8. New perspective. I think there are several different varieties of creationism activists. Some are obsessed with the presumed negative effects of evolution and secular humanism. Some are driven by suspicion for science and the certainty that a conspiracy must be afoot. Some use creationist apologetics to make themselves feel smarter and better-informed than the general public. Some are genuinely interested in science and want to know the truth.
I'd be lying if I said my motivations for arguing creationism were firmly in the last camp. I wasn't much of a conspiracy theorist, but I certainly believed that there were inevitable negative consequences from the acceptance of evolution. I was definitely stuck-up about my "special" expertise. But deep down, I really did want to know the truth about the world. I loved being right, but I loved learning new things more.
As prior posts have explained, fundamentalist evangelicalism buttresses itself against criticism at every conceivable level. Not only must the existence of God be treated as evident from nature; the existence of God must be treated as beyond any doubt. To the fundamentalist YEC, no overall view of natural history can be even remotely possible unless it can be used as evidence to prove the existence of God.
I maintained young-earth creationism without much difficulty through college. The major objection to creationism encountered in earning a physics degree is the starlight-and-time problem, and I believed that the gravitational-well time-dilation model proposed by Russell Humphreys solved this problem. It never really came up in my classes. My ongoing exposure to the evidence against creationism came mostly in the form of continued argumentation and debate in various online forums, just as I had done before college.
I still wanted to maintain intellectual honesty, but I felt constrained by my religious belief. When I encountered questions and evidence I didn't know how to answer, I retreated to a position of false humility: "Well, I don't know how that works, but I'm sure that if I was an expert in that area, I could figure out how the evolutionary argument is wrong." I knew that there were physicists and biologists and geneticists working for creationist organizations who rejected evolution; surely they understood how it all worked.
There's not much you can do to challenge that particular approach. It's the same response I get now from creationists after I've answered all their objections. "Well, fine, but science is always changing, and scientists have been wrong before, and so you never can be sure about any of this."
As frustrating as this response can be, it's difficult to counter because it's sincere. They really believe (and, at one time, I really believed) that the scientific process is constantly in flux, that evolution is "just a theory", that scientists are just taking guesses in the dark. They really think that science can't provide truly useful answers.
In the recent debate, Bill Nye strongly implied that creationism hinders the teaching and progress of science. While this may be the case in some situations, I believe the opposite is far more true: a lack of scientific literacy and misplaced skepticism of the scientific method enable pseudoscience like creationism to flourish. This is the problem I believe we need to address. Otherwise we are simply seen as making an appeal to authority right alongside the creationists.
Thankfully, my ability to maintain the "science could be wrong" excuse wore thin. I learned about research methods, about confidence intervals, about peer review. I learned to isolate variables, to vet sources, to establish controls. I learned that the scientific process is designed to weed out mistakes and that when mistakes are made, the process will tell where and why and how to correct them. The more actual science I learned, the more I could simply examine the evidence myself, and the more difficult it became to continue unchecked skepticism.
Though I still firmly maintained a belief in young earth and special creation, it became more and more apparent that evolution was not, after all, a theory in crisis. The evidence lined up and made sense; the model worked; the predictions were good. I kept looking for the smoking gun, the telltale traces and shortcuts I would expect to see if evolution were really the junk science I had always believed it to be -- but I found nothing. Evolution was, to all appearances, rock-solid science.
I didn't feel like this discovery was something I could admit. I still claimed confidence in the whole young Earth creationism worldview. But I had confidence in the scientific process, too, and they seemed to clash rather strongly. Moreover, while creationism had only demanded my confidence, science had earned my confidence. It was a distinction I wasn't terribly comfortable with.
About this time, I came across this brief essay by noted biologist Todd Wood:
Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well. [Emphasis in original.]
Yet Todd Wood was, like me, a strident creationist. Hearing another creationist say all the exact same things I had been unwilling to admit was suddenly liberating. It was all right to acknowledge that the science worked. It was all right to acknowledge that the evidence fit together. It was all right to acknowledge that "evolutionists" were in fact sincere. My faith in God wasn't going to instantly disintegrate just because I admitted that common descent was a feasible model.
The essay went on:
There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure.
This, too, resonated with me. I didn't have to keep trying to convince myself that evolution was a patent absurdity, fraught with problems and utterly indefensible. Instead, I could embrace evolution's strengths in pursuit of a better understanding of the world, looking toward a new theory that would better explain the evidence while also explaining how evolution had achieved such success.
To that end, I stopped listening to ill-informed people who continued to insist that evolution was absurd and hopelessly flawed. What could they teach me? I wanted to understand the evidence, not listen to people ridicule a theory they clearly didn't understand.
The new perspective began yielding results almost immediately. Suddenly, the fallacies in creationist arguments and rhetoric seemed breathtakingly obvious. The more I learned, the more distance I felt from creationists, who only ever seemed interested in mocking.
I studied pseudogenes and phylogenetics and endogenous retrovirus insertions. I researched genetic clocks and homology and morphology. I looked at endemic species and fossils; I read studies on observed mutations and novel genes. The deeper I dug, the more creationist answers seemed not only unsatisfying, but patently ignorant of the subject matter. I tried formulating my own explanations that made testable predictions, but they inevitably fell flat.
All the while, I still maintained that even if evolution could work, it wasn't fact, because the planet wasn't old enough. Granted, I could see how the planet could be billions of years old -- flood geology was wearing a little thin -- but I was still constrained by religious belief to a 6,000-year-old universe. I think I really did know the truth at this point, deep down, but I didn't feel like I could admit it.
Then I started learning about the history of creationism, and that's where things started to crack. I learned that the age of the earth had never been a dividing issue in Christianity, not until Morris and Whitcomb plagiarized flood geology from the Seventh Day Adventists in the 1960s. I realized that not even the church fathers saw Genesis 1 as speaking of six actual days. Martin Luther was one of the only six-day creationists in church history, and he also believed geocentrism for the same reasons, so that wasn't very encouraging. I began to see how there might be problems with the "historical-grammatical" approach to interpreting Genesis. If the creationist leaders were so far wrong about science, why should I expect their treatment of the Bible to be reliable?
And finally, one day, I was reading about transit times for cosmic rays and stumbled onto an article about stellar streams. When a small galaxy or a star cluster passes by the Milky Way, the tidal effects of the Milky Way's gravity rips away a stream of stars, which are left floating in space to mark the path taken by the cluster. The stellar wakes crisscrossing our galaxy are all many tens of thousands of lightyears long.
I realized that no matter how creatively one might spin it, there's no way any structure 20,000 or 30,000 lightyears long can form in 6,000 years [1]. It's simply absurd. And while I had no problem with the notion of God creating a universe "in motion", so to speak, it simply didn't make sense that he would need to create dozens of completely phony wakes all over our sky. I immediately realized that the universe had to be very, very old.
As I continued reading, I toyed with the idea of a young solar system inside an otherwise very old universe. This stage lasted about six minutes, if I remember correctly: the floodgates had opened and everything I had ever read or learned about the age of the earth came rushing back. It was all so obvious. Orbital mechanics clearly matched observed climate shifts. Independent lines of radiometric dating worked just fine. Cosmic expansion fit observations. The cosmic microwave background really was the afterglow of the recombination epoch. Geology made sense. Plate tectonics made sense. Erosion rates and geomagnetic reversals and everything else fell together in a perfectly aligned puzzle stretching back to the beginning of time. I suddenly realized I had known it all for a long time but had never allowed the pieces to come together all the way.
I didn't tell anyone at first. It's scary to undergo a complete paradigm shift. Over time, though, things became easier.
One of the things I've explained before is how fundamentalism often defines its doctrines in terms of their position on science. This redefinition is intended to bolster faith in the doctrines, but when the pseudoscience is exposed, it often takes those doctrines down with it. It has been difficult to reevaluate my religious beliefs outside of the backdrop of creationism, but the process has been very rewarding overall.
I was recently asked what I would go back and tell my teenage self about creationism, given the opportunity. All I can think of is to encourage my former self to study and understand the scientific method. That's what made all the difference for me.
How do you reach creationists? Well, it can be difficult. There are a few things to keep in mind, though.
Be patient. I do not think I would have ever made the switch if not for all the people who painstakingly pointed out my errors over and over, and forced me to look at the evidence for myself. It might seem futile, but you can make a difference.
Know your enemy. And your enemy is not the person you're talking to. Your enemy is the fundamentalist worldview telling the person how they are allowed to think. Understand how it works; understand where the beliefs and rhetoric are coming from. Ask questions. The more questions you ask, the more your opponent will be forced to investigate things for themselves. And that's where the real progress is made. Read creationist literature and try to see where the arguments are coming from.
Know your role. You're the teacher. Understand the evidence and the arguments. Know your facts. Pseudoscience flourishes because real science does not. It's a popular trope in fundamentalism that True Religion automatically displaces false religions, so the Christian doesn't even need to study other worldviews as long as he's secure in the Truth. That might not be a very good argument in a religious context, but it's absolutely true of science. Real science displaces pseudoscience: tell a man about science and he might trust your authority, but teach a man how science works and he won't need your authority at all. Do your best to instill confidence in the scientific process apart from the question of origins.
Stick to the facts. Activists like Dawkins make the mistake of accepting fundamentalism's claims of validly representing the Bible in particular and religion in general. But fundamentalism's claims are simply false. As I stated before, creationism botches literary and biblical criticism just as badly as it botches science. Don't ever make the mistake of attacking a creationist's faith; if you do so, you're simply reinforcing their misconception that evolution is synonymous with atheism. Read the explanations given by theistic evolutionists. Ask questions like, "How do you know your interpretation of the Bible is correct? How do you know that Genesis should be treated as chronological narrative? How would the original audience have understood it? Why wasn't your interpretation a majority view throughout Christian history?" Be prepared to explain the history of creationism.
Be generous. Creationists will often employ ad hominem attacks, confuse correlation with causation, and use numerous other gross fallacies. Recognize how these approaches come out of the worldview. Assume your opponent is sincere. Understand how difficult it is for a creationist to question deeply held views that he thinks have essential religious importance.
Keep learning. The evidence continues to accumulate every single day. The strength of science is not that we know everything, but that we know how much we have left to learn.
-------------------Acknowledgments.
I want to thank everyone who has followed this series, as well as everyone who has been involved in the ongoing discussions. I've seen a lot of great questions and good ideas. I also want to thank the handful of creationists who have consistently provided excellent examples of the very misconceptions this series was intended to outline.
My family also deserves credit. Even though they don't share my conclusions, they were the ones who initially instilled my desire to find out the truth, and that's what is most important.
