CalicoJ,

"Since religion is subject to interpretation and subjective analysis, it makes it all the more important that the actions of the state and matters of objective reality (i.e., science) are kept absolutely free of religion, at least in my view."

Amen...

NOTE: If you care to joint this discussion you can jump to Susan Jacoby's thread under the marriage question. Who knows, we could break the record of two thoughtful replies in a row among posters of different beliefs/no-beliefs.

@ Rcofield

Thanks for your reply Re: Leviticus...hey, wait...two reasonable, thoughtful replies in a row? On the subject of religion? Between an Atheist and a Theist? WE HAVE A NEW INTERNET RECORD!!! I think you may have won a teddy bear or something.

Okay, now let's see if I can start trouble :)

I wouldn't ever imply that Christianity has any sort of monopoly on burning people or war crimes or anything like that. There must be hundreds of major schools of thought, political and religious, throughout the millennia with atrocities to their names, even Atheism. That being said, I would suggest that crimes committed in the name of Christianity may or may not be the single largest number out of the group and they are surely in the top three.

I suspect, from your other posts, that you would argue that people who commit violence aren't truly following the teachings of Christianity (I don't mean to put words in your mouth, feel free to correct me). Here's the thing--I would imagine many of them feel, just as strongly as you, that they are. Since religion is subject to interpretation and subjective analysis, it makes it all the more important that the actions of the state and matters of objective reality (i.e., science) are kept absolutely free of religion, at least in my view.

MY FELLOW POSTERS,

They will probably be shutting down this thread soon. May I suggest that when that happens we "reconvene" on Susan Jacoby's thread under the marriage question? Some good discussion going on over there already.

SHERLOCK,

You may (call me Watson :))

I, as well, appreciate the civil dialogue.

I think where I disagree with you may lie in that you are not distinguishing between the Creator (God) and the creature (man). I think a simple analogy may help demonstrate what I am saying, though any mere analogy falls woefully short of capturing the character of God.

Suppose a man has two sons. As a good father, he teaches the sons to love each other and treat one another with respect and dignity.

Additionally, as a good father, he gives them a structured set of rules and expects them to obey those rules. Both sons are warned that disobedience of these rules will result in punishment. These rules are established by the father because he loves his sons and is concerned that they learn responsibility so that they will one day be law-abiding, productive citizens.

Now, let’s say that the younger son consistently disobeys one or more of the rules of his father. He is warned that continued disobedience will result in the aforementioned punishment if he persists. Despite the warnings, the younger son persists, and the father executes the forewarned correction (perhaps a corporeal punishment).

The older son, observing the exercise of his father’s discipline, begins to look at his younger brother with contempt. A sense of superiority begins to develop in his immature mind, and soon he begins to verbally rebuke his younger brother when he disobeys his father. As time proceeds, the older brother catches his younger sibling disobeying the same rule that resulted in his father physically punishing him. Emboldened by his new-found sense of superiority, the older son seizes a belt and holds his little brother down and gives him a sound whipping.

Is the older son doing something he has seen his father do? Yes. Does he have a right to discipline his younger brother? Certainly not. Why? Because it is beyond him; such discipline is the exclusive jurisdiction of the father. Shall the father sternly correct the incorrigible intrusion into his jurisdiction by the older son? You betcha.

While this is not a perfect analogy (no analogy ever is), the point is that Divine judgment of the creature is a jurisdictional issue and belongs exclusively to the Creator.

Romans 12:19 Never take vengeance into your own hands, my dear friends. Stand back and let God punish if he will. For it is written: “Vengeance belongs to me: I will recompense” saith the Lord.

May you be ten minutes in heaven before the devil learns you have expired. :)

CALICOJ,

(Part 2 of 2)

Which is precisely why the gospel of Jesus Christ is good news. The Apostle John put it this way: John 1:17 “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” Christ came to sacrifice Himself to take away sin and guilt and free us from the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13).

By fulfilling all the impossible demands of the Law on our behalf, He secured eternal redemption for those who believe on Him (see Hebrews 9:11-14, 10:11-14). True Christians do not try to justify themselves in the sight of God by obedience to the Law, which is impossible to obey perfectly. Rather, they, by a reasoned faith, submit themselves to Christ whose perfect fulfillment of the Law is offered to God on their behalf. (Galatians 2:16 & II Corinthians 2:18-21).

To strip the entire book of Leviticus from the bible would be akin to firing a highly effective tutor. Paul states this clearly in Galatians 3:24 “Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” In essence, the Law, which was seemingly harsh and definitely impossible to keep, was graciously designed by God to point us to the redemption and justification that can only be found in Jesus Christ.

And the sacrifice of Christ (His atonement) was of such magnitude that not only did it accomplish redemption for those who believe, it accomplished a temporary stay of execution from the demands of Divine justice for everyone who does not believe. (see Acts 17:30-31).

In the end, to answer your question, the penalties of Leviticus 21:9 & 20:9 (as well as all other penalties related to the OT Law) are no longer immediately executed because of the sacrifice of Christ. So…any Christian who has ever executed another human being in the name of Christ has done so in direct disobedience to the clear teachings of Christ (see my recent post to JUSTACOMMENT).

This is the answer to your questions from a purely biblical perspective. While I know there are many on this thread who do not believe what the bible says, it is not internally contradictory in any of its teachings.

And…you are not insinuating that so-called Christians have historically “cornered the market” when it comes to killing folks…are you?

