Tom Willis: Should evolutionist be allowed to vote?

Tom Willis: Oh, by the way… What is the chance evolutionists will vote or teach in the Kingdom of God?

Tom Willis the psycho: Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Vote? They do not and can not know the purpose for Man. In fact, all of them believe Man has no purpose. Therefore, they cannot make informed judgments about how men should behave toward each other, or what would be "good" or "bad" for any group of men to do, or not do. Thus, they have no sane foundation upon which to base “laws” or rational for insisting that other men obey the laws. Thus, the religion they profess to believe renders them incapable of participating in any decision about what men ought to do. But, that is the purpose of all law. Therefore, in a sane society, evolutionists should not be allowed to vote, or influence laws or people in any way! They should, perhaps, make bricks to earn enough to eat.

http://www.kingdomnow.org/95Theses.html “Thus, it is with great sadness that the endorsers of this document humbly plead with our churches to join us in repentance, turning from the United States’ twisted notions of liberty, democracy and justice, from the historical misconceptions of its “Christian heritage” and from the ubiquitous greed that drives our nation.”

Like I said on Pharyngula, the PDF that this came from includes a smiley face near the end, right where he advocates the violent expulsion of scientifically literate individuals from the country, continuing on to suggest at a minimum disenfranchising them.

My reaction was to make a different sort of face. The sort of face one makes upon discovering something very old the fridge, something so old you don't know what it originally was. The face you make as you stop breathing, in fear of smelling whatever odor may be exuding from what you've just discovered.

Also as I said there, this kind of thing can probably turn more people away from christianity than I ever could using fundamental science.

The problem is it's probably turning the wrong people away. Presumably this kind of frothing rhetoric has a target audience, this is not just a wackjob rant on a myspace page. There must be people screaming "amen, we must violently expel the infidels.. woops, we mean evolutionists, our sane society demands violent intolerance, it's what Jesus would have done!" in response to this.

Blaming the Nazis on evolution and then declaring evolution a religion and demanding that those that believe in it are persecuted and vilified. What more can I say?

Inappropriate (or perhaps sarcastic) use of smileys and emoticons seems to be common among the most conservative Christian bloggers. I've confronted at least one of them about this.

Such as in: Evilutionists are all going to hell. : ) or : P etc.

Or they end their anti-evolution screed with some insincere valediction like "God bless!" or "Have a nice day!" which can properly translated as "Die, you scum-sucking pig!"

My God. Wow. Speachless.

Stark - raving - mad. I'm not normally stuck for words, but it was all I could think of after reading that.

The dialogue quoted from the Washington Post page also, unfortunately, demonstrates the dreadful level of public understanding of both evolution and of the dating methods which are one of its (many) lines of supporting evidence.

A questioner quoted "carbon dating" as the method of dating geological ages and was correctly advised of the actual radiometric method used. This did not refute the point - that geological ages are attested by multiple lines of evidence - but it made this fruit loop look good because he knew the name of one method. He was then able to make up nonsense and to quote Woodmorappe (!) as an authority, without further challenge.

I don't know. If this is the level of public debate in America, we've lost. I say "we", because if America loses, we all lose, and lose catastrophically.

I have no idea whether the NCSC can take money in Aussie dollars. I think I'm about to find out.

What is the chance evolutionists will vote or teach in the Kingdom of God?

I just love US free speech. Let the nutters expose themselves for the fascists they are. Saves so much work and time.

For those who are worried about brain damage, he message is the usual. Science=evolution=atheism=mass murder

Tom Willis: It [evolutionism] was also a major justification in the defense of slavery in the 1800's against Christian opponents.

How come Darwin was anti-slavery then?

See his section on leaving Brazil at the end of the 2nd edition of the voyage of the Beagle.

Alos the correspondence of Darwin and Asa Gray (almost an evangelical ) during the civil war on slavery.

In 1833 the British (Anglican) evangelical magazine The Christian Observer refused to publish a pro-slavery article. It was then published by the Record another Anglican evangelical magazine. This shows the split among christians.

I'm most interested by Willis' claim that "Evolutionism was/is the apologetic foundation for the faith of predatory capitalism, Germany in WWI, the USSR (from 1918 to this day), NAZI Germany, Fascism in other European countries,
and Socialism in all of Eastern Europe beginning about 1945". In particular, how the heck did "Germany in WWI" get in that list? I understand the claims for all the others, but this comes across as just listing all the historical governments that the US has conflicts with between about 1930 and 1950. I suspect that in 50 years we'll have claims that the Taliban was motivated by evolution.

