Josh Rosenau on Coyne on evolution and religion in Evolution

...a huge and obvious alternative hypothesis, which is that the real explanatory variable in changing minds to accept evolution is level of education.

Europe has not eliminated religion so much as it has become largely irrelevant. I think the cause of that is not so much education as it is (counter intuitively, I know) the institutionalization of religion. Religion thrives on adversity and persecution (either perceived or actual.) And I think that here in the states, we see an actual example of evolution in progress as different sects battle for power and influence.

Chad Kreutzer said: Religion thrives on adversity and persecution (either perceived or actual.) And I think that here in the states, we see an actual example of evolution in progress as different sects battle for power and influence.

This may be a bit off topic, but you have totally failed to understand what is happening with the "GNU Atheists." What we are seeing is Atheist Lib, the equivalent of the social phase change that happened in the 1960's (yes, I was around then) with women's lib and gay lib. There are still plenty of gay-bashing misogynists around today, but their opinions are no longer socially acceptable and they know it. (And society is better for it.) What new Atheists seek is not the end of religion (duh!) but the de-privledging of religion so that religious people will have to accept that their beliefs are just their opinions, and that many people disagree with them. And have good reasons for their disbelief. If that makes them uncomfortable, they will learn to live with it just as (most) racists and gay bashers have done.

When women's lib started it had a very strong in your face radical wing: all-men-are-rapists, vaginal-orgasms-are-a-myth. It was the radical crowd that got attention, raised consciousness even among those who disagreed, and moved public opinion forward. The Mr. Nice Guy, never-offend-anyone approach will get you precisely nowhere. Believers know all the standard arguments against God, they just ignore them, and have been doing so since the dawn of time. And as long as they can ignore you, they will. The only way to bring about change is to become un-ignorable, which Dawkins, Harris, et. al,. have done, quite successfully. We need more of the same, not less. Nice Guys get left behind and are left wondering why.

Of course education is the answer. Of course we need to get it into state curricula and make sure it is actually taught. Of course we need to emphasize it in college. Of course we need to reach out to life long learning programs and programs for seniors. Of course we should do our best to disseminate the scientific discoveries on which the modern theory stands. Of course we need to work to increase scientific literacy. Many of us are doing those things every day. We have the evidence and the truth on our side, that should count for something.

Unfortunately, as Flint points out, even if this strategy is ultimately effective, it might take a very long time. Many children grow up being brainwashed by fundamentalist parents. They are taught from a very early age not to trust science or scientists. They are taught that evolution is a lie and that scientists are trying to fool them (for some unspecified reason). Usually they just shut out any contrary evidence after a certain point and become practically unreachable. Having come from such a background myself, I can testify as to how effective this strategy can be.

However, as Frank is so fond of pointing out, when these kids eventually find out who it was that was really lying to them, some of them can learn. Some of them are intellectually honest enough to admit the truth when confronted with it. There is a big price to pay for dealing all of the lies and deceit from people you trusted, but it does work for some. This seems to me to be the best hope for breaking the cycle of lies. That and working to make sure that the lying hypocrites don't use the public school system to accomplish their brainwashing.

A wise man once said, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free, it will just hurt a lot. I was right again.

This may be a bit off topic, but you have totally failed to understand what is happening with the “GNU Atheists.” What we are seeing is Atheist Lib, the equivalent of the social phase change that happened in the 1960’s (yes, I was around then) with women’s lib and gay lib. There are still plenty of gay-bashing misogynists around today, but their opinions are no longer socially acceptable and they know it. (And society is better for it.) What new Atheists seek is not the end of religion (duh!) but the de-privledging of religion so that religious people will have to accept that their beliefs are just their opinions, and that many people disagree with them. And have good reasons for their disbelief. If that makes them uncomfortable, they will learn to live with it just as (most) racists and gay bashers have done.

When women’s lib started it had a very strong in your face radical wing: all-men-are-rapists, vaginal-orgasms-are-a-myth. It was the radical crowd that got attention, raised consciousness even among those who disagreed, and moved public opinion forward.

The Mr. Nice Guy, never-offend-anyone approach will get you precisely nowhere.

Believers know all the standard arguments against God, they just ignore them, and have been doing so since the dawn of time.

And as long as they can ignore you, they will.

The only way to bring about change is to become un-ignorable, which Dawkins, Harris, et. al,. have done, quite successfully. We need more of the same, not less.

Nice Guys get left behind and are left wondering why.

Many children grow up being brainwashed by fundamentalist parents. They are taught from a very early age not to trust science or scientists. They are taught that evolution is a lie and that scientists are trying to fool them (for some unspecified reason). Usually they just shut out any contrary evidence after a certain point and become practically unreachable. Having come from such a background myself, I can testify as to how effective this strategy can be.

I recall that Tenncrain used to be a YEC. Tenncrain, what changed your mind? And are you still a Christian? If the story is on-line somewhere, you can just give us a link.

Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years.

How's it working so far?

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

SLC said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

It has been a colossal failure. The percentage of Americans who accept a natural evolutionary thesis hasn't changed significantly in 40 years.

Carl Drews said:

SLC said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

It has been a colossal failure. The percentage of Americans who accept a natural evolutionary thesis hasn't changed significantly in 40 years.

By that measure, Richard Dawkins has also been a colossal failure. The Selfish Gene came out 36 years ago.

As of 1991, 54% of the college educated believed in old-earth creationism. That is, I suppose, marginally better than YEC, but still pretty pathetic.

Yes, it's a fairly dated poll by now, but I think it shows that education isn't some silver bullet against creationism. I don't suppose anyone really doubts that a strong science education would likely correlate well with acceptance of evolution (causality not so obvious), however that's neither here nor there, as most people aren't going to be science majors.

So why Rosenau resorts to such questionable use of the statistics isn't clear. Education plays a role, no doubt, in high US rates of evolution rejection, but so do numerous social factors, including the sorts of religion that exists here (Rosenau mentions this, but doesn't really discuss it meaningfully), as well as a sort of "critical mass" effect where rampant anti-evolutionism suggests to people that it makes some sort of sense--as well as many other factors, probably including social dysfunction.

Glen Davidson

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

I should add one caveat, as I realize now that the OEC category in the link in my previous post included theistic evolution, which isn't superb, but isn't so horrible either, at least in my view (most seem not to have a good idea of what "naturalistic evolution" even entails, still, few theistic evolutionists directly oppose science).

So I don't know exactly what the creationist level of college graduates is. I don't doubt that Ken Ham has reason to worry about sound education in college, but it's also true that there are a whole lot of college-educated creationists out there, too, meaning that education is likely to be only part of the answer to creationist twaddle infecting so much of American polity.

Glen Davidson

Ted said: What new Atheists seek is not the end of religion (duh!) but the de-privledging of religion so that religious people will have to accept that their beliefs are just their opinions, and that many people disagree with them.

tomh said: Well, the Rosenau strategy hasn't worked, books like The Selfish Gene that try to educate the public about science haven't worked, how about for the next forty years we try to get rid of religion. Maybe that will work.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

I’m one of the geezers here who has been involved in trying to debunk ID/creationism since the early 1970s.

I think one of the mistakes made by the science community early on – when Morris and Gish were taunting scientists to campus debates – was to give them the free ride. ID/creationists have since parleyed that publicity into an advertising campaign that netted them enough money from rubes to build institutes that allow them to do nothing all day but crank out self-sustaining propaganda and hatred of science. So this is one of the mistakes of the past we are currently stuck with. But this is hindsight; we in the science community were pretty much blindsided by creationist tactics back then.

But I have also noticed that ID/creationists over the years have developed the nasty tactic of luring those who debate them - whether it be on the internet or elsewhere - into adopting the misconceptions and definitions of ID/creationism in the arguments. They still taunt and play on people’s egos in attempting to lure people into debates, and they often lure people in who are a bit shaky in their own understanding of concepts. The result is that ID/creationists have developed a set of pseudo-arguments that work well against the general public’s shaky understanding of science. ID/creationists practice and keep notes.

ID/creationism is able to gain a foothold in socio/political arguments because ID/creationists focus on peoples’ misconceptions as though these misconceptions are real science and not misconceptions. They sound “reasonable” to the many people who have not learned the nuances of many of the important concepts and evidence in science.

We have all heard the taunt, “If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” I have seen exactly the same problems with physics and chemistry, especially with those nauseatingly repeated thermodynamic arguments of the ID/creationists. This trope gets pulled out and repeated at regular intervals. It gets shot down only to be pulled out and repeated again and again when ID/creationists find a new venue or believe that people have forgotten. Part of the reason it gets repeated is that people who debate ID/creationists have serious misconceptions of their own; and these just get burned deeper into the public folklore about thermodynamics.

I am beginning to suspect that ID/creationism is analogous to the canary in the coal mine with regard to our educational institutions. I suspect our educational institutions are under extreme stress at all levels. They are not supported properly, teachers and professors are extremely overloaded, there are financial incentives to dumb down courses at all levels, and there is almost never any time for remedial work that would bring students up to the levels of the courses they are supposedly prepared to take.

ID/creationists can often game the system by keeping their heads down and slithering around the requirements for legitimate degrees. And once they are in positions of “authority,” they are free to continue to spread their misrepresentations and misconceptions.

Part of any future strategy on our part must be to do a better job at debunking ID/creationist misrepresentations and misconceptions by making sure we understand and can explain scientific concepts in a way that makes sense to the public.

I was enjoying the newly renovated and expanded Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles on a Saturday a couple of weeks ago, and I was pleased to notice the thousands of people who poured into the exhibits all day long until closing. Science is still popular, and people are still interested. We can’t let them down.

SWT said:

Ted said: What new Atheists seek is not the end of religion (duh!) but the de-privledging of religion so that religious people will have to accept that their beliefs are just their opinions, and that many people disagree with them.

tomh said: Well, the Rosenau strategy hasn't worked, books like The Selfish Gene that try to educate the public about science haven't worked, how about for the next forty years we try to get rid of religion. Maybe that will work.

Mike Elzinga -

I was at the American Museum of Natural History on Saturday, and it was jammed with people, many obvious tourists from "red" states, especially that always popular dinosaur exhibits. And nobody was complaining about the dating.

Are there not a few parallels here between Coyne's use of rather sketchy statistical analysis to support a personal animus against religion and, say, NOM's amateurish attempts to construct sciencey-sounding arguments around the 'risks' inherent in allowing gay marriage? There's an element on both sides of this debate whose main goal appears to be finding socially reasonable ways of demanding that efforts are made to remove things they find unpleasant or confusing from public life.

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

harold said: I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved.

Carl Drews said: I recall that Tenncrain used to be a YEC. Tenncrain, what changed your mind? And are you still a Christian?

Chad Kreutzer said: Europe has not eliminated religion so much as it has become largely irrelevant. I think the cause of that is not so much education as it is (counter intuitively, I know) the institutionalization of religion. Religion thrives on adversity and persecution (either perceived or actual.) And I think that here in the states, we see an actual example of evolution in progress as different sects battle for power and influence.

What new Atheists seek is not the end of religion (duh!) but the de-privledging of religion so that religious people will have to accept that their beliefs are just their opinions, and that many people disagree with them.

Well, the Rosenau strategy hasn’t worked, books like The Selfish Gene that try to educate the public about science haven’t worked, how about for the next forty years we try to get rid of religion. Maybe that will work.

tomh said:

harold said: I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved.

I've never seen a poll with a separate question for plants, let alone bacteria, but this Harris poll comes close (it's about a third of the way down the page.) When asked, "Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?" 38% said yes. Then, "Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?" 49% said yes. So that's a significant difference. But I think the pollsters feel that if someone is a creationist, they accept the Genesis account, and lump everything together.

Tenncrain said: Fatefully, my geology course was followed by the Kitzmiller trial. I was influenced by the weight of Judge Jones's decision, the strength of the plaintiffs, and the very self-defeating testimony of YEC Dover board members like Buckingham and Bonsell.

trnsplnt said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

A commonly repeated retort that remains ridiculous. The "dominant strategy" is what the public is most exposed to and that would be Dawkins, Coyne, et al. vs Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, et al., often referred to as "the people who have skin in the game". The media attention on the topic of the politics of science education has always been on the drama queens at the extremes, and both camps are too busy with their own agendas to seriously give a damn about science education. Wouldn't it be nice if we all got behind the experts for a change and worked to take science education out of the culture wars rather than sacrificing science education on our respective altars. What's been dominating the media hasn't worked so far.

trnsplnt said: The "dominant strategy" is what the public is most exposed to and that would be Dawkins, Coyne, et al. vs Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, et al., often referred to as "the people who have skin in the game". The media attention on the topic of the politics of science education has always been on the drama queens at the extremes

Wouldn't it be nice if we all got behind the experts for a change and worked to take science education out of the culture wars rather than sacrificing science education on our respective altars.

tomh said:

harold said: I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved.

I've never seen a poll with a separate question for plants, let alone bacteria, but this Harris poll comes close (it's about a third of the way down the page.) When asked, "Do you think human beings developed from earlier species or not?" 38% said yes. Then, "Do you believe all plants and animals have evolved from other species or not?" 49% said yes. So that's a significant difference. But I think the pollsters feel that if someone is a creationist, they accept the Genesis account, and lump everything together.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatc[…]ey-and-bork/

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

trnsplnt said: The "dominant strategy" is what the public is most exposed to and that would be Dawkins, Coyne, et al. vs Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, et al., often referred to as "the people who have skin in the game". The media attention on the topic of the politics of science education has always been on the drama queens at the extremes

What, precisely, is extreme about Dawkins? All he is saying is that religious beliefs should not be immune to criticism. You are unfairly equating him with people who want to force a theocracy on the rest of us.

Wouldn't it be nice if we all got behind the experts for a change and worked to take science education out of the culture wars rather than sacrificing science education on our respective altars.

How do you propose to do that? This isn't an issue that lends itself to compromise. The science curriculum is either restricted to real science or religious beliefs are allowed to be taught as science. I have never heard of a "gnu" atheist who is advocating teaching that all religions are wrong in science class. Again, you are equating two positions that are not at all symmetrical.

Evolution has implications about how the world works. If you deny them, if you pretend evolution is cheerily compatible with the god-is-a-loving-creator nonsense religions peddle, you aren't teaching evolution. You are pouring more mush into the brains of young people. If you are a conservative Christian, it's entirely understandable that you would fight evolution, because the truth does not favor your position. If you are a moderate Christian, you are not helping science education by enabling fear of atheism by continuing to lie to people, assuring them that science isn't going to challenge their religious beliefs. It will, or the teachers are doing it wrong. (bold original)

It would be nice if we did have a high school biology book that called all of Christianity and Judaism a collection of myths, but we don't. Yet.

harold said: Ted -

This may be a bit off topic, but you have totally failed to understand what is happening with the “GNU Atheists.” What we are seeing is Atheist Lib, the equivalent of the social phase change that happened in the 1960’s (yes, I was around then) with women’s lib and gay lib. There are still plenty of gay-bashing misogynists around today, but their opinions are no longer socially acceptable and they know it. (And society is better for it.) What new Atheists seek is not the end of religion (duh!) but the de- privledging of religion so that religious people will have to accept that their beliefs are just their opinions, and that many people disagree with them. And have good reasons for their disbelief. If that makes them uncomfortable, they will learn to live with it just as (most) racists and gay bashers have done.

What is "de-privileging", very specifically defined? I'd love to see the tax exempt status of religious organizations eliminated, although that won't happen. I'd love to see ostentatious religious display become somewhat less socially acceptable. However, use of vague but rather charged language like "de- privileging" makes me wonder specifically what you are talking about.

You seem to have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about.

When women’s lib started it had a very strong in your face radical wing: all-men-are-rapists, vaginal-orgasms-are-a-myth. It was the radical crowd that got attention, raised consciousness even among those who disagreed, and moved public opinion forward.

1) These statements are factually incorrect - some men are not rapists and some women have orgasms via vaginal intercourse. Therefore, the logical interpretation of this statement is that you think Gnu Atheists say things that are not true for shocking effect, and you support that. 2) I'm old enough to know that these are NOT slogans from the early days of women's lib. "All men are rapists" has been traced to the novel "The Women's Room", which was published in 1977. The "radical feminism" you describe represented movement hijacking in the late 70's and early 80's. At the that time, hijacking of progressive causes by attention seekers who distorted them into absurdly extreme demands that could never be achieved (in order to assure that their attention seeking careers could never be ended by a success) was a common phenomenon. Movement hijackers did such a big favor for the right wing that Karl Rove should be sending them flowers. Although upper class white and assimilated Asian women have - and this is a very good thing - made major gains, almost to the point of true social equality, this has come against a background of lower wages, reduced social services, eroded civil rights, and of course, massive and constant attacks on contraception (which were not as prevalent in 1977). I would argue that the most well placed women have made gains despite movement hijacking, not because of it, and would advise caution to anyone who seeks to emulate that model.

I was exaggerating for emphasis and brevity, something I thought was obvious. Furthermore, the women's movement had a strong "shrill" and "shouty" wing from the very begining, which got media attention. And rape was a key concern from the start, it was/is a very emotional and divisive issue.

The Mr. Nice Guy, never-offend-anyone approach will get you precisely nowhere.

1) Straw man - no-one has recommended such an approach. 2) False dichotomy. Between obsequiousness and over the top rage, there are many other options.

You're projecting. "Over the top rage?" Really! Oh, exactly whom do you plan to offend? Hard line fundamentalists? You offend them simply by not believing exactlyas they do. But that sort of "offense" has always existed and gets us nothing.

Believers know all the standard arguments against God, they just ignore them, and have been doing so since the dawn of time.

Silly of them, in my opinion, bu that's their business.

Actually it is our business too, if we want to change the religious climate of the country, as you claim you do.

And as long as they can ignore you, they will.

For me, the alternative to authoritarian theocracy is human freedom. Not forced atheism. I'm not religious and never have been, but I'll choose my religious beliefs or lack thereof on my own. In a free society, some humans probably will choose some religious or magical beliefs, for the indefinite time being. I strongly support rights-respecting attempts to persuade them otherwise. Of course, if such attempts are made in a style that is highly incompatible with persuasion, they will achieve the opposite of their stated goal.

Projecting again! "forced atheism?"

The only way to bring about change is to become un-ignorable, which Dawkins, Harris, et. al,. have done, quite successfully. We need more of the same, not less.

Most people don't even know who those guys are. A substantial plurality of the population probably has some idea who Dawkins is (for Harris, probably about 1% can even identify who he is), but of that plurality, most are passively aware of him but actually ignore him.

Yes, and most people never knew who Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan were either. But they knew feminism was "out there" just as people are becoming increasing aware that atheists are out there thanks primarily to Dawkins, et. al.

Nice Guys get left behind and are left wondering why.

No doubt your extensive readings of Ayn Rand helped you arrive at that conclusion.

Projecting three times! Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is... (a bad habit?) I am leftwing/progressive.

Look, what I want is a society where anyone who wants to spout religion outside of church will be asked about cancer, and Deuteronomy 22, the verses about stoning brides to death if they didn't bleed on their wedding night. People who think they will go to hell if they aren't Christians are not going to change their minds because of some nerdy science talk about evolution or the Big Bang. Except for fanatics, religious belief is not possible without denial, everyone knows that it was science and not prayer that eradicated smallpox. God created smallpox (if GOd exists) and left millions to die in agony, science eliminated smallpox. No one who is not mentally deficient can honestly reflect on these facts without toning their religious beliefs down to a level where it no longer intrudes on politics and people's freedom. And the more people keep pointing out these facts, the sillier the denial that supports religion will become. And that is the way forward.

I recall that Tenncrain used to be a YEC. Tenncrain, what changed your mind? And are you still a Christian?

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: What, precisely, is extreme about Dawkins? All he is saying is that religious beliefs should not be immune to criticism. You are unfairly equating him with people who want to force a theocracy on the rest of us.

Nick Matzke said: Evolution should be taught and treated like any other science, and not dragged into atheist apologetics any more than chemistry is (and it shouldn't be challenged by religious apologists any more than chemistry is).

I disagree with Harris and Hitchens, especially Hitchens on this one issue, but I also defend them, and not just in the sense of defending the principle of free speech, but because I also agree with them in part. Somehow, the meaning of "progressive" has weakened so much that it can be equated to radical, militant tolerance of every blithering looniness someone might spout, with tactics that constitute little more than limp-wristed surrender to the excuses of bigots. Too often, the conversation between so-called 'progressives' and their opponents is one of gelatin-spined appeasers trying desperately to stave off the tyrants of the right by frantically retreating from the conflict. "I want to chop off my daughter's clitoris," says the Islamist. "Oooh, that's not nice," says the 'progressive', "and your deep, rich cultural traditions make me hesitate to object." Meanwhile, the New Atheist says "NO. There is no ambiguity here: your children are individuals, you have NO RIGHT to butcher them. And being an ignorant barbarian is no excuse." "I demand that the public schools respect my mythology and teach everyone that the earth is 6000 years old," says the Christian Dominionist, "and also, you can't ever say a word to my children that contradicts Scripture." The 'progressive' replies, "Well, we wouldn't want to offend anyone, so maybe we can find a curriculum that doesn't use the "e" word and doesn't stir up any conflicts between science and religion. Let's compromise." The New Atheist says, "You're wrong. You're worse than wrong, you're stupid. We're going to educate your children whether you like it or not, because they have a right to grow up without your self-inflicted brain injury." "Belief in God is an essential part of being human and must be nurtured for the good of civilization," says the Evangelical. The 'progressive' cheerfully agrees, ignoring the sectarian tribalism that religion fosters, ignoring the absurdity of the Evangelical's very specific, very peculiar adherence to a dogmatic mythology, for which this happy acquiescence to an absence of critical thought is a convenient foot in the door. The New Atheist instead argues that religion must be relegated to the status of a personal quirk, an affectation or hobby, and that the real heart of modern civilization lies in science, and reason, and evidence-based decision-making. Religion is a barbarous obsidian knife poised over our chests — put it in a cabinet and admire it as a work of art, but don't ever wield the damned thing ever again. "Homosexuals are a disgusting abomination," scream the fundamentalists. The 'progressives' respond, "Oooh, well, we were going to advocate tolerance and equality, but in the light of your rousing certainty, we'll yank this commercial that blandly suggests that maybe gay people are human just like you." The New Atheist, at this point, just facepalms incredulously and walks away from these lily-livered fair-weather advocates for equality. (italics original)

Tenncrain stated that he is still a Christian: But despite the geology class and the trial, I experienced turmoil for another year or so as my YEC beliefs only slowly weakened. I remain a Christian, but it was rough for a while. Former YEC Glenn Morton (link here) has a similar experience.

Mike Elzinga said:

Nick Matzke said: Evolution should be taught and treated like any other science, and not dragged into atheist apologetics any more than chemistry is (and it shouldn't be challenged by religious apologists any more than chemistry is).

The problem is that ID/creationists have damaged public understanding of chemistry and physics by spreading memes about matter and energy that are simply not part of any chemistry or physics course. Unfortunately ID/creationists had some help from bad popularizations of thermodynamics on which they continue to capitalize. I don’t know exactly how to go about it, but the science community as a whole needs to do a better job of peer-reviewing popularizations. Popularizations are extremely difficult to write in a way that reaches the public and at the same time doesn’t abuse metaphors or propagate other misconceptions. Anyone who presumes to take on a project of popularizing a topic in science needs to be extremely careful by becoming familiar with the efforts of the various professional teaching organizations to catalog and deal with common misconceptions. Too often, popularizations are an ego trip for the writers, some of whom probably suffer from of the same temptations of celebrity as do ID/creationist propagandists. When one is writing for the public, one needs to feel the same professional responsibility as one should feel while putting ideas before one’s colleagues. This is made all the more difficult in that one has to find different and simpler ways of doing this without making a wreck of the fundamental concepts in the process. I’ve tried it, and it is hard to do it without math, for example. I chickened out.

Nick Matzke said:

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

trnsplnt said: The "dominant strategy" is what the public is most exposed to and that would be Dawkins, Coyne, et al. vs Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, et al., often referred to as "the people who have skin in the game". The media attention on the topic of the politics of science education has always been on the drama queens at the extremes

What, precisely, is extreme about Dawkins? All he is saying is that religious beliefs should not be immune to criticism. You are unfairly equating him with people who want to force a theocracy on the rest of us.

Wouldn't it be nice if we all got behind the experts for a change and worked to take science education out of the culture wars rather than sacrificing science education on our respective altars.

How do you propose to do that? This isn't an issue that lends itself to compromise. The science curriculum is either restricted to real science or religious beliefs are allowed to be taught as science. I have never heard of a "gnu" atheist who is advocating teaching that all religions are wrong in science class. Again, you are equating two positions that are not at all symmetrical.

It's not hard to find examples of this kind of extreme rhetoric from gnus. E.g. from PZ: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/kings_and_queens_of_the_ther.php . . . Here's another one: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/tennessee_twit_gets_brief_mome.php . . .

Please define Gnu for me...

Nick Matzke said: I once saw a poll which said that 25% of the population thought that the Sun goes around the Earth. Naive interpretation: 25% of the population are committed geocentrists Probably better interpretation: 50% of the population has never thought about this issue in any serious way, and just gives a random guess

patrickmay.myopenid.com said: So I agree with you and strongly disagree with Myers on this point. All of science, including biology, should be taught without reference to atheism or religion. Do you agree with that or do you think it is necessary to make some additional statement about the compatibility of science and religion in an attempt to placate that vocal portion of the anti-science brigade who consider failure to mention their favorite god equivalent to preaching atheism?

Douglas Theobald said:

Nick Matzke said: I once saw a poll which said that 25% of the population thought that the Sun goes around the Earth. Naive interpretation: 25% of the population are committed geocentrists Probably better interpretation: 50% of the population has never thought about this issue in any serious way, and just gives a random guess

27%: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/append/c7/at07-09.pdf But what is more interesting for me is the answer to this question: "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals" T or F. 47% of Americans answer true, while 44% of Russians answer true. From a country that officially taught atheism throughout most of the 20th century. See Table 7-9, page 7-24. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/c07.pdf

So I agree with you and strongly disagree with Myers on this point. All of science, including biology, should be taught without reference to atheism or religion. Do you agree with that or do you think it is necessary to make some additional statement about the compatibility of science and religion in an attempt to placate that vocal portion of the anti-science brigade who consider failure to mention their favorite god equivalent to preaching atheism? The simple fact is that faith, revelation, and reliance on authority are not compatible with science and are essential to religion. The two are compatible only so long as the religion in question makes no claims about reality. We shouldn’t lie to children about that.

Rolf said: Please define Gnu for me...

It seems to me that there does have to be an acknowledgement on the part of those of us who don’t belong to any religion that religion has been intrinsically wrapped up with all of human history. It is a reality that we can’t rewrite history.

And we also have to acknowledge that, in the past, churches took on the role of governments in keeping records of marriages, births, deaths, genealogies, and all the other necessary data needed to keep a community functioning.

For many people, religious communities are a focal point of tradition, community support, and offer a template for getting on with life. Many people simply don’t have the time, desire, or ability to learn science; and they devote their lives to other things that are just as important for society. It seems to me that it is arrogant to automatically criticize and demean people who are religious. We can’t know all their histories and the circumstances that lead to their paths in life. Nobody has time to learn everything there is to learn; most of us will die not having learned even a small fraction of what there is to know.

There are certainly plenty of really bad, fundamentalist sects out there that can’t seem to leave everyone else alone; and these deserve our condemnation. We know who they are. The New Atheists appear to be a useful lightning rod for these fundamentalists to strike at and direct their loathing at.

But I suspect that the majority of people who belong to religious communities don’t spend the bulk of their time working themselves into intense feelings of fear and loathing of science, nursing persecution complexes, and all the while demonizing and blaming others and projecting all their innermost evil thoughts onto others.

Ted -

You are confusing "projection" with "wrong guess".

Obviously, I now believe that you are not (unlike some vocal atheists) an admirer the writings of Ayn Rand.

To "project" means to see one's own tendencies in others. For me to project admiration of Ayn Rand onto you, I would have to be an admirer of Ayn Rand, which I most certainly am not. It's just that the combination of atheism with scorn for "nice guys" is quite characteristic of her admirers. I retract the wrong guess.

The rest of my points stand.

harold said:

Rolf said: Please define Gnu for me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnu

Douglas Theobald said:

Nick Matzke said: I once saw a poll which said that 25% of the population thought that the Sun goes around the Earth. Naive interpretation: 25% of the population are committed geocentrists Probably better interpretation: 50% of the population has never thought about this issue in any serious way, and just gives a random guess

27%: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/append/c7/at07-09.pdf

But what is more interesting for me is the answer to this question: "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals" T or F. 47% of Americans answer true, while 44% of Russians answer true. From a country that officially taught atheism throughout most of the 20th century. See Table 7-9, page 7-24. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/c07.pdf

Nick Matzke said: it would be interesting if surveys asked "control" questions that indicate general education with no likely correlation to e.g. religion etc.

Nick Matzke said:

So I agree with you and strongly disagree with Myers on this point. All of science, including biology, should be taught without reference to atheism or religion. Do you agree with that or do you think it is necessary to make some additional statement about the compatibility of science and religion in an attempt to placate that vocal portion of the anti-science brigade who consider failure to mention their favorite god equivalent to preaching atheism? The simple fact is that faith, revelation, and reliance on authority are not compatible with science and are essential to religion. The two are compatible only so long as the religion in question makes no claims about reality. We shouldn’t lie to children about that.

You're just pushing the incompatibilist position here, which is at best an optional piece of philosophy, and at worst just another example of gnus attempting to push atheism via science, while officially claiming to not do so.

It's an empirical fact that there are diverse points of view, both within theists and within atheists, about whether or not science and religion are necessarily incompatible (religion is incredibly diverse, for one thing; treating it as a monolith, as the Gnus tend to do, is one of the biggest scholarly mistakes they make).