Peace brother (or sister?)

CALICOJ,
(Part 1 of 2)

Concession noted and appreciated. Not often I get that from the other side of the table.

I will attempt to respond to your questions from Leviticus, again speaking strictly from a biblical perspective.

It is unmistakable that the OT Law was quite stringent, even, in some cases, brutally harsh from our perspective. I could make a reasonable case for the strictness of these laws by contrasting the holiness of God against the wickedness of mankind, but I don’t think that will be necessary to answer your question.

The Lev. 20:9 passage speaks to the penalty of death for those who “cursed” their parents. This meant substantially more than calling their dad an s…o…b (although I am fairly certain if I had cursed my father the penalty would have been something very near “death” :). This was an issue of total rebellion from which there was no possibility of rescue, and was seen as an outright rejection of all authority to the extent that the child was a threat to the community. Even today we have laws that deal with extreme rebellion against the authorities, though said laws are certainly not as stringent.

The Lev. 21:9 passage deals with the promiscuous daughters of the Levitical priests, the penalty being death by fire. Fire was a form of purification, indicating the necessity of the priests who ministered before holy God being pure and above reproach in every aspect of their lives. (Most “priests” today wouldn’t have made the cut back then, which probably wouldn’t be a bad thing).

Additionally, the priests of the OT foreshadowed the Priesthood of Christ which procured mercy and grace for us (Hebrews 4:14-16), and moral rectitude in this office was a requirement about which God didn’t beat around the bush. Even still, from the human perspective, this (and most of the OT Law) seems terribly harsh.

TBC

RCOFIELD (or may I call you Watson?:))

Thanks for this exchange of ideas, irrespective to where we end up.

My contention is simple: God (which includes Jesus as part of the Trinity) committed genocide himself, killed innocent kids. All as a Divine Justice. Then, whatever christian humans did during the crusades and the inquisition was following the divine example and in the name of God (Trinity). God gave the key of the justice in the world to his kids, if they wrecked the car is daddy's fault. Sorry but Jesus has to pay.

Whether God gave a direct command to the apostles similar to kill infidels is not that relevant having in mind that the way God behaved the empowered followers behave.

Peace brother.

JUSTACOMMENT, (or may I call you Sherlock?:))

You state: "You may have a point in that the God and the prophet of Islam were more direct in commanding atrocities than the christian God and his son, but that is not much relevant."

So, would you concede the point that I "may" have? The point in contention here is simply this: Christ did not command His disciples to commit atrocities. To the contrary, He strictly forbade them. Anyone who commits atrocities in the name of Christ is doing so in direct disobedience to His clear teachings. Consequently, no clear-thinking person would be so presumptive as to take Divine justice into their own hands in direct disobedience of the Divine. This stands in sharp distinction to he religion of Islam.

Working with your attempted equivocation in view, are the above statements true or false? If true, concede the point and let's discuss the character of God. If you contend they are false, please give book, chapter, and verse...and clear, non-contradictory exegetical explanation.

And go ahead...stick your head out of the hole on the abortion issue. It is quite relevant to our discussion, and I'm going to use it here anyway, so why not "nail your colors to the mast?"

May the Force be with you, brother.

RCOFIELD,

“It appears that, in your haste to impugn the character of God, you may have forgotten the charge you made that I responded to originally. You tried to make a one-to-one equivocation between Islam and Christianity in the commission of atrocities. I merely pointed out that one cannot make the case from scripture that Christians are commanded to commit atrocities, and that those who do so are willfully disobeying the clear commands of Christ.”

“It appears that you have left your original premise behind (perhaps because it cannot be supported?) and now want to argue over the character of God. If you will decide which point you want to argue and let me know I will be glad to accommodate you.”

Elementary my dear Watson, Christians are commanded to commit atrocities by example. The God in the Bible behaved violently erasing persons, families, cities, regions and the whole world population. If you frequently read certain passages of the bible is like reading horror books every day. Too much Bible may has made Bush to call the mission in Iraq a crusade, but who knows, maybe it was a political trick gone bad.

You may have a point in that the God and the prophet of Islam were more direct in commanding atrocities than the christian God and his son, but that is not much relevant.

“In the meantime, I would be interested to know your position on abortion as it will be relevant to either topic you chose.”

I believe we already have a bunch in our hands. This could be a topic for later. Hope to hear from you.

Peace

JUSTACOMMENT,

It appears that, in your haste to impugn the character of God, you may have forgotten the charge you made that I responded to originally. You tried to make a one-to-one equivocation between Islam and Christianity in the commission of atrocities. I merely pointed out that one cannot make the case from scripture that Christians are commanded to commit atrocities, and that those who do so are willfully disobeying the clear commands of Christ.

It appears that you have left your original premise behind (perhaps because it cannot be supported?) and now want to argue over the character of God. If you will decide which point you want to argue and let me know I will be glad to accommodate you.

In the meantime, I would be interested to know your position on abortion as it will be relevant to either topic you chose.

Peace

RCOFIELD,

“Speaking from the standpoint of scripture (as that is the point from whence you are arguing) you are conflating the exercise of Divine justice, executed by an omniscient God, with finite men presuming to take matter of Divine judgment into their own hands. The former is capable of exercising perfect justice while the latter only pervert justice and that in direct disobedience of the teachings of Christ.”

