Freshwater: He taught "robust evolution"

From reading the above and knowing nothing else of the case, he seems to be guilty of being a crappy Biology teacher. Maybe he is a great guy and he loves the kids and all of that, but that is the impression that I get. Anyone who was taught Biology in a reputable college knows full well that evolution is both a fact and a scientific theory. Telling kids that life in prehistoric times was just like the Flintstones is unforgivable.

You might want to read more of what I have to say at my new skeptically themed science-based website, http://www.theinconvenienttruth.org The Inconvenient Truth.

But now he not only admits that he taught creationism, he is proud of having taught what he calls “robust evolution.”

Freshwater seems like a perfect illustration of what is wrong with public high school biology classes. As the New York Times reported earlier this year, less than 30% of biology teachers actually teach evolution. 13% explicitly teach creationism and about 60% avoid controversy by endorsing neither evolution nor an alternative, which the study calls, the "cautious" 60%. As I understand it, Freshwater's teaching of creationism wouldn't have been exposed except for his stupidity about burning the students. It seems a lot of creationists, who aren't quite as dumb as Freshwater, fly under the radar.

eric said:

But now he not only admits that he taught creationism, he is proud of having taught what he calls “robust evolution.”

So, like many creationists before him, he tells different audiences different things. I really marvel that these guys can be so ignorant of the consequences of the modern media age: lawyers can and will get access to what you say in all fora, not just the ones creationists want them to see. This is why I think the stealth strategy will fail: creos ultimately have to reveal the message they want to teach. There's no way around it. Even for a perfectly conducted stealth campaign, they'd have to reveal it in the classroom when they start actually teaching creationism. But for more realistic, less perfect stealth campaigns, they have to message to their people long before they reach the classroom, in order to to drum up legislative support. When outsiders see that message, the whole effort falls apart.

I strongly suspect that Freshwater sincerely believes every different story he tells, at the time he tells it. Dawkins spoke of "virtuoso believing", and creationists seem to have honed this skill over a lifetime. They literally DO believe six things before breakfast, incompatible with their after-breakfast beliefs, without skipping a beat.

I'm reminded of the joke about the customer who spent 15 minutes energetically haggling with the vendor over the price of some item. When they were finished, the next customer said "I want one of those also, at that same price." And the vendor said "Oh no! For you, we start all over." Each price is customized to a buyer, just like each creationist message is customized to an audience. Converts are made retail, not wholesale.

Good god, even the "it's just a theory" nonsense from this idiotic clod?

If he doesn't even know what "theory" means in science, he clearly hasn't a clue what teaching "robust evolution"--or whatever he calls maliciously and dishonestly attacking evolution--could legitimately be.

Glen Davidson

Flint said: I strongly suspect that Freshwater sincerely believes every different story he tells, at the time he tells it

A Masked Panda (7cad) beat me to it. If this guy doesn't know what a theory is in science and how it relates to facts then he shouldn't even be teaching any science-based class, let alone one that deals with evolution. It is curious (not really, I guess) how he has managed to go through all of this mess and *still* not have learned the difference. Does he have to be hit with the proverbial 2x4 before he learns?

I was watching Eugenie Scott’s talk on "Academic Freedom" Laws in a video posted by Sensuous Curmudgeon, and thinking about the trend in language in the ID/creationism legislation.

There is little doubt that these sectarians driving paranoia about all of secular society will keep them meddling until they “get it right.”

As Eugenie point’s out, it is ultimately going to come down to education, both at the high school and university level. People will have to recognize not only the linguistics and the motivations that identify these sectarians, but they will have to become far more proficient at teaching the ideas of science. And that is not just evolution, but physics, chemistry, geology and earth science as well.

But I think that the education must go beyond this. ID/creationism is a horribly dishonest pseudo-science; and as such, it is dismal reading to anyone who understands the science and just how badly ID/creationism mangles real science.

As annoying and as wasteful of time that many people might think it would be to read and understand this pseudo-science, I suspect that it will ultimately become necessary for all dedicated teachers to understand and articulate. Not just articulate, but debunk in no uncertain terms.

The fact is that ID/creationism uses and builds upon common misconceptions that many students bring into the classroom. Learning how misconceptions arise and how to fine-tune a student’s understanding of subtle scientific concepts is something every teacher can benefit from; and studying the concoctions of ID/creationism can help. It’s bad tasting learning, but it does, in fact, help in one’s preparations of the correct concepts in science.

Somewhere in every science curriculum there needs to be some kind of unit or course on pseudo-science and other forms of voodoo science. ID/creationists aren’t the only aggressive crackpots out there.

JF: I teach what I … actually, I call it a robust evolution. I showed what was the evidence for evolution, I showed evidence that was opposed to evolution. I showed all sides. RG: And let the kids decide? JF: Yes. Let the kids decide. I stayed neutral on it, and let the kids make a decision on it.

It's clear that Freshwater was a good conman at his level of operation. He managed to convince his own supervisors and even colleagues that he was teaching science.

Of course he was not teaching science. We now know that he was not teaching it, and not merely subverting it, but destroying it wholesale. It wasn't that he was merely presenting creationism as an alternative theory to evolution (which it isn't); he was actively engaged in the denial, nay, sabotage of all science.

Well, that follows. Evolution is supported by every science, not just biology. To deny it, it is necessary to deny all science. And so we have the student's remark about what he learned from Mr Freshwater: "Science can’t be trusted. Science can’t teach us anything."

I can't, just offhand, think of anything one might teach a student that would be more destructive to the student's education, and to the student himself. Racism, perhaps. Freshwater systematically and deliberately crippled and blinded his students. He did it for years - decades. Fire him? He should never have been allowed within shouting distance of a school.

Compared with this evidential intent to drag his students back into the Dark Ages, and his actual achievement of it in some cases, burning crosses on their arms is trivial. Superficial burns is one thing; it's abuse, sure, but compared to the profound damage he inflicted on their minds, it hardly rates a mention. And yet it was the branding which caused his downfall.

How many more are there out there? Freshwaters with just enough sense not to do something that comprehensively, violently, overwhelmingly stupid? "Flying under the radar", working an audience, while destroying minds, educations, and the enlightenment itself, in the same determined, insuppressible way, but with more cunning?

I wonder.

Whence cometh "robust evolution"?

Surely not John Freshwater.

Have we a new idiom from ID/creationists?

A common trait of the anti-science Christians I've encountered that I find as fascinating as it is absurd, is the speed with which they become post-modern relativists on the subject of science, and the total lack of cognitive dissonance they display when doing it.

On what other subject would fundamentalist Christians ask, "What’s wrong with letting kids look at all that and try to decide on their own?"

Imagine:

"What's wrong with telling the kids about both abstinence and birth control and letting them decide on their own?"

"What's wrong with presenting the arguments for both capitalism and communism and letting the kids decide on their own?"

"What's wrong with presenting the arguments for and against gay marriage and letting the kids decide on their own?"

"What's wrong with telling kids..." -- fill in the blank with virtually any topic other than science, and fundamentalist Christians would generally become apoplectic at the prospect of letting kids hear all sides of the issue and decide for themselves what they want to believe.

The level of intellectual inconsistency in stunning.

We can see Freshwater's anti-intellectualism on another level, as well. As a religious man, he clearly has firm beliefs, but his logic sucks. Even a theologian will try to be consistent in his or her reasoning and look for compelling evidence in primary sources. Freshwater's argument for "everything but evolution" is by contrast scattered and relies on poor secondary sources for support. His argument is essentially, "It just is. So there." Hardly the kind of intellectual exercise suitable for a science class. (Of course, at the 8th grade level, that's how a lot of science texts read.)

Most Bible literalists use this same kind of argumentative style: "The Book says so.... The defense rests." There's no attempt to address theology, or any other subject, in a multi-dimensional way. In their dichotomous worldview, Creationism/ID is the only valid "theory," while evolution (which is not mentioned in the Bible at all -- big surprise) is garbage.

As a science teacher and a theologian, Freshwater stinks. He has no grasp of the scientific method, or the reliability of evidence, or the requirements of a logical argument. I hope this man never finds another job teaching in the public schools, or really any school.

By the way, thanks for plugging my plug. I will plug this thread later on, in return.

Flint said: I strongly suspect that Freshwater sincerely believes every different story he tells, at the time he tells it. Dawkins spoke of "virtuoso believing", and creationists seem to have honed this skill over a lifetime. They literally DO believe six things before breakfast, incompatible with their after-breakfast beliefs, without skipping a beat. I'm reminded of the joke about the customer who spent 15 minutes energetically haggling with the vendor over the price of some item. When they were finished, the next customer said "I want one of those also, at that same price." And the vendor said "Oh no! For you, we start all over." Each price is customized to a buyer, just like each creationist message is customized to an audience. Converts are made retail, not wholesale.

John said:

JF: I teach what I … actually, I call it a robust evolution. I showed what was the evidence for evolution, I showed evidence that was opposed to evolution. I showed all sides. RG: And let the kids decide? JF: Yes. Let the kids decide. I stayed neutral on it, and let the kids make a decision on it.

Riiight! Because 8th graders are in a position to "decide" whether or not evolutionary science makes sense or not! Maybe we should let them decide whether or not the germ theory of disease is right or not and whether or not they should wash their hands after going to the bathroom too ... right, parents?