I should acknowledge Dr. Lisa Blankinship, one of the biology professors at my alma mater, for helping me nail down some of the critical concepts concerning reproduction and the principles of evolutionary progress, as well as Dr. Joel Duff of the University of Akron for help with understanding genetics and DNA.
Finally, I need to thank Dr. Young, both for hosting this series and for his Eagle-Eyed EditingTM. His extensive editing tips, fact-checking, and proofreading really helped me make this series clear and concise; I couldn't have asked for a more thorough and helpful editor.
Note
[1] It's probably possible to come up with an explanation for stellar streams that sounds vaguely plausible. The prevailing creationist cosmological model features the entire universe being created out of water and God causing runaway inflation while simultaneously transmuting the water into stars and galaxies and everything else. A creative creationist could probably posit that the overall shapes of macrostructures like stellar streams (and galaxies themselves, for that matter) formed rapidly while everything was still extremely compact, and that the creative process "stretched out" these structures as their constituent material was supernaturally transmuted into stars. Of course, stellar streams aren't the only macrostructures we see. My favorite example is ESO 137-001, a galaxy that has left a trail of stars and hot gas hundreds of thousands of lightyears long as it forces its way through the center of its galaxy cluster. And of course there are numerous supernova remnants with nebulae much larger than could form in only 6,000 years.
Appendix. Here are links to the preceding 7 articles:
1. Introduction and overview: Philosophy of pseudoscience. 2. Variation and adaptation. 3. You don't evolve, your species does. 4. Transitional fossils. 5. Evolution of evolution. 6. Genetic evidence. 7. The religion of evolution.
506 Comments
Carl Drews · 16 July 2014
Your eighth session up on the Areopagus. I'm impressed! Many thanks for all your thinking and writing effort in exploring these important issues.
Carl Drews · 16 July 2014
Minor correction:
The stellar wakes crisscrossing our galaxy are all many tens of thousands of lightyears long.
eric · 16 July 2014
Henry J · 16 July 2014
TomS · 16 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 16 July 2014
Good catch TomS and Carl Drews -- I'll ask Matt to make the correction. Must have gotten mixed up in the editing process.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 July 2014
SLC · 16 July 2014
Some of the so called creationists are really grifters using the nonsense to raise money. I suspect that Ken Ham may be in this category. The late and unlamented Duane Gish was almost certainly such a grifter.
SLC · 16 July 2014
John Harshman · 16 July 2014
It would doubtless pain Todd Wood to know that he's a stepping stone away from creationism. Perhaps you shouldn't have told him.
I don't like the idea that 6-day, 6000-year-old creation was a new idea with Morris (or even Price), and I doubt you could support it. Though there had been occasional dissenters, it was clearly the majority view among Christians, and even among theologians, for thousands of years. And it was so right up to the rise of science in the 17th and 18th Centuries. It was geology that did it in. Even in the 18th Century Buffon was forced to retract his claims about the antiquity of the earth. And his "antiquity" was only one order of magnitude greater than Genesis. Morris (or Price) wasn't presenting a new idea; he was presenting an old one that had gone out of fashion.
david.starling.macmillan · 16 July 2014
SLC · 16 July 2014
It might be apropos to post a snippet from an essay by Richard Dawkins on creationist Kurt Wise, Harvard PhD and student of Stephen Jay Gould. Bluntly stated, Wise's position is that his mind is made up, based on Hebrew Scriptures, the evidence is irrelevant.
Depending upon how many Kurt Wises are out there, it could mean that we are completely wasting our time arguing the case and presenting the evidence for evolution. We have it on the authority of a man who may well be creationism’s most highly qualified and most intelligent scientist that no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference.
https://scepsis.net/eng/articles/id_2.php
DS · 16 July 2014
Thanks so much for this series David. It is indeed encouraging to know that there are people out there who value evidence and the truth. It is even more encouraging to know that there are people out there who are willing to challenge all of their misconceptions and preconceptions and to follow the evidence wherever it leads. We have so many examples here of people who are unwilling to do this, it can become disheartening at times. Perhaps those people will now realize that they have no excuse for remaining willfully ignorant. After all, a wise man once said that the truth will set you free. I guess I was right once again.
Carl Drews · 16 July 2014
From time to time I get inquiries from some member of the general public; these come into my research institution and are passed along to whomever seems appropriate. Several weeks ago I received a letter proposing a scientific hypothesis. This person had used an unreliable data source as the basis for his ideas. Consequently, the hypothesis would not work.
I showed him a peer-reviewed paper with better and more accurate data. He was attached to his proposal (as we all are), and unconvinced by the contrary data. I searched around a bit and found a data source that he would be more comfortable with, based on his background. Several days passed. Then I received another letter saying that he understood my objection, accepted the second data source, and planned to re-think his hypothesis.
This person has a great career ahead. Unlike Kurt Wise and Todd Wood.
I hope this anecdote encourages the readers here that at least some people out there are convinced by counter-evidence, can reconsider their ideas, and will change their minds. Keep up the good fight! As DS quoted, the Truth will set you free.
Mike Elzinga · 16 July 2014
There are a number of characteristics that distinguish folks like David who escape from fundamentalism from those who never do. But if I were to try to state a single characteristic difference between a YEC who finally discovers the truth about science and one who never does, I think it would be that the one who escapes fundamentalism somehow finally comes to really understand scientific concepts and how science works.
As I have observed many times over a period of something like 50 years, all ID/creationists – especially the YECs – are surprisingly ignorant of basic concepts at even the high school level; and that includes their PhDs. They don’t know the basic facts and they can’t work with basic concepts; the best they can ever do is parrot stuff.
ID/creationists have grown up in a culture that bends and breaks science to fit sectarian beliefs. It is not surprising that they would latch onto misconceptions and misrepresentations that fit their prior beliefs. Hence, entropy is about everything falling into decay, light didn’t always travel at the same speed, small corrections made to the half lives of radioactive elements are used as excuses for rejecting all of radiometric dating – YECs don’t look at the percentage corrections; any correction is an excuse to reject.
New discoveries that lead to a better understanding in any area of science are evidence, to an ID/creationist, that the science is wrong and will continue to be wrong. But their bible never changes.
When a child stops learning somewhere around the ages of 10 to 16 years of age, what are the chances that this child will grow up to see the shortcomings of his/her childhood knowledge? The more the child’s subculture rejects and demonizes learning and the secular, “liberal” world, the less likely that child will escape as an adult.
Something has to allow an individual trapped in those circumstances to see first hand where the misinformation is coming from. If that person finds out that scientific concepts are far different from what his subculture has been telling him, then perhaps that can be a first chink in the armor that keeps him from learning.
However, those YECs who have invested themselves in becoming revered leaders in their sectarian world are more likely to take a far different route. They will learn to parrot and posture like highly erudite scholars of all things. They will fake knowledge of etymology, they will fake knowledge of science, they will fake careful analytical studies of things, and they will fake scholarly references and citations. Their general demeanor will be to appear like an intimidating presence that will be feared, revered, and consulted.
These ID/creationists have no interest in learning; their mud wrestling with people in the secular world is for show. They want to be known in their subculture as warriors who can simultaneously defeat multiple “enemies” with their little pinky. Those watching these “performers” are more like the audiences watching WWF wrestling.
So it apparently comes down to a fortuitous convergence of circumstances involving curiosity and opportunity, and without the stifling interference of people who engage in scaring and shaming other people out of following through on getting answers to questions.
I suspect many of us know people who never escape from that fundamentalist subculture; and as we look at their attitudes and world views, we see that little has changed since their childhoods. They stopped learning before they left high school; even if they graduated from college.
Fortunately David kept learning.
John Harshman · 16 July 2014
Helena Constantine · 16 July 2014
I just realized that Macmillan the author of this wonderful series is the same person I've been abusing over the definition of magic in the comments on the previous installment (I look at arguments, not names). How can you think so clearly in general but still be so muddled over this particular issue? There is as much you need to learn about the scholarship on magic as there was about evolution. Once again, it seems to be Christian presuppositions that are standing in your way.
Mike Elzinga · 16 July 2014
TomS · 16 July 2014
callahanpb · 16 July 2014
Flint · 16 July 2014
I've heard it said that, as per Dawkins above, facts by themselves don't really matter. No matter how devastatingly convincing. Instead, that first leak in the creationist dikes is generally a theological problem. Usually, some respected religious leader is found to be behaving poorly, or being clearly dishonest about scripture, or preaching one thing while living another. And so it's theological doubt that gets its nose into the tent, opening a gap where scientific understanding can squeeze through. And once scientific understanding gets in (that is, is accepted and respected), it becomes definitive.
I don't know, but maybe where all the science in the world might fail, Kent Hovind's obvious cheating on his taxes (and then being caught trying to cover it up from jail) might succeed with some of his victims. If he can't see fit to render unto Caesar, maybe he can't be trusted in other ways as well. I don't know.
Mike Elzinga · 16 July 2014
Carl Drews · 16 July 2014
David, can you give us any insight into why people like Kurt Wise and Todd Wood don't wonder if their interpretation of Genesis 1-11 might be wrong instead? Why would an alternate understanding of the biblical text be so horrible to them?
The YEC view requires Wise and Wood to deny clear scientific evidence, flout the Ninth Commandment (about not bearing false witness), spend at least 10 years trying unsuccessfully to come up with a definition of 'baramin' that's contrary to macro-evolution, and waste a lot of energy that could be spent leading people to Jesus instead. The cost of Young-Earth Creationism for a Christian is very high, and to me the alternative is obviously much better. People like Glenn Morton kindly provide very respectful interpretations of Genesis 1-3 that are compatible with evolution and an old earth. Just pick one!
callahanpb · 16 July 2014
ksplawn · 16 July 2014
TomS · 17 July 2014
One thing which struck me was how shallow was their understanding of the Bible and the sources of their belief. Their understanding turned out to me memorization of ''proof texts" without context ("quote mining"), and without realization that the "old time religion" was actually thought up by some fairly recent (19th or even 20th century) person.
Mike Elzinga · 17 July 2014
harold · 17 July 2014
FL · 17 July 2014
And here's a sincere "Thank You" from me as well, David M. No sarcasm, no insult.
Your series has helped me to better understand what are the arguments and claims and seeds (not just in terms of evolution, but also in terms of biblical skepticism) that, when planted and watered over time, can "evolve" a person from a clearly-gifted rising-star biblical creationist to an evolutionist who now works to help convert other creationists to evolution.
And that's an important thing to understand.
Too many non-Darwinist parents and clergy (and granted, we're all busy people), are just sitting around hoping that mere Sunday School, Choir Practice, CCIA, or ice cream socials will keep their youth and young adults from getting their faith eroded and corroded (and even wiped out!) by evolution, biblical skepticism, atheism/agnosticism, etc.
