But it's not about religion ...

looks like they fear Collins is eroding their support base - here's hoping!

Pharyngula: The Discovery Institute -{ }new website, Faith and Evolution, which asks, can one be a Christian and accept evolution? The answer, {}, is a resounding: No.

Pharyngula: The Discovery Institute -{ }new website, Faith and Evolution, which asks, can one be a Christian and accept evolution? The answer, {}, is a resounding: No.

it looks to me like the Disco ‘Tute is pulling itself further and further into a fundamentalist Christian corner, joining the ICR and AIG.

. Wells knows more about the scientific implications of new genetic knowledge than the former head of the Human Genome project.

According to PZ Myers, the new website’s most salient feature is that it claims that most xians are Fake Xians. This is new and a truly malignant and dumb idea.

Karen S. said:

According to PZ Myers, the new website’s most salient feature is that it claims that most xians are Fake Xians. This is new and a truly malignant and dumb idea.

I don't think it's a new idea-- Hasn't AIG always considered those believers who disagree with them to be non-Christians, or at least seriously compromised Chrstians?

Karen S. said:

According to PZ Myers, the new website’s most salient feature is that it claims that most xians are Fake Xians. This is new and a truly malignant and dumb idea.

I don't think it's a new idea-- Hasn't AIG always considered those believers who disagree with them to be non-Christians, or at least seriously compromised Chrstians?

Yup. But this Faith_Evolution site is a direct attack not only on theistic evolutionists’ Christianity, but also on evangelicals who are evolutionary creationists.

raven said: Geocentrism is making a comeback and the Flat Earth may be close behind.

You keep saying this, but, I find it extremely difficult to believe that the staff of the Discovery Institute, or even their financier, Henry Ahmanson Jr, believe that believing in Geocentrism and or a Flat Earth is mandatory for being a Christian fanatic.

raven said: Flat Earthism still has its adherents as I and others documented last thread.

So believe whatever you want. Presuppositionalism allows you to believe anything.

raven said: I didn't say the DI is pushing Geocentrism or Flat Earthism. That was the YECs. Neither did I say that even the YECs are making Geocentrism or Flat Earthism litmus tests for Real Xians(tm),....yet.

In point of fact, one prominent YEC kook, Willis of Kansas/Arkansas has been pushing Geocentrism along with herding all evolutionary biologists into concentration camps for ultimate disposal. He would be easy to dismiss as mentally ill or something but he is a leader of creationism in that area.

Karen S. said: Of course, and as I recall, O'Leary decided that Francis Collins was an intellectual lightweight!! Unbelievable.

James F said:

Karen S. said: Of course, and as I recall, O'Leary decided that Francis Collins was an intellectual lightweight!! Unbelievable.

Francis Collins, former NHGRI director, member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, Presidential Medal of Freedom winner, co-author of literally hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers....an intellectual lightweight? *snkx* *pfft* BWWWWAAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA! *wipes tears away* Oh, that was a good one. Thanks. :)

One wonders why the DI even bother setting up more and more websites which will just rehash the Same Old Shit in new layouts. And this one is pretty obviously just a shell which hosts very little "original" content, most of the answers on their Questions pages simply link to off-site IDist essasy.

They put so much effort into building empty facades, it's almost like an obsession.

Richard B. Hoppe said: The IDist agenda is at base theological, not scientific. [...]

Eric Finn said:

I do not fully understand, why theological issues should be discussed to the extent they are discussed at a basically scientifically oriented site, such as PT.

PT is indeed a basically scientifically oriented site; but as I understand it, it is specifically oriented towards the defence of the modern Theory of Evolution against irrational and antirational attacks, especially from creationists and proponents of the creationism-by-stealth scheme called "intelligent design". That defence necessarily includes refuting accusations (typically levelled by creationists) that the Theory of Evolution implies atheism, racism, "laissez-faire" capitalism, xenophobia, callousness, amorality, ruthlessness or other evils. The very act of refuting these baseless charges requires evidence and argument from such sources as theology, history, sociology, philosophy, and the like. It is therefore reasonable to expect that issues in these fields, where they impact on the defence of the Theory of Evolution, should be discussed here.

Eric Finn said: I do not fully understand, why theological issues should be discussed to the extent they are discussed at a basically scientifically oriented site, such as PT.

From the Hunter article:

"Evolutionists often ignore or deny the problem of unexpected findings and theory complexity. They attempt to discredit the facts, referring to them as “tired old arguments,” or fallacies. Rarely do evolutionists follow-up such criticisms with supporting details. Until such details are provided we cannot know if these criticisms are sound."

I believe that the technical term for such a logical fallacy is argumentum ignoratum, or possibly argumentum hypocriticum, take your pick.

Look, there are liteerally millions of articles in peer reviewed journals on evolutionary biology, there are virtually NONE for any viable alternative. To argue that science has not provided enough "details" is simply absurd. Just because you are ignorant of the "details" does not mean that they do not exist. Now if this Hunter charracter is to be taken seriously, why not provide a link to Talk Origins and let everyone see the "details" for themselves? Why not let people see that most creationist arguments come from the time of Darwin and that they basically haven't come up with anything new in 150 years? Why not let everyone see that all of their attempts to deal with modern evolutionary biology are dismal failures?

there are virtually NONE for any viable alternative

DS quoting hunter: “Evolutionists often ignore or deny the problem of unexpected findings and theory complexity. They attempt to discredit the facts, referring to them as tired old arguments,” or fallacies.

Dave Luckett said: That defence necessarily includes refuting accusations (typically levelled by creationists) that the Theory of Evolution implies atheism, racism, "laissez-faire" capitalism, xenophobia, callousness, amorality, ruthlessness or other evils.

Like communism, fascism, cannibalism,

I can think of few things better for the next court case than plopping down a printout of the FaithAndEvolution website and saying, "We'd like to enter this into evidence, your Honor." If the DI wanted to demonstrate that their brand of religious antievolution was narrowly sectarian, they could hardly have done better at it.

I was looking at the new DI site last night. It was flashy and pretty. Definitely looking inviting and like it has authoritative information. One time when I clicked it open I got lots of nice looking "scientists" and philosophers talking about science and religion and ID--very nicely done. They LOOKED like people I could trust to provide valuable information.
It's simple, the DI wants to be sure ordinary, non scientist folks gets its views. Those views, on the surface, seem logical and backed up by evidence. So the average person with no time on their hands to do a little digging, with kids and full time jobs, gardens to tend and houses to clean, may accept what the site says at face value. So the DI repackaged some of it's stuff to be more mainstream and put it out there.

It's really all about marketing.

The NCSE or someone else needs an equally pretty user-friendly site to get to those same people before the DI does.
Most of the sites I go to aren't so pretty. Although the biologos site is OK, it's still dealing with religion. There's Michael Dowd's site http://thankgodforevolution.com/, trying to create a new evolution-based religion. Loved his wife when I met them once, but he's a little scary IMHO.
Are there sites already out there that really fill the bill?
Talk origins is great, so is PT, but for the average Jane, what's out there?

By the way, I'm not a scientist, (I am a Horticulturalist and Landscape Designer) but I love to learn and do as much reading about science as possible. Numbers and stats tend to overwhelm me but information on processes gets me excited. My 5 yo daughter and I admire nature and I'm raising her to seek to understand how the amazing evolutionary process works and especially to question the sources of information she gets. I really enjoy for some great info. My daughter loved the pic of the frigate.

If the DI wanted to demonstrate that their brand of religious antievolution was narrowly sectarian, they could hardly have done better at it.

Lynn said: I really enjoy for some great info. My daughter loved the pic of the frigate.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: I can think of few things better for the next court case than plopping down a printout of the FaithAndEvolution website and saying, "We'd like to enter this into evidence, your Honor." If the DI wanted to demonstrate that their brand of religious antievolution was narrowly sectarian, they could hardly have done better at it.

Peter wrote:

"I didn’t think there were any peer reviewed viable alternatives (doesn’t the word “virtually” imply that there might be some)"

Well, the only thing that I can think of is this little gem:

Behe and Snoke (2004) Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues. Protein Science 13:2651-64.

Some people might just claim that this paper supports ID. It doesn't. What it does do is show that there is no conspiracy against any alternative that has any evidence. First, the results clearly show that evolution by gene duplication is possible given realistic values for important parameters. Second, it was spectacularly wrong compared to all of the empirical evidence that deomonstrates the major pathways by which gene duplication and divergence can and does occur. Third, it was published by an ID supporter in a reputable journal so I guess the evil darwinists all went to sleep that day.

Karen S. said:

According to PZ Myers, the new website’s most salient feature is that it claims that most xians are Fake Xians. This is new and a truly malignant and dumb idea.

I don't think it's a new idea-- Hasn't AIG always considered those believers who disagree with them to be non-Christians, or at least seriously compromised Chrstians?

Lynn said: I was looking at the new DI site last night. It was flashy and pretty. Definitely looking inviting and like it has authoritative information. One time when I clicked it open I got lots of nice looking "scientists" and philosophers talking about science and religion and ID--very nicely done. They LOOKED like people I could trust to provide valuable information. It's simple, the DI wants to be sure ordinary, non scientist folks gets its views. Those views, on the surface, seem logical and backed up by evidence. So the average person with no time on their hands to do a little digging, with kids and full time jobs, gardens to tend and houses to clean, may accept what the site says at face value. So the DI repackaged some of it's stuff to be more mainstream and put it out there. It's really all about marketing. The NCSE or someone else needs an equally pretty user-friendly site to get to those same people before the DI does. Most of the sites I go to aren't so pretty. Although the biologos site is OK, it's still dealing with religion. There's Michael Dowd's site http://thankgodforevolution.com/, trying to create a new evolution-based religion. Loved his wife when I met them once, but he's a little scary IMHO. Are there sites already out there that really fill the bill? Talk origins is great, so is PT, but for the average Jane, what's out there? By the way, I'm not a scientist, (I am a Horticulturalist and Landscape Designer) but I love to learn and do as much reading about science as possible. Numbers and stats tend to overwhelm me but information on processes gets me excited. My 5 yo daughter and I admire nature and I'm raising her to seek to understand how the amazing evolutionary process works and especially to question the sources of information she gets. I really enjoy for some great info. My daughter loved the pic of the frigate.

Karen S.,

I don't think it is a mere "coincidence" that the Dishonesty Institute has launched its brand new site promoting its mendacious intellectual pornography within weeks of Francis Collins's. Only a fool or a delusional twit (or both) would conclude otherwise.

Cheers,

John

raven said:

Yup. But this Faith_Evolution site is a direct attack not only on theistic evolutionists’ Christianity, but also on evangelicals who are evolutionary creationists.

It is more than that. It is also a direct attack on a majority of the world's xians. Mainline Protestants, Catholics, Mormons and so on don't have a problem with evolution. Out of the 2 billion xians, this is 75% or so. Not that they care if they even notice. Xians are very, very good at hating each other. The DI can hate them all they want. They will just hate them back. Good thing the sects don't have heavy weapons and armies anymore.

dogmeatib said:

raven said:

Yup. But this Faith_Evolution site is a direct attack not only on theistic evolutionists’ Christianity, but also on evangelicals who are evolutionary creationists.

It is more than that. It is also a direct attack on a majority of the world's xians. Mainline Protestants, Catholics, Mormons and so on don't have a problem with evolution. Out of the 2 billion xians, this is 75% or so. Not that they care if they even notice. Xians are very, very good at hating each other. The DI can hate them all they want. They will just hate them back. Good thing the sects don't have heavy weapons and armies anymore.

Raven, Have to dispute part of this. You can't include Mormons in the Christians who don't have a problem with evolution. Some of the strongest objections I've had to evolution have been from Mormons.

The LDS is wishy-washy on the subject: there isn't a strong official doctrine, leaving many of its leaders free to say yea or nay as they see fit.

Is evolution and Christianity compatible?

Definitely the answer is No. We've explored that question in this forum and it's very clear that the two religions are incompatible.

While I'm grateful for science education that IDiots despise theistic evolution, I don't understand why. Is it simply that theistic evolutionists accept common descent?

If theistic evolutionists believe evolution is divinely guided, they must not view mutations as truly random, right? Also, don't the vast majority believe in the fine-tuned universe argument?

Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend. ---evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse

We are sometimes told that we must choose between smoking two packs a day and pursuing a healthy lifestyle. Many cigarette companies, however, hold unequivocally that no such choice is necessary. --- evolutionist Jerry Coyne

FL said: Is evolution and Christianity compatible? Definitely the answer is No. We've explored that question in this forum and it's very clear that the two religions are incompatible.

FL said: Is evolution and Christianity compatible? Definitely the answer is No. We've explored that question in this forum and it's very clear that the two religions are incompatible.

FL said: Is evolution and Christianity compatible? Definitely the answer is No. We've explored that question in this forum and it's very clear that the two religions are incompatible.

Dean Wentworth said: While I'm grateful for science education that IDiots despise theistic evolution, I don't understand why. Is it simply that theistic evolutionists accept common descent? If theistic evolutionists believe evolution is divinely guided, they must not view mutations as truly random, right? Also, don't the vast majority believe in the fine-tuned universe argument?

May I please have a comments-blocked lead article, like the one just above this one?

You see, I want to post something about "Darwinian Socialism". Just kidding.

Look, PT, Science does not "support" the libertarian ideology. It doesn't dispute it, either. It is a subjective decision whether or not one supports libertarianism.

