Congratulations to Jeff McKee, recently elected AAAS Fellow

Posted 26 December 2008 by Richard B. Hoppe

Jeff McKee, professor of anthropology at the Ohio State University, was recently elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in the anthropology section. According to the linked press release, the honor was "For distinguished contributions to paleoanthropology, evolutionary biology, and science education." That last, "science education," has to refer at least in part to Jeff's leading role in the intelligent design creationism wars at the Ohio State Board of Education from 2002 to 2006. Jeff was one of the stalwarts in that battle, standing firm in the face of unflattering comments from creationist former members Deborah Owens-Fink and Father Michael Cochran. Jeff was also a central figure in exposing the attempted subversion of the Ohio State University's degree granting process by packing a creationist's doctoral committee (see here and here for accounts). Jeff is a distinguished paleoanthropologist specializing in human evolution, and has made significant contributions to both the academic discipline and to science education. And he's a very nice guy, to boot. Many thanks, Jeff! And kudos to AAAS for recognizing a man who has been a strong defender of honest science in the public schools.

49 Comments

Ron Okimoto · 26 December 2008

Congrats to Mckee.

What happened to Leonard?

David Huber · 26 December 2008

Congratulations Jeff! Thanks for your commitment to defending science.

mplavcan · 26 December 2008

Congrats Jeff!

Glenn Branch · 26 December 2008

McKee's review of the old-earth creationist book Who Was Adam?, published in Reports of the NCSE, may be of interest.

RBH · 26 December 2008

Ron Okimoto said: Congrats to Mckee. What happened to Leonard?

AFAIK he's still registered as a graduate student at Ohio State, thought nothing new has been published since the postponement of his Ph.D. final oral.

novparl · 27 December 2008

Yes, congratulations to Jeff for saving mankind - whoops, personkind - from the evil creationists who just want to destroy science. (Altho' strangely we love the Internet. Also electricity is very useful. Etc. etc. So we won't destroy them JUST yet!!!)

Evil creationists, out on the spree
Doomed from here to eternity
Now Science have mercy on such as we
Bah bah bah.

Frank J · 27 December 2008

Evil creationists, out on the spree Doomed from here to eternity.
— novparl

Great news! Creationists and "don't call me a creationist" IDers are saved from doom with a second chance to develop their alternative "theories!"

fnxtr · 27 December 2008

novparl said: Yes, congratulations to Jeff for saving mankind - whoops, personkind - from the evil creationists who just want to destroy science.

Not all science. Just the part that reveals facts contradictory to received wisdom. Somehow they can't figure out that it's all connected. If field effect transistors work, then radio-isotope dating is accurate, and so on...

Paul Burnett · 27 December 2008

novparl said:...electricity is very useful. Etc. etc. So we won't destroy them JUST yet!!!)

Do you know how many creationists it takes to change a light bulb? None. They've invented torches.

Frank J · 27 December 2008

Do you know how many creationists it takes to change a light bulb? None. They’ve invented torches.

In all fairness they did invent the switch. They needed something to follow the bait.

mplavcan · 27 December 2008

Yes, the irony is rich, isn't it? They use the products of science to undermine science so that it doesn't conflict with their religious dogma. Then claim they are defending science. Then whine that they are being picked on.

novparl said: Yes, congratulations to Jeff for saving mankind - whoops, personkind - from the evil creationists who just want to destroy science. (Altho' strangely we love the Internet. Also electricity is very useful. Etc. etc. So we won't destroy them JUST yet!!!)

Jeff McKee · 27 December 2008

Thanks, Dick Hoppe, for the fine post, and thanks to those of you who gave congratulations. I feel honored in many ways, and remain committed to serve science education through Sigma Xi's Science Cafe Columbus, OSU's "Darwin - The Growth of an Idea" project, the new OSU minor in "Interdisciplinary Evolutionary Studies," and any other venue I think of in the future.

To the creationists of any brand (young earth, old earth, and ID, etc.), I'm FAR from done with you. Nobody in the scientific community will let you snatch away objective reality for popular spin. Science literacy is what we're all about.

Bush's war on science is about to end, and a renewed age of American reason will finally rise again from both the grass roots and the higher echelons.

Wheels · 27 December 2008

Jeff McKee said: Bush's war on science is about to end, and a renewed age of American reason will finally rise again from both the grass roots and the higher echelons.