Since evolution is pretty much a non-issue in Europe, I wonder how non-voting will work here. Not that the other countries are really REAL though. Not like the US. So we probably don't count.

Anybody who had a basic understanding of historical timing would find it ridiculous to suggest that a book first published across the pond in 1859 would somehow be relevant to a debate that had been raging in the US for a few decades by that point, and had for all practical purposes come to a head with the Civil War set to break out in 1861. I appreciate the inclusion of some other snippets because now I can save myself the time of having to read through all of his lunacy.

jkc said:

Tom Willis: It [evolutionism] was also a major justification in the defense of slavery in the 1800's against Christian opponents.

How ironic, considering that many slave owners (and others) justified slavery based on the "mark of Cain", the "curse of Ham", and other fallacious Biblically-based arguments.

This is both hilarious and horrifying, therefore I propose a new word: horrifarious.

Non-Christians are not getting punished here on earth-- God isn't smiting evolutionists right and left with thunderbolts from the sky-- and that must rankle his followers. Thus both The Rapture and Hell are very exciting concepts to some Christians who can look around and see non-Christians happy and enjoying life on earth. Better to imagine unbelievable tortures for those who don't spend their time praying, reading the Bible, communing in church, and spreading the word of God than to feel like you have wasted your life with empty gestures.

jk said: also, consider that Darwin didn't PUBLISH his theories until 1859, JUST before the Civil War broke out. By that time, the debate in the U.S. regarding slavery was pretty much over, actual conflict was nearly underway. The Dred Scott decision had already been handed down, and John Brown had begun his ill-fated campaign. "Darwinism"=Slavery? THAT one ought to have been checked a little closer for historical accuracy before being used by the creos. And the Conservative Southerners of the mid-19th century weren't exactly people who were chomping at the bit to accept evolution, now were they? Getting desperate, guys. Put a little more thought into the next one. At this rate, it's only a matter of time before we hear that "Darwinism" was used to justify the Inquisition :p

jkc said:

Tom Willis: It [evolutionism] was also a major justification in the defense of slavery in the 1800's against Christian opponents.

How ironic, considering that many slave owners (and others) justified slavery based on the "mark of Cain", the "curse of Ham", and other fallacious Biblically-based arguments.

Guys like Philip Johnson are on record stating things like theistic evolutionists are the ID movements worst enemies. These guys aren't just talking about "removing" atheists. It is the people most closely associated with their own religious beliefs that they want to get rid of.

If they decide to ride that tiger where will it stop? What type of OEC would be "safe?" Will the YECers that believe that the earth is older than 10,000 years old be acceptable? Once they get rid of the worst rascals they usually start shooting each other. Will the only ones allowed to be left standing be the true believers like flat earthers and geocentrists, or will those guys simply be "removed" too?

Ron Okimoto said: Guys like Philip Johnson are on record stating things like theistic evolutionists are the ID movements worst enemies. These guys aren't just talking about "removing" atheists. It is the people most closely associated with their own religious beliefs that they want to get rid of. If they decide to ride that tiger where will it stop? What type of OEC would be "safe?" Will the YECers that believe that the earth is older than 10,000 years old be acceptable? Once they get rid of the worst rascals they usually start shooting each other. Will the only ones allowed to be left standing be the true believers like flat earthers and geocentrists, or will those guys simply be "removed" too?

In a word 'Barking' . I wonder how many bricks Richard Dawkins will be able to do on his own without using a kiln ? Or is the creo crazy talking about mud brick production ?? Let them eat...brick !!

The "brick-making" method of dealing with people more educated than you has a historical precedent. It was used in China. If I remember correctly, it was by one of the emperors who bought the Great Wall. Scholars were considered as potential opponents, so they were sent away to work on the Wall and make bricks. It's nice to see that the bad old ways are never fully forgotten.

Also:
"the evolutionist class"
Doesn't that sound a bit Stalinian?

And:
"What is the chance evolutionists will vote or teach in the Kingdom of God?"
Well, not a lot, as it doesn't look like a constitutional monarchy.

Chayanov said:

What is the chance evolutionists will vote or teach in the Kingdom of God?