There can be objective debate as to what the outcomes of libertarian policies would be, and my guess is that many libertarians would expect outcomes that could be said to be at odds with what evidence-based projections would predict. Science may have some answers as to what makes people become "libertarians".

But in the end, libertarianism is about "how people should behave" and what libertarians consider "right" or "wrong".

It is logically incorrect to advance implicit claims that right wing libertarianism is somehow "more scientific" than other positions. It is also, in the context of this site, very hypocritical.

I don't mind being the only voice when I know I'm right, but I'd like a vote. Should PT promote science education, or should it promote science education and "libertarianism"? Which is it?

Peter Henderson said:

there are virtually NONE for any viable alternative

I didn't think there were any peer reviewed viable alternatives (doesn't the word "virtually" imply that there might be some) You don't surely mean those that appear in the Answers Research Journal, which the YECs consider to be peer reviewed since the normal peer review process is "biased against creationists" ? Hence the need for ARJ.

Lynn said: The NCSE or someone else needs an equally pretty user-friendly site to get to those same people before the DI does. Most of the sites I go to aren't so pretty. Although the biologos site is OK, it's still dealing with religion. There's Michael Dowd's site http://thankgodforevolution.com/, trying to create a new evolution-based religion. Loved his wife when I met them once, but he's a little scary IMHO. Are there sites already out there that really fill the bill? Talk origins is great, so is PT, but for the average Jane, what's out there?

jasonmitchell said:

Dean Wentworth said: While I'm grateful for science education that IDiots despise theistic evolution, I don't understand why. Is it simply that theistic evolutionists accept common descent? If theistic evolutionists believe evolution is divinely guided, they must not view mutations as truly random, right? Also, don't the vast majority believe in the fine-tuned universe argument?

ID proponents/ creationists don't like theistic evolutionists (TE's) because TE's don't insist that their religion be taught in public schools (generally) and because TE's generally recognise the difference between what is secular and what is religious

raven said: In point of fact, one prominent YEC kook, Willis of Kansas/Arkansas has been pushing Geocentrism along with herding all evolutionary biologists into concentration camps for ultimate disposal. He would be easy to dismiss as mentally ill or something but he is a leader of creationism in that area.

FL said: Is evolution and Christianity compatible? Definitely the answer is No. We've explored that question in this forum and it's very clear that the two religions are incompatible.

ergo, Christians who accept evolution - like me and millions others - don’t exist.

Doesn’t matter that we accept salvation through Christ. Doesn’t matter that we try to walk in His footsteps. Doesn’t matter that we’ve taught Sunday School and sung in the choir and worked on mission trips and led youth groups.

FL said: Is evolution and 'Real Christianity™'compatible? Definitely the answer is No. We've explored that question in this forum and it's very clear that the two are incompatible.

Duplicate FL comment deleted.

that’s good enough for me and about 1 billion other Catholics

Is Theistic Evolution Truly Plausible? http://www.kolbecenter.org/centrella_te_plausible.htm

Some of the strongest objections I’ve had to evolution have been from Mormons.

FL said: I said evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

If by ‘Christianity’ you mean believing that “the Bible is the literal, historical and scientific TRUTH” - a belief that some fundamentalists/ born again christians/ creationists embrace then YES - that version of Christianity is not compatible w/ physical science, archaeology, biology, chemistry, historical studies, anthropology, psychology, astronomy, etc. etc.

FL, you've spent a lot of time digging into Scripture to try to persuade the rest of us that we're wrong. You're convinced that Real Christians^TM can't accept evolution as part of God's plan.

See what it all comes down to? - how best to interpret Holy Scripture. That's what the new DI site is doing, pure and simple, just trying to show how they think Scripture should be applied.

Interesting theology? - maybe. I'll take my faith cues from those I know and trust, though, not from the DI with its record of distortions.

I do have to admit I love that they've put up this new site. As Wesley noted, it'll come in handy during the next trial.

Floyd, please tell me you're not a native Kansan . . .

:)

back to getting ready for that bake sale . . .

James F said:

Lynn said: The NCSE or someone else needs an equally pretty user-friendly site to get to those same people before the DI does. Most of the sites I go to aren't so pretty. Although the biologos site is OK, it's still dealing with religion. There's Michael Dowd's site http://thankgodforevolution.com/, trying to create a new evolution-based religion. Loved his wife when I met them once, but he's a little scary IMHO. Are there sites already out there that really fill the bill? Talk origins is great, so is PT, but for the average Jane, what's out there?

Lynn, A few points. First, although I haven't heard him speak in person, I was under the impression that Rev. Dowd is not trying to create a new religion, just to advance the notion of incorporating evolution into one's religious worldview. He's one of the signers of the Clergy Letter Project. As for other sites, I recommend Teach Them Science and Understanding Evolution. See what you think of them, I'm sure they'd love feedback.

FL said:

ergo, Christians who accept evolution - like me and millions others - don’t exist.

That's what you say. That's not what I said. I said evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Even your fellow evolutionists are saying the same thing--and quite compellingly in some cases--as I quickly documented with two statements from evolutionists well-known to PT readers.

Doesn’t matter that we accept salvation through Christ. Doesn’t matter that we try to walk in His footsteps. Doesn’t matter that we’ve taught Sunday School and sung in the choir and worked on mission trips and led youth groups.

Hey, you probably also participated in a yummy church-bake-sale last year as well. I haven't denied ANY of those items you mentioned. Kewl Kewl, especially the first sentence. I merely state, as people on BOTH sides of the fence are now unabashedly stating (and have been for years, if you'll check your local library), that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. What you do with that information is up to you, regardless of what religion or bake sales you participate in. But if you disagree with that information, try working on refuting it. Rationally and Scripturally convince your own fellow evolutionists, (and your fellow Christians too!) that the statement is wrong. So far you have not. Until you do, the statement continues to stand, Cheryl. FL :)

Get over yourself, FL. How many times do we have to call you on your bullshit? Your particular sect of Bible-thumping ignorami may not be compatible with real world facts, but that's your problem. Please go away.

Evolutionary biology is taught at BYU. My understanding of the official church position is that there isn't much of one.

The Discovery Institute wrote: Event Announcement As one who is interested in our work and who lives in Western Washington, I thought you might be interested in hearing about an event happening in Olympia next week. June 3, 2009 Stephen C. Meyer at Calvary Chapel - Olympia "The God Hypothesis" The universe as a whole has a structure in its basic fabric, in its laws, and in its other parameters that suggests design right from the very beginning.” A proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution would call this statement “unscientific” - but is it really? Join Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute as he lays the groundwork for an extensive discussion of the science that strongly suggests that our universe was intelligently designed. The event will be held on Wednesday, June 3rd, at 7:00pm in the main sanctuary of Calvary Chapel at 919 Division Street NW in Olympia. This free event is open to the public. June 4, 2009 Signature in the Cell: What your professors aren't telling about the new evidence for Intelligent Design Stephen C. Meyer at South Puget Sound Community College The Christian Fellowship Club is sponsoring a lecture by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer at South Puget Sound Community College, Building 26, Room 101, on June 4th at noon. In his forthcoming book Signature in the Cell, Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin? Listen as Dr. Meyer presents how new scientific discoveries are pointing to intelligent design as the best explanation for the complexity of life and the universe. This free event is open to the public.I hope you will be able to attend one of these events or that you will encourage your friends in the Olympia area to do so! Kelley J. Unger Director, Discovery Society P.S. Be sure to visit the Discovery Society page for events of interest to Discovery Society members.

KP said: Speaking of the Disco 'Tute, I got this today (I'm on their mailing list). For the interest of anyone in the greater Seattle area:

The Discovery Institute wrote: Event Announcement As one who is interested in our work and who lives in Western Washington, I thought you might be interested in hearing about an event happening in Olympia next week. June 3, 2009 Stephen C. Meyer at Calvary Chapel - Olympia "The God Hypothesis" The universe as a whole has a structure in its basic fabric, in its laws, and in its other parameters that suggests design right from the very beginning.” A proponent of Darwin’s theory of evolution would call this statement “unscientific” - but is it really? Join Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute as he lays the groundwork for an extensive discussion of the science that strongly suggests that our universe was intelligently designed. The event will be held on Wednesday, June 3rd, at 7:00pm in the main sanctuary of Calvary Chapel at 919 Division Street NW in Olympia. This free event is open to the public. June 4, 2009 Signature in the Cell: What your professors aren't telling about the new evidence for Intelligent Design Stephen C. Meyer at South Puget Sound Community College The Christian Fellowship Club is sponsoring a lecture by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer at South Puget Sound Community College, Building 26, Room 101, on June 4th at noon. In his forthcoming book Signature in the Cell, Dr. Meyer shows that the digital code embedded in DNA points powerfully to a designing intelligence and helps unravel a mystery that Darwin did not address: how did the very first life begin? Listen as Dr. Meyer presents how new scientific discoveries are pointing to intelligent design as the best explanation for the complexity of life and the universe. This free event is open to the public.I hope you will be able to attend one of these events or that you will encourage your friends in the Olympia area to do so! Kelley J. Unger Director, Discovery Society P.S. Be sure to visit the Discovery Society page for events of interest to Discovery Society members.

But ID is not a religiously motivated idea. Oh yeah that's perfectly clear.

my above comment was directed to FL - sorry phantomreader42, no offense intended

FL is the One True Son Of the Living God,

FL said:

FL is the One True Son Of the Living God,

That's a very interesting characterization Phantom, but last time I checked, the position was already filled by Somebody way way above my pay grade. No further applications accepted. FL

However, on the second thought, FL doesn't realize that the "living God" is none other than a Klingon GOD. Yahweh isn't as powerful as the Klingon deities on Qo'nos.

FL,

Evolution is true, based on the evidence. What you do with that information is up to you, regardless of what religion or bake sales you participate in.

But if you disagree with that information, try working on refuting it. Rationally, using evidence, convince your own fellow Christians that the obvious conclusion drawn from all of the evidence is wrong. Until you can do that, your assertation that Christianity and evolution are incompatible only means that your particular religious views are in error. Nice of you to admit it, but that isn't going to convince anyone who is familiar with the evidence. Your religious views are your own business, but when they conflict with reality, you can't really expect others to be convinced.

Have any prominent believers in TE (e.g. Miller or Collins) said if they think the mutations that fuel evolution are divinely guided, random, or some mixture of both?

The reason I ask is that IDiots and other flavors of creotards harp ad nauseam on the supposed limitations of random mutation and natural selection.

Dean Wentworth said: Have any prominent believers in TE (e.g. Miller or Collins) said if they think the mutations that fuel evolution are divinely guided, random, or some mixture of both? The reason I ask is that IDiots and other flavors of creotards harp ad nauseam on the supposed limitations of random mutation and natural selection.

I see that the Joseph Goebbels of Intelligent Design, my "pal" Bill Dembski, has weighed in on the DI's new website, giving a favorable overview in the form of a free DI advertisement:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/faithandevolutionorg/#more-6970

I just peeked at the DI's latest online creation, and, I believe that those of you concerned with its slick production values shouldn't be. I have seen better video at Ken Miller's website (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km) and more substantial discussion of the relevant issues at the NCSE's website (http://www.ncseweb.org). The Dishonesty Institute may think that it has the upper hand with respect to an online presentation, but we, that is the scientifically literate, have the facts..... AND THEY DON'T. All that they have is slicker, better packaged, mendacious intellectual pornography.

Has anyone had a chance to watch the sparkly and squeaky clean video the IDiots have put up on their brand spanking new site? It seems they're trying to go for credibility this time around, and sadly if one hasn't already built up a good immunity to guerilla creationist bullshit, one is likely to fall prey to it.

http://www.faithandevolution.org/

The hilariously funny part is that they're willing to lie even about the various titles they give their goonies. Philip Johnson is listed as a "science writer" (whatever the hell that means) when everybody knows he's just a bloodsucking lawyer. Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, and Moonie Wells are listed as "philosophers of biology (again--the title means absolutely nothing; I could label any one of my friends who have a passing interest in evolutionary science as "philosophers of biology", but in reality they would hold no more scientific clout than any of the IDiots over at the Disco). Lee Strobel, whom I've had the misfortune of seeing lecture in person, is labeled simply as "journalist", as if that means anything in science (yes Denyse O'Leary, I'm looking at you). The only remotely authoritative figures they have in the video are Michael Behe ("microbiologist") and maybe two others, both labeled "chemical biologists". And we all know about Behe.

So the question is--how to explain to the lay-folk that none of these goons are to be believed? They seem friendly enough.

But then again, so do child molesters right before they rape you.

FL said: Is evolution and Christianity compatible? Definitely the answer is No. We've explored that question in this forum and it's very clear that the two religions are incompatible.

Wheels said: The LDS is wishy-washy on the subject: there isn't a strong official doctrine, leaving many of its leaders free to say yea or nay as they see fit.

Then you have no choice but to abandon yours [religion] because it is wrong.

religions are never abandoned because they are "wrong"; they are abandoned because they are unpopular.

FL is working his damndest to make sure his religion is so unpopular and so marginalized it is indeed abandoned.

To which, as usual, I give him a hearty thumbs up, and nominate him for Twit of the Year.

FL said: Is evolution and Christianity compatible? Definitely the answer is No. We've explored that question in this forum and it's very clear that the two religions are incompatible.

Somebody way way above my pay grade.