It's also a fact that the culture is soaked in the message of conflict, and that is often the single biggest thing motivating political antievolutionism and motivating personal resistance to evolution from students, parents, and teachers. So, when the goal is evolution education, and it is clear or likely that the conflict narrative is going to obstruct achieving successful evolution education, it is educationally responsible (and constitutional) to note that irreconcilable conflict is not the only model available. Whatever decision students make about such metaphysical matters is up to them, but it makes sense, and long experience shows, that this approach at least reduces the sense of threat and opens the students up to listening to the science.

For some reason, in recent years, the Gnu movement has decided to abandon common sense and longstanding practical experience on this issue, and seems committed to sacrificing effective evolution education on the alter of promoting their particular metaphysical view of irreconcilable conflict.

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC said: If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

Nick Matzke said:

So I agree with you and strongly disagree with Myers on this point. All of science, including biology, should be taught without reference to atheism or religion. Do you agree with that or do you think it is necessary to make some additional statement about the compatibility of science and religion in an attempt to placate that vocal portion of the anti-science brigade who consider failure to mention their favorite god equivalent to preaching atheism? The simple fact is that faith, revelation, and reliance on authority are not compatible with science and are essential to religion. The two are compatible only so long as the religion in question makes no claims about reality. We shouldn’t lie to children about that.

You're just pushing the incompatibilist position here, which is at best an optional piece of philosophy, and at worst just another example of gnus attempting to push atheism via science, while officially claiming to not do so. It's an empirical fact that there are diverse points of view, both within theists and within atheists, about whether or not science and religion are necessarily incompatible (religion is incredibly diverse, for one thing; treating it as a monolith, as the Gnus tend to do, is one of the biggest scholarly mistakes they make). It's also a fact that the culture is soaked in the message of conflict, and that is often the single biggest thing motivating political antievolutionism and motivating personal resistance to evolution from students, parents, and teachers. So, when the goal is evolution education, and it is clear or likely that the conflict narrative is going to obstruct achieving successful evolution education, it is educationally responsible (and constitutional) to note that irreconcilable conflict is not the only model available. Whatever decision students make about such metaphysical matters is up to them, but it makes sense, and long experience shows, that this approach at least reduces the sense of threat and opens the students up to listening to the science. For some reason, in recent years, the Gnu movement has decided to abandon common sense and longstanding practical experience on this issue, and seems committed to sacrificing effective evolution education on the alter of promoting their particular metaphysical view of irreconcilable conflict.

For point 1,
Creationism in north america does have its foundation in Evangelical and other Protestant beliefs in the bible being the word of God. so not inaccurate in genesis.
Yet as powerful or more is the general scepticism of hugh chunks of America based on traditional questioning of authority.

Whether they understand evolution or don't they still deny its likely true because a excellent case is not made to them.
The belief in god does lead people to see the fingerprints of god in nature but evolutionism shouldn't be affected.

I always see my fellow Evangelical christians as solidly middle class and well educated thereof.
Level of education is irrelevant if thats claimed to be the remedy.

if evolutionists are saying just more education is needed then open up the schools to both sides.
otherwise a case is being made without the guys one is trying to lead the kids away from who already lean in that way.

In the end education will help the truth. Yet without both sides evolution will not persuade since everyone knows creationism can make a good case too.
In a intelligent North America one must make a intelligent case.
this is not historically submissive Europe. who easily follow anyone.
If evolution is not true then it can;t make a persuasive case to intelligent people.
Evolution has a problem therefore.

By the way. If Mr Coyne suggests eradicating religion then is he not affirming a principal.
if one can suggest eradicating all religion then why not just one or more in particular?
in short he's affirming anyone who ever did this.
Eradication of wrong religions means one can eradicat a particular wrong religion for the same goal of truth and progress.
A line of reasoning.

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don’t have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

Kevin B said:

harold said:

Rolf said: Please define Gnu for me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnu

Many years ago, the UK Newspaper The Independent on Sunday ran a comic strip "bestiary". One strip discussed the "Dessert Rat", which had become unfashionable and had been ousted by the "Chocolate Moose". :) They also did the "Wildebeest"; the last panel depicting the aftermath of a stampede as the "Gnu World Order". It does rather look to a bystander as if the "Gnu Atheist World Order" bears some similarity.

Eric MacDonald, from Choice in Dying, has asked the question: Is evolution consistent with belief in a god that would be religiously meaningful? For me, this is the key issue. Are these two world views ever compatible? Most atheists haven't suggested we teach "atheism" in biology class, despite what some here have claimed. Most atheist scientists/teachers are worried when creationist explanations get presented along side evolution. If the religious right would quit trying to slip creation into science class, atheist scientists/teachers wouldn't have to waste their time and talk about god at all, since we all know we don't need a god to explain the world around us.

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

harold said:

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don’t have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

SLC is correct. Romney's personal beliefs are irrelevant. Ronald Reagan wasn't personally a creationist, but he appointed Scalia. The problem is not that they believe in it, it's that they service those who do.

Robert Byers said: I always see my fellow Evangelical christians as solidly middle class and well educated thereof.

...without both sides evolution will not persuade since everyone knows creationism can make a good case too.

And will somebody PLEASE fix the $#@! sign-in widget so I don't have to sign in again every day!

No, of course Byers doesn't have any statistics. He's talking out of his arse, as always. Byers simply isn't interested in fact or evidence.

FWIW, five minutes on google produced the following Pew survey. http://www.pewforum.org/Income-Distribution-Within-US-Religious-Groups.aspx

I don't know if the difference between "mainline protestant" plus "Catholic", both of whom mostly accept evolution, and "evangelical", who mostly don't, is statistically significant. Maybe. If there is a significant difference, it is to the evangelicals' disadvantage.

But Byers couldn't care less about what evidence there is. This is a bloke who thinks that the Tasmanian thylacine was a wolf because it looked a bit like one, and the koala is a bear, ditto, and that the Egyptian pyramids were built by people who didn't notice that they were under 29000 feet of water at the time. Byers lives in a Byereality all his own.

Kevin B said:

harold said:

Rolf said: Please define Gnu for me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnu

Many years ago, the UK Newspaper The Independent on Sunday ran a comic strip "bestiary". One strip discussed the "Dessert Rat", which had become unfashionable and had been ousted by the "Chocolate Moose". :) They also did the "Wildebeest"; the last panel depicting the aftermath of a stampede as the "Gnu World Order". It does rather look to a bystander as if the "Gnu Atheist World Order" bears some similarity.

Emphasis added for FL.

Eric MacDonald, from Choice in Dying, has asked the question: Is evolution consistent with belief in a god that would be religiously meaningful? For me, this is the key issue.

Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity. --atheist Frank Zindler

Garbage. Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Zindler is simply mistaken about what is meant by "original sin", probably because he listened to some fundy. Always a mistake.

FL always does this. When his downright untruths are refuted, he just goes quiet for a while and then comes back and repeats them.

If evolution is not true then it can;t make a persuasive case to intelligent people. Evolution has a problem therefore.

Evolution is incomatible with people like FL, Rober Byers and many others. That's their own fault but the world is suffering from their stupidity.

Robert Byers said: I always see my fellow Evangelical christians as solidly middle class and well educated thereof. Level of education is irrelevant if thats claimed to be the remedy.

By the way. If Mr Coyne suggests eradicating religion then is he not affirming a principal. if one can suggest eradicating all religion then why not just one or more in particular? in short he's affirming anyone who ever did this. Eradication of wrong religions means one can eradicat a particular wrong religion for the same goal of truth and progress. A line of reasoning.

Nick Matzke said: Another way to think of it -- if disaster strikes and Scalia is writing the majority opinion on the next big evolution case, do you want to make it easy, or difficult, for him to assert something like the following: "Evolution is primarily a vehicle for promoting atheism, rather than a rigorous science."

[Patrickmay] So I agree with you and strongly disagree with Myers on this point. All of science, including biology, should be taught without reference to atheism or religion.

You’re just pushing the incompatibilist position here, which is at best an optional piece of philosophy, and at worst just another example of gnus attempting to push atheism via science, while officially claiming to not do so.

Eric MacDonald, from Choice in Dying, has asked the question: Is evolution consistent with belief in a god that would be religiously meaningful?

For me, this is the key issue. Are these two world views ever compatible?

Most atheists haven’t suggested we teach “atheism” in biology class, despite what some here have claimed.

Most atheist scientists/teachers are worried when creationist explanations get presented along side evolution. If the religious right would quit trying to slip creation into science class, atheist scientists/teachers wouldn’t have to waste their time and talk about god at all, since we all know we don’t need a god to explain the world around us.

As I said above, I don’t consider myself opposed to accommodationism, but I have generally thought that the best approach to take in the classroom is to stick to telling students what the science says.

FL said:

Emphasis added for FL.

Thanks Carl. In my post I openly said, "I may have missed it", which explains why I asked the question. ****

Eric MacDonald, from Choice in Dying, has asked the question: Is evolution consistent with belief in a god that would be religiously meaningful? For me, this is the key issue.

It is indeed the key issue, especially since Christians unequivocally view God as "religiously meaningful." So it's very unfortunate that Evolution is, beyond doubt, incompatible with Christianity.

Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people, the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve, there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin, there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation, there is no need of a savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity. --atheist Frank Zindler

FL

Nick Matzke said:

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatc[…]ey-and-bork/

This is indeed something to be afraid of. If one wishes to avoid this disaster, which is better? (a) Secularists (another word I dislike, but whatevs) savage religious liberals and moderates at every opportunity, or (b) Secularists team up with with religious liberals and moderates in support of common political goals, like getting non-crazy people on the SCOTUS. Another way to think of it -- if disaster strikes and Scalia is writing the majority opinion on the next big evolution case, do you want to make it easy, or difficult, for him to assert something like the following: "Evolution is primarily a vehicle for promoting atheism, rather than a rigorous science." I don't think the statement could be made fairly under any imaginable scenario, but there's no reason to make it easier for them to make the statement unfairly.

Dave Luckett said: Garbage. Evolution is compatible with Christianity. Zindler is simply mistaken about what is meant by "original sin", probably because he listened to some fundy. Always a mistake.

FL always does this. When his downright untruths are refuted, he just goes quiet for a while and then comes back and repeats them.

SLC said: Scalia already dissented in the original 1987 decision declaring that creation "science" is a religious viewpoint so the issue of accommodationism is entirely irrelevant. The only question is, whether the replacement for Ginsburg will vote his way, along with Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. If Romney is elected and is taking advice from Bork, as the link to Ed Brayton's post indicates, the answer to that question is yes.

apokryltaros said: He either assumes that we're stupid enough to believe him this second ten thousandth time, or he hypocritically hopes to grind us down so he can then convert us.

Then how come the Pope accepts evolution is true? Does that make him an evil God-hating Atheist?

"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order." "Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project." --Nov. 9, 2005, Vatican speech

FL said:

Then how come the Pope accepts evolution is true? Does that make him an evil God-hating Atheist?

Nope, just makes him a devout, God-loving Syncretist. When you try to hold on to two simultaneously opposing irreconcilable world-views, you've gotten yourself into Syncretism. Syncretism is the unfortunate hallmark of Christian evolutionists. Just doesn't pan out rationally.

But having said that, do be careful about making grand proclamations that the "Pope accepts evolution." After all the Pope clearly said THIS about our world:

"How many people are there today who, fooled by atheism, think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order." "Through sacred Scripture, the Lord reawakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project." --Nov. 9, 2005, Vatican speech

Keep in mind that Pope Benedict has NEVER retracted this statement. Not even once. So how about you, Stanton? Since you brought up the Pope, do YOU accept Pope Benedict's quoted statement as true? Hmm? FL

FL said:

Then how come the Pope accepts evolution is true? Does that make him an evil God-hating Atheist?

Nope, just makes him a devout, God-loving Syncretist. When you try to hold on to two simultaneously opposing irreconcilable world-views, you've gotten yourself into Syncretism. Syncretism is the unfortunate hallmark of Christian evolutionists. Just doesn't pan out rationally.

SLC said:

Nick Matzke said:

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatc[…]ey-and-bork/

This is indeed something to be afraid of. If one wishes to avoid this disaster, which is better? (a) Secularists (another word I dislike, but whatevs) savage religious liberals and moderates at every opportunity, or (b) Secularists team up with with religious liberals and moderates in support of common political goals, like getting non-crazy people on the SCOTUS. Another way to think of it -- if disaster strikes and Scalia is writing the majority opinion on the next big evolution case, do you want to make it easy, or difficult, for him to assert something like the following: "Evolution is primarily a vehicle for promoting atheism, rather than a rigorous science." I don't think the statement could be made fairly under any imaginable scenario, but there's no reason to make it easier for them to make the statement unfairly.

Mr. Matzke is living in a dream world. Scalia already dissented in the original 1987 decision declaring that creation "science" is a religious viewpoint so the issue of accommodationism is entirely irrelevant. The only question is, whether the replacement for Ginsburg will vote his way, along with Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. If Romney is elected and is taking advice from Bork, as the link to Ed Brayton's post indicates, the answer to that question is yes.

Secularists team up with with religious liberals and moderates in support of common political goals, like getting non-crazy people on the SCOTUS

As is my usual practice with FL's pronunciamentos about what others say, I inspected the quoted words with care, and discovered, much to my expectation, that Pope Benedict didn't actually say anything about not accepting evolution. He was ascribing direction and order and creative reason to the Universe. Gosh, do you reckon that the Pope might be a (gasp!) theist?

To quote Iago, the bird: Oh, what a surprise. I think I might just keel over and die of a heart attack from that surprise.

harold said: That's a sad reality. The court is packed with right wing ideologues. Even "moderate" George H. W. Bush (father of George W. Bush) put Clarence Thomas on SCOTUS.

Religious authoritarians have excessive control over the Republican party. Maybe that will change some day.

Dave Luckett said: As is my usual practice with FL's pronunciamentos about what others say, I inspected the quoted words with care, and discovered, much to my expectation, that Pope Benedict didn't actually say anything about not accepting evolution. He was ascribing direction and order and creative reason to the Universe. Gosh, do you reckon that the Pope might be a (gasp!) theist? To quote Iago, the bird: Oh, what a surprise. I think I might just keel over and die of a heart attack from that surprise.

So it’s very unfortunate that Evolution is, beyond doubt, incompatible with Christianity.

Actually, I was just hoping you'd answer the question on the table, Stanton. If I thought you were an Atheist, I would have no hesitation to say so. But that's not the issue here.

The issue of Incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity is at the heart of all these hundreds of in-house evolutionist comments about Coyne and "accomodationism." The issue is very important, as seen in the level of posting interest currently displayed at PandasThumb.

So since you brought up Pope Benedict, who himself has had to wrestle with this important issue to some degree, I'm only -- ONLY -- asking whether or you agree with his specific 2005 statement. That's all.

Of course, I could search for an online coupon for 50 cents off your next purchase of Kraft's Barbecue Sauce, if doing so would motivate you to simply answer the question!!

FL

He did head the quote:

"But having said that, do be careful about making grand proclamations that the “Pope accepts evolution.” After all the Pope clearly said THIS about our world:"

Anybody would think that the quoted words would cast doubt on the Pope's acceptance of evolution. Strangely, no.

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

FL said: Actually, I was just hoping you'd answer the question on the table, Stanton. If I thought you were an Atheist, I would have no hesitation to say so.

But that's not the issue here.

The issue of Incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity is at the heart of all these hundreds of in-house evolutionist comments about Coyne and "accomodationism." The issue is very important, as seen in the level of posting interest currently displayed at PandasThumb.

So since you brought up Pope Benedict, who himself has had to wrestle with this important issue to some degree, I'm only -- ONLY -- asking whether or you agree with his specific 2005 statement. That's all.

Of course, I could search for an online coupon for 50 cents off your next purchase of Kraft's Barbecue Sauce, if doing so would motivate you to simply answer the question!! FL

Dave Luckett said: He did head the quote: "But having said that, do be careful about making grand proclamations that the “Pope accepts evolution.” After all the Pope clearly said THIS about our world:" Anybody would think that the quoted words would cast doubt on the Pope's acceptance of evolution. Strangely, no.

harold said:

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

No-one is arguing that every single judge at every level who is ever appointed by a Republican is 100% guaranteed to ignore the constitution in order to favor creationists. However, all justices who are on record as doing so (Scalia and former justice Rehnquist), or are a high risk to do so, were appointed by Republicans. Robert Bork is an adviser to the Romney campaign. Not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancer patients smoked, and no sane person has ever suggested a perfect, one to one correspondence. However, I am fully justified in advising people that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for lung cancer. Creationists agree with me; it was expected, indeed gloatingly expected, that Judge Jones would side with them, simply because he was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. It's wonderful that this didn't happen, but a naive reliance on unexpected outcomes is not a good strategy. George W. Bush also appointed far right ideologues Roberts and Alito, and he appointed them to a much higher court.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

The defendants in Edwards v. Aguillard wanted to teach, not mere mealy-mouthed "ID", but flat out 6000 year old earth/Noah's Ark anti-scientific narrow sectarian creationism as science, on YOUR tax dollar, in place of sound science. Scalia said that this was constitutional. At that time, he was outvoted 7-2. If his view on this isn't close enough to theocratic dictatorship to bother you, it is close enough for me.

MichaelJ said: Quoting something etch-a-sketch Romney said back in 2007 doesn't help your case

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

He was ascribing direction and order and creative reason to the Universe.

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

Mr. Romney may have said at one time that he supports the teaching of evolution in science classrooms but his leading adviser on judicial matters, Robert Bork, does not and, in fact, has said that the First Amendment only applies to political speech. I posted the link to Ed Brayton's post on the subject. A vote for Romney is a vote for Bork, therefore Mr. Kwok is a ok with Bork.

harold said:

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

No-one is arguing that every single judge at every level who is ever appointed by a Republican is 100% guaranteed to ignore the constitution in order to favor creationists. However, all justices who are on record as doing so (Scalia and former justice Rehnquist), or are a high risk to do so, were appointed by Republicans. Robert Bork is an adviser to the Romney campaign. Not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancer patients smoked, and no sane person has ever suggested a perfect, one to one correspondence. However, I am fully justified in advising people that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for lung cancer. Creationists agree with me; it was expected, indeed gloatingly expected, that Judge Jones would side with them, simply because he was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. It's wonderful that this didn't happen, but a naive reliance on unexpected outcomes is not a good strategy. George W. Bush also appointed far right ideologues Roberts and Alito, and he appointed them to a much higher court.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

The defendants in Edwards v. Aguillard wanted to teach, not mere mealy-mouthed "ID", but flat out 6000 year old earth/Noah's Ark anti-scientific narrow sectarian creationism as science, on YOUR tax dollar, in place of sound science. Scalia said that this was constitutional. At that time, he was outvoted 7-2. If his view on this isn't close enough to theocratic dictatorship to bother you, it is close enough for me.

FL said: So, it's very clear now that the good Pope DOESN'T QUITE accept evolution after all, hmm?

Bottom Line: Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Again.

No, FL. Your inability to reason has brought you down again. Atheists do say that Christianity is incompatible with evolution. Yes indeed, that's what they say. Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?

And Jerry Coyne et al know about evolution, sure. But the thing is, to say that evolution is incompatible with Christian belief, they have to know about both of them. That is, they have to know what Christians believe.

What makes you think they know what Christians believe, FL? Why are you taking the word of a bunch of atheists about the doctrines of the Faith?

FL said:

He was ascribing direction and order and creative reason to the Universe.

Indeed Benedict was "ascribing direction and order and creative reason" to the Universe, and that includes our world too. In a word, teleology. That's right, Benedict was ascribing teleology. Which means that Pope Benedict, whom Stanton said "accepts evolution", actually accepts pre-biotic and post-biotic evolution ONLY IF you concede that the process of evolution took place as a teleological and directed process. And that creates an instant wide-open CONFLICT with the Theory of Evolution. Instant Incompatibility on tap. "Evolution has no goal." -- Jerry Coyne "Evolution has no goal." -- Talk Origins website "Evolution has no goal." -- Biology 391 Online, "Organic Evolution", University at Tennessee-Martin "...(A) completely mindless process. The process cannot have a goal, any more than than erosion has the goal of forming canyons, for the future cannot cause material events in the past." -- Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 3rd edition (textbook). **** So, it's very clear now that the good Pope DOESN'T QUITE accept evolution after all, hmm? Bottom Line: Evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Again. FL

The only reason there could be a pro-evolution ruling by a Romney appointee to the Court is because a position on science education will be far down the list of requirements for a nominee. This leaves open the faint possibility of sheer luck in that area, as was the case with Jones. The real litmus test for an appointee will be willingness to reverse Roe v Wade, which Romney, (and Bork), is adamant about.

Dave Luckett said: What makes you think (atheists) know what Christians believe, FL? Why are you taking the word of a bunch of atheists about the doctrines of the Faith?

DS said: Evolution is incompatible with Floyd, that is all.

If that’s so, then why does FL still continue using products made from applications of evolution?

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

Mr. Romney may have said at one time that he supports the teaching of evolution in science classrooms but his leading adviser on judicial matters, Robert Bork, does not and, in fact, has said that the First Amendment only applies to political speech. I posted the link to Ed Brayton's post on the subject. A vote for Romney is a vote for Bork, therefore Mr. Kwok is a ok with Bork.

Given the fact that you regard as far more important, a woman's beauty rather than her intelligence, I find your simplistic reasoning in this regard as not very surprising.

John said:

harold said:

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

No-one is arguing that every single judge at every level who is ever appointed by a Republican is 100% guaranteed to ignore the constitution in order to favor creationists. However, all justices who are on record as doing so (Scalia and former justice Rehnquist), or are a high risk to do so, were appointed by Republicans. Robert Bork is an adviser to the Romney campaign. Not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancer patients smoked, and no sane person has ever suggested a perfect, one to one correspondence. However, I am fully justified in advising people that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for lung cancer. Creationists agree with me; it was expected, indeed gloatingly expected, that Judge Jones would side with them, simply because he was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. It's wonderful that this didn't happen, but a naive reliance on unexpected outcomes is not a good strategy. George W. Bush also appointed far right ideologues Roberts and Alito, and he appointed them to a much higher court.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

The defendants in Edwards v. Aguillard wanted to teach, not mere mealy-mouthed "ID", but flat out 6000 year old earth/Noah's Ark anti-scientific narrow sectarian creationism as science, on YOUR tax dollar, in place of sound science. Scalia said that this was constitutional. At that time, he was outvoted 7-2. If his view on this isn't close enough to theocratic dictatorship to bother you, it is close enough for me.

You're forgetting that Jones' philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito's. They would have to consider seriously Jones' Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

John said:

harold said:

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

No-one is arguing that every single judge at every level who is ever appointed by a Republican is 100% guaranteed to ignore the constitution in order to favor creationists. However, all justices who are on record as doing so (Scalia and former justice Rehnquist), or are a high risk to do so, were appointed by Republicans. Robert Bork is an adviser to the Romney campaign. Not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancer patients smoked, and no sane person has ever suggested a perfect, one to one correspondence. However, I am fully justified in advising people that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for lung cancer. Creationists agree with me; it was expected, indeed gloatingly expected, that Judge Jones would side with them, simply because he was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. It's wonderful that this didn't happen, but a naive reliance on unexpected outcomes is not a good strategy. George W. Bush also appointed far right ideologues Roberts and Alito, and he appointed them to a much higher court.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

The defendants in Edwards v. Aguillard wanted to teach, not mere mealy-mouthed "ID", but flat out 6000 year old earth/Noah's Ark anti-scientific narrow sectarian creationism as science, on YOUR tax dollar, in place of sound science. Scalia said that this was constitutional. At that time, he was outvoted 7-2. If his view on this isn't close enough to theocratic dictatorship to bother you, it is close enough for me.

You're forgetting that Jones' philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito's. They would have to consider seriously Jones' Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

DS said: Perhaps Floyd could enlighten us as to the "goal" of evolution and the evidence to support this claim. If not, then he is simply wrong and so was the Pope, if that is indeed what he meant. Evolution is incompatible with Floyd, that is all.

Oh, and the teleology of evolution? Simple.

Evolution, the process, does not have a mind or a goal, granted. Does that mean that God can't direct evolution according to His will, to a purpose that exists in Him, but is not present in the process itself? Why not? What limitations are to be placed on God? Can He not use natural processes to carry out His will, then? Must He necessarily always work in miracles? Who says? Who would limit and circumscribe God in that way?

Why, FL, of course.

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

Mr. Romney may have said at one time that he supports the teaching of evolution in science classrooms but his leading adviser on judicial matters, Robert Bork, does not and, in fact, has said that the First Amendment only applies to political speech. I posted the link to Ed Brayton's post on the subject. A vote for Romney is a vote for Bork, therefore Mr. Kwok is a ok with Bork.

Given the fact that you regard as far more important, a woman's beauty rather than her intelligence, I find your simplistic reasoning in this regard as not very surprising.

John said:

harold said:

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

No-one is arguing that every single judge at every level who is ever appointed by a Republican is 100% guaranteed to ignore the constitution in order to favor creationists. However, all justices who are on record as doing so (Scalia and former justice Rehnquist), or are a high risk to do so, were appointed by Republicans. Robert Bork is an adviser to the Romney campaign. Not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancer patients smoked, and no sane person has ever suggested a perfect, one to one correspondence. However, I am fully justified in advising people that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for lung cancer. Creationists agree with me; it was expected, indeed gloatingly expected, that Judge Jones would side with them, simply because he was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. It's wonderful that this didn't happen, but a naive reliance on unexpected outcomes is not a good strategy. George W. Bush also appointed far right ideologues Roberts and Alito, and he appointed them to a much higher court.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

The defendants in Edwards v. Aguillard wanted to teach, not mere mealy-mouthed "ID", but flat out 6000 year old earth/Noah's Ark anti-scientific narrow sectarian creationism as science, on YOUR tax dollar, in place of sound science. Scalia said that this was constitutional. At that time, he was outvoted 7-2. If his view on this isn't close enough to theocratic dictatorship to bother you, it is close enough for me.

You're forgetting that Jones' philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito's. They would have to consider seriously Jones' Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Kwok, as usual, misinterprets Judge Jones position. The judge is a strict constructionist in the sense that he follows precedent as a lower court judge, as he is supposed to do. So did Sonia Sotomayor as a federal appeals court judge. No one would confuse her actions so far on the Supreme Court as being in league with Roberts and Alito. If Mr. Kwok, thinks that Alito and Roberts would hesitate for an instance to overturn the 1987 decision, he is smoking lefty luckies.

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

Mr. Romney may have said at one time that he supports the teaching of evolution in science classrooms but his leading adviser on judicial matters, Robert Bork, does not and, in fact, has said that the First Amendment only applies to political speech. I posted the link to Ed Brayton's post on the subject. A vote for Romney is a vote for Bork, therefore Mr. Kwok is a ok with Bork.

Given the fact that you regard as far more important, a woman's beauty rather than her intelligence, I find your simplistic reasoning in this regard as not very surprising.

John said:

harold said:

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

No-one is arguing that every single judge at every level who is ever appointed by a Republican is 100% guaranteed to ignore the constitution in order to favor creationists. However, all justices who are on record as doing so (Scalia and former justice Rehnquist), or are a high risk to do so, were appointed by Republicans. Robert Bork is an adviser to the Romney campaign. Not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancer patients smoked, and no sane person has ever suggested a perfect, one to one correspondence. However, I am fully justified in advising people that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for lung cancer. Creationists agree with me; it was expected, indeed gloatingly expected, that Judge Jones would side with them, simply because he was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. It's wonderful that this didn't happen, but a naive reliance on unexpected outcomes is not a good strategy. George W. Bush also appointed far right ideologues Roberts and Alito, and he appointed them to a much higher court.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

The defendants in Edwards v. Aguillard wanted to teach, not mere mealy-mouthed "ID", but flat out 6000 year old earth/Noah's Ark anti-scientific narrow sectarian creationism as science, on YOUR tax dollar, in place of sound science. Scalia said that this was constitutional. At that time, he was outvoted 7-2. If his view on this isn't close enough to theocratic dictatorship to bother you, it is close enough for me.

You're forgetting that Jones' philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito's. They would have to consider seriously Jones' Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Kwok, as usual, misinterprets Judge Jones position. The judge is a strict constructionist in the sense that he follows precedent as a lower court judge, as he is supposed to do. So did Sonia Sotomayor as a federal appeals court judge. No one would confuse her actions so far on the Supreme Court as being in league with Roberts and Alito. If Mr. Kwok, thinks that Alito and Roberts would hesitate for an instance to overturn the 1987 decision, he is smoking lefty luckies.

TYPO, meant to say this: One or both of them were among those who refused to hear this case when it was brought to appeal before the Supreme Court: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/levake-v-independent-school-district-656 Since you're good at listening to PZ, then maybe you should be good too in listening to Jones discussing his judiical philosophy and then realize that it doesn't differ much from either Roberts or Alito's. (Moreover, Jones' ruling is so well reasoned that Roberts and Alito would be compelled to take it seriously.) If you did that instead of lusting after Cameron Diaz and Dr. Lisa Randall, you'd be better off IMHO.

Nick Matzke: Coyne’s attempt to blame religion-in-general for creationism (instead of, say, fundamentalism) using correlations between economics, religion, and creationism, misses a huge and obvious alternative hypothesis, which is that the real explanatory variable in changing minds to accept evolution is level of education.

Mike Elzinga said: As has been pointed out many times over on the Bathroom Wall, FL does not speak for any deity nor does any deity speak to him. And, and has also been pointed out, FL does not speak for any Christians. He does not fit the profile of any Christians nor does he know anything about the history of Christianity. He is only a cult member of a particularly narrow and brutish kind, with typical narrow and cultish views of the world around him. He contributes nothing of any value to discussions or to society. His creepy, leering curiosity about the personal information and beliefs of Christians is nothing more than a setup for self-aggrandizement about his own cultish views.

If Atheist Evolutionist Nick Matzke supports you (like he does "Creationist" Todd Wood) then that person cannot be a genuine Creationist because Atheist Evolutionists would never support a real Creationist.

Isn't that correct, Nick?

Perhaps Floyd could enlighten us as to the “goal” of evolution and the evidence to support this claim.

FL said:

Perhaps Floyd could enlighten us as to the “goal” of evolution and the evidence to support this claim.