Who exactly would we be voting for? I thought Jesus was running unopposed. Is Shiva the dark horse candidate?

If these yahoos want too establish criteria for voting and teaching, how about scientific literacy. That seems like a lot more valid criteria than who will supposedly get into a supposed after-life in a supposed heaven. Of course that would be the last thing that they would want, since most "evolutionists" would probably be a lot more qualified that most fundamentalists.

The underlying assumption in all of this nonsense is that the two sets are mutually exclusive, i.e. that you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution. Well these guys should read their Bible more closely. The criteria stated for entrance into heaven don't have anything to do with belief in evolution. The Bible does have a lot to say about people who lie, cheat and steal however. There is also that part about who gets to cast the first stone.

The facts warrent the violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society.

Dave Luckett said: If this is the level of public debate in America, we've lost. I say "we", because if America loses, we all lose, and lose catastrophically.

Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman, "WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING", Edge said: Far from providing unambiguous evidence of the rise of faith, the devout compliers of the WCE document what they characterize as the spectacular ballooning of secularism by a few hundred-fold! It has no historical match.

Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman, "WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING", Edge said: Doesn't America, the one western nation where two thirds absolutely believe in God, and nine in ten think there is some form of higher power, show that religion can thrive in an advanced democracy? Not necessarily.

Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman, "WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING", Edge said: Those who feel the opposite about religion doubled between the 1960s and 1970s, have been fairly stable since then, but have been edging up in recent years. American opinion on the issue of human evolution from animals has been rock steady, about half agreeing, about half disagreeing, for a quarter century. What has changed is how people view the Bible. In the 1970s nearly four in ten took the testaments literally, just a little over one in ten thought it was a mixture of history, fables, and legends, a three to one ratio in favor of the Biblical view. Since then a persistent trend has seen literalism decline to between a quarter and a third of the population, and skeptics have doubled to nearly one in five. If the trend continues the fableists will equal and then surpass the literalists in a couple of decades. [My bold.]

Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman, "WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING", Edge said: The rise of American rationalism is based on adult choice—secularists certainly not growing via rapid reproduction. The results can be seen on the bookshelves, as aggressively atheistic books such as Sam Harris' The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and Daniel C. Dennett's Breaking the Spell, break the mainstream publishing barrier onto the best-sellers lists. Long disparaged as neither moral or American, the growing community is beginning to assert itself as a socio-political force. What is actually happening here and abroad is a great polarization as increasingly anxious and often desperate hard-core believers mount a vigorous counterrevolution via extreme levels of activism to the first emergence of mass apostasy in history. No major religion is expanding its share of the global population by conversion in any circumstances, much less educated democracy. Disbelief in the supernatural alone is able to achieve extraordinary rates of growth by voluntary conversion. Why? [My bold.]

Gregory Paul & Phil Zuckerman, "WHY THE GODS ARE NOT WINNING", Edge said: As a result the great majority enjoy long, safe, comfortable, middle class lives that they can be confident will not be lost due to factors beyond their control. It is hard to lose one's middle class status in Europe, Canada and so forth, and modern medicine is always accessible regardless of income. Nor do these egalitarians culture emphasize the attainment of immense wealth and luxury, so most folks are reasonably satisfied with what they have got. Such circumstances dramatically reduces peoples' need to believe in supernatural forces that protect them from life's calamities, help them get what they don't have, or at least make up for them with the ultimate Club Med of heaven. One of us (Zuckerman) interviewed secular Europeans and verified that the process of secularization is casual; most hardly think about the issue of God, not finding the concept relevant to their contented lives. The result is plain to see. Not a single advanced democracy that enjoys benign, progressive socio-economic conditions retains a high level of popular religiosity. They all go material. It is the great anomaly, the United States, that has long perplexed sociologists. America has a large, well educated middle class that lives in comfort—so why do they still believe in a supernatural creator? Because they are afraid and insecure. Arbitrary dismissal from a long held job, loss of health insurance followed by an extended illness, excessive debt due to the struggle to live like the wealthy; before you know it a typical American family can find itself financially ruined. Overwhelming medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy. [My bold.]

Chayanov said: Who exactly would we be voting for? I thought Jesus was running unopposed.