I mostly referred to acts committed by God directly or commanded to be executed by a third party, that is, angels or humans. You cannot ignore that what you call God (Father+Son+H.Spirit) committed genocide drowning practically all humans, including innocent babies. Same happened in Sodom and Gomorrah, cities wiped out including fetuses in the wombs and babies. Then comes Jesus (one third of God) and tells you that he loves children.

“And to accept the scripture interpretations of "godless geeks" is akin to accepting the interpretation of complex scientific data from a community of monkeys.”

If those monkeys do not believe in the bible I trust more their interpretation of complex scientific data than interpretations coming from humans that follow science written in old scriptures full of violence.

@ Rcofield

Okay, I admit it--I had utterly forgotten the passages in Hebrews that dealt with Christianity's blood sacrifices when I wrote that. My bad.

Wow...it's been quite a while since I had to conceed a point to a Theist. Usually I just get to arguing with clowns like Spidermean and Thomas Paul Moses Baum, and they couldn't debate their way out of a wet paper bag--I'm still stuck on Spidermean saying God exists because fruit tastes good (which makes grapefruit a work of Satan, I suppose).

Since you seem to have actually read the Bible, I'm curious to hear your take on Leviticus 21:9 or 20:9. If you interpret Jesus's sacrifice so broadly that it nullifies even acts of punishment as well as sacrifices, then does anything in Leviticus apply at all? Couldn't we just strip the entire book out of the Bible and save on printing costs? And if you don't interpret it that broadly, shouldn't Christians be burning people right and left? Well--still be burning, I suppose I should say.

PSOLUS,

"I'm busy evolving; you?"

You couldn't possibly prove that. Takes too long. You'll have to die and wait about a million years to be discovered in the fossil record by homo sapiens who no longer have tailbones.

Me,....judging by how painful it was to get out of bed this morning....I'm pretty certain I am....devolving.

"Where'd everybody go?"

I'm busy evolving; you?

Where'd everybody go?

RICKK101,

Yeah, you're right. I didn't read Pinker's "Blank Slate," just looked at the title and jumped to conclusions. I will add Pinker to my reading list.

As to your conclusion that we live in a more peaceful/safe society, as you put it “since the end of the cold war,” (I was thinking in terms of the entire 20th century), you appear to be selecting a very narrow frame of reference. The period of time between the end of the cold war an present day is a very short period of time relative to 5000 years of recorded history, and I would contend that it may be a little early to break out the bubbly and start celebrating our “peace” and “safety.” We will see.

I don't think my assertion concerning Darwin's survival of the fittest (SOF) is as "silly" as you would like to make it either. While the splitting of the atom was philosophically/socially somewhat neutral, the same cannot be said of SOF.

First, Darwin never established SOF as a scientific fact, and even had doubts about it himself. He realized that he had not sufficiently established it as fact, and even wrote that if his theory of “natural selection/preservation of the favored races/SOF” were ever disproved his whole theory of evolution would unravel. More on this latter.

Seizing on Darwin's unestablished theory, others shaped it into philosophical and social theory, often, though not always, referred to as Social Darwinism. While you try to take me to task on my Darwin/Hitler inference, you missed the point entirely. I did not contend that Hitler/Nazism embraced the whole of Darwin's theories. Rather, it is unmistakable that his vision of the “Übermensch” (superhuman) is influenced by Nietzsche's logical use of SOF as a philosophical and social construct. Hitler often remarked that peace could only be achieved by a return to the “natural order” “where the strong dominate the weak,” an order that, in his view, was corrupted by the Jews. It is difficult to contend that this understanding was not influenced to a large degree by Nietzsche's use of SOF. And said vision resulted in atrocities, the magnitude of which have not seen before in all of history.

Two points in closing. First, your response was noticeably absent a retort to my contentions concerning abortion/Margaret Sanger/Darwinism.

And finally, could you or anyone else on this thread point me to studies that have established natural selection/preservation of favored races/SOF as scientific law by the use of the scientific method?

JUSTACOMMENT,

You write: "Hope I'm not taking Genesis and the Trinity out of context. If that is the case you can read instances of violence in the entire Bible committed or accepted by God (Father+Son+H.Spirit). There are 127 examples in http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleViolence.htm"

Speaking from the standpoint of scripture (as that is the point from whence you are arguing) you are conflating the exercise of Divine justice, executed by an omniscient God, with finite men presuming to take matter of Divine judgment into their own hands. The former is capable of exercising perfect justice while the latter only pervert justice and that in direct disobedience of the teachings of Christ.

And to accept the scripture interpretations of "godless geeks" is akin to accepting the interpretation of complex scientific data from a community of monkeys.

CALICOJ,

You write: "TO ALL THEISTS ON THIS BOARD--So if you say you're a Christian and you don't burn goats pretty frequently, aren't you picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to follow? If not, why not? And if you only follow the parts of the Bible that don't gross you out, just how faithful are you, really?"

Hebrews 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

And:

Hebrews 10:11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

Speaking purely from the standpoint of scripture, Christ's sacrifice of Himself eliminated the necessity of animal sacrifice.

BlaiseP,

"That is my point."

The point that you actually make is that you do not understand science in general, and evolution theory in particular.

@GalapagosPete asked "What is your point?"

BlaiseP responds: "I would challenge the hold Darwinism has on us today and evolution’s exalted position as a ‘science’ when it is still a theory..."