Couldn't happen soon enough. Congratulations on your election!

Frank J · 28 December 2008

To the creationists of any brand (young earth, old earth, and ID, etc.), I’m FAR from done with you.
— Jeff McKee

Apologies for not adding congratulations to my other comments. Thanks especially for mentioning the different "brands." As you probably know, it's still a well-kept secret among the general public how different anti-evolutionists often differ as much or more from each other regarding "what happened when", whether scripture counts as evidence, etc., as they do with mainstream science. But that they, IDers especially, mostly cover up their irreconcilable differences for the sake of the big tent.

Paul Burnett · 28 December 2008

Frank J said: ...it's still a well-kept secret among the general public how different anti-evolutionists often differ as much or more from each other regarding "what happened when", whether scripture counts as evidence, etc., as they do with mainstream science. But that they, IDers especially, mostly cover up their irreconcilable differences for the sake of the big tent.

We should then take every opportunity to expose that secret and exploit that weakness. We should make every effort to re-engage the OECs and the YECs against each other by emphasizing their differences. We must point out to both OECs and YECs the heretical removal of the "good parts" of the Genesis myth by Johnson et al following the 1987 US Supreme Court decision against "creation science."

Henry J · 28 December 2008

But that they, IDers especially, mostly cover up their irreconcilable differences for the sake of the big tent.

To all in (big) tents and purposes, yeah.

FL · 28 December 2008

To the creationists of any brand (young earth, old earth, and ID, etc.), I’m FAR from done with you.

Oooooooh, now that's what I like to hear! Complacency is my enemy. It took a Goliath to motivate David to move from Shepherd-Mode to Slingshot-Mode. Kudos to new AAAS Fellow Jeff McKee. MOTIVATE me, dude!! FL

mplavcan · 28 December 2008

While the story arms David with stones, sadly all you have to fling is mud and BS.

FL said:
To the creationists of any brand (young earth, old earth, and ID, etc.), I’m FAR from done with you.
Oooooooh, now that's what I like to hear! Complacency is my enemy. It took a Goliath to motivate David to move from Shepherd-Mode to Slingshot-Mode. Kudos to new AAAS Fellow Jeff McKee. MOTIVATE me, dude!! FL

Stanton · 28 December 2008

If complacency is your enemy, FL, then how come you've never ever bothered to explain any of your extraordinary and factually bankrupt claims, such as how your "three-plank" hypothesis helps explain Intelligent Design, or why the birth of Jesus Christ disproves evolution even though evolution has been observed hundreds of thousands of times through several centuries, or even why we should teach Intelligent Design in a science classroom, or even why we should adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible to the letter while not stoning wearers of polyester or eaters of shellfish, pork and gravy to death as proscribed in Leviticus? If I didn't know better, FL, it would appear to me that complacency is a bosom buddy of yours, joined at the hip.

FL said:
To the creationists of any brand (young earth, old earth, and ID, etc.), I’m FAR from done with you.
Oooooooh, now that's what I like to hear! Complacency is my enemy. It took a Goliath to motivate David to move from Shepherd-Mode to Slingshot-Mode. Kudos to new AAAS Fellow Jeff McKee. MOTIVATE me, dude!! FL

novparl · 29 December 2008

@ Jeff McKee

You're FAR from done with us! We tremble! You sound, not like an academic, but like Dick Cheney.

Incidentally, if anyone remembers me using the existence of 500 trillion synapses as a proof of Design, I hereby withdraw it. It was based on the (unimpressive) New Scientist. A more likely figure is 100 trillion. (See Steven Rose's excellent multiple book review in Saturday's Guardian.)

Now I'm done for! By FAR!

Dan · 29 December 2008

FL said:
To the creationists of any brand (young earth, old earth, and ID, etc.), I’m FAR from done with you.
Oooooooh, now that's what I like to hear!

Note typical creationist "logic": proof by stretching out vowels.

KP · 29 December 2008

FL said: It took a Goliath to motivate David to move from Shepherd-Mode to Slingshot-Mode. FL

Hi FL, me again. I'm confused: David "slew" Goliath with a slingshot (1 Samuel 17:50)? I thought it says he "slew" and decapitated Goliath with Goliath's sword (1 Samuel 17:51). So what is the etymology of "slew?" Sounds like it means "knocked down" and "stabbed to death" from one verse to the next. So are you threatening to just knock Jeff down or are you threatening to intellectually behead him? Or are you going to send in Elhanan instead (2 Samuel 21:19, New International Version)?