Tom Willis' delusional post really emphasizes the ample warnings from the likes of Paul Gross, Barbara Forrest and Wesley Elsberry regarding the crypto-Fascist behavior not only of the Discovery Institute, but of intellectual "fellow travellers" like the Creation Science Association and Answers in Genesis. It also emphasizes Ken Miller's astute warning in his latest book that we are now engaged in a battle for America's soul (http://www.amazon.com/Only-Theory-Evolution-Battle-Americas/dp/067001883X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213370005&sr=8-1) (Without indulging in too much self-promotion, I think my extensive Amazon.com review of it is the only one so far to emphasize the importance of Ken's warning which the other reviwers have missed. Mine is the only one which also emphasizes Ken's rhetorical decision to "take seriously" the "scientific" arguments of Intelligent Design by asking whether it is a valid scientific theory, before demolishing these arguments.).

Regards,

John

I have seen Willis's article on the paper newsletter he mails out. There is no smiley there.

If I remember correctly, Tom Willis was one of the main characters behind the first round of the creationist-inspired curriculum changes in Kansas several years ago. That man is not just a creationist, but he's a young earth creationist (thus, being even more dismally ignorant of basic science). The rhetoric that comes out of these young earth creationists is (1) often quite zany and good for a laugh, and (2) often just as ironic in its inherently hypocritical nature.

What amazes me is that people in these states even allow people with such horrible scientific illiteracy and incompetence as young earth creationists to come within bullhorn distance of having anything more than zero official public influence on science education in public schools. Young earth creationists are walking poster children for scientific illiteracy, not to mention intellectual incompetence.

Of course, it isn't just Kansas. Now the state of Texas has a young earth creationist, Don McLeroy, isn't just on the State Board of Education, he's the chairman of the board! That's such a sick state of affairs I don't know who to blame the most, the young earth creationists for being incorrigible in their defiant promotion of scientific error and ignorance, or citizens in Texas who take science seriously in general for allowing such a thing to happen in the first place.

Depriving people, including fellow Christians of their God and Constitution given rights ...

How is God involved? The Constitution is not enough?

Ravilyn Sanders said:

Chayanov said:

What is the chance evolutionists will vote or teach in the Kingdom of God?

Who exactly would we be voting for? I thought Jesus was running unopposed. Is Shiva the dark horse candidate?

I'm appalled you would think of suggesting Shiva as the dark horse. Every one knows Shiva is red in color. The word Shiva comes from the Tamil word siva meaning red. Sanskrit equivalent is Rudra, same root as red/ruddy in Indoeuropean. It is Krishna is who is dark. And his next expected avatar Kalki has him riding on a horse presiding over the destruction of the universe in an apocalypse, (after which the cycle will start again, of course). Obligatory inappropriate smilies provided here. Sprinkle them according to taste. :-) :-} :-{} :-[] :-()

Tom Willis, whatever else you may think of him, should be thanked for providing the single best parody of creationism I've seen in a long long time. Just when you think he can't possibly top himself, you get to the next paragraph.

It just occurred to me that Willis's view is not without precedent nor limited to bona-fide kooks. George H. W. Bush, in 1987, said, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." Of course, atheism and evolution are very different subjects, but they are identical in the fantasy world of Willis and many others.

This is why we must not let creationists play with matches- they will re-light the ovens.

As I understand the social history of the last couple of hundred years, Europe has been rather less religious than the U.S. for quite a while. Secularism in the present day may be correlated with general social well being and mere indifference to religion--I think you've got something there--but anticlericalism and atheism in Europe were strongly promoted in the 19th Century by radical and working class groups while progressive causes such as the abolition of slavery, women's rights, and even socialism were often associated with churches in the U.S. during the same period. I think there's some path dependency involved in U.S. vs the world.

Jim Harrison said: As I understand the social history of the last couple of hundred years, Europe has been rather less religious than the U.S. for quite a while.

I think there’s some path dependency involved in U.S. vs the world.

There are those who assert that Europe is less religious largely because they exported most of their fiercely religious population to North America some time back.

People tend to forget that Fundamentalism isn't very old, and they also confuse it with evangelical Protestantism as if the two were the same. Historically, at least, they haven't been. The irony is that modern secularism has a great deal in common with 19th Century liberal Protestantism, much of which was politically liberal and decidedly rationalist and pro-science. The roots of the crazier varieties of American religion lie elsewhere in our history. Think Southern Baptist or conservative Lutheran.

In any case, actual history is unlikely to be automatically useful in contemporary ideological battles because it isn't a simple tale of good vs evil. Things just don't sort so neatly.