There's no such thing as Darwinism - or Einsteinism, or Newtonism - but Darwinian evolutionary theory has a hold for one very good reason: it is the best explanation for how life on Earth arrived at its present diversity.

You see, in science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. In science, theories do not "become" facts, that never happens. Facts are a subset of theories. So to say that evolution is "only a theory" simply betrays a lack of understanding of the scientific process.

BlaiseP continues: "...and one with some real problems......evolution is set in time...dependent upon mutations that happen only once, and cannot, by definition, be observed or duplicated..."

These are not original claims, have been answered elsewhere, and would not even be asked by someone who knew something about the subject, even if they disagreed with it. Briefly, however, if I walk into a room, see a rock lying in the middle of the floor and see a broken window, I can reasonable infer the events of the recent past although I did not witness them. And I could do so even if I had no previous experience with windows broken by rocks.

Similarly, we have fossils and we have reliable methods of dating those fossils. And I don't know where you get your "definition" of mutation; it can be and has been observed, and it can be duplicated rather easily; the mechanism is well-understood; even creationists accept mutation. And why do you say that mutations can happen "only once"? What evidence do you have for that assertion?

BlaiseP: "Additionally evolutionary theory—flawed as it is—has had devastating effects upon society. As an idea of ‘progress’ dependent upon the mechanical elimination of the weak, how could it be otherwise?"

First, Darwinian evolutionary theory has not had "devastating effects upon society"; it merely describes what is observed in nature; it is not a philosophy; that it is poorly understood is well-demonstrated by your post: "progress" implies that evolution has a goal, which it does not, any more than water running down a hill has the "goal" of reaching the bottom.

Second, the concept that the weak fail to survive is not Darwin's; he actually said that the species that is the fittest *for a particular environment* will survive, possibly at the expense of other, less well-adapted species.

BlaiseP: "That is my point."

I am afraid that your point fails.

RCofield -

LOL! Pinker's "Blank Slate Theory"??? You don't even know what the book is about! He writes AGAINST the idea of the "the blank slate". Before you pass judgement, RCofield, do try reading it.

And as for your dislike of my use of percentages - consider this: imagine a village of 500 people, and 100 of them die through violence. Now imagine a country of 150 million people, and 100,000 of them die through violence. Which is the more violent society? Do you understand?

Or, to put it another way, more people lived out their lives without fear of being murdered in the 20th century than in any prior century.

Or, to put it yet another way - this "vicious" society we live in now, since the end of the Cold War, is the safest period, most peaceful period in human history. That is beyond dispute.

But the silliest thing you said was: "When one postulates, as did Darwin, that the driving mechanism of human evolution is survival of the fittest one opens a seriously dangerous can of worms."

Let's try my version: "When one determines that splitting an atom releases a large amount of energy, one opens a seriously dangerous can of worms."

So let's all go deny Atomic Theory because someone might use it to do something bad.

For that matter, the idea that someone has a divine right to promote their agenda is a "seriously dangerous can of worms". We'd better throw out the whole God concept before someone uses it to justify murder, war, slavery, subjugation of women, torture, and genocide. Oh wait, it's too late!

You mentioned "Mein Kampf". A quick bit of history: Hitler was a creationist. Darwin doesn't appear anywhere in Mein Kampf. The Nazis banned books by Darwin and put them on the list of books to be burned. Oh, but references to God are pervasive in "Mein Kampf".

Instead of your sophomoric Darwin-Hitler connection, you might research the REAL sources of Nazism. I'd start with Houston Stewart Chamberlain - a major influence on Hitler's ideas of Germanic supremacy. Oh, but you don't DARE read about Chamberlain, RCofield - because Chamberlain hated Darwin, hated evolutionary theory, and even hated "Social Darwinism". No, you'd better not dare to read anything that doesn't conform to your established ideology.

Finally, and to reiterate, you can't exonerate evolutionary theory because it cannot have responsibility. It is just a fact. Species evolve, and natural selection is the primary selective mechanism. Nothing you can say changes that simple truth.

@ Rcofield

I've always favored the social determinism school of thought as governing human actions and psychology, although I suspect genetics probably plays a role of an unknown nature in making people more or less vulnerable to various external influences.

As for logical positivism, I like it very much. Although it's not flawless, it has an admirable decisiveness in its dismissal of metaphysical meanderings among its virtues.

Rcofield,

“When verse 34 is taken in context it is obvious that Christ is speaking metaphorically.”

Even if you accept the interpretation of Mt. 10:34 as metaphor you cannot forget that Jesus killed the entire humanity and fauna, except for a couple of each kind and the children of Noah. I say this because Christians are monotheists who believe that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God. So it was Jesus who scraped almost all living humans at that time. Crusaders and Inquisitors were just following his example.

Hope I'm not taking Genesis and the Trinity out of context. If that is the case you can read instances of violence in the entire Bible committed or accepted by God (Father+Son+H.Spirit). There are 127 examples in http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/BibleViolence.htm

TO ALL THEISTS ON THIS THREAD

It was a while back, but I believe it was RickK101 who mentioned in passing the practice of sacrificing animals to God. Although more typically associated with non-Christian gods like Zeus, the Bible does in fact contain a substantial number of detailed references to sacrificing animals--goats and calves, if I recall--to the Christian god. It has always fascinated me how people seem to ignore this. The Bible isn't being metaphorical when it says to do this, nor is it vague and open to multiple interpretations, it says to burn goats and lots of them. So if you say you're a Christian and you don't burn goats pretty frequently, aren't you picking and choosing what parts of the Bible to follow? If not, why not? And if you only follow the parts of the Bible that don't gross you out, just how faithful are you, really?