It pays to be Jesus?

who knew.

I bet Jesus himself didn't even know.

So FL considers himself at the bottom of the pyramid scheme?

Science and religion answer two fundamental questions.

well, you're half right.

FL said:

ergo, Christians who accept evolution - like me and millions others - don’t exist.

That's what you say.

FL said: I said evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Stanton said:

FL said: Is evolution and Christianity compatible? Definitely the answer is No. We've explored that question in this forum and it's very clear that the two religions are incompatible.

So says the moron who claims that scientists worship "descent with modification," so says the moron who thinks that Charles Darwin's corpse is regarded as a holy book, so says the moron who can't tell the difference between a church and a science classroom, so says the moron who said that the miraculous birth of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, magically disproves evolution, but won't say how or why, so says the hypocrite who thinks it's okay to denounce Evolutionary Biology as a rival religion (without explain how it is) while happily using all of its products, such antibiotics, vaccines, domesticated animals and agriculture produce, so says the coward who demonstrates that he'd sooner cut out his own tongue and eat it rather than explain how Intelligent Design is supposed to be a science, and how Evolutionary Biology is somehow not a science.

Anthony said:

FL said: I said evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

FL, your statement is like saying gravity is incompatible with Christianity. Actually, your comment is saying that biology is incompatible with Christianity. FL, why is evolution incompatible with Christianity? You being a Christian, other religious and non-religious people would like to know.

Ichthyic said: Then you have no choice but to abandon yours [religion] because it is wrong. religions are never abandoned because they are "wrong"; they are abandoned because they are unpopular. FL is working his damndest to make sure his religion is so unpopular and so marginalized it is indeed abandoned. To which, as usual, I give him a hearty thumbs up, and nominate him for Twit of the Year.

The DI and AIG strategy of making rejection of evolution and modern science a litmus test seems to be boomeranging. It is dumb. If a sect makes believing lies and nonsense about reality to be a believer, especially when most xians think it wholly unnecessary, many will just say, OK, bye and leave the religion or change churches.

That is what is happening. Xianity seems to be in decline in the USA.

1. Between 1 and 2 million people leave the religion every year. They are down to 76% and it is dropping about 0.5%/year.

2. Among young people, the number of areligious is around 30-40% according to a recent survey. This is new and astounding.

The DI/AIG strategy is just the medieval Catholic strategy of linking faith to something wrong like Geocentrism. It didn't work and they very quickly dropped it. Now a different group is doing the same thing with evolution. No matter how many evolutionary biologists they persecute or torch and no matter how many lies and fallacies they repeat, the facts will remain the facts.

I predict they will eventually lose. They are losing now. They are also destroying their religion which one would think they should care about. What is in question is whether they do so before or after they destroy our country.

raven said: The DI and AIG strategy of making rejection of evolution and modern science a litmus test seems to be boomeranging. It is dumb. If a sect makes believing lies and nonsense about reality to be a believer, especially when most xians think it wholly unnecessary, many will just say, OK, bye and leave the religion or change churches. That is what is happening. Xianity seems to be in decline in the USA. 1. Between 1 and 2 million people leave the religion every year. They are down to 76% and it is dropping about 0.5%/year. 2. Among young people, the number of areligious is around 30-40% according to a recent survey. This is new and astounding. The DI/AIG strategy is just the medieval Catholic strategy of linking faith to something wrong like Geocentrism. It didn't work and they very quickly dropped it. Now a different group is doing the same thing with evolution. No matter how many evolutionary biologists they persecute or torch and no matter how many lies and fallacies they repeat, the facts will remain the facts. I predict they will eventually lose. They are losing now. They are also destroying their religion which one would think they should care about. What is in question is whether they do so before or after they destroy our country.

raven said: The DI and AIG strategy of making rejection of evolution and modern science a litmus test seems to be boomeranging. It is dumb.

I predict they will eventually lose. They are losing now.

They are also destroying their religion which one would think they should care about.

What is in question is whether they do so before or after they destroy our country.

John Kwok said: Delusional twit LSS FL needs to explain how and why such noted Christian scientists like Pierre Teilhard De Chardin, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Francisco J. Ayala, Simon Conway Morris, Francis Collins and, of course, Ken Miller, perceive their religious faith and their understanding of evolution as sound science to be quite compatible, contrary to his inane assertion

Have any prominent believers in TE (e.g. Miller or Collins) said if they think the mutations that fuel evolution are divinely guided, random, or some mixture of both?

Despite billions of dollars spent, brain research hasn’t found the soul yet! It’s got to be there somewhere, running everything behind the scene.

Ichthyic said: Science and religion answer two fundamental questions. well, you're half right.

If ID REALLY ISN'T a "religiously-motivated idea", then I have a bridge to Brooklyn, NY that I'd love to sell you. Based on their inane logic in promoting Reverend - oops, I mean, Doctor - Meyer's talks, then there is more proof now for either Klingon Cosmology or Pastafarianism than there ever will be for the mendacious intellectual pornography known as ID cretinism.

John Kwok said: I see that the Joseph Goebbels of Intelligent Design, my "pal" Bill Dembski, has weighed in on the DI's new website...

John Kwok said: I know of Jewish and Muslim scientists ... who see no contradiction whatsoever between their religions and recognizing that evolution is valid science. ... So if Judaism and Islam can be compatible with evolution, then shouldn't Christianity be compatible too? ....

Actually, Ichthyic I am correct on both halves.

now all you have to do is show what question a specific religion actually answers that is specific to religion itself.

good luck.

...oh, and that isn't of a fundamentally circular nature.

Ichthyic said: Actually, Ichthyic I am correct on both halves. now all you have to do is show what question a specific religion actually answers that is specific to religion itself. good luck.

Like explaining why a believer's pets won't be waiting for them in Heaven?

*sigh*

you mean explaining fiction?

why bother?

I've always thought fictional novels were best left to the imaginations of the readers themselves.

I guess, before this becomes another pedantic waste, I should clarify and suggest that religion provides no REAL WORLD knowledge of anything.

IOW, it's actually completely useless to answer any questions based on real-world observations, that aren't already based on the fictions of the religion itself.

which you just aptly demonstrated, btw.

FL, why is evolution incompatible with Christianity? You being a Christian, other religious and non-religious people would like to know.

(1) Evolutionary theory denies that humans were originated with any goal or purpose (we call it "teleology"). Evolution denies that humans were originated with any conscious forethought. Evolution directly contradicts what the Bible says about us humans being originated with goal-directedness, purpose and conscious forethought. (Genesis. 1:26-27, Colossians 1:16.) Here's an example: "...(E)volutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought." ---Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed. (textbook), p.342.

"With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside." ----- Nature (a pro-evolution science journal), "Evolution and the Brain", June 14, 2007.

"The image-of-God thesis does NOT just go with any brand of theism. It requires a theism in which God is actively designing man and the world as a home for man." ---- evolutionist James Rachels, from his book Created From Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism.

"(A) central tenet of Christian theology: humans are designed and created in the image of God. Darwinism denies this." ---- Dr. Jonathan Wells, (non-evolutionist), Yale Daily News, Jan. 29, 2007.

"Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins--and this is what evolution means--then Christianity is nothing!" ---- evolutionist G. Richard Bozarth, “The Meaning of Evolution,” The American Atheist, Vol. 20, No. 2, February 1978, p. 30.

Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel. It flouts every moral precept we humans hold dear. It recognizes only survival and gene propagation, and even on those rare occasions where you find altruism and non-selfishness you can be certain that blind self-interest is lurking somewhere behind the scenes. All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared. What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn't God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years? Problem of evil, indeed. ....Reconciling evolution and Christianity is not as simple as theistic evolutionists often try to pretend. ---evolutionist Jason Rosenhouse

FL,

Congratualtions. You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that your narrow interpretation of scripture is contrary to reality. Therefore, you can either reject reality or you can reject your interpretation of scripture. Not too surprisingly, many Christians have chosen not to reject reality. None of them seem to have any problem in the slightest with an interpretation of scripture that does not conflict with reality.

The Bible is very clear that salvation does not depend on accepting or rejecting any scientific theory. You can believe that the earth is round and that the earth goes around the sun and that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is true and still be a real Christian. If you disagree then I guess the only question is whether you choose to reject reality or not. Quite frankly, I don't see why anyone would care what you choose.

You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that your narrow interpretation of scripture is contrary to reality.

None of them seem to have any problem in the slightest with an interpretation of scripture that does not conflict with reality.

FL said:

FL is the One True Son Of the Living God,

That's a very interesting characterization Phantom, but last time I checked, the position was already filled by Somebody way way above my pay grade. No further applications accepted. FL

FL,

Sorry. I didn't say I was a Christian. I didn't say that I had any interpretation of scripture. If someone who has an interpretation that is compatible with reality amd would like to share it with you, then by all means let them do so. You don't have the right to tell them that it can't be done or that your interpretation is more valid.

I do know that many theologians have biblical interpretations that do not demand that they reject reality. For example, why does "in the image of God" have to mean the physical image? Why does God have to be reduced to a hairy ape with a bad back, bad teeth, poor eye sight, poor sense of smell and a genome riddled with errors? And if that is the "image of God" then why could it not have evolved? There was no world-wide flood, period. Deal with it. That doesn't make the story of Noah worthless, or even false. It just means that in order to derive meaning from the story you have to have a slightly different interpretation. No big deal, you do this all the time. Unless of course you think that "whatsoever a man soweth that also shall he reap" is meant as agricultural advise.

Quite frankly, I don't really care how you interpret scripture. I don't even care if you reject reality. I do care if you try to convince others to deny reality. History has shown that that causes trouble for everyone. If you want to challange the validity of modern evolutionary theory there is only one way to do it, with evidence.

So please explain why the current Pope and the previous Pope disregard the problems you raise about reconciling faith with Evolutionary Biology?

Why do you insist on denouncing Evolutionary Biology, yet, also think it's perfectly fine to continue using all of its products, like domesticated animals, agricultural produce, vaccines or antibiotics? Don't give me your "Microevolution is different from Evilution" bullshit, FL, because if we're going to make the foolish mistake of stupidly denouncing a descriptive science on account of inappropriate anthropomorphizing, then "Microevolution" is the most cruelest, most bloodthirsting level of Evolution, as it is at the population level where the individual weak are collectively removed from the strong and eaten or starved or otherwise killed in some unpleasant manner. I mean, are you aware that people have been removing the runts of the litter for thousands of years in practicing Microevolution? Do you know what people normally do with the runts of the litter? In the good old days, the runts were eaten, or left to die of exposure. Today, they're lucky if they're killed before being tossed into the trash. And you're fine with this aspect of Evolutionary Biology, but not the emergence of species, FL?

FL wrote:

"(1) Evolutionary theory denies that humans were originated with any goal or purpose (we call it “teleology”). Evolution denies that humans were originated with any conscious forethought."

You have absolutely no evidence of any purpose or goal other than your interpretation of scripture. However, there is ample evidence of lack of forethought in human evolution.

"(2) Evolution clearly and publicly denies that humans were created and designed in the image of God."

Once again, you have absolutely no evidence of any design or creation and no evidence whatsoever of the image of God for comparison. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that humans evolved.

(3) Evolutionary theory teaches that death has ALWAYS been present on this planet. No exceptions."

Once again, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any sort of "fall" or any indication that there was ever a time when death was not a part of life. There is however ample evidence of death throughout the history of ilfe on earth.

"All of this suffering, pain and misery, mind you, to reach a foreordained moment when self-aware creature finally appeared. What theological purpose was served by all this bloodsport? If humans were inevitable why didn’t God simply fast-forward the tape himself, thereby sparing all of those animals that died horrible deaths in the preceding hundreds of millions of years? Problem of evil, indeed."

I don't know what "theological purpose" was served, perhaps you should take that up with God. However, the evidence is quite clear that such indeed did occur and continues to occur.

All you have proven is that your interpretations of scripture are incompatible with reality. Well, a wise man once said "reality doesn't care what you think" and I was right.

As a scientist and a rational peace loving human, I am somewhat embarrassed by the diatribe I just read. Can't you guys just analyze an opposing viewpoint (you do have many very good points) without resorting to so much name calling, mocking, and well just plain mean spiritedness. Many of the writers seem to have an underlying hositility to anyone who might not agree 100% with atheistic evolutionary dogma. I'm curious where this comes from. Maybe reading too much Hitchens and Dawkins?
It is OK to make a point without denigrating your opponents. Please show a little respect to people, even if they might be wrong.

Steve Cheff said: As a scientist and a rational peace loving human, I am somewhat embarrassed by the diatribe I just read. Can't you guys just analyze an opposing viewpoint (you do have many very good points) without resorting to so much name calling, mocking, and well just plain mean spiritedness.

Many of the writers seem to have an underlying hositility to anyone who might not agree 100% with atheistic evolutionary dogma.

I'm curious where this comes from. Maybe reading too much Hitchens and Dawkins?

It is OK to make a point without denigrating your opponents. Please show a little respect to people, even if they might be wrong.

Steve,

Sorry if I offended you. I don't believe that I called anybody any names though. I know I said I didn't care about someone's religious views, but this is a science blog, why shouId I care when someone starts preaching and quoting the Bible?

As to where the apparent hostility comes from, just remember, guys like this are driving people away from a religion that could be very comforting to them. Even worse, guys like this are promoting denial of reality as a prerequistie for eternal salvation. That is how holy wars get started. That is how science education is degraded in this country. That is what I get upset about sometimes, how about you?