Evolution has NO goal, DS. No teleology. No goal-directedness. No conscious forethought (Futuyma's phrase) at any point of the evolutionary process. Do you agree? FL

Ray Martinez said: Ultimately Mike is saying and arguing that nothing is amiss when Christians come to accept the same explanation of nature that all Atheists accept, defend and promote with rabid fanaticism. Honest and objective persons know different.

You’re forgetting that Jones’ philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito’s. They would have to consider seriously Jones’ Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

FL said:

Perhaps Floyd could enlighten us as to the “goal” of evolution and the evidence to support this claim.

Evolution has NO goal, DS. No teleology. No goal-directedness. No conscious forethought (Futuyma's phrase) at any point of the evolutionary process. Do you agree? FL

harold said: John -

You’re forgetting that Jones’ philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito’s. They would have to consider seriously Jones’ Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

That's a gamble I'm simply not willing to take. My prediction is that Roberts and Alito would join Scalia and Thomas in favoring creationism as science in public schools. Your prediction is that they would not. Both of us have some justification for our respective prediction. We may or may not ever find out who is right. On the other hand, both of us are certain that Justice Ginsburg is not going to favor creationism in public schools. Therefore, for the time being, I recommend supporting candidates who will make appointments like Justice Ginsburg, and are unlikely to make appointments like Justice Scalia, whose support for creationism as science at public expense - and not just coy "ID", outright Noah's Ark/Talking Snake creationism - is on record.

So it’s very unfortunate that Evolution is, beyond doubt, incompatible with Christianity.

John said: Roberts and Alito would have to accept Supreme Court judicial precedent with regards to how the court has ruled on the teaching of creationism.

John said:

harold said: John -

You’re forgetting that Jones’ philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito’s. They would have to consider seriously Jones’ Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

That's a gamble I'm simply not willing to take. My prediction is that Roberts and Alito would join Scalia and Thomas in favoring creationism as science in public schools. Your prediction is that they would not. Both of us have some justification for our respective prediction. We may or may not ever find out who is right. On the other hand, both of us are certain that Justice Ginsburg is not going to favor creationism in public schools. Therefore, for the time being, I recommend supporting candidates who will make appointments like Justice Ginsburg, and are unlikely to make appointments like Justice Scalia, whose support for creationism as science at public expense - and not just coy "ID", outright Noah's Ark/Talking Snake creationism - is on record.

The fact they refused to hear an appeal for this case should be cause for optimism: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/levake-v-independent-school-district-656 And that every case brought before the Supreme Court has been a legal disaster for creationists, whether that court had a majority of liberals or conservatives. Roberts and Alito would have to accept Supreme Court judicial precedent with regards to how the court has ruled on the teaching of creationism.

John said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

Mr. Romney may have said at one time that he supports the teaching of evolution in science classrooms but his leading adviser on judicial matters, Robert Bork, does not and, in fact, has said that the First Amendment only applies to political speech. I posted the link to Ed Brayton's post on the subject. A vote for Romney is a vote for Bork, therefore Mr. Kwok is a ok with Bork.

Given the fact that you regard as far more important, a woman's beauty rather than her intelligence, I find your simplistic reasoning in this regard as not very surprising.

John said:

harold said:

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

No-one is arguing that every single judge at every level who is ever appointed by a Republican is 100% guaranteed to ignore the constitution in order to favor creationists. However, all justices who are on record as doing so (Scalia and former justice Rehnquist), or are a high risk to do so, were appointed by Republicans. Robert Bork is an adviser to the Romney campaign. Not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancer patients smoked, and no sane person has ever suggested a perfect, one to one correspondence. However, I am fully justified in advising people that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for lung cancer. Creationists agree with me; it was expected, indeed gloatingly expected, that Judge Jones would side with them, simply because he was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. It's wonderful that this didn't happen, but a naive reliance on unexpected outcomes is not a good strategy. George W. Bush also appointed far right ideologues Roberts and Alito, and he appointed them to a much higher court.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

The defendants in Edwards v. Aguillard wanted to teach, not mere mealy-mouthed "ID", but flat out 6000 year old earth/Noah's Ark anti-scientific narrow sectarian creationism as science, on YOUR tax dollar, in place of sound science. Scalia said that this was constitutional. At that time, he was outvoted 7-2. If his view on this isn't close enough to theocratic dictatorship to bother you, it is close enough for me.

You're forgetting that Jones' philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito's. They would have to consider seriously Jones' Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Kwok, as usual, misinterprets Judge Jones position. The judge is a strict constructionist in the sense that he follows precedent as a lower court judge, as he is supposed to do. So did Sonia Sotomayor as a federal appeals court judge. No one would confuse her actions so far on the Supreme Court as being in league with Roberts and Alito. If Mr. Kwok, thinks that Alito and Roberts would hesitate for an instance to overturn the 1987 decision, he is smoking lefty luckies.

TYPO, meant to say this: One or both of them were among those who refused to hear this case when it was brought to appeal before the Supreme Court: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/levake-v-independent-school-district-656 Since you're good at listening to PZ, then maybe you should be good too in listening to Jones discussing his judiical philosophy and then realize that it doesn't differ much from either Roberts or Alito's. (Moreover, Jones' ruling is so well reasoned that Roberts and Alito would be compelled to take it seriously.) If you did that instead of lusting after Cameron Diaz and Dr. Lisa Randall, you'd be better off IMHO.

tomh said:

John said: Roberts and Alito would have to accept Supreme Court judicial precedent with regards to how the court has ruled on the teaching of creationism.

That makes no sense at all. Supreme Court justices don't have to accept precedent. How do you think rulings get reversed? New courts reverse older rulings all the time.

John said:

John said:

harold said: John -

You’re forgetting that Jones’ philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito’s. They would have to consider seriously Jones’ Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

That's a gamble I'm simply not willing to take. My prediction is that Roberts and Alito would join Scalia and Thomas in favoring creationism as science in public schools. Your prediction is that they would not. Both of us have some justification for our respective prediction. We may or may not ever find out who is right. On the other hand, both of us are certain that Justice Ginsburg is not going to favor creationism in public schools. Therefore, for the time being, I recommend supporting candidates who will make appointments like Justice Ginsburg, and are unlikely to make appointments like Justice Scalia, whose support for creationism as science at public expense - and not just coy "ID", outright Noah's Ark/Talking Snake creationism - is on record.

The fact they refused to hear an appeal for this case should be cause for optimism: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/levake-v-independent-school-district-656 And that every case brought before the Supreme Court has been a legal disaster for creationists, whether that court had a majority of liberals or conservatives. Roberts and Alito would have to accept Supreme Court judicial precedent with regards to how the court has ruled on the teaching of creationism.

And harold, any future Supreme Court justice - whether he or she is Conservative or Liberal - would have to respect Supreme Court judicial precedent with regards to how the court has ruled on the teaching of creationism. So I see no cause to worry and do regard a Romney presidency as a gamble worth taking with regards to Romney's potential Supreme Court nominations.

SLC said:

John said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

Mr. Romney may have said at one time that he supports the teaching of evolution in science classrooms but his leading adviser on judicial matters, Robert Bork, does not and, in fact, has said that the First Amendment only applies to political speech. I posted the link to Ed Brayton's post on the subject. A vote for Romney is a vote for Bork, therefore Mr. Kwok is a ok with Bork.

Given the fact that you regard as far more important, a woman's beauty rather than her intelligence, I find your simplistic reasoning in this regard as not very surprising.

John said:

harold said:

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

No-one is arguing that every single judge at every level who is ever appointed by a Republican is 100% guaranteed to ignore the constitution in order to favor creationists. However, all justices who are on record as doing so (Scalia and former justice Rehnquist), or are a high risk to do so, were appointed by Republicans. Robert Bork is an adviser to the Romney campaign. Not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancer patients smoked, and no sane person has ever suggested a perfect, one to one correspondence. However, I am fully justified in advising people that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for lung cancer. Creationists agree with me; it was expected, indeed gloatingly expected, that Judge Jones would side with them, simply because he was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. It's wonderful that this didn't happen, but a naive reliance on unexpected outcomes is not a good strategy. George W. Bush also appointed far right ideologues Roberts and Alito, and he appointed them to a much higher court.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

The defendants in Edwards v. Aguillard wanted to teach, not mere mealy-mouthed "ID", but flat out 6000 year old earth/Noah's Ark anti-scientific narrow sectarian creationism as science, on YOUR tax dollar, in place of sound science. Scalia said that this was constitutional. At that time, he was outvoted 7-2. If his view on this isn't close enough to theocratic dictatorship to bother you, it is close enough for me.

You're forgetting that Jones' philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito's. They would have to consider seriously Jones' Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Kwok, as usual, misinterprets Judge Jones position. The judge is a strict constructionist in the sense that he follows precedent as a lower court judge, as he is supposed to do. So did Sonia Sotomayor as a federal appeals court judge. No one would confuse her actions so far on the Supreme Court as being in league with Roberts and Alito. If Mr. Kwok, thinks that Alito and Roberts would hesitate for an instance to overturn the 1987 decision, he is smoking lefty luckies.

TYPO, meant to say this: One or both of them were among those who refused to hear this case when it was brought to appeal before the Supreme Court: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/levake-v-independent-school-district-656 Since you're good at listening to PZ, then maybe you should be good too in listening to Jones discussing his judiical philosophy and then realize that it doesn't differ much from either Roberts or Alito's. (Moreover, Jones' ruling is so well reasoned that Roberts and Alito would be compelled to take it seriously.) If you did that instead of lusting after Cameron Diaz and Dr. Lisa Randall, you'd be better off IMHO.

Just for the information of Mr. Kwok, I have downloaded several presentations by Judge Jones and I have never heard him describe his judicial philosophy as similar to Alito and Roberts. What I have heard him discuss is the Lemon test and the importance of precedent for a district or appeals court judge. Judge Jones follows precedent, just like Sonia Sotomayor did when she was on the court of appeals. In that sense, he is strict constructionist, just as Justice Sotomayor was. If Mr. Kwok has a link to a presentation where the judge describes his judicial philosophy as similar to Alito and Roberts, I would be delighted to reconsider. By the way Mr. Kwok, I find your apparent problem with the appreciation of attractive women to be endlessly amusing. As they say on the internet, ROTFLMAO. If Mr. Kwok really want's to see hot, check out the 1931 movie, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". 19 year old Lana Turner was super hot and Ingrid Bergman wasn't chopped liver either.

SLC said:

John said:

John said:

harold said: John -

You’re forgetting that Jones’ philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito’s. They would have to consider seriously Jones’ Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

That's a gamble I'm simply not willing to take. My prediction is that Roberts and Alito would join Scalia and Thomas in favoring creationism as science in public schools. Your prediction is that they would not. Both of us have some justification for our respective prediction. We may or may not ever find out who is right. On the other hand, both of us are certain that Justice Ginsburg is not going to favor creationism in public schools. Therefore, for the time being, I recommend supporting candidates who will make appointments like Justice Ginsburg, and are unlikely to make appointments like Justice Scalia, whose support for creationism as science at public expense - and not just coy "ID", outright Noah's Ark/Talking Snake creationism - is on record.

The fact they refused to hear an appeal for this case should be cause for optimism: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/levake-v-independent-school-district-656 And that every case brought before the Supreme Court has been a legal disaster for creationists, whether that court had a majority of liberals or conservatives. Roberts and Alito would have to accept Supreme Court judicial precedent with regards to how the court has ruled on the teaching of creationism.

And harold, any future Supreme Court justice - whether he or she is Conservative or Liberal - would have to respect Supreme Court judicial precedent with regards to how the court has ruled on the teaching of creationism. So I see no cause to worry and do regard a Romney presidency as a gamble worth taking with regards to Romney's potential Supreme Court nominations.

I don't know how Mr. Kwok came up with that statement but, as usual, he has joined the 100% wrong club. Supreme Court decisions are overturned all the time by subsequent Supreme Courts (c.f. Dred Scott, Brown vs Board of Education, etc.).

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

Mr. Romney may have said at one time that he supports the teaching of evolution in science classrooms but his leading adviser on judicial matters, Robert Bork, does not and, in fact, has said that the First Amendment only applies to political speech. I posted the link to Ed Brayton's post on the subject. A vote for Romney is a vote for Bork, therefore Mr. Kwok is a ok with Bork.

Given the fact that you regard as far more important, a woman's beauty rather than her intelligence, I find your simplistic reasoning in this regard as not very surprising.

John said:

harold said:

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

No-one is arguing that every single judge at every level who is ever appointed by a Republican is 100% guaranteed to ignore the constitution in order to favor creationists. However, all justices who are on record as doing so (Scalia and former justice Rehnquist), or are a high risk to do so, were appointed by Republicans. Robert Bork is an adviser to the Romney campaign. Not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancer patients smoked, and no sane person has ever suggested a perfect, one to one correspondence. However, I am fully justified in advising people that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for lung cancer. Creationists agree with me; it was expected, indeed gloatingly expected, that Judge Jones would side with them, simply because he was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. It's wonderful that this didn't happen, but a naive reliance on unexpected outcomes is not a good strategy. George W. Bush also appointed far right ideologues Roberts and Alito, and he appointed them to a much higher court.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

The defendants in Edwards v. Aguillard wanted to teach, not mere mealy-mouthed "ID", but flat out 6000 year old earth/Noah's Ark anti-scientific narrow sectarian creationism as science, on YOUR tax dollar, in place of sound science. Scalia said that this was constitutional. At that time, he was outvoted 7-2. If his view on this isn't close enough to theocratic dictatorship to bother you, it is close enough for me.

You're forgetting that Jones' philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito's. They would have to consider seriously Jones' Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Kwok, as usual, misinterprets Judge Jones position. The judge is a strict constructionist in the sense that he follows precedent as a lower court judge, as he is supposed to do. So did Sonia Sotomayor as a federal appeals court judge. No one would confuse her actions so far on the Supreme Court as being in league with Roberts and Alito. If Mr. Kwok, thinks that Alito and Roberts would hesitate for an instance to overturn the 1987 decision, he is smoking lefty luckies.

TYPO, meant to say this: One or both of them were among those who refused to hear this case when it was brought to appeal before the Supreme Court: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/levake-v-independent-school-district-656 Since you're good at listening to PZ, then maybe you should be good too in listening to Jones discussing his judiical philosophy and then realize that it doesn't differ much from either Roberts or Alito's. (Moreover, Jones' ruling is so well reasoned that Roberts and Alito would be compelled to take it seriously.) If you did that instead of lusting after Cameron Diaz and Dr. Lisa Randall, you'd be better off IMHO.

Just for the information of Mr. Kwok, I have downloaded several presentations by Judge Jones and I have never heard him describe his judicial philosophy as similar to Alito and Roberts. What I have heard him discuss is the Lemon test and the importance of precedent for a district or appeals court judge. Judge Jones follows precedent, just like Sonia Sotomayor did when she was on the court of appeals. In that sense, he is strict constructionist, just as Justice Sotomayor was. If Mr. Kwok has a link to a presentation where the judge describes his judicial philosophy as similar to Alito and Roberts, I would be delighted to reconsider. By the way Mr. Kwok, I find your apparent problem with the appreciation of attractive women to be endlessly amusing. As they say on the internet, ROTFLMAO. If Mr. Kwok really want's to see hot, check out the 1931 movie, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". 19 year old Lana Turner was super hot and Ingrid Bergman wasn't chopped liver either.

You haven't stumbled upon all of Jones' videotaped lectures. He advocates a judicial philosophy that is virtually identical with Roberts and Alito's. He has said that he is not a judicial activist - which he noted in his Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling - and regards himself as a strict Constitutionalist (in the same mode as Roberts and Alito BTW). Your other comments are irrelevant to this discussion. I only brought them up to illustrate my point that your thinking here is as simplistic as your commentary as to why your regard certain women as "hot". If you continue in this vein, then I will notify one of your objects of desire that you are an internet stalker.

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

Mr. Romney may have said at one time that he supports the teaching of evolution in science classrooms but his leading adviser on judicial matters, Robert Bork, does not and, in fact, has said that the First Amendment only applies to political speech. I posted the link to Ed Brayton's post on the subject. A vote for Romney is a vote for Bork, therefore Mr. Kwok is a ok with Bork.

Given the fact that you regard as far more important, a woman's beauty rather than her intelligence, I find your simplistic reasoning in this regard as not very surprising.

John said:

harold said:

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

No-one is arguing that every single judge at every level who is ever appointed by a Republican is 100% guaranteed to ignore the constitution in order to favor creationists. However, all justices who are on record as doing so (Scalia and former justice Rehnquist), or are a high risk to do so, were appointed by Republicans. Robert Bork is an adviser to the Romney campaign. Not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancer patients smoked, and no sane person has ever suggested a perfect, one to one correspondence. However, I am fully justified in advising people that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for lung cancer. Creationists agree with me; it was expected, indeed gloatingly expected, that Judge Jones would side with them, simply because he was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. It's wonderful that this didn't happen, but a naive reliance on unexpected outcomes is not a good strategy. George W. Bush also appointed far right ideologues Roberts and Alito, and he appointed them to a much higher court.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

The defendants in Edwards v. Aguillard wanted to teach, not mere mealy-mouthed "ID", but flat out 6000 year old earth/Noah's Ark anti-scientific narrow sectarian creationism as science, on YOUR tax dollar, in place of sound science. Scalia said that this was constitutional. At that time, he was outvoted 7-2. If his view on this isn't close enough to theocratic dictatorship to bother you, it is close enough for me.

You're forgetting that Jones' philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito's. They would have to consider seriously Jones' Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Kwok, as usual, misinterprets Judge Jones position. The judge is a strict constructionist in the sense that he follows precedent as a lower court judge, as he is supposed to do. So did Sonia Sotomayor as a federal appeals court judge. No one would confuse her actions so far on the Supreme Court as being in league with Roberts and Alito. If Mr. Kwok, thinks that Alito and Roberts would hesitate for an instance to overturn the 1987 decision, he is smoking lefty luckies.

TYPO, meant to say this: One or both of them were among those who refused to hear this case when it was brought to appeal before the Supreme Court: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/levake-v-independent-school-district-656 Since you're good at listening to PZ, then maybe you should be good too in listening to Jones discussing his judiical philosophy and then realize that it doesn't differ much from either Roberts or Alito's. (Moreover, Jones' ruling is so well reasoned that Roberts and Alito would be compelled to take it seriously.) If you did that instead of lusting after Cameron Diaz and Dr. Lisa Randall, you'd be better off IMHO.

Just for the information of Mr. Kwok, I have downloaded several presentations by Judge Jones and I have never heard him describe his judicial philosophy as similar to Alito and Roberts. What I have heard him discuss is the Lemon test and the importance of precedent for a district or appeals court judge. Judge Jones follows precedent, just like Sonia Sotomayor did when she was on the court of appeals. In that sense, he is strict constructionist, just as Justice Sotomayor was. If Mr. Kwok has a link to a presentation where the judge describes his judicial philosophy as similar to Alito and Roberts, I would be delighted to reconsider. By the way Mr. Kwok, I find your apparent problem with the appreciation of attractive women to be endlessly amusing. As they say on the internet, ROTFLMAO. If Mr. Kwok really want's to see hot, check out the 1931 movie, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". 19 year old Lana Turner was super hot and Ingrid Bergman wasn't chopped liver either.

You haven't stumbled upon all of Jones' videotaped lectures. He advocates a judicial philosophy that is virtually identical with Roberts and Alito's. He has said that he is not a judicial activist - which he noted in his Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling - and regards himself as a strict Constitutionalist (in the same mode as Roberts and Alito BTW). Your other comments are irrelevant to this discussion. I only brought them up to illustrate my point that your thinking here is as simplistic as your commentary as to why your regard certain women as "hot". If you continue in this vein, then I will notify one of your objects of desire that you are an internet stalker.

Just for the information of Mr. Kwok, the definition of judicial activism is the court ruled against me. Link to a presentation by Jones so we may assess his judicial philosophy without the filter of Mr. Kwok's fantasies. And by the way, if Judge Jones had ruled in favor of the defendants in the Dover case, that would have been judicial activism as it would have been against precedence, as he has explained on numerous occasions. By the way, since I have never communicated with any of the women that I have deemed hot, including Prof. Randall, I can hardly be considered a stalker, internet or otherwise. Of course, Mr. Kwok knows all about stalking as his behavior with Abbie Smith amply demonstrates.

John said: "Since 1968, however, U.S. courts have consistently held that 'creationism' is a particular religious viewpoint and that teaching it in public schools would violate the First Amendment of the Constitution."

tomh said:

John said: "Since 1968, however, U.S. courts have consistently held that 'creationism' is a particular religious viewpoint and that teaching it in public schools would violate the First Amendment of the Constitution."

That had no effect on Scalia's dissent in 1987, though, did it? If you're so sure that Alito has to follow precedent, why doesn't Scalia? Besides which, any new case will never mention creationism, but be couched in language like "academic freedom," or some such. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution, and how the law comports with it, as he or she sees fit, and if that is the opposite of how the law was interpreted in the past, so be it. Roe is a good case in point. A different court will have no problem interpreting the Constitution differently than the Court did in 1973, precedent or no. The same is true of science education.

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

Mr. Romney may have said at one time that he supports the teaching of evolution in science classrooms but his leading adviser on judicial matters, Robert Bork, does not and, in fact, has said that the First Amendment only applies to political speech. I posted the link to Ed Brayton's post on the subject. A vote for Romney is a vote for Bork, therefore Mr. Kwok is a ok with Bork.

Given the fact that you regard as far more important, a woman's beauty rather than her intelligence, I find your simplistic reasoning in this regard as not very surprising.

John said:

harold said:

No doubt the Republicans learned a painfully humiliating lesson concerning Judge John Jones and foolishly trusting him to uphold party dogma over the US Constitution.

No-one is arguing that every single judge at every level who is ever appointed by a Republican is 100% guaranteed to ignore the constitution in order to favor creationists. However, all justices who are on record as doing so (Scalia and former justice Rehnquist), or are a high risk to do so, were appointed by Republicans. Robert Bork is an adviser to the Romney campaign. Not all smokers get lung cancer and not all lung cancer patients smoked, and no sane person has ever suggested a perfect, one to one correspondence. However, I am fully justified in advising people that smoking cigarettes is a risk factor for lung cancer. Creationists agree with me; it was expected, indeed gloatingly expected, that Judge Jones would side with them, simply because he was a Republican appointed by George W. Bush. It's wonderful that this didn't happen, but a naive reliance on unexpected outcomes is not a good strategy. George W. Bush also appointed far right ideologues Roberts and Alito, and he appointed them to a much higher court.

Before or after Republicans turn the US into a theocratic dictatorship?

The defendants in Edwards v. Aguillard wanted to teach, not mere mealy-mouthed "ID", but flat out 6000 year old earth/Noah's Ark anti-scientific narrow sectarian creationism as science, on YOUR tax dollar, in place of sound science. Scalia said that this was constitutional. At that time, he was outvoted 7-2. If his view on this isn't close enough to theocratic dictatorship to bother you, it is close enough for me.

You're forgetting that Jones' philosophy of judicial behavior is almost virtually identical to Roberts and Alito's. They would have to consider seriously Jones' Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling, which, while not legally binding, would undoubtedly be cited by those advocating a pro-science case if a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover was ever heard by them in the chambers of the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Kwok, as usual, misinterprets Judge Jones position. The judge is a strict constructionist in the sense that he follows precedent as a lower court judge, as he is supposed to do. So did Sonia Sotomayor as a federal appeals court judge. No one would confuse her actions so far on the Supreme Court as being in league with Roberts and Alito. If Mr. Kwok, thinks that Alito and Roberts would hesitate for an instance to overturn the 1987 decision, he is smoking lefty luckies.

TYPO, meant to say this: One or both of them were among those who refused to hear this case when it was brought to appeal before the Supreme Court: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/levake-v-independent-school-district-656 Since you're good at listening to PZ, then maybe you should be good too in listening to Jones discussing his judiical philosophy and then realize that it doesn't differ much from either Roberts or Alito's. (Moreover, Jones' ruling is so well reasoned that Roberts and Alito would be compelled to take it seriously.) If you did that instead of lusting after Cameron Diaz and Dr. Lisa Randall, you'd be better off IMHO.

Just for the information of Mr. Kwok, I have downloaded several presentations by Judge Jones and I have never heard him describe his judicial philosophy as similar to Alito and Roberts. What I have heard him discuss is the Lemon test and the importance of precedent for a district or appeals court judge. Judge Jones follows precedent, just like Sonia Sotomayor did when she was on the court of appeals. In that sense, he is strict constructionist, just as Justice Sotomayor was. If Mr. Kwok has a link to a presentation where the judge describes his judicial philosophy as similar to Alito and Roberts, I would be delighted to reconsider. By the way Mr. Kwok, I find your apparent problem with the appreciation of attractive women to be endlessly amusing. As they say on the internet, ROTFLMAO. If Mr. Kwok really want's to see hot, check out the 1931 movie, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde". 19 year old Lana Turner was super hot and Ingrid Bergman wasn't chopped liver either.

You haven't stumbled upon all of Jones' videotaped lectures. He advocates a judicial philosophy that is virtually identical with Roberts and Alito's. He has said that he is not a judicial activist - which he noted in his Kitzmiller vs. Dover ruling - and regards himself as a strict Constitutionalist (in the same mode as Roberts and Alito BTW). Your other comments are irrelevant to this discussion. I only brought them up to illustrate my point that your thinking here is as simplistic as your commentary as to why your regard certain women as "hot". If you continue in this vein, then I will notify one of your objects of desire that you are an internet stalker.

Just for the information of Mr. Kwok, the definition of judicial activism is the court ruled against me. Link to a presentation by Jones so we may assess his judicial philosophy without the filter of Mr. Kwok's fantasies. And by the way, if Judge Jones had ruled in favor of the defendants in the Dover case, that would have been judicial activism as it would have been against precedence, as he has explained on numerous occasions. By the way, since I have never communicated with any of the women that I have deemed hot, including Prof. Randall, I can hardly be considered a stalker, internet or otherwise. Of course, Mr. Kwok knows all about stalking as his behavior with Abbie Smith amply demonstrates.

The definition of Judicial activism is as Judge Jones himself wrote: "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." As for Ms. Smith, she should be discredited as a judicious judge of character ever since she started attacking the "Colgate Twins"; journalists Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum. Any claim that she is a prominent defender of creationism should be regarded as doubtful since her most noteworthy exploit, critiquing Behe with regards to Intelligent Design and HIV/AIDS viruses was done with ample guidance and assistance from long-time Behe critic Ian Musgrave. I'm not warning you again. One more word from you about this and I'll notify Dr. Lisa Randall personally that you are an internet stalker of hers.

John said:

tomh said:

John said: "Since 1968, however, U.S. courts have consistently held that 'creationism' is a particular religious viewpoint and that teaching it in public schools would violate the First Amendment of the Constitution."

That had no effect on Scalia's dissent in 1987, though, did it? If you're so sure that Alito has to follow precedent, why doesn't Scalia? Besides which, any new case will never mention creationism, but be couched in language like "academic freedom," or some such. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution, and how the law comports with it, as he or she sees fit, and if that is the opposite of how the law was interpreted in the past, so be it. Roe is a good case in point. A different court will have no problem interpreting the Constitution differently than the Court did in 1973, precedent or no. The same is true of science education.

Scalia is annoying to say the least. But he's definitely in the minority and I think he might have to reconsider his views if he studied Judge Jones' ruling in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. Your point notwithstanding, please note, that as NCSE has noted, no US court has ruled in favor of creationists since 1968.

I strongly suggest that the entire discussion of who is the "true internet stalker" be moved to the bathroom wall ASAP.

For what it's worth, I think the term "internet stalker" is being misused here.

Obsessive commenting on publicly open blogs is not internet stalking, it's obsessive commenting.

For me, to be meaningful, the term internet stalking would refer to the use of the internet as a tool in actual stalking, i.e. physically stalking someone, or at least, inappropriately accessing private information over the internet.

harold said: I strongly suggest that the entire discussion of who is the "true internet stalker" be moved to the bathroom wall ASAP. For what it's worth, I think the term "internet stalker" is being misused here. Obsessive commenting on publicly open blogs is not internet stalking, it's obsessive commenting. For me, to be meaningful, the term internet stalking would refer to the use of the internet as a tool in actual stalking, i.e. physically stalking someone, or at least, inappropriately accessing private information over the internet.

John said: Scalia is annoying to say the least. But he's definitely in the minority and I think he might have to reconsider his views if he studied Judge Jones' ruling in Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

no US court has ruled in favor of creationists since 1968.

John said:

MichaelJ said: Quoting something etch-a-sketch Romney said back in 2007 doesn't help your case

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

I think it most certainly does. The same holds true for Gingrich, who has stated more than once his acceptance of biological evolution and which is reinforced by his ongoing interest in visiting natural history museums and zoos whenever he gets a chance during his ongoing campaign for the Republican Party nomination.

MichaelJ said: As somebody else stated - Romney was pro-Abortion during one election

tomh said:

John said: Scalia is annoying to say the least. But he's definitely in the minority and I think he might have to reconsider his views if he studied Judge Jones' ruling in Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

You know little about Scalia if you think he would reconsider his views on this for any reason, let alone some District Court ruling.

no US court has ruled in favor of creationists since 1968.

Which has nothing to do with any future Supreme Court ruling.

MichaelJ said: As somebody else stated - Romney was pro-Abortion during one election and now isn't, so why wouldn't he also change his public position on Evolution?

John said:

MichaelJ said: Quoting something etch-a-sketch Romney said back in 2007 doesn't help your case

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

I think it most certainly does. The same holds true for Gingrich, who has stated more than once his acceptance of biological evolution and which is reinforced by his ongoing interest in visiting natural history museums and zoos whenever he gets a chance during his ongoing campaign for the Republican Party nomination.

tomh said:

John said: "Since 1968, however, U.S. courts have consistently held that 'creationism' is a particular religious viewpoint and that teaching it in public schools would violate the First Amendment of the Constitution."