I'm not even going to get into the section where it tells you to burn the daughters of priests who sleep around. No metaphor there, either.

RCofield,

"Thankfully, not all religions command their followers to "kill all infidels." Would you exempt those (specifically Christianity) from culpability?"

I’m not really in the business of exemption, so the quick answer is no.

That said, if someone kills an infidel in the name of Islam, I guess it would be a stretch for me to hold, say, Unitarians, culpable.

However, if that same person kills a non-believer in the name of Unitarianism, I would have to take a good, long, hard look at Unitarianism before I gave any opinion as to culpability.

Generally, in my mind, any organization that teaches supernatural beliefs like "sin", "original sin", "baptism", "souls", "angels", "virgin birth", "immaculate conception", "heaven", "purgatory", "limbo", "hell", "virgins in heaven as rewards", "devils", "satan", "evil", etc., can be held culpable if someone does something bad because of these supernatural beliefs.

PSOLUS,

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I agree completely with your statement: "If a religion is based on writings that say things like "kill all infidels", and if a person kills an infidel in the name of that religion, the person who does the killing is responsible for the actual killing, but the religion is also culpable, in my mind, as an accessory to the fact."

Thankfully, not all religions command their followers to "kill all infidels." Would you exempt those (specifically Christianity) from culpability? (See my last post to JUSTACOMMENT).

RICKK101,

You stated: “Exonerate it from what? It didn't DO anything! It's just a natural process. Blaming evolutionary theory for bad things people do is like blaming chemistry for the Oklahoma City bombing, or blaming atomic theory for Hiroshima.”

You are comparing apples and oranges when you offer the chemistry/atomic comparison. Are you unaware of the sordid history of Darwinian Evolutionary Theory as social theory/policy? When one postulates, as did Darwin, that the driving mechanism of human evolution is survival of the fittest one opens a seriously dangerous can of worms. We need look no further than Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and the resultant extermination of 6 million Jews and mass sterilizations of those deemed “unfit” to see the horrifying consequences of Darwin’s idea. And, as revolting as this was, it was only the tip of the iceberg.

As to Pinker’s “Blank Slate,” as you know, it is a little long on theory and short on evidence. There are several cognitive science studies that seem to contradict his blank slate theory. I thought you might be aware of something more substantive that I had overlooked.

To dismiss the extraordinarily high level of conflict that marred the 20th century is to dismiss 5000 years of recorded history. Sadly, military conflict was one of the most distinctive characteristics of the 20th century. And to reduce mass war casualties to a mere mathematical equation of percentages seems somewhat….well, vicious.

You state: “Are you perhaps suggesting that people were more peaceful in the past? Consider that the symbol of your religion is a MAN NAILED TO A CROSS! Now tell me again how vicious society is today.”

Ok. 3700 abortions per day. 50,000,000 abortions since 1973….in the U.S. alone. This very possibly represents more human death than all the wars of the previous 19 centuries combined. The mere fact that we put the “fig leaf” of sterilization over our viciousness doesn’t cause it to cease to be viciousness. Have you ever seen photographs or video of a late-term abortion?

And BTW, Margaret Sanger, the matriarch of the modern “Planned Parenthood” (the largest abortion provider in the U.S.) made no bones about the fact that she was a proponent of the Darwinian ideology of the preservation of favored races (read: survival of the fittest). This was the foundational presupposition of her entire body of work. She, like Hitler, was just doing her part to help along Darwin’s harmless little ole theory.

So my question stands: Would you not agree that the fact of atrocities taking place pre-Darwin does not, in itself, exonerate Darwinian Evolutionary Theory?

RCofield,

"This seems contradictory. What am I missing?"

The first comment that you quoted was in response to someone blaming all the ills of the world on evolution theory.

The second was in response to someone seemingly wanting to hold a religion at equal fault for something that a believer in the religion does in the name of that religion.

In my mind, the two are not equivalent.

Evolution theory simply states that as best we know from the evidence, this is how life changed on this planet over the years. And, that the theory will change as more evidence becomes available. The theory attempts to make no moral judgments, and does not tell anyone to do anything as a result of the theory. If someone, on his or her own, misuses the theory to do bad things, it is in no way the fault of the theory.

Religions are different. They are nothing if not judgmental; some less than others, some more than others. If a religion is based on writings that say things like "kill all infidels", and if a person kills an infidel in the name of that religion, the person who does the killing is responsible for the actual killing, but the religion is also culpable, in my mind, as an accessory to the fact.

Whew...

JUSTACOMMENT,

In an attempt to make a one-to-one equivocation between Islam and Christianity in the commission of atrocities you offer the following:

“Inquisition and Crusades were executed by individuals under the direct command of the Catholic Church whose God himself killed the whole humanity (except for Noah and his critters) and later said in Matthew 10:34 KJV: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword..”

When verse 34 is taken in context it is obvious that Christ is speaking metaphorically. Consider: Mt. 10:35 "For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter–in–law against her mother–in–law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.”