Now if FL wants to discuss the scientific evidence in a civilized manner then I am more than happy to cooperate. Of course he never does. If you think that it is rude or offensive to point out that the emperor has no evidence then maybe this isn't the place to spend a lot of time.

Dear Steve Cheff,
I hear what you are saying. Folks here at PT can be quite abrasive. However, I've been following PT for several years now. When a new commenter comes along with polite or obviously sincere questions, I have seen the folks here respond with politeness and provide answers free of mock and venom. It's the repeat customers, those who don't respond well to reasoned arguments, who receive the mock and scorn. It's those who should know better, who continue to repeat tired, long refuted lies who receive the mean spiritedness. Folks here get tired of repeating themselves to those who obviously don't listen.

KP said:

If ID REALLY ISN'T a "religiously-motivated idea", then I have a bridge to Brooklyn, NY that I'd love to sell you. Based on their inane logic in promoting Reverend - oops, I mean, Doctor - Meyer's talks, then there is more proof now for either Klingon Cosmology or Pastafarianism than there ever will be for the mendacious intellectual pornography known as ID cretinism.

Sadly, I'm not as prepared to publicly debunk Meyer's stuff, simply because I'm not as familiar with his angle. If it were Wells, I'd be there by any means necessary and do my best to befuddle him in front of his co-delusionals.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: But John, you've forgotten that these aren't "true faiths" to the creationists and DI'ers, so whether or not they accept evolution, they're just as damned as the evilutionists.

John Kwok said: I know of Jewish and Muslim scientists ... who see no contradiction whatsoever between their religions and recognizing that evolution is valid science. ... So if Judaism and Islam can be compatible with evolution, then shouldn't Christianity be compatible too? ....

Oh, and completely OT, Raven, "boomeranging" - what a beautiful word. I'm going to have to remember that for the next scrabble game I play! :-P

Slightly off topic, I heard a second hand report of a local pastor explaining to his Sunday School class about the recent media blitz about "Ida". (The kids asked because of the media hype.) Pastor explained that Ida is not a "transitional species". He (shudder) quoted the old saw about a "transitional species" being something like a dog-cat, or a croc-a-duck. Ida shows no malformations like that.

He went on with a new line of "reasoning" I hadn't heard before. The creatures that God created are perfectly formed. Ida is perfectly formed, all the parts fitting just so. Therefore, Ida must have been created by God. Because Ida was created by God, because all living animals and all fossils found are perfectly formed, there are no transitional species. Because there are no transitional species, evolution is false. Is this a new tact, or just an extrapolation of an old one?

Pastor had even done his homework. He had researched this question himself, and was very pleased with the results. He explained that he had found all of this well documented reasoning online at some place called the Institute for Creation Research, proving everything he and the Bible said were true. "Research"; it's in their name!

*face-palm*

Don't get me wrong. Pastor is a wonderful person; kind, sweet, gentle. A devoted father, husband, and shepherd to his flock. He's not intentionally lying to his kids. He honestly doesn't know that what he is saying is wrong. It fits with what he knows. It supports his beliefs that he knows to be true. It's clearly supported by knowledgeable, "sincere" people whom he trusts. This is the kind of person to whom the new web site is directed, and for whom it is most effective. It's not to convince the skeptics. It's to provide support to the faithful, and to provide ammunition for them to help spread The Word(tm).

FL: As you can see Anthony, evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Three huge reasons are now presented to you, but they’re not the only reasons. Add this one to your list: Evolution by natural selection, you see, is an awful process. It is bloody, sadistic, and cruel.

My dear delusional twit LSS FL,

Maybe you've missed a few of my recent posts here at PT, but I have a message indirectly for you from Ken Miller. During his private talk to our fellow college alumni here in New York City last week, he strongly advised those who subscribe to religions which reject modern science to think of terminating their membership in such faiths ASAP. It's similar tone - if not in its actual content - to the Dalai Lama's observation that religion must conform with modern scientific knowledge.

Meanwhile, I trust you'll continue enjoying your membership in the AiG Dalek Collective.

Peace and Long Life (as an AiG Dalek Clone),

John Kwok

Sorry Scott, but I have news for you from a respected Evangelical Protestant Christian minister like Tim Keller, who founded - and still leads - the popular Redeemer Presbyterian Church here in New York City. He believes that evolution is valid science and is consistent with Christ's teachings. So perhaps you and your pastor should get with the "program" and start by your mutual willingness to cease and to desist from promoting your mendacious intellectual pornography known as "Scientific Creationism".

At least the Amish have the strength of their convictions and live the life that their beliefs lead them to. Unlike some commenters here.

Steve Cheff said: As a scientist and a rational peace loving human, I am somewhat embarrassed by the diatribe I just read. Can't you guys just analyze an opposing viewpoint (you do have many very good points) without resorting to so much name calling, mocking, and well just plain mean spiritedness. Many of the writers seem to have an underlying hositility to anyone who might not agree 100% with atheistic evolutionary dogma. I'm curious where this comes from. Maybe reading too much Hitchens and Dawkins? It is OK to make a point without denigrating your opponents. Please show a little respect to people, even if they might be wrong.

Sorry, John, you misunderstand me. Maybe you missed my "*face-palm*" :-) He's not my pastor. It's not my church. He's just someone I know. Someone whom I want shake some sense into. He's a nice person, but not someone whose opinion I respect. I'm very much with you on evolution and science.

I'd also like to point out that in my neck of the woods, while "main stream" (such as Protestant and Episcopal) churches are indeed shrinking, the unaffiliated evangelical churches in the neighborhood are growing by leaps and bounds. It's as though the rational are leaving religion, and the irrational are being distilled into larger concentrations.

I've found that religion is very much a personal thing, despite the hierarchy of the RCC. I have found broader diversity of religious opinion and expression within various denominations than between them.

Scott's pastor said something like:

"The creatures that God created are perfectly formed. Ida is perfectly formed, all the parts fitting just so."

You might want to point out to your pastor that this is simply faulty reasoning. Both the theory of evolution and the failed hypothesis of special creation predict species can be "perfectly formed" in this sense. This is simply not the issue.

What you must do in order to distinguish between competing hypotheses is find some prediction that is different between the two. Now in the case of Ida, special creation would predict that no intermediates between lemurs and other primates should be found in the fossil record. Evolutionary theory predicts that some fossils should be found that have some lemur characteristics and some ape characteristics. Now Ida has some lemur characteristics and some ape characteristics, so special creation is falsified and evolution is confirmed. The same can be said for literally thousands of other transitional forms that have been found in other groups.

Of course there are lot of examples of things that are not "perfectly formed" as well. But somehow that never seems to matter to people who already have their miinds made up before examining the evidence.

A bunch of Bible Thumping Ignorance.

Well, that about wraps it up for God.

John Kwok: as someone whose social stature is akin to that of a common criminal, rapist, pedophile or worse? For decades we’ve been called lots of names pregnant in their bizarre hostiility against both reason and modern science, and have been accused of such groundless accusations like Darwin EQUALS Hitler and the Holocaust:

Scott said: Sorry, John, you misunderstand me. Maybe you missed my "*face-palm*" :-) He's not my pastor. It's not my church. He's just someone I know. Someone whom I want shake some sense into. He's a nice person, but not someone whose opinion I respect. I'm very much with you on evolution and science. I'd also like to point out that in my neck of the woods, while "main stream" (such as Protestant and Episcopal) churches are indeed shrinking, the unaffiliated evangelical churches in the neighborhood are growing by leaps and bounds. It's as though the rational are leaving religion, and the irrational are being distilled into larger concentrations. I've found that religion is very much a personal thing, despite the hierarchy of the RCC. I have found broader diversity of religious opinion and expression within various denominations than between them.

raven,

Of course I would take Cynthia Dunbar's opinion on anything pertaining to science and science education to be utterly worthless. As one Republican writing from far-flung distant New York City, I would only hope that she might read - if she hasn't already - the decisive ruling by a fellow conservative Republican, Federal judge John Jones, at the close of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial. Since she probably hasn't - and if she has read it, then it certainly hasn't sunk in - I am keeping my fingers crossed that she'll end up like McLeroy (Just a thought. Is it possible for Texans to create a recall petition, asking that she be stripped of her duties on the Texas State Board of Education?).

Appreciatively yours,

John

You don’t have the right to tell them that it can’t be done or that your interpretation is more valid.

....the unaffiliated evangelical churches in the neighborhood are growing by leaps and bounds. It’s as though the rational are leaving religion, and the irrational are being distilled into larger concentrations.

I imagine this is going to end up on the washroom wall, but hey.

Reasons why evolution is supposed to be incompatible with Christianity.

Supposed reason #1: Evolution does not have an end in view, and Christianity says God had an end in view, therefore Christianity is incompatible with evolution.

See the squib there? God, the Creator, is confounded with part of His creation, namely the process of evolution. God can have an end in view, but the process itself need not have one. Confounding the Creator with the creation is actually theology so bad that it shades into heresy.

Supposed reason #2: Christianity says that humans are created in the image of God. But comparative anatomy and biochemistry say that humans are, physically, primates, and evolutionary theory says that this is because humans are primates, the descendents of earlier primates. Hence, Christianity is incompatible with evolution (and also with comparative anatomy and biochemistry, but let's leave that out).

See the squib there? "Image" is conflated with "physical appearance and/or anatomy". The word means no such thing, necessarily, but more than that, it requires the God the Father to have a physical body, a physical semblence. Ridiculous.

Supposed reason #3: Evolution says death always existed. Paul at Romans 5:12-17 says death began with the Fall of Man, that is, after the Creation. Therefore Christianity is incompatible with evolution.

See the squib there? Paul is not "Christianity". Anyway, who is to say that he meant these words completely literally? The whole passage reads as a highly wrought metaphor, in fact. Death does not 'rule' in a literal sense. And why would only the generations between Adam and Moses be singled out for this 'rule'? No, Paul is not saying that death didn't exist. He is using metaphor to say that it had no dominion until the Fall, and now, because of the redeeming power of Jesus, it has no dominion again.

Even if Paul thought that there was no death before Adam's sin, his views on the subject are no more binding on Christians today than his views on women's proper place (1 Timothy 2:12; Ephesians 5:22-24) or slavery (Ephesians 6: 5-6) or on the original disciples (Corinthians 11:22-23). Christians believe that Jesus was the Redeemer, that by His grace death no longer rules; it is not final. It is simply unnecessary for the Christian to believe that physical death began at some historical date. To demand this is the absolute archetype of Jesus's rebuke of the Pharisees, that they swallowed camels and strained at gnats.

Supposed reason #4: (This is a doozy.) Nature is red in fang and claw, and this is incompatible with Christianity. Therefore evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Well, the first bit is true. Observation establishes the unequivocal truth about predation and parasitism in nature. It exists, and let's face it, it's pretty gruesome, mostly. I'm sorry to read that FL thinks that its existence is incompatible with Christianity, because it means that he's given up on Christianity. If predation etcetera is incompatible with the existence of a beneficent God, then FL has just bought the P Z Myers line, because nobody can deny that predation exists. Even if there were not a soul on Earth who had the least notion of the Theory of Evolution, predation would still exist, and anybody who wanted to walk out into the backyard for a few hours would be able to observe it. So what FL is complaining about is not the Theory of Evolution, it's the problem of (to use a very general expression) evil. That's a real conundrum for religion, but it's got nothing to do with evolution.

All of these "reasons" are false and foolish. They are shallow, poorly reasoned, and display crude, incompetent and actually incoherent theology. The last, in particular, is manifestly self-defeating. Christianity is not incompatible with the Theory of Evolution.

FL said:

You don’t have the right to tell them that it can’t be done or that your interpretation is more valid.

I offered a very calm and rational request for somebody to provide this "broad" interpretation of Scripture (or Scriptures) that specifically resolves the four huge incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity. The incompatibilities were presented, not as an act of trolling, but in direct response to a PT reader's question which happens to line up with thread topic. If nobody can do that, then it seems quite rational to infer that it can't be done. And in the absence of that "broad" reconciling interpretation and explanation that supposedly exists somewhere, it is again quite rational to believe that "my interpretation is more valid." I don't know how else to say it, DS, it's just a matter of honesty.

....the unaffiliated evangelical churches in the neighborhood are growing by leaps and bounds. It’s as though the rational are leaving religion, and the irrational are being distilled into larger concentrations.

I have a different "interpretation" of the (very welcome) rise in evangelical churches, but right now I can only work with the interpretation gig that's already on the table. FL :)

Steve Cheff said: As a scientist and a rational peace loving human, I am somewhat embarrassed by the diatribe I just read. Can't you guys just analyze an opposing viewpoint (you do have many very good points) without resorting to so much name calling, mocking, and well just plain mean spiritedness. Many of the writers seem to have an underlying hositility to anyone who might not agree 100% with atheistic evolutionary dogma. I'm curious where this comes from. Maybe reading too much Hitchens and Dawkins? It is OK to make a point without denigrating your opponents. Please show a little respect to people, even if they might be wrong.

Your “concerns” seem disingenuous.

Dear FL,

The request for resolution of your perceived incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity has been nicely answered by Dave and other.

You are very lucky. This should be a great relief to you.

