see through the delusional aspects of their religious brethren are the people I'd be proud to have teach my grandchildren who are currently in Florida public schools. Most certainly not the professed science teachers I saw on the videos of the FL SBOE hearing on the 11th; I suspect, with the FL Citizens for Science, that the new standards will allow those teachers to continue to poison our youth with falsehoods.
An aside: After the unlamented older science standards were being trashed, did anybody but me think, after the testimony of the numerous people who tearfully wanted creationism taught in high school biology, that maybe the Civics and American History curriculum could use a bit of overhaul too? I admit, I didn't review those parts of the standards when public comment was allowed. Pity ...
Stacy S. · 20 February 2008
Andrew · 20 February 2008
This may be somewhat off-subject, but it's a response to a question already posed. The idea that humanity is fallen from some state of grace and in need of a saviour is certainly the dominant doctrine in Christianity, but it's by no means the only interpretation of the Incarnation. One alternative (which I believe is expressed by Abelard, but it's been a few years since college) is the idea that God and humanity were separated not so much because we're unclean but because he didn't know suffering and so couldn't fully understand us. There is no need for original sin or a personal saviour here.
One of the major failings of the modern christian church, in my experience, is the flat refusal to explore the many alternative interpretations of its major doctrines. Given a bit more flexibility, there is no reason why Christianity needs to be incompatible with any scientific fact. Insist long enough, however, that your religion can only be true if something we've learned is not and people may start to believe you and the religion may die out.
fnxtr · 20 February 2008
@Bobby:
And once again the comments on that story prove that it's impossible to tell fundie ranting from a parody. Even Foofooman looks like he's being sarcastic.
BTW, "Double Whammy" is a great book.
tomh · 21 February 2008
raven · 21 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 21 February 2008
My $0.02 worth...
Science is a process based upon methodological naturalism. Many people of various religious or non-religious backgrounds have practiced and continue to practice science. Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins are both excellent scientists in their use of methodological naturalism despite the fact that one is an atheist and the other an evangelical Christian. Whether you agree with their individual philosophies or theologies is another matter, worthy of discussion in its own right.
The difference is when one puts their own personal philosophical spin on things. The problem is that too many people don't make the distinction of where science ends and philosophy begins, so they start to make erroneous statements like "science is atheistic" or "science proves the existence of God" - rubbish to both statements.
Science is, in and of itself, a process for learning about the natural universe in which we live. Beyond that we are simply projecting our own personal biases and philosophies onto the universe, especially concerning the God(s) question. To attempt to use science to "prove" this or that philosophical position is, I think, little more than mental masturbation - fun to think about but ultimately useless.
Many people on this board are also making the same mistake. If you are going to discuss science, then discuss science and leave it at that. If you are going to discuss philosophy/theology, then state that at the outset and stick to that topic. I'm not going to say that each (science and theology) is necessarily an "equally valid road to truth" but what I will say is that you must clearly define the lines of the discussion at hand.
By muddying the waters and boundaries between philosophy & science, you only confuse people further. And such confusion plays right into the hands of the pseudo-scientists and fundamentalists to whom we are all opposed.
raven · 21 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 21 February 2008
Btw, in the interest of full disclosure, I am an atheist. I am an atheist for philosophical reasons, not because "science disproves the existence of God(s)."
My wife of 15+ years is a Christian. We make it work very, very well. Lesson to be learned here by all, methinks.
Ravilyn Sanders · 21 February 2008
R Ward · 21 February 2008
"science is atheistic"
Not rubbish. When I'm setting reactions for my sequencer or analyzing the results I am an atheist. Once I leave, and I'm sitting on a bar stool or in a church pew, my beliefs are no one's business but mine.
harold · 21 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 21 February 2008
k.e. · 21 February 2008
A simple nice girl that wants her kids to go to heaven which is full of dead kids and boat loads of female arab virgins) said:-
“Evolution is just another one of Satan’s lies to get people to believe there is no God,” Laura Lopez, a mother of three from West Palm Beach who opposes the proposed new standards, told my colleague Marc Freeman.