Obviously he is not teaching that we should take up a sword and kill our families. Rather, He is using the metaphor of the sword to illustrate the high personal cost of following after Him. When this is taken along with other teachings of Christ it is quite obvious he is not promoting the commission of atrocities. Consider only a small sampling of Christ’s teachings:

Mt 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Mt 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Your misuse of Mt. 10:34 notwithstanding, when any religious organization commits atrocities in the name of Christ they are doing so in direct disobedience of His clear, unmistakable teaching. This stands in sharp distinction to the commandments of the prophet of Islam ordering his followers to murder “infidels.”

PSOLUS,

You write: "Doesn't matter; each person is responsible for his or her own actions, not the person whose creation, concrete or abstract, was used for the action."

Then in the context of a religios group committing an atrocity you state: "I consider the religions, and the religious beliefs, as accessories before, and after, the fact."

This seems contradictory. What am I missing?

JUSTACOMMENT,

"In the specific case that a religious group commit an atrocity in the name of the same religious group, you can condemn the individuals and the organization, all together with the beliefs of the group."

I consider the religions, and the religious beliefs, as accessories before, and after, the fact.

Not sure how well that would hold up in court, however.

PSOLUS,

Rcofield wrote to you: "Would you apply this same principle to those who commit atrocities in the name of religion, such as 9/11, Inquisition, Crusades, etc.?"
Your answer was “Yes”.
******************************************************

In principle I agree hundred percent with your yes.

In the specific case that a religious group commit an atrocity in the name of the same religious group, you can condemn the individuals and the organization, all together with the beliefs of the group.

9/11 was executed by individuals that belonged to a terrorist religious group that is part of the Muslim religion whose book says to kill infidels and offer virgins as an incentive if you are killed in the process.

Inquisition and Crusades were executed by individuals under the direct command of the Catholic Church whose God himself killed the whole humanity (except for Noah and his critters) and later said in Matthew 10:34 KJV: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword..”

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

I wrote: "Doesn't matter; each person is responsible for his or her own actions, not the person whose creation, concrete or abstract, was used for the action."

In response, you wrote: "So are you saying that we have "free will"?"

First, I'm saying exactly what I wrote: "Doesn't matter; each person is responsible for his or her own actions, not the person whose creation, concrete or abstract, was used for the action."

Second, why are you writing "free will" rather than simply free will?

What do the double quotation marks signify in your mind?

Is "free will" different from free will?

Note, also, that I did not originally write anything about "free will" or free will.

And, then you wrote: "And also, whether or not we believe that we will one day be judged, that we are "responsible" for how we use our "free will"?"

Again, with double quotation marks!

And who are the we that you are writing about believing and being judged?

I, personally believe in nothing, and, as I have not yet been arrested or indicted for anything, I don't expect to be judged at any time.

Mind the gap.

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

PSolus

You wrote, "Doesn't matter; each person is responsible for his or her own actions, not the person whose creation, concrete or abstract, was used for the action."

So are you saying that we have "free will"?

And also, whether or not we believe that we will one day be judged, that we are "responsible" for how we use our "free will"?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

RCofield said: "Would you not agree that the fact of atrocities taking place pre-Darwin does not, in itself, exonerate Darwinian Evolutionary Theory?"

Exonerate it from what? It didn't DO anything! It's just a natural process. Blaming evolutionary theory for bad things people do is like blaming chemistry for the Oklahoma City bombing, or blaming atomic theory for Hiroshima.

A scientific fact can't be "blamed", it can't be "responsible", and therefore can't be "exonerated".

Regarding morality, I already suggested reading Pinker's "The Blank Slate" to understand something about what elements of morality are learned and what are innate. And then I suggest working your way through the interesting selections in his bibliography.

And as for the number of deaths in the 20th century, sure - more people died of violence than in any other century. More people died of EVERY cause than in every prior century, or possibly than all prior centuries. You're failing to look at percentages. Have you ever looked at a chart of human population growth? The population of the world before 1900 was a fraction of what it was by 2000. In earlier periods of human history, across entire continents, every able bodied male participated in mortal combat at some point in his life.

Are you perhaps suggesting that people were more peaceful in the past? Consider that the symbol of your religion is a MAN NAILED TO A CROSS! Now tell me again how vicious society is today.

Look, no matter what social injustices you point out, no matter how passionately you hate the idea, the fact is species evolve, and evolutionary theory is a reliable, predictable, well-supported and thoroughly tested explanation for how they evolve.

RCofield,

"Responsible to who?"

Um... to whomever...?

PSOLUS,

"Doesn't matter; each person is responsible for his or her own actions, not the person whose creation, concrete or abstract, was used for the action."

Responsible to who?

RCofield,

"Would you apply this same principle to those who commit atrocities in the name of religion, such as 9/11, Inquisition, Crusades, etc.?"

Yes.

"You don't know what Social Darwinism is?"

No.

"Methinks you might be playing devil's advocate with some of your responses."

I don't know what you mean by that.

"No? :)"

OK, now I'm totally confused.

PSOLUS,

“Have seen some of the new hammers they have out there?”

Excellent sense of humor.

“Doesn't matter; each person is responsible for his or her own actions, not the person whose creation, concrete or abstract, was used for the action.”

Would you apply this same principle to those who commit atrocities in the name of religion, such as 9/11, Inquisition, Crusades, etc.?

You don't know what Social Darwinism is? Methinks you might be playing devil's advocate with some of your responses. No? :)

RICKK101,

You state: “BLAISEP, all the atrocities you refer to pre-dated Darwin. Moral relativism does NOT stem from Evolutionary Theory. Different societies have had different moral standards throughout history. In fact, evolution and sociobiology are demonstrating what the actual common, foundational components of human morality are and where they come from.”