Rob

Supposed reason #3: Evolution says death always existed. Paul at Romans 5:12-17 says death began with the Fall of Man, that is, after the Creation. Therefore Christianity is incompatible with evolution.

The request for resolution of your perceived incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity has been nicely answered by Dave and other.

Getting back on topic here, the DI is becoming less pretend science and more extremist fundie.

The new website is theorized to be a reaction to a prominent evangelical xian scientist, Francis Collins, setting up his own website about Evangelism and science while being appointed head of NIH, a high profile job if there is one in biology.

My impression is that there is a schism happening right now in fundieland. Schisms and xianity are ubiquitous. My own natal protestant sects have split so many times that the names are meaningless, no one can tell from the name what they really believe, and it is almost impossible to keep track of who is who.

This schism seems to be between Evangelicals who accept the modern world including science and the hard core who are clinging to the 6,000 year old earth and a boatload of dinosaurs.

The data:
1. Some Evangelicals do accept science. Francis Collins for one. Evolution is taught at many xian colleges, Calvin (xian reformed), some Nazarene, and so on.

2. My impression is that some sects are having internal battles over this, the Nazarenes are persecuting Richard Collings, and the Orthodox Presbytarians excommunicated a scientist and then had a purge.

3. A lot of fundies are complaining about persecution and backsliding online. Apparently, as far as I can tell, some of the newer Evangelical megachurches are more into a laid back positive nondogmatic atmosphere as opposed to fire and brimstone and incessant infighting over fine points of dogma.

4. 30% of the Evangelicals voted for Obama. 46% of Texans did so.

Just a theory. Here on the west coast, we don't even have much of a visible Evangelical presence except in a few pockets not on my list of places to visit. I wouldn't really know but from what scraps of data turn up in odd places it is possible.

I really believe that them fighting against science is a losing strategy and they will either do some serious damage to their religion or adapt like the Catholics and Tibetans have done. Maybe some of the fundie leaders see the same thing.

FL wrote:

"...it is again quite rational to believe that “my interpretation is more valid.” I don’t know how else to say it, DS, it’s just a matter of honesty."

No, it is quite rational to believe that my interpretation is more valid. See there, I said it, so it has to be true. And besides, most Christians and other religions seem to agree with me, so I must be right.

Look FL, if you claim that the "image of God" must refer to the physical appearance of the body then fine, your religion is incompatible with reality, no problem for me. If however, I, or anyone else, wanted to claim that no, it is really the spirit or soul of man that is in the "image of God" then there is no problem with evolution. It is just a mater of honesty. You honestly want everyone to think exactly the same way you do for no reason at all. Honestly, that's not an argument, that's absurd.

Note to concern trolls: I did not call FL absurd, I called his supposed argument absurd. He is perfectly free to believe anything he wants and everyone else is perfectly free to politely disagree.

John Kwok said: Mike, I concur with your observations about Steve's "concerns", especially this final, most definitive, note:

Your “concerns” seem disingenuous.

Dave Luckett said: Christianity says that humans are created in the image of God. ... "Image" is conflated with "physical appearance and/or anatomy". The word means no such thing, necessarily, but more than that, it requires the God the Father to have a physical body, a physical semblence. Ridiculous.

Paul Burnett said: Ridiculous indeed. Humans come in a variety of shapes, sizes, colors and particularly genders which preclude them all being "the image of God." If male humans are created in the image of God the Father, in Whose image are female humans created?

So please explain why Dave's polite response absolves you of the responsibility of explaining why it is that all Christians who have no problem reconciling their faith with Evolutionary Biology regard the idea that one must reject reality to receive Eternal Salvation to be either so stupidly inane to not bother dignifying with a response, or to be destructively blasphemous, given as how it forces people to equate faith and piety with willful ignorance under pain of eternal damnation.

I mean, you still haven't explained why anyone should bother to take the advice of someone, like yourself, who is too arrogant to differentiate between a science classroom and a church.

FL said: (3) Evolutionary theory teaches that death has ALWAYS been present on this planet. No exceptions. This is a direct negation of Romans 5:12-17, which clearly states that death historically entered this world only AFTER Adam and Eve sinned. That's very bad because if Romans 5:12-17 is historically false, then it's NO longer possible for Christians to tell anybody the meaning of what Christ accomplished or didn't accomplish on the Cross.

The way I see it, FL might be right. It is indeed possible to grab just about any scripture (or write some of your own), and then interpret that text in such a way that it conflicts with reality. Even small children can do this, if they're bored.

But why spend all this effort trying to claim there's no such conflict? Why try to re-interpret one scripture or another as being allegorical, or spiritual, or whatnot? If FL thinks his interpretation of his chosen texts conflicts with reality, and therefore reality is wrong, hey, whatever makes him happy.

So we really need to say "That's nice, FL, glad you've been able to pull the hole in after you, now take your magic book over there and don't bother the grownups." After all, it's as easy to make someone like FL look stupid, as it is impossible for such people to see how they look.

theological compatibilists – theistic evolution and evolutionary creationism

Ohh, I'm hurried now. I rather think that teleological speciation theism is tested by showing that non-teleology is required to be compatible with observations. But the test is indirect since TST uses postdiction instead of prediction.

[I'm not sure I'm making myself very clear in my rush. Later, perhaps.]

Bill Gascoyne said:

John Kwok said: Mike, I concur with your observations about Steve's "concerns", especially this final, most definitive, note:

Your “concerns” seem disingenuous.

John, By George, you can edit! Now please stop being lazy and do it more often.

Actually Dave is the only person to make any substantive attempt so far (and yes I've heard those responses before, but that's okay). Now that doesn't mean that you or others can't go ahead and do your own homework instead of merely hiding behind Dave's post and declaring victory. There's still opportunity for anyone to answer the request on the table. FL

My "dear" FL, I meant to say:

"For an AiG Dalek clone you may be capable of some reasoning, but I haven't seen much yet from you."

You must also understand that your belief in your false Xian GOD is utterly pointless, especially when Yahweh is but a minor deity in the pantheon of Klingon GODS. Qa' pla! I wish you, Billy Dembski and Mikey Behe much success in your future spiritual home, Gre'Thor!

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Note also the next verse, "17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Dave Lovell said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Note also the next verse, "17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

This seems to be a very strange threat to make to people living at a time when there must have been absolute ignorance of the concept of death.

David Fickett-Wilbar said:

Dave Lovell said:

David Fickett-Wilbar said: Note also the next verse, "17: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

This seems to be a very strange threat to make to people living at a time when there must have been absolute ignorance of the concept of death.

Even worse is that God punishes them for doing something wrong when they didn't know that doing wrong was wrong (since they hadn't eaten the fruit of the tree yet).

raven said: That evolution says death always existed is true but this is not a claim limited to evolution. All relevant sciences say the same thing.

James F said:

Lynn said: The NCSE or someone else needs an equally pretty user-friendly site to get to those same people before the DI does.

Lynn, A few points. First, although I haven't heard him speak in person, I was under the impression that Rev. Dowd is not trying to create a new religion, just to advance the notion of incorporating evolution into one's religious worldview. He's one of the signers of the Clergy Letter Project. As for other sites, I recommend Teach Them Science and Understanding Evolution. See what you think of them, I'm sure they'd love feedback.

RDK said: Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, and Moonie Wells are listed as "philosophers of biology (again--the title means absolutely nothing; I could label any one of my friends who have a passing interest in evolutionary science as "philosophers of biology", but in reality they would hold no more scientific clout than any of the IDiots over at the Disco). Lee Strobel, whom I've had the misfortune of seeing lecture in person, is labeled simply as "journalist", as if that means anything in science (yes Denyse O'Leary, I'm looking at you). The only remotely authoritative figures they have in the video are Michael Behe ("microbiologist") and maybe two others, both labeled "chemical biologists". And we all know about Behe. So the question is--how to explain to the lay-folk that none of these goons are to be believed? They seem friendly enough. But then again, so do child molesters right before they rape you.

But for now, Dave is who I’ll be responding to first.

So go ahead and respond to him, FL. We're waiting...

Actually, Ichthyic I am correct on both halves. now all you have to do is show what question a specific religion actually answers that is specific to religion itself. good luck.

Well Fl seems to have taken a powder. I wonder why, since he claims to have dealt with all of these arguments before? Oh well, I'm sure he'll be along soon to inform us that only he is a true Christian.

I always wondered how anyone could claim that the "image of God" meant the physical appearance of the body. What race is God? What sex is God? Does it look more like Shaquele Oneal or more like that Vern the "mini me" guy? Does it look more like Arnold Schwartzeneger or his wife? Maybe God looks like Stephen Hawking. No seriously, how can man be in the physical "image of God" when there is so much variation in human morphology? And when man evolves to look different from what he does today, will he still be in the "image of God"? What about when humans have colonized many different planets and evolved many different morphologies, will they all be in the" image of God"? Exactly how many "images" does God have anyway? More importantly, how many "images of God" can dance on the head of a pin? Who cares?

Anyway, apparently God lied because Adam and Eve didn't die the same day they ate the apple. What, that doesn't mean physical death in the next 24 hours? Oh, I see now. Interesting.

Look, if your religion conflicts with reality, time for another religion. Living in the real world has advantages. Insisting that one deny reality in order to find comfort in religion will only work for those who value that comfort above reality. Unfortunately, all too many seem to do just that.

DS said: Well Fl seems to have taken a powder. I wonder why, since he claims to have dealt with all of these arguments before? Oh well, I'm sure he'll be along soon to inform us that only he is a true Christian.

Mike Elzinga said: Apparently he thinks Dave has just given him an opening to preach endlessly. Another thread derailed. :-(

Mike wrote:

"Another thread derailed. :-( "

Yes, indeed ironic, considering the title of the thread.

Oh well, I tried to get the guy to discuss evidence, no dice. I even quoted from the linked article, but no one seems to find that interesting. At least Dave Luckett has some well reasoned arguments to bring to the derailed conversation. Now what are the odds that FL will want to discuss actual science when he makes his triumphant return as an ass (oops, I mean on his ass, opps again, I mean on an ass, yea that's it)?

I wonder who exactly FL thinks he can convince. He certainly has done nothing to challenge evolutionary theory. I very much doubt that anyone will be swayed by his interpretation of the Bible either.

Mike wrote:

"Another thread derailed. :-( "

Yes, indeed ironic, considering the title of the thread.

Oh well, I tried to get the guy to discuss evidence, no dice. I even quoted from the linked article, but no one seems to find that interesting. At least Dave Luckett has some well reasoned arguments to bring to the derailed conversation. Now what are the odds that FL will want to discuss actual science when he makes his triumphant return as an ass (oops, I mean on his ass, opps again, I mean on an ass, yea that's it)?

I wonder who exactly FL thinks he can convince. He certainly has done nothing to challenge evolutionary theory. I very much doubt that anyone will be swayed by his interpretation of the Bible either.

Genesis 1:16: 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night.

Dave,

I enjoyed your clear well reasoned post. I was pleased to see all of FL's concerns nicely addressed. FL can now relax and begin to consider the real world without risk to his eternal sole.

Rob

Dave Luckett - thanks for your cogent post. I wonder if FL will bother to respond.

*****************



Jeremy Mohn exposes yet another falsehood promoted by the Discovery Institute at their Faith+Evolution site.

Dave Luckett said:

Mike Elzinga said: Apparently he thinks Dave has just given him an opening to preach endlessly. Another thread derailed. :-(

I really should keep my big mouth shut, and I apologise. If I have done wrong, I think the post should be banished, as I said at the start.

The answers that religious searches for doesn't have to be exclusive to the domain of religion itself, or a specific religion

then what use is it?

If other things can answer the same questions, why reigion?

Ichthyic said: The answers that religious searches for doesn't have to be exclusive to the domain of religion itself, or a specific religion then what use is it? If other things can answer the same questions, why reigion?

philosopher Philip Kitcher opined that he regarded religions important for establishing human communities.

...but not uniquely important, or we wouldn't have largely secular communities and countries that exist just fine without any "religious cohesiveness".

The idea of religion as glue was a fallacy most vehemently argued by Leo Strauss.

http://home.earthlink.net/~karljahn/Strauss.htm

He was wrong.

I believe he was trying to emphasize the utility of rational religious faith in establishing strong ethical codes.

If anything, history suggests that religion is not only not required for establishing ethics, it often gets in the way.

try again?

Still no response from Fl and after he promised to respond to Dave and everything. Too bad, I had some more questions about the "image of God" thing.

Creationists are always claiming that Neanderthals were really human, so are they in the "image of God" as well? What about chimpanzees, are they 98.5 % in the "image of God"? What about Gorillas? Some people look a lot like Gorillas, so I guess they must be in the "image of God"l. Man God sure is hairy.

How can a physical body be an "image" anyway? Are we like a photograph of God or maybe a painting? Man this theology stuff sure gets complicated. I'm sure a careful examination of the original Hebrew will solve all of these mysteries for us. I will try to care but I don't think I'm going to make it.

Ichthyic,

Apparently you need to be reminded that there are more than a few of us posting here at PT who strongly resent the condescending attitudes expressed by prominent "New Atheists" such as Richard Dawkins, Christoper Hitchens, and PZ Myers and their acolytes like yourself. Once more you need to be reminded that your views - and those of your mentors - really represent the minority opinions of both the scientific community and the scientifically literate public.