Essentially she belives in Satan? ...cool n kind of kinky.
Is she hairy and does she have kids?...no no not Laura ...Satan.
Crikey Satan must be damn busy between running the kids to soccer, getting food from the supermarket, breathing heat into breakfast and visits to the salon AS WELL as doing all that science.
How does she keep up with with all those celebs and terrorists who are destroying society with their sex crazed drug culture and trips to the bomb factory? ...oh wait I assumed Ms. Satan lived in a 'burb in Dumdassikstan AKA Fl.
Once again Christians forget that no one makes them look more stupid than themselves, if that particular god really did exist it wouldn't happen.
Nigel D · 21 February 2008
Paul Burnett · 21 February 2008
David Merritt · 21 February 2008
Henry J · 21 February 2008
tomh · 21 February 2008
David Fickett-Wilbar · 21 February 2008
David Fickett-Wilbar · 21 February 2008
phantomreader42 · 21 February 2008
David Fickett-Wilbar · 21 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 21 February 2008
Stacy S. · 21 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 21 February 2008
David Buller · 21 February 2008
FL · 21 February 2008
David Buller · 21 February 2008
David Buller · 21 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 21 February 2008
Oooh, David Buller vs. FL? This should be fun! (Unless FL runs away...)
MattusMaximus · 21 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 21 February 2008
Stacy S. · 21 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 21 February 2008
Stacy S. · 21 February 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 21 February 2008
Kevin B · 21 February 2008
FL · 21 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 21 February 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 21 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 21 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 21 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 21 February 2008
FL · 21 February 2008
FL · 21 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 21 February 2008
St. Thomas Aquinas
Mike Elzinga · 21 February 2008
Ichthyic · 21 February 2008
FL · 21 February 2008
FL · 21 February 2008
Foolhardy · 21 February 2008
FL: You are using the New King James Version of the Bible, which I'll accept as an accurate translation. Please use the NKJV to explain the literal truth of God's creation of birds BEFORE creating man in Chapter 1 whilst simultaneously explaining the literal truth of God's creation of birds AFTER creating man in Chapter 2.
I.e., Chapter 1
Birds (Gen 1:20-22 (5th day))
Man (Gen 1:26-27 (6th day))
Chapter 2
Man (Gen 2:7, as you cited)
Birds (Gen 2:18-19, "And the LORD God said 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.' 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.")
Richard Simons · 21 February 2008
KL · 21 February 2008
Cue Carol Clouser
Peter Henderson · 21 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 21 February 2008
David Buller · 21 February 2008
gabriel · 21 February 2008
David Buller · 21 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 21 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 21 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 21 February 2008
Stanton · 21 February 2008
raven · 21 February 2008
raven · 21 February 2008
FL is using his premise to prove his premise. He starts with assuming everything in the bible is literally true. Then uses that to prove that...everything in the bible is literally true. This isn't reasoning, logic, or thought.
If you ask him for independent corroboration, there isn't any. Several hundred years of biology, physics, geology, astronomy, history, anthropology etc. have proved him wrong.
This literalism also ignores the fact that the bible contradicts and is internally inconsistent in hundreds of places, not just the 2 genesis myths that the original compilers most likely thought were just stories but also the 4 gospels which differ among themselves considerably.
The nonsense about excommunicating the majority of Xians is apparently his own invention and unenforceable unless he gets his hands on the US supply of nuclear weapons.
Best I can say, if everyone believed like him, the US and Western civilization wouldn't exist. This is just so Dark Ages.
Ichthyic · 21 February 2008
Well this is wrong. The majority of Xians worldwide have no problem with evolution, science, and Xianity.
don't you get it?
these people, by accepting the evils of scientific evidence, have rejected the divinity of Christ and therefore are not xians in FL's view.
you first would have to convince him that religious people who accept evolutionary theory, or a non-literal reading of a fictional book, are actually xians to begin with, before you can claim there is no conflict.