Fundamentalist religion and similar sects and cults in this country have become legal safe-havens for some of the worst charlatans among us.

Dear Jim Harrison,

Yours is a most astute observation regarding the rise of "secular humanism" from Unitarianism and similar denominations of liberal Protestant Christianity. If I'm not mistaken, historian Garry Wills has made this very point in some of his recent writings.

Regards,

John

Evolutionists are horrible brick makers anyway. We just throw mud into tornadoes and expect bricks to come out.

Mike Elzinga said:

I think there’s some path dependency involved in U.S. vs the world.

There are those who assert that Europe is less religious largely because they exported most of their fiercely religious population to North America some time back.

I have suspected for some time now that the guarantees of religious freedom in the U.S. Constitution have had unforeseen side effects. Fundamentalist religion and similar sects and cults in this country have become legal safe-havens for some of the worst charlatans among us. It is difficult for the law to take them down because they hide behind “religious” freedom and can scream “religious” persecution if anyone goes after them. Judging from the kooks that show up on Panda’s Thumb, these people are stupidly fearless when it comes to their crackpot notions. And most of them get these notions in their churches. I have often wondered what would happen if the Constitution granted religious freedom with a provision that the leaders of sects pass through the fires of some kind of peer review and vetting that screened out bullshitters and charlatans and sent to prison people who continued to lie and distort the way many of our sectarians currently do. As it is, these jerks can get away with nearly any distortion and libelous activity as long as it is in the name of religion. There are too many things they say and advocate that are objectively and completely wrong, yet they can pass this crap on from their pulpits, influence elections, disrupt the administration of public education, threaten others, and never have to answer for any of it. It's a sticky issue.

Why, exactly, should we care what Tom Willis has to say? His is just another dull-witted voice, powerless, prattling in the wilderness.

Ecology says that parasites can’t drive their host to extinction if there is only one host. They can’t destroy us without destroying themselves but we can live without them. So who knows, maybe we will evolve some resistance.

I think the best way to ensure more sane behavior among churches, and to eliminate their status as “safe-havens” for kooks and would-be tyrants is much simpler. Simply eliminate their tax-exempt status.

Mike Elzinga said:

I think the best way to ensure more sane behavior among churches, and to eliminate their status as “safe-havens” for kooks and would-be tyrants is much simpler. Simply eliminate their tax-exempt status.

Yeah; I had also considered that at one time. However, I concluded that there are many good churches that would be adversely affected. These churches provide important safety nets for people in distress and they provide tradition and important functions in the lives of many people. In order to do this, they have to build resources and organizational structures, all of which require money. Tax exemption I think is partially based on the expectation that churches perform these important functions (at least they did historically when governments were too small and disorganized to take on these issues). They have also kept important birth, death and marriage records. One really begins to appreciate this kind of record keeping when doing genealogy. Again, these functions fell to churches in the absence of adequate governmental resources. It’s just part of our history. But, like all parasites, the corrupt religions manage to take advantage of rules, laws, and tax exemptions that were designed to assist rather than exploit.

I have often wondered what would happen if the Constitution granted religious freedom with a provision that the leaders of sects pass through the fires of some kind of peer review and vetting that screened out bullshitters and charlatans and sent to prison people who continued to lie and distort the way many of our sectarians currently do. As it is, these jerks can get away with nearly any distortion and libelous activity as long as it is in the name of religion. There are too many things they say and advocate that are objectively and completely wrong, yet they can pass this crap on from their pulpits, influence elections, disrupt the administration of public education, threaten others, and never have to answer for any of it.

Freedom’s a bitch, ain’t it?

So exempt the soup kitchen and the clothing donations, the second-hand store and the relief work, but not the worship or the organization at large.

Mike Elzinga said: I have often wondered what would happen if the Constitution granted religious freedom with a provision that the leaders of sects pass through the fires of some kind of peer review and vetting that screened out bullshitters and charlatans

Peer review?

Mike Elzinga said: It is difficult for the law to take them down because they hide behind “religious” freedom and can scream “religious” persecution if anyone goes after them.

Young earth creationists are walking poster children for scientific illiteracy, not to mention intellectual incompetence.

— SteveG

Just remember that GWB appointed Judge Jones.

And probably regrets it, if he thinks about it at all.