But things don't work that way. It is a war; there is a battle. Even when a person receives the creationist opportunities and gifts of a David M, (or on a larger scale, the huge evangelical opportunities that Bart Ehrman received), it's still a war. Nobody's immune. One can still go down. It happens.
****
The war over origins isn't always a big media mega-debate like the Ham-Nye affair. Sometimes equally important battles are being fought far more quietly, with far less publicity, in far less conspicuous venues.
Such battles are going on somewhere, with some teenager or adult or collegian, even now. Perhaps he or she is looking for a non-Darwinist who knows the terrain and how to navigate it, but he can't find anybody who really cares about the origins issue. Nobody who can at least give some weak-spots or blank-spots to slow down the evo-claims. If the young person cannot find anybody to help out, the results are predictable.
So there is a real need for non-Darwinists of all flavors to understand what goes into those battles. To understand what kind of seeds are being planted by evolutionists, and what they are capable of sprouting.
(And then to put that understanding to good use, of course.) I believe David's articles can help out in that direction.
****
Meanwhile, like Harold, I also commend David's six recommendations there.
(Of course, I commend them in the opposite direction. They are helpful for dealing with evolutionists and their beliefs/behaviors.)
Again, thanks David for the series.
FL
ksplawn · 17 July 2014
FL still thinks of evolution as a religion. This allows him to reject it out of hand for not being the RIGHT religion. It also allows him to apply the God-sanctioned version of Appeal to Consequences in Matthew 7. Evolution, to people like FL, is a false teaching that must of necessity bear wicked fruit. FL believes people adhere to evolution out of religious belief, not out of provisional acceptance based on rational arguments and evidence. Because that's not how FL operates, he does not ascribe that sort of thinking to others. FL adheres to his religion, Evolutionists to theirs. That's how he sees the world. To him, evolution is just another religious dogma among many. He doesn't understand what is and isn't a religion, so he's free to categorize mechanistic explanations of things as doctrinal beliefs.
It never occurs to him that evolution is no more a religion than is heliocentrism (despite the latter having an actual -ism on the end). He does not understand, in an intuitive way, that ideas used to explain observations can be accepted based on how well they fit the specific evidence they were generated to explain, without needing Scriptural approval first. He only accepts heliocentrism because in modern times it is NOT seen as a dangerous dogma, a false teaching that threatens to lead people away from his own religious beliefs. That's reserved for evolution, because it diverges from FL's understanding of the Bible and therefore it must be a false teaching that cannot bear good fruit.
It took David a college education in the sciences and years of soul-searching to escape that kind of mental trap, where logical fallacies are given the trappings of Biblical wisdom, endorsed by the Ultimate Authority as a reliable test for discerning True and False Beliefs. And that only happened because he was curious, and willing to look for knowledge that challenged his beliefs, and even to modify them if they don't fit the evidence. FL displays no curiosity, no education to feed it with if he had it, and no flexibility to admit any possibility of error on his part.
david.starling.macmillan · 17 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 17 July 2014
John Harshman · 17 July 2014
callahanpb · 17 July 2014
DS · 17 July 2014
Floyd thinks he is learning, but he isn't. It must be humiliating for him to see a self professed christian come in here and win the respect of literally everyone, atheist, christian. agnostic, scientist, etc. After years of insulting, threatening, lying and overall obnoxious behavior, he has utterly failed to persuade a single person to accept a single argument he has ever made. It doesn't matter whether he lies about the bible or science or whatever, he just can't get anyone to respect him or even agree with him on anything.
Now if you really want to learn something from David, just honor the evidence Floyd. That's all you have to do. But you can't and you won't. More is the pity.
david.starling.macmillan · 17 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 17 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 17 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 17 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 17 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 17 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 17 July 2014
FL · 17 July 2014
Keelyn · 17 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 17 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 17 July 2014
phhht · 17 July 2014
FL · 17 July 2014
phhht · 17 July 2014
Carl Drews · 17 July 2014
harold · 17 July 2014
DS · 17 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 17 July 2014
FL · 17 July 2014
Katharine · 17 July 2014
Thank you for this series, David. All installments have been enlightening, but I think in some ways this is the most informative of all, for how well you've explained your own thought processes and beliefs. Growing up in a non-religious household, adherence to any sort of ideological fundamentalism was a foreign concept to me. My atheist (but intellectually interested in religion) father and liberal Catholic grandmother exposed me to religious imagery and art and an instilled an interest in Christian mythology and symbology, but from the beginning I was being trained to explore these things through a decidedly non-literal mindset.
So it's difficult for me to fathom the other side. That difficulty colors how I interact with people who believe in the Bible as actual history and science, and causes me to miss what's important to them and thereby talk right by them. Theirs simply seemed absurd logic to me, but then I was missing the Rosetta Stone of creationist thinking. I didn't realize that, to them, I might as well be speaking a different language.
I started reading this series thinking that the disconnect between creationism and science was one that could be bridged if certain fallacies were not allowed to go unchallenged in public debate, but now I realize how unrealistic that is. It's not the apples-oranges comparison I had been thinking it was. It's the difference between a physical apple and a platonic idea of an orange.
Which is why I appreciate and see the sense in your ultimate appeal to the scientific process. Education about how science and the natural world actually work (and instilling the curiosity and interest in learning required for that education to take hold) really is the best way to show the fallacies of creationist arguments (both as bad science and bad religion) and defuse the threat of judgment for the questioner. Teach a man to fish. Accord him the same right as a sponge: the right to think.
I guess we owe it to FL, et al, as well for providing exemplars of the kind of thinking David has been illuminating in this series. I feel like I've received a grand tour of the sausage factory reading the comments here. I only feel sorry for all those FL and ilk have succeeded in bullying into a worldview of needless anxiety and superstition.
Ron Okimoto · 17 July 2014
My guess is that those truely wanting to understand nature are in the vast minority. If they were not there would be more creationists like yourself that came to their senses, when they had to finally understand the data. The fact that we still have IDiots when the ID perps that sold them the scam have been running a stupid bait and switch scam on their own creationist support base for over a decade should tell anyone that the science or understanding the science is pretty low on the priority list for nearly all the anti evolution creationists.
Just look at the only use to science that any ID perp has ever come up for the intelligent design assertions like Behe's irreducible complexity. There is no reason to research the matter because the designer did it. What kind of use is that for an assertion that has never been verified to ever add to our knowledge of nature.
phhht · 17 July 2014
phhht · 17 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 17 July 2014
callahanpb · 17 July 2014
callahanpb · 17 July 2014
Yardbird · 18 July 2014
Yardbird · 18 July 2014
I have replied to Floyd on the BW.
Keelyn · 18 July 2014
TomS · 18 July 2014
And it isn't only science.
It can be argued that the original impetus to fundamentalism did not come from science (in particular, evolution and geology), but rather to the claim that Scripture can be studied as one studies human literature (in particular, the Documentary Hypothesis).
I find it as interesting as the acceptance of heliocentrism, the acceptance of the reasoning that Moses did not write the ending of Deuteronomy (while refusing to apply the same to the rest of the Pentateuch).
FL · 18 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 18 July 2014
That's actually pretty sad, FL. Ooh, a protist, God did it. A different protist: The whim of the Designer! An amoeba, how did God think of that?
You're a sightseer into nature, that's all, because you've never learned what science is, making actual sense of things. To do that, you typically observe patterns and look for a cause.
When a creationist observes patterns he already has a "cause," even though it utterly fails to explain the patterns, which are oddly like one would expect of descent with variation. As for that, it's the mystery of the ineffable Designer!
Glen Davidson
Keelyn · 18 July 2014
DS · 18 July 2014
Sorry Floyd, not buying it. The evidence is quite clear, you have no curiosity about nature, none whatsoever. The simple fact that you describe science as a religion is a dead give away. No one who actually understands how science works would say such a thing. No one who actually wanted to understand nature would say such a thing. And of course there is the fact that you never studied science in college when you had the chance, (except possibly one required course where you got a C because the poor professor felt sorry for you and wanted to get rid of you).
So tell us Floyd, if you are so interested in learning how nature works, why do you accept "god did it" as the answer? It answers nothing at all. Why won't you even watch a television special that explains all of the major findings of science over the past one hundred years in simple terms that you could understand? Why didn't you try to discuss or even understand any science in the years you have been posting here? There are many experts here that you could have learned from, but you didn't.
No Floyd, you have no curiosity and no desire to learn at all. You can't hide it, we all see your true colors. How sad.
fnxtr · 18 July 2014
FL has made it clear that learning is an affront to his imaginary deity. And of course the more people who actually do learn about reality, the less power and authority FL has. That's what really pisses him off so much. He'll deny it of course; his pretense of humility and piety is legend.
david.starling.macmillan · 18 July 2014
FL · 18 July 2014
callahanpb · 18 July 2014
TomS · 18 July 2014
"Christian Clergy Letter
(12,968 signatures as of 07/16/14)
Rabbi Letter
(512 signatures as of 07/16/14)
UU Clergy Letter
(282 signatures as of 07/16/14)
Buddhist Clergy Letter
(24 signatures as of 07/16/14)"
http: www.theclergyletterproject.org
What makes that a "religion"?
DS · 18 July 2014
David wrote:
"The burden of proof is on you, FL, to demonstrate why the basic doctrines of Christianity cannot still be derived from Genesis 1-3 if Genesis 1-3 is read as anything other than chronological history. And when I say the burden is on you, I mean you. Not an authority you can quote-mine."
Already done. Floyd has three planks and everything. I'm sure he will show them to you if you ask politely. Of course it's all hog wash. All it amounts to is, Floyd reads the bible one way, the only correct way, so he's right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. It is worthless to try to change his attitude on this subject, he is as stubborn as he is ignorant. But then again, what can you expect form someone who thinks science is a religion?
FL · 18 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 18 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 18 July 2014
Carl Drews · 18 July 2014
DS · 18 July 2014
It's no sense arguing with the asshole, or any supposed authorities he cites rather than making any kind of argument himself. (That's par for the Floyd course.) Why don't you just get him to walk the three planks? It's a very short walk. I'd love to see you demolish that little piece of lies and inconsistencies.
Yardbird · 18 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 18 July 2014
callahanpb · 18 July 2014
TomS · 18 July 2014
ksplawn · 18 July 2014
fnxtr · 18 July 2014
Cleese as waiter: "Well, have you ever wondered why we're here?"
Palin as guest (proudly): "NOPE!"