I don't understand, after all these years, having seen FL repeat the same claim over and over and over again, how you folks can continue to argue as if you never even saw it.
you will NEVER convince FL that any person that accepts scientific theory that runs counter to biblical literalism IS a xian.
get it?
David Fickett-Wilbar · 21 February 2008
Ichthyic · 21 February 2008
Best I can say, if everyone believed like him, the US and Western civilization wouldn’t exist. This is just so Dark Ages.
yes, that is indeed not just the best you can say, but the ONLY thing you can conclude, based on his position.
William Wallace · 21 February 2008
- PVM[0] and ERV[1] encouraging
- We also have caveman scientist Jan Janos, former navy seal, and brother of former Minnesota Govorner and notorious atheist Jesse Ventura, calling in to harass Michael Behe as though he were a young earth creationist,[4] @ 18:36 and [5] @ 15:12] sounding like a parody of SNL-like caveman evolutionist apologist quoting Steven Gould.
But the media doesn't mock this. No, instead, the media chooses to rely on a secondhand interview (read: hearsay) of a likely scientifically illiterate and religiously motivated mother of three, and panda's thumb choose to slaw this straw man. Good job. Bravo PT. William Wallacethird year art majorsecond year English major Aaron Elias[2] to argue for science because Ph.D.s have too much to loose and nothing to gain by debating creationists[3] @ 43:54 (reminiscent of Iraq sending children to clear minefields on the Iranian border).Stacy S. · 21 February 2008
Something for FL to ponder : The Catholic Church is exactly the same today as it was when Jesus Christ himself introduced into the world.
Jesus himself, being the son of God and all, is perfection. Do you think he would introduce something that is not perfect?
How dare you claim that Catholics are not true Christians .....
"A - Hole" :-)
Science Avenger · 21 February 2008
I realize this makes the likes of FL's head explode, but evolution isn't in the slightest conflict with Christianity. It is in conflict with the Bible. Eject the notion that the Bible is accurate (which any thinking person ought to be able to do anyway after mere minutes of perusal), and Christianity and evolution can coexist side-by-side just dandy like.
Oh, and referring to Dawkins or anyone like him as a fundamentalist is the surest way to get labelled an idiot in my book, FWIW. It is equivocation of the worst sort.
Stacy S. · 21 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 21 February 2008
raven · 21 February 2008
mplavcan · 21 February 2008
FL:
"So there you have it. The stuff is literal history, straight-up. Not allegory, not parable, not ahistorical. Adam is a real guy, Eve’s a real gal. Both very literal. Very much real history.
Context makes that totally clear."
Really? Well, that's YOUR interpretation now, isn't it! What is stunning here is your absolute incapacity to see that you are interpreting. It's a story that claims it is true. Your belief in the necessity of a literal interpretation of Genesis is so strong that you seem incapable of any sort of self-analysis at all. You simply dogmatically assert that the proof that the story is real is the way that it is written. It really boils down to "because it said so." Applying this same logic to the books on my shelf, you will have to accept the Koran as true, the Gita, most of the fiction novels, and of course evolutionary biology. Why? Because it says so. No evidence needed. If the text says it is true, no external validation is needed. Do you really, honestly, not see the problem here? Is your mind so completely locked down that you are incapable of seeing this? Wow.
I agree that you are not derailing this thread. Rather, you inadvertently stand as a testimonial to the religious nature of ID. You treat science as religion, completely ignoring the logical and empirical foundations of science. You operate in a world where truth is defined by faith, and faith alone. You have demonstrated on other threads that you are incapable of rational evaluation of evidence, and here we see with stunning clarity why -- you either cannot or will not concede any evidence for anything because you define truth as that which is consistent with your faith. To support this position, you are forced to define anything that might challenge that faith as a faith based on falsehood, regardless of its empirical reality. You are the crystalline essence of Augustine's admonition.