Would you not agree that the fact of atrocities taking place pre-Darwin does not, in itself, exonerate Darwinian Evolutionary Theory?

As to evolution and sociobiology defining the components of human morality, could you point me to some reading material on this? I am aware of Sam Harris' book “Toward a Science of Morality” that is slated for fall publication, but I am unaware of any other substantive work in this area. Could you offer some suggestions?

You state: “As for today's society being "vicious", that's simply untrue. Regardless of what the evening news tells you, we live in the most peaceful period in human history.”

Rick, are you not aware that some historians contend that there was more loss of life due to war (and its requisite derivatives) during the 20th century than in the previous 19 centuries combined?

RCofield,

"Surely you would agree that scientific theories (be they true or false) influence people's thinking more than does a hammer."

Have seen some of the new hammers they have out there?

Doesn't matter; each person is responsible for his or her own actions, not the person whose creation, concrete or abstract, was used for the action.

Previous comment was meant to be addressed to BlaiseP also.

RCofield,

"...Darwin's thought to social policy: past Social Darwinism..."

I don't know what Darwin's thoughts on social policy were, and I don't know what "Social Darwinism" is.

"...eugenics...",

The practice of eugenics probably pre-dates Darwin by tens of thousands of years.

"...the reflexive anti-Papism of biologist Dick Dawkins today."

I don't know what this means.

"...today's moral relativism stems directly from Darwinism:..."

I don't know that this is true.

"...if we are merely (somewhat) 'improved' animals...:

I'm pretty sure that this is not true.

"...then human life is not particularly valuable:..."

I don't think that Darwin thought this, and I don't know of anyone who does.

"euthanasia, abortion up until 9 months..."

Both of these probably pre-date Darwin by tens of thousands of years.

"...mass sterilisation, sterilisation of the 'unfit'..."

Did Darwin institute either of these?

"...(& Darwinists define 'unfit'),..."

I don't know what a "Darwinist" is.

"*weltanschauung*..."

I'm too lazy to look this up.

"...that gives us an amoral--well, vicious really--society with no compunction in violating the dignity of the weak."

Did Darwin institute any of this?

PSOLUS,

I don't think comparing Darwinian Evolutionary Theory to a hammer is a one-to-one equivocation. Surely you would agree that scientific theories (be they true or false) influence people's thinking more than does a hammer.

BlaiseP, all the atrocities you refer to pre-dated Darwin. Moral relativism does NOT stem from Evolutionary Theory. Different societies have had different moral standards throughout history. In fact, evolution and sociobiology are demonstrating what the actual common, foundational components of human morality are and where they come from.

Selective breeding of humans was practiced long before Jesus, much less Darwin, walked the Earth.

If you want evidence of genocide, and of one race treating another as inferior, you need look no further than the Old Testament.

The same source will give you plenty of examples of infanticide.

As for today's society being "vicious", that's simply untrue. Regardless of what the evening news tells you, we live in the most peaceful period in human history.

Do you think a lack of belief in God makes a society "vicious"? Then why is the list of the world's most peaceful countries dominated by the world's most secular countries?

I know you really really want to pin all the evils of the current world on Darwinism, but for all your passion, the facts simply do not support your argument.

Greenstheman said: "You keep telling me I refuse to look at the DNA evidence that man shared the same ancestors. I have not refused to look at anything, I have heard it before, I do not accept it because I believe the biblical account, that is my right."

Um, no - you didn't look at what I posted. You assumed it was another example of "similar" DNA, but it's not. It is proof of inheritance.

And Greenstheman, you have a right to your own opinions. You do NOT have a right to your own facts. If you say "species don't evolve" when in fact they do, that is not your expression of your opinion. That is an intentional falsehood (what my grandmother would call a "lie").

Is there any evidence that anyone could show you that would convince you that species evolve?

RCofield,

"So would you deny the particular points of Darwinian influence offered by BLAISEP?"

I have no idea who influences anything.

I'm not even sure if some of the points are even real or imaginary.

Some of the thinking behind the points may even pre-date Darwin's birth.

Evolution theory is like a hammer; if a person kills another person using a hammer, the hammer is not at fault, nor is the person who manufactured the hammer, nor the person who designed the hammer, nor the person who sold the hammer, etc.

Again, there is no reason to fear evolution theory.

JUSTACOMMENT,

You write: "Inquisition and crusades were inspired by Jesus theories. Do you hold this against your god?"

Inquisitions and crusades were waged in willful disobedience to the clear teaching of Christ. The points BLAISEP raised are the result of Darwin's followers carrying his theories to their logical conclusions.

PSOLUS,

So would you deny the particular points of Darwinian influence offered by BLAISEP?

Blaisep,

“*That* is what I hold against Darwin.”

Inquisition and crusades were inspired by Jesus theories. Do you hold this against your god?

BlaiseP,

Darwin has been dead for over 100 years.

I think you are attributing way too much to him.

You make him out to be more powerful than your god.

Perhaps the fear is understandable.

Psolus,

No, we absolutely do *not* fear (true)scientists investigating the origins of human life.