FL · 18 July 2014
Katharine · 18 July 2014
Yardbird · 18 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 18 July 2014
DS · 18 July 2014
After being ridiculed for posting links and not being able to make his own scientific arguments, what does Floyd do? He posts links to arguments about the bible! Apparently he can't make his own arguments about that either. He must spend all day loo0king for links that he thinks agree with him. But then again, most of them probably don't agree with him any more that any of the other stuff he posts form supposed authorities.
ksplawn · 18 July 2014
TomS · 18 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 18 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 18 July 2014
fnxtr · 18 July 2014
Ah, but you see, in FL's perfect world, there wouldn't be any "secular historians".
It's all so simple, really.
Scott F · 18 July 2014
Scott F · 18 July 2014
Scott F · 18 July 2014
Scott F · 18 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 18 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 18 July 2014
Henry J · 18 July 2014
Yeah, and aside from lack of systematic thinking, they've been getting what they think they know from people they trust, but who also either (1) don't know or (2) mislead on purpose.
Of course, there's always the question of what is supposed to prevent a deity from arranging for evolution to happen, with or even without occasional intervention. Although I don't really see why intervention is even assumed to be needed (by those who assume a deity, that is); if the goal is spiritual, then I don't get why details of anatomy and biochemistry would be regarded as crucial to fulfilling it anyway, and maybe not even location in the universe, or timing.
Henry
Scott F · 18 July 2014
Scott F · 18 July 2014
Scott F · 18 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 19 July 2014
Katharine · 19 July 2014
FL · 19 July 2014
FL · 19 July 2014
Regarding Robin Schumacher's article concerning the Doc Hyp:
You can also click on this link and then click on the PDF article:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=documentary+hypothesis+refutation&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IE11TR&pc=HPNTDF&conversationid=
Rolf · 19 July 2014
TomS · 19 July 2014
harold · 19 July 2014
Frank J · 19 July 2014
DS · 19 July 2014
Floyd wrote:
"What happens to a beautiful, but flawed, theory when it meets a brutal gang of opposing facts? Simply, the theory loses."
Right. If you honor the evidence, that's how it works. So Floyd, here are the brutal opposing facts that conclusively falsify all of your creationist nonsense:
1) SINE insertions
2) Mitochondrial DNA
3) Chromosomal fusions
4) SNP analysis and linkage disequilibrium
5) Fossil evidence (including ancient DNA sequences)
6) Radiometric dating
7) Continental drift and plate tectonics
8) Magnetic pole reversals
9) Ice core data
10) Tree ring data
11) Pollen stratigraphy
And last but not least:
12) The statistically significant correlation between stratigraphy and phylogeny
You have never provided any explanation for any of these independent data sets. They are cold hard facts that falsify both YEC and special creation of humans. YOU LOSE
DS · 19 July 2014
Shoot, I left out Evo Devo. Oh well, FLoyd can't understand all that sciency stuff anyway.
FL · 19 July 2014
You also left out the current topic of the Documentary Hypothesis, DS.
Guess you're not comfortable with that discussion?
FL
warren.johnson.70808 · 19 July 2014
Hi David McMillan,
Thank you for your thoughtful description of your intellectual journey.
You said
"I maintained young-earth creationism without much difficulty through college. The major objection to creationism encountered in earning a physics degree is the starlight-and-time problem, and I believed that the gravitational-well time-dilation model proposed by Russell Humphreys solved this problem. "
which surprised me, a university professor of physics and astronomy. If one of my students were to ask about Humphreys theory, it would take me only a few minutes of research to conclude that he is a "crackpot", and his theory is not worth consideration.
How? For one thing, all his publications are in creationist journals. He has never published this theory (and 3 or 4 other crackpot theories) in any reputable physics or astrophysics journal, where an expert could evaluate them. For another, there is a universal consensus among all the respectable astronomers and physics about the age of the universe. All young universe models don't even get a mention in cosmology, because they are now so outlandish, conflicting with thousands (or millions?) of reliable observations. (They are about as believable, to astrophysicists, as "flat earth" theories are believable to geographers.) And so, within the profession, I never sense any hesitation by my colleagues to call Young Earth Creationist (YEC) theories as ridiculous.
So my question to you: Why did you find Humphreys theory the least bit credible? Where did our profession fail you? Why was it not obvious that more than 99% of astronomers and physicists reject YEC?
callahanpb · 19 July 2014
ksplawn · 19 July 2014
FL, I gave you something to think about with my comment on the Got Questions? page about the Documentary Hypothesis. Do you think the page is an adequate rebuttal to the Documentary Hypothesis? How is it not simply repeating the assumption that the Bible is what you think in order to brush aside claims that the Bible might not be what you think?
In order to carry out an honest inquiry, one has to admit the possibility that the answers will not come out to your liking. This means not simply assuming the conclusion you like while considering the evidence. At what point did you admit to yourself that the Bible might not be the most reliable source of information about its own reliability?
TomS · 19 July 2014
I would mention also the incontrovertible fact that the human body is most similar to, and extremely similar to, the bodies of chimps and other apes, among all of the forms that life takes on Earth.
david.starling.macmillan · 19 July 2014
Yardbird · 19 July 2014
ksplawn · 19 July 2014
adumbrodeus · 19 July 2014
I understand that it helped you on the road to understanding, but why wouldn't martin luther believe in geocentricism? That was the scientific consensus of the time because certain essential evidence of heliocentricism hadn't been observed such as stellar parallax. Hell there wasn't even a fully predictive heliocentric model unti Copernicus published De revolutionibus orbium coelestium shortly before his death in 1543, 3 years before Martin Luther's death.
Scientific theory does change as a result of new evidence and geocentricism was recognized as a theory with lots of mathmatical issues but still the best explanation at the time. This happens in science, talk to any physicist, but as the required evidence came in and better geocentric models were introduced (elliptical orbits were big in eliminating the basic mathmatical flaws which plagued the heliocentric model just like the geocentric model) geocentricism was rejected in favor of heliocentricism and later heliocentricism was rejected in favor of the modern view of the cosmos, that there are many solar systems with stars at their center in our galaxy alone.
So while yes, Martin Luther's biblical literalism is the source of modern biblical literalism (hence Sola scriptura as one of his founding principals), to say that believing in geocentricism was a black mark on his scientific literacy is incredibly unfair since there wasn't even a fully predictive model for heliocentricism published til 3 years before his death, let alone anything approaching a scientific consensus in support.
Yardbird · 19 July 2014
DS · 19 July 2014
TomS · 19 July 2014
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 19 July 2014
DS · 19 July 2014
Yardbird · 19 July 2014
DS · 19 July 2014
FL · 19 July 2014
ksplawn · 19 July 2014
FL, how can it be an adequate rebuttal if it assumes the conclusion it attempts to prove?
Mike Elzinga · 19 July 2014
DS · 19 July 2014
Way to address the evidence Floyd.
Just Bob · 19 July 2014
Hmm, I wonder how many churches FL would estimate to have exactly the same approved belief system as his own. Are ones that have close-but-no-quite correct (i.e. different from his own) structures of belief and dogma, close enough to get their members into Heaven -- or are they leading their members down the rosy path to Hell? Is there a specific, well-known denomination (e.g. Southern Baptist or Assemblies of God) that, as a denomination, teaches and supports ALL the right beliefs?
Actually, I wonder if there is an actual estimated number he would advance of living people who hold ALL, or ENOUGH OF the right beliefs to ensure their place in heaven. Or even a percentage of the American population -- or of the world. How about a percentage of all the people who have ever lived?
Even a very off-the-cuff estimate would be interesting.
TomS · 19 July 2014
Just Bob · 19 July 2014
You know, if believing that everything in the Bible is true, or 'inerrant' or whatever, is necessary to be a Christian, then neither Jesus, nor his disciples, nor anyone who ever witnessed his 'miracles' was a Christian! The Christian Bible did not exist then. Most, possibly all, of the NT was never read by most, possibly all, of them. So they could not have been Bible Believin' Christians.
I know, I know! They were all True Christians because they all knew that when the NT books WERE written, they would all be true. But only those that would be approved by a bunch of bishops assigned by the Roman to approve them.
Just Bob · 19 July 2014
Oops "...assigned by the Roman Emperor...."
Yardbird · 19 July 2014
Yardbird · 19 July 2014
Frank J · 19 July 2014
@TomS:
Slightly OT, but since you keep mention the heliocentrism that most creationists have reluctantly embraced:
I gave up on Talk.Origins over a year ago because (1) it had become a troll-feeding frenzy, and (2) I found the new newsgroup format extremely user-unfriendly. But I lurked longe enough to see that a new troll, reminiscent of the "vowel boy" of ~2011, is controlling many of the threads. I haven't found Tony Pagano, TO's long-time geocentrist. Has he popped in, or is he in one of his many prolonged absences? And what about Ray Martinez, the "old-earth-young-biosphere" creationist? Surely he has published his magnum opus by now?
John Harshman · 19 July 2014
hripstra · 19 July 2014
FYI: FL has a blog in Kansas at http://cjonline.com/blog/issues-and-questions. One might learn a bit more about where he's coming from by looking at that, but it looks like more of the same to me, just applied to his local community.
adumbrodeus · 19 July 2014
phhht · 19 July 2014
Scott F · 19 July 2014
TomS · 19 July 2014
Henry J · 19 July 2014
adumbrodeus · 19 July 2014
TomS · 19 July 2014
Yardbird · 19 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 20 July 2014
Luther made it clear that he was arguing geocentrism on the basis of Biblical passages, like "the sun stood still" and so forth.
In contrast, the whole Galileo affair was actually the opposite case. The Pope was arguing for geocentrism on the basis of science -- lack of observable stellar parallax -- and not primarily on the basis of the Bible like Luther did.
Frank J · 20 July 2014
FL · 20 July 2014
John Harshman · 20 July 2014
harold · 20 July 2014
I finally figured out where religion comes from. This comment is not intended to conjecture one way or the other about the existence of God, it's just a thought about the human brain.
Religion is near universal throughout known human history because these things are universal.
1) Humans make heavy use of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" heuristic. It isn't a fallacy. It's a heuristic. A lot of times it's true. Something did cause the next thing to happen. But it leads to superstition. "I scratched my elbow before hunting and I caught a lot of game". Superstition leads to ritual.
2) Humans project human consciousness onto inanimate forces of nature and other species. This leads to the generation of "deities". Deities are projected to care about humans and respond to whether or not human actions "please" or "displease" them. They may be projected to respond only to gestures toward the deities themselves, i.e. the Volcano God may favor you if you make sacrifices and become angered if you don't. Or they may judge human actions toward other humans as well.
3) Humans have some ability to enact plans and control their future, but they tend to both under-utilize this where applicable, yet also exaggerate their control.