That had no effect on Scalia's dissent in 1987, though, did it? If you're so sure that Alito has to follow precedent, why doesn't Scalia? Besides which, any new case will never mention creationism, but be couched in language like "academic freedom," or some such. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution, and how the law comports with it, as he or she sees fit, and if that is the opposite of how the law was interpreted in the past, so be it. Roe is a good case in point. A different court will have no problem interpreting the Constitution differently than the Court did in 1973, precedent or no. The same is true of science education.

John said:

tomh said:

John said: "Since 1968, however, U.S. courts have consistently held that 'creationism' is a particular religious viewpoint and that teaching it in public schools would violate the First Amendment of the Constitution."

That had no effect on Scalia's dissent in 1987, though, did it? If you're so sure that Alito has to follow precedent, why doesn't Scalia? Besides which, any new case will never mention creationism, but be couched in language like "academic freedom," or some such. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution, and how the law comports with it, as he or she sees fit, and if that is the opposite of how the law was interpreted in the past, so be it. Roe is a good case in point. A different court will have no problem interpreting the Constitution differently than the Court did in 1973, precedent or no. The same is true of science education.

And of course you forget the legal history of creationism in US courts as noted here: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal The Supreme Court has either ruled against creationism or consistently refused to listen to appeals to overturn lower court rulings against creationism since 1968. Again, any Supreme Court that considers a future case will have to take seriously its prior rulings, McLean vs. Arkansas and Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

FL said:

Then how come the Pope accepts evolution is true? Does that make him an evil God-hating Atheist?

Nope, just makes him a devout, God-loving Syncretist. When you try to hold on to two simultaneously opposing irreconcilable world-views, you've gotten yourself into Syncretism.

John said:

MichaelJ said: As somebody else stated - Romney was pro-Abortion during one election and now isn't, so why wouldn't he also change his public position on Evolution?

John said:

MichaelJ said: Quoting something etch-a-sketch Romney said back in 2007 doesn't help your case

John said:

SLC said:

harold said:

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmXsrm7oczCNFXkWvnwxK2CWmnkXJxKAx4 said: Josh Rosenau’s strategy has been the dominant strategy in America for almost forty years. How's it working so far?

1) It's been 100% successful so far. Every effort to introduce sectarian creationism into public schools as "science", or even to distort or omit the teaching of evolution, has failed, either in court, at the ballot box, or both. As a result of past successes, creationists have been forced to compromise and compromise. When they first came roaring out during the initial right wing backlash against civil rights and contraception, they were trying to get straight up 6000 year old earth, Adam and Eve, Noah's Flood into classrooms as "creation science". That failed, so they tried the ID scam, or in Kansas in 1999, just trying to eliminate evolution. Those failed. Now they're trying to play "academic freedom" games. In fact, creationism often has to be advanced by stealth. That's been the case, and it's still the case. We have plenty to worry about, due to right wing SCOTUS appointments by George W. Bush and "Tea Party" candidates. But did you hear "Tea Party" candidates campaigning on anti-evolution bills? I didn't. One of the few who did bring it up, Sharon Angle, was defeated. Most campaigned on BS about Obama and the economy - then launched creationism bills once elected. 2) It would be nice to see better poll answers, but I've pointed out repeatedly that if you bias the poll by making it about human evolution and making the scientific answer look like a confrontation with religion, you will get results that exaggerate the popularity of creationism. I once saw a poll that asked whether bacteria and plants had evolved. I don't have a link; it disappeared and I've sought for it many times (link would be appreciated if anyone has one). It had about 70% agreement with evolution. 3) If you think that the best way to promote strong science education is through a very indirect approach, by commenting on the internet about atheism, then do that. No-one is stopping you. I strongly support promoting acceptance of atheism when that is relevant. I strongly support Jessica Alquist, Rock Beyond Belief, etc, etc, etc. I am completely non-religious myself. But creationism in schools/science education impacts on everyone. You can be religious, and still support strong science education, and oppose illegal sectarian preaching during science class. The same freedom that allows you to express yourself allows Josh Rosenau to do the same. He and I are on the same side of the creationism issue. I don't see any possible reason to indulge in some kind of purity test that would exclude him.

If Romney is elected in November, the judicial wall against creationism in the schools is in deadly danger. There are now 4 votes on the Supreme Court that will vote to overturn the Overton decision, namely Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. It is doubtful that Ginsburg will make it to 2016 and Romney, who, by the way has develop[ed a close relationship with Robert Bork who is certifiably insane, would undoubtedly appoint a Scalia clone to replace her. Be afraid, be very afraid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/04/23/romney-and-bork/

SLC, you forget the rather inconvenient fact (for you) that Romney was interviewed by The New York Times back in 2007 (Don't have time to post the link now, am dashing off to hear some friends perform a classical chamber music concert.) in which he said he recognized the scientific fact of biological evolution and accepted Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I'm sure he'd appoint someone like Federal Judge John R. Jones, who presided over Kitzmiller and Dover and ruled memorably against both the then creationist Dover school board and Intelligent Design creationism. I agree with harold that that strategy is indeed working.

I think it most certainly does. The same holds true for Gingrich, who has stated more than once his acceptance of biological evolution and which is reinforced by his ongoing interest in visiting natural history museums and zoos whenever he gets a chance during his ongoing campaign for the Republican Party nomination.

Because Romney has refused to endorse the positions held by Bachmann, Perry and Santorum with regards to Intelligent Design, other forms of creationism and their hostility to evolution.

FL said:

Perhaps Floyd could enlighten us as to the “goal” of evolution and the evidence to support this claim.

Evolution has NO goal, DS. No teleology. No goal-directedness. No conscious forethought (Futuyma's phrase) at any point of the evolutionary process. Do you agree? FL

It strikes me as interesting that several posts have included comments such as:

Trnsplnt: April 24, 2012 – 10:43AM
"Wouldn’t it be nice if we all got behind the experts for a change and worked to take science education out of the culture wars rather than sacrificing science education on our respective altars."

Or:

Nick Matzke: April 24, 2012 – 3:57PM
"It’s also a fact that the culture is soaked in the message of conflict, and that is often the single biggest thing motivating political antievolutionism and motivating personal resistance to evolution from students, parents, and teachers."

These comments concerning culture directly correspond to the underlying issue of worldview, contrary to other posts. Quite often the issues which stir the most conflict, whether within a culture or between cultures, revolve around an affront to worldview, whether recognized as such or not. Many who study worldviews recognize that they are adaptable yet most commonly unconscious, yet impact the viewpoints, and reaction to stimuli presented to either an individual or community. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview

The difficulty for the present discussion then arises in the worldviews underlying various positions (and there are many, as also noted elsewhere in the threat) regarding acceptance of evolution (not inherently a worldview but influenced by one) and assorted religions, among those discussed – Christianity (also not inherently a worldview but influenced).

Not desiring to commit the mistake of classifying all of either category as unified wholes, there are certain similarities which might be addressed. The worldview underlying the (dare I say) majority of Christian belief systems will involve some level of metaphysical realism and teleology, epistemological realism, and an a priori belief that something supernatural exists. The worldview behind many/most promoters of Darwinian evolution, much like Darwin himself, frequently involves metaphysical nominalism and a rejection of teleology and the supernatural.

This worldview appears to be rooted in Epicurean thought, with pleasure resulting from freedom from interference, principally by the gods, and freedom from the threat of an afterlife. For Epicurus, the thought patterns which allowed this sort of freedom could be habitually formed and through habit, resistant to other thought patterns and worldviews. Admittedly, many Christian proponents also encourage habitually forming certain thought patterns, although with a different subject.

When these two systems of thinking and these two worldviews interact, there are several possible outcomes, yet they always involve conflict of some form, even if only in the mind of one participant. Yet that conflict played out simultaneously in many individuals becomes a “culture war.”

Call it whatever you want, the discussion involves conflict. The only hope is that we can become more gracious with one another in the conflict.

splinter said: The difficulty for the present discussion then arises in the worldviews underlying various positions (and there are many, as also noted elsewhere in the threat[thread]) regarding acceptance of evolution (not inherently a worldview but influenced by one) and assorted religions, among those discussed – Christianity (also not inherently a worldview but influenced).

Not desiring to commit the mistake of classifying all of either category as unified wholes, there are certain similarities which might be addressed. The worldview underlying the (dare I say) majority of Christian belief systems will involve some level of metaphysical realism and teleology, epistemological realism, and an a priori belief that something supernatural exists.

The worldview behind many/most promoters of Darwinian evolution, much like Darwin himself, frequently involves metaphysical nominalism and a rejection of teleology and the supernatural.

This worldview appears to be rooted in Epicurean thought, with pleasure resulting from freedom from interference, principally by the gods, and freedom from the threat of an afterlife. For Epicurus, the thought patterns which allowed this sort of freedom could be habitually formed and through habit, resistant to other thought patterns and worldviews. Admittedly, many Christian proponents also encourage habitually forming certain thought patterns, although with a different subject.

splinter said: It strikes me as interesting that several posts have included comments such as: Trnsplnt: April 24, 2012 – 10:43AM "Wouldn’t it be nice if we all got behind the experts for a change and worked to take science education out of the culture wars rather than sacrificing science education on our respective altars." Or: Nick Matzke: April 24, 2012 – 3:57PM "It’s also a fact that the culture is soaked in the message of conflict, and that is often the single biggest thing motivating political antievolutionism and motivating personal resistance to evolution from students, parents, and teachers." These comments concerning culture directly correspond to the underlying issue of worldview, contrary to other posts. Quite often the issues which stir the most conflict, whether within a culture or between cultures, revolve around an affront to worldview, whether recognized as such or not. Many who study worldviews recognize that they are adaptable yet most commonly unconscious, yet impact the viewpoints, and reaction to stimuli presented to either an individual or community. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldview The difficulty for the present discussion then arises in the worldviews underlying various positions (and there are many, as also noted elsewhere in the threat) regarding acceptance of evolution (not inherently a worldview but influenced by one) and assorted religions, among those discussed – Christianity (also not inherently a worldview but influenced). Not desiring to commit the mistake of classifying all of either category as unified wholes, there are certain similarities which might be addressed. The worldview underlying the (dare I say) majority of Christian belief systems will involve some level of metaphysical realism and teleology, epistemological realism, and an a priori belief that something supernatural exists. The worldview behind many/most promoters of Darwinian evolution, much like Darwin himself, frequently involves metaphysical nominalism and a rejection of teleology and the supernatural. This worldview appears to be rooted in Epicurean thought, with pleasure resulting from freedom from interference, principally by the gods, and freedom from the threat of an afterlife. For Epicurus, the thought patterns which allowed this sort of freedom could be habitually formed and through habit, resistant to other thought patterns and worldviews. Admittedly, many Christian proponents also encourage habitually forming certain thought patterns, although with a different subject. When these two systems of thinking and these two worldviews interact, there are several possible outcomes, yet they always involve conflict of some form, even if only in the mind of one participant. Yet that conflict played out simultaneously in many individuals becomes a “culture war.” Call it whatever you want, the discussion involves conflict. The only hope is that we can become more gracious with one another in the conflict.

John said: Again, any Supreme Court that considers a future case will have to take seriously its prior rulings, McLean vs. Arkansas and Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

DS said:

FL said:

Perhaps Floyd could enlighten us as to the “goal” of evolution and the evidence to support this claim.

Evolution has NO goal, DS. No teleology. No goal-directedness. No conscious forethought (Futuyma's phrase) at any point of the evolutionary process. Do you agree? FL

Yes. Neither does lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, plagues, lunar eclipses, meteors falling to earth, blizzards, droughts or just about any natural phenomena. Are they all incompatible with your religion Floyd? Be honest now.

Despite widespread philosophical prejudices, cells are now reasonably seen to operate teleologically; their goals are survival, growth, and reproduction. ... Besides fitting within currently defined boundaries of biology, the concept of functionally targeted and coordinated natural genetic engineering is open to experimental test.

I have a very simple question for anti-evoluton bigots like FL, Robert Byers, and Ray Martinez:

If you really believe that evolution is a teaching of atheism and that it cannot be reconciled with Christianity, why are you even Christians at all, and not atheists?

Unless and until at least one of you gives a definite, straightforward answer to that question, you really have nothing more to add to this discussion.

tomh said:

John said: Again, any Supreme Court that considers a future case will have to take seriously its prior rulings, McLean vs. Arkansas and Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

You don't get it, do you? Look at Justice Scalia. Like him or not, he is generally considered, "the intellectual anchor of the court's conservative majority," "a brilliant legal mind," and more - similar quotes from conservative notables are easy to find. When McCain ran for president he considered Scalia the model for Court nominees. Yet this brilliant legal mind has no problem ignoring a precedent, witness McLean in 1987, and he obviously will have no problem ignoring Edwards when the next evolution case comes around. If this intellectual giant can blithely ignore precedent, why can't every justice? And, of course, they do. If a justice feels a case was wrongly decided, the next time the same subject arises they will ignore the precedent and vote the other way. If enough justices agree, then there is a new precedent. That's how it's supposed to work and that's how it does work. To keep repeating things like, 'they have to follow precedent,' and, 'it's been this way since 1968 so it will always be this way,' is simply to ignore, or be unaware of, reality.

If you reject a literal interpretation of Genesis, what are the two irreconcilable world views?-John S

How can we tell which parts of the bible are literal vs metaphorical? What is the evidence that god exists? Science probably will never prove that god doesn't exist, but has gotten pretty close to showing that we don't need one.

Can we agree that the problem squarely rests on the shoulders of the religious? Whether we can "change the dominant form of religion" seems as far fetched as abolishing all religion.

Maybe I'm too dense, don't "know" what christians think, etc. But I would like to hear how evolution is consistent with belief in a god that is religiously meaningful.

Rolf said:

DS said:

FL said:

Perhaps Floyd could enlighten us as to the “goal” of evolution and the evidence to support this claim.

Evolution has NO goal, DS. No teleology. No goal-directedness. No conscious forethought (Futuyma's phrase) at any point of the evolutionary process. Do you agree? FL

Yes. Neither does lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, plagues, lunar eclipses, meteors falling to earth, blizzards, droughts or just about any natural phenomena. Are they all incompatible with your religion Floyd? Be honest now.

I have long maintaned that creationists are in dire need of updating themselves on evolutionary theory. Evolution in the 21st century will not be the same as in the 20th - or 19th. In "Evolution, A View From The 21st Century", James A Shapiro writes:

Despite widespread philosophical prejudices, cells are now reasonably seen to operate teleologically; their goals are survival, growth, and reproduction. ... Besides fitting within currently defined boundaries of biology, the concept of functionally targeted and coordinated natural genetic engineering is open to experimental test.

Exciting new knowledge and understanding and yet no sightings of supernatural forces at work.

As for "the concept of functionally targeted and coordinated natural genetic engineering is open to experimental test", the answer is again no. Mutations are random, there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. If that is what you are referring to, the test has been performed and the answer is no.

DS said: As for "the concept of functionally targeted and coordinated natural genetic engineering is open to experimental test", the answer is again no. Mutations are random, there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. If that is what you are referring to, the test has been performed and the answer is no.

Shapiro's new information and systems-based paradigm integrates important phenomena such as symbiogenesis, epigenetics and natural genetic engineering. He demonstrates how active cell processes can drive the rapid, large evolutionary changes seen in DNA that cannot be adequately explained by earlier theories.

Rolf said:

DS said: As for "the concept of functionally targeted and coordinated natural genetic engineering is open to experimental test", the answer is again no. Mutations are random, there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. If that is what you are referring to, the test has been performed and the answer is no.

The words are Shapiro's. The subject seems to be "functionally targeted and coordinated natural genetic engineering", not the random mutations. From inside the dust cover:

Shapiro's new information and systems-based paradigm integrates important phenomena such as symbiogenesis, epigenetics and natural genetic engineering. He demonstrates how active cell processes can drive the rapid, large evolutionary changes seen in DNA that cannot be adequately explained by earlier theories.

I can't contribute anything to the discussion; I just am doing my best to try and understand what, if any, impact Shapiro's paradigm may have on the development of evolutionary theory in the 21st century.

dalehusband said: I have a very simple question for anti-evoluton bigots like FL, Robert Byers, and Ray Martinez: If you really believe that evolution is a teaching of atheism and that it cannot be reconciled with Christianity, why are you even Christians at all, and not atheists? Unless and until at least one of you gives a definite, straightforward answer to that question, you really have nothing more to add to this discussion.

Rolf said:

DS said: As for "the concept of functionally targeted and coordinated natural genetic engineering is open to experimental test", the answer is again no. Mutations are random, there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. If that is what you are referring to, the test has been performed and the answer is no.

The words are Shapiro's. The subject seems to be "functionally targeted and coordinated natural genetic engineering", not the random mutations. From inside the dust cover:

Shapiro's new information and systems-based paradigm integrates important phenomena such as symbiogenesis, epigenetics and natural genetic engineering. He demonstrates how active cell processes can drive the rapid, large evolutionary changes seen in DNA that cannot be adequately explained by earlier theories.

I can't contribute anything to the discussion; I just am doing my best to try and understand what, if any, impact Shapiro's paradigm may have on the development of evolutionary theory in the 21st century.

Despite widespread philosophical prejudices, cells are now reasonably seen to operate teleologically; their goals are survival, growth, and reproduction. …

Besides fitting within currently defined boundaries of biology, the concept of functionally targeted and coordinated natural genetic engineering is open to experimental test.

flandestiny said: How can we tell which parts of the bible are literal vs metaphorical?

But I would like to hear how evolution is consistent with belief in a god that is religiously meaningful.

Carl Drews said:

flandestiny said: How can we tell which parts of the bible are literal vs metaphorical?

In at least one case science (Charles Darwin and his successors) showed that certain verses should be interpreted literally, not metaphorically. Those verses are the "let the earth/waters bring forth..." verses in Genesis 1:11, 20, and 24. The earth-sun system is the agent of creation, bringing forth new life forms at God's command. Biblical creation is indirect, not direct as many creationists insist. Science knows this process as biological evolution. Somebody should tell Jerry Coyne this. Remember Jerry Coyne? In one of his blogs he was complaining that Christians always revert to the metaphorical interpretation, but for Genesis 1:11, 20, and 24 that's not true.

But I would like to hear how evolution is consistent with belief in a god that is religiously meaningful.

Read these books: "Finding Darwin's God", by Kenneth Miller "The Language of God", by Francis Collins

flandestiny said:

Carl Drews said:

flandestiny said: How can we tell which parts of the bible are literal vs metaphorical?

In at least one case science (Charles Darwin and his successors) showed that certain verses should be interpreted literally, not metaphorically. Those verses are the "let the earth/waters bring forth..." verses in Genesis 1:11, 20, and 24. The earth-sun system is the agent of creation, bringing forth new life forms at God's command. Biblical creation is indirect, not direct as many creationists insist. Science knows this process as biological evolution. Somebody should tell Jerry Coyne this. Remember Jerry Coyne? In one of his blogs he was complaining that Christians always revert to the metaphorical interpretation, but for Genesis 1:11, 20, and 24 that's not true.

But I would like to hear how evolution is consistent with belief in a god that is religiously meaningful.

Read these books: "Finding Darwin's God", by Kenneth Miller "The Language of God", by Francis Collins

Ugh. What do you think? I've read Collins and found the arguments wanting and the logic strained. Haven't read Miller. I find evolution a fairly brutal mechanism to generate diversity that is at odds with a "loving, caring, all knowing" being. Why do we need a god to explain these things? What is the evidence?

But I would like to hear how evolution is consistent with belief in a god that is religiously meaningful.

I find evolution a fairly brutal mechanism to generate diversity

that is at odds with a “loving, caring, all knowing” being.

Why do we need a god to explain these things? What is the evidence?

If you really believe that evolution is a teaching of atheism and that it cannot be reconciled with Christianity, why are you even Christians at all, and not atheists?

FL said:

If you really believe that evolution is a teaching of atheism and that it cannot be reconciled with Christianity, why are you even Christians at all, and not atheists?

Because I'm waiting for the good and august members of the esteemed Panda Organization to rationally rule out the existence of a theistic universe. Ruling out a theistic universe is the prerequisite to ruling out the existence of the supernatural, and ruling out the existence of the supernatural automatically means Game Over, at which point I would be forced to surrender and adopt your atheism. (Hat tip to philosopher Winfried Corduan, of course.) So Dale, whatcha got for me? Have your ruled out the existence of a theistic universe today? Or are you still sandbagged and bogged down with an Un-Supported, Ir-Rational, No-Count, Var-Mint, Half-Bak'd, Snake-Oil'd, Dog-Poop'd, Pole-Catted, Rot-Gutted, Devil-Egged, Flea-Flicker'd worldview commonly known as Atheism (aka Evolution)? FL

FL said: I'm waiting for the good and august members of the esteemed Panda Organization to rationally rule out the existence of a theistic universe.

I’ve read Collins and found the arguments wanting and the logic strained. Haven’t read Miller.

Ian Derthal said: Sadly, Coyne's argument is that Christians must make a choice. Either accept evolution and become Atheists, or go with Ham.

Carl Drews said:

Ian Derthal said: Sadly, Coyne's argument is that Christians must make a choice. Either accept evolution and become Atheists, or go with Ham.

Sadly, that is identical to Ken Ham's argument. One problem with the "continuum" model is that the extreme endpoints have wrapped around to the same position.

flandestiny said:

Carl Drews said:

flandestiny said: How can we tell which parts of the bible are literal vs metaphorical?

But I would like to hear how evolution is consistent with belief in a god that is religiously meaningful.

"Finding Darwin's God", by Kenneth Miller "The Language of God", by Francis Collins

Ugh. What do you think? I've read Collins and found the arguments wanting and the logic strained. Haven't read Miller.

I find evolution a fairly brutal mechanism to generate diversity that is at odds with a "loving, caring, all knowing" being. Why do we need a god to explain these things? What is the evidence?

Tenncrain said: Miller hints at his theological beliefs on the Colbert Report (click here, skip to about the 4:30 mark).

I answered that. Simple. Some people accept the theory of evolution (based on evidence), and also believe in a concept of God that does not contradict the theory of evolution (not based on objective evidence but not directly at odds with the theory of evolution).

If you're question is now "how can you prove to me that there is a loving, caring, god?", that is a totally different question.

"Brutal" is your subjective value judgment. I find the process of evolution to be elegant and fascinating. I probably know more about evolution than you, but our subjective value judgments are exactly equal in value.

Biological evolution is evidence only against religious beliefs that directly contradict biological evolution.

However, if your goal is to argue that "biological evolution proves atheism", I disagree.

phhht said:

FL said: I'm waiting for the good and august members of the esteemed Panda Organization to rationally rule out the existence of a theistic universe.

Why don't you hold your breath?

flandestiny said: The main issue here, is keeping religion out of the classroom.

flandestiny said: I find evolution a fairly brutal mechanism to generate diversity that is at odds with a "loving, caring, all knowing" being.

FL said:

If you really believe that evolution is a teaching of atheism and that it cannot be reconciled with Christianity, why are you even Christians at all, and not atheists?

Because I'm waiting for the good and august members of the esteemed Panda Organization to rationally rule out the existence of a theistic universe. Ruling out a theistic universe is the prerequisite to ruling out the existence of the supernatural, and ruling out the existence of the supernatural automatically means Game Over, at which point I would be forced to surrender and adopt your atheism. (Hat tip to philosopher Winfried Corduan, of course.) So Dale, whatcha got for me? Have your ruled out the existence of a theistic universe today? Or are you still sandbagged and bogged down with an Un-Supported, Ir-Rational, No-Count, Var-Mint, Half-Bak'd, Snake-Oil'd, Dog-Poop'd, Pole-Catted, Rot-Gutted, Devil-Egged, Flea-Flicker'd worldview commonly known as Atheism (aka Evolution)? FL

Problem of evil.
Do you have an answer to the question of how come a "loving", "caring" God would allow the Holocaust to happen, allow thousands and millions of people to die in earthquakes and tsunamis and etc every year, and allow all kinds of other nasty crap to occur? If so, presumably that same answer can be used to account for the obvious discrepancy between God's putative "loving, caring" nature and the nastiness of (some of) the details of the evolutionary process. If you don't have an answer to that question, well, evolution is just one item in a rather long list of things that sure seem to cast doubt on the proposition that this God person is "loving" and "caring"... so why get your knickers in a twist over evolution, but not any of the other items on that list?

Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

xubist said: Problem of evil. Do you have an answer to the question of how come a "loving", "caring" God would allow the Holocaust to happen, allow thousands and millions of people to die in earthquakes and tsunamis and etc every year, and allow all kinds of other nasty crap to occur? If so, presumably that same answer can be used to account for the obvious discrepancy between God's putative "loving, caring" nature and the nastiness of (some of) the details of the evolutionary process. If you don't have an answer to that question, well, evolution is just one item in a rather long list of things that sure seem to cast doubt on the proposition that this God person is "loving" and "caring"... so why get your knickers in a twist over evolution, but not any of the other items on that list?

harold said:

xubist said: Problem of evil. Do you have an answer to the question of how come a "loving", "caring" God would allow the Holocaust to happen, allow thousands and millions of people to die in earthquakes and tsunamis and etc every year, and allow all kinds of other nasty crap to occur? If so, presumably that same answer can be used to account for the obvious discrepancy between God's putative "loving, caring" nature and the nastiness of (some of) the details of the evolutionary process. If you don't have an answer to that question, well, evolution is just one item in a rather long list of things that sure seem to cast doubt on the proposition that this God person is "loving" and "caring"... so why get your knickers in a twist over evolution, but not any of the other items on that list?

I personally think that all of this projecting human ethical norms onto hyenas or single-celled pond organisms is silly. Also, we usually accept that humans can hunt for meat rather than starve, and that a human who has to hunt for meat with limited technology may have to do a messy job. So hyenas aren't even violating human ethical norms. I will admit that before I learned about biological evolution, animal behavior seemed to raise the "problem of evil". Once I realized that if it weren't for the way life evolves, there wouldn't be human brains sitting around projecting human ethical norms onto hyenas in the first place. If it evolution didn't work that way it does, we wouldn't even be here.

Quoting the bible doesn't really prove a point. If humans are really the focus of love and caring god is an ass. If that's how you view your god, more power to you. Still waiting on the evidence for his existence.

dalehusband said: I have a very simple question for anti-evoluton bigots like FL, Robert Byers, and Ray Martinez: If you really believe that evolution is a teaching of atheism and that it cannot be reconciled with Christianity, why are you even Christians at all, and not atheists? Unless and until at least one of you gives a definite, straightforward answer to that question, you really have nothing more to add to this discussion.

Quoting the bible doesn't prove a point, agreed. It doesn't prove any points whatsoever, separate from the text itself.

But evidence, now. Two questions arise: One, what evidence could there be for the existence of God that would satisfy the requirements of a skeptical rationalist? Two, stipulating that there is no such evidence, is it possible to explain its absence in a way consistent with the existence of God?

...Aaand along comes SteveP, to remind me that his tribe aren't interested in evidence in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Give me a skeptical rationalist any day.

SteveP. never said: Life needs no Mind to work, yet all known suspects keep on sticking their fingers in their ears repeating 'there is purpose, there is purpose, there is purpose'. Why do cells have nano-machinery? Why does life struggle to survive? How could it be otherwise? You really have to be an ignoramus to deny natural design. All this evolution denial is getting pretty old. Denial is long and slow. But you eventually get to the ocean. But to answer your question, evolution is not compatible with a Christianity that claims you need gods to explain how it all came about without divine intervention. Because you don't. Science only has an opinion in the sense that as far as we know, no gods are required.

Dave Luckett said: ...Aaand along comes SteveP, to remind me that his tribe aren't interested in evidence in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Give me a skeptical rationalist any day.

Dave Luckett said: ...Aaand along comes SteveP, to remind me that his tribe aren't interested in evidence in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Give me a skeptical rationalist any day.

Quoting the bible doesn't prove a point, agreed. It doesn't prove any points whatsoever, separate from the text itself.

But evidence, now. Two questions arise: One, what evidence could there be for the existence of God that would satisfy the requirements of a skeptical rationalist?

Two, stipulating that there is no such evidence, is it possible to explain its absence in a way consistent with the existence of God?

The comments section should be renamed 'Angry Atheists vs Everyone (including themselves)'. Some of you are too concerned with proving that you are 'right' all the time. Take a breath, relax, and approach the conversation with compassion and less snark. And since when does acceptance of evolution = atheism? Seems like an unnecessary jump. Even our friend Neil Tyson is agnostic.

FL said “Because I’m waiting for the good and august members of the esteemed Panda Organization to rationally rule out the existence of a theistic universe.”

We can at least rule out an all powerful, loving and ethical god as revealed in the plainly read inerrant bible. Right?

Ezekiel 9:5-6 ‘As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter old men, young men and maidens, women and children,…” ‘

Exodus 21:7-11 “And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son,…”

Samuel 15:2-3 “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘…Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Psalms 137:8-9 “…happy is…—he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.”

Isaiah 13:15-16 “Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished.”

Hosea 13:16 “The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 Not virgin upon wedding “...Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die.”

jeramyd.murray said: And since when does acceptance of evolution = atheism? Seems like an unnecessary jump. Even our friend Neil Tyson is agnostic.

Quoting the bible doesn't prove a point, agreed. It doesn't prove any points whatsoever, separate from the text itself.

?

But evidence, now. Two questions arise: One, what evidence could there be for the existence of God that would satisfy the requirements of a skeptical rationalist?

Any. Surely some of god's powers are quantifiable/observable? If there is absolutely no evidence for a god, why believe in a god?

Two, stipulating that there is no such evidence, is it possible to explain its absence in a way consistent with the existence of God?

No. Is god just a laid back, hands off bystandard? Maybe he set this whole cosmos experiment in motion, and now just prefers to watch? Sounds like a deist to me. I don't think science can ever rule out that possibility. But is that god religiously meaningful?

Back to Nick Matzke. Are religious people the only ones that can talk about evolution and "belief"?