What this Catholic dislikes--and I cannot speak for the Church-- is the application of much of Darwin's thought to social policy: past Social Darwinism & eugenics especially, the reflexive anti-Papism of biologist Dick Dawkins today. As well, today's moral relativism stems directly from Darwinism: if we are merely (somewhat) 'improved' animals
then human life is not particularly valuable: hence:
euthanasia,
abortion up until 9 months (in the name of "reproductive rights"),
mass sterilisation,
sterilisation of the 'unfit' (& Darwinists define 'unfit'),
in short a materialistic *weltanschauung* that gives us an amoral--well, vicious really--society with no compunction in violating the dignity of the weak.

*That* is what I hold against Darwin.

greenstheman

You wrote, "Science is climbing a mountain and when the scientists finally get to the top of it they will find a group of theologists have been waiting for them there all along."

And they will ask each other, "Did you find God?" and they will both answer, "No".

Then God will show up and say, "You "theologians" studied and studied about the things written about me and "formulatted" all kinds of "dogma" but did not take the "simple message" that I gave to you to heart" and 'dogma, rules and regulations' became your 'god'.

Then God will say to the scientists, "You studied and dissected the "Creation" that I bestowed on you and you were in "awe" of this creation and the fact that I gave you the gift of "reason" to "figure out" much of My creation, never entered into your reasoning and "reason" became your 'god'.

Then both groups will look up and see that many in humanity found God because they were looking for something that seemed lacking in the world.

This is, to say the least, an overgeneralization, just trying to get a point across, by the way, God looks at the person, not the "label".

I thank God that God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before creation and God's Plan will come to Fruition.

See you all in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

joeAgnost

You wrote, "Hmmmm... sounds convenient. You don't have to explain how a loving god allows evil to persist - it's the old 'god works in mysterious ways' cow patty."

Gives us a choice, doesn't it?

You then wrote, "This answer seems to be fine for god, but when discussing science Thomas Paul Moses Baum feels the need to ask:

"Just where did those 'simple elements and simple mechanisms' come from?"

Why do you want/need to know? Aren't you happy assuming they've always "been"? That answer works for your god, why not "simple elements and simple mechanisms"?"

Actually, I was asking who I presented the question to, and I did answer the question and the answer, most definitely, is NOT that they have always been there but that God created them.

RickK101 wrote, "Nature is nothing but examples of simple elements and simple mechanisms forming vast complexity."

I answered, Just where did those "simple elements and simple mechanisms" come from?"

Not only did God create the "simple elements and simple mechanisms" but God created the "components" of the "simple elements", all of the "natural laws" governing the universe and time, among other things.

You also wrote, "Of course when science doesn't have an answer it doesn't make such nonsensical claims like 'it has always been there' - it looks into it in an attempt to actually understand it..."

When I took an astronomy course back in the 70's, one of the "theories" that they spoke about was the "big bang" and if I heard right, this "theory" said that all of matter came together and "compressed" and "exploded", is this simplied version, close to what is referred to as the "big bang"?

Seems to me, that this "matter" is just taken for granted as always being there, isn't it?

In talking of the "big bang" is this "matter" still thought of as always being there or have they came up with just where it came from?

Seems to me that there is quite a bit in science that is thought of as "always being there".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

BlaiseP,

"Empiricism will never solve the problem of existence."

I don't think that there is a "problem of existence".

"It does not even see it as a *problem*."

Then, why did you say that there is a problem?

"I'm a Catholic and, although we do not condemn evolutionary theory as the evangelicals do, we take an altogether more humble attitude towards knowing the origin of human life."

But, why do fear other people investigating the origin of human life?

In addition to sample size of one, evolutionary theory cannot conduct meaningful controlled experiments.

" Two of the jewels in the ‘hard’ or natural science crown, cosmology and the theory of evolution, provide generous companionship for the social science waifs. Scientists at CERN may be able (wittingly or unwittingly) to create little bangs and mini black holes a few miles below ground in Switzerland and France, but this does not amount to a test of the big bang theory. They have no more than one dodgy observation on that.

Evolutionary biologists may be able to observe evolution at work in real time ‘in the small’, that is, in microorganisms, butterflies etc. but they don’t have replications of the 4.5 billion year history of the earth, through a collection of parallel universes each of which differs from the others in one observable and measurable aspect only.

This does not mean that anything goes. Finding fossils that can confidently be dated to be around 150 million years old makes rather a hash of strict young earth creationist accounts that date the creation of the universe to somewhere between 5,700 and 10,000 years ago. scientific in nature."

Wm Buiter, Economist

Empiricism will never solve the problem of existence. It does not even see it as a *problem*. Similarly,set as it is--must be-- in time, evolutionism is one of the 'weaker' sciences, plagued by the problem of very small samples.

Oh! Rick can run on about evolution in amoeba, and other suchlike life, but evolution of the more complex vertebrates was always going to be a series of unobservable, one-off events. Cosmology has the same problem.

I am not going to answer RCOField's straw poll as I am not an atheist, or agnostic. I'm a Catholic and, although we do not condemn evolutionary theory as the evangelicals do, we take an altogether more humble attitude towards knowing the origin of human life.

TO ALL ATHEISTS ON THIS THREAD,

Thanks for your thoughtful responses to my earlier question.

If you don't mind, I would like to take a straw poll and see how many (if any) of you are from the logical positivism (a.k.a. logical empiricism) school of philosophy.

greenstheman wrote: "why does a person not accepting evolution automatically make you ignorant?"

Because it isn't a matter of interpretation... it isn't a matter of 'I call this colour green, while you call same