All of this leads to the inevitable development of a schedule of ritual, someone whose special job is to keep the ritual straight, and creation of actual god characters.
Every so often the ritual structure is questioned, but usually to replace it with another one, not to question the necessity of such a structure.
And of course, some priestly castes use a strategy, whether by choice of necessity, of inclusion, whereas others use one of exclusion. The Vedic religion was very, very different from what we now call Hinduism. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you won't find anything about reincarnation, vegetarianism, or anything of that sort in the Vedas. Nor are most of the current Hindu deities mentioned. But the Vedic priests hung on and some of their rituals and role remain. Christianity in Western Europe did incorporate some pagan festivals, but it more completely exterminated the structure of prior paganism.
Of course, atheism, apatheism, agnosticism, and so on, have also existed for tens of centuries in societies with written records (and likely elsewhere). They are clearly expressed in writings from Classical times. They were commonplace in Medieval Europe - "official" scholastic philosophers bother to argue endlessly against atheism, there were plenty of "Golliards", and so on. Since some minimum adherence to religion is often enforced to some degree by human governments, and since religion is often seen as helping those who suffer, irreligious behavior is frequently expressed in light-hearted satirical ways, rather than stridently.
Speaking of the middle ages, medieval heretics were obsessed with telling everyone else exactly how to be "true Christians", and would obsessively persist, often literally in the face or horrible tortures. So you may consider the futility of arguing with that personality type.
I would suggest that "religion" is the "natural" state. The human brain is capable of reason but is not "rational". It's a primate brain with a layer of frontal cortex. Our emotions motivate us. No-one would solve an equation or make a brilliant chess move without an underlying emotional motivation, related to basic instincts (one such emotional motivation is curiosity, of course). The human brain is very dependent on biases and heuristics, both of which usually help more than they hurt in the day to day struggle for survival, which is why they were selected for. Use of reason requires some effort, even if it is easy for some of us.
DS · 20 July 2014
Sure, fine. Discuss your church, your beliefs, your good works, what you had for breakfast, how you take communion or sprinkle instead of dunk. Anything to avoid discussing the evidence, anything at all. How predictable. Floyd has been playing this game for years. No one cares.
Scott F · 20 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnnDH1dmt-FcZR0tB7un70T5AYXMAf5p7Y · 20 July 2014
David :
“In contrast, the whole Galileo affair was actually the opposite case. The Pope was arguing for geocentrism on the basis of science – lack of observable stellar parallax – and not primarily on the basis of the Bible like Luther did.”
I have difficulties to agree with your statement. The Roman Inquisition charged Galileo essentially with heresy. Hence, the punishment could be burned at the stake.
“On February 24 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture..."; while the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith." The citation is in the original document of the trial.
So, the English translation of the sentence of June 22, 1633 was (I cite a passage):
“The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.”
Galileo avoid a severe sentence because he was obliged to abjure. In addition the book of the “Dialogues of Galileo Galilei” was prohibited by public edict.
Germanicus
PS: as I rarely post here, please can one say me (or give me a link) how can add references from internet or reproduce a sentence of a blog contributor (pink squares). I am not familiar on the HTML tags used in this blog.
Scott F · 20 July 2014
Scott F · 20 July 2014
TomS · 20 July 2014
harold · 20 July 2014
DS · 20 July 2014
Scott F · 20 July 2014
Scott F · 20 July 2014
njdowrick · 20 July 2014
harold · 20 July 2014
Yardbird · 20 July 2014
ksplawn · 20 July 2014
FL, how can one test the reliability of the Bible by assuming from the start that the Bible is reliable?
Yardbird · 20 July 2014
Yardbird · 20 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 20 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 20 July 2014
The top of that previous link is here.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 20 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 20 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 20 July 2014
TomS · 20 July 2014
Just Bob · 20 July 2014
Yardbird · 20 July 2014
harold · 20 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 20 July 2014
TomS · 20 July 2014
John Harshman · 20 July 2014
Rolf · 20 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 20 July 2014
Scott F · 20 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 20 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 20 July 2014
Scott F · 20 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 20 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnnDH1dmt-FcZR0tB7un70T5AYXMAf5p7Y · 20 July 2014
Scott F · 20 July 2014
harold · 20 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 20 July 2014
John Harshman · 20 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 20 July 2014
John Harshman · 20 July 2014
callahanpb · 20 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 20 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 20 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 20 July 2014
callahanpb · 20 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 20 July 2014
TomS · 21 July 2014
njdowrick · 21 July 2014
TomS · 21 July 2014
FL · 21 July 2014
FL · 21 July 2014
FL · 21 July 2014
njdowrick · 21 July 2014
TomS · 21 July 2014
njdowrick · 21 July 2014
DS · 21 July 2014
A midnight dump of ten thousand words and still not one single attempt to actually deal with the evidence. Just more quotes and arguments from authority. A double bogey on every hole, that's par for the Floyd course.
DS · 21 July 2014
ksplawn · 21 July 2014
eric · 21 July 2014
FL · 21 July 2014
FL · 21 July 2014
eric · 21 July 2014
Carl Drews · 21 July 2014
FL · 21 July 2014
Dave Luckett · 21 July 2014
I just love it when FL condemns another fellow-sinner to Hell.
The correct answer in Christian doctrine is, "God's justice is infinite, as is His mercy, as is His knowledge of the heart of the sinner. It shall be as God Almighty shall will, and it is not for me, as much a sinner as any, to anticipate it in any way. That is the sin of pride, the sin of the Pharisee who gave thanks that he was not as other men, and far more deadly to the soul than any question of belief."
I have to remind myself that, disgusting as the display we have just seen is, revolting as the hypocrisy may be, FL is actually doing good by demonstrating it. He is so effective at turning people away from his evil little cult that he has sometimes left me thinking that doing that is his object.
mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
John Harshman · 21 July 2014
mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
phhht · 21 July 2014
eric · 21 July 2014
callahanpb · 21 July 2014
TomS · 21 July 2014
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 21 July 2014
SinGrudge. Wherein Yahweh creates flawed toys that do not perform to his expectations and when they fail to perform, (as he must have known that they would not) in childish anger saddles them and the world they inhabit with more imperfection and rigs the game so the majority of their descendants go to hell for an eternity of torture. Sounds Legit. Totally not a myth concerning a war god from an ancient Jewish pantheon.mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
FL · 21 July 2014
ksplawn · 21 July 2014
mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
callahanpb · 21 July 2014
I can understand FL's fixation with "universal acid" but I don't agree that it is limited to evolution. A questioning mind provided with accurate information is the key to breaking free from dogma. For me (and presumably Dennett) that's a good thing. For FL, it's a threat. Same words, same concept, very different conclusion.
So as far as I can tell, FL sees reason and empirical study as a siren song for curious minds that will drag them to their damnation. He, like Odysseus, must keep his ears open to this song, but is safely lashed to the mast of faith. For the less heroic, he is happy to provide wax to stuff in their ears.
phhht · 21 July 2014
mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
eric · 21 July 2014
DS · 21 July 2014
And there you have it folks. Floyd admits that you don't need Adam and Eve to be literally true. So all his incompatibility hogwash just goes away. Great. Now you can accept reality and not have to worry about any of that nonsense.
Henry J · 21 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 21 July 2014
Henry J · 21 July 2014
But on the bright side, it looks like the part you quoted were his own words...
mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 21 July 2014
callahanpb · 21 July 2014
callahanpb · 21 July 2014
I want to add one other comment, though I couldn't put it into my previous reply.
There is a question of how to carry out (in FL's words) the "massive task of uniting and mobilizing" people for a good cause. In practice, religion has helped with this, though it doesn't have to be Christianity. Gandhi's movement was also effective, as well as instructive to MLK decades later.
The problem isn't the old canard that atheists don't have morals, but it is true that atheists don't gather together for affirmation and community building, for the most part. If somebody has a good practical answer to this, I'd like to hear it.
FL · 21 July 2014
njdowrick · 21 July 2014
FL · 21 July 2014
mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
FL · 21 July 2014
One more for Mattdance, who said:
You originally said that God punishes all subsequent human beings for Adam and Eve's sin. But now you're changing things a bit after my response, (predictably).
PS...It was Adam and Eve, through their own freewill choice to disobey God. who brought in the sin, death and suffering on us all. (Rom. 5:12). Wasn't God's fault at all. And it was God, in the person of Jesus Christ, who mercifully brought the solution to the huge problem.
FL
TomS · 21 July 2014
phhht · 21 July 2014
mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
TomS · 21 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 21 July 2014
mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 21 July 2014
FL · 21 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 21 July 2014
phhht · 21 July 2014
callahanpb · 21 July 2014
gnome de net · 21 July 2014
gnome de net · 21 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 21 July 2014
Not only do we not have to venture outside this thread to demonstrate that, “within his church, FL is an internal barrier to others who would dare to get a decent education; the kind of which he and the leaders of his church disapprove,” all we have to do is watch the continued diarrhetic display of FL’s mind-boggling ignorance of the history of religion and even of his own denomination.
These churches FEAR liberal education. It is EVIL to them. Anyone who seeks it is LOST; they can cobble together any verses from their bible they wish in order to “prove” it.
One of the worst long-term albatrosses that slave owners hung around the necks of slaves was their “white man’s version” of a religion. Even after the fall of the antebellum South and the repeal of the Jim Crow laws that followed, these churches are still holding their members hostage to ignorance and superstition. It’s a pretty mixed bag.
Yet we’re watching it in real time; right here on this thread. This FL dance has been going on for years here on PT; nothing is ever learned by him and no introspection on his part is ever achieved.
The nearby fence posts have long since walked away in sheer boredom.
FL · 21 July 2014
mattdance18 · 21 July 2014
phhht · 21 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 21 July 2014
And Floyd continues to respond to some things and not others and change the wording of the argument to fit his paradigm. The Bible says some very nice things and I never tried to say otherwise. I have derived plenty of inspiration and warm feelings from the Bible over the years (as well as from many other sources).
But your argument is that the Bible is clear and unambiguous. I simply do not find exhortations to "obey you master" to be a clear condemnation of slavery. If God wanted to condemn it why not have Paul say "slavery is bad and all Christians should free slaves and be committed to ending slavery around the world"? Clearly it wasn't considered to be that important of an issue.
As far as what the TOE has to offer to oppressed people: it offers them the indisputable scientific fact that race is meaningless at a biological level. From there people can construct meaning for themselves. They are welcome to include spiritual aspects if the science itself is not inspiring enough. That says nothing about whether or not the TOE is true. Is gravity not true because it offers nothing to enslaved peoples?