John Kwok · 29 December 2008

My dear FL: After I find some Klingons to dispense justice to Bill Dembski - who will understand why Klingon Cosmology makes more sense than his favorite mendacious intellectual pornography, Intelligent Design creationism, as he is punished - then I will ask them to take care of you so we don't have to read more inane ditherings of yours like this one:

FL said:
To the creationists of any brand (young earth, old earth, and ID, etc.), I’m FAR from done with you.
Oooooooh, now that's what I like to hear! Complacency is my enemy. It took a Goliath to motivate David to move from Shepherd-Mode to Slingshot-Mode. Kudos to new AAAS Fellow Jeff McKee. MOTIVATE me, dude!! FL

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone), John Kwok

Paul Burnett · 29 December 2008

KP said: David "slew" Goliath with a slingshot (1 Samuel 17:50)? I thought it says he "slew" and decapitated Goliath with Goliath's sword (1 Samuel 17:51). So what is the etymology of "slew?" Sounds like it means "knocked down" and "stabbed to death" from one verse to the next.

"Slew" is the past tense of "slay" - "to kill violently." (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slew ) So David killed Goliath violently, with a headshot from a sling, and then cut his head off his dead body. And David used a sling, which is totally different from a slingshot. A sling is a serious and far more deadly weapon than a slingshot - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon).

KP · 29 December 2008

Paul Burnett said: "Slew" is the past tense of "slay" - "to kill violently." (See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slew ) So David killed Goliath violently, with a headshot from a sling, and then cut his head off his dead body.

I know, I'm just picking on FL. In a separate thread he was throwing out biblical stuff that he claimed "disproved" evolution. I respond by bogging him down in some inconsistencies that point out that he shouldn't be using the Bible in a science discussion.

And David used a sling, which is totally different from a slingshot. A sling is a serious and far more deadly weapon than a slingshot - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sling_(weapon).

"Slingshot" was FL's word, not mine. So my (rhetorical) question to FL, then, is if the sling killed him (verse 50) why was it necessary to slay/kill him again (verse 51)? And in case anyone misses the point/relevance, FL was saying "bring it on" to Jeff McKee and comparing himself to David taking on Goliath, so I say (ironically) "Huh?"

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams · 29 December 2008

FL said:
To the creationists of any brand (young earth, old earth, and ID, etc.), I’m FAR from done with you.
Oooooooh, now that's what I like to hear! Complacency is my enemy. It took a Goliath to motivate David to move from Shepherd-Mode to Slingshot-Mode. Kudos to new AAAS Fellow Jeff McKee. MOTIVATE me, dude!! FL

That's right, FL, don't piss off a Shepherd . . . cSa

FL · 29 December 2008

FL was saying “bring it on” to Jeff McKee

Better read McKee's post again, KP. Carefully this time. Seems pretty clear who's saying "bring it on" around here. After all, McKee is "FAR" (his emphasis) from being "done" with his targets of choice. I merely expressed sincere appreciation for McKee's declaration. Nothing wrong with that. ******