Dave Luckett said: And so we have the student's remark about what he learned from Mr Freshwater: "Science can’t be trusted. Science can’t teach us anything."

Carl Drews said:

Dave Luckett said: And so we have the student's remark about what he learned from Mr Freshwater: "Science can’t be trusted. Science can’t teach us anything."

There was a much better conclusion for student James Hoeffgren to reach: "Mr. Freshwater can’t be trusted. Mr. Freshwater can’t teach us anything." If someone teaches nonsense, the students have every right to be suspicious of what they say next time.

nasty.brutish.tall said: A common trait of the anti-science Christians I've encountered that I find as fascinating as it is absurd, is the speed with which they become post-modern relativists on the subject of science, and the total lack of cognitive dissonance they display when doing it.

Flint said: I think this is a misconception. "Let the kids choose" has no connection, intended or implied, with letting the kids choose. Nobody is fooled. This request decodes as nothing more than "legally allow creationism into science class and we'll take it from there." The goal here is to get the law changed so that children won't get a chance to choose science while they still can.

nasty.brutish.tall said:

Flint said: I think this is a misconception. "Let the kids choose" has no connection, intended or implied, with letting the kids choose. Nobody is fooled. This request decodes as nothing more than "legally allow creationism into science class and we'll take it from there." The goal here is to get the law changed so that children won't get a chance to choose science while they still can.

I don't disagree when it comes to the DI crew and their like, who are masters of dissimulation about their legal motives (not to mention the identity of the designer). But I was referring more to the average joe churchgoer who is the target audience for said dissimulation. Most that I encounter are naive to the "strategy", instead taking it at face value, which results in sincere indignation about how unfair it is that kids can't just hear both sides and decide for themselves.

Dave Luckett said: How many more are there out there? Freshwaters with just enough sense not to do something that comprehensively, violently, overwhelmingly stupid?

Flint said: I'm not sure about that. Those people I know really DO want their kids to get the best education they can get - and that leaving Jesus out of the classroom deprives them of such an education. And after all, things like sex education (abstinence vs. birth control), political organizations (capitalism vs. communism), etc. ARE taught in class, with both sides at least presented, and the parents have the opportunity to help their children understand and choose. But the law flat keeps Jesus out of science class, so it comes across as unfair. The parent has to do ALL the religious heavy lifting.

While I can't speak for Freshwater,it appears that even he has his up Darwin's colon far enough to believe that science can be addressed independently of metaphysics. If Darwinian factoids are necessary for certain standardized tests, the schools can just pass out review sheets for the kids to memorize. If not, it is time to consign that retard to whatever Victorian sewer he emerged.

Not that I object to teaching the religion of evolutionism in schools; the students should read Nietzsche, de Sade, Lovecraft, and others who express the bleak nihilism that is central to their faith that Darwin and his followers were too stupid to understand. They then should compare this to the love and hope available through the Gospel. Then the students could make an informed choice.

I think Flint may be underestimating the degree of mental compartmentalisation of which fundamentalists are capable. It is perfectly possible - indeed, necessary - for them to hold two (or more) mutually opposed views simultaneously.

Hence, they want freedom of speech, and they don't want it, both at once, the one for themselves, the other for those opposed. They want science and history taught, and they don't want them taught, both at once. They want the best possible education for their kids, and they don't want it, both at once. They want to live according to the Bible, and they don't want to, both at once. They hold the Bible to be literal and metaphorical, both at once. They want to enjoy the benefits of science and they think science knows little, both at once. They think that the State should be small and unimportant, and should never interfere with how citizens live their lives in private, but should be all-powerful to enforce moral behaviour, both at once.

It's only possible to hold both views by not recognising that they are essentially opposed. How is it possible to not recognise that? I think - because I see it in myself sometimes - it works by keeping a sort of one-way gate between the compartments. Opening the one shuts the other. But to avoid cognitive dissonance, the gate must be very strong and the compartments inviolable. There can be no leakage.

They cope. They do actually cope.

Truly, the human mind is a wonderful thing. By which I mean that it is an object of wonder.

Hygaboo's a professional, industrial strength troll, and it is unwise to assume that he's actually sincere about anything.

That said, you can see that compartmentalisation that I noted operating there: he doesn't mind the theory of evolution being taught, provided that it isn't actually taught; he's for freedom of thought, so long as it isn't freedom of thought. Darwin was smart enough to fool practically everyone, even other creationists, (everyone, in fact, except the almighty Hyg himself) but he was desperately stupid, both at once.

Silly, isn't it?

Dave Luckett said: Hygaboo's

a professional, industrial strength troll, and it is unwise to assume that he's actually sincere about anything.

That said, you can see that compartmentalisation that I noted operating there: he doesn't mind the theory of evolution being taught, provided that it isn't actually taught; he's for freedom of thought, so long as it isn't freedom of thought. Darwin was smart enough to fool practically everyone, even other creationists, (everyone, in fact, except the almighty Hyg himself) but he was desperately stupid, both at once.

Silly, isn't it?

Ian Brandon Andersen said: While I can't speak for Freshwater,it appears that even he has his up Darwin's colon far enough to believe that science can be addressed independently of metaphysics. If Darwinian factoids are necessary for certain standardized tests, the schools can just pass out review sheets for the kids to memorize. If not, it is time to consign that retard to whatever Victorian sewer he emerged. Not that I object to teaching the religion of evolutionism in schools; the students should read Nietzsche, de Sade, Lovecraft, and others who express the bleak nihilism that is central to their faith that Darwin and his followers were too stupid to understand. They then should compare this to the love and hope available through the Gospel. Then the students could make an informed choice.

Dave Luckett said: I think Flint may be underestimating the degree of mental compartmentalisation of which fundamentalists are capable. It is perfectly possible - indeed, necessary - for them to hold two (or more) mutually opposed views simultaneously.

Hence, they want freedom of speech, and they don't want it, both at once, the one for themselves, the other for those opposed.

They want science and history taught, and they don't want them taught, both at once.

They want the best possible education for their kids, and they don't want it, both at once.

They want to live according to the Bible, and they don't want to, both at once.

They hold the Bible to be literal and metaphorical, both at once.

They want to enjoy the benefits of science and they think science knows little, both at once.

They think that the State should be small and unimportant, and should never interfere with how citizens live their lives in private, but should be all-powerful to enforce moral behaviour, both at once.

It's only possible to hold both views by not recognising that they are essentially opposed.

How is it possible to not recognise that? I think - because I see it in myself sometimes - it works by keeping a sort of one-way gate between the compartments. Opening the one shuts the other. But to avoid cognitive dissonance, the gate must be very strong and the compartments inviolable. There can be no leakage.

There is no necessity that a government charged with enforcing moral behavior must be very large or expensive.

Prankster, Hygaboo, is not troll. Trolls are people who utter insane, stupid, malicious, insulting or provocative words for the sole purpose of getting a reaction, this being the method they have evolved for self-validation. Frequently, it is the only method available to them. Pranksters are, or at least can be, funny, witty, genuinely amusing. Trolls are just trolls.

You're a troll.

Dave Luckett said: Prankster, Hygaboo,

is not troll. Trolls are people who utter insane, stupid, malicious, insulting or provocative words for the sole purpose of getting a reaction, this being the method they have evolved for self-validation. Frequently, it is the only method available to them. Pranksters are, or at least can be, funny, witty, genuinely amusing. Trolls are just trolls. You're a troll.

nasty.brutish.tall said: Such people have no desire to have both sides taught on most subjects.

Ian Brandon Andersen the Insane vomited: While I can't speak for Freshwater,it appears that even he has his up Darwin's colon far enough to believe that science can be addressed independently of metaphysics. If Darwinian factoids are necessary for certain standardized tests, the schools can just pass out review sheets for the kids to memorize. If not, it is time to consign that retard to whatever Victorian sewer he emerged. Not that I object to teaching the religion of evolutionism in schools; the students should read Nietzsche, de Sade, Lovecraft, and others who express the bleak nihilism that is central to their faith that Darwin and his followers were too stupid to understand. They then should compare this to the love and hope available through the Gospel. Then the students could make an informed choice.

Ian Brandon Andersen said: While I can't speak for Freshwater,it appears that even he has his up Darwin's colon far enough to believe that science can be addressed independently of metaphysics. If Darwinian factoids are necessary for certain standardized tests, the schools can just pass out review sheets for the kids to memorize. If not, it is time to consign that retard to whatever Victorian sewer he emerged. Not that I object to teaching the religion of evolutionism in schools; the students should read Nietzsche, de Sade, Lovecraft, and others who express the bleak nihilism that is central to their faith that Darwin and his followers were too stupid to understand. They then should compare this to the love and hope available through the Gospel. Then the students could make an informed choice.

Darwin’s arguments were stupid, and that is precisely why they appeal to the evolutionary mind. The kernel of goodness that still exists in most evolutionists directs them to the lotus-land of Darwinism. In a way, it is a good thing that most evolutionists do not correlate all of the contents of their minds. When they do, you get things like random school shootings.

Ignoring the trolls, the documented fact is that Freshwater's stories change all the time. This fact alone, means what he says isn't trustworthy. Indeed, nothing Freshwater says can taken seriously. This is not something you want in a teacher of children's science.