James F · 21 February 2008
David Buller · 21 February 2008
James F.,
Thanks for the comments. I understand what you mean; I didn't mean to compare/contrast the honesty of the two, but rather to say that often they share some of their less desirable characteristics in areas I have mentioned before.
stevaroni · 21 February 2008
PvM · 22 February 2008
Shebardigan · 22 February 2008
tomh · 22 February 2008
Nigel D · 22 February 2008
Ravilyn Sanders · 22 February 2008
Nigel D · 22 February 2008
Nigel D · 22 February 2008
Nigel D · 22 February 2008
Nigel D · 22 February 2008
Nigel D · 22 February 2008
Nigel D · 22 February 2008
Nigel D · 22 February 2008
Richard Simons · 22 February 2008
It seems to me, FL worships a book, not a god.
Stacy S. · 22 February 2008
Ahem ...
source
"Jesus’ Approach to the Old Testament Creation Passages
Genesis 1 pictures God as resting on the seventh day, though very Jew knew that God actually never wearies or needs rest (Isaiah 40:28). But did Jesus think it meant God rested for a day and then, perhaps, did something else? No. Jesus said God still is still working “even until now” though this was effectively in God’s “Sabbath”, so it is therefore not a literal day (John 5:17). So if Jesus did not take the seventh “day” of Genesis ch 1 as literal, why should the other “days” be literal? Notably the greatest Christian teachers in early church history, like Augustine and Origen, followed Jesus in a non-literal understanding of the “seventh day”, and explicitly extended it to the other “days” too. Jesus, also, plainly said “God is spirit” (John 4:24), and was well aware as a Jew that it was because they had seen no form for God (Deut 4:17) that no graven image of a human could be made to represent God. No Jew would have taken literally the picture of God walking noisily in the garden unable to locate Adam and Eve (Gen 3:8-9)"
David Buller · 22 February 2008
Peter Henderson · 22 February 2008
Jeff Webber · 22 February 2008
Hey FL,
Since Genesis is literal History then the entire world had a terrible famine at the same time EXCEPT for the land controlled by Joseph, and THE ENTIRE WORLD came to him to buy their food. Genesis 41:56,57. How exactly did that wokr?
Just as a side note: I find it interesting that in "The Genesis Flood" this passage is dismissed, but the Flood is treated as History, and the justification is...it was repeated several times (I'm not kidding either that was the reason given). Wow I'm convinced!
fnxtr · 22 February 2008
The phrase that got tossed around a lot in high school (late 70's) was "Bible-thumping ignoramus". This in a largely Mennonite community. Just sayin's all.
Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD · 22 February 2008
Over at Ed Brayton's blog, he posted something about a Creationist science fair. About half way down the comments section, someone named Barbara show up to ask, "What do you hope to accomplish with your stereotyping and hatred of Christians?" Re-reading Ed's post, he hadn't said anything about Christians at all. Thus Barbara unwittingly furthers the stereotype that Christians are not only ignorant, but paranoid.
Stanton · 22 February 2008
William Wallace · 22 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 22 February 2008
tomh · 22 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 22 February 2008
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
Delo McKown
Henry J · 22 February 2008
Ah, but the merely invisible you can trip over if it's in your way. ;)
David Buller · 22 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 22 February 2008
Ravilyn Sanders · 22 February 2008
David Buller · 22 February 2008
tomh · 22 February 2008
James F · 22 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 22 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 22 February 2008
Science Avenger · 22 February 2008
Congratulations David on tackling such lofty issues at your age. Consider whether you would perceive what Dawkins says as strident if he were speaking in favor of religion instead of against it. IMO he is perceived as strident by some for precisely the reason he argues in his book: people are used to religion getting a free pass no other subject gets.
Stacy S. · 22 February 2008
I can't believe you're 18 David! Congratulate your parents for me! :-)
Science Avenger · 22 February 2008
David B. Benson · 22 February 2008
Us Davids are all precocious.