I respond by bogging him (FL) down in some inconsistencies

Did you, KP? I think not. I chose not to interfere with a PT contributor's thread topic, and so I declined using that particular thread to answer your question. That was clearly stated, btw. I asked multiple times for a separate thread in which I could discuss what you said. You and others openly chose to decline my request. ****** But...if it's just a matter of eliminating your alleged inconsistency, KP, you need to know that such an elimination has taken place literally for decades. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/chronology-conundrums http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1834 http://www.duncanproductions.com/SBCOC/faq/contradictions/lineage_of_jesus.htm http://www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm http://contenderministries.org/discrepancies/contradictions.php#2 http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con080.asp http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/mt1-1.html http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/birth2.html http://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/5_6/genealogy And this doesn't even count the late Dr. Gleason Archer's explanation in his classic 1982 text Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. ************** Now, let's you and I put it in perspective. I brought up a suggestion prior to Christmas: to let me (or a PT regular) initiate a guest-thread focussed on confirming or disconfirming my claim that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ serves to negate and refute evolution. Your initial response, KP, was to try to eliminate my claim by directly attacking the historicity of the Virgin Birth itself. How? NOT by citing anything from the current body of scientific research and knowledge, (so much for your phrase "science discussion"), but by bringing up the old skeptic-chestnut of alleging a rational inconsistency, alleging contradictory genealogies in Matthew and Luke. But now, you have 9 online sources plus OT professor Dr. Gleason Archer's textbook explanation, (next time you visit the religion section at your local library), that all offer very rational, very plausible, very Scriptural explanations that reconcile and resolve your alleged contradiction. Ten good sources in all. At this point, your rational objection is effectively, well, Tsunami'ed. And it's been that way for decades, KP, not just here and now. Your objection is long defeated. ******* Let's wrap it up, KP. All I did was make a suggestion for a separate thread topic. You guys weren't required to say yes, and you indeed did not say yes. But if you HAD said yes, I would have been quite willing and able to satisfactorily discuss the topic with you, including the far-reaching implications of the Virgin Birth for evolution. But for now, the topic on the table is the newly elected fellow of the AAAS, Jeff McKee. Having answered your post KP, my intentions are to stay with the thread topic. Last word goes to commentator Albert Barnes:

No difficulty was ever found, or alleged, in regard to them (the Mattthew-Luke genealogies), by any of the early enemies of Christianity. There is no evidence that they ever adduced them as containing a contradiction. Many of those enemies were acute, learned, and able; and they show by their writings that they were not indisposed to detect all the errors that could possibly be found in the sacred narrative. Now it is to be remembered that the Jews were fully competent to show that these tables were incorrect, if they were really so; and it is clear that they were fully disposed, if possible, to do it. The fact, therefore, that it is not done, is clear evidence that they thought it to be correct. The same may be said of the acute pagans who wrote against Christianity. None of them have called in question the correctness of these tables. This is full proof that, in a time when it was easy to understand these tables, they were believed to be correct.

Dan · 29 December 2008

FL said: But...if it's just a matter of eliminating your alleged inconsistency, KP, you need to know that such an elimination has taken place literally for decades.

In fact, much longer than decades ... Saint Augustine had his hand in this business in the fourth century. The inconsistencies can indeed be eliminated, but only by abandoning a "literal, straightforward reading" of the Bible. So given that we must abandon a literal, straightforward reading of the Bible, why do creationists insist on a literal, straightforward reading of Genesis 1? I like Augustine's answer, given in his work "The Literal Meaning of Genesis".

Saint Augustine said: Usually, 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.

Stanton · 29 December 2008

So how come you still refuse to explain specifically why Jesus Christ's birth refutes evolution despite the fact that evolution has been observed for literally centuries?

It appears that you've just made a liar out of yourself yet again by remaining complacent in refusing to explain your factually bankrupt claims.

FL · 29 December 2008

The inconsistencies can indeed be eliminated, but only by abandoning a “literal, straightforward reading” of the Bible.

On the contrary. NONE of the explanatory links given to you makes any attempt to appeal to any non-literal categories (parable, allegory, metaphor, etc) to resolve the alleged "contradiction." NONE of the explanatory links deny the literal historicity of the two genealogies on the table. NONE of the links treat the two genealogies as anything but actual history, which is what biblical genealogies are meant to convey. These genealogies were, after all, meant to show the Jewish people that indeed Jesus was of the correct lineage ("and therefore that there was no argument from his ancestry that he was not the promised Messiah", Albert Barnes.) That would mean having to be literally correct when it came to the historical claims and names--not "non-literal", not "allegorical", not "historically false but spiritually true", none of the skeptical excuses. Literal history is being appealed to in those genealogies because historical accuracy absolutely mattered to the intended audience of that time. Genealogies were no joke to them. *********************** So, as mentioned in one of the links,

The alleged contradiction doesn't exist once we have carefully studied the scriptures and know the history and genealogical references.