While this is slightly off-topic, I would like you to explain to me how you, PZ Myers and others of your ilk can condemn Ken Miller for being a creationist when he has said - as he did here in New York City nearly two weeks ago during a private lecture to fellow Brown University alumni - that those who espouse religions that are intolerant of modern science should discard ASAP their memberships in such faiths. That does not sound like something that could be uttered by a creationist (And please don't fling back to me, Ken's own unique take on the "anthropic principle", which - while I strongly disagree with - I realize is more a reflection of his own private religious views than of his public understanding of what is - and what isn't - valid science.).

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

P. S. I look forward to reading a statement from you that sounds as well reasoned as any I have read from the likes of Dave Luckett, James F, or Nick Matzke, to name but a few.

Ichthyic said: philosopher Philip Kitcher opined that he regarded religions important for establishing human communities. ...but not uniquely important, or we wouldn't have largely secular communities and countries that exist just fine without any "religious cohesiveness". The idea of religion as glue was a fallacy most vehemently argued by Leo Strauss. http://home.earthlink.net/~karljahn/Strauss.htm He was wrong. I believe he was trying to emphasize the utility of rational religious faith in establishing strong ethical codes. If anything, history suggests that religion is not only not required for establishing ethics, it often gets in the way. try again?

Apparently you need to be reminded that there are more than a few of us posting here at PT who strongly resent the condescending attitudes expressed by prominent "New Atheists" such as Richard Dawkins, Christoper Hitchens, and PZ Myers and their acolytes like yourself.

That's nice, resent away John. Got an actual argument?

Kitcher is well-regarded for his understanding of the philosophy of science and music:

I used to have fun arguing Kitcher's side of the group selection argument in grad school.

um, what's that have to do with anything?

…but not uniquely important, or we wouldn’t have largely secular communities and countries that exist just fine without any “religious cohesiveness”.

At the very least, we'd have to broaden our notion of religion to cover a vaguely homogeneous value structure.

I think that's exactly what John is trying to do (I don't think that was Kitcher's intention, though).

It is perhaps possible that "religion" has indeed evolved to be such a broad notion.

If so, then perhaps that will be its inevitable end. It will become so broad as to be indistinguishable from any random value structure imaginable.

If the tent covers all of the field...

*shrug*

I've found PT to not be the best place to discuss these things over the last couple of years, so I think I'll not bother to poke the Kwokster any further, lest I succumb to just wanting to see him threaten me with a facebook attack.

Ichthyic said: At the very least, we'd have to broaden our notion of religion to cover a vaguely homogeneous value structure. I think that's exactly what John is trying to do (I don't think that was Kitcher's intention, though). It is perhaps possible that "religion" has indeed evolved to be such a broad notion. If so, then perhaps that will be its inevitable end. It will become so broad as to be indistinguishable from any random value structure imaginable. If the tent covers all of the field... *shrug* I've found PT to not be the best place to discuss these things over the last couple of years, so I think I'll not bother to poke the Kwokster any further, lest I succumb to just wanting to see him threaten me with a facebook attack.

Ichthyic said: Apparently you need to be reminded that there are more than a few of us posting here at PT who strongly resent the condescending attitudes expressed by prominent "New Atheists" such as Richard Dawkins, Christoper Hitchens, and PZ Myers and their acolytes like yourself. That's nice, resent away John. Got an actual argument? Kitcher is well-regarded for his understanding of the philosophy of science and music: I used to have fun arguing Kitcher's side of the group selection argument in grad school. um, what's that have to do with anything?

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said: Dave Luckett - thanks for your cogent post. I wonder if FL will bother to respond. *****************

Jeremy Mohn exposes yet another falsehood promoted by the Discovery Institute at their Faith+Evolution site.

John Kwok said: I believe the National Center for Science Education does a much better job than Mohn in exposing several related falsehoods promoted by such "notable" Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers like my fellow Brunonian, David Klinghoffer:

I don't think you need to worry about a "FB attack" from me, Ichthyic. But I've asked you to comment reasonably on the same comments I posted earlier today and yesterday, and would appreciate something thoughtful in response. Otherwise, you may wish to forgive me if I decide to confuse you with the likes of FL, Troy, Slimey Sal Cordova, etc. etc. in the future here at PT.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said:

John Kwok said: I believe the National Center for Science Education does a much better job than Mohn in exposing several related falsehoods promoted by such "notable" Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers like my fellow Brunonian, David Klinghoffer:

Jeremy's most recent video actually pertains directly to the topic of this thread; otherwise I wouldn't have linked it. He's been active in this struggle for years, and I'm betting he's aware of and appreciates NCSE's vast array of resources. [/obnoxiously pretentious name-dropping mode]

Correction to my PS to my last comment:

P. S. I was quite underwhelmed with Jeremy's choice of Billy Joel's hit single "Honesty" as being overtly too trite and too sentimental and, indeed, too obvious a choice as a musical accompaniment (I, myself, might have prefered the lesser known Elton John/Bernie Taupin song "Lies" from Elton's mid-1990s "Made in England" album.).

Actually, this is not necessarily true if one considers that if you look back far enough, our very first “replicator” origins probably were not anything close to what we would recognize as life today, therefore death (if we’re using the modern definition) would be an alien concept. The hard part is drawing the line at what exactly constitutes a living organism. To John Kwok: can I ask why you are a deist, and why “new atheists” like Richard Dawkins and Chris Hutchens fail to impress you? Not to bash or anything, but deism is a relatively untenable position. It’s basically indulgent agnosticism. And about theistic evolutionists. Obviously the Bible is just like a person; if you torture it enough, you can get it to say anything. But I still think anyone trying to reconcile the mainline Christian faith with the implications of modern evolutionary theory is guilty of intellectual dishonesty, and is at best lying to oneself. This includes people like Ken Miller, who I have great respect for, but I still disagree with his views on religion.

Icthyic asks Jeremy Bentham's question, of religion: what use is it?

I don't know. What use is grief? What use is being assured that those who grieve will be comforted? What use is joy? What use is Chartres Cathedral, or Bach's Mass in B minor, or the Kyrie from "African Sanctus", or the Michaelangelo Pieta?

I don't know what use they are. I can't even tell what use it is to tell people that they should love their enemies, when they never do.

I can only say that I think it would be a shame if those things were not.

RDK,

Thanks for the reminder, and I must blame my ongoing bout with flu for my failure to notice your questions.

Deism isn't "indulgent agnosticism", since it arose in the aftermath of violent sectarian Christian strife in Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries. Early proponents of Deism like Spinoza and Descartes believed in the existence of a Supreme Deity which acted only via natural law, producing results that could be seen and interpreted through rational - in other words, scientific - means. Contrary to the often-quoted assertions by some of my fellow Republicans and Conservatives, the United States was not a nation established by those who believed fervently in Judeo - Christian principles. Instead, its Founding Fathers, strongly influenced by the intellectual activities of the Scottish and French Enlightenments, were explicitly - or implicitly - Deist in their religious orientations, and, in fact, in our very first treaty negotiated with a foreign power - one of the Barbary States - acknowledged that the United States was not - nor never was - a "Christian" nation.

The very notion of agnosticism didn't arise formally until the mid 19th Century. If I'm not mistaken, the very term was coined by Darwin's Bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley in the 1860s.

I don't pretend to speak on behalf of such prominent theistic evolutionists as eminent evolutionary ecologist Michael Rosenzweig, molecular biologist Francis Collins, paleobiologist Simon Conway Morris, or even my friend, cell biologist Ken Miller (And I will note that I don't agree at all with his religious views or with how he thinks he can accomodate them successfully with his understanding and appreciation of science.). But they are not alone. According to a recent poll cited by vertebrate paleobiologist Donald Prothero in a talk I heard here in New York City last January, 56% of all evolutionary biologists have some belief in religion, and therefore, in a GOD.

I'll also be quite candid with you, RDK. I haven't really thought of the implications of philosopher Philip Kitcher's belief in the fundamental good that religion provides to humanity by providing via its ethics and beliefs in ensuring the survival and persistence of human communities. However, I do share much, if not all, of his love for 19th Century classical music, and I, for one, can't help but think of the positive influences which the best aspects of Protestant and Roman Cathnolic Christianity help inspire composers as dissimilar as Mendelssohn, Brahms, Mahler and Bruckner, in creating some remarkable, still enduring, great works of classical music literature.

Sincerely yours,

John

RDK,

I suppose I embraced Deism formally while in college, after having been told by the tnen Californian state chairman of the Campus Crusade for Christ that I might enjoy reading Jefferson's "edition" of the Bible, which Jefferson had edited, omitting all of the Bible's supernatural references (I was the resident "skeptic", who was accepted by friends in the college chapter of the Campus Crusade simply because most of our political views were fully in agreement.
Eventually a group of them decided to organize an "Origins" debate on campus, and yours truly was the sole "evolutionist" on the "Origins Debate Committee". After some effort, they were able to persuade a new assistant professor of cell biology, one Kenneth R. Miller, to debate creationist Henry Morris. The rest - to use an often cited phrase - was history.).

As for my criticism of the "New Atheism" as espoused by people as different in their political beliefs as for example, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens (some of his political views I agree with, especially with respect to USA foreign policy) and, PZ Myers (Without trying to sound a bit embittered, I believe that there are others, most notably, for example, NYC-based writers Austin Dacey and Susan Jacoby, who are far more deserving candidates as this year's recipient of the AHA Humanist of the Year Award, who have done substantially far more impressive work on behalf of secular humanism, free thinking and Atheism.), I find their arguments against those to be religiously devout, especially with respect to the so-called "creation vs. evolution" debate to be quite counterproductive in trying to persuade evolution denialists that evolution is scientifically quite valid and important towards our understanding of nature. Indeed, I believe that Ken Miller has been far more persuasive than they have been, simply because as someone who is himself, religiously devout, he understands at least some of their religiously rooted concerns and biases. In stark contrast to Ken's often "rational" means of discourse, Hitchens and Myers especially, have often come across as delusional Atheistic versions of Ken Ham and Bill Dembski.

Sincerely yours,

John

Cheryl,

Thanks for informing me that Jerry Mohn has been posting about the so-called "creation vs. evolution" debate, and I believe I may have stumbled upon a few of his websites. However, as much as I appreciate the time and effort he has put into creating them, they don't quite match the level of sophistication of either physicist David Heddle's blog:

http://helives.blogspot.com/

or Ken Miller's personal webpage:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km

(I mention Heddle and Miller since they are both devout Christians and professional scientists and have been, in their own ways, effective critics of the Dishonesty Institute and Intelligent Design cretinism.)

And, without trying to promote myself, nor is his commentary equivalent to the extensive, quite thorough, reviews I have written and posted at Amazon.com of books such as Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True", Mark Pallen's "Rough Guide to Evolution", Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross's "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" or Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters".

Sincerely yours,

John Kwok

I don’t know. What use is grief? What use is being assured that those who grieve will be comforted? What use is joy? What use is Chartres Cathedral, or Bach’s Mass in B minor, or the Kyrie from “African Sanctus”, or the Michaelangelo Pieta?

and really, what use is religion in explaining those things uniquely?

What use is the song "We are the Wold"?

What use is parent-child bonding?

I see where you're going, if you see where I am.

er, "World", even.

Ichthyic said: I don’t know. What use is grief? What use is being assured that those who grieve will be comforted? What use is joy? What use is Chartres Cathedral, or Bach’s Mass in B minor, or the Kyrie from “African Sanctus”, or the Michaelangelo Pieta? and really, what use is religion in explaining those things uniquely? What use is the song "We are the Wold"? What use is parent-child bonding? I see where you're going, if you see where I am.

John, seriously...

STFU

You'd do yourself a world of good.

Correction from my last post (which I should have seen but didn't due to my ongoing flu affliction):

Wny should someone who proudly proclaims himself as a "godless liberal" (which is exactly what Myers does at Pharyngula) expect to have his extreme views opposing a liberal view of religious tolerance (which would - if Myers et al. had their way - nullify effectively the religious aspects of our First Amendment) given ample respect at more "mainstream" scientific blogs like Panda's Thumb and treated with the very reverence that he himself expects when, like a typical Fascist, Communist or Nazi or adherent of some other kind of totalitarian political philosophy, he refuses to bestow such respect to the "evil" known as mainstream, rational religious thought of the kind we would expect from the likes of the late Roman Catholic Pope John Paul II or the Buddhist Dalai Lama?

Ichthyic said: John, seriously... STFU You'd do yourself a world of good.

In case you've forgotten:

While this is slightly off-topic, I would like you to explain to me how you, PZ Myers and others of your ilk can condemn Ken Miller for being a creationist when he has said - as he did here in New York City nearly two weeks ago during a private lecture to fellow Brown University alumni - that those who espouse religions that are intolerant of modern science should discard ASAP their memberships in such faiths. That does not sound like something that could be uttered by a creationist (And please don’t fling back at me, Ken’s own unique take on the “anthropic principle”, which - while I strongly disagree with - I realize is more a reflection of his own private religious views than of his public understanding of what is - and what isn’t - valid science.).

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

P. S. I look forward to reading a statement from you that sounds as well reasoned as any I have read from the likes of Dave Luckett, James F, or Nick Matzke, to name but a few.

John Kwok said: Cheryl, Thanks for informing me that Jerry [sic] Mohn has been posting about the so-called "creation vs. evolution" debate, and I believe I may have stumbled upon a few of his websites.