:-)
tomh · 22 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 22 February 2008
tomh · 22 February 2008
tomh · 22 February 2008
David B. Benson · 22 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 22 February 2008
David Buller · 22 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 22 February 2008
Stacy S. · 22 February 2008
David Buller · 22 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 22 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 22 February 2008
David Buller · 22 February 2008
Stanton · 22 February 2008
Science Avenger · 22 February 2008
Bill Gascoyne · 22 February 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 22 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 22 February 2008
Jean-Guy Niquet · 22 February 2008
From what I read Stacey, you are the one that sounds like you could use a break and chill out. ;)
tomh was simply stating his opinion on some comments made just because David happened to mention his age, which I would think should not make us think less or more of him. After all, you are not a child at 18. tomh was also spot on when he wrote answering about a comment on interpratation:
"How is this any different from any other Bible interpreter? Anyone who interprets the Bible has to pick and choose what to believe and ignore a whole lot of stuff, otherwise they drown in a sea of contradictions."
As for all the different arguments presented here, it seems obvious to me that being a christian means very different things to different people and there is not much of a point in discussing it unless we were to at least agree on what constitutes being one. No easy task from what I have read so far ...
I read TGD and I don't think Dawkins is misrepresenting religion in it, he cannot cover every aspect of it since it was not the purpose of the book. Saying that Dawkins is strident or a fundamentalist just doesn't make sense to me.
Jean-Guy Niquet · 22 February 2008
Oops, typo, interpretation.
tomh · 23 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2008
Stanton · 23 February 2008
Marek 14 · 23 February 2008
Nigel D · 23 February 2008
Nigel D · 23 February 2008
Nigel D · 23 February 2008
Science Avenger · 23 February 2008
FTSOA = For the sake of argument
MattusMaximus · 23 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 23 February 2008
Btw, whatever happened to FL? I notice that he hasn't made any posts since receiving those theological challenges about his Biblical literalism...
Stacy S. · 23 February 2008
Thanks Nigel :-)
Nigel D · 23 February 2008
Nigel D · 23 February 2008
David Buller · 23 February 2008
FL · 23 February 2008
David Buller · 23 February 2008
Stacy S. · 23 February 2008
David B. Benson · 23 February 2008
Regarding quasi-religious 'corporations': We are guaranteed freedom of association, now taken also to mean legal associations such as corporations. So long as the purpose of the corporation is other than to make a profit, the IRS has little choice but to grant tax exempt status.
IMHO.
David B. Benson · 23 February 2008
Stacy S. --- Yes. There were no Christians before the disciples 'organized' primitive Christianity.
IMHO.
Stacy S. · 23 February 2008
Stanton · 23 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2008
Stanton · 23 February 2008
fnxtr · 23 February 2008
... or "BTI" for short...
Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2008
Richard Simons · 23 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2008
raven · 23 February 2008
raven · 23 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 23 February 2008
Henry J · 23 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 23 February 2008
Henry J · 23 February 2008
PvM · 23 February 2008
fnxtr · 23 February 2008
In other words, FL, the Bible's not wrong... you are.
Zarquon · 23 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 23 February 2008
Many people I have known over the years have commented on the correlation between mental illness and fundamentalist religion. The question of which is the cause of which is still up in the air. But some have suggested that people who are prone to mental illnesses of certain types are also very susceptible to exploitation by use of fear, guilt, and suspicion of others; all tactics frequently found in these sects.
There was considerable hysteria in the Salem Witch Trials, and a lot of what happened then could be attributable to an unusual prevelence of mental illness within the sect along with an isolation that prevented the inputs of reality from a wider cultural exchange. These trials didn't end until a larger part of society stepped in.
Some of the symptoms of schizophrenia are eerily similar to what we are seeing in FL’s behavior.
I don't know what modifier to append, but perhaps paranoid?
David B. Benson · 23 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 24 February 2008
Here is an interesting book, Healthy Religion: A Psychological Guide to a Mature Religion by Walter Kania.