That's the real point: that no contradiction exists in those texts in the first place. Like Barnes said, even those Early Jews and Pagans who were already inclined to dissect and critique and attack, found nothing to dissect and critique and attack when it came to the Matthew-Luke genealogies. If you are willing to do enough biblical homework from the biblical texts and contexts, the correct answer is YES YOU CAN resolve KP's alleged contradiction while remaining true to what you called a "literal, straightforward reading." You see multiple examples already with these links. *****************************

I do not want to give anyone the impression that there are NO difficulties in these genealogies. They are full of issues, 'surprises', perplexing items. But, at the same time, we have so many proposed explanations for each of these, that we are simply not in a position to criticize (much less DECIDE AGAINST!) the historicity of these accounts. --- Glenn Miller

***************************** And that's where the whole thing stands today, Dan. That allegation of contradiction is simply deceased, demised, defunct, dematerialized. Like, DEAD! And what of St. Augustine? Oh, yes, that's the guy who believed that God created everything INSTANTLY. The earth. The animals. The humans. Instantly. NOT over a 4.6 billion year timespan. Instantly. IOW, St. Augustine is The Ultimate YEC, and that's the guy you trust enough to quote from. (Hey, were you going to let your fellow evolutionists in on Augie's little secret while you were quoting him.....?) FL :)

Dave Luckett · 29 December 2008

"None of them have called in question the correctness of these tables. This is full proof that, in a time when it was easy to understand these tables, they were believed to be correct."

Garbage. Anybody who argues from the silence of ancient sources is talking nonsense, nearly every time. When he relies on the silence of sources that the Christian church, once it got into control in the fourth century, was most concerned to destroy, deface, burn and remove, he is talking redoubled nonsense. And when he calls this "full proof", he is only demonstrating how wretchedly threadbare is his arsenal of facts.

Dave Luckett · 30 December 2008

FL, can you really not tell the difference between a repeated assertion and a fact? And can you really think that acceptance of some of a man's ideas must mean acceptance of all of them? Can you really be so blind to reality that you think that Augustine's creationism - the universal opinion of the day - has anything to do with his esteem for factual knowledge? We reject creationism, including his. We agree with his skeptical attitude towards the scriptures, and his certainty - so unlike your attitude - that observed and attested fact may contradict some parts of the holy writings without endangering the Faith he laboured to establish.

I don't think you are really that stupid. I think you really know that your arguments are shoddy and foolish and plainly false to fact, and that this is blatantly obvious to others. I think that the only reason you argue is to convince yourself. Your faith is so fragile that it needs constant reiteration. It has to be repeatedly asserted in all its supposed ramifications, with full denial of fact, saying black is white and all shades of grey to boot, and anything intractible by this method must be steadfastly ignored. You have to do this because otherwise it all falls apart and you find yourself staring into the abyss.

Egos get like that. As they expand to fill the Universe, growing towards the full-blown glory of solipsism, they become ever more and more vulnerable. Your faith is like that, FL. You cannot tolerate the slightest check, the smallest indication that the scriptures are fallible on fact. That would be definitive proof that they were written by fallible human beings, doing the best they knew, but fallible nevertheless. And that would be just dreadful, because, as you have indicated above, you can't imagine that part of a body of ideas might be true, without it all being true, and the same for falsity. It's all or nothing, for you, FL. The intellectual world you inhabit consists of things that are wholly true or wholly false. There is nothing else.

I wonder where that foolish idea comes from. Who taught you that? Where did you come by it?

KP · 30 December 2008

FL said: But...if it's just a matter of eliminating your alleged inconsistency, KP, you need to know that such an elimination has taken place literally for decades.

I must admit to being curious as to how y'all defend some of these things and I further admit to not having bothered to look it all up myself, so thanks for the links. I'll peruse these when I have time, but don't hold your breath.

Last word goes to commentator Albert Barnes:
No difficulty was ever found, or alleged, in regard to them (the Mattthew-Luke genealogies), ....

Let's take this quote at its word. "No difficulty was ever found..." Then why are the two genealogies different? Different number of generations, different people, and Joseph has two different fathers. I don't see anything in the Barnes quote that resolves these issues other than some blanket statement that says the "enemies of Christianity" were unable to find any difficulty. The two versions are right there in print! So I guess I'll have to wade through all your links. And I apologize, FL, I was baiting you with my last post and that was probably unfair given our recent history.

Stanton · 30 December 2008

KP said: And I apologize, FL, I was baiting you with my last post and that was probably unfair given our recent history.