Am sure that Jeremy's websites will prove useful for some, but I'm interested more in those whichI think would be far more useful, especially with respect to their content (And there are variety of excellent reasons why I've selected both Heddle and Miller, of which, I still believe is the important work they have done on behalf of evolution proponents; an opinion that, I might add, is also shared by others):

"Different strokes, different folks. Jeremy's good people - reluctant to blow his own horn."

So might I add are Heddle and Miller.

This is just a reminder:

On 30 May 30, at 4:02 AM, FL listed "a total of FOUR huge, long-standing, and intractable reasons why evolution is incompatible with Christianity. "

A mere 7 hours and 38 minutes later, Dave Luckett quietly, modestly, and politely demolished each of FL's "long-standing and intractable reasons".

One hour and 12 minutes after that FL promised a reply to Dave and to the others who had responded to FL.

That was more than 3 days ago, and we've heard nothing but silence from FL. I am genuinely curious as to what arguments FL can adduce against Dave's quietly competent and obviously sincere reasoning.

Please don't let us down, FL!

Dan said: That was more than 3 days ago, and we've heard nothing but silence from FL. I am genuinely curious as to what arguments FL can adduce against Dave's quietly competent and obviously sincere reasoning. Please don't let us down, FL!

That's easy. All he has to do is convince everyone that "made" actually means poofed and "image" actually means physical body and bingo, he has absolutely proven that his religion is completely incompatible with reality. That should drive people away from his religion in droves. I can hardly wait. Face it, there is no way for FL to accomplish anything here if he only addresses biblical interpretations and not science.

DS said: Face it, there is no way for FL to accomplish anything here if he only addresses biblical interpretations and not science.

The scientific minded, like PZ, have Francis Collins correct - they acknowledge his scientific expertise but also his religiosity and think he's a philosophical moron and dangerous due to the latter.

The ID creationists question both his science and his faith. Neither side exactly likes him, but at least the hardcore atheists aren't ragging on him for delusional reasons.

Dave wrote:

"FL is not only ignorant of the facts, he isn’t in the least concerned about them. Remember how he said that I was the only one who engaged him “substantively? That was because I engaged him on biblical exegesis! He thinks that’s what’s “substantive”. No, really!"

Exactly. In fact, I made essentially the same arguments that you did before you did (though not as eloquently) and FL choose to ignore them completely, probably because I was also trying to get him to discuss science.

I for one am glad that you are willing to use the rock that you have on FL, even considering the title of the thread. Perhaps FL should take a clue from that. Then again, he has been gone for so long I am beginning to wonder if he is still in good health. I am sure that we all wish him the best if he is not feeling well.

The scientific minded, like PZ, have Francis Collins correct - they acknowledge his scientific expertise but also his religiosity and think he's a philosophical moron and dangerous due to the latter.

Mike Elzinga said: As far as religion is concerned, he has only his sectarian dogma, and has made no effort whatsoever to understand any other perspectives on religion. Apparently he believes all other perspectives are wrong a-priori. What could he possibly build from that kind of ignorance?

Reasons why evolution is supposed to be incompatible with Christianity. Supposed reason #1: Evolution does not have an end in view, and Christianity says God had an end in view, therefore Christianity is incompatible with evolution. See the squib there? God, the Creator, is confounded with part of His creation, namely the process of evolution. God can have an end in view, but the process itself need not have one. Confounding the Creator with the creation is actually theology so bad that it shades into heresy.

So how can God direct and undirected process?.... That didn’t make sense to me as I began to investigate this stuff. The kind of evolutionary theory being taught to students precludes the idea that there is a God or intelligent designer behind it because of the logical problem of saying that God could have directed a process that’s undirected, or that he had a divine purpose behind a purposeless and random world. ---Lee Strobel, author of The Case For A Creator

“Evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, ie conscious forethought.” ---Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed (D. Futuyma), p 342.

Supposed reason #2: Christianity says that humans are created in the image of God. But comparative anatomy and biochemistry say that humans are, physically, primates, and evolutionary theory says that this is because humans are primates, the descendents of earlier primates. Hence, Christianity is incompatible with evolution (and also with comparative anatomy and biochemistry, but let’s leave that out). See the squib there? “Image” is conflated with “physical appearance and/or anatomy”. The word means no such thing, necessarily, but more than that, it requires the God the Father to have a physical body, a physical semblence. Ridiculous.

“All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.” ---- 1 Cor. 15:39

“The image of God thesis does NOT go with just any brand of theism. It requires a theism in which God actively designs man and the world as a home for man.” – evolutionist James Rachels' book, Created From Animals.

FL,

I am not going to argue point by point with you, simply because I'm no longer familiar with the Old and New Testaments. However, two weeks ago, here in New York City, I heard Ken Miller note that Saint Augustine had written that he did not regard Genesis to be a literal explanation as to how the world was created or inhabited courtesy of GOD's divine works.

If Christianity is incompatible with evolution, your inane assertion hasn't been heeded by the likes of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Francisco J. Ayala, Francis Collins, Simon Conway Morris, Ken Miller, or Keith Miller (An invertebrate paleontologist who is an Evangelical Protestant Christian.). Apparently a recent poll - which I heard cited by vertebrate paleobiologist Donald Prothero at a talk he gave here in New York City back in January - that 56% of professional evolutionary biologists consider themselves religious; in plain English, believe in GOD. Finally, I should remind you that one of the devout Christians I have just mentioned, the great Russian - American evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, observed in print back in 1973 that, "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Substantial evolutionary biological research done in the years since have confirmed the veracity of that observation, demonstrating that it is indeed a universal statement unique to all of biology.

Live Long and Prosper (as an AiG Dalek clone),

John Kwok

FL said: Big apologies for the delay there. But I’m here now so let’s do it. Gotta split it into separate posts, Point-By-Point.

Reasons why evolution is supposed to be incompatible with Christianity. Supposed reason #1: Evolution does not have an end in view, and Christianity says God had an end in view, therefore Christianity is incompatible with evolution. See the squib there? God, the Creator, is confounded with part of His creation, namely the process of evolution. God can have an end in view, but the process itself need not have one. Confounding the Creator with the creation is actually theology so bad that it shades into heresy.

Multiple problems with your squib there, Dave. Gotta deal with ‘em. First—and this is huge—you’ve just stated that God is directing an undirected process.

FL said: Finally, the Bible (both Old and New Testament) is very clear how God originated the first humans.

FL said: First, “the image of God” is NOT about God having “a physical semblance” or a belly button. You’re lookin’ in the wrong direction there.

FL said:

“All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.” ---- 1 Cor. 15:39

That verse is very true, even from empirical observation today.

John Kwok said: Ironically this distinction is lost upon the "scientific minded" like PZ and his pal Richard Dawkins, who contend that to be a good scientist, you must be a militant atheist too.):

Richard Simons said:

John Kwok said: Ironically this distinction is lost upon the "scientific minded" like PZ and his pal Richard Dawkins, who contend that to be a good scientist, you must be a militant atheist too.):

I'm not sure that they do in fact contend this. Do you have a citation for it? It is my impression that they do not understand how anyone could so compartmentalise their mind that they are both religious and competent at science. Have they ever said that this is an impossible achievement?

Richard Simons said:

John Kwok said: Ironically this distinction is lost upon the "scientific minded" like PZ and his pal Richard Dawkins, who contend that to be a good scientist, you must be a militant atheist too.):

I'm not sure that they do in fact contend this. Do you have a citation for it? It is my impression that they do not understand how anyone could so compartmentalise their mind that they are both religious and competent at science. Have they ever said that this is an impossible achievement?

Kevin B said:

Richard Simons said:

John Kwok said: Ironically this distinction is lost upon the "scientific minded" like PZ and his pal Richard Dawkins, who contend that to be a good scientist, you must be a militant atheist too.):

I'm not sure that they do in fact contend this. Do you have a citation for it? It is my impression that they do not understand how anyone could so compartmentalise their mind that they are both religious and competent at science. Have they ever said that this is an impossible achievement?

While Prof Myers' position may be more nuanced, Dr(?) Kwok's comment does not appear to be greatly at variance with the opinions expressed on Pharyngula. Prof Myers' recent childish petulance over Raging Bee's comments in support of NCSE's "accomodationist" position on religion cannot reasonably be considered to promote a contrary view.

John in your love affair with Ken Miller and hatred of PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins you have lost all connection with reality. What PZ and Richard have a problem with are the "truth" claims of religion, not its social aspects. If religions were just social clubs where people got together once a week, sang some songs, listened to a motivational talk and ate food, then they could care less. If religions like Christianity retained an ecological component suggesting humans are functioning parts of ecosystems - not to mention related to the other components - and and if they incorporated new knowledge readily that contributed to a healthy planet.... If they updated themselves on regular basis to incorporate new knowledge.....
Get over your hero worship of Ken Miller - he is just one person with no special claims on the "truth".

Dan has done better than I, but I would add this:

We know of no end for evolution. But that only means we do not know of one, not that we know that there is none. And if we do not know the end, how can it surprise anyone to learn that the process appears to be undirected? Of course it must. But more, we must treat it as if it were, for that is all we can know.

But if there is an end, and if there is a God, then God knows the end. Thus, He owns the purpose. The process of evolution that He made and that we can study has no purpose that we can know. There is nothing there to upset a Christian.

Image of God. FL concedes that some attributes of humans are not physical, but he still clings stubbornly to the notion that God has some of the physical attributes that we have. This is ridiculous, and blasphemous. Which parts? Which attributes? Which aspects? Does God have ears? Hair? Teeth? Fingers? An appendix?

As soon as you ask these questions, the notion becomes nonsensical. "Image" mustn't have anything to do with physical body, therefore. It's a metaphor. It means that man was made to reflect God's love, His knowledge, His spirit. Palely, and poorly, as images often do. But this has nothing to do with the physical bodies whose general plan and structure we have inherited. We gained that metaphorical image of God when we began the long journey towards knowledge. Knowledge of good and evil, perhaps. But knowledge withal. And there is nothing there to upset a Christian, either. On the contrary, the idea of a God in a physical body would.

FL quoted: “All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.” —- 1 Cor. 15:39

Dear aristida,

I've known Ken Miller for years. He is an old friend of mine. I trust and value his counsel, even when he's gone as far as telling me to "shut up" (which he has done a few times in the past, of which maybe the most important example was my harsh, but still legitimate, e-mail complaints to Natural History editor Richard Milner - whom I regard now as a friend - and one of Milner's colleagues at the American Museum of Natural History Education department, when I heard that they were organizing an AMNH debate on whether ID is science. That debate was held almost exactly 7 years ago with Ken and philosopher Robert Pennock arguing the con, Behe and Dembski the pro, and, of all people, Genie Scott serving as a most effective moderator.). So I definitely have no "love affair" with Ken.

I inclined to be sympathetic to Ken's views since he has served with ample distinction as a professor of biology at our undergraduate alma mater and because I still consider myself fortunate to have assisted him in his very first debate against a creationist, that was held on campus. But just because I am inclined to be sympathetic doesn't mean that I accept all of his views. For example, I have stated more than once my profound disagreement with his version of the anthropic principle (But, unlike, for example, Coyne or Myers, I haven't jumped to the inane conclusion that Ken must be a creationist for harboring such a view.).

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Dear aristida,

I don't hate Richard Dawkins (whom I have met and have ample respect for, even if I strongly disagree with his promotion of his militant brand of atheism and his strict adherence to natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution) or Jerry Coyne (who is IMHO one of our leading authorities on the nature of speciation and has written a delightful little book outlining much of the extensive scientific proof for evolution, "Why Evolution is True") or even PZ Myers. However, in Myers's case, I am quite disgusted by his online conduct, and quite frankly, I don't see a dime's worth of difference between his or Dembski's repulsive behavior. I've concluded that Myers is undeserving of his upcoming AHA award for these reasons only: Myers acts too often like Dembski and has not done much positive work on behalf of secular humanism and atheism. My opposition to his receiving that award is not motivated by my own personal feelings towards him.

Respectfully yours,

John Kwok

Richard Simons said: In what clear way is the flesh of men different from the flesh of animals?

Re "People taste like pork, everything else tastes like chicken."

If everything except people tastes like chicken, what does pork taste like? ;)

Besides, it's not that things taste like chicken, it's that chickens and some other land vertebrates taste like early amphibians. (Other descendants of those early amphibians evolved different biochemistry that changed their taste.)

We do know that things will end - species will go extinct (average life of 1-5MY) and the sun will run out of fuel.

Michael Fugate said: We do know that things will end - species will go extinct (average life of 1-5MY)...

Dave Luckett said: Image of God. FL concedes that some attributes of humans are not physical, but he still clings stubbornly to the notion that God has some of the physical attributes that we have. This is ridiculous, and blasphemous. Which parts? Which attributes? Which aspects? Does God have ears? Hair? Teeth? Fingers? An appendix?

Mike Elzinga said:

Dave Luckett said: Image of God. FL concedes that some attributes of humans are not physical, but he still clings stubbornly to the notion that God has some of the physical attributes that we have. This is ridiculous, and blasphemous. Which parts? Which attributes? Which aspects? Does God have ears? Hair? Teeth? Fingers? An appendix?

More to the point; does God have a navel?

Stanton said:

Michael Fugate said: We do know that things will end - species will go extinct (average life of 1-5MY)...

Triops cancriformis would beg to differ on that statement: Unambiguous fossils of it date back to the Early Triassic, 220 million years ago, and if the splitters are wrong about the Paleozoic Triops species, then T. cancriformis' fossil record extends all the way back to the Mid to Late Carboniferous.