— Bill Gascoyne

I should expand on my cryptic warning that GWB appointed Judge Jones. In case case anyone infers that I might be a fan of GWB because he appointed Jones, and might stand by him, I am not a GWB fan. OTOH, 10-20% of those Congressmen and Senators who introduce and support anti-evolution legislation are Democrats, so be careful for whom you vote. Even if they say, prior to election, that they have no problem with evolution or do not endorse ID or creationism, they could just be saying that to get elected. They could easily back "teach the controversy" or "academic freedom" without even technically contradicting their campaign promise. Bottom line: be wary of any politician.

SteveG said: If I remember correctly, Tom Willis was one of the main characters behind the first round of the creationist-inspired curriculum changes in Kansas several years ago. That man is not just a creationist, but he's a young earth creationist (thus, being even more dismally ignorant of basic science). The rhetoric that comes out of these young earth creationists is (1) often quite zany and good for a laugh, and (2) often just as ironic in its inherently hypocritical nature. What amazes me is that people in these states even allow people with such horrible scientific illiteracy and incompetence as young earth creationists to come within bullhorn distance of having anything more than zero official public influence on science education in public schools. Young earth creationists are walking poster children for scientific illiteracy, not to mention intellectual incompetence. Of course, it isn't just Kansas. Now the state of Texas has a young earth creationist, Don McLeroy, isn't just on the State Board of Education, he's the chairman of the board! That's such a sick state of affairs I don't know who to blame the most, the young earth creationists for being incorrigible in their defiant promotion of scientific error and ignorance, or citizens in Texas who take science seriously in general for allowing such a thing to happen in the first place.

Frank J said: I should expand on my cryptic warning that GWB appointed Judge Jones. In case case anyone infers that I might be a fan of GWB because he appointed Jones, and might stand by him, I am not a GWB fan. OTOH, 10-20% of those Congressmen and Senators who introduce and support anti-evolution legislation are Democrats, so be careful for whom you vote. Even if they say, prior to election, that they have no problem with evolution or do not endorse ID or creationism, they could just be saying that to get elected. They could easily back "teach the controversy" or "academic freedom" without even technically contradicting their campaign promise. Bottom line: be wary of any politician.

Bigbang seems to be upset that Darwinians get to embrace his here Dawkins, whom he so often quote admiringly.

Of course, he is still confused in conflating evolutionary theory and atheism. But this is not the thread for such a topic. I have moved the offending postings to the bathroom wall.

llanitedave said:

Mike Elzinga said:

I think the best way to ensure more sane behavior among churches, and to eliminate their status as “safe-havens” for kooks and would-be tyrants is much simpler. Simply eliminate their tax-exempt status.

Yeah; I had also considered that at one time. However, I concluded that there are many good churches that would be adversely affected. These churches provide important safety nets for people in distress and they provide tradition and important functions in the lives of many people. In order to do this, they have to build resources and organizational structures, all of which require money. Tax exemption I think is partially based on the expectation that churches perform these important functions (at least they did historically when governments were too small and disorganized to take on these issues). They have also kept important birth, death and marriage records. One really begins to appreciate this kind of record keeping when doing genealogy. Again, these functions fell to churches in the absence of adequate governmental resources. It’s just part of our history. But, like all parasites, the corrupt religions manage to take advantage of rules, laws, and tax exemptions that were designed to assist rather than exploit.

Nothing wrong with a tax exemption for charitable work, but it should be associated with the work and not with the institution. Just calling oneself a "church" should not be a grant for tax-exempt status. And the government should not be in a position to judge what constitutes a "legitimate" religion one way or another anyway. So exempt the soup kitchen and the clothing donations, the second-hand store and the relief work, but not the worship or the organization at large.

The tax-exempt status also comes with an important rule. Churches are not allowed to participate in politics. Now granted that this rule is more honored in the breach than in the observance, but it is there. Take away a church’s tax-exempt status and they will feel entitled to a more overt voice in how this country is governed. After all they would be helping to finance said government, and what was our country’s rallying birth cry? “No taxation without representation”. I can live with the tax-exemption privilege they enjoy.

Jim Harrison said: Secularism in the present day may be correlated with general social well being and mere indifference to religion--I think you've got something there--but anticlericalism and atheism in Europe were strongly promoted in the 19th Century by radical and working class groups while progressive causes such as the abolition of slavery, women's rights, and even socialism were often associated with churches in the U.S. during the same period. I think there's some path dependency involved in U.S. vs the world.