If FL is too cowardly to ever explain why the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ can somehow miraculously disprove "descent with modification," did you honestly expect him to be dim enough to take your piffling genealogy bait?

KP · 30 December 2008

FL said: But...if it's just a matter of eliminating your alleged inconsistency, KP, you need to know that such an elimination has taken place literally for decades. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/chronology-conundrums http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1834 http://www.duncanproductions.com/SBCOC/faq/contradictions/lineage_of_jesus.htm

A quick glance at your first three sites reveals, surprise-surprise, another contradiction. The first two sites try to say that Luke's genealogy is actually that of Mary (no history of Mary is ever given), yet the third site says "there is no evidence for this and the text itself says "Joseph, the son of Heli", so that this is clearly not the genealogy of Mary, but Joseph." And, anyway, in this thread, I was grilling you on the David/Goliath story. I agree that McKee did the initial calling out, but you responded by comparing yourself to David and I likened your "Oooooh..." comment to "Bring it on."

novparl · 30 December 2008

FL - I hesitate to disagree with a fellow creationist, but there really is very little archaeological support for the O.T.

It appears that Israel was just a small state surrounding a village called Jerusalem.

Weekend archaeology is very popular in Israel so if there were much support for the O.T. it would have been found.

Nevertheless, the Bible is much better than "The God Delusion" as it talks about love, which Darwin, Dawkins etc. see as purely about sexual selection.

Best wishes.

Wolfhound · 30 December 2008

novparl said: Nevertheless, the Bible is much better than "The God Delusion" as it talks about love, which Darwin, Dawkins etc. see as purely about sexual selection.

'Cause there are few things that True Christians(tm) find more icky and objectionable than sex. I must admit to missing the "love" part of the Bible. Must have been mixed in with all that smiting, war, and genocide.

Frank J · 30 December 2008

IOW, St. Augustine is The Ultimate YEC, and that’s the guy you trust enough to quote from.
— FL

Given when he lived it would not surprise me if he were a geocentrist or a flat-earther too. But do you honestly think that he'd be a YEC if he were alive today and had access to many centuries of additional evidence? My guess is that he'd be a TE like Francis Collins. But if he were any "kind" of creationist, specifically if he denied common descent, it would be "progressive OEC". The last thing I think he would go for is the "don't ask, don't tell" ID approach.

Richard · 30 December 2008

I doubt he was a flat-earther. Most educated people weren't back then.

Dan · 30 December 2008

FL said: Last word goes to commentator Albert Barnes:
The fact, therefore, that it is not done, is clear evidence that they thought it [the Matthew-Luke genealogies] to be correct. The same may be said of the acute pagans who wrote against Christianity. None of them have called in question the correctness of these tables. This is full proof that, in a time when it was easy to understand these tables, they were believed to be correct.

What a strange "argument"!! "The ancients thought it to be correct, so that's full proof that it is correct." Look at some parallels: "The ancients didn't build airplanes, so that's full proof that heavier-than-air flight is impossible." "The ancients thought the sun orbited the earth, so that's full proof that the sun orbits the earth." "The ancients thought that the world was created in six days, so that's full proof that the world was created in six days."

Dan · 30 December 2008

FL said: And what of St. Augustine? Oh, yes, that's the guy who believed that God created everything INSTANTLY. The earth. The animals. The humans. Instantly.

I support the argument of Saint Augustine that I quoted. I do not support all positions of Saint Augustine. For example, Saint Augustine was an admitted thief (he stole pears from an orchard and wrote about it in his Confessions) and I do not support thievery. FL is making an elementary mistake of logic: He confuses support of a position with support of a person.

Dan · 30 December 2008

FL said: And what of St. Augustine? Oh, yes, that's the guy who believed that God created everything INSTANTLY. The earth. The animals. The humans. Instantly.

Saint Augustine's beliefs about creation are described well in http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/PSCF3-88Young.html Augustine did indeed hold that God created all things instantly, not over a span of six days. He held that the six days of Genesis represented a logical, not a temporal, progression. This is proof that he did not hold to a literal, straightforward reading of the Bible. It is also true that Augustine held his reading of Genesis to be provisional, and subject to change as new interpretations and new scientific knowledge provided insight. For example, we have known since Einstein that the concept of simultaneity is not what Augustine thought it was. His beliefs involving "instant" rely on pre-relativistic concepts of space and time.