Mike Elzinga · 21 July 2014
rob · 21 July 2014
FL,
Stipulated: Darwin was wrong about some things.
Could you be wrong about some things?
Can you answer yes or no?
DS · 21 July 2014
Ironically, those who read Floyd's inerrant bible would have made him a slave and used the bible to justify it. They would have made sure that he never got an education, that he never learned any science. He seems to have done a fine job of that all by himself.
Scott F · 21 July 2014
Scott F · 21 July 2014
ksplawn · 22 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2014
Or perhaps more to the point:
Question: How do you know your sectarian interpretation of your bible is the correct one?
Answer: Because those others who say we are wrong are wrong.
Rolf · 22 July 2014
I made a rather long post here at the BW, that in my opinion is very relevant to the subject discussed here.
The part from "Religion or Psychology should be of great interest because of the interpretation of the OT story of Joseph and his twelve brothers. Judge for yourselves.
eric · 22 July 2014
DS · 22 July 2014
gnome de net · 22 July 2014
SWT · 22 July 2014
CJColucci · 22 July 2014
Let's take a poll. How many people think FL would actually oppose slavery -- on Biblical grounds -- if it were a thriving institution today and a substantial body of conservative Christian theologians and preachers thought now, as they did then, that the Bible endorsed it?
Just Bob · 22 July 2014
DS · 22 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 22 July 2014
mattdance18 · 22 July 2014
FL · 22 July 2014
mattdance18 · 22 July 2014
DS · 22 July 2014
Told you.
mattdance18 · 22 July 2014
mattdance18 · 22 July 2014
DS · 22 July 2014
So this is just a summary, a recap. Something to think about. Modern science and evolutionary theory demonstrate that there is no such thing as human races. Therefore, there is no justification for slavery based on racism. The bible offers oppressed people totally NOTHING. Creation, Gospel and the bible were used as justification for racism and slavery.
FL · 22 July 2014
ksplawn · 22 July 2014
FL · 22 July 2014
eric · 22 July 2014
eric · 22 July 2014
And, for the record, FL, I find your dodge of "the bible doesn't condone race-based slavery" to be entirely reprehensible. Who gives a crap if it doesn't condone that form of slavery, if it condones slavery based on conquest or religion or citizenship? If it condones the selling of daughters into sexual slavery? That's condoning slavery all the same.
FL · 22 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 22 July 2014
Only creationists are so ignorant of history as to blame evolution for slavery. I have seen ICR's John Morris pull this crap, too. Given that otOoS was published in 1859, how the hell could evolution be responsible; no one in the US could have been enslaved due to evolution. As for racism, justifications for discrimination are numerous - evolution gave racists another means of justification - no more legitimate than any other. Would you condemn capitalism because it justified slavery? If you are going to let the Bible off the hook, then you have to let Darwin off too - not mention his Quaker roots and strong opposition to the slave trade long before it was abolished. Of course, to know that one would need to read something other than Jack Chick tracts.
FL · 22 July 2014
phhht · 22 July 2014
Daniel · 22 July 2014
I'm usually a lurker... but I am astounded by FL's denial of history and reality. I mean, this is just astounding. I'm from Mexico, and ever since my catholic high-school days, I've know that the bible (and religion) was widely used as a justification for slavery in the United States. There is no getting around that.
How can one repeatedly assert that the bible clearly opposes slavery (be it based on racial discrimination, or on xenophobic or class discrimination), while being repeatedly shown passages where it clearly, unambiguously supports and condones the practice, going into very specific details about slave law, like who you can own, how to keep them as slaves forever, how to mark them, how much you can beat them without going to jail... I mean, the level of denial really is flabbergasting. It is seriously shocking to me. It is a fact that the bible was THE main justification for slavery in America. And he has blamed the Theory of evolution for providing a justification for plantation owners (really, those are his words, no quote-mining), and then he was shown to be wrong by the fact that The Origin of Species was published in 1859, while the Civil War ended in 1865. And what does he do? He still clings to that claim!! I mean, how!? Are we dealing with a functional adult here (no offense FL, but I am really in shock)?
Also, he repeatedly says that "atheism and evolution offer nothing to the slaves"... what a twisted view of things. Why would a description of natural facts (which is what the theory of evolution is) say anything about how we as a society should behave? How can he not understand this? It is as stupid as saying that the Germ theory of Disease has failed the poor people of the world by providing the rich class a justification for keeping them poor. I mean, really, it is as stupid as it sounds. How can he not understand this?
Even for a man of his times, Darwin was extremely progressive. He continually expressed his revulsion for slavery, and when he writes, as FL points out, about the primitive races of men, it is clear that he is talking about the state of civilizations, not about who is "more evolved". There is no such thing as "more evolved", but FL doesn't understand that.
I guess I am just expressing my incredulity and shock here. Keep in mind, this is coming from someone who is not american, and was raised in a highly catholic country. That the bible endorses slavery is not debatable, it is a fact. The bible also contains passages against slavery, that is also a fact. That is one of the many contradictions that lead someone like me to not take as an authority on anything.
eric · 22 July 2014
callahanpb · 22 July 2014
Let me try to understand this.
The Bible never actually said the universe was geocentric. Nearly everybody just thought it did until about 400 years ago. The Bible also never condoned slavery. Nearly everybody just thought it did for most of history, including at least half the US white population till about 150 years ago.
So the Bible is inerrant and clear from a plain reading, but obviously people are not inerrant in their reading. So does this mean that we finally have it right, or is it possible that there will be another big "Oh, so that's what the Bible was actually saying?"
Or to put it another way, for FL. You believe that you understand what the Bible literally means and accept it as truth. Do you believe that anyone, say, 400 years ago (around the publication of KJV) would have come up with the same absolutely clear, unambiguous, literal understanding of the Bible that you have?
eric · 22 July 2014
callahanpb · 22 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 22 July 2014
Slavery based on race did not exist when the Bible was written so I don't really think it comments much on that idea. And, Floyd, you really think that the Bible tells men and women that they are equal? Except for the fact that women must submit, cannot teach or hold authority, and are more easily deceived than men? That makes them equal? Separate roles, but still equal? Separate but equal? Just utter garbage. And please don't give some crap about letting the Bible speak for itself. It has. I realize that the Bible also says that there is no male or female. But there certainly is when it comes to being a priest or pastor.
Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 22 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 22 July 2014
callahanpb · 22 July 2014
daoudmbo · 22 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 22 July 2014
FL · 22 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 22 July 2014
DS · 22 July 2014
But nobody is denying that some people tried to use science as a justification for USA slavery. And I agree that some people did.
But the challenge I would give to readers and lurkers is: Did the science itself actually justify the USA slavery system?
The clear answer on THAT question, is a big “No it didn’t, and it still doesn’t.”
Do you agree or disagree?
See the difference is that we can demonstrate genetically that there are no human races. Anyone who denies it is just ignorant and can be shown to be in error using indisputable facts. But you can never convince anyone that their interpretation of the bible is wrong. Can't be done. Floyd is the perfect example. He just cannot admit that he is wrong, ever. He is willing to deny all of reality just in order to maintain his arbitrary beliefs and he claims it is all because of his interpretation of the bible. How sad.
andrewdburnett · 22 July 2014
callahanpb · 22 July 2014
CJColucci · 22 July 2014
FL's 11:06 comment is a fairly reasonable theological argument for the proposition that the Bible, properly understood, does not support slavery. It would probably be acceptable to many Christians, of many variants, including liberal ones, today. But the one thing it is not is a literal reading of the biblical text. And its power to persuade is directly proportional to what one thinks about the morality of slavery to begin with. If you already believe that slavery is wrong, it sounds convincing; if you already think slavery is right, it sounds forced and perverse.
FL · 22 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 22 July 2014
phhht · 22 July 2014
eric · 22 July 2014
andrewdburnett · 22 July 2014
Henry J · 22 July 2014
eric · 22 July 2014
DS · 22 July 2014
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 22 July 2014
christianseveryone submits to the religious beliefs of whomever they happen to work for. Corporations get religious freedom, you however, not so much. No collective bargaining for you, and currently, control over access to contraception because of the corporate "religious belief" that certain forms are "abortifacients." The fact that scientific and medical communities disagree and explain that they are not, that goes out the window for a "closely held religious belief" that they are. Reality is rejected. And it wasn't just about buying the pill, Hobby Lobby argued that their "beliefs" reach all the way into your doctors office and that if the doctor even talks to you about the entire range of contraception or abortion options in regards to your health, the insurance should not cover your doctor's services. Unless you are able to pay out of pocket, corporations effectively get to gag your doctor. Try that on the current minimum wage. (For the sake of intellectual honesty, I have no idea how the decision either supported of rejected that last particular part of their argument.) Yeah, that's not so much a path to "determination," than it is letting you know what you should claim and how to act if you are a true christian and if your relationship with him is good enough that you have "decided to obey god". In "Reconstructed" Dominionist America you have the religious freedom to submit to your corporate masters. The bible says so. Hobby Lobby and ‘Biblical Economics’ (Apologies for dragging things further afield but I had just read that a bit ago and thought it germane to see how "scriptural slavery" is being spun into use today. I have no intentions of having a HL discussion.)phhht · 22 July 2014
FL · 22 July 2014
Rolf · 22 July 2014
mattdance18 · 22 July 2014
mattdance18 · 22 July 2014
DS · 22 July 2014
Daniel · 22 July 2014
mattdance18 · 22 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 22 July 2014
mattdance18 · 22 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 22 July 2014
phhht · 22 July 2014
mattdance18 · 22 July 2014
Floyd,
After reading the foregoing, I find it difficult to take you even remotely seriously. You want to get Biblical? Let's get Biblical. I don't care if you never respond to anything else I write, I just want to see you acknowledge and discuss Exodus 21:2-11, Leviticus 25:44-46, and 1 Timothy 6:1-2. I don't want to see you cut-and-paste or link somebody else's discussion. I want to see what you think, and how you interpret these passages as expressions of the Bible's "total opposition" to slavery.
So let's go. You address those passages. It's part of your -- how did you say it to us atheists and evolutionists? -- "homework." And if you're not going to bother, don't be surprised when I say that your grade is an F. A score of 0 will do that.
Best of luck.
Daniel · 22 July 2014
mattdance18 · 22 July 2014
fnxtr · 22 July 2014
The 2000-year-old book of campfire stories doesn't specifically promote slavery of one traditionally-recognized "race" over another. So Floyd wins, I guess, if you consider arguing like a ninth-grade chess-club nerd "winning".
FL · 22 July 2014
mattdance18 · 22 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 22 July 2014
Given the USA didn't exist when the Bible was compiled, how exactly did it specifically address USA slavery?