Mike Elzinga said: They have also kept important birth, death and marriage records. One really begins to appreciate this kind of record keeping when doing genealogy. Again, these functions fell to churches in the absence of adequate governmental resources. It’s just part of our history.

FYI, regarding Willis' vaporings on slavery, I emailed him on the 17th asking him to offer some specific example of slavery advocates actually using an evolutionary defense. As Civil War era American history was my major in college (BA) I wasn't expecting him to do so, and I was right. Willis replied today that while he "could" offer examples he wouldn't, supposedly because it would be a book length argument (can't even give a summary?). He then showed his concern for email brevity by pasting in two pages of blather on the evolutionary evils of Nazism and Marxism, and defending (inadequately) the supposedly lofty and reasonable Biblical attitudes on servitude. As Willis is a geocrentric friendly YEC wingnut, that his view of more recent history would also be fradulent shouldn't come as too much of a shock.

jk replied to comment from jkc | June 13, 2008 7:06 AM | Reply
also, consider that Darwin didn’t PUBLISH his theories until 1859, JUST before the Civil War broke out. By that time, the debate in the U.S. regarding slavery was pretty much over, actual conflict was nearly underway. The Dred Scott decision had already been handed down, and John Brown had begun his ill-fated campaign. “Darwinism”=Slavery?

Do you actually know the name of the book? We call it the Origin of Species, the full title is "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." Which favored races was he talking about?

Ramon Sandoval said: Do you actually know the name of the book? We call it the Origin of Species, the full title is "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." Which favored races was he talking about?

Tiny Bulcher said:

Ramon Sandoval said: Do you actually know the name of the book? We call it the Origin of Species, the full title is "On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life." Which favored races was he talking about?

Finches.

This RCHARD DAWKIN ignoramus just said that anyone who beleives in creation and intelegent design as being stupid WELL LOOK MR DUMB BELLL DAWKINS YOU JUST CALLED SOME OF THE GREATEST MOVERS AND SHAKERS IN SCIENCE AS STUPID BUT WHAT ELSE CAN YOU EVER EXPECT FROM SOME LIBERAL IDIOT WHO DESPITE HIS SO CALLED KNOWLAGE IS ACUIALY VERY IGNORANT

Birdzilla said: This RCHARD DAWKIN ignoramus just said that anyone who beleives in creation and intelegent design as being stupid WELL LOOK MR DUMB BELLL DAWKINS YOU JUST CALLED SOME OF THE GREATEST MOVERS AND SHAKERS IN SCIENCE AS STUPID BUT WHAT ELSE CAN YOU EVER EXPECT FROM SOME LIBERAL IDIOT WHO DESPITE HIS SO CALLED KNOWLAGE IS ACUIALY VERY IGNORANT

Aramaic, you mean?

Stop worrying about Evolution and Creation. They don't matter. Here is our real problem. In 1973 the world's population was 3.9 Billion people. In 2009 the world's population is 6.8 Billion people. Experts predict that by the year 2050 the world's population will be 9.1 Billion people. The population of the United States had an increase of 11 Million people from 2003 to 2008. So as you can clearly see the world's population is constantly increasing. Japan has already cut their people back to one child per family. And even then their population will still continue to increase. If there's poverty, starvation, global warming and a hole in the ozone layer now, what do you think it will be like in 500 years? If people continue to over populate one day in the future the entire world will be nothing but one big giant New Yrk City. When that happens and the ozone layer is completely gone your future generations are going to suffer hell like they've never suffered hell before. In the future on Christmas Day your generations will have a dead human body on their table for food because there won't be anythingelse to eat. If you don't want this to happen then I suggest that you stop creating and tell your children when they grow up not to create. If you don't then your future generations will suffer a total disaster. Spread this message to the entire world.

I, literally, stumbled accross, and read with interest the preceding "discussion" of one of my articles. For those interested in the whole truth visit the whole article link: http://www.csama.org/csanews/nws200807.pdf. Many more articles are also available at: http://www.csama.org/CSA-NLTR.HTM.

I will make only one comment on the assorted drivel above. The above remark was fascinating: "That man is not just a creationist, but he’s a young earth creationist (thus, being even more dismally ignorant of basic science)". I not only attended college on a Physics scholarship, and have two degrees in "basic science" but have studied and practiced it for many years since. I still observe that not one principle (much less experiment) of "basic science" supports either old earth or evolutionism.