SteveP. said: Of course evolution is atheism in drag. How can it not be? Life is Mind at work, yet all known suspects keep on sticking their fingers in their ears repeating 'there is no purpose, there is no purpose, there is no purpose'. Then why do cells have nano-machinery? why do they build things? Why does life struggle to survive? You really have to be an ignoramus to deny design. All this evolution schtick is getting pretty old. Denial is long and slow. But you eventually get to the ocean. But to answer your question, macro-evolution is not compatible with Christianity if it is defined as having come about on its own without divine intervention. Now science should not have an opinion either way, yet people like Coyne, Myers, Dawkins, etc will be sure to remind you that no Gods need apply. See what I mean? Atheism in drag.

You really have to be an ignoramus to deny design. All this evolution schtick is getting pretty old.

Has agnosticism gone out of style? Wouldn't it be a rational choice?

SteveP. said: Of course evolution is atheism in drag. How can it not be? Life is Mind at work, yet all known suspects keep on sticking their fingers in their ears repeating 'there is no purpose, there is no purpose, there is no purpose'. Then why do cells have nano-machinery? why do they build things? Why does life struggle to survive? You really have to be an ignoramus to deny design. All this evolution schtick is getting pretty old. Denial is long and slow. But you eventually get to the ocean. But to answer your question, macro-evolution is not compatible with Christianity if it is defined as having come about on its own without divine intervention. Now science should not have an opinion either way, yet people like Coyne, Myers, Dawkins, etc will be sure to remind you that no Gods need apply. See what I mean? Atheism in drag.

dalehusband said: I have a very simple question for anti-evoluton bigots like FL, Robert Byers, and Ray Martinez: If you really believe that evolution is a teaching of atheism and that it cannot be reconciled with Christianity, why are you even Christians at all, and not atheists? Unless and until at least one of you gives a definite, straightforward answer to that question, you really have nothing more to add to this discussion.

Rolf said: Has agnosticism gone out of style? Wouldn't it be a rational choice?

Dave Luckett said: ...Aaand along comes SteveP, to remind me that his tribe aren't interested in evidence in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Give me a skeptical rationalist any day.

"Belief" is a tricky word to use about any scientific concept. The word holds an emotional lading that shouldn't be there. Scientists don't believe theory or even demonstrated fact, as such. They accept it, subject to further testing. It is the religious who believe, and who will tell you that their beliefs are not subject to test.

apokryltaros said:

Rolf said: Has agnosticism gone out of style? Wouldn't it be a rational choice?

By its very nature, it's extremely difficult to evangelize for agnosticism.

flandestiny said:

"Belief" is a tricky word to use about any scientific concept. The word holds an emotional lading that shouldn't be there. Scientists don't believe theory or even demonstrated fact, as such. They accept it, subject to further testing. It is the religious who believe, and who will tell you that their beliefs are not subject to test.

I was attempting to point out it's only the religious that are "allowed" to talk about how evolution affects belief, but not non believers. Thanks for the education on belief though, and no I still don't accept your evidence. All of those examples have been discredited, at least in my view. I'm willing to be proven wrong though!

Rolf said:

apokryltaros said:

Rolf said: Has agnosticism gone out of style? Wouldn't it be a rational choice?

By its very nature, it's extremely difficult to evangelize for agnosticism.

Or solipsism...

I used to be an agnostic before I learned the truth. That didn't make me subscribe to any religion; I see myself as a modern Gnostic.

One, what evidence could there be for the existence of God that would satisfy the requirements of a skeptical rationalist?

I couldn't accept supraluminal rockets to the moon as evidence for the supernatural, not even if they're prayer-powered.

For me, such evidence must be not only unequivocal and empirical, but it must also explain how the gods pull off their tricks.

Suppose a believer came to me with the claim that his perpetual motion machine constituted such evidence. (Ignore for the moment the fact that it would be highly equivocal.) Why would such a thing not be evidence for the supernatural? It would surely violate physical law as we know it. It would (in my example) allow every conceivable test for "natural" explanations, to no avail. What makes it unacceptable to me?

To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so.

In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Still Lusting after Chicks barfed: Mr. Kwok persists in his delusion that the Supreme Court can't overturn a previous decision. It can, and it has. Case in point, Brown vs Board of Education where the court overturned a previous decision that separate but equal was constitutional. I suggest that Mr. Kwok consider the theory of holes. When one is in a hole, the first order of business is to stop digging.

John said:

tomh said:

John said: "Since 1968, however, U.S. courts have consistently held that 'creationism' is a particular religious viewpoint and that teaching it in public schools would violate the First Amendment of the Constitution."

That had no effect on Scalia's dissent in 1987, though, did it? If you're so sure that Alito has to follow precedent, why doesn't Scalia? Besides which, any new case will never mention creationism, but be couched in language like "academic freedom," or some such. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution, and how the law comports with it, as he or she sees fit, and if that is the opposite of how the law was interpreted in the past, so be it. Roe is a good case in point. A different court will have no problem interpreting the Constitution differently than the Court did in 1973, precedent or no. The same is true of science education.

And of course you forget the legal history of creationism in US courts as noted here: http://ncse.com/creationism/legal The Supreme Court has either ruled against creationism or consistently refused to listen to appeals to overturn lower court rulings against creationism since 1968. Again, any Supreme Court that considers a future case will have to take seriously its prior rulings, McLean vs. Arkansas and Kitzmiller vs. Dover.

Rolf said:

DS said: As for "the concept of functionally targeted and coordinated natural genetic engineering is open to experimental test", the answer is again no. Mutations are random, there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. If that is what you are referring to, the test has been performed and the answer is no.

The words are Shapiro's. The subject seems to be "functionally targeted and coordinated natural genetic engineering", not the random mutations. From inside the dust cover:

Shapiro's new information and systems-based paradigm integrates important phenomena such as symbiogenesis, epigenetics and natural genetic engineering. He demonstrates how active cell processes can drive the rapid, large evolutionary changes seen in DNA that cannot be adequately explained by earlier theories.

I can't contribute anything to the discussion; I just am doing my best to try and understand what, if any, impact Shapiro's paradigm may have on the development of evolutionary theory in the 21st century.

Tenncrain said:

flandestiny said:

Carl Drews said:

flandestiny said: How can we tell which parts of the bible are literal vs metaphorical?

But I would like to hear how evolution is consistent with belief in a god that is religiously meaningful.

"Finding Darwin's God", by Kenneth Miller "The Language of God", by Francis Collins

Ugh. What do you think? I've read Collins and found the arguments wanting and the logic strained. Haven't read Miller.

Miller hints at his theological beliefs on the Colbert Report (click here, skip to about the 4:30 mark).

I find evolution a fairly brutal mechanism to generate diversity that is at odds with a "loving, caring, all knowing" being. Why do we need a god to explain these things? What is the evidence?

Even Ken Miller makes no bones about nature being both beautiful and brutal/wasteful, he touches on this in Finding Darwin's God and in his newer book Only A Theory. For that matter, seems Animal Planet likes to reinforce the harshness theme by repeatedly showing buffaloes in the Serengeti being eaten alive by hyenas. Anyway, Miller and other like-minded theists that accept mainstream science keep their evidence for God within theological/philosophical realms. Miller feels conflating theology and science only results in pseudoscience, no different how conflating atheism and science also equals pseudoscience.

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

No other trustworthy kind of explanation is known to me.

I couldn’t accept supraluminal rockets to the moon as evidence for the supernatural, not even if they’re prayer-powered.

For me, such evidence must be not only unequivocal and empirical, but it must also explain how the gods pull off their tricks.

So you’re saying you won’t accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

The rocket experiment I described would not be direct evidence for creationism or Christianity, of course.

It would, however, be evidence for some kind of being that listens to human prayer and can do intervene in the physical universe.

I urge authoritarian theocrats to set this experiment up ASAP. It won't prove that your ideas are correct, but it will at least be a good first step.

Clarification -

I do often ask what the mechanism that the "designer" uses to design is. That's part of my standard repertoire of (always unsatisfactorily answered) questions. Who is the designer, what did the designer do, how did the designer do it, when did the designer do it, and what is an example of something that isn't designed?

But that's because I'm trying to give ID/creationists to state ID/creationism is a testable way.

The rocket experiment was designed to answer the more general question "is there any evidence for beings with the characteristics ascribed to God?". If standard rockets miraculously exceed the speed of light, okay, I would take that as evidence that human prayer was associated with something that seems miraculous.

ID/creationism makes much, much more specific claims. It claims that the evidence we see for evolution is somehow misleading, that life doesn't evolve as it seems to, and that only miracles can explain, say, the bacterial flagellum.

For defense of THAT claim I'd need to see a proposed mechanism.

harold said: Clarification - I do often ask what the mechanism that the "designer" uses to design is. That's part of my standard repertoire of (always unsatisfactorily answered) questions. Who is the designer, what did the designer do, how did the designer do it, when did the designer do it, and what is an example of something that isn't designed? But that's because I'm trying to give ID/creationists to state ID/creationism is a testable way. The rocket experiment was designed to answer the more general question "is there any evidence for beings with the characteristics ascribed to God?". If standard rockets miraculously exceed the speed of light, okay, I would take that as evidence that human prayer was associated with something that seems miraculous. ID/creationism makes much, much more specific claims. It claims that the evidence we see for evolution is somehow misleading, that life doesn't evolve as it seems to, and that only miracles can explain, say, the bacterial flagellum. For defense of THAT claim I'd need to see a proposed mechanism.

John said:

harold said: Clarification - I do often ask what the mechanism that the "designer" uses to design is. That's part of my standard repertoire of (always unsatisfactorily answered) questions. Who is the designer, what did the designer do, how did the designer do it, when did the designer do it, and what is an example of something that isn't designed? But that's because I'm trying to give ID/creationists to state ID/creationism is a testable way. The rocket experiment was designed to answer the more general question "is there any evidence for beings with the characteristics ascribed to God?". If standard rockets miraculously exceed the speed of light, okay, I would take that as evidence that human prayer was associated with something that seems miraculous. ID/creationism makes much, much more specific claims. It claims that the evidence we see for evolution is somehow misleading, that life doesn't evolve as it seems to, and that only miracles can explain, say, the bacterial flagellum. For defense of THAT claim I'd need to see a proposed mechanism.

Great posts, as always, harold. I have been AWOL contending with some of James Shapiro's creationist fans over at HuffPo. Our exchanges became so interesting that he opted to devote his latest blog entry to yours truly.

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

No other trustworthy kind of explanation is known to me.

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

No other trustworthy kind of explanation is known to me.

Interesting. You would demand a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural phenomenon. That strikes me as inconsistent.

There’s a harsh, but reasonable, assessment of Shapiro’s book here, courtesy of Australian historian and philosopher of science John Wilkins: http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/08[…]t-darwinism/

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

No other trustworthy kind of explanation is known to me.

Interesting. You would demand a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural phenomenon. That strikes me as inconsistent.

I don't see it as inconsistent for two reasons. First, my position is that such phenomena do not exist. Second, no trustworthy kind of explanation other than the empirical kind is known to me. The inconsistency, in my view, lies in claims that the supernatural works in the real world just like anything else, from high-pressure weather systems to infectious biological agents, except that no unequivocal, empirical evidence can be adduced for such effects. That sounds like, well, bullshit.

John said:

John said:

harold said: Clarification - I do often ask what the mechanism that the "designer" uses to design is. That's part of my standard repertoire of (always unsatisfactorily answered) questions. Who is the designer, what did the designer do, how did the designer do it, when did the designer do it, and what is an example of something that isn't designed? But that's because I'm trying to give ID/creationists to state ID/creationism is a testable way. The rocket experiment was designed to answer the more general question "is there any evidence for beings with the characteristics ascribed to God?". If standard rockets miraculously exceed the speed of light, okay, I would take that as evidence that human prayer was associated with something that seems miraculous. ID/creationism makes much, much more specific claims. It claims that the evidence we see for evolution is somehow misleading, that life doesn't evolve as it seems to, and that only miracles can explain, say, the bacterial flagellum. For defense of THAT claim I'd need to see a proposed mechanism.

Great posts, as always, harold. I have been AWOL contending with some of James Shapiro's creationist fans over at HuffPo. Our exchanges became so interesting that he opted to devote his latest blog entry to yours truly.

Speaking of Shapiro, he doesn't regard the domesticated sheep, dog, cat, etc. as separate biological species from their wild forbears. Nor does he appreciate that Darwin and Wallace, having read Malthus and devoting years to studying tropical biodiversity, could derive independently of each other, Natural Selection.

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

No other trustworthy kind of explanation is known to me.

Interesting. You would demand a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural phenomenon. That strikes me as inconsistent.

I don't see it as inconsistent for two reasons. First, my position is that such phenomena do not exist. Second, no trustworthy kind of explanation other than the empirical kind is known to me. The inconsistency, in my view, lies in claims that the supernatural works in the real world just like anything else, from high-pressure weather systems to infectious biological agents, except that no unequivocal, empirical evidence can be adduced for such effects. That sounds like, well, bullshit.

1) Perhaps you should ponder what "supernatural" actually means.

2) If I remember my history of science correctly, for quite a while there was no explanation for gravity. Should people living in pre-relativity cultures have rejected the existence of this "gravity" thing since there was no explanation?

The article says, "At the end of the day, I agree with Coyne that so long as the dominant form of American religion is anti-evolution, we’ll have problems with creationism in schools."
I don't think that the dominant form of America religion is anti-evolution and problems with creationism in schools. As an international student I suprise that the advanced countries such as America do not teach with fair two views (creationism or Intelligent Design and Darwinism)of the origin of universe and human being. Do you think the theory of Darwinism is a really truth? we must keep in mind that theory is just theory which is a new framework of understanding. I think America education in public school is not fair to teach only the Darwinian theory without teaching another theories.

Jay said: The article says, "At the end of the day, I agree with Coyne that so long as the dominant form of American religion is anti-evolution, we’ll have problems with creationism in schools." I don't think that the dominant form of America religion is anti-evolution and problems with creationism in schools. As an international student I suprise that the advanced countries such as America do not teach with fair two views (creationism or Intelligent Design and Darwinism)of the origin of universe and human being. Do you think the theory of Darwinism is a really truth? we must keep in mind that theory is just theory which is a new framework of understanding. I think America education in public school is not fair to teach only the Darwinian theory without teaching another theories.

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

No other trustworthy kind of explanation is known to me.

Interesting. You would demand a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural phenomenon. That strikes me as inconsistent.

I don't see it as inconsistent for two reasons. First, my position is that such phenomena do not exist. Second, no trustworthy kind of explanation other than the empirical kind is known to me. The inconsistency, in my view, lies in claims that the supernatural works in the real world just like anything else, from high-pressure weather systems to infectious biological agents, except that no unequivocal, empirical evidence can be adduced for such effects. That sounds like, well, bullshit.

1) Perhaps you should ponder what "supernatural" actually means.

I understand "supernatural" to mean "above or beyond or outside the natural." As far as I can tell, there is no such thing outside of fiction. I think we are talking about what constitutes valid evidence that I am wrong. Agreed?

2) If I remember my history of science correctly, for quite a while there was no explanation for gravity. Should people living in pre-relativity cultures have rejected the existence of this "gravity" thing since there was no explanation?

Of course not. It is easy to adduce unequivocal, empirical evidence for the phenomenon "gravity," even if you cannot explain it. It exists. My demand for an explanation of any alleged supernatural phenomenon is a personal requirement necessary in order for me to accept such a putative phenomenon as real. Extraordinary claims, etc.

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

No other trustworthy kind of explanation is known to me.

Interesting. You would demand a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural phenomenon. That strikes me as inconsistent.

I don't see it as inconsistent for two reasons. First, my position is that such phenomena do not exist. Second, no trustworthy kind of explanation other than the empirical kind is known to me. The inconsistency, in my view, lies in claims that the supernatural works in the real world just like anything else, from high-pressure weather systems to infectious biological agents, except that no unequivocal, empirical evidence can be adduced for such effects. That sounds like, well, bullshit.

1) Perhaps you should ponder what "supernatural" actually means.

I understand "supernatural" to mean "above or beyond or outside the natural." As far as I can tell, there is no such thing outside of fiction. I think we are talking about what constitutes valid evidence that I am wrong. Agreed?

2) If I remember my history of science correctly, for quite a while there was no explanation for gravity. Should people living in pre-relativity cultures have rejected the existence of this "gravity" thing since there was no explanation?

Of course not. It is easy to adduce unequivocal, empirical evidence for the phenomenon "gravity," even if you cannot explain it. It exists. My demand for an explanation of any alleged supernatural phenomenon is a personal requirement necessary in order for me to accept such a putative phenomenon as real. Extraordinary claims, etc.

Your requirement is then that you'll accept a phenomenon as “above or beyond or outside the natural” only if it can be explained by naturalistic causes. Wouldn't it be easier for you just to concede that there is no evidence anyone could ever possibly produce that would convince you that supernatural phenomena exist?

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

No other trustworthy kind of explanation is known to me.

Interesting. You would demand a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural phenomenon. That strikes me as inconsistent.

I don't see it as inconsistent for two reasons. First, my position is that such phenomena do not exist. Second, no trustworthy kind of explanation other than the empirical kind is known to me. The inconsistency, in my view, lies in claims that the supernatural works in the real world just like anything else, from high-pressure weather systems to infectious biological agents, except that no unequivocal, empirical evidence can be adduced for such effects. That sounds like, well, bullshit.

1) Perhaps you should ponder what "supernatural" actually means.

I understand "supernatural" to mean "above or beyond or outside the natural." As far as I can tell, there is no such thing outside of fiction. I think we are talking about what constitutes valid evidence that I am wrong. Agreed?

2) If I remember my history of science correctly, for quite a while there was no explanation for gravity. Should people living in pre-relativity cultures have rejected the existence of this "gravity" thing since there was no explanation?

Of course not. It is easy to adduce unequivocal, empirical evidence for the phenomenon "gravity," even if you cannot explain it. It exists. My demand for an explanation of any alleged supernatural phenomenon is a personal requirement necessary in order for me to accept such a putative phenomenon as real. Extraordinary claims, etc.

Your requirement is then that you'll accept a phenomenon as “above or beyond or outside the natural” only if it can be explained by naturalistic causes. Wouldn't it be easier for you just to concede that there is no evidence anyone could ever possibly produce that would convice you that supernatural phenomena exist?

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

No other trustworthy kind of explanation is known to me.

Interesting. You would demand a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural phenomenon. That strikes me as inconsistent.

I don't see it as inconsistent for two reasons. First, my position is that such phenomena do not exist. Second, no trustworthy kind of explanation other than the empirical kind is known to me. The inconsistency, in my view, lies in claims that the supernatural works in the real world just like anything else, from high-pressure weather systems to infectious biological agents, except that no unequivocal, empirical evidence can be adduced for such effects. That sounds like, well, bullshit.

1) Perhaps you should ponder what "supernatural" actually means.

I understand "supernatural" to mean "above or beyond or outside the natural." As far as I can tell, there is no such thing outside of fiction. I think we are talking about what constitutes valid evidence that I am wrong. Agreed?

2) If I remember my history of science correctly, for quite a while there was no explanation for gravity. Should people living in pre-relativity cultures have rejected the existence of this "gravity" thing since there was no explanation?

Of course not. It is easy to adduce unequivocal, empirical evidence for the phenomenon "gravity," even if you cannot explain it. It exists. My demand for an explanation of any alleged supernatural phenomenon is a personal requirement necessary in order for me to accept such a putative phenomenon as real. Extraordinary claims, etc.

Your requirement is then that you'll accept a phenomenon as “above or beyond or outside the natural” only if it can be explained by naturalistic causes.

John -

I really can't figure out whether Shapiro is an ID/creationist, or is merely some kind of a latter day Lamarckist. He has a much stronger actual science record than any DI types.

harold said: John - I really can't figure out whether Shapiro is an ID/creationist, or is merely some kind of a latter day Lamarckist. He has a much stronger actual science record than any DI types.

apokryltaros said:

Rolf said: Has agnosticism gone out of style? Wouldn't it be a rational choice?

By its very nature, it's extremely difficult to evangelize for agnosticism.

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

No other trustworthy kind of explanation is known to me.

Interesting. You would demand a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural phenomenon. That strikes me as inconsistent.

I don't see it as inconsistent for two reasons. First, my position is that such phenomena do not exist. Second, no trustworthy kind of explanation other than the empirical kind is known to me. The inconsistency, in my view, lies in claims that the supernatural works in the real world just like anything else, from high-pressure weather systems to infectious biological agents, except that no unequivocal, empirical evidence can be adduced for such effects. That sounds like, well, bullshit.

1) Perhaps you should ponder what "supernatural" actually means.

I understand "supernatural" to mean "above or beyond or outside the natural." As far as I can tell, there is no such thing outside of fiction. I think we are talking about what constitutes valid evidence that I am wrong. Agreed?

2) If I remember my history of science correctly, for quite a while there was no explanation for gravity. Should people living in pre-relativity cultures have rejected the existence of this "gravity" thing since there was no explanation?

Of course not. It is easy to adduce unequivocal, empirical evidence for the phenomenon "gravity," even if you cannot explain it. It exists. My demand for an explanation of any alleged supernatural phenomenon is a personal requirement necessary in order for me to accept such a putative phenomenon as real. Extraordinary claims, etc.

Your requirement is then that you'll accept a phenomenon as “above or beyond or outside the natural” only if it can be explained by naturalistic causes.

Your implication is that I reject the existence of a phenomenon, say the existence of gods who operate in reality, only because my definition rules it out.

That is not correct. I reject the existence of the supernatural because, as far as I can tell, no such thing does in fact exist in reality. Such things are fictional, like the purported existence of unicorns.

In order to accept the literal existence of unicorns, I require evidence (and explanation) that is natural. There is no other kind of evidence. There is no other kind of trustworthy explanation. To allow your implicit assertion to the contrary is to throw the game to you.

As best I can tell, the word "supernatural" is a noise some people make instead of saying 'I dunno'. From my observations of how it's commonly used, I conclude that the word 'supernatural' is either (a) meaningless noise, or else (b) a fully redundant synonym for "something I don't understand", perhaps with the optional tacked-on extension "…and NOBODY ELSE EVER WILL understand, either".

Now, I fully agree that there are things we don't currently understand. And if prayers for healing were demonstrated to be 100% effective in valid clinical trials, I'd be the first to agree that that would definitely fall into the "stuff we don't understand" category. But... "supernatural"? What the hell does that even mean? How can you tell whether or not a given thingie is sho-'nuff, honest-to-Crowley supernatural, as opposed to 'merely' being yet another 'natural' thingie we just don't happen to understand yet?

I have a similar attitude towards the god hypothesis. When Believers make noise about what this 'God' thingie is supposed to be, their definitions are all over the map and points beyond; God is 'Love', God is 'the ground of being', God is 'a necessary entity', God is 'a dessert topping and a floor wax', God is yada yada yada. You want me to tell you what I'd accept as evidence in support of the god hypothesis? No can do -- not until there actually is a well-defined god hypothesis for evidence to support.

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said: To my mind, valid evidence for the supernatural cannot just sit there, whirling away. If it affects the real world, it must provide an explanation for how it does so. In other words, I insist that the magician step out from behind his curtain and show us all the smoke and mirrors. I insist that evidence tell us how it works.

Let me make sure I understand you. Let's say you, FL, and I are sitting in a locked but well-lit bank vault. There's good ventilation (no hypoxia, etc.), none of us are are under the influence of any sort of psychoactive agents, we're well-rested and in our right minds. I offer a prayer that FL be taken from our presence and he vanishes instantly. Not even a puff of smoke, just gone. That observation would not be sufficient for you?

As appealing as it is, your example would not be acceptable to me. In my view, it is not unequivocal (coulda been some extraordinary good luck!), not empirical (no way for anyone else to confirm the claimed results), and equally importantly, there is no explanation for how the disappearance worked.

So you're saying you won't accept any evidence for the supernatural unless you have a scientific explanation for it.

No other trustworthy kind of explanation is known to me.

Interesting. You would demand a naturalistic explanation for a supernatural phenomenon. That strikes me as inconsistent.

I don't see it as inconsistent for two reasons. First, my position is that such phenomena do not exist. Second, no trustworthy kind of explanation other than the empirical kind is known to me. The inconsistency, in my view, lies in claims that the supernatural works in the real world just like anything else, from high-pressure weather systems to infectious biological agents, except that no unequivocal, empirical evidence can be adduced for such effects. That sounds like, well, bullshit.

1) Perhaps you should ponder what "supernatural" actually means.

I understand "supernatural" to mean "above or beyond or outside the natural." As far as I can tell, there is no such thing outside of fiction. I think we are talking about what constitutes valid evidence that I am wrong. Agreed?

2) If I remember my history of science correctly, for quite a while there was no explanation for gravity. Should people living in pre-relativity cultures have rejected the existence of this "gravity" thing since there was no explanation?

Of course not. It is easy to adduce unequivocal, empirical evidence for the phenomenon "gravity," even if you cannot explain it. It exists. My demand for an explanation of any alleged supernatural phenomenon is a personal requirement necessary in order for me to accept such a putative phenomenon as real. Extraordinary claims, etc.

Your requirement is then that you'll accept a phenomenon as “above or beyond or outside the natural” only if it can be explained by naturalistic causes. Wouldn't it be easier for you just to concede that there is no accept a phenomenon as “above or beyond or outside the natural” only if it can be explained by naturalistic causes.?

Let's review.

flandestiny asked "what evidence could there be for the existence of God that would satisfy the requirements of a skeptical rationalist?"

Dave Luckett cited several possibilities, all of which he considered insufficient.

flandestiny said Dave's possible lines of evidence had been discredited but he/she was "willing to be proven wrong."

I asked flandestiny what he/she would "consider credible evidence? What would suffice for you to consider yourself 'proven wrong?'"

phhht responded by saying he/she needed not only objective, verifiable evidence, but also an explanation.

My contention is that phhht's requirement is internally inconsistent.

I've heard many of you aver over and over and over again that your rejection of the supernatural is as tentative a position as any scientific hypothesis would be and that you're willing to be proven wrong. All I'm asking is that you either articulate what it would take for you to consider yourself "proven wrong" or concede that you actually can't imagine any evidence that would so convince you.

phhht said: Your implication is that I reject the existence of a phenomenon, say the existence of gods who operate in reality, only because my definition rules it out. That is not correct. I reject the existence of the supernatural because, as far as I can tell, no such thing does in fact exist in reality. Such things are fictional, like the purported existence of unicorns. In order to accept the literal existence of unicorns, I require evidence (and explanation) that is natural. There is no other kind of evidence. There is no other kind of trustworthy explanation. To allow your implicit assertion to the contrary is to throw the game to you.

SWT said: Let's review. flandestiny asked "what evidence could there be for the existence of God that would satisfy the requirements of a skeptical rationalist?" Dave Luckett cited several possibilities, all of which he considered insufficient. flandestiny said Dave's possible lines of evidence had been discredited but he/she was "willing to be proven wrong." I asked flandestiny what he/she would "consider credible evidence? What would suffice for you to consider yourself 'proven wrong?'" phhht responded by saying he/she needed not only objective, verifiable evidence, but also an explanation. My contention is that phhht's requirement is internally inconsistent. I've heard many of you aver over and over and over again that your rejection of the supernatural is as tentative a position as any scientific hypothesis would be and that you're willing to be proven wrong. All I'm asking is that you either articulate what it would take for you to consider yourself "proven wrong" or concede that you actually can't imagine any evidence that would so convince you.

SWT said: Let's review. flandestiny asked "what evidence could there be for the existence of God that would satisfy the requirements of a skeptical rationalist?" Dave Luckett cited several possibilities, all of which he considered insufficient. flandestiny said Dave's possible lines of evidence had been discredited but he/she was "willing to be proven wrong." I asked flandestiny what he/she would "consider credible evidence? What would suffice for you to consider yourself 'proven wrong?'" phhht responded by saying he/she needed not only objective, verifiable evidence, but also an explanation. My contention is that phhht's requirement is internally inconsistent. I've heard many of you aver over and over and over again that your rejection of the supernatural is as tentative a position as any scientific hypothesis would be and that you're willing to be proven wrong. All I'm asking is that you either articulate what it would take for you to consider yourself "proven wrong" or concede that you actually can't imagine any evidence that would so convince you.

SWT has made the point that I would've made, had I not been asleep. Now, at 0830, a cup of coffee and breakfast later, let me have a go.

I've been through this with phhht before. The first problem is that God or gods are by definition supernatural. I don't think this is controversial. Evidence for God's existence must therefore be evidence for the supernatural, by definition.

But evidence for the supernatural cannot consist of any observation that could be explained by natural cause. Natural cause must be totally ruled out, including delusion, hallucination, simple mistake, fraud or trickery. That is, to be evidence for the supernatural, the requirement must be that the observation could not, ever be explicable by any natural cause. That requirement is a universal negative.

That alone makes such an observation theoretically impossible.

But there is more. Suppose there were an observation of the working of God, or of His actual presence. Call such observations "miracles", for convenience. Suppose it met the requirement above. I can't think how, but suppose.

It still would not fulfil the requirements of scientific observation. It is still only a one-off. A miracle is necessarily a one-off. How could it be verified as one? How can other observers, objective, separated in time and space, not involved, make the same observation? And if this is not possible, how could such an observation be called scientific? How could evidence from it, even if the observer asserted the impossibility of natural cause, be acceptable?

The answer is that it could not be. There is, in theory and in practice, no observation, no evidence of supernatural action, that could satisfy the skeptical rationalist that the supernatural exists. Dawkins, for example, has said that if he were to observe with his own eyes an event that could not be explained on any natural ground, he would simply decline to believe his own senses. After all, the possibility that he was deluded or hallucinating is far greater than the operation of supernatural.

Phhht pointed to the phenomenon of "speaking in tongues", which he and I would agree consists of hysterical and ecstatic glossolalia. He proposed that if a dictionary of tongues were to be produced that reliably deciphered the stream, and this artefact were possible to examine and verify against further "speech" of this sort, that this would be evidence for a supernatural effect.

I think not. If such a dictionary were produced, and it worked for all speakers (which is more than the speakers in tongues claim; they claim to be all speaking different tongues), I would suggest that the semanticians would regard it as evidence for an ur-language, would regard it as a natural phenomenon to be scientifically investigated, and would set about doing so. That is, science would assume and seek, as always, natural cause.