The Bible makes it very clear that Mattdance or any one else could own slaves. It also says he could have multiple wives and concubines.
andrewdburnett · 22 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2014
FL’s selective readings of his bible also apply to burning witches and heretics at the stake.
Ask him about the role that John Calvin played in the burning at the stake of Michael Servetus; using slow-burning green wood in order to prolong the agony.
If that is not the right and legal thing to do today, why was it okay back then? And if it wasn’t okay back then, doesn’t that mean the he or anyone else reads their holy book selectively?
“Biblical morality” is not absolute; it changes with the progress people make in understanding the world around them; i.e., science and the Enlightenment.
To back peddle and claim that their bible didn’t really condone previous atrocities is to simply ignore the fact that people continue to use religious texts to do whatever they want to do while still being able to salve their consciences.
callahanpb · 22 July 2014
Matt Young · 22 July 2014
DS · 22 July 2014
Time to dump Floyd and his whole slavery thing to the bathroom wall where it belonged all along. He will never admit that the bible condones slavery. He will never admit that he was wrong. He will only play word games and try to time travel in order to confuse the issue. Meanwhile, I would like to see how Floyd would have survived as a slave owned by those good bible reading christians who used the bible to justify making people like him a slave. I'm sure they would have been convinced by his biblical arguments and given up their evil ways.
harold · 22 July 2014
Looks like I missed about 200 comments. On the other hand, it also looks as if I didn't miss a thing.
Just Bob · 22 July 2014
harold · 22 July 2014
the.lavens · 22 July 2014
Harold commented:
"Looks like I missed about 200 comments. On the other hand, it also looks as if I didn’t miss a thing."
Actually I think, like Daniel earlier in the thread, that it has been very enlightening to see FL ("a true biblical literalist") flounder when asked about slavery in the Bible. Yes, what he did is exactly the same he does with other sources but the Bible is supposed to be his underlying truth. All he has been able to argue is that the Bible does not support white-on-black slavery as practiced in the US. The arguments weren't very convincing - as usual, it was this source says this, this is what it means, and I'm right - but his failure to address the verses which clearly support slavery puts to shame his claim to be a true biblical literalist. I want to know how he interprets those verses - they seem very clear to me.
Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 22 July 2014
Here is an interesting article in the Wake Forest Law Review.
phhht · 22 July 2014
ksplawn · 22 July 2014
phhht · 22 July 2014
callahanpb · 22 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 22 July 2014
King also strongly opposed the Vietnam War in part due to his acquaintance with the Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh. His speeches against the war obviously did not endear him to conservatives - not to mention is work in support of organizing workers.
Please see: Vietnam: Lotus in a sea of fire.
andrewdburnett · 22 July 2014
phhht · 22 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 23 July 2014
stevaroni · 23 July 2014
TomS · 23 July 2014
TomS · 23 July 2014
eric · 23 July 2014
eric · 23 July 2014
DS · 23 July 2014
This is the part where Floyd runs a way because he h=got his ass kicked by twenty different people. After everyone gets fed up and tired of his bullshit and evasions he comes back and declares victory. Usually he claims to have answered all questions and demolished all opposition. From now on he should only be allowed to post on the bathroom wall and everyone should restrict their responses to him to the bathroom wall. That is more courtesy than he has shown others and certainly more than he deserves. It appears that he is not only incapable of making any real argument, but he also seems incapable of realizing when his "arguments" are driving people away from his racist, homophobic, fear based religion.
daoudmbo · 23 July 2014
And it would be very easy for FL's great-grandchildren to take this:
“thou shalt not lie with mankind as with woman kind, it is an abomination”
To PERMIT homosexuality. Very easy: (FL's bible-fearing great-grandchildren a 100 years hence) the basis of "lying" with a woman is vaginal intercourse. Men should not have vaginal intercourse with other men.
I think most homosexual men could cope with that.
CJColucci · 23 July 2014
SWT · 23 July 2014
callahanpb · 23 July 2014
mattdance18 · 23 July 2014
mattdance18 · 23 July 2014
mattdance18 · 23 July 2014
eric · 23 July 2014
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 23 July 2014
Look up "Gibeonites," particularly in relation to Joshua, for Bible-sanctioned racial/ethnic slavery. Basically, the Gibeonites would be the equivalent of a race to the Israelites, the totally other tribe.
Flawd certainly doesn't know his Bible, does he?
Glen Davidson
mattdance18 · 23 July 2014
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 23 July 2014
FL · 23 July 2014
Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 23 July 2014
I wonder why Yahweh thought "Thou shalt not own another human as property" wasn't worth making the top ten do and do nots.
Perhaps a "not-Panda" (eyeroll) has a satisfactory answer.
Not holding my breath.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 23 July 2014
mattdance18 · 23 July 2014
Responding to Floyd on the Bathroom Wall.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 23 July 2014
God can create the world in 6 days, but can't get rid of slavery in 5000 years?
The post hoc reinterpretation of scripture is comical. You can't put new wine in old wineskins.....
Matt Young · 23 July 2014
callahanpb · 23 July 2014
mattdance18 · 23 July 2014
Just Bob · 23 July 2014
ksplawn · 23 July 2014
I seriously wanted an answer to my question.
eric · 23 July 2014
eric · 23 July 2014
Agh, my apologies Matt. Won't happen again.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 23 July 2014
What is interesting is that FL rejects evolution because of what the Bible says, but rejects slavery in spite of what the Bible says. It is like the conservatives on SCOTUS deciding that corporations are people in spite of the Constitution. If common folk want rights then the Constitution needs amending, but with rich folk it just needs reinterpreting.
Daniel · 23 July 2014
FL · 23 July 2014
FL · 23 July 2014
And yes, it's quite okay if and when the above response to Mattdance and others is moved to the BW. BW is my home, not my punishment.
My response to that second OT text Mattdance wanted me to discuss, will simply be there when I get it posted.
Mike Elzinga · 23 July 2014
ksplawn · 23 July 2014
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
FL, why are you ignoring my question?
DS · 23 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 23 July 2014
mattdance18 · 23 July 2014
Responding to Floyd on the Bathroom Wall again.
FL · 23 July 2014
Ksplawn and David, I know you read what Matt Young wrote already. So you don't mind continuing the conversation on the BW, do you?
PS to David...if you sincerely believe that the biblical PSA, as described in the specific Bible verses I gave and with the specific definition given by Theopedia, is "pagan" and "vengeful" of all things, then your self-claim of being a Christian (or more accurately, Christian "Agnostic") has just taken a serious hit.
We gotta burn down some of this Panda mess over at the BW. And that's the charitable interpretation!
FL
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 23 July 2014
Stellar parallax is not a problem if one assumes the stars are far away - something proposed some 2400 years ago. So many assumptions were made with little or no backing evidence. The big thing was that Ptolemy's geocentric system produced decent predictions for use in calendars and astrology. We do need to remember that astrology was big business.
The lack of a concept of inertia would seem to have been a real impediment to thinking of a moving earth. I have always wondered why the Greeks never developed one. I can imagine someone lying in a cart moving along, tossing an apple up in the air and catching it again. Common sense says the earth isn't moving, but we certainly wouldn't fly off it were - even at the speeds it would need to be moving.
Matt Young · 23 July 2014
ksplawn · 23 July 2014
I'm game if it means actually getting an answer. This is the very first time he's even acknowledged me for about half the thread, despite me repeatedly bringing it to his attention.
TomS · 23 July 2014
ISTM that the success of the Prutenic Tables, with calculations based on Copernicus's model, help make Copernicus's model popular. Even though the success didn't rest on the choice of model.
On the revisiting of Galileo's trial by the Vatican in the 20th century. There was the opinion that this approach could backfire, if it would turn out that Galileo's trial was fair and reached the correct result, by the rules in place at the time. Galileo did break the rules. Fortunately, the Vatican ignored legal niceties and proceeded to produce the politically correct decision.
njdowrick · 24 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 24 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 24 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 24 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 24 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 24 July 2014
I was pointing out that drop-Coriolis wasn't detected until Newton's time.
andrewdburnett · 24 July 2014
njdowrick · 25 July 2014
Frank J · 25 July 2014
TomS · 25 July 2014
About the creationists' use of the term "historical science", as contrasted with "experimental science" as a way of disparaging evolutionary biology.
One might with as much justification separate out "remote science" from "experimental science". Up until the mid-20th century, no one, and no experimental equipment, had gone farther than a few miles of the Earth's surface (either up or down, by the way), no one could say from direct experience or by repeatable experiments what was going on on the Moon or beyond. The Newtonian exposition by gravity, inertia and the rest as applied to the movements of the planets was "remote science". Even today, the most that we can claim to have explored is the Solar System, and everything else is "remote science". (And, by the way, the same is still true of the center of the Earth.)
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 25 July 2014
Just Bob · 25 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 25 July 2014
Well, it wasn't even Ptolemy's model which was really the focus in the time of Galileo. The two primary competing models were Tycho's, which accurately predicted everything better than Ptolemy and explained the lack of parallax and the lack of apparent movement, and Kepler's model, which was slightly better at predicting than Tycho's but couldn't explain parallax or the lack of measureable Coriolis.
Galileo, for his part, set up an utterly false dichotomy between the Copernican model (which had more epicycles than Ptolemy's) and the Ptolemaic one, completely ignoring the two better models.
david.starling.macmillan · 25 July 2014
Ptolemy's model completely imploded when the phases of Venus were observed.
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 25 July 2014
No - Copernicus used two epicycles to get rid of the equant in Ptolemy's model. All three models were mathematically the same except Brahe had better observational data - the differences were due to perspective.
david.starling.macmillan · 25 July 2014
Right, so Tycho's model was the best of the three on that basis alone.
Also, the whole "explaining the phases of Venus without resorting to a ridiculous moving Earth" bit.
njdowrick · 26 July 2014
Frank J · 26 July 2014
Mike Elzinga · 26 July 2014
Frank J · 26 July 2014
callahanpb · 26 July 2014
Just Bob · 26 July 2014
Frank J · 27 July 2014
TomS · 27 July 2014
Here is a website which covers a great many views, Gert Korthof's "Towards The Third Evolutionary Synthesis".
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/
Frank J · 27 July 2014
Ian Derthal · 28 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 28 July 2014
How can you not attack their faith? If you don't think organization which claim evolution and Christianity are compatible and the Bible should be read allegorically aren't attacking their faith, then you don't understand their faith.
david.starling.macmillan · 28 July 2014
John Harshman · 28 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 28 July 2014
John Harshman · 29 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 29 July 2014
I suppose I'm puzzled as to why you would accept the authority of the fundamentalists -- who are already so obviously wrong about so many things -- on something as academic as textual criticism.