Those are two fairly important facts of basic science.

Tom Willis said: I still observe that not one principle (much less experiment) of "basic science" supports either old earth or evolutionism.

Tom Willis has also advocated rounding up all scientists that know creationism is mythology and killing them all.

Very biblical. Genocide is all through the Old Testament.

So Tom, who is on your To Kill for jesus list? How many? Millions I'm sure, maybe billions.

The current record holder is a fundie xian theologian named Rushdoony. He wanted to kill 99% of the US population and start over. As a Rushdooney class psychopath, you can do better.

d=10^(m-M+5)/5

raven said: Tom Willis has also advocated rounding up all scientists that know creationism is mythology and killing them all. Very biblical. Genocide is all through the Old Testament. So Tom, who is on your To Kill for jesus list? How many? Millions I'm sure, maybe billions. The current record holder is a fundie xian theologian named Rushdoony. He wanted to kill 99% of the US population and start over. As a Rushdooney class psychopath, you can do better.

He claims to have studied physics and still gets the thermodynamics wrong in the same way all creationists do. Nothing new here; we already know why.

Tom wrote:

"I still observe that not one principle (much less experiment) of “basic science” supports either old earth or evolutionism."

Well, that depends on how well read you are now doesn't it? Here is a list of scientrific peer-reviewed journals. The editors of these publications, as well as over one miliion peer-reviewed journal articles disagree with you:

Science
Nature
Genetics
Cell
Evolution
Systematics
Journal of Molecular Phylogenetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Journal of Botany
Journal of Zoology
PNAS

The list goes on and on, but I think you get the idea. Your ignorance is evidence of nothing but your ignorance. I would advise you to increase your knowledge.

Tom Willis said: I still observe that not one principle (much less experiment) of "basic science" supports either old earth or evolutionism.

via Pigeonchess.com: “Should Evolutionists Be Allowed to Roam Free in the Land?” August 23, 2008 Creationist nut-job Tom Willis (Creation Science Association for Mid-America), apparently without a sense of irony, accuses evolutionists of being Nazis/communists (or at least fellow travelers of the Nazis and communists) and concludes from this that it might be a good idea to (amongst other possibilities) round up evolutionists and put them in forced labor camps. Other options include torturing recantations out of evolutionists, forcing them to wear identifying signs or plaques, or perhaps forced relocations to Antarctica (or Mars).

Tom,

I went to that site (God help me). I found exactly what was described above. I specifically found that you advocate denying anyone who believes in evolution the right to vote in this country. Do you deny that this is your position? Do you think that this would be legal in this country? Do you think that anyone who does not belong to your particular religion, whatever that may be, should be allowed to vote, or does your prejudice only apply to those who you label atheist?

Now Tom, you do know that most trained scientists believe in evolution, don't you? If you disenfranchise all of them, how many more scientific discoveries do you think that they will be willing to share with you? In that case, all of those communists and others that you apparently hate so vehemently will be able to walk right in and take over the country. Then, you will be the one who can no longer vote.

Thanks for displaying the type of Christian love that draws people to your religion. I'm sure everyone got the message loud and clear.

Tom Willis: Labor camps. Their fellow believers were high on these. But, my position would be that most of them have lived their lives at, or near the public trough. So, after their own beliefs, their life should continue only as long as they can support themselves in the camps. Require them to wear placards around their neck, or perhaps large medallions which prominently announce "Warning: Evolutionist! Mentally Incompetent - Potentially Dangerous." I consider this option too dangerous. Since evolutionists are liars and most do not really believe evolution we could employ truth serum or water-boarding to obtain confessions of evolution rejection. But, this should, at most, result in parole, because, like Muslims, evolutionist religion permits them to lie if there is any benefit to them. An Evolutionist Colony in Antarctica could be a promising option. Of course inspections would be required to prevent too much progress. They might invent gunpowder. A colony on Mars would prevent gunpowder from harming anyone but their own kind, in the unlikely event they turned out to be intelligent enough to invent it.

Tom,

It seems like putting creationists into concentration camps in Antartica would be more efficient. After all, you wouldn't have to check periodically to make sure they did not invent something.

DS said: Tom, It seems like putting creationists into concentration camps in Antartica would be more efficient. After all, you wouldn't have to check periodically to make sure they did not invent something.