Therefore, I think the point holds. Evidence that would convince a skeptical rationalist of the presence or action of God or gods cannot be provided. It is therefore not surprising that there is no such evidence.

SWT said: ... you're willing to be proven wrong. All I'm asking is that you either articulate what it would take for you to consider yourself "proven wrong" or concede that you actually can't imagine any evidence that would so convince you.

phhht said:

SWT said: ... you're willing to be proven wrong. All I'm asking is that you either articulate what it would take for you to consider yourself "proven wrong" or concede that you actually can't imagine any evidence that would so convince you.

Now let's suppose that fiery letters a mile high appear every night in the sky, visible to everyone everywhere, in the local dialect, which say, Convert to Cumberland Presbyterianism (my familial sect of Christianity)! CP members can ALL do what SWT's pastor can: cure cancer, raise the dead, turn back the hands of time, etc. etc. And so can YOU, because all you have to do is ask, and you're miraculously converted to a CP believer. There is no more hunger, first among the CPs, and then everybody, although we all get pretty tired of loaves and fishes, if not of watery wine! All the CPs give away everything they own and make like the lilies of the field. War is no more, cruelty and selfishness and bullying and naughty words all go the way of the Dodo - which resurrects itself! That's what I'd call conclusive evidence.

dalehusband said to phhht: The Big Bang Theory must also be rejected by you, since by its very nature only a supernatural cause could have produced it. The universe could not have created itself, unless you abandon all logic.

Nick Matzke said: Here's another passage I vaguely remembered from PZ...

Chris Lawson said:

Nick Matzke said: Here's another passage I vaguely remembered from PZ...

You know what, Nick? There comes a time when one has to conclude that one is dealing with an inveterate liar who is no longer worth reading. And this thread has done it. I no longer believe you are capable of being honest about any of the so-called New Atheists. I note, for instance, that you quote a very large slab of Myers' post, but despite that you have completely taken it out of its very important context: Myers was responding to a published article equating New Atheism with neo-fascism (no, this is not an exaggeration) by someone who actually called himself a progressive in denouncing the entire New Atheist movement. Why would you deliberately leave out this context? You could still criticise Myers for using too broad a brush, or for accepting that moron's claim to speak for all progressives, but why add any context when you can create spiteful bullshit. In the same thread, you claimed that Myers would say that any science class which did not teach children atheism was "doing it wrong." Another lie. In the light of your previous lies about Dawkins calling religious people Nazis, I can only conclude that you don't give one short fuck about telling the truth so long as you get to malign the atheists you disagree with. You are a disgrace to Panda's Thumb and I won't be reading your crap again.

Nick Matzke said:

patrickmay.myopenid.com said:

trnsplnt said: The "dominant strategy" is what the public is most exposed to and that would be Dawkins, Coyne, et al. vs Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, et al., often referred to as "the people who have skin in the game". The media attention on the topic of the politics of science education has always been on the drama queens at the extremes

What, precisely, is extreme about Dawkins? All he is saying is that religious beliefs should not be immune to criticism. You are unfairly equating him with people who want to force a theocracy on the rest of us.

Wouldn't it be nice if we all got behind the experts for a change and worked to take science education out of the culture wars rather than sacrificing science education on our respective altars.

How do you propose to do that? This isn't an issue that lends itself to compromise. The science curriculum is either restricted to real science or religious beliefs are allowed to be taught as science. I have never heard of a "gnu" atheist who is advocating teaching that all religions are wrong in science class. Again, you are equating two positions that are not at all symmetrical.

It's not hard to find examples of this kind of extreme rhetoric from gnus. E.g. from PZ: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/kings_and_queens_of_the_ther.php

Evolution has implications about how the world works. If you deny them, if you pretend evolution is cheerily compatible with the god-is-a-loving-creator nonsense religions peddle, you aren't teaching evolution. You are pouring more mush into the brains of young people. If you are a conservative Christian, it's entirely understandable that you would fight evolution, because the truth does not favor your position. If you are a moderate Christian, you are not helping science education by enabling fear of atheism by continuing to lie to people, assuring them that science isn't going to challenge their religious beliefs. It will, or the teachers are doing it wrong. (bold original)

So, basically, according to PZ, a ninth-grade biology teacher basically should be teaching atheism, or they're "doing it wrong." Here's another one: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/tennessee_twit_gets_brief_mome.php

It would be nice if we did have a high school biology book that called all of Christianity and Judaism a collection of myths, but we don't. Yet.

Whee! Just imagine if someone in a public school system somewhere were to actually take PZ or someone like him seriously, and implement a policy along these lines. Even without a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, there would be a significant risk of a disastrous decision which puts evolution is some special category of anti-religious science, instead of putting it into the same everyday science category of chemistry, meteorology, geology, etc. Bad facts turn into bad lawsuits, which end up as bad court precedents. I don't see any reason to increase the chance of bad facts. Evolution should be taught and treated like any other science, and not dragged into atheist apologetics any more than chemistry is (and it shouldn't be challenged by religious apologists any more than chemistry is).

Nick Matzke said: Here's another passage I vaguely remembered from PZ which contained the phrase "We're going to educate your children whether you like it or not, because they have a right to grow up without your self-inflicted brain injury." Looking at it again, now, it's not advocating teaching atheism in the classroom, it is advocating teaching the truth about the age of the earth. However the phrase is still problematic on about 23 levels, including (a) it's false because if sufficiently annoyed the public could vote to get rid of public schools; (b) parents can take their kids out of public schools; (c) you won't succeed in educating children even if they are in your classroom, if they are sufficiently counter-educated by parents terrified of hostile teachers on power trips; and (d) such imperialistic fantasies just don't mesh with the attitude of serious professional educators. The passage is also notable for its utterly preposterous and facetious portrayal of progressives. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/06/atheism_fascism.php

I disagree with Harris and Hitchens, especially Hitchens on this one issue, but I also defend them, and not just in the sense of defending the principle of free speech, but because I also agree with them in part. Somehow, the meaning of "progressive" has weakened so much that it can be equated to radical, militant tolerance of every blithering looniness someone might spout, with tactics that constitute little more than limp-wristed surrender to the excuses of bigots. Too often, the conversation between so-called 'progressives' and their opponents is one of gelatin-spined appeasers trying desperately to stave off the tyrants of the right by frantically retreating from the conflict. "I want to chop off my daughter's clitoris," says the Islamist. "Oooh, that's not nice," says the 'progressive', "and your deep, rich cultural traditions make me hesitate to object." Meanwhile, the New Atheist says "NO. There is no ambiguity here: your children are individuals, you have NO RIGHT to butcher them. And being an ignorant barbarian is no excuse." "I demand that the public schools respect my mythology and teach everyone that the earth is 6000 years old," says the Christian Dominionist, "and also, you can't ever say a word to my children that contradicts Scripture." The 'progressive' replies, "Well, we wouldn't want to offend anyone, so maybe we can find a curriculum that doesn't use the "e" word and doesn't stir up any conflicts between science and religion. Let's compromise." The New Atheist says, "You're wrong. You're worse than wrong, you're stupid. We're going to educate your children whether you like it or not, because they have a right to grow up without your self-inflicted brain injury." "Belief in God is an essential part of being human and must be nurtured for the good of civilization," says the Evangelical. The 'progressive' cheerfully agrees, ignoring the sectarian tribalism that religion fosters, ignoring the absurdity of the Evangelical's very specific, very peculiar adherence to a dogmatic mythology, for which this happy acquiescence to an absence of critical thought is a convenient foot in the door. The New Atheist instead argues that religion must be relegated to the status of a personal quirk, an affectation or hobby, and that the real heart of modern civilization lies in science, and reason, and evidence-based decision-making. Religion is a barbarous obsidian knife poised over our chests — put it in a cabinet and admire it as a work of art, but don't ever wield the damned thing ever again. "Homosexuals are a disgusting abomination," scream the fundamentalists. The 'progressives' respond, "Oooh, well, we were going to advocate tolerance and equality, but in the light of your rousing certainty, we'll yank this commercial that blandly suggests that maybe gay people are human just like you." The New Atheist, at this point, just facepalms incredulously and walks away from these lily-livered fair-weather advocates for equality. (italics original)

The next time some Gnu fan complains that the charge that Gnus are Gnasty has no basis, bring this up and imagine what your average progressive would take from this.

All right, dale, let me explain to you why this is is lying.

Let's back and read all of Myers' post. There you will see that Myers was responding to an opinion piece by Jeff Sparrow published on matilda.com. You can read it here.

Sparrow spends his opinion piece calling the New Atheists "neo-fascists", "very, very right wing", and the enemies of "progressives" and even went so far as to smear the New Atheists with some sort of weird responsibility for the Australian government's refugee policies. So Myers wrote a response criticising Sparrow's views, arguing that New Atheists were neo-fascists, and bemoaning the sort of person who calls themselves "progressive" while blocking attempts to prevent clitoridectomies, keep creationism put of public schools, etc. Now I don't think was a particularly good post of Myers'...but let's see what happens when Matzke decides to report on it.

Now all of a sudden, it's a jeremiad by Myers against progressives. How did Matzke achieve this? By quoting the 10 paragraphs where Myers attacks what he sees as false progressivism. He does not include the context of this being a response to slurs of neo-fascism. More importantly, he deliberately cuts out the parts of Myers' post that expressly say that he is in favour of progressivism. Here's an example from the blog post in question: "[The Dublin Declaration on Religion in Public Life] is a very progressive document. Not in the sense that some 'progressives' believe, in which the only progressive value is surrender, but in the sense that it actually stands firmly for positive values, like freedom of conscience and thought, equality before the law, and secular education for all."

So Myers is standing up for progressive views. What's more, everyone who has ever read Myers' blog would know that he is a progressive himself. He is pro-feminism, pro-free speech, anti-war, anti-death penalty. So when he is criticising "progressives" in that excerpt, there's a very good reason the term is in quotation marks.

So when Matzke has the gall to say the post contains an "utterly preposterous and facetious portrayal of progressives", he is lying about Myers' intent. And the fact that he quoted 10 paras shows that he was not trimming the excerpt down for length -- Matzke culled the exact ten paras he wanted for rhetorical effect and declined to quote anything else or put it in context. When creationists do this we call it quote mining.

And why stop there? Let's remind ourselves of Matzke's previous adventure accusing Dawkins of "playing the Nazi card". When asked to provide evidence of this, Matzke searched Dawkins' repertoire and the best he could come up with was a slide in one of Dawkins' talks which had a photo of Catholic priests in their regalia next to a photo of Nazis in uniform. He had to concede that when you listened to what Dawkins was saying when that slide was up, it was about the accoutrements of authority and not a comparison of Catholic and Nazi ideology. Even so, Matzke felt satisfied that this was a moral error on Dawkins' part because it could be taken out of context to imply that religion was like Nazism. Well, we know that because Matzke had gone out of his way to take it out of context, thereby proving his own theorem.

But be that as it may, I would like to know why Matzke went digging through Dawkins' talks to find a remote link that could possibly imply that Dawkins played the Nazi card...and yet here we have Myers responding directly to someone who equated the entire New Atheist movement to neo-fascism and extreme right-wing politics -- not implied, not put photographs side by side -- stated it outright and yet the same person who was willing to trawl through tons of Dawkinsalia for evidence of Nazi carding doesn't even fucking mention it when it's played on the table in front of him.

And why stop there? Matzke appears to have this amazing psychic ability to read Myers' mind. When Myers wants to keep religion out of biology teaching, that's a secret code for Myers wanting to teach kids to be atheist. Oh, of course, Myers would never actually say that, but Matzke knows anyway. Even though Myers has on many occasions stated explicitly that atheism should not be taught normatively in class rooms, Matzke still says "according to PZ, a ninth-grade biology teacher basically should be teaching atheism, or they’re 'doing it wrong.'"

How does Matzke know that this is what Myers really wants despite his frequent statements to the contrary? Who knows? Maybe he does a Bible Code analysis of Pharyngula every day. Maybe he plays Myers' speeches backwards looking for back-masking. However he does it, he's a savant who can tell that Myers has some "imperialistic fantasy" behind his desire to keep creationism out of public schools, in contrast to Matzke's desire to keep creationism out of public schools, which is all purity and nobility.

So, yeah, I think it's fair to call Matzke a liar. I know full well that if Casey Luskin had misquoted someone as egregiously as Matzke did here, we'd all be jumping on it.

Correction: "were not neo-fascists"

harold said: The rocket experiment I described would not be direct evidence for creationism or Christianity, of course. It would, however, be evidence for some kind of being that listens to human prayer and can do intervene in the physical universe. I urge authoritarian theocrats to set this experiment up ASAP. It won't prove that your ideas are correct, but it will at least be a good first step.

SLC said: Darwin was quite surprised to receive a letter from Wallace outlining the theory of natural selection, indicating that he was unaware that Wallace had also been thinking along those lines. This, despite the fact that they had corresponded previously.

John said:

John said:

harold said: Clarification - I do often ask what the mechanism that the "designer" uses to design is. That's part of my standard repertoire of (always unsatisfactorily answered) questions. Who is the designer, what did the designer do, how did the designer do it, when did the designer do it, and what is an example of something that isn't designed? But that's because I'm trying to give ID/creationists to state ID/creationism is a testable way. The rocket experiment was designed to answer the more general question "is there any evidence for beings with the characteristics ascribed to God?". If standard rockets miraculously exceed the speed of light, okay, I would take that as evidence that human prayer was associated with something that seems miraculous. ID/creationism makes much, much more specific claims. It claims that the evidence we see for evolution is somehow misleading, that life doesn't evolve as it seems to, and that only miracles can explain, say, the bacterial flagellum. For defense of THAT claim I'd need to see a proposed mechanism.

Great posts, as always, harold. I have been AWOL contending with some of James Shapiro's creationist fans over at HuffPo. Our exchanges became so interesting that he opted to devote his latest blog entry to yours truly.

Speaking of Shapiro, he doesn't regard the domesticated sheep, dog, cat, etc. as separate biological species from their wild forbears. Nor does he appreciate that Darwin and Wallace, having read Malthus and devoting years to studying tropical biodiversity, could derive independently of each other, Natural Selection.

Chris Lawson said: So Myers is standing up for progressive views. What's more, everyone who has ever read Myers' blog would know that he is a progressive himself. He is pro-feminism, pro-free speech, anti-war, anti-death penalty. So when he is criticising "progressives" in that excerpt, there's a very good reason the term is in quotation marks.

The article says, "At the end of the day, I agree with Coyne that so long as the dominant form of American religion is anti-evolution, we’ll have problems with creationism in schools." I don't think that the dominant form of America religion is anti-evolution and problems with creationism in schools.

As an international student I suprise that the advanced countries such as America do not teach with fair two views (creationism or Intelligent Design and Darwinism)of the origin of universe and human being.

Do you think the theory of Darwinism is a really truth?

we must keep in mind that theory is just theory which is a new framework of understanding.

I think America education in public school is not fair to teach only the Darwinian theory without teaching another theories.

phhht said:

SWT said: ... you're willing to be proven wrong. All I'm asking is that you either articulate what it would take for you to consider yourself "proven wrong" or concede that you actually can't imagine any evidence that would so convince you.

Now let's suppose that fiery letters a mile high appear every night in the sky, visible to everyone everywhere, in the local dialect, which say, Convert to Cumberland Presbyterianism (my familial sect of Christianity)! CP members can ALL do what SWT's pastor can: cure cancer, raise the dead, turn back the hands of time, etc. etc. And so can YOU, because all you have to do is ask, and you're miraculously converted to a CP believer. There is no more hunger, first among the CPs, and then everybody, although we all get pretty tired of loaves and fishes, if not of watery wine! All the CPs give away everything they own and make like the lilies of the field. War is no more, cruelty and selfishness and bullying and naughty words all go the way of the Dodo - which resurrects itself! That's what I'd call conclusive evidence.

John said: Myers does such a good job in "standing up for progressive views" that he has spent a substantial time lately attacking fellow atheists Michael De Dora and Rebecca "Skepchick" Watson at his blog, as if he doesn't have enough targets already amongst yours truly, other "accomodationists" and the Roman Catholic Church. (His near silence with regards to criticizing the foibles of Islam - often more serious than anything I have seen from the Roman Catholic Church - is almost "deafening" if you ask me.) As someone remarked to me during a NECSS "happy hour" I had attended last weekend, Myers seems all too willing to live for the role he was destined to play as an online provocative gladiator.

It is my current policy to pay very, very little attention to either PZ Myers or Rebecca Watson. I basically agree with them on most things, but don't find either of them very interesting.

However, I'm pretty sure that they are given to constantly congratulating each other, rather than at odds with each other.

Myers does such a good job in "standing up for progressive views" that he has spent a substantial time lately attacking fellow atheists Michael De Dora and Rebecca "Skepchick" Watson at his blog, as if he doesn't have enough targets already amongst yours truly, other "accomodationists" and the Roman Catholic Church. (His near silence with regards to criticizing the foibles of Islam - often more serious than anything I have seen from the Roman Catholic Church - is almost "deafening" if you ask me.) As someone remarked to me during a NECSS "happy hour" I had attended last weekend, Myers seems all too willing to live for the role he was destined to play as an online provocative gladiator.

Chris Lawson said: John said:

Myers does such a good job in "standing up for progressive views" that he has spent a substantial time lately attacking fellow atheists Michael De Dora and Rebecca "Skepchick" Watson at his blog, as if he doesn't have enough targets already amongst yours truly, other "accomodationists" and the Roman Catholic Church. (His near silence with regards to criticizing the foibles of Islam - often more serious than anything I have seen from the Roman Catholic Church - is almost "deafening" if you ask me.) As someone remarked to me during a NECSS "happy hour" I had attended last weekend, Myers seems all too willing to live for the role he was destined to play as an online provocative gladiator.

This would be the same PZ Myers who has supported Watson at every turn? (I checked Pharyngula's search function to corroborate my memory and it's true -- Myers has been a consistent supporter of Watson.) This would be the same PZ Myers who in the excerpt on this very thread quoted by Matzke used the Islamist practice of FGM as his first example of a practice that needs to be stopped? And why is it that Myers should not criticise fellow atheists if he disagrees with them strongly on issues he considers important? I loved Hitchens as a writer but still recognise that among many flaws he was a misogynist bigot. Should I not criticise Hitchens' anti-feminist crap just because he was a fellow atheist? Jesus. Did you even think about what you were posting before you hit SUBMIT?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/7kv7UxsRstlexhV20e_DtsDvnS4gJiHyANNbu5d7zQ--#f3ae8 said:

John said: Myers does such a good job in "standing up for progressive views" that he has spent a substantial time lately attacking fellow atheists Michael De Dora and Rebecca "Skepchick" Watson at his blog, as if he doesn't have enough targets already amongst yours truly, other "accomodationists" and the Roman Catholic Church. (His near silence with regards to criticizing the foibles of Islam - often more serious than anything I have seen from the Roman Catholic Church - is almost "deafening" if you ask me.) As someone remarked to me during a NECSS "happy hour" I had attended last weekend, Myers seems all too willing to live for the role he was destined to play as an online provocative gladiator.

Yeah, I am sure that PZ spends a lot time trying to care what you think John. Or maybe he is hoarding camera lenses.

John said:

Chris Lawson said: John said:

Myers does such a good job in "standing up for progressive views" that he has spent a substantial time lately attacking fellow atheists Michael De Dora and Rebecca "Skepchick" Watson at his blog, as if he doesn't have enough targets already amongst yours truly, other "accomodationists" and the Roman Catholic Church. (His near silence with regards to criticizing the foibles of Islam - often more serious than anything I have seen from the Roman Catholic Church - is almost "deafening" if you ask me.) As someone remarked to me during a NECSS "happy hour" I had attended last weekend, Myers seems all too willing to live for the role he was destined to play as an online provocative gladiator.

This would be the same PZ Myers who has supported Watson at every turn? (I checked Pharyngula's search function to corroborate my memory and it's true -- Myers has been a consistent supporter of Watson.) This would be the same PZ Myers who in the excerpt on this very thread quoted by Matzke used the Islamist practice of FGM as his first example of a practice that needs to be stopped? And why is it that Myers should not criticise fellow atheists if he disagrees with them strongly on issues he considers important? I loved Hitchens as a writer but still recognise that among many flaws he was a misogynist bigot. Should I not criticise Hitchens' anti-feminist crap just because he was a fellow atheist? Jesus. Did you even think about what you were posting before you hit SUBMIT?

There was some odd mixup going on between Myers and Watson recently, but I understand that they did make up. The same can't be said about him and De Dora; that is, making up. As for attacking Islam, his attacks pale in comparison with the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, if you read his blog carefully, you would think the Roman Catholic Church was a far more substantial Human Rights abuser than Islam.

SWT said: All I'm asking is that you either articulate what it would take for you to consider yourself "proven wrong" or concede that you actually can't imagine any evidence that would so convince you.

SWT said: I've heard many of you aver over and over and over again that your rejection of the supernatural is as tentative a position as any scientific hypothesis would be and that you're willing to be proven wrong. All I'm asking is that you either articulate what it would take for you to consider yourself "proven wrong" or concede that you actually can't imagine any evidence that would so convince you.

phhht said:

SWT said: All I'm asking is that you either articulate what it would take for you to consider yourself "proven wrong" or concede that you actually can't imagine any evidence that would so convince you.

OK, SWT, turn about is fair play. Would you be willing to articulate what it would take for you to consider your religious convictions wrong?

harold said: John - I really can't figure out whether Shapiro is an ID/creationist, or is merely some kind of a latter day Lamarckist. He has a much stronger actual science record than any DI types.

SLC said: Well, PZ did make up with Ed Brayton, after a long and acrimonious feud, to the extent that they are now essentially partners in the FTB enterprise. As for his beef with the Raping Children Church, and allegedly being "soft" on Islam, that's the same charge that the aforementioned Ed Brayton is accused of. The fact is that there is an enormous difference in power and influence in this country between Islam and Catholicism, so it is appropriate that he concentrates his ire on the latter.

John said:

Chris Lawson said: John said:

Myers does such a good job in "standing up for progressive views" that he has spent a substantial time lately attacking fellow atheists Michael De Dora and Rebecca "Skepchick" Watson at his blog, as if he doesn't have enough targets already amongst yours truly, other "accomodationists" and the Roman Catholic Church. (His near silence with regards to criticizing the foibles of Islam - often more serious than anything I have seen from the Roman Catholic Church - is almost "deafening" if you ask me.) As someone remarked to me during a NECSS "happy hour" I had attended last weekend, Myers seems all too willing to live for the role he was destined to play as an online provocative gladiator.

This would be the same PZ Myers who has supported Watson at every turn? (I checked Pharyngula's search function to corroborate my memory and it's true -- Myers has been a consistent supporter of Watson.) This would be the same PZ Myers who in the excerpt on this very thread quoted by Matzke used the Islamist practice of FGM as his first example of a practice that needs to be stopped? And why is it that Myers should not criticise fellow atheists if he disagrees with them strongly on issues he considers important? I loved Hitchens as a writer but still recognise that among many flaws he was a misogynist bigot. Should I not criticise Hitchens' anti-feminist crap just because he was a fellow atheist? Jesus. Did you even think about what you were posting before you hit SUBMIT?

There was some odd mixup going on between Myers and Watson recently, but I understand that they did make up. The same can't be said about him and De Dora; that is, making up. As for attacking Islam, his attacks pale in comparison with the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, if you read his blog carefully, you would think the Roman Catholic Church was a far more substantial Human Rights abuser than Islam.

harold said: John - I really can't figure out whether Shapiro is an ID/creationist, or is merely some kind of a latter day Lamarckist. He has a much stronger actual science record than any DI types.

John said: Indeed, if you read his blog carefully, you would think the Roman Catholic Church was a far more substantial Human Rights abuser than Islam.

John said: He loves taking special aim at the Irish Roman Catholic Church. If he's going to go that route, then he should be more consistent in condemning the worst aspects of Fundamentalist Shi'ite and Sunni Islam.

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said: All I'm asking is that you either articulate what it would take for you to consider yourself "proven wrong" or concede that you actually can't imagine any evidence that would so convince you.

OK, SWT, turn about is fair play. Would you be willing to articulate what it would take for you to consider your religious convictions wrong?

I can't think of any set of observations that would lead me to reject theism. I might be convinced by argument or experience to modify some specific doctrinal positions (for example, my current understanding of election), but I can't think of anything that would make me throw it all out. Of course, this isn't really turnabout, because I never claimed I held my religious belief provisionally.

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said: All I'm asking is that you either articulate what it would take for you to consider yourself "proven wrong" or concede that you actually can't imagine any evidence that would so convince you.

OK, SWT, turn about is fair play. Would you be willing to articulate what it would take for you to consider your religious convictions wrong?

I can't think of any set of observations that would lead me to reject theism. I might be convinced by argument or experience to modify some specific doctrinal positions (for example, my current understanding of election), but I can't think of anything that would make me throw it all out. Of course, this isn't really turnabout, because I never claimed I held my religious belief provisionally.

Why is that? Why do you hold a belief which is impervious to any conceivable set of contradictory observations?

SWT said: ...they are not testable.

phhht said:

SWT said: ...they are not testable.

Why then do you think they are true?

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said: ...they are not testable.

Why then do you think they are true?

This is at least the third time you've asked me why I believe in God.

SWT has already said that certain of his beliefs are held by faith, which does not rest on physical evidence. He doesn't ask, and doesn't expect, that you think the same. That's his answer. Accept it, already.

Your opinion - that anything that cannot be demonstrated by scientific evidence does not exist - is well known. Others are permitted different opinions. My opinion is that I don't know, but that I have no reason to think that my senses are necessarily sure evidence of everything in the Universe.

As for whether there are beliefs apart from religious ones that are held without scientific evidence, phhhysician, heal thyself.

I have two dogs. One of them is now fourteen years old, and she costs me about $200 a month in medications. So long as she's still enjoying life, I believe I owe her that, and more, and would pay whatever the freight was, to the limit of my means. When the time comes, and subject to the advice of a good vet, I believe that I owe her a gentle passing, painless and quick. I will not allow her to suffer. Further, however distressing it will be for me - and I'm here to say that it will be - I will have to be there, or else she would be afraid. I owe that to her.

Look me in the eye, phhht, and tell me that because I have no evidence of those debts, no scientific empirical reasons to assume them, that they don't exist. If you do that, I'm not going to answer you at all. Ever. You'll have proven to my satisfaction that you're some kind of sociopath.

So, yes, there are beliefs apart from religious conviction that are held without evidence. SWT has religious convictions, and I don't. But we both say we can hold such convictions legitimately. And here's the thing, phhht. Unless you're a robot, so do you.

phhht said:

SWT said:

phhht said:

SWT said: ...they are not testable.

Why then do you think they are true?

This is at least the third time you've asked me why I believe in God.

And this is the third time you refuse to answer. Do you have any other beliefs like this, or is your religious conviction unique in this regard?

Dave Luckett said: I have two dogs. One of them is now fourteen years old, and she costs me about $200 a month in medications. So long as she's still enjoying life, I believe I owe her that, and more, and would pay whatever the freight was, to the limit of my means. When the time comes, and subject to the advice of a good vet, I believe that I owe her a gentle passing, painless and quick. I will not allow her to suffer. Further, however distressing it will be for me - and I'm here to say that it will be - I will have to be there, or else she would be afraid. I owe that to her.

Dave Luckett said: SWT has already said that certain of his beliefs are held by faith, which does not rest on physical evidence. He doesn't ask, and doesn't expect, that you think the same. That's his answer. Accept it, already.

Oh, and it will cause grief. Maybe depression - I'm subject to it. Guilt, too.

There is also Gerard Manley Hopkins' insight - "It is the blight Man was born for; It is Margaret you mourn for."

Which it is, undeniably.

I agree. It is one thing to hold beliefs where there is no evidence for them. It is quite another to deny evidence against them, when it exists.

phhht said: Why do you hold a belief which is impervious to any conceivable set of contradictory observations? Do you have other, similar beliefs, or is your religious belief unique in that regard?

SWT said: Why? Because I'm honest enough to admit that I cannot imagine a set of observations that would actually contradict certain of my beliefs. I'm not saying, by the way, that I am certain that my religious beliefs are correct. I am saying, rather, that they are not testable.

Dave Luckett said: I have two dogs. One of them is now fourteen years old, and she costs me about $200 a month in medications. So long as she's still enjoying life, I believe I owe her that, and more, and would pay whatever the freight was, to the limit of my means. When the time comes, and subject to the advice of a good vet, I believe that I owe her a gentle passing, painless and quick. I will not allow her to suffer. Further, however distressing it will be for me - and I'm here to say that it will be - I will have to be there, or else she would be afraid. I owe that to her. Look me in the eye, phhht, and tell me that because I have no evidence of those debts, no scientific empirical reasons to assume them, that they don't exist. If you do that, I'm not going to answer you at all. Ever. You'll have proven to my satisfaction that you're some kind of sociopath. So, yes, there are beliefs apart from religious conviction that are held without evidence. SWT has religious convictions, and I don't. But we both say we can hold such convictions legitimately. And here's the thing, phhht. Unless you're a robot, so do you.

"Scientific studies show that telling audiences that it is possible to be religious and to accept evolution is one of the most effective ways to change their mind about evolution, and those studies are backed by years of experience by activists on the ground."

The problem with telling religious morons they can believe in idiotic magical things and still accept evolution is it's dishonest. Christians are not too bright (they're all retards) but they can recognize a liar when they see one.

I'm honest with Christians who complain about the religious implications of evolution. I tell them they're right, evolution does threaten their childish fantasies, and that's a good thing. I remind them that the dead Jeebus they believe in was a creationist. I remind them that their dead Jeebus was an ape as are all other humans. I ask them why do they worship a dead ape. That's a good example of the religious implications of evolution. Jeebus the science denier was an uneducated moron and he was just an ape. And atheist wimps want to pretend it's OK to believe in the magic Jeebus anyway as long as Christians accept evolution, even though they always pollute evolution with their supernatural fantasies.