KP · 30 December 2008

Wolfhound said: 'Cause there are few things that True Christians(tm) find more icky and objectionable than sex. I must admit to missing the "love" part of the Bible. Must have been mixed in with all that smiting, war, and genocide.

What are you talking about?? There's all kinds of love and sex in the Bible, including incest, e.g., that part where Lot's daughters get him drunk and "lie down" with him and get pregnant (Genesis 19:30-38). Congratulations, Jeff. Sorry to contribute to getting a thread about you so far off topic, but when creationists come in here touting the Book, I feel the need to fire back.

novparl · 31 December 2008

@ Wolfhound (a good survival of the fittest name)

Why? Do you find any difficulty in getting hold of porno in Christian America? Any lack of extra-marital in Hollywood films?

Love? Try skimming the gospels. Where's the love in evolution? (Which starts with love, backwards.)It's about the fittest smiting the weaker. BTW, if you look at Chinese, Indian etc. history there's a lot of smiting in that.

I notice no-one can deal with a Krazy Kreationist who rejects the O.T. as just stories.

Dave Luckett · 31 December 2008

Nobody can deal with Krazies by reasoning with them, novparl. The insane live in a world of their own, and reason can't reach them.

Not that I'm looking at anyone here....

Dan · 31 December 2008

novparl said: Where's the love in evolution? (Which starts with love, backwards.)It's about the fittest smiting the weaker.

It's a common misconception that natural selection is "about the fittest smiting the weaker." In fact, "smiting" might or might not be involved in natural selection. The objective is not to smite, nor even to have as many children as possible: the objective is to have as many children as possible who then go on to have more children. This might involve having thousands of children, most of whom die, or a few children, most of whom live and go on to reproduce again. (The so-called "r-selection" and "K-selection", respectively.) The means for surviving and reproducing might involve a lot of smiting, or it might involve a lot of cooperation, or it might involve both. Love is certainly selected for in some cases: see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/ Another good resource (much more accessible!) is Stephen Jay Gould's essay "Kropotkin was no crackpot" http://libcom.org/library/kropotkin-was-no-crackpot Gould quotes Kropotkin as follows:

I failed to find – although I was eagerly looking for it – that bitter struggle for the means of existence among animals belonging to the same species, which was considered by most Darwinists (though not always by Darwin himself) as the dominant characteristic of struggle for life, and the main factor of evolution.

Gould goes on to say

Struggle does occur in many modes, and some lead to cooperation among members of a species as the best pathway to advantage for individuals. If Kropotkin overemphasized mutual aid, most Darwinians in Western Europe had exaggerated competition just as strongly.

To see whether strength or weakness is an advantage, just look at the scorecard: There are about 6 x 10⁹ "strong" humans on this planet, and about 5 x 10³⁰ "weak" bacteria.

phantomreader42 · 31 December 2008

novparl said: I notice no-one can deal with a Krazy Kreationist who rejects the O.T. as just stories.

You have nothing to deal with. Creationism in all its forms is just empty nonsense and delusion. If you disagree with this analysis, show us some evidence. You won't, because you can't. Who created what, when, where, why, how? How do you know? Do you have even a wild guess how to answer any of these questions? Any interest in even looking for answers? Where's the evidence for creation? Until you can provide that, you have nothing worth addressing. Where are your facts? You don't have any. Just the same old bullshit and lies.

novparl · 2 January 2009

@ Dave Luckett - Dan seems to be debating with me - does that make you angry? It should.

@ Phantomreader - My facts - same old facts.

e.g. more people alive than ever before yet no evolution.

6 billion items of DNA in every cell.

100 trillion connections in the brain.

Just shouting "irreducible complexity is BS!" just proves how unscientific y'all are.

Have an angry day.

Dave Luckett · 2 January 2009

And here I was thinking that anger was a deadly sin, especially anger against the afflicted. No, novparl, I'm not angry with you. Slightly incredulous that a person who is actually capable of constructing a sentence could display such inchoate ignorance and illogic as yours, but not angry.

Imagine: after recommending anger to me, you have the breathtaking gall to accuse me of feeling it. To the blind hypocrisy of calling yourself a Christian after venting that wish, you add yet another argument composed of nothing but ignorance and personal incredulity, and top it off with projection in heroic amounts.