It's also interesting that his co-religionists have abandoned him. He lost his job and then his home. They have hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around but none of it made it his way. They like their rare auto-martyrs. But the best martyrs are always...someone else.

raven said: Ignoring the trolls, the documented fact is that Freshwater's stories change all the time. This fact alone, means what he says isn't trustworthy. Indeed, nothing Freshwater says can taken seriously. This is not something you want in a teacher of children's science.

It's also interesting that his co-religionists have abandoned him. He lost his job and then his home. They have hundreds of millions of dollars to throw around but none of it made it his way. They like their rare auto-martyrs. But the best martyrs are always...someone else.

On the contrary, such a government must be enormous, bloated and all-pervasive.

Ian Brandon Andersen said: While I can't speak for Freshwater,it appears that even he has his up Darwin's colon far enough to believe that science can be addressed independently of metaphysics. If Darwinian factoids are necessary for certain standardized tests, the schools can just pass out review sheets for the kids to memorize. If not, it is time to consign that retard to whatever Victorian sewer he emerged. Not that I object to teaching the religion of evolutionism in schools; the students should read Nietzsche, de Sade, Lovecraft, and others who express the bleak nihilism that is central to their faith that Darwin and his followers were too stupid to understand. They then should compare this to the love and hope available through the Gospel. Then the students could make an informed choice.

You seem to be confusing the Moral Majority, a political artifact of the 80’s with Christians in general. All American Christians that I know are in favor of limited government and the freedoms afforded by the Constitution. All laws however, are based upon some form of morality, and every law inhibits freedom to some extent. The key issues mentioned above need to be debated in the court of public opinion as well as the court system. The debate is a healthy thing. On the topic of abortion, Christians base their opinion based the belief that life begins at conception. The opposing view concerns women’s rights. A law enacted in either direction inhibits the rights of someone. However, what most Christians strongly object to, is having to pay for something that they feel is morally wrong. The reason arguments become so heated around these issues is not just because one group believes the Bible and one group doesn’t. The heat comes from opposing philosophical world views. Like it or not Darwinism is a philosophy that presupposes naturalism, and confusing a world view with empirical science, denigrates science. Where these two world views clash, public debate is good, and neither side should overreact.

Bill Meyer, you are a babbling moron.

Evolutionary Biology is a science: "Darwinism" as described by Creationists does not exist.

Freshwater broke the law when he proselytized in his classroom instead of teaching his students science, and he broke the law when he improperly used electrical equipment to burn crosses into his students' arms to prove his own piety.

Or, are you whining that it is perfectly acceptable to break the law if Jesus is used as an excuse?

Bill wrote:

"Like it or not Darwinism is a philosophy that presupposes naturalism, and confusing a world view with empirical science, denigrates science. Where these two world views clash, public debate is good, and neither side should overreact."

Like it or not Darwinism is not a philosophy, claiming it is doesn't make it so. Like it or not evolutionary biology does not presuppose naturalism, claiming it does doesn't make it so. Science is a method, a very successful method. Evolution is a scientific theory, a theory with massive predictive and explanatory power. Freshwater broke the law because of his world view. He got caught. No one over reacted. You aren't trying to defend his actions are you?

DS said:

Bill wrote: "Like it or not Darwinism is a philosophy that presupposes naturalism, and confusing a world view with empirical science, denigrates science. Where these two world views clash, public debate is good, and neither side should overreact."

Like it or not Darwinism is not a philosophy, claiming it is doesn't make it so. Like it or not evolutionary biology does not presuppose naturalism, claiming it does doesn't make it so.

Science is a method, a very successful method. Evolution is a scientific theory, a theory with massive predictive and explanatory power.

Freshwater broke the law because of his world view. He got caught. No one over reacted. You aren't trying to defend his actions are you?

Bill Meyer said: You seem to be confusing the Moral Majority, a political artifact of the 80’s with Christians in general. All American Christians that I know are in favor of limited government and the freedoms afforded by the Constitution.

All laws however, are based upon some form of morality,

and every law inhibits freedom to some extent.

The key issues mentioned above need to be debated in the court of public opinion as well as the court system.

The debate is a healthy thing.

On the topic of abortion, Christians base their opinion based the belief that life begins at conception.

The opposing view concerns women’s rights.

A law enacted in either direction inhibits the rights of someone. However, what most Christians strongly object to, is having to pay for something that they feel is morally wrong.

The reason arguments become so heated around these issues is not just because one group believes the Bible and one group doesn’t.

The heat comes from opposing philosophical world views. Like it or not Darwinism is a philosophy that presupposes naturalism, and confusing a world view with empirical science, denigrates science.

Where these two world views clash, public debate is good, and neither side should overreact.

I find it ironic and hypocritical that Creationists always use presuppositions, yet, attempt to disqualify Evolutionary Biology as being anything of worth by flinging accusations of being presuppositional.

Flint said:

I find it ironic and hypocritical that Creationists always use presuppositions, yet, attempt to disqualify Evolutionary Biology as being anything of worth by flinging accusations of being presuppositional.

The way I see it, creationists (and devoutly religious people generally) use presuppositions to arrive at ALL their conclusions, and cannot conceive of any other method. The problem with evolution isn't that it's presuppositional, but that it rests on WRONG presuppositions.

Bill Meyer the troll lying: Like it or not Darwinism is a philosophy that presupposes naturalism, and confusing a world view with empirical science, denigrates science. Where these two world views clash, public debate is good, and neither side should overreact.

Bill the kook: However, what most Christians strongly object to, is having to pay for something that they feel is morally wrong.

The reason arguments become so heated around these issues is not just because one group believes the Bible and one group doesn’t. The heat comes from opposing philosophical world views.

abcnews.com: In his book, "Training up a Child," Pearl, 66, advocates use of physical punishment or "switching" even in infancy. Pearl and his wife are founders of the fundamental ministry, "No Greater Joy," which posits, "spank and save a child." The 11-year-old daughter of Larry and Carri Williams of Sedro-Woolley, Wash., died after they allegedly used Michael Pearl's methodology. Hana, who with her brother had been adopted from Ethiopia, died from hyperthermia and malnutrition and was found face-down in her back yard, according to the report. Police said Hana had often been whipped and was forced by her parents to sleep in the barn and to shower outside with a hose. They say that her parents had used a 15-inch plastic tube that is recommended by Pearl to discipline children.

raven said:

abcnews.com: In his book, "Training up a Child," Pearl, 66, advocates use of physical punishment or "switching" even in infancy. Pearl and his wife are founders of the fundamental ministry, "No Greater Joy," which posits, "spank and save a child." The 11-year-old daughter of Larry and Carri Williams of Sedro-Woolley, Wash., died after they allegedly used Michael Pearl's methodology. Hana, who with her brother had been adopted from Ethiopia, died from hyperthermia and malnutrition and was found face-down in her back yard, according to the report. Police said Hana had often been whipped and was forced by her parents to sleep in the barn and to shower outside with a hose. They say that her parents had used a 15-inch plastic tube that is recommended by Pearl to discipline children.

An example of fundie human child sacrfice by torture murder. Bill, your world view sucks. It is dysfunctional and wrong at best, at worst it is evil.

Bill Meyer said: The key issues mentioned above need to be debated in the court of public opinion as well as the court system.

The debate is a healthy thing.

On the topic of abortion, Christians base their opinion based the belief that life begins at conception. The opposing view concerns women’s rights. A law enacted in either direction inhibits the rights of someone.

However, what most Christians strongly object to, is having to pay for something that they feel is morally wrong.

The reason arguments become so heated around these issues is not just because one group believes the Bible and one group doesn’t.

Like it or not Darwinism is a philosophy that presupposes naturalism, and confusing a world view with empirical science, denigrates science. Where these two world views clash, public debate is good, and neither side should overreact.

raven said:

abcnews.com: In his book, "Training up a Child," Pearl, 66, advocates use of physical punishment or "switching" even in infancy. Pearl and his wife are founders of the fundamental ministry, "No Greater Joy," which posits, "spank and save a child." The 11-year-old daughter of Larry and Carri Williams of Sedro-Woolley, Wash., died after they allegedly used Michael Pearl's methodology. Hana, who with her brother had been adopted from Ethiopia, died from hyperthermia and malnutrition and was found face-down in her back yard, according to the report. Police said Hana had often been whipped and was forced by her parents to sleep in the barn and to shower outside with a hose. They say that her parents had used a 15-inch plastic tube that is recommended by Pearl to discipline children.

An example of fundie human child sacrfice by torture murder. Bill, your world view sucks. It is dysfunctional and wrong at best, at worst it is evil.

Just he other day I was searching the internet for help with preventing my 9 month old son taking his shoes off in his car seat. I found one suggestion that he had to be switched or else he go over to the devil.