I noticed that wimps who suck up to Christian stupidity have not accomplished very much. I still live in an idiot country infested with science deniers. The dishonesty of wimpy atheists is not working.

America will always be an idiot country unless some way can be found to completely eradicate every branch of the Christian death cult. Wimpy suck-ups just make the religious insanity problem worse. Liars who say it is possible to both believe in the magic Jeebus man and accept evolution are part of the problem. These wimpy atheists are part of the religious indoctrination problem (AKA child abuse) and they are part of the religious violence problem. They are as immoral as the subhumans who attacked us on 9/11/2001.

Type "darwin killed god" in the google search box then click the I'm Feeling Lucky button.

Chris Lawson said:

John said: Indeed, if you read his blog carefully, you would think the Roman Catholic Church was a far more substantial Human Rights abuser than Islam.

No you wouldn't, John. You would get the impression that he dislikes both the RCC and Islamism, that he is aware that the human rights abuses of the RCC are different from those in Islamist countries, and that he writes more about the RCC because he lives in a part of the world where the RCC has a lot more influence than Islamists. And given your complete misrepresentation, I don't think you should be making any claims about reading his blog carefully.

dalehusband said:

phhht said: Why do you hold a belief which is impervious to any conceivable set of contradictory observations? Do you have other, similar beliefs, or is your religious belief unique in that regard?

SWT said: Why? Because I'm honest enough to admit that I cannot imagine a set of observations that would actually contradict certain of my beliefs. I'm not saying, by the way, that I am certain that my religious beliefs are correct. I am saying, rather, that they are not testable.

And likewise, Atheism is also not testable. Indeed, there is no conclusive way to rule out the existence of God, yet we constantly see Atheists like phhht assert here, "There is no God," as if that was somehow a confirmed fact beyond all dispute. That is hypocrisy, to do that and then demand that a non-dogmatic Theist like SWT explain why he is different in his beliefs from phhht who IS dogmatic in his Atheism.

Let's review.

SWT asked what it would take to convince me that I am wrong about the existence of gods. I did my best to answer. In doing so, I showed that I can imagine circumstances in which I would change my mind about the existence of gods.

I put the obverse question to him: what would it take to convince you that your
religious beliefs are mistaken?

His answer is that he can't think of any observations which would lead to such an effect. He goes on to say that this is true because his beliefs are not testable. His beliefs are not subject any conceivable reality check.

I then asked why he holds such beliefs. He will not or cannot say, except that the cause is personal.

I find SWT's position to be cognate with that of every single one of the religious believers whom I've questioned. They believe, they cannot conceive of any contradictory evidence which would affect their beliefs, and most of all, they will not - or cannot - say why they believe what they do. It always comes down to a conviction whose cause cannot even be spoken, much less debated.

I try to understand why I believe what I do. I work hard to express myself in that regard. But religious people do not - or cannot - do that.

I remain intensely curious about the causes of religious belief. I had hopes for a productive dialog on the subject with SWT, but now I will give up on him too.

And that's a shame, because if I don't get some answers soon, I'm going to have to shoot this dog.

John said:

Chris Lawson said:

John said: Indeed, if you read his blog carefully, you would think the Roman Catholic Church was a far more substantial Human Rights abuser than Islam.

No you wouldn't, John. You would get the impression that he dislikes both the RCC and Islamism, that he is aware that the human rights abuses of the RCC are different from those in Islamist countries, and that he writes more about the RCC because he lives in a part of the world where the RCC has a lot more influence than Islamists. And given your complete misrepresentation, I don't think you should be making any claims about reading his blog carefully.

That's sanctimonious BS Lawson, and you know it. I deplore the pedophilia exhibited by Roman Catholic priests in the USA and Ireland; however, their acts - as repugnant as they are - are not equivalent to "honor killings" of girls and women for a variety of reasons, not only in Saudi Arabia, but even, of all places, in Buffalo, New York, where a Muslim-American television executive decapitated his wife. Or the killing of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the murders of Christians in Pakistan, death threats against famous apostates like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (whom, I believe PZ has never mentioned) and Salman Rushdie, and that's just for starters.

I remain intensely curious about the causes of religious belief.

harold said:

I remain intensely curious about the causes of religious belief.

This is not an honest statement.

harold said:

harold said:

I remain intensely curious about the causes of religious belief.

This is not an honest statement.

Let me elaborate since that was rather blunt.

phhht said:

phhht said: I remain intensely curious about the causes of religious belief. harold said: This is not an honest statement.

harold said: Let me elaborate since that was rather blunt.

It wasn't just blunt, you smug prig. You called me a liar, and then you want to walk it back to blunt.

Scott F said:

phhht said:

phhht said: I remain intensely curious about the causes of religious belief. harold said: This is not an honest statement.

harold said: Let me elaborate since that was rather blunt.

It wasn't just blunt, you smug prig. You called me a liar, and then you want to walk it back to blunt.

Oh, don't get your panties all bunched up.

phhht said:

Scott F said: Oh, don't get your panties all bunched up.

Why not let the smug prig speak for himself, Scott F?

This gets back, then, to what is a "gnu atheist". I am intensely curious about the neurological origins of religion and many other systems of belief and knowing, and anthropological organizing principles and arisings. If I'm a "gnu atheist", then I'm a counterexample to harold's statement.

Is Sam Harris a "gnu"? If so, then he would probably be the most obvious counterexample.

Certainly several of my anthropologist friends would be shining examples... if they're "gnus".

harold said:

harold said:

I remain intensely curious about the causes of religious belief.

This is not an honest statement.

First of all, I never see any intelligent discussion about what actually is included in the broad term "religion" here. It is presumed by dogmatic atheists and creationists alike the Western European Protestantism is the default "religion", with Catholicism and Islam occasionally brought up as well. I've never seen anyone on either side of that battle express the least interest in any non-Abrahamic, or even atypical Abrahamic, religion. To say that this behavior exposes bias is to put it mildly.

A religion, to me, is a set of shared rituals or supernatural beliefs, or both, the adoption of which confer membership in a group.

There is abundant scholarly literature from neuroscience and anthropology, as well as other fields, about the human propensity to religion. Creationists aren't interested in this literature, and as far as I can tell, "gnu atheists" aren't the least bit interested either.

We've already had admissions from everyone who commented on the matter, except me, that no type of evidence can ever change their mind.

Both creationists and gnu atheists deny being authoritarians, but both groups are obsessed with "proving" that anyone whose beliefs deviate from theirs is inferior. And both groups show total cohesion in the face of challenges from "outsiders", while subjecting one another to purity tests at other times.

phhht said: SWT asked what it would take to convince me that I am wrong about the existence of gods. I did my best to answer. In doing so, I showed that I can imagine circumstances in which I would change my mind about the existence of gods.

I put the obverse question to him: what would it take to convince you that your religious beliefs are mistaken? His answer is that he can't think of any observations which would lead to such an effect. He goes on to say that this is true because his beliefs are not testable. His beliefs are not subject any conceivable reality check. I then asked why he holds such beliefs. He will not or cannot say, except that the cause is personal.

I find SWT's position to be cognate with that of every single one of the religious believers whom I've questioned. They believe, they cannot conceive of any contradictory evidence which would affect their beliefs, and most of all, they will not - or cannot - say why they believe what they do. It always comes down to a conviction whose cause cannot even be spoken, much less debated. I try to understand why I believe what I do. I work hard to express myself in that regard. But religious people do not - or cannot - do that. I remain intensely curious about the causes of religious belief. I had hopes for a productive dialog on the subject with SWT, but now I will give up on him too. And that's a shame, because if I don't get some answers soon, I'm going to have to shoot this dog.

dalehusband said: Here's a hint: You cannot judge supernatural things by natural evidence [...]

co said:

dalehusband said: Here's a hint: You cannot judge supernatural things by natural evidence [...]

Then how do you judge them? Not just Zeus, or Odin, or Loki, or Huitzilopochtli, or the other gods, but the other supernatural things, like Ariel from "The Tempest", or Buer, or qi in Taoism?

dalehusband said:

co said:

dalehusband said: Here's a hint: You cannot judge supernatural things by natural evidence [...]

Then how do you judge them? Not just Zeus, or Odin, or Loki, or Huitzilopochtli, or the other gods, but the other supernatural things, like Ariel from "The Tempest", or Buer, or qi in Taoism?

As for the first, they are of religions that no one follows anymore.

As for the second, they are clearly fictional.

But there is a third category: religions that still have followers that hold them to be true. The only way to judge anything supernatural in the third category is to decide if it appeals to your intellect and/or emotions. If none of them do, you become an atheist or agnostic, as I have done. But I do not assume because I made that choice that I must be superior to others that make a different choice. And frankly, I despise that attitude I see from atheist bigots.

Dave Luckett said: As for whether there are beliefs apart from religious ones that are held without scientific evidence, phhhysician, heal thyself. I have two dogs... Look me in the eye, phhht, and tell me that because I have no evidence of those debts, no scientific empirical reasons to assume them, that they don't exist. If you do that, I'm not going to answer you at all. Ever. You'll have proven to my satisfaction that you're some kind of sociopath. So, yes, there are beliefs apart from religious conviction that are held without evidence.

SWT has religious convictions, and I don't. But we both say we can hold such convictions legitimately. And here's the thing, phhht. Unless you're a robot, so do you.

co said:

dalehusband said:

co said:

dalehusband said: Here's a hint: You cannot judge supernatural things by natural evidence [...]

Then how do you judge them? Not just Zeus, or Odin, or Loki, or Huitzilopochtli, or the other gods, but the other supernatural things, like Ariel from "The Tempest", or Buer, or qi in Taoism?

As for the first, they are of religions that no one follows anymore.

So? Perhaps more importantly: Why not?

As for the second, they are clearly fictional.

Which ones are "clearly fictional"? More importantly: Why?

But there is a third category: religions that still have followers that hold them to be true. The only way to judge anything supernatural in the third category is to decide if it appeals to your intellect and/or emotions. If none of them do, you become an atheist or agnostic, as I have done. But I do not assume because I made that choice that I must be superior to others that make a different choice. And frankly, I despise that attitude I see from atheist bigots.

How much of a straw-man is that argument? There are "clearly correct" conclusions to be drawn about certain facts: Santa Claus is a children's tale, etc. I haven't actually seen an "atheist bigot" argue that he or she is superior to others, but there are certainly superior _conclusions_ which may be drawn. Is there a convolution here between these atheists' conclusions about _ideas_, and what they're actually claiming about _themselves_? And which side is doing the convolution?

Seriously, what is it about anyone merely choosing to believe in God or gods that drives Atheists so mad? It neither picks their pockets nor breaks their bones, yet they feel compelled to attack like rabid dogs about it. And I find that amusing enough to LOL like a hyena.

dalehusband said: Seriously, what is it about anyone merely choosing to believe in God or gods that drives Atheists so mad? It neither picks their pockets nor breaks their bones, yet they feel compelled to attack like rabid dogs about it. And I find that amusing enough to LOL like a hyena.

dalehusband said: I thought I was making blatantly obvious statements.

I remain intensely curious about the causes of religious belief.

A religion, to me, is a set of shared rituals or supernatural beliefs, or both, the adoption of which confer membership in a group.

That’s great, harold’s own definition, an ill-favored thing but his own. How does it bear on my dishonesty?

We’ve already had admissions from everyone who commented on the matter, except me, that no type of evidence can ever change their mind.

Flat wrong. And irrelevant to my alleged dishonesty.

dalehusband said:

co said:

dalehusband said:

co said:

dalehusband said: Here's a hint: You cannot judge supernatural things by natural evidence [...]

Then how do you judge them? Not just Zeus, or Odin, or Loki, or Huitzilopochtli, or the other gods, but the other supernatural things, like Ariel from "The Tempest", or Buer, or qi in Taoism?

As for the first, they are of religions that no one follows anymore.

So? Perhaps more importantly: Why not?

As for the second, they are clearly fictional.

Which ones are "clearly fictional"? More importantly: Why?

But there is a third category: religions that still have followers that hold them to be true. The only way to judge anything supernatural in the third category is to decide if it appeals to your intellect and/or emotions. If none of them do, you become an atheist or agnostic, as I have done. But I do not assume because I made that choice that I must be superior to others that make a different choice. And frankly, I despise that attitude I see from atheist bigots.

How much of a straw-man is that argument? There are "clearly correct" conclusions to be drawn about certain facts: Santa Claus is a children's tale, etc. I haven't actually seen an "atheist bigot" argue that he or she is superior to others, but there are certainly superior _conclusions_ which may be drawn. Is there a convolution here between these atheists' conclusions about _ideas_, and what they're actually claiming about _themselves_? And which side is doing the convolution?

I thought I was making blatantly obvious statements. Since you insist on using the rhetorical technique I call "question-hounding" as a clear expression of your intolerance for anything remotely religious, I have nothing further to say to you about it.

dalehusband said: Seriously, what is it about anyone merely choosing to believe in God or gods that drives Atheists so mad? It neither picks their pockets nor breaks their bones, yet they feel compelled to attack like rabid dogs about it. And I find that amusing enough to LOL like a hyena.

harold said: I will retract the term "dishonest"... ...I did call one statement you made "dishonest". I'll retract that.

John said:

Chris Lawson said:

John said: Indeed, if you read his blog carefully, you would think the Roman Catholic Church was a far more substantial Human Rights abuser than Islam.

No you wouldn't, John. You would get the impression that he dislikes both the RCC and Islamism, that he is aware that the human rights abuses of the RCC are different from those in Islamist countries, and that he writes more about the RCC because he lives in a part of the world where the RCC has a lot more influence than Islamists. And given your complete misrepresentation, I don't think you should be making any claims about reading his blog carefully.

That's sanctimonious BS Lawson, and you know it. I deplore the pedophilia exhibited by Roman Catholic priests in the USA and Ireland; however, their acts - as repugnant as they are - are not equivalent to "honor killings" of girls and women for a variety of reasons, not only in Saudi Arabia, but even, of all places, in Buffalo, New York, where a Muslim-American television executive decapitated his wife. Or the killing of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the murders of Christians in Pakistan, death threats against famous apostates like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (whom, I believe PZ has never mentioned) and Salman Rushdie, and that's just for starters.

"NO. There is no ambiguity here: your children are individuals, you have NO RIGHT to butcher them. And being an ignorant barbarian is no excuse."

It should be part of our intellectual, Enlightenment culture that every idea — atheist or religious — should be open to argument and criticism, with no exceptions. And if your culture demands obedience to dogma, violent reprisals to criticism, and murder of any opponent of your views, then I’m going to recognize the fundamental conflict between your views and the goals of a civilized, forward-thinking society, and dismiss your culture as an enemy of reason, and oppose you by committing our version of your hateful acts: by promoting the health, welfare, and education of your children, and mocking the stupidity of your beliefs.

Chris Lawson said [in response to John Kwok]: Furthermore, PZ has talked about Rushdie. This took me about 5 seconds with the search box on Pharyngula to discover. I'm surprised with all your careful reading of Pharyngula that you didn't know about this.

co said:

Chris Lawson said [in response to John Kwok]: Furthermore, PZ has talked about Rushdie. This took me about 5 seconds with the search box on Pharyngula to discover. I'm surprised with all your careful reading of Pharyngula that you didn't know about this.

Not only that, but PZ has talked about Ayaan Hirsi Ali quite a lot. Sorry, John, your reading is lacking something.

eric said: I'm an animal lover and would completely agree with your conviction about what your dog deserves. But I don't buy the implied argument - that since belief in the existence of moral obligations without evidence (and other various things without evidence) is okay, belief in God without evidence is also okay.

That argument seems to me to rely on a sort of illegitimate transfer across categories. Believers want to say that God exists the same way rocks and photons exist - outside of the brain. Not just the way that love exists or moral obligations exist, as a feeling or judgement in our brains.

So, the standard for what constitues a reasonable or rational justification for belief in God ought to be similar to the standards for photon-belief and rock-belief. It should not use the looser standard we use to justify moral or aesthetic beliefs.

Unless, that is, you want to say that your concept of God only exists in your brain and has no outside, measurable, objective reification. If you want to say that, then by all means, use the looser standard for what constitutes a reasonable belief.

Not all convictions need to use the same standard of evidence for legitimacy, true. However, IMO its a bit of a shell game to claim that God-conviction gets to use the My-dog-deserves-my-care conviction's standard.

Dave - would you buy your own argument for any other reified entity? Is a belief in pink flying unicorns also okay because I love my cat and think she deserves medical care? Or can we both agree that pink flying unicorns are a different sort of "thing" from one's feelings for one's pets - a thing which requires a different standard of evidence for rational belief?

Dave Luckett said: In fact, by saying that I don't have religious convictions but that I do believe I owe debts to a dog, I am implicitly saying that I am applying different standards of evidence to the two, and holding God to the higher one.

Chris Lawson said:

John said:

Chris Lawson said:

John said: Indeed, if you read his blog carefully, you would think the Roman Catholic Church was a far more substantial Human Rights abuser than Islam.

No you wouldn't, John. You would get the impression that he dislikes both the RCC and Islamism, that he is aware that the human rights abuses of the RCC are different from those in Islamist countries, and that he writes more about the RCC because he lives in a part of the world where the RCC has a lot more influence than Islamists. And given your complete misrepresentation, I don't think you should be making any claims about reading his blog carefully.

That's sanctimonious BS Lawson, and you know it. I deplore the pedophilia exhibited by Roman Catholic priests in the USA and Ireland; however, their acts - as repugnant as they are - are not equivalent to "honor killings" of girls and women for a variety of reasons, not only in Saudi Arabia, but even, of all places, in Buffalo, New York, where a Muslim-American television executive decapitated his wife. Or the killing of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the murders of Christians in Pakistan, death threats against famous apostates like Ayaan Hirsi Ali (whom, I believe PZ has never mentioned) and Salman Rushdie, and that's just for starters.

Nobody here or at Pharyngula has claimed that the RCC is involved in anything as awful as honour killings or mass murder of rival religious groups, not since 1572 anyway. If you can show me one single post of PZ's saying anything of the sort, I would be astonished -- and would join you in criticising him. Since you know PZ's thoughts by careful reading of Pharyngula, you should be able to refer me to such a post pretty easily, right? In the blog post that Matzke misquoted that got me started on this thread, Myers was defending New Atheism against an accusation of Islamophobia (among other things). That is, Myers was saying that New Atheists were entirely justified in criticising certain Islamist practices -- what's more, he was saying that the condemnation should be forthright and powerful. Which is why in that post Myers used an Islamist practice, even using the word "Islamist" to describe its defenders, as his first example of something that needs to be criticised and stopped. Here is what PZ recommended as the response to those who would defend Islamist practices like FGM:

"NO. There is no ambiguity here: your children are individuals, you have NO RIGHT to butcher them. And being an ignorant barbarian is no excuse."

Demanding an end to Islam-justified FGM and calling Islamist defenders of FGM "ignorant barbarian(s)" isn't sufficiently anti-Islamist to satisfy your standards? Furthermore, PZ has talked about Rushdie. This took me about 5 seconds with the search box on Pharyngula to discover. I'm surprised with all your careful reading of Pharyngula that you didn't know about this. Anyway, PZ was discussing the violence that prevented Rushdie from appearing at the Jaipur Literary Festival:

It should be part of our intellectual, Enlightenment culture that every idea — atheist or religious — should be open to argument and criticism, with no exceptions. And if your culture demands obedience to dogma, violent reprisals to criticism, and murder of any opponent of your views, then I’m going to recognize the fundamental conflict between your views and the goals of a civilized, forward-thinking society, and dismiss your culture as an enemy of reason, and oppose you by committing our version of your hateful acts: by promoting the health, welfare, and education of your children, and mocking the stupidity of your beliefs.

Yep. There's PZ Myers letting Islamism off the hook so he can unfairly attack the RCC for ya.

co said:

Chris Lawson said [in response to John Kwok]: Furthermore, PZ has talked about Rushdie. This took me about 5 seconds with the search box on Pharyngula to discover. I'm surprised with all your careful reading of Pharyngula that you didn't know about this.

Not only that, but PZ has talked about Ayaan Hirsi Ali quite a lot. Sorry, John, your reading is lacking something.

John said:

co said:

Chris Lawson said [in response to John Kwok]: Furthermore, PZ has talked about Rushdie. This took me about 5 seconds with the search box on Pharyngula to discover. I'm surprised with all your careful reading of Pharyngula that you didn't know about this.

Not only that, but PZ has talked about Ayaan Hirsi Ali quite a lot. Sorry, John, your reading is lacking something.

I've actually found maybe no more than a little more than one hundred references of anyone talking about Ayaan Hirsi Ali over at Pharyngula, using its Science Blogs search engine. That's a mere drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds - no, shall I say thousands - of references to Roman Catholic Christianity. So my point with regards to PZ's relative silence on the worst aspects of Islam is still apt.

John said: Sorry Chris, but he has not attacked Islamism as vigorously as he has attacked consistently Roman Catholic Christianity. If he was more consistent, then he would have condemned it as often - and even more forcefully given its extreme human rights abuses - as he has attacked the Roman Catholic Church.

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) barfed: Apparently, the presence of Maryam Namazie and Taslima Nasreen over at Free Thought Blogs, who blast fundamentalist Islam on a daily basis, is irrelevant to Mr. Kwok. This is, of course, in addition to other bloggers over there who also criticize fundamentalist Islam on a regular basis. Mr. Kwok, apparently, thinks that fundamentalist Islam is an equal or greater threat internally to the USA then fundamentalist Christianity. Maybe he should go over to Atlas Shrugged, Pam Geller seems to be his kind of people.

John said:

co said:

Chris Lawson said [in response to John Kwok]: Furthermore, PZ has talked about Rushdie. This took me about 5 seconds with the search box on Pharyngula to discover. I'm surprised with all your careful reading of Pharyngula that you didn't know about this.

Not only that, but PZ has talked about Ayaan Hirsi Ali quite a lot. Sorry, John, your reading is lacking something.

I've actually found maybe no more than a little more than one hundred references of anyone talking about Ayaan Hirsi Ali over at Pharyngula, using its Science Blogs search engine. That's a mere drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds - no, shall I say thousands - of references to Roman Catholic Christianity. So my point with regards to PZ's relative silence on the worst aspects of Islam is still apt.

co said:

John said: Sorry Chris, but he has not attacked Islamism as vigorously as he has attacked consistently Roman Catholic Christianity. If he was more consistent, then he would have condemned it as often - and even more forcefully given its extreme human rights abuses - as he has attacked the Roman Catholic Church.

Your definition of 'consistent' seems to be something different than my conception of it.

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) barfed: Mr. Kwok, apparently, thinks that fundamentalist Islam is an equal or greater threat internally to the USA then fundamentalist Christianity. Maybe he should go over to Atlas Shrugged, Pam Geller seems to be his kind of people.

John said:

co said:

John said: Sorry Chris, but he has not attacked Islamism as vigorously as he has attacked consistently Roman Catholic Christianity. If he was more consistent, then he would have condemned it as often - and even more forcefully given its extreme human rights abuses - as he has attacked the Roman Catholic Church.

Your definition of 'consistent' seems to be something different than my conception of it.

If you define consistent as frequently, on a regular basis, then by that definition, I believe my assessment of PZ's online critiques of Islam is most apt.

John said:

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) barfed: Apparently, the presence of Maryam Namazie and Taslima Nasreen over at Free Thought Blogs, who blast fundamentalist Islam on a daily basis, is irrelevant to Mr. Kwok. This is, of course, in addition to other bloggers over there who also criticize fundamentalist Islam on a regular basis. Mr. Kwok, apparently, thinks that fundamentalist Islam is an equal or greater threat internally to the USA then fundamentalist Christianity. Maybe he should go over to Atlas Shrugged, Pam Geller seems to be his kind of people.

John said:

co said:

Chris Lawson said [in response to John Kwok]: Furthermore, PZ has talked about Rushdie. This took me about 5 seconds with the search box on Pharyngula to discover. I'm surprised with all your careful reading of Pharyngula that you didn't know about this.

Not only that, but PZ has talked about Ayaan Hirsi Ali quite a lot. Sorry, John, your reading is lacking something.

I've actually found maybe no more than a little more than one hundred references of anyone talking about Ayaan Hirsi Ali over at Pharyngula, using its Science Blogs search engine. That's a mere drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds - no, shall I say thousands - of references to Roman Catholic Christianity. So my point with regards to PZ's relative silence on the worst aspects of Islam is still apt.

The issue as to whetner which Islamic apostates blog over at Freethoughts is irrelevant. I wasn't referring to them - I read Maryam's work occasionally - but instead, PZ's prior record. I think you ought to spend more time perusing Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit issue, since that's the extent of rational discourse I see too often from you here and elsewhere online.

John said:

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) barfed: Mr. Kwok, apparently, thinks that fundamentalist Islam is an equal or greater threat internally to the USA then fundamentalist Christianity. Maybe he should go over to Atlas Shrugged, Pam Geller seems to be his kind of people.

Apparently so does New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly, M. Zuhdi Jasser, a notable Muslism-American critic of Islamism and many, many others who do view Fundamentalist Islam as a greater threat to the security and safety of their fellow Americans than ignorant Fundamentalist Christian yahoos (who remain a dire threat to America's future intellectual and economic success, as Ken Miler and Niles Eldredge, among others, have noted in their writings). Theirs is an excellent point since those who have committed terrorist acts against the United States tend to be radical Islamists, not radical Fundamental Christians (Not forgetting of course Timothy McVeigh and Aryan Nations, though - with the exception of the Oklahoma bombing - their acts do pale with the substantial loss of life due to Islamist terrorist acts both here in the USA and across the globe.) Just because I agree with Kelly and Jasser with regards to the Islamist threat to the United States doesn't mean that I am ignoring a similar threat posted by Fundamentalist Christian Americans. Only a delusional fool like yourself would arrive at such a conclusion. (As for Pam Gellar, I detest her behavior - online and in real-life - even if she happens to be right often. IMHO she is to the anti-Islamist movement in the USA what PZ is to both science advocacy in the USA and opposing creationism.

Questions about religion and atheism can't be resolved by appealing to logic because logic is far too weak a set of rules to govern rational discourse. One absolutely requires more stringent pragmatic criteria to keep from wandering into nonsense. Thus Monotheism is a logically defensible point of view, but so is a belief that the world was created by two gods, three gods, four gods, or n gods. What menaces theism at present is the fact that, for an ever larger proportion of educated people, it no longer makes the cut as a reasonable hypothesis among the literally infinite collection of possible hypotheses. In the absence of any reason to take it seriously as an account of how things happen, theology isn't illogical; it's irrelevant, except, of course, as a political fact. Being an atheist is like graduating from high school: you're happy you did; but you don't brag about it.

And yet another PT thread turns into an irrelevant Kwok-fest, as he rides his favorite hobby horse, bashing PZ Myers, into the ground.

tomh said: And yet another PT thread turns into an irrelevant Kwok-fest, as he rides his favorite hobby horse, bashing PZ Myers, into the ground.

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said: Sorry Chris, but he has not attacked Islamism as vigorously as he has attacked consistently Roman Catholic Christianity. If he was more consistent, then he would have condemned it as often - and even more forcefully given its extreme human rights abuses - as he has attacked the Roman Catholic Church.

Your definition of 'consistent' seems to be something different than my conception of it.

If you define consistent as frequently, on a regular basis, then by that definition, I believe my assessment of PZ's online critiques of Islam is most apt.

Gotcha. By being consistent in his criticisms of Catholics, he hasn't been consistent enough in his criticisms of religions. Therefore... he shouldn't criticize Catholicism as much?

bbennett1968 said:

tomh said: And yet another PT thread turns into an irrelevant Kwok-fest, as he rides his favorite hobby horse, bashing PZ Myers, into the ground.

As a rule, whatever Kwok seems to be talking about, he's actually talking about Kwok. The name-dropping seems to have abated somewhat though, maybe he switched meds.

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) croaked: who remain a dire threat to America’s future intellectual and economic success, as Ken Miler and Niles Eldredge, among others, have noted in their writings I assume that Mr. Kwok is referring to his a*hole buddy Ken Miller here.

bbennett1968 said:

tomh said: And yet another PT thread turns into an irrelevant Kwok-fest, as he rides his favorite hobby horse, bashing PZ Myers, into the ground.

As a rule, whatever Kwok seems to be talking about, he's actually talking about Kwok. The name-dropping seems to have abated somewhat though, maybe he switched meds.

John said:

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) croaked: who remain a dire threat to America’s future intellectual and economic success, as Ken Miler and Niles Eldredge, among others, have noted in their writings I assume that Mr. Kwok is referring to his a*hole buddy Ken Miller here.

Speaking of a**holes, SLC, you've done a much better job demonstrating it than Ken Miller ever has. I think I know where you'll be on May 4th, watching a certain film that features one of your "hot" desires, right?

John said:

bbennett1968 said:

tomh said: And yet another PT thread turns into an irrelevant Kwok-fest, as he rides his favorite hobby horse, bashing PZ Myers, into the ground.

As a rule, whatever Kwok seems to be talking about, he's actually talking about Kwok. The name-dropping seems to have abated somewhat though, maybe he switched meds.

Trust me, I don't think too much about PZ. If anyone is obsessed, then it has to him, since he doesn't mind having my name mentioned on his blog as a derogative. (That's a major reason why I don't read Pharyngula. I'll just scroll down the offensive parts and pay heed to what's really important.)

John said:

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) croaked: who remain a dire threat to America’s future intellectual and economic success, as Ken Miler and Niles Eldredge, among others, have noted in their writings I assume that Mr. Kwok is referring to his a*hole buddy Ken Miller here.

Speaking of a**holes, SLC, you've done a much better job demonstrating it than Ken Miller ever has. I think I know where you'll be on May 4th, watching a certain film that features one of your "hot" desires, right?

John said:

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said: Sorry Chris, but he has not attacked Islamism as vigorously as he has attacked consistently Roman Catholic Christianity. If he was more consistent, then he would have condemned it as often - and even more forcefully given its extreme human rights abuses - as he has attacked the Roman Catholic Church.