Dave wrote:

"As soon as you ask these questions, the notion becomes nonsensical. “Image” mustn’t have anything to do with physical body, therefore. It’s a metaphor. It means that man was made to reflect God’s love, His knowledge, His spirit. Palely, and poorly, as images often do. But this has nothing to do with the physical bodies whose general plan and structure we have inherited."

Exactly. If "image" means physical body, then God must be circumcised! How silly. If "image" does not mean physical body, then there is no conflict between the statement and religion. By demanding that there be a conflict, FL has given up all of the important aspects of the "image of God" that you have pointed out and reduced the Bible to a demonstrably false document with no real moral lessons to teach.

John Kwok said: Technically, I might be more comfortable referring to the T. cancriformis morphospecies complex, since we don't know if the same species - based on molecular data - did persist all the way back to the late Paleozoic. I suppose once could invoke the inarticulate brachiopod genus Lingula as one whose appearance hasn't really changed since the end of the Cambrian, approximately 500 million years ago:

Stanton said:

Michael Fugate said: We do know that things will end - species will go extinct (average life of 1-5MY)...

Triops cancriformis would beg to differ on that statement: Unambiguous fossils of it date back to the Early Triassic, 220 million years ago, and if the splitters are wrong about the Paleozoic Triops species, then T. cancriformis' fossil record extends all the way back to the Mid to Late Carboniferous.

Stanton said: One of my teachers told me that some experts wanted to split the Cambrian/Ordovician Lingula species into a separate genus from the modern species, as apparently, the crystalline structures of the shells differ greatly. But, since I can't find any further information about this, I guess either he was mistaken, after all, or they've changed their minds again.

John Kwok said: Technically, I might be more comfortable referring to the T. cancriformis morphospecies complex, since we don't know if the same species - based on molecular data - did persist all the way back to the late Paleozoic. I suppose once could invoke the inarticulate brachiopod genus Lingula as one whose appearance hasn't really changed since the end of the Cambrian, approximately 500 million years ago:

Stanton said:

Michael Fugate said: We do know that things will end - species will go extinct (average life of 1-5MY)...

Triops cancriformis would beg to differ on that statement: Unambiguous fossils of it date back to the Early Triassic, 220 million years ago, and if the splitters are wrong about the Paleozoic Triops species, then T. cancriformis' fossil record extends all the way back to the Mid to Late Carboniferous.

John Kwok said: I think I've heard something vaguely similar, but to the best of my knowledge, the genus is recognized as existing from the Cambrian to the present

There may be some very important morphological reasons as to why Lingula should no longer be regarded as a "living fossil" as noted here:

http://paleopolis.rediris.es/cg/CG2003_L01_CCE/

Not having studied fossil brachiopods for years, I must defer to someone who is a current scholar, and I think his arguments are reasonable.

Stanton said: Agreed. But imagine how silly this conversation would have turned out if we were forced, under pain of death, then eternal damnation, to think that a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis was somehow relevant, as many of the creationist trolls would want us to think.

John Kwok said: I think I've heard something vaguely similar, but to the best of my knowledge, the genus is recognized as existing from the Cambrian to the present

I did say average.

John Kwok said: But only if GOD was a mammal:

Mike Elzinga said: Sheesh; these literalist apologetics get so inane that it is futile to try to reply to them. It’s difficult to even take them seriously.

Dave Luckett said: ... But the real purpose of any such dialogue, on the part of the reality-driven person, is not to persuade the literalist of reality. A biblical literalist will simply dismiss reality and assert dogma, when driven to it, and will see no difficulty in doing so, because dogma is the reality, to them. The trick is to catch them red-handed doing it, so clearly and plainly that the act cannot be concealed from a witness. This accomplishes two aims. One, any witness who is also reality-driven will immediately see the transaction for what it is: a flight from reality. Two, even witnesses who doubt the science can be brought to examine the dogma, when it emerges. And the dogma on which FL depends is repulsive to most Christians themselves. It is specifically that his small sect alone has interpreted scripture aright; that they alone are inspired of God to understand, not what the scriptures say, but what they mean. That's an idea that can be attacked with the approval of most Christians. That's what I'm trying to do.

Dave Luckett said: But the real purpose of any such dialogue, on the part of the reality-driven person, is not to persuade the literalist of reality. A biblical literalist will simply dismiss reality and assert dogma, when driven to it, and will see no difficulty in doing so, because dogma is the reality, to them. The trick is to catch them red-handed doing it, so clearly and plainly that the act cannot be concealed from a witness. This accomplishes two aims. One, any witness who is also reality-driven will immediately see the transaction for what it is: a flight from reality. Two, even witnesses who doubt the science can be brought to examine the dogma, when it emerges. And the dogma on which FL depends is repulsive to most Christians themselves. It is specifically that his small sect alone has interpreted scripture aright; that they alone are inspired of God to understand, not what the scriptures say, but what they mean. That's an idea that can be attacked with the approval of most Christians. That's what I'm trying to do.

Dan said: As, for example, when you caught FL saying that “image of God” must mean physical image...

(2) Evolution clearly and publicly denies that humans were created and designed in the image of God.

The image of God thesis is NOT about GOD supposedly having “physical attributes”, it’s about US HUMANS having attributes (some physical, some non-physical) that forever separate us above and apart from all animals because there is something fundamentally totally different about us (the image of God).

eric said: I might just as well claim that evolution must be false because it contradicts myxlpyx...just don't ask me what myxlpyx is.

Having just seen "the nature of things" special on floresiensis (sp?), I'm thinking maybe God has a trapezoid bone just like ours....

Google sez: mxyzptlk

fnxtr said: Having just seen "the nature of things" special on floresiensis (sp?), I'm thinking maybe God has a trapezoid bone just like ours....

Mike Elzinga said: Hey, I think I know the answer to this one. The spelling is close (Myxtlplx (?)). Wasn’t this the mischievous character that popped into and out of space-time to harass Superman?

Dave has not stated that God is directing an undirected process. He said that evolution is undirected and that it’s a part of God’s creation.

the Bible (both Old and New Testament) is very clear how God originated the first humans.

We know of no end for evolution.

But that only means we do not know of one, not that we know that there is none.

process a.p.p.e.a.r.s to be undirected

he still clings stubbornly to the notion that God has some of the physical attributes that we have.

But this (the image of God) has nothing to do with the physical bodies////whose general plan and structure we have inherited

FL must argue that the TOE contradicts us being made in the image of God without saying what the image of God is.

It is specifically that his small sect alone has interpreted scripture aright; That’s an idea that can be attacked with the approval of most Christians. That’s what I’m trying to do.

This is your quote from Futuyama: “Evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, ie conscious forethought.” I believe that this is what he thinks.

And he's right. "Evolutionary theory" does not admit of conscious forethought. It can't, by definition.

A "theory" in science is a unifying explanation of physical events by causes, where the causes and the physical events are observable and actually observed. That means it precludes, and must preclude, underlying conscious supernatural direction.

That is not to say that there necessarily cannot be any such direction; only that theory cannot detect it or treat it as cause. It knows nothing of it.

Consider a falling boulder. The Theory of Gravity defines its trajectory exactly. Perhaps it was released from a beetling cliff by the blind forces of erosion. Perhaps I toppled it off the cliff by accident, or perhaps I calculated it with forethought to strike some target below. The Theory of Gravity doesn't know or care about the intent. It doesn't even admit of it. Neither does the boulder. The observer who is interested in calculating how long the stone would take to fall a given distance would be able to apply the theory, and obtain an accurate result without knowing about intent, either. For the purposes of observing the fact of gravity, and the correctness of the theory, the question of intent is irrelevant and imponderable. And so for all scientific theory. The Theory of Evolution does not admit of (ie, take into account, use as input, attempt to explain, observe, treat, discuss or consider) conscious forethought. Just so.

So what?

"Another poster" did not point out that I got it wrong. Eric pointed out - rightly - that I was attributing reason to you, when you hadn't even got that far. When you wrote:

"The image of God thesis is NOT about GOD supposedly having “physical attributes”, it’s about US HUMANS having attributes (some physical, some non-physical) that forever separate us above and apart from all animals because there is something fundamentally totally different about us (the image of God)"

I thought (reasonably enough, but then again, I use reason) that you were saying that humans had non-physical and physical characteristics that were in the image of God's characteristics. That would necessarily mean that God has physical characteristics like our physical characteristics; and I pointed out that that is ridiculous.

So which is it, FL? Are you talking about what the Theory of Evolution explains, that is, physical bodies and actual behaviours, or are you not? If not, we have no problem. I'm perfectly happy to let you think that our non-physical and non-material characteristics are the image of God's. It's when you start trying to say that our physical bodies must be like God's that you find yourself spouting palpable nonsense - and, worse theology yet, actually limiting God's form. And it's with physical bodies that you also run afoul of evolutionary theory.

Onward: "The Bible does not limit..."

Are you seriously attempting to say that the Bible must tell you plainly when it is using metaphor? What nonsense! Does Jesus say, at the start of each parable, that he is telling a story to make a point? He does tell his disciples, in one instance (the Parable of the Sower) what his symbols and metaphors mean. Are we to infer from this that all of his other parables are literal accounts of actual events?

And if we say, as we must, that some of the Bible is metaphorical, even to the very words of Jesus Himself, who are you to say that your notion of what is literal is any better than mine?

For I say that the short phrase (it is no more than that) about man being made in the image of God is clearly metaphor, and an apt one, referring to the fact that an image is not physically identical, nor of the same substance as the original. Do you claim to know better? By what means? Do you claim the mantle of prophesy? Has God Himself inspired you?

But there's worse, for on the basis that you know better than they you exclude other Christians from the Church and from grace itself. Your hubris and your vanity is appalling. Look to your own sins, FL. Pride is the first of them.

Now, as to the Bible. Your 'authorities' attempt to deny the plain fact that the two accounts in Genesis are to some extent opposed, and fail abjectly. Batten miserably conjectures that the tense of a Hebrew verb is given by context, and that allows him to arrange the order of events of Genesis 1 and 2 to his liking. He ignores the fact that the text specifies the order of events not only by the tense of the verbs - and all English translations agree on those and disagree with his abject shifts and special-pleading assumptions - but by conjunctions that provide chronological sequence: "then", for example, at 1:26, where it plainly indicates that the act of creating humans came after the creation of all animals and that male and female were created together, as opposed to 2:19ff, where the animals were created after male humans and before female humans.

Deems doesn't even address the problem of chronological sequence. Nothing there even attempts to engage with it. I have no idea why you think this has anything of substance to say.

Jackson simply asserts that the problem doesn't exist, and quibbles vaguely about the meaning of the words, without ever saying what he thinks they actually mean. This procedure has the merit of impenetrability, but the defect that it is meaningless.

The Bible says, at Genesis 1:26-7, that God created human beings "male and female", and that this happened after the creation of all "animals, cattle and creeping things" at 25. At Genesis 2:18ff, it says that God made a male human being first, then "all the wild animals" to be his companions (which establishes a clear chronological sequence) and then a woman, because "no suitable partner was found" among the wild animals. These accounts are irreconcilable, and your "authorities" do no more than flounder helplessly before this fact.

That you are prepared to consider other Christians as outside the fold if they disagree with you on this question is shameful, and testifies only to your intolerance, sectarianism and lack of charity.

Dave Luckett said: That you are prepared to consider other Christians as outside the fold if they disagree with you on this question is shameful, and testifies only to your intolerance, sectarianism and lack of charity.

sooo.... the bible is literally true, every word.

Except when it isn't.

Makes sense to me....

FL said:

Dan said: Dave has not stated that God is directing an undirected process. He said that evolution is undirected and that it’s a part of God’s creation.

The inference is undeniable, Dan. Stating that evolution is undurected AND that it's a part of God's creation (remember, you're attributing the creation to God there!), absolutely implies the first gig---that God is directing an undirected process.

Dave Luckett said: Jackson simply asserts that the problem doesn't exist, and quibbles vaguely about the meaning of the words, without ever saying what he thinks they actually mean. This procedure has the merit of impenetrability, but the defect that it is meaningless.

FL said: No wonder you guys prefer to stick to the science stuff, you don't do so well on the Bible stuff.

FL wrote:

"The inference is undeniable, Dan. Stating that evolution is undurected AND that it’s a part of God’s creation (remember, you’re attributing the creation to God there!), absolutely implies the first gig—that God is directing an undirected process."

Well is God "directing" human affairs? If so, then she is "directing" an undirected process which includes free will. If not, then she doesn't really need to "direct" every process and so evolution can be undirected. See, no real problem.

Anyway, if "image" can be interpreted as physical body and "made" can be interpreted as "poof", then "directed" and shouldn't really be a big problem now should it?

Oh yea, and what does God need with a starship?

FL said: But the Bible clearly fails to support you on either point there. Nowhere does the Bible limit the impact of the Image Of God upon humans to the "spiritual" domain only...

FL said: the Bible (both Old and New Testament) is very clear how God originated the first humans.

FL said: And btw, there are at least eight websites and one or two textbooks that completely refute your suggestion that Gen. 1 contradicts Gen. 2. Let's just do three of them for anybody interested. YEC: http://creation.com/genesis-contradictions OEC: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/genesis2.html Evangelical: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2194

FL said: Okay, that's all done.