There are a number of summarized studies on the relationship between fundamentalism and mental illness.
There has obviously been a lot of consideration of this issue. Just Googling fundamentalists and mental illness gets a lot of articles,
Mike Elzinga · 24 February 2008
Oops, typo.
That should be A Psychological Guide to a Mature Faith
Jeff Webber · 24 February 2008
FL,
Still waiting to hear about how Joseph managed to sell corn to the ENTIRE WORLD.
Ravilyn Sanders · 24 February 2008
FL · 24 February 2008
David Buller · 24 February 2008
PvM · 24 February 2008
Ravilyn Sanders · 24 February 2008
Ah, finally one subject that keeps FL confined. Thank God
for showing us the way.
I move to keep this thread alive or maintain at least one
thread that is exclusively devoted to Biblical literalism.
I think that will keep Larry Faroutdude from interjecting, trolling or otherwise derailing other threads.
Anyone seconding?
PvM · 24 February 2008
PvM · 24 February 2008
Richard Simons · 24 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 24 February 2008
raven · 24 February 2008
David B. Benson · 24 February 2008
MattusMaximus -- Biblical scholars tend to agree that the Old Testament was written by four 'hands', at different times. However the fourth 'hand' appears to be that of several different writers, via literary analysis.
In particular, the first account of creation is a revision of the Babylonian account, written during or after the exile. The second appears to be a revision of a Sumerian account.
(You might well already know these matters, but as there are many lurkers on Panda's Thumb, I thought I'd write out the little I know about Old Testament history.)
Be interesting to see how FL spins your question #1...
David B. Benson · 24 February 2008
FL · 24 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 24 February 2008
rog · 24 February 2008
To summarize, for FL, "literal" and "plain reading" mean as I interpret the Bible.
In my plain reading of this thread, FL has been shown to be wrong on every point.
The world view of FL is a sad and scary one.
Stanton · 24 February 2008
Anyone else notice that FL has neglected to discuss where Jesus explicitly stated that the only way to Jesus is to adhere to a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, or how FL has conveniently neglected to discuss how the Bible must be taken literally in its entirety, but allow for reinterpretation of the myriad laws mentioned Book of Deuteronomy? So, does this mean that FL advocates excommunication of disobedient children, or those Christians that eat pork, shellfish, and or gravy with their meat, or excommunication of those Christians that wear polyester, grow two different crops together in one field, or work on the Sabbath? How come, if death by stoning applies only to the nation of Israel, it is illegal to stone a person to death in Israel?
Stanton · 24 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 24 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 24 February 2008
David B. Benson · 24 February 2008
MattusMaximus --- That'll be a large island.
Devil's Island won't be big enough.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_Island
PvM · 24 February 2008
PvM · 24 February 2008
David B. Benson · 24 February 2008
PvM --- That is quite ingenious, but does not accord with my understanding, based on a little reading about the Dead Sea scrolls.
The first account is the Elohim, 'Lord', account which is clearly the (much) later account, derived from Babylonian sources.
The second account is the Yahweh, clearly the earlier. I have learned here on Panda's Thumb that it may be derived from Sumerian sources.
The translations into English of the King James and later versions are probably not faithful to the old Hebrew, especially KJV. Ancient Hebrew is about the least flowery language imaginable. Very straightforward and simple.
My suggestion is that the Hebrews had their own way of interpreting Genesis, not so finely tuned to logical contradictions. After all, the careful study of logic was solely Greek for a long time.
Mike Elzinga · 24 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 24 February 2008
The literalists’ bible:
Chapter 1 (old testament): "Everything in Chapter 2 (new testament) is true."
Chapter 2 (new testament): "Everything in Chapter 1 (old testament) is true."
Ergo: the bible is the inerrant word of god.
Paul · 25 February 2008
It never ceases to amaze me the number of websites out there (this being one of them) trying to avoid our accountability to the creator of the universe. We can't let that "creationist foot in the door" because then we might have to acknowledge the rest of the book!