Disciplinary measures like these, some with wooden rods and rubber whips, are practiced in many of the thousands of Independent Fundamentalist Baptist churches around the country, according to experts familair with the church. Submission and obedience -- children to parents, wives to husbands and parishioners to "God's people," pastors and deacons -- are the important tenets of Christian fundamentalism, according to Kathryn Joyce, author of "Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement."

raven said: They also have helpful hints on how to avoid Child Protective Services in case the authorities investigate. Just in case anyone wants to join a weird fundie cult and turn into a monster.

rbh: Documentation of that claim?

abcnews.com: By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES Nov. 8, 2011 When Melissa Fletcher was little her mother would dress up in a gray wig and horn-rim glasses, ring the doorbell and pretend she was "Myrtle" from the child protective services. "Where did this bruise come from?" she would ask systematically. "Myrtle," a United Airlines shift control manager and devout Christian, made it a game, quizzing and recording her five little ones, drilling them to say, "I fell" or "I bumped into something." She didn't want authorities to find out about the two- to three-hour beating sessions that her husband carried out on his children in the name of God -- so-called "breaking the will of the child". Her family were followers of Christian author Michael Pearl, who cites the Biblical maxim, "spare the rod and spoil the child." Today, he is at the center of controversy over corporal punishment that authorities say led to the deaths of three children.

raven said: She didn't want authorities to find out about the two- to three-hour beating sessions that her husband carried out on his children in the name of God -- so-called "breaking the will of the child".

rbh: Documentation of that claim?

Sitting on the couch with Michael Pearl | Elizabeth Estherwww.elizabethesther.com/.../sitting-on-the-couch-with-michael-pearl...Cached You +1'd this publicly. Undo 6 days ago – As I walked to the stage, I wondered if Michael Pearl would want to shake my hand. .... Being a voice of compassion to say “STOP! .... Christians are to confront other believers individually as that is ..... “Not leaving marks” is fundamentalism's answer to child protective services, and *nothing* more than that.

raven said: Apparently not leaving marks is important.

raven said: There is a sometimes fatal flaw in this beating your kids. What happens if it doesn't work? Then you have to escalate. Then escalate some more. Until oops, some child ends up dead or mentally scarred for life.

Flint, I'll stick to my direction of attack. I think you ignore an important aspect of law, which is that unenforced law is no law at all - and that is not a high-flown legal theory, but an empirical statement of real practice. And the other legal maxim I think is worth considering is "Circumstances alter cases".

Yes, places like Saudi Arabia have and - crucially - enforce such laws. They require a special religious police to do it, a body of men who patrol the streets in groups with long batons to beat the crap out of anyone they find drunk or drinking alcohol, eating during daylight in Ramadan, driving while female, not sufficiently covered to whatever standards the police should take it into their heads to apply, and so on and on. Yes, the majority of the population are fundies themselves. Yes, they approve of this. Yes, they consider the beatings, stonings and floggings justified and necessary - mandated, in fact. This is not hypocrisy, precisely. It's not hidden away. The State exists to enforce the edicts of the One True Faith. That's the way it should be, in their minds, and they really do accept the implications. The case in the West is different.

Most people in the former Soviet Union approved of Stalin. Indeed, they idolised him. Those who disappeared, those who ended in the gulag or were starved to death (often basically the same thing) went out of sight. It was ignored because it was out of sight. But this mechanism was subtly different from the mechanisms of fundamentalist repression in, for example, Saudi Arabia. One could ignore the actual operations of Stalinism simply by not closely investigating them, for they occurred in secret while every source of information accessible to most people utterly denied them. Again, what is involved here is not actual hypocrisy. Stalinists really could believe, on the evidence available to them, that they were living in the workers' paradise, and that only a few despicable traitors were rightfully punished for their perfidy. Again, the case in the West is different. (Well, mostly. How you guys can have Guantanamo Bay and still manage to put your hands on your hearts and say "with freedom and justice for all" beats me.)

But whether carried out in secret or not, enforcement of "private" "religious" morality requires exactly the same instrument - State power over every part of life.

Now, in current western democracies, circumstances are different. Fundies in the west do not generally have, but they want effective law enshrining their religion, and crucially they want it enforced by the State. They want laws against abortion; they want laws against homosexuality and actual punishment for homosexual acts; they want drugs to be heavily proscribed for moral, not clinical reasons; they want divorce to be harder (only allowable because of the adultery of the wife); they want the State to favour their religion, sect and beliefs. They really do want this, but their compartmentalisation is so complete that they are perfectly capable of wanting it while behaving exactly to the contrary themselves, while ignoring what real enforcement would mean to them - and of also believing at the very same time that they want smaller government when what they also want is to enormously extend its scope, power and resources.

You call this hypocrisy. You are right. So it is. My point is that they don't notice it. Not to notice it requires that parts of their own lives are completely severed from others, and that parts of their ideation are completely severed from their necessary implications. This I call "compartmentalisation". I think it is a real construction of their conduct.

Further, I think it offers a hypothesis: the way to attack their beliefs is not to attack the beliefs themselves - because they are sacrosanct, and attacking them only hardens resistance - but to force them to attempt reconciliation.

Some dictionary references for our resident trolls (source: www.m-w.com)

philosophy -- a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means

science -- (a) knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method;(b) such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :

theory -- a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Please note that philosophy does NOT depend on observational means, but science does. Philosophy does NOT concern itself with the physical world, whereas science does. Further, theories in the scientific sense depend on physical evidence and observation. The quicker Bill and Ian grasp these fundamental concepts, the better our discussion here will be.

We should also note that all science, not just evolution, presupposes naturalism. If Bill Meyer objects to Darwin's naturalism, then he should also object to the naturalism that underlies all scientific progress since the days of Galileo. Only creationists and ID proponents presuppose that there are supernatural causes for what we currently observe in the universe.

wheatdogg.myopenid.com said: We should also note that all science, not just evolution, presupposes naturalism. If Bill Meyer objects to Darwin's naturalism, then he should also object to the naturalism that underlies all scientific progress since the days of Galileo. Only creationists and ID proponents presuppose that there are supernatural causes for what we currently observe in the universe.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

wheatdogg.myopenid.com said: We should also note that all science, not just evolution, presupposes naturalism. If Bill Meyer objects to Darwin's naturalism, then he should also object to the naturalism that underlies all scientific progress since the days of Galileo. Only creationists and ID proponents presuppose that there are supernatural causes for what we currently observe in the universe.

He should also object to the naturalism that characterizes plumbing, carpentry, and automobile repair. None of those heathen enterprises invoke God as a causal variable!

Richard B. Hoppe said:

wheatdogg.myopenid.com said: We should also note that all science, not just evolution, presupposes naturalism. If Bill Meyer objects to Darwin's naturalism, then he should also object to the naturalism that underlies all scientific progress since the days of Galileo. Only creationists and ID proponents presuppose that there are supernatural causes for what we currently observe in the universe.

He should also object to the naturalism that characterizes plumbing, carpentry, and automobile repair. None of those heathen enterprises invoke God as a causal variable!

Richard B. Hoppe said:

wheatdogg.myopenid.com said: We should also note that all science, not just evolution, presupposes naturalism. If Bill Meyer objects to Darwin's naturalism, then he should also object to the naturalism that underlies all scientific progress since the days of Galileo. Only creationists and ID proponents presuppose that there are supernatural causes for what we currently observe in the universe.

He should also object to the naturalism that characterizes plumbing, carpentry, and automobile repair. None of those heathen enterprises invoke God as a causal variable!

phhht said: ...We do not need to make a sacrifice to Mario to get the pipes to run clear... Religious delusion is like a zombie mind virus from the Bronze Age. It seems to be impossible to reason with the worst of its victims, who literally cannot help but see gods everywhere. The utter absence of evidence for gods, their purported but never-seen-in-the-real-world counter-factual powers, their cruelty, inanity, and irrationality as portrayed in the holy books, all these things are invisible and weightless to someone like Bill Meyer. It is only people with his particular affliction who are compelled to invoke the gods to get along in life. For the rest of us, we're good without them.

Helena Constantine said: The goddess in charge of plumbing is named Cloaca...

I always wonder why Creationists always complain about how horrible, and how horribly evil scientists and naturalists are to not invoke God for literally every single thing that happens anywhere, yet, these same Creationists are totally fine with cooks and cookbooks not invoking God for raising bread or making sugar taste sweet. Don't you think it's rather hypocritical of Creationists?

The average creationist understands nature to be in a constant state of dependence upon the sustenance of a rational mind- the same rational mind who built the laws to which the whole of nature yields.

The laws to which nature yields are as much a creation of this mind as nature itself. To invoke the creator either in a recipe, or in a natural phenomena (unless that phenomena is exceptional to the laws that govern nature) or in lighting a fire or building a house, is therefore total nonsense.

Gratitude, or perhaps fear, are the only legitimate responses to divine sustenance. And these have nothing to do with the processes of construction or destruction or inspection. They are related to another phenomena altogether (what Christians call worship).

ben said: The average creationist understands nature to be in a constant state of dependence upon the sustenance of a rational mind- the same rational mind who built the laws to which the whole of nature yields.

ben said: apokryltaros said:

I always wonder why Creationists always complain about how horrible, and how horribly evil scientists and naturalists are to not invoke God for literally every single thing that happens anywhere, yet, these same Creationists are totally fine with cooks and cookbooks not invoking God for raising bread or making sugar taste sweet. Don't you think it's rather hypocritical of Creationists?

The average creationist understands nature to be in a constant state of dependence upon the sustenance of a rational mind- the same rational mind who built the laws to which the whole of nature yields.

The laws to which nature yields are as much a creation of this mind as nature itself. To invoke the creator either in a recipe, or in a natural phenomena (unless that phenomena is exceptional to the laws that govern nature) or in lighting a fire or building a house, is therefore total nonsense.

Gratitude, or perhaps fear, are the only legitimate responses to divine sustenance. And these have nothing to do with the processes of construction or destruction or inspection. They are related to another phenomena altogether (what Christians call worship).

Dave Luckett said: So they do. But there is no evidence whatsoever for such a mind, other than those relationships of matter, energy and effect that we call physical laws, themselves, which relationships the creationist ascribes to Divine Will, without demonstrating it. The average creationist therefore accepts belief from faith alone - and by doing so removes herself permanently and irrevocably from the realm of science.

What sort of evidence, in any created world, would there be for a creator, other than that which expresses design and strategy? I'm afraid we've worked ourselves into a godless corner. By your standards the natural order can never suggest itself to be the product of a creator-mind.

We both see laws and beauty and rhythm. I suggest that these are the product of a transcendent personality; you suggest that these are nothing more than "that which is."

Are we not speaking on two different planes?

apokryltaros said: So are you presenting the blasphemous, Hell-worthy idea that God can not bake a cake?

ben said:

Dave Luckett said: So they do. But there is no evidence whatsoever for such a mind, other than those relationships of matter, energy and effect that we call physical laws, themselves, which relationships the creationist ascribes to Divine Will, without demonstrating it. The average creationist therefore accepts belief from faith alone - and by doing so removes herself permanently and irrevocably from the realm of science.

What sort of evidence, in any created world, would there be for a creator, other than that which expresses design and strategy? I'm afraid we've worked ourselves into a godless corner. By your standards the natural order can never suggest itself to be the product of a creator-mind.

We both see laws and beauty and rhythm. I suggest that these are the product of a transcendent personality; you suggest that these are nothing more than "that which is."

Are we not speaking on two different planes?

So, ben, why don't we get back to the topic of this thread?

Namely, about John Freshwater, and how he has changed his story about everything he has done, i.e., proselytized instead of teaching science, teaching Creationism and anti-science propaganda, then lie about not having done so, claimed that he taught "robust science," and about how he did, then didn't burn a cross into the arm of a student.

Would you trust this man to teach your children science, ben?

No, I wouldn't. But that's because he's crazy; I'll give you the courtesy of keeping a healthy rhetorical distance between you and the eugenicists.

Concerning the parasites: the Christians have been dealing with the nature of very evil things long before Darwin dismissed a necessary God.

ben said:

No, I wouldn't. But that's because he's crazy; I'll give you the courtesy of keeping a healthy rhetorical distance between you and the eugenicists.

Concerning the parasites: the Christians have been dealing with the nature of very evil things long before Darwin dismissed a necessary God.

ben said: What sort of evidence, in any created world, would there be for a creator, other than that which expresses design and strategy? I'm afraid we've worked ourselves into a godless corner. By your standards the natural order can never suggest itself to be the product of a creator-mind. We both see laws and beauty and rhythm. I suggest that these are the product of a transcendent personality; you suggest that these are nothing more than "that which is." Are we not speaking on two different planes?

Richard B. Hoppe said:

wheatdogg.myopenid.com said: We should also note that all science, not just evolution, presupposes naturalism. If Bill Meyer objects to Darwin's naturalism, then he should also object to the naturalism that underlies all scientific progress since the days of Galileo. Only creationists and ID proponents presuppose that there are supernatural causes for what we currently observe in the universe.

He should also object to the naturalism that characterizes plumbing, carpentry, and automobile repair. None of those heathen enterprises invoke God as a causal variable!

A "necessary God?" Why do you presume God is necessary for the universe to the way it is? Is this a matter of your faith or a matter of available evidence?

Darwin, like other scientists, removed the supernatural from the equation, as it were, because science depends on the observable and testable. We cannot see God. We can only presume or imagine he is present. We cannot test for his existence, or for his interference in Nature, in any sort of scientific way. Therefore, in order for science to proceed in a logical fashion, we exclude the supernatural as a factor in physical phenomena. This has been the methodology of science for the last four centuries, and it has worked exceedingly well.

You fail to understand that faith (belief in a God/Designer/whatever) is inherently not scientific. We cannot presume there is a God/Designer merely because we wish there is one. Science requires proof of such, and so far it has come up dry.

Concerning the parasites: the Christians have been dealing with the nature of very evil things long before Darwin dismissed a necessary God.

By your standards the natural order can never suggest itself to be the product of a creator-mind. We both see laws and beauty and rhythm. I suggest that these are the product of a transcendent personality; you suggest that these are nothing more than “that which is.” Are we not speaking on two different planes?

The average creationist understands nature to be in a constant state of dependence upon the sustenance of a rational mind- the same rational mind who built the laws to which the whole of nature yields.

I’ll give you the courtesy of keeping a healthy rhetorical distance between you and the eugenicists.

ben said: Concerning the parasites: the Christians have been dealing with the nature of very evil things long before Darwin dismissed a necessary God.

Paul Burnett said:

ben said: Concerning the parasites: the Christians have been dealing with the nature of very evil things long before Darwin dismissed a necessary God.

Darwin reluctantly realized gods were unnecessary, just as Laplace had earlier informed Napolean that gods were unnecessary. How come you fundagelicals never complain about Laplace?

Paul Burnett said:

ben said: Concerning the parasites: the Christians have been dealing with the nature of very evil things long before Darwin dismissed a necessary God.

Darwin reluctantly realized gods were unnecessary, just as Laplace had earlier informed Napolean that gods were unnecessary. How come you fundagelicals never complain about Laplace?

SWT said: But I thought that Laplace was transformed late in his life...

What sort of evidence, in any created world, would there be for a creator, other than that which expresses design and strategy? I’m afraid we’ve worked ourselves into a godless corner. By your standards the natural order can never suggest itself to be the product of a creator-mind.

We both see laws and beauty and rhythm. I suggest that these are the product of a transcendent personality; you suggest that these are nothing more than “that which is.”

Harold: How would ID babble about a mysterious, unidentifiable “designer”, even if it weren’t nonsense (which it is), make the god of your particular sect necessary?

apokryltaros said: So are you presenting the blasphemous, Hell-worthy idea that God can not bake a cake?

What sort of evidence, in any created world, would there be for a creator, other than that which expresses design and strategy?

raven said: The most parsimonious explanation is well known though. The entire universe looks exactly like it would if the gods don't exist.

But this is exactly my point. We've made a category mistake. If God is transcendent, by nature his revelation will be other-than that which would be expected. To quote Christian scripture, "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways."

I'm not asking any of you to recognize the authority of Christian scripture. I'm only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate. If this natural order was established by a creator-mind, then that creator-mind must embody absolutely superlative characteristics- intelligence, morality, power. And given the superlative characteristics of this creator-mind, human critique (which none of us would assert is rationally or morally perfect) cannot by nature be established against divine action, any more than a sandwich can critique a chef.

ben said:

raven said: The most parsimonious explanation is well known though. The entire universe looks exactly like it would if the gods don't exist.

But this is exactly my point. We've made a category mistake. If God is transcendent, by nature his revelation will be other-than that which would be expected. To quote Christian scripture, "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways."

I'm not asking any of you to recognize the authority of Christian scripture. I'm only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate. If this natural order was established by a creator-mind, then that creator-mind must embody absolutely superlative characteristics- intelligence, morality, power. And given the superlative characteristics of this creator-mind, human critique (which none of us would assert is rationally or morally perfect) cannot by nature be established against divine action, any more than a sandwich can critique a chef.

ben said:

raven said: The most parsimonious explanation is well known though. The entire universe looks exactly like it would if the gods don't exist.

But this is exactly my point. We've made a category mistake. If God is transcendent, by nature his revelation will be other-than that which would be expected. To quote Christian scripture, "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways."

I'm not asking any of you to recognize the authority of Christian scripture. I'm only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate. If this natural order was established by a creator-mind, then that creator-mind must embody absolutely superlative characteristics- intelligence, morality, power. And given the superlative characteristics of this creator-mind, human critique (which none of us would assert is rationally or morally perfect) cannot by nature be established against divine action, any more than a sandwich can critique a chef.

ben said:

raven said: The most parsimonious explanation is well known though. The entire universe looks exactly like it would if the gods don't exist.

But this is exactly my point. We've made a category mistake. If God is transcendent, by nature his revelation will be other-than that which would be expected. To quote Christian scripture, "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways."

I'm not asking any of you to recognize the authority of Christian scripture. I'm only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate. If this natural order was established by a creator-mind, then that creator-mind must embody absolutely superlative characteristics- intelligence, morality, power. And given the superlative characteristics of this creator-mind, human critique (which none of us would assert is rationally or morally perfect) cannot by nature be established against divine action, any more than a sandwich can critique a chef.

Scott F said:

ben said:

raven said: The most parsimonious explanation is well known though. The entire universe looks exactly like it would if the gods don't exist.

But this is exactly my point. We've made a category mistake. If God is transcendent, by nature his revelation will be other-than that which would be expected. To quote Christian scripture, "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways."

I'm not asking any of you to recognize the authority of Christian scripture. I'm only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate. If this natural order was established by a creator-mind, then that creator-mind must embody absolutely superlative characteristics- intelligence, morality, power. And given the superlative characteristics of this creator-mind, human critique (which none of us would assert is rationally or morally perfect) cannot by nature be established against divine action, any more than a sandwich can critique a chef.

If I understand correctly, you admit that there is no evidence of God that we can understand, because any evidence of a transcendent God would be (by definition) beyond our understanding. You therefore conclude that, the fact that there is no evidence for God is actually evidence for God. Do I understand that correctly?

No, the Universe cannot "suggest itself to be the product of a creator-mind". No such suggestion is made by the Universe itself. That suggestion originates in your mind, and it is only a suggestion. It is not evidential. But evolution is evidential. The evidence exists. It is tangible, real, physical, and available to anyone who wishes to investigate it. The two cases are not similar. They are as different as it is possible to be.

Hence my original question. Your definition of evidence precludes any possibility of divine revelation. If there is a god, then he must be transcendent (other-than that which can be experienced by the senses). So, if there is a god, he could only be demonstrated in a secondary sort of way. I cannot see him. I cannot touch him. But I can see that these things which may express purpose or strategy. I can see evidence for design.

But you've said that the "universe cannot" suggest itself to be the product of a creator-mind. You've suggested, then, that divine revelation within the created order, even in a secondary sort of way, is impossible.

So what I'm really asking is, given your definition of evidence, and given your presuppositional understanding of the universe, is there (or, more importantly, can there ever be) any room for a transcendent creator-mind

As for "beauty and rhythm", now you're dragging in fake universals. Is not beauty in the eye of the beholder? That is, it's in your mind, not in the Universe.

Unless it isn't. This is a very modern idea; Perhaps you're wrong. Perhaps there are universals like right and wrong and beauty and love. And what if these were the means by which a transcendent creator-mind chose to reveal himself?

And what if you had a vested interest in dismissing any conception of a transcendent creator-mind? I'd dismiss universals too.

apokryltaros said:

ben said:

raven said: The most parsimonious explanation is well known though. The entire universe looks exactly like it would if the gods don't exist.

But this is exactly my point. We've made a category mistake. If God is transcendent, by nature his revelation will be other-than that which would be expected. To quote Christian scripture, "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways."

I'm not asking any of you to recognize the authority of Christian scripture. I'm only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate. If this natural order was established by a creator-mind, then that creator-mind must embody absolutely superlative characteristics- intelligence, morality, power. And given the superlative characteristics of this creator-mind, human critique (which none of us would assert is rationally or morally perfect) cannot by nature be established against divine action, any more than a sandwich can critique a chef.

Except that many of your Christian fellows seek to undermine science in the name of Jesus, to destroy science in favor of blind submission to Christian scripture, and make the Bible the science, law and history textbook of the Land. If you don't believe me, google "Wedge Document" http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wedge_Document Then again, you're going to dismiss what I've said, instinctively refuse to look at the link (as you have refused to do with all the other links you've been presented with) and belittle me for not grovelling at your most recent example of pretty pontification.

If God is transcendent, by nature his revelation will be other-than that which would be expected.

I’m only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate.

And given the superlative characteristics of this creator-mind, human critique (which none of us would assert is rationally or morally perfect) cannot by nature be established against divine action, any more than a sandwich can critique a chef.

then that creator-mind must embody absolutely superlative characteristics- intelligence, morality, power.

Scott F said:

If I understand correctly, you admit that there is no evidence of God that we can understand, because any evidence of a transcendent God would be (by definition) beyond our understanding. You therefore conclude that, the fact that there is no evidence for God is actually evidence for God. Do I understand that correctly?

Not exactly. I'm suggesting that any critique against divine revelation,

for instance, "There cannot be a god because he hasn't said enough about himself, clearly enough, for anyone to comprehend his nature. Therefore, either he is an evil god (philosophically impossible) or he doesn't exist."

is illegitimate because, if there is a god, his characteristics are absolutely superlative to ours. He is more rational, more powerful, more intelligent. To critique him is nonsense, because, if he exists, he gave us the reason by which we submit critique.

ben said: I like you. You've got a lot of spunk. I think we'd be friends if we met.

raven said: Well OK. Apparently god is omini-everything. He can do everything but be seen or show that he even exists. A god that can't even make himself visible isn't really very convincing or worthy of worship.

But we're among the first generations to whole-sale reject any conception of God/transcendent deity/creator-mind. What if we're the blind generations? What if this transcendent creator-mind has revealed himself and we've chosen not to see him?

ben said: I’m only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate. If this natural order was established by a creator-mind, then that creator-mind must embody absolutely superlative characteristics- intelligence, morality, power.

I’m only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate.

ben said: I like you. You've got a lot of spunk. I think we'd be friends if we met.

stevaroni said: ... where you couldn't turn over a rock without finding a nest of baby machine screws growing up to be big, strapping bridge bolts, a world where you could leave two alarm clocks in a room with some mood music and come back a week later to find a new batch of frolicking pocket watches, ...

apokryltaros said:

ben said: I like you. You've got a lot of spunk. I think we'd be friends if we met.

The feeling is not mutual. I strongly dislike the idea of befriending a smarmy Sophist for Jesus, such as yourself, who, among other things, thinks that a lie can be made a truth with alleged sincerity.

...If "Last Thursday god" deliberately mimics "no god needed", then I can never detect the former, and it is more parsimonious to accept the latter.)...

I'm only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate.

ben said:

raven said: Well OK. Apparently god is omini-everything. He can do everything but be seen or show that he even exists. A god that can't even make himself visible isn't really very convincing or worthy of worship.

But we're among the first generations to whole-sale reject any conception of God/transcendent deity/creator-mind. What if we're the blind generations? What if this transcendent creator-mind has revealed himself and we've chosen not to see him?

ben said:

raven said: Well OK. Apparently god is omini-everything. He can do everything but be seen or show that he even exists. A god that can't even make himself visible isn't really very convincing or worthy of worship.

But we're among the first generations to whole-sale reject any conception of God/transcendent deity/creator-mind. What if we're the blind generations? What if this transcendent creator-mind has revealed himself and we've chosen not to see him?

that should be "...IF creationists agree..."

ben said: I'm suggesting that any critique against divine revelation ... is illegitimate because, if there is a god, his characteristics are absolutely superlative to ours. He is more rational, more powerful, more intelligent. To critique him is nonsense, because, if he exists, he gave us the reason by which we submit critique.

Scott F said:

ben said: I'm suggesting that any critique against divine revelation ... is illegitimate because, if there is a god, his characteristics are absolutely superlative to ours. He is more rational, more powerful, more intelligent. To critique him is nonsense, because, if he exists, he gave us the reason by which we submit critique.

You say, "To critique him is nonsense". (def "critique": a detailed analysis and assessment of something) Yet that is exactly what you are doing. You are critiquing the "divine revelation" which you say cannot be critiqued. You are describing characteristics of the "divine" which you say cannot be described. You are asking us to believe an assertion that you define to be "illegitimate". Do you not see this as self contradictory? Do you not see that you are undermining the very point that you are trying to make?

ben, congratulations. You've derailed the thread. Now we're back to discussing that old chestnut, "Is there a God?"

I'm not going there. I don't know about God, as I've said many times, because I've seen no evidence. My mind is open to it, but I know of none. You assume that I would accept no evidence whatsoever. Your assumption is wrong. I agree, there are atheists who would reject the evidence of their own senses. I am not one; but I do distrust my own baseless fears, hopes and feelings.

On the other hand, the evidence for evolution is not hopes, fears and feelings. It consists of the observations of physical matter. To attempt to equate the two - to say, as you have said and not withdrawn, that there is evidence for evolution and for fiat creation - is to misrepresent reality. Whether that is said in ignorance or is simply a lie is now moot.

You have been presented with the evidence. Three times on this thread. You have failed to acknowledge it. You continue to assert a false equivalence. You have not backed off on your false claim that fiat creation is asserted by evidence, but have segued into a song-and-dance about how asking for evidence for God isn't on, because it isn't done, it just isn't, because we just can't understand Him - that's what that three-dollar word "transcendence" means. I'll see that with this here "ineffable". Show your cards.

I'll tell you what you've got.

Evidence for fiat creation, ben: none. Not a shred. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Your claim is false. Your argumentation is irrelevant. God can be as transcendent as He likes, and He may or may not be there. Nobody knows, and here's the thing, ben, neither do you. But the evidence for evolution is mountainous, and no reasonable mind, willing to observe it and to accept reality, has any choice but to conclude from it that life evolved, and is all commonly descended over vast periods of time.

There is an alternative, and you have taken it. But that alternative consists of denial. And denial is all you've got. Don't come the fancy theology here, ben. It won't cut it. It gets us nowhere. In fact, it's never gotten anyone anywhere. In three thousand or so years, nothing has come from theology but rivers of blood, and not one single conclusion.

Deny away, ben. Refuse to look at the evidence. Remain ignorant, and irrelevant. But don't insult me and scientists by assuming some phony equivalence. You're not on some different plane. You're in a swamp of ignorance and superstition, the very same medieval bog that science began to drag us out of five centuries ago. Stay in your bog if you want. Your choice. And yes, you still get all the stuff science has done for you, because nobody can force you not to be a hypocrite. But don't think it doesn't show, ben, because you carry the stink of that bog everywhere you go.

Ben -

If you evade replying to my comment and addressing all my questions, you will prove yourself to be a lying sleazeball, faking "philosophy" in the service of an authoritarian agenda.

At best you're making some painfully obvious points (can't ever detect a god who is all-powerful and doesn't want to be detected, Platonic concept of abstract concepts as real, blah, blah, blah).

But something wrings very false. These points have nothing to do with the subject of discussion here, any intelligent person can see that, yet you repeat them.

Here are some questions. Remember, if you evade them, you prove yourself to be a lying, lying sleazeball. Apologies in advance if you're not, but we'll find out.

1) How old is the earth? How do you know? How do you deal with alternate hypotheses? (To make it simple, I'll show by example how I would answer this - I think that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, I believe this because of multiple convergent lines of scientific evidence, and although I respect older traditions, they were not grounded in the scientific method, and in my opinion, not meant to be taken literally.)

2) Do you share relatively recent common ancestry with chimpanzees? How do you know?

3) True or false - Teaching sectarian religious opinions as "science" in taxpayer funded public schools would be both ethically wrong and illegal.

By the way, you are off topic, but I'd like to establish, purely for personal satisfaction, whether or not you are also a deceitful game player.

That should be "something rings very false" above, of course.

harold said: That should be "something rings very false" above, of course.

raven said: You are saying god is unknowable? I don't see why. A being that created a 13.7 billion year old universe 6,000 years ago should be able to drop by once in a while.

harold said: Ben - If you evade replying to my comment and addressing all my questions, you will prove yourself to be a lying sleazeball, faking "philosophy" in the service of an authoritarian agenda.

Well, if those are my options, I'd rather not be a lying sleazeball...

At best you're making some painfully obvious points (can't ever detect a god who is all-powerful and doesn't want to be detected, Platonic concept of abstract concepts as real, blah, blah, blah).

I must have misrepresented myself. I'm suggesting that, if there is a creator-mind, assuming that creator-mind is benevolent, then he must reveal himself through creation. My real objective was to establish that any critique against the means by which he chose to reveal himself is by nature illegitimate.

But something wrings very false. These points have nothing to do with the subject of discussion here, any intelligent person can see that, yet you repeat them.

Surely there's some common thematic content?

Here are some questions. Remember, if you evade them, you prove yourself to be a lying, lying sleazeball. Apologies in advance if you're not, but we'll find out.

I appreciate your apologies.

1) How old is the earth? How do you know? How do you deal with alternate hypotheses? (To make it simple, I'll show by example how I would answer this - I think that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, I believe this because of multiple convergent lines of scientific evidence, and although I respect older traditions, they were not grounded in the scientific method, and in my opinion, not meant to be taken literally.)

I have no idea. The biblical text doesn't seem too concerned with such questions, and I haven't the tools to find out myself. It could certainly be 4.6 billion years old. In either case, I'm suggesting that someone put it there, and that for a purpose. As far as I can tell, scientific evidence tells us only about the Universe and what it is like. It cannot tell us where it comes from, or where it is going. It gives us a snapshot of what things are like and, perhaps, what they used to be like. Speculation is not the stuff of science. It is the stuff of philosophy, as is most of what has been presented in the preceding comments.

2) Do you share relatively recent common ancestry with chimpanzees? How do you know?

I don't think so. The bible says that we don't. I trust the bible. Secondarily, as far as I can tell, they aren't very like us at all.

3) True or false - Teaching sectarian religious opinions as "science" in taxpayer funded public schools would be both ethically wrong and illegal.

I don't think that was the authorial intention behind the United States constitution. If it was, the founders regularly endorsed departure from constitutional mandates in educational enterprises. American education did not exist without Christian presuppositions until around 150 years ago.

By the way, you are off topic, but I'd like to establish, purely for personal satisfaction, whether or not you are also a deceitful game player.

I'm here because I believe what I'm saying. I believe that you've been hoodwinked. If there is a good god, and I believe there is, then I'd like for you to be on his side.

ben said: If there is a good god, and I believe there is, then I'd like for you to be on his side.

ben said: I'm suggesting that, if there is a creator-mind, assuming that creator-mind is benevolent, then he must reveal himself through creation.

As far as I can tell, scientific evidence tells us only about the Universe and what it is like. It cannot tell us where it comes from,

or where it is going.

Speculation is not the stuff of science. It is the stuff of philosophy, as is most of what has been presented in the preceding comments.

[On relation to chimps] The bible says that we don't. I trust the bible.

ben said:

2) Do you share relatively recent common ancestry with chimpanzees? How do you know?

I don't think so. The bible says that we don't. I trust the bible. Secondarily, as far as I can tell, they aren't very like us at all.

3) True or false - Teaching sectarian religious opinions as "science" in taxpayer funded public schools would be both ethically wrong and illegal.

I don't think that was the authorial intention behind the United States constitution. If it was, the founders regularly endorsed departure from constitutional mandates in educational enterprises. American education did not exist without Christian presuppositions until around 150 years ago.

By the way, you are off topic, but I'd like to establish, purely for personal satisfaction, whether or not you are also a deceitful game player.

I'm here because I believe what I'm saying. I believe that you've been hoodwinked. If there is a good god, and I believe there is, then I'd like for you to be on his side.

phhht said:

ben said: If there is a good god, and I believe there is, then I'd like for you to be on his side.

But there is no good god, ben. None whatsoever. Why do you come again and again with this pitiful fiction? It's the wish-fulfillment dream of our Bronze Age childhood, the fevered imagining of a mind crippled by religious delusion. Am I wrong, ben? How about some evidence?

ben said: What sort of evidence, in any created world, would there be for a creator, other than that which expresses design and strategy? I'm afraid we've worked ourselves into a godless corner. By your standards the natural order can never suggest itself to be the product of a creator-mind. We both see laws and beauty and rhythm. I suggest that these are the product of a transcendent personality; you suggest that these are nothing more than "that which is."

ben said: But this is exactly my point. We've made a category mistake. If God is transcendent, by nature his revelation will be other-than that which would be expected. To quote Christian scripture, "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways."

I'm not asking any of you to recognize the authority of Christian scripture. I'm only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate. If this natural order was established by a creator-mind, then that creator-mind must embody absolutely superlative characteristics- intelligence, morality, power. And given the superlative characteristics of this creator-mind, human critique (which none of us would assert is rationally or morally perfect) cannot by nature be established against divine action, any more than a sandwich can critique a chef.

If there is a god, then he must be transcendent (other-than that which can be experienced by the senses).

bigdakine said: There's a reason for this whole sale rejection. Because that concept has been a dismal failure. 3000 years ago people didn't know why the sun rose or set, why the moon went through phases, or why it rained. So they invented moon gods, rain gods, sun gods etc. Today, a 10 year old can answer these questions.

I don’t think so. The bible says that we don’t. I trust the bible. Secondarily, as far as I can tell, they aren’t very like us at all.

ben wrote (regarding humans and chimps sharing common ancestry):

"I don’t think so. The bible says that we don’t. I trust the bible. Secondarily, as far as I can tell, they aren’t very like us at all."

So you haven't got a clue at all of anything that has been discovered by science in the last one hundred and fifty years. And yet you have the audacity to claim that we should not trust science.

I would advise you to increase your knowledge. Spouting ignorant garbage here will not get you anywhere. Displaying your willful ignorance proudly is not a virtue. Learn something about what science really is and what science has discovered. Become familiar with the evidence, then maybe someone will care that you have an opinion. Until then, you should realize that "trusting the bible" is the antithesis of science.

By the way, if you had bothered to look at any of the evidence for transitional forms, you would know that there are over a dozen intermediate species between humans and chimps.

I don’t think so. The bible says that we don’t. _{(relate to chimpanzees - ed)} I trust the bible.

unkle.hank said: What, you mean all you discovered was that chimps don't wear pants or drive Cadillacs? Bah! Nobel nomination withdrawn!

raven said: You are saying god is unknowable? I don’t see why. A being that created a 13.7 billion year old universe 6,000 years ago should be able to drop by once in a while. Stevarone: Also, let’s not forget that the God of the Bible is far from unknowable. Ask Eve or Pharaoh, or Moses, or Job, or the residents of Sodom, Gomorrah, Babylon, or, for that matter the entire population of the Earth during the era of Noah.

Ben the deluded creationist: I’m here because I believe what I’m saying. I believe that you’ve been hoodwinked. If there is a good god, and I believe there is, then I’d like for you to be on his side.

[On relation to chimps] The bible says that we don’t. I trust the bible.

When you challenge them about their gods, all of the sudden it is Deos, the unfalsifiable one behind the Big Bang.

raven said: 1. Mistake. The bible is a known multi-author work of fiction and mythology. 2. It also doesn't say anything about evolution, not one word anywhere. 3. The bible also doesn't have one single thing in it that wasn't known to the Iron Age sheepherders who wrote it. Most biblical scholars who study the bible conclude that it is a human written anthology. They end up xian Deists or sometimes even atheists.

I suspect many atheists aren’t acquainted with this kind of research because it frankly takes a lot of work to keep up with.

But, as one would expect, an accurate understanding of the Hebrew scriptures is a far more valuable tool for attacking fundamentalist beliefs that a strawman that neither corresponds to fundamentalists’ beliefs nor the actual character of the texts.

I grow so tired of the ‘iron age sheepherders’ (usually they’re bronze age and often illiterate!) strawman.

Helena Constantine said:

If there is a god, then he must be transcendent (other-than that which can be experienced by the senses).

Why? I thought you were a Christian. But what you;re describing is not the Christian god who was seen by Moses and heard by Job and Adam & Eve. And unless you claim those were metaphors, he lived on the earth in a physical body seen by thousands of people in Palestine. If I any longer thought you were a Christian, I would ask you, if Jesus as he lived in the first century were whisked by a time machine into a modern university, what would the hospital or the physics lab find that was different between him and any other human being? And if he is so transcendent how did he manage to effect real physical processes like turning water into wine and curing skin diseases? But since clearly no Christian could say what you say, I won't bother.

stevaroni said:

unkle.hank said: What, you mean all you discovered was that chimps don't wear pants or drive Cadillacs? Bah! Nobel nomination withdrawn!

You're wastin your time Hank. Ben's Bible doesn't say that Cadillacs exist either.

harold said:

Helena Constantine said:

If there is a god, then he must be transcendent (other-than that which can be experienced by the senses).

Why? I thought you were a Christian. But what you;re describing is not the Christian god who was seen by Moses and heard by Job and Adam & Eve. And unless you claim those were metaphors, he lived on the earth in a physical body seen by thousands of people in Palestine. If I any longer thought you were a Christian, I would ask you, if Jesus as he lived in the first century were whisked by a time machine into a modern university, what would the hospital or the physics lab find that was different between him and any other human being? And if he is so transcendent how did he manage to effect real physical processes like turning water into wine and curing skin diseases? But since clearly no Christian could say what you say, I won't bother.

I'm replying somewhat randomly here - I could reply to almost anyone. I just want to advise people not to let creationists frame the discussion, because they are weasels. When I finally pinned him down, a somewhat challenging task, Ben revealed what he is all about. He actually wanted to be on topic. He wanted to praise Freshwater. He wanted to spew post-modern science denial and make the Orwellian claim that the US constitution "wasn't intended" to protect freedom of religion. Deny age of earth, deny evolution, deny that it is either unethical or illegal to preach sectarian lies in school as "science", in the service of a dystopian, authoritarian agenda. That was what Ben wanted. It had to be dragged out of him, but that was what he wanted. Why did he weasel and dissemble, instead of just stating his real agenda? The best way to understand this is to really, really get, and never forget, that they are pursuing an fairly concrete political agenda, and that virtually every aspect of that agenda is designed to harm someone. He dissembled, because he's practicing. The "ID" scam didn't work, but an ultimate goal is still to get creationism into public schools with interference from the courts. Ben knows that showing up saying "The earth is 6000 years old, biological evolution doesn't occur, and I will say that I support 'freedom of religion' but by that, I mean freedom to coerce others into following my religion, whether they like it or not" is a bad move. He's itching to say those things, but the problem is, they were already tried in court and they failed. The discussion of Biblical scholarship and so on was very interesting - to us. Ben doesn't care about any of that. He doesn't give a rat's ass. He cares about, among other related things, removing actual science from public schools, and forcing YOUR children*, at YOUR taxpayer expense*, to memorize, regurgitate, and kowtow to his sadistic, bigoted, latter day, post-modern, superficially self-serving religion, and call it "science". *If you don't plan to have children, and/or don't pay taxes that support public schools, I still intend this to apply to you. I phrased it that way for emphasis. It's of value to discuss philosophical attitudes toward religion and Biblical scholarship, but let's not let that distract us from what the likes of Ben are really after.

unkle.hank said: No surprise there - everyone knows God drives a Rolls.

Richard B. Hoppe said:

unkle.hank said: No surprise there - everyone knows God drives a Rolls.

A Holy Roller?

ben said:

raven said: The most parsimonious explanation is well known though. The entire universe looks exactly like it would if the gods don't exist.

But this is exactly my point. We've made a category mistake. If God is transcendent, by nature his revelation will be other-than that which would be expected. To quote Christian scripture, "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways."
I'm not asking any of you to recognize the authority of Christian scripture. I'm only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate. If this natural order was established by a creator-mind, then that creator-mind must embody absolutely superlative characteristics- intelligence, morality, power. And given the superlative characteristics of this creator-mind, human critique (which none of us would assert is rationally or morally perfect) cannot by nature be established against divine action, any more than a sandwich can critique a chef.

xubist said:

ben said:

raven said: The most parsimonious explanation is well known though. The entire universe looks exactly like it would if the gods don't exist.

But this is exactly my point. We've made a category mistake. If God is transcendent, by nature his revelation will be other-than that which would be expected. To quote Christian scripture, "As high as the heavens are above the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways." I'm not asking any of you to recognize the authority of Christian scripture. I'm only suggesting that any critique of a transcendent being is by nature illegitimate. If this natural order was established by a creator-mind, then that creator-mind must embody absolutely superlative characteristics- intelligence, morality, power. And given the superlative characteristics of this creator-mind, human critique (which none of us would assert is rationally or morally perfect) cannot by nature be established against divine action, any more than a sandwich can critique a chef.

Given the basic premise of a transcendant Creator, this line of reasoning from that poremise seems pretty good to me; we puny humans are so much less capable than said Creator, that we're just too damn stoopid to recognize Its work when we see it. And this is why ID, which is based on the proposition that we puny humans can recognize the Creator's work when... we... see it... Hmmm. What's wrong with this picture, ben?

unkle.hank said:

stevaroni said:

unkle.hank said: What, you mean all you discovered was that chimps don't wear pants or drive Cadillacs? Bah! Nobel nomination withdrawn!

You're wastin your time Hank. Ben's Bible doesn't say that Cadillacs exist either.

No surprise there - everyone knows God drives a Rolls.

raven said: I've read Ehrman, Mackie, Wells, Spong, Borg, Wilson, Avalos, Crosssans, and a dozen or so others. Most of the contemporary biblical scholars.

unkle.hank said: ...What they do seem to desire is a return to some mythical, Rockwellesque version of the Good Old Days where everyone dressed up and went to church on Sunday, scientists spent their time inventing ways to kill Communists instead of yammering on about how we're a bunch of damn dirty apes and atheists didn't exist - except in Russia. If it wasn't so pathetic, ahistorical and deluded it'd be comical...

Helena Constantine said:

unkle.hank said: ...What they do seem to desire is a return to some mythical, Rockwellesque version of the Good Old Days where everyone dressed up and went to church on Sunday, scientists spent their time inventing ways to kill Communists instead of yammering on about how we're a bunch of damn dirty apes and atheists didn't exist - except in Russia. If it wasn't so pathetic, ahistorical and deluded it'd be comical...

When I was in college someone tried to recommend Rockwell to me and showed me a painting of a bunch of small townites lounging around the barbershop on a Saturday morning. I asked him, "Which ones are in the Klan? All of them?" and that brought the conversation to an end.

Rockwell also painted a classic scene of a little black girl being escorted to school by federal marshals, and an ecumenical grouping of people off all different colors and faiths worshiping. Not all his paintings were of white folks.

wheatdogg.myopenid.com said: Rockwell also painted a classic scene of a little black girl being escorted to school by federal marshals, and an ecumenical grouping of people off all different colors and faiths worshiping. Not all his paintings were of white folks.

Dave Luckett said:

wheatdogg.myopenid.com said: Rockwell also painted a classic scene of a little black girl being escorted to school by federal marshals, and an ecumenical grouping of people off all different colors and faiths worshiping. Not all his paintings were of white folks.

A copy of that painting is found on the site harold gave, above. I very much enjoy how Rockwell cut the heads off the feds, but showed the tension and grimness in their posture and gait, while the little girl is simply walking to school, her eyes on what is ahead of her. It's a compositional comment on faceless authority, on childhood, and on what the issue was, and is. It shows what representational art can be used to do.

harold said: Not to belabor this issue, but let's recall that it's a harsh right wing theocracy ruled by a wealthy elite, not an "return to an imaginary Rockwellian past"', that creationist political activity seeks to establish.

apokryltaros said:

harold said: Not to belabor this issue, but let's recall that it's a harsh right wing theocracy ruled by a wealthy elite, not an "return to an imaginary Rockwellian past"', that creationist political activity seeks to establish.

That is true. However, most creationist political activists seek to present the illusion that said oligo-theocracy will be a return to this imaginary Rockwellian paradise.

Caveat -

Ronald Reagan and some other conservatives of his era did perhaps make use of imagery implying a return to a recent, more ideal past.

We're getting a long way from "robust evolution," folks.

Richard B. Hoppe said: We're getting a long way from "robust evolution," folks.

Richard B. Hoppe said: We're getting a long way from "robust evolution," folks.

Whence cometh “robust evolution”? Surely not John Freshwater. Have we a new idiom from ID/creationists?

prongs said: I never saw a response to my query Dec. 7th: Whence cometh “robust evolution”? Surely not John Freshwater. Have we a new idiom from ID/creationists? Do you think Freshwater came up with this himself? Is he referring to the hypothesized hyper-evolution after "The Flood"? Maybe "robust evolution" is a new euphemism for impossible hyper-evolution.

prongs said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: We're getting a long way from "robust evolution," folks.

I never saw a response to my query Dec. 7th:

Whence cometh “robust evolution”? Surely not John Freshwater. Have we a new idiom from ID/creationists?

Do you think Freshwater came up with this himself? Is he referring to the hypothesized hyper-evolution after "The Flood"? Maybe "robust evolution" is a new euphemism for impossible hyper-evolution.