John Harshman · 29 July 2014
I think you're having problems with argument here. So far you have raised a number of invalid points in reply:
1. Proof by assertion ("Well, it certainly isn't true").
2. Improper statement of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
3. Proof by majority vote.
4. Negative appeal to authority/ad hominem.
Perhaps you're just having an off day, but this is not encouraging. Let me try to restate the questions.
1. If the bible were incompatible with science, would it be correct to avoid mentioning that?
2. What reasons are there to suppose that the metaphorical interpretation of Genesis is correct and a literal one wrong? (And what does "correct" even mean?)
My opinion, for the record, is that while there might be tactical advantages to avoiding the issue, dishonesty tends to poison any discussion too. And that if we interpret "correct" as "what most Christians and Jews, including the authors, thought until fairly recently", then the literal interpretation is correct.
david.starling.macmillan · 29 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 29 July 2014
Using science, we can say that common descent is the best explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth. We can also say that this contradicts a literal reading of Genesis and almost any other creation story.
The thing we can't say is what is theologically correct.
How does anyone know that accepting evolution is what his or her god wants him or her to accept as true? We have Christians who sit on both sides - then of course we have Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shinto, etc.
Does any one have the authority to tell another believer what to believe? Many people think they do, but on what basis do they claim authority and is it any better than anyone else's. Reading about the reformation in the early 16th c. makes one wonder why people were so willing to kill over something to which no one knew the answer - works or faith really?
david.starling.macmillan · 29 July 2014
John Harshman · 29 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 29 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 29 July 2014
John Harshman · 29 July 2014
David,
I think you're confusing the issues, largely by conflating them. How do you determine what modes of textual criticism are legitimate? It seems to me that those who want to interpret the bible text as solely allegorical, without claims of fact, are very much interested in saving the bible as truthful and simultaneously compatible with science, and I think their interest is forcing them into tortured and novel exegeses. If you simply jettison the axiom that the bible must be true (in whatever sense), reasoning becomes much clearer and simpler.
OK, Genesis is compatible with science, but only if you read it in a way that nobody did before the mid-19th Century. The first creation story is a version of, and a response to, the Babylonian creation myth. We may agree that the fact that YHWH is responsible for everything (not Marduk, not Tiamat), and that nothing else is a god, is the most important lesson for the writers. But that doesn't preclude other lessons. The sequence may or may not be important (what evidence that it wasn't?) but the literal 6-day creation evidently was, as it explains why we have a 7-day week with a holy day of rest at the end, and it seems that the writers considered that a big deal, even if Augustine didn't. And that's hardly all of Genesis. Even Augustine believed in a literal first man and woman and in a global flood. I can't offhand say how important he considered them. But the doctrine of original sin is built around the former, so at least the Catholic church considers it a big deal, and maintains it in the face of science.
TomS · 29 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 29 July 2014
John Harshman · 29 July 2014
OK, perhaps "nobody did before the mid-19th Century" is exaggeration. I will point out that just because someone considers a text allegorical doesn't mean he doesn't also consider it literally true. There can be more than one meaning at once.
Can you elaborate on the author of Hebrews and the various church fathers?
Can you also provide evidence that Genesis considers all of Adam's life to have been during the 6th day? The Adam story and Genesis 1 are two different mutually contradictory stories, and I don't see any attempt whatsoever to integrate them in the text. What do you see?
Who believed that creation days were literal thousands of years? Can you document this?
And does Catholic doctrine not specify a literal Adam and Eve, sole progenitors of the human race? Is Humani Generis not Catholic doctrine?
david.starling.macmillan · 29 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 29 July 2014
My understanding of historical and textual criticism is that sure it is a secular academic field, but like any academic field there is much disagreement within and much push back from without by "conservative" theologians. Conservative theologian does not entail literalist either - many Catholic, Jewish and mainline Protestant scholars at major universities disagree with much of modern historical criticism.
I grew up in the literal Bible world where people were convinced the stories were true. I think historical criticism was probably much more involved in my leaving than science was. Once we rid the texts of the historicity, we are left with little more than "treat others like you want to be treated." Nice, but not very consonant with much of Abrahamic religious action.
John Harshman · 29 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 29 July 2014
John Harshman · 29 July 2014
Rolf · 30 July 2014
How reasonable is it to assume that what from a rational point of view are myths, in fact are recounts of historical facts told by God sitting down at the campfire with primitive, ignorant sheepherders of ~ 3000 years BCE?
That's the problem believers refuse to consider: We are required to believe in miracles from the very beginning. And not just everyday miracles that we may se around us anytime, but miracles several orders of incedibility below the world as we know it. Why should the world have been any different back then?
The fact of the two creation myths are a fine example. It shows that people at different locations under different conditions created each their own myth consistent with their particular experience of their limited view of world.
Because people although not stupid, indeed were ignorant around that time. They just invented stories to account for their interpreation of the world, a world still alien, unknown, incomprehensible to them.
And that's just the lesson taught by the history of science: The domain of gods has been reduced from being the source of everything - from the diurnal cycle of the sun to rains, winds and everything else, to - not an unimportant, but poorly understood domain of spirit, man's soul.
But the lack of understanding has led to religions by and by coming to rule the world and determine what people should believe and god damn the unbelievers or heretics. That's how we got celestial epicycles and it was a bloody business to get rid of them.
Even though much has been written and the world acutally has been "put in order" as far as understanding is concerned, the urge to believe is strong. Indoctrination of the next generation turns people into blind believers no matter what the truth may be.
Religions are burdened with a heavy guilt that they refuse to acknowledge. Religious experience and feelings are part of our nature but the creation of book religions has been a distaster.
Where might we have been today if Constantine (or someone else in power) had not seized upon religion and Scriptures as powerful political tools?
Although fundamentalism already had paved the road by brutally quenching opposition; creating a hierarchy of clergy with extended rights to rule the lives and minds of people.
But there is a slight hope, but will it survive? The theory of evolution may someday reach a level of maturity that no longer can be denied (we would have moved beyond denial logn ago were it not for indoctrintion of the young. My heart cries when I write that. I was spared all kinds of indoctrination, I had to raise myself - from learning to read and write at four, elementary school was a boring breeze, then beginning to study the world at thirteen. My road has been long and winding but it was my road.
Just a few quick remarks an early Wednesday morning...
TomS · 30 July 2014
John Harshman · 30 July 2014
TomS · 30 July 2014
John Harshman · 30 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 30 July 2014
TomS · 30 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 30 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 30 July 2014
I think there's probably some chronological snobbery that comes into play here -- the notion that we're just vastly smarter than the ancients, and they were all stupid and gullible. I don't think that's justified. They had real lives -- they struggled and suffered and thought and loved just like us. We see farther than they only because we stand on the shoulders of giants. Granted, they would have had no way of coming up with heliocentrism, but that's not their fault.
Just because there are people today credulous enough to believe that the universe is only 6,000 years old doesn't mean everyone in the ancient world would have been so credulous. Our best understanding is that they were inclined more to see the cosmos as eternal than as young; the seasons certainly seem to run on an endless cycle, after all. They had the same ability for understanding abstract thought and nuance and metaphor that we have. What's more, they lacked the obsessiveness over historical accounts and necessary textual literalism that gave rise to creationism itself. Their world was just as real and physical to them as ours is to us. Who's to say that creation myths were formulated or treated as histories at all?
And this is historical criticism in an investigative sense, not in a critical sense.
phhht · 30 July 2014
callahanpb · 30 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 30 July 2014
callahanpb · 30 July 2014
phhht · 30 July 2014
eric · 30 July 2014
CJColucci · 30 July 2014
I don't get the point of this latest argument. In theological disputes there simply is no ascertainable truth of the matter. All there is, or can be, is more or less accurate accounts of what people who identify as adherents believe and the interpetive arguments they make to support those beliefs.
I would think it obvious that a more or less mainstream religion would have to go through the necessary mental gymnastics to interpret its scriptures in ways that don't outrage the common sense of the time, and I don't see what's wrong with that, assuming you want to play at all. Outsiders can point that out, but all they're really saying is they don't want to play. And we already know that.
david.starling.macmillan · 30 July 2014
phhht · 30 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 30 July 2014
callahanpb · 30 July 2014
eric · 30 July 2014
TomS · 30 July 2014
CJColucci · 30 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 30 July 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 30 July 2014
callahanpb · 30 July 2014
https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnKupVGX70N9ZsvLu8iScIzWpyVj8bds_Q · 30 July 2014
And it has rainbows.....
david.starling.macmillan · 30 July 2014
"Daddy, why are there rainbows after a storm?"
"Well, dear, we have a story about that -- a story that your grandpa told me when I was a little boy. A long, long time ago, so very long ago...."
david.starling.macmillan · 30 July 2014
I think children should be taught myth. Should believe in Santa Claus. It's good to hear about dragons and mermaids and castles and far-away places. They need to know that not all good stories are true, and things don't have to be true to make good stories.
The problem with fundamentalism is not myth, but a lack of myth. A lack of imagination, of fantasy, of the shades of grey that teach us to distinguish between the true, the false, and everything that is neither.
phhht · 30 July 2014
callahanpb · 30 July 2014
phhht · 30 July 2014
TomS · 31 July 2014
OTOH, I can remember hearing about there being a real place on Earth, one which is in the atlas, where the Bible events took place. I had assumed that they were events in a kind of mystical land, and it kind of disappointed me to bring them down to a crass ordinary place.
eric · 31 July 2014
callahanpb · 31 July 2014
eric · 31 July 2014
dbaileydesign · 3 September 2014
Thank you for this wonderful series. I grew up in the religious homeschooling movement, fortunately I've realized over the years that their version of "science" left much to be desired. In fact, I never studied real science or biology in high-school. Being a woman, I was raised with the expectation that I would marry and be a home-maker, so there was a lot of emphasis placed on acquiring skills deemed necessary to carry out that job. Everything else was secondary. It's really important to me to raise my kids with a fundamental understanding of science and math, so I've been trying to fill in the blanks for myself as best I can. I don't intend to homeschool them, so they will get a normal education in the subjects, however, my parents had a normal education in these subjects and yet they fully embrace YEC and all of its tenants. So I don't see a normal education as a guarantee against embracing pseudo-science. Your posts have helped me understand some things about evolution that I did not before, especially the part about thinking of evolution as change across populations as opposed to linear change. I've passed these articles on to some of my siblings who are more open to questioning the things they were raised to believe.
DS · 3 September 2014
DS · 3 September 2014
david.starling.macmillan · 3 September 2014
dbaileydesign · 7 September 2014
dbaileydesign · 7 September 2014