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 25 February 2008
Paul · 25 February 2008
Torbjorn,
I agree entirely that religion should be kept out of the science classroom. We should have just real science, repeatable, observable. Unfortunately evolution fails to fit into this category.
KL · 25 February 2008
Nigel D · 25 February 2008
Nigel D · 25 February 2008
It seem to me, having had a few days without visiting this thread, that, despite repeated rebuttals and refutations, FL is simply repeating the same arguments, but in more detail.
FL, it matters not how much detail you include if the basic premise of your argument is false.
Accepting the Bible as a "historical" and accurate account is patently absurd, for reasons into which many commenters have ventured above.
However, accepting it as a form of moral instruction, using the medium of stories (which was extremely common in societies where the majority of people were illiterate) is not absurd. And yet you reject this, claiming that to reject the literal word is to reject the teachings too. How is this so?
How does accepting the message while recognising the flaws in the medium constitute rejection of the message?
raven · 25 February 2008
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 25 February 2008
Jeff Webber · 25 February 2008
FL,
So you are telling me that you REALLY believe that the entire world had a famine at the SAME TIME? Seems like a pretty clear miracle, so what was accomplished by this? Did the Native Americans, the Chinese, etc. get the word that this was the power of God and come to worship him? Hmmm, doesn't seem like it. Did it serve some purpose? If so, what?
re. Dr. Robert Bennett:
---
"If truly an apelike prehuman, Adam would die; so why the warning - “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” - Genesis 2:17.
If Adam was the end of the evolutionary line and thousands of evolving men had already died, then how could death come by Adam?"
---
How does this square with Gen 3:22: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"
which makes it crystal clear that Adam and Eve were NOT going to live forever!!! (It also tells us that the serpent told the truth, while God was at best evasive and at worst lying about the consequences of eating the fruit)
also:
If you are saying that no one/nothing died before then, that is just too ridiculous to even talk about.
Stacy S. · 25 February 2008
Fl - I referenced an exact day (the 7th) that Jesus did not take literally and you maneuvered your way around about how he (seemed to have taken, in YOUR eyes) took Genesis literally - PoppyCock - You know it, I know it, we all know it!
Ravilyn Sanders · 25 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 25 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 25 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 25 February 2008
gregwrld · 25 February 2008
Paul, what is the logical connection between belief in a deity and acknowledging the authority of any particular "holy" book?
After all, many religions have creation myths - why should the ones in your "holy" book matter at all?
David B. Benson · 25 February 2008
I like the Pueblo Indian myth: Humans were born of Mother Earth, coming out of the large crack in the ground now called The Grand Canyon of the Colorado River.
Paul · 25 February 2008
fnxtr · 25 February 2008
Paul, you made the claim.
You back it up.
Or are you just a cowardly blowhard?
What specific part of evolutionary biology isn't scientific?
Please be precise.
Thank you.
Stanton · 25 February 2008
Stanton · 25 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 25 February 2008
Actually, Paul, please provide us with your definition of science. Specifically, what are the criteria for distinguishing between science & non-science?
This should be entertaining...
Mike Elzinga · 25 February 2008
A medieval scholastic (FL'ish) argument that proves any god is less than nothing.
a. God is great. In fact, god is greater than anything we can conceive.
b. Infinity is the greatest thing we can conceive.
c. I = 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + … , is an infinite sum that adds up to infinity.
d. 2I is greater than infinity, therefore 2I is G = god.
e. 2I = 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + …
f. Thus 2I = -1 + (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 +… )
g. Thus 2I = -1 + I
h. Subtracting I from both sides we get I = -1 which is less than nothing.
i. Thus the greatest thing of which we can conceive is less than nothing.
j. But 2I = G = -2 which is even less than nothing.
k. Thus G is less than anything we can conceive.
l. But wait; 4I= 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + … is greater than 2I = G
m. There is another, greater, god!
n. 4I = -1 – 2 + (1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + … )
o. 4I = - 3 + I
p. Therefore I = -1 as before
q. Therefore 4I = - 4 which is even less than nothing than is G.
r. Similarly 5I = -5, 6I = - 6, and so on.
s. Thus, the greater the god, the less than nothing it is.
Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 25 February 2008
David B. Benson · 25 February 2008
EoRaptor013 · 25 February 2008
Mike Elzinga · 25 February 2008
fnxtr · 25 February 2008
A successful strategy seems to be to point out how very un-Christ-like their behaviour is.
Stanton · 25 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 25 February 2008
MattusMaximus · 25 February 2008
EoRaptor013 · 25 February 2008
Stacy S. · 25 February 2008
@ EoRaptor013 - You are right - I misspoke - I meant to say OT (you know, the one Jesus was familiar with and was referring - but I think you knew that ) It still doesn't change the fact that he did not take the Creation account literally (which is the point I was trying to make)
As far as the Catholic Church - same thing goes here - it wasn't CALLED the Catholic Church but if you check the lineage, you will find that it goes directly from Jesus to St. Peter to Victor being Bishops of Rome and etc... until they finally decided to call the Bishop "Pope". But it is the same church that Jesus established when he was 33.
Stacy S. · 25 February 2008
" The Roman Catholic Church
The Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious denomination of Christianity with over one billion members. It claims that it is both organizationally and doctrinally the original Christian Church, founded by Jesus Christ. It also claims unbroken Apostolic Succession from St. Peter and the other Apostles. It is both the largest and the oldest continuously operating institution in existence. "
Source -
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/religion-catholicism-catholic-church.htm
EoRaptor013 · 26 February 2008
Nigel D · 26 February 2008
(1) That you know damn well that you cannot back up your words with facts and hence were lying;
(2) You believe what you claim, but you are intellectually incapable of backing it up in any meaningful way;
(3) You believe that you have evidence that refutes evolutionary theory but are too scared of criticism to share it with anyone; or
(4) That you honestly believe there exists evidence to counter evolutionary theory but are too lazy to go and find it (BTW, none of the DI fellows has ever actually provided evidence to support ID - it is all arm-waving, wishful thinking and logical fallacies). I shall ignore (1) because if it is correct, you will ignore anything I write that you dislike. If (2) is correct, you could at least have the honesty to respect the expertise of the experts in biological scioences. If (3) is correct, then (a) you are right to expect criticism, but (b) you should be just as critical of the evidence you have as anyone else could ever be. You have made a statement that contrdicts modern science, and have thus taken up the burden of proof. If you can critically evaluate your evidence in the context of what is already known to science, and it still convinces you that MET is wrong, then you can have confidence that at least some scientists will also accept it. If (4) is correct, then there is a simple answer - GOYA. Get out there and find it. Of course, all of these scenarios presuppose that you have taken the trouble to acquire an understanding of modern evolutionary theory (MET) in the first place. Given that your comment reiterates a typical creationist weasel tactic, I doubt very much that you actually do understand MET.
Stacy S. · 26 February 2008
Science Avenger · 26 February 2008
Dylan · 27 March 2008
I love pandas and they are so cute but they are wild and sometimes dangerous heard that they are mean to people
DevinWeiss · 7 April 2010
A number my favorite videos were made like that by Jennifer Lopez. How could i say that? Well, she looks good, that's a single thing. But she's tough and real, and I feel her enthusiasm. Selena, The Cell, The Wedding Planner, Angel Eyes, Enough, and Maid in Manhattan. Okay, I'm a guy and I like guy movies -- science fiction, action. You realize, the tough stuff. Well, she's that and far more. My hat's off to this one extremely talented lady. May well her career carry on growing.
online games · 16 April 2010
I'll send you an email of some info that may help
racing games · 2 August 2010
I’m going to save this as inspiration and send visitors from my lens. I have put up additional new ideas too, so I’ll include a link to this article (if OK) on my site?