Your definition of 'consistent' seems to be something different than my conception of it.

If you define consistent as frequently, on a regular basis, then by that definition, I believe my assessment of PZ's online critiques of Islam is most apt.

Gotcha. By being consistent in his criticisms of Catholics, he hasn't been consistent enough in his criticisms of religions. Therefore... he shouldn't criticize Catholicism as much?

He overdoes it. I'm not defending the scandalous behavior of pedophile Roman Catholic priests in the USA and Ireland, and yes, that behavior should - and must - be criticized. But PZ was silent when a Buffalo, NY TV executive opted to decapitate his wife, and when there are Muslim-American girls and women who have been tortured and killed for defying either thier families' wishes or honor (or both).

John said:

bbennett1968 said:

tomh said: And yet another PT thread turns into an irrelevant Kwok-fest, as he rides his favorite hobby horse, bashing PZ Myers, into the ground.

As a rule, whatever Kwok seems to be talking about, he's actually talking about Kwok. The name-dropping seems to have abated somewhat though, maybe he switched meds.

TYPO, meant to say this: Trust me, I don't think much about PZ. If anyone is obsessed, then it has to be him, since he doesn't mind having my name mentioned on his blog as a derogative. (That's a major reason why I don't read Pharyngula. I'll just scroll down the offensive parts and pay heed to what's really important.)

bbennett1968 said:

John said:

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) croaked: who remain a dire threat to America’s future intellectual and economic success, as Ken Miler and Niles Eldredge, among others, have noted in their writings I assume that Mr. Kwok is referring to his a*hole buddy Ken Miller here.

Speaking of a**holes, SLC, you've done a much better job demonstrating it than Ken Miller ever has. I think I know where you'll be on May 4th, watching a certain film that features one of your "hot" desires, right?

John "idee fixe" Kwok is obviously more obsessed with the idea that SLC "lusts after chicks" than SLC could possibly be with, you know, actually lusting after chicks.

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said: Sorry Chris, but he has not attacked Islamism as vigorously as he has attacked consistently Roman Catholic Christianity. If he was more consistent, then he would have condemned it as often - and even more forcefully given its extreme human rights abuses - as he has attacked the Roman Catholic Church.

Your definition of 'consistent' seems to be something different than my conception of it.

If you define consistent as frequently, on a regular basis, then by that definition, I believe my assessment of PZ's online critiques of Islam is most apt.

Gotcha. By being consistent in his criticisms of Catholics, he hasn't been consistent enough in his criticisms of religions. Therefore... he shouldn't criticize Catholicism as much?

He overdoes it. I'm not defending the scandalous behavior of pedophile Roman Catholic priests in the USA and Ireland, and yes, that behavior should - and must - be criticized. But PZ was silent when a Buffalo, NY TV executive opted to decapitate his wife, and when there are Muslim-American girls and women who have been tortured and killed for defying either thier families' wishes or honor (or both).

Right. Except for his post You aren't doing it right Category: Evil Posted on: February 17, 2009 7:55 AM, by PZ Myers

bbennett1968 said:

John said:

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) croaked: who remain a dire threat to America’s future intellectual and economic success, as Ken Miler and Niles Eldredge, among others, have noted in their writings I assume that Mr. Kwok is referring to his a*hole buddy Ken Miller here.

Speaking of a**holes, SLC, you've done a much better job demonstrating it than Ken Miller ever has. I think I know where you'll be on May 4th, watching a certain film that features one of your "hot" desires, right?

John "idee fixe" Kwok is obviously more obsessed with the idea that SLC "lusts after chicks" than SLC could possibly be with, you know, actually lusting after chicks.

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) croaked: What's really amusing here is that Mr. Kwok admitted on this very blog that he had the hots for some 15 year old girls he saw on the New York Subway.

John said:

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) croaked: What's really amusing here is that Mr. Kwok admitted on this very blog that he had the hots for some 15 year old girls he saw on the New York Subway.

What is disgusting is that you didn't know I was being sarcastic, a**hole. And you have the nerve to dub Ken Miller an a**hole? You're really a sanctimonious jack**s.

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) crowed: Note to the moderators: It's time to shut this thread down as it has deteriorated into a p*ssing contest. Actually, I didn't mean to call Prof. Miller, a man who I greatly admire, an a*hole. It was a sarcastic way of saying that Mr. Kwok and Prof. Miller are best buddies.

John said:

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said: Sorry Chris, but he has not attacked Islamism as vigorously as he has attacked consistently Roman Catholic Christianity. If he was more consistent, then he would have condemned it as often - and even more forcefully given its extreme human rights abuses - as he has attacked the Roman Catholic Church.

Your definition of 'consistent' seems to be something different than my conception of it.

If you define consistent as frequently, on a regular basis, then by that definition, I believe my assessment of PZ's online critiques of Islam is most apt.

Gotcha. By being consistent in his criticisms of Catholics, he hasn't been consistent enough in his criticisms of religions. Therefore... he shouldn't criticize Catholicism as much?

He overdoes it. I'm not defending the scandalous behavior of pedophile Roman Catholic priests in the USA and Ireland, and yes, that behavior should - and must - be criticized. But PZ was silent when a Buffalo, NY TV executive opted to decapitate his wife, and when there are Muslim-American girls and women who have been tortured and killed for defying either thier families' wishes or honor (or both).

Right. Except for his post You aren't doing it right Category: Evil Posted on: February 17, 2009 7:55 AM, by PZ Myers

So what? Let's get grounded into reality, shall we? If one could conduct a search on the Science Blogs search engine for Pharyngula and see at most approximately a hundred references to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, while literally hundreds, if not thousands, of references to the Roman Catholic Church unfortunately illustrates my point. When I see PZ starting to condemn the worst atrocities committed in the name of Allah as well as those of Christ, then I'll retract my criticism, BUT NOT BEFORE THEN.

Jim said: Questions about religion and atheism can't be resolved by appealing to logic because logic is far too weak a set of rules to govern rational discourse. One absolutely requires more stringent pragmatic criteria to keep from wandering into nonsense. Thus Monotheism is a logically defensible point of view, but so is a belief that the world was created by two gods, three gods, four gods, or n gods. What menaces theism at present is the fact that, for an ever larger proportion of educated people, it no longer makes the cut as a reasonable hypothesis among the literally infinite collection of possible hypotheses. In the absence of any reason to take it seriously as an account of how things happen, theology isn't illogical; it's irrelevant, except, of course, as a political fact. Being an atheist is like graduating from high school: you're happy you did; but you don't brag about it.

John said:

SLC (Still Lusting after Chicks) crowed: Note to the moderators: It's time to shut this thread down as it has deteriorated into a p*ssing contest. Actually, I didn't mean to call Prof. Miller, a man who I greatly admire, an a*hole. It was a sarcastic way of saying that Mr. Kwok and Prof. Miller are best buddies.

You're projecting SLC. You DID MEAN that Ken Miller is an a**hole. (You could have said that you doubt John Kwok and Ken Miller are best buddies and that would be a legitimate observation, not the BS you posted.)

Jim said: Questions about religion and atheism can't be resolved by appealing to logic because logic is far too weak a set of rules to govern rational discourse. One absolutely requires more stringent pragmatic criteria to keep from wandering into nonsense.

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said: Sorry Chris, but he has not attacked Islamism as vigorously as he has attacked consistently Roman Catholic Christianity. If he was more consistent, then he would have condemned it as often - and even more forcefully given its extreme human rights abuses - as he has attacked the Roman Catholic Church.

Your definition of 'consistent' seems to be something different than my conception of it.

If you define consistent as frequently, on a regular basis, then by that definition, I believe my assessment of PZ's online critiques of Islam is most apt.

Gotcha. By being consistent in his criticisms of Catholics, he hasn't been consistent enough in his criticisms of religions. Therefore... he shouldn't criticize Catholicism as much?

He overdoes it. I'm not defending the scandalous behavior of pedophile Roman Catholic priests in the USA and Ireland, and yes, that behavior should - and must - be criticized. But PZ was silent when a Buffalo, NY TV executive opted to decapitate his wife, and when there are Muslim-American girls and women who have been tortured and killed for defying either thier families' wishes or honor (or both).

Right. Except for his post You aren't doing it right Category: Evil Posted on: February 17, 2009 7:55 AM, by PZ Myers

So what? Let's get grounded into reality, shall we? If one could conduct a search on the Science Blogs search engine for Pharyngula and see at most approximately a hundred references to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, while literally hundreds, if not thousands, of references to the Roman Catholic Church unfortunately illustrates my point. When I see PZ starting to condemn the worst atrocities committed in the name of Allah as well as those of Christ, then I'll retract my criticism, BUT NOT BEFORE THEN.

Sorry, John. You claimed something which is factually and demonstrably wrong. You can "so what?" it all you want, but you're throwing out accusations which are off-base. Having the temerity to say "Let’s get grounded into reality, shall we?" is some brilliant irony.

SLC said: Let me make this perfectly clear so that there be no misunderstanding. Prof. Ken Miller is a gentleman and a scholar and is in no way, shape, form, or regard an a*hole.

John said:

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said:

co said:

John said: Sorry Chris, but he has not attacked Islamism as vigorously as he has attacked consistently Roman Catholic Christianity. If he was more consistent, then he would have condemned it as often - and even more forcefully given its extreme human rights abuses - as he has attacked the Roman Catholic Church.

Your definition of 'consistent' seems to be something different than my conception of it.

If you define consistent as frequently, on a regular basis, then by that definition, I believe my assessment of PZ's online critiques of Islam is most apt.

Gotcha. By being consistent in his criticisms of Catholics, he hasn't been consistent enough in his criticisms of religions. Therefore... he shouldn't criticize Catholicism as much?

He overdoes it. I'm not defending the scandalous behavior of pedophile Roman Catholic priests in the USA and Ireland, and yes, that behavior should - and must - be criticized. But PZ was silent when a Buffalo, NY TV executive opted to decapitate his wife, and when there are Muslim-American girls and women who have been tortured and killed for defying either thier families' wishes or honor (or both).

Right. Except for his post You aren't doing it right Category: Evil Posted on: February 17, 2009 7:55 AM, by PZ Myers

So what? Let's get grounded into reality, shall we? If one could conduct a search on the Science Blogs search engine for Pharyngula and see at most approximately a hundred references to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, while literally hundreds, if not thousands, of references to the Roman Catholic Church unfortunately illustrates my point. When I see PZ starting to condemn the worst atrocities committed in the name of Allah as well as those of Christ, then I'll retract my criticism, BUT NOT BEFORE THEN.

Sorry, John. You claimed something which is factually and demonstrably wrong. You can "so what?" it all you want, but you're throwing out accusations which are off-base. Having the temerity to say "Let’s get grounded into reality, shall we?" is some brilliant irony.

If it is factually and demonstrably wrong, then why, for example, there are relatively few references to Ali - and presumably other Muslim apostates - than there is for Roman Catholic Christianity, based on the results I saw over at the Science Blogs search engine? In PZ's case, I have to conclude the following: 1) He doesn't know enough about Islam and doesn't wish to comment much. 2) He's afraid that he'd become the target of Islamist extremists. 3) He's more prejudiced against Roman Catholic Christianity. 4) Or perhaps it's all I have noted here (see above). I am glad PZ has spoken out against Islamism, but given its far worse human rights record, he should devote more time against it. (Especially since one of Pharyngula's online homes, Freethoughts, also includes blogs by Muslim apostates.)

Note to moderators: CLOSE THIS DAMNED THREAD!!!!

John said:

Jim said: Questions about religion and atheism can't be resolved by appealing to logic because logic is far too weak a set of rules to govern rational discourse. One absolutely requires more stringent pragmatic criteria to keep from wandering into nonsense. Thus Monotheism is a logically defensible point of view, but so is a belief that the world was created by two gods, three gods, four gods, or n gods. What menaces theism at present is the fact that, for an ever larger proportion of educated people, it no longer makes the cut as a reasonable hypothesis among the literally infinite collection of possible hypotheses. In the absence of any reason to take it seriously as an account of how things happen, theology isn't illogical; it's irrelevant, except, of course, as a political fact. Being an atheist is like graduating from high school: you're happy you did; but you don't brag about it.

That's an excellent point, Jim. Someone recently told me that the only honest position is to be an agnostic, since we don't know whether a Deity(Deities) exist.

*...as long as that proposition cannot be disproven...

dalehusband said: Note to moderators: CLOSE THIS DAMNED THREAD!!!!

dalehusband said: Note to moderators: CLOSE THIS DAMNED THREAD!!!!

dalehusband said: Note to moderators: CLOSE THIS DAMNED THREAD!!!!

bbennett1968 said:

John said:

Jim said: Questions about religion and atheism can't be resolved by appealing to logic because logic is far too weak a set of rules to govern rational discourse. One absolutely requires more stringent pragmatic criteria to keep from wandering into nonsense. Thus Monotheism is a logically defensible point of view, but so is a belief that the world was created by two gods, three gods, four gods, or n gods. What menaces theism at present is the fact that, for an ever larger proportion of educated people, it no longer makes the cut as a reasonable hypothesis among the literally infinite collection of possible hypotheses. In the absence of any reason to take it seriously as an account of how things happen, theology isn't illogical; it's irrelevant, except, of course, as a political fact. Being an atheist is like graduating from high school: you're happy you did; but you don't brag about it.

That's an excellent point, Jim. Someone recently told me that the only honest position is to be an agnostic, since we don't know whether a Deity(Deities) exist.

Similarly, the only honest approach to the question "can Barack Obama levitate and control small objects through telekenesis" is to say that I don't know. The only honest answer to the question "are Vulcans and Klingons real" is to say that I don't know. Right? See, to be honest, one must consider any idiotic proposition anyone can invent as "possibly true", no matter how unlikely and fantastic, as long as that proposition must be disproven. Right? And, most importantly, one must treat people and their ideas with respect, no matter how moronic and unevidenced the propositions they insist upon spouting. It that it? Is that really intellectual honesty? I call it stupidity and cowardice in the face of bad, irrelevant ideas. I'm waiting for the theists and deists to demonstrate that the question "is there a god or gods?" is even worth asking, let alone answering. They don't even come close.

If theism isn't a plausible explanation of things these days, atheism can't be very important from a purely intellectual point of view. There isn't much point in devising new arguments to show that anvils don't float or giving yourself a huge amount of credit for recognizing something that has long been in the realm of "Well, D'uh!"

That said: it remains an abuse of language to call yourself an agnostic when you're really an atheist*. As I pointed out in an earlier post, there are an infinite number of possible ideas that are logically possible. Maybe Ronald Reagan has replaced the Holy Ghost as the third person of the Trinity. Human ingenuity is well up to the task of making purely formal sense out of even that, but I would be misleading you if I said that I'm agnostic on the issue. Similarly, though at least some of the versions of the God concept are coherent enough to be possible, I'm not an agnostic about them because traditional theological ideas are simply not credible enough to be proper matters of doubt.

*Technically speaking, what's abused is not logic but what linguists and philosophers call pragmatics: the rules that govern the interpretation of discourse.

John said: Given the militancy I have seen from some New Atheists, I have to demand from them how do they know that GOD(s) do not exist. I don't think they can answer it logically, which is why, I believe Huxley may have had the right answer when he coined the term "agnostic".

phhht said:

John said: Given the militancy I have seen from some New Atheists, I have to demand from them how do they know that GOD(s) do not exist. I don't think they can answer it logically, which is why, I believe Huxley may have had the right answer when he coined the term "agnostic".

How long have you got? First, let's clear out the definitional confusion. I am both an atheist and and an agnostic. I do not believe or know that gods don't exist. I conclude that, through a lifelong and ongoing process of examination of all the evidence I have been able to find. I am technically agnostic because, of course, my conclusion is tentative, and could be wrong. As far as I can tell, gods do not exist, any more than unicorns or leprechauns do. They are imaginary constructs which have no effect on the real world. The only evidence for their existence consists of unsupported assertions by believers. And that simply isn't good enough. People make many unfounded claims which are untrue. This "hidden god" problem is well-known. One manifestation of it is that gods are utterly unnecessary in any scientific, technical, engineering, or mathematical thought. The notion of gods is superfluous to understanding and explaining the world. Gods are irrelevant to organic chemistry, as well as to evolutionary theory and cosmology. Despite the claims of believers, gods do not send rain in response to prayer. Gods don't cure disease, any more than demons cause it. A resort to gods will not predict the future, or permit the manipulation of the real world to the benefit of mankind, or indeed do anything else here in reality. There are thousands of aspects of reality which were once ascribed to the actions of gods, but which are now known to have natural explanations. There is not one single example of the contrary phenomenon. Now I'll demand an answer from you. I infer from your posts that you believe in gods. Tell us why. I don't think you can answer that question, John. In my experience, the foundations for religious faith cannot be articulated. Believers just somehow know. Often that indefensible conviction is accompanied by obsessive certainty. Is that the case with you? If not, what unambiguous, empirical evidence can you cite to support your belief? I say "unambiguous, empirical evidence" because such evidence is both the gold standard, and extremely common. It exists for everything in the world from apples to zebras - but not for unicorns, leprechauns, or gods. In the absence of such evidence, why do you believe?

phhht said: I say "unambiguous, empirical evidence" because such evidence is both the gold standard, and extremely common. It exists for everything in the world from apples to zebras - but not for unicorns, leprechauns, or gods. In the absence of such evidence, why do you believe?

phhht said:

John said: Given the militancy I have seen from some New Atheists, I have to demand from them how do they know that GOD(s) do not exist. I don't think they can answer it logically, which is why, I believe Huxley may have had the right answer when he coined the term "agnostic".

How long have you got? First, let's clear out the definitional confusion. I am both an atheist and and an agnostic. I do not believe or know that gods don't exist. I conclude that, through a lifelong and ongoing process of examination of all the evidence I have been able to find. I am technically agnostic because, of course, my conclusion is tentative, and could be wrong. As far as I can tell, gods do not exist, any more than unicorns or leprechauns do. They are imaginary constructs which have no effect on the real world. The only evidence for their existence consists of unsupported assertions by believers. And that simply isn't good enough. People make many unfounded claims which are untrue. This "hidden god" problem is well-known. One manifestation of it is that gods are utterly unnecessary in any scientific, technical, engineering, or mathematical thought. The notion of gods is superfluous to understanding and explaining the world. Gods are irrelevant to organic chemistry, as well as to evolutionary theory and cosmology. Despite the claims of believers, gods do not send rain in response to prayer. Gods don't cure disease, any more than demons cause it. A resort to gods will not predict the future, or permit the manipulation of the real world to the benefit of mankind, or indeed do anything else here in reality. There are thousands of aspects of reality which were once ascribed to the actions of gods, but which are now known to have natural explanations. There is not one single example of the contrary phenomenon. Now I'll demand an answer from you. I infer from your posts that you believe in gods. Tell us why. I don't think you can answer that question, John. In my experience, the foundations for religious faith cannot be articulated. Believers just somehow know. Often that indefensible conviction is accompanied by obsessive certainty. Is that the case with you? If not, what unambiguous, empirical evidence can you cite to support your belief? I say "unambiguous, empirical evidence" because such evidence is both the gold standard, and extremely common. It exists for everything in the world from apples to zebras - but not for unicorns, leprechauns, or gods. In the absence of such evidence, why do you believe?

John said:

phhht said:

John said: Given the militancy I have seen from some New Atheists, I have to demand from them how do they know that GOD(s) do not exist. I don't think they can answer it logically, which is why, I believe Huxley may have had the right answer when he coined the term "agnostic".

How long have you got? First, let's clear out the definitional confusion. I am both an atheist and an agnostic. I do not believe or know that gods don't exist. I conclude that, through a lifelong and ongoing process of examination of all the evidence I have been able to find. I am technically agnostic because, of course, my conclusion is tentative, and could be wrong. As far as I can tell, gods do not exist, any more than unicorns or leprechauns do. They are imaginary constructs which have no effect on the real world. The only evidence for their existence consists of unsupported assertions by believers. And that simply isn't good enough. People make many unfounded claims which are untrue. This "hidden god" problem is well-known. One manifestation of it is that gods are utterly unnecessary in any scientific, technical, engineering, or mathematical thought. The notion of gods is superfluous to understanding and explaining the world. Gods are irrelevant to organic chemistry, as well as to evolutionary theory and cosmology. Despite the claims of believers, gods do not send rain in response to prayer. Gods don't cure disease, any more than demons cause it. A resort to gods will not predict the future, or permit the manipulation of the real world to the benefit of mankind, or indeed do anything else here in reality. There are thousands of aspects of reality which were once ascribed to the actions of gods, but which are now known to have natural explanations. There is not one single example of the contrary phenomenon. Now I'll demand an answer from you. I infer from your posts that you believe in gods. Tell us why. I don't think you can answer that question, John. In my experience, the foundations for religious faith cannot be articulated. Believers just somehow know. Often that indefensible conviction is accompanied by obsessive certainty. Is that the case with you? If not, what unambiguous, empirical evidence can you cite to support your belief? I say "unambiguous, empirical evidence" because such evidence is both the gold standard, and extremely common. It exists for everything in the world from apples to zebras - but not for unicorns, leprechauns, or gods. In the absence of such evidence, why do you believe?

Yes I believe in a GOD, but I am a DEIST and I DO NOT PROSElYTIZE ON BEHALF of my faith in much the same fashion I have seen from both fundamentalist religious zealots and some GNU zealots. Moroever, as I have pointed out to others, though I may be a Deist, I usually function more as an Agnostic or an Atheist.

John said: Yes I believe in a GOD [...]

phhht said:

John said:

phhht said:

John said: Given the militancy I have seen from some New Atheists, I have to demand from them how do they know that GOD(s) do not exist. I don't think they can answer it logically, which is why, I believe Huxley may have had the right answer when he coined the term "agnostic".

How long have you got? First, let's clear out the definitional confusion. I am both an atheist and an agnostic. I do not believe or know that gods don't exist. I conclude that, through a lifelong and ongoing process of examination of all the evidence I have been able to find. I am technically agnostic because, of course, my conclusion is tentative, and could be wrong. As far as I can tell, gods do not exist, any more than unicorns or leprechauns do. They are imaginary constructs which have no effect on the real world. The only evidence for their existence consists of unsupported assertions by believers. And that simply isn't good enough. People make many unfounded claims which are untrue. This "hidden god" problem is well-known. One manifestation of it is that gods are utterly unnecessary in any scientific, technical, engineering, or mathematical thought. The notion of gods is superfluous to understanding and explaining the world. Gods are irrelevant to organic chemistry, as well as to evolutionary theory and cosmology. Despite the claims of believers, gods do not send rain in response to prayer. Gods don't cure disease, any more than demons cause it. A resort to gods will not predict the future, or permit the manipulation of the real world to the benefit of mankind, or indeed do anything else here in reality. There are thousands of aspects of reality which were once ascribed to the actions of gods, but which are now known to have natural explanations. There is not one single example of the contrary phenomenon. Now I'll demand an answer from you. I infer from your posts that you believe in gods. Tell us why. I don't think you can answer that question, John. In my experience, the foundations for religious faith cannot be articulated. Believers just somehow know. Often that indefensible conviction is accompanied by obsessive certainty. Is that the case with you? If not, what unambiguous, empirical evidence can you cite to support your belief? I say "unambiguous, empirical evidence" because such evidence is both the gold standard, and extremely common. It exists for everything in the world from apples to zebras - but not for unicorns, leprechauns, or gods. In the absence of such evidence, why do you believe?

Yes I believe in a GOD, but I am a DEIST and I DO NOT PROSElYTIZE ON BEHALF of my faith in much the same fashion I have seen from both fundamentalist religious zealots and some GNU zealots. Moroever, as I have pointed out to others, though I may be a Deist, I usually function more as an Agnostic or an Atheist.

I'm not going to badger you, John, even though you refuse to answer the very question you put to me. I'll ask you only once more. WHY do you believe in a god? I'll repeat that I don't think you CAN answer that question.

John said:

phhht said:

John said:

phhht said:

John said: Given the militancy I have seen from some New Atheists, I have to demand from them how do they know that GOD(s) do not exist. I don't think they can answer it logically, which is why, I believe Huxley may have had the right answer when he coined the term "agnostic".

How long have you got? First, let's clear out the definitional confusion. I am both an atheist and an agnostic. I do not believe or know that gods don't exist. I conclude that, through a lifelong and ongoing process of examination of all the evidence I have been able to find. I am technically agnostic because, of course, my conclusion is tentative, and could be wrong. As far as I can tell, gods do not exist, any more than unicorns or leprechauns do. They are imaginary constructs which have no effect on the real world. The only evidence for their existence consists of unsupported assertions by believers. And that simply isn't good enough. People make many unfounded claims which are untrue. This "hidden god" problem is well-known. One manifestation of it is that gods are utterly unnecessary in any scientific, technical, engineering, or mathematical thought. The notion of gods is superfluous to understanding and explaining the world. Gods are irrelevant to organic chemistry, as well as to evolutionary theory and cosmology. Despite the claims of believers, gods do not send rain in response to prayer. Gods don't cure disease, any more than demons cause it. A resort to gods will not predict the future, or permit the manipulation of the real world to the benefit of mankind, or indeed do anything else here in reality. There are thousands of aspects of reality which were once ascribed to the actions of gods, but which are now known to have natural explanations. There is not one single example of the contrary phenomenon. Now I'll demand an answer from you. I infer from your posts that you believe in gods. Tell us why. I don't think you can answer that question, John. In my experience, the foundations for religious faith cannot be articulated. Believers just somehow know. Often that indefensible conviction is accompanied by obsessive certainty. Is that the case with you? If not, what unambiguous, empirical evidence can you cite to support your belief? I say "unambiguous, empirical evidence" because such evidence is both the gold standard, and extremely common. It exists for everything in the world from apples to zebras - but not for unicorns, leprechauns, or gods. In the absence of such evidence, why do you believe?

Yes I believe in a GOD, but I am a DEIST and I DO NOT PROSElYTIZE ON BEHALF of my faith in much the same fashion I have seen from both fundamentalist religious zealots and some GNU zealots. Moroever, as I have pointed out to others, though I may be a Deist, I usually function more as an Agnostic or an Atheist.

I'm not going to badger you, John, even though you refuse to answer the very question you put to me. I'll ask you only once more. WHY do you believe in a god? I'll repeat that I don't think you CAN answer that question.

Because it satisfies my emotional need, phhht. But I don't spend my time in worship towards it.

phhht said: First, let's clear out the definitional confusion. I am both an atheist and and an agnostic. I do not believe or know that gods don't exist. I conclude that, through a lifelong and ongoing process of examination of all the evidence I have been able to find. I am technically agnostic because, of course, my conclusion is tentative, and could be wrong.

As far as I can tell, gods do not exist, any more than unicorns or leprechauns do. They are imaginary constructs which have no effect on the real world. The only evidence for their existence consists of unsupported assertions by believers. And that simply isn't good enough. People make many unfounded claims which are untrue.

This "hidden god" problem is well-known. One manifestation of it is that gods are utterly unnecessary in any scientific, technical, engineering, or mathematical thought. The notion of gods is superfluous to understanding and explaining the world. Gods are irrelevant to organic chemistry, as well as to evolutionary theory and cosmology.

Despite the claims of believers, gods do not send rain in response to prayer. Gods don't cure disease, any more than demons cause it. A resort to gods will not predict the future, or permit the manipulation of the real world to the benefit of mankind, or indeed do anything else here in reality. There are thousands of aspects of reality which were once ascribed to the actions of gods, but which are now known to have natural explanations. There is not one single example of the contrary phenomenon.

Now I'll demand an answer from you. I infer from your posts that you believe in gods. Tell us why.

I don't think you can answer that question, John. In my experience, the foundations for religious faith cannot be articulated. Believers just somehow know. Often that indefensible conviction is accompanied by obsessive certainty. Is that the case with you?

If not, what unambiguous, empirical evidence can you cite to support your belief?

I say "unambiguous, empirical evidence" because such evidence is both the gold standard, and extremely common. It exists for everything in the world from apples to zebras - but not for unicorns, leprechauns, or gods. In the absence of such evidence, why do you believe?

I put it to you that your belief is mistaken, no matter how emotionally satisfying.

dalehusband said: You seem to have forgotted about that Big Bang Theory. What started the universe? What set the physical and chemical laws that run the universe? Those questions remain unanswered and there is no guarantee that science will ever provide those answers.

tomh said:

dalehusband said: You seem to have forgotted about that Big Bang Theory. What started the universe? What set the physical and chemical laws that run the universe? Those questions remain unanswered and there is no guarantee that science will ever provide those answers.

Science may not have the answer but you seem to think you do. In fact, you seem quite certain about it, when you say, "since by its very nature only a supernatural cause could have produced it."

For the record, there is nothing wrong with being an atheist, with taking the position for YOURSELF that there is no God and that you would only accept anything as true if there is empirical evidence for it. If that is what your nature calls for, so be it.

My problem is with someone doing that and them going on to insist that atheism and that naturalist standard of proof must be held by EVERYONE ELSE or they will be targets of ridicule or verbal abuse. That.................is..............BIGOTRY!

I am a REAL agnostic. I slam religions like Christianity for their falsehoods and for the bigots they harbor, but I see no reason to attack anyone merely for being different from me, for choosing freely to have beliefs I do not, if those beliefs cannot be disproven.

So can Theism or Deism be disproven? I have never seen an atheist do that. All they do is disprove specific religions and by doing so, cast doubt on Theism or Deism. But doubt is not an absolute reason for denial. I don't deny God's existence. I am not an Atheist. And I don't care who hates me for not being in the Atheist camp.

dalehusband said: Is that all you have to rebut me?

tomh said:

dalehusband said: Is that all you have to rebut me?

Rebut you? There is nothing in that silly statement to rebut. I'm just laughing at you and your foolish dogma.

dalehusband said: Or do you take seriously the idea that the natural universe can create itself with no outside intervention

dalehusband said: Or do you take seriously the idea that the natural universe can create itself with no outside intervention, in the absence of anything that could justify this assumption? May I refer you to a crash course of Logic 101?

dalehusband said: [...] natural universe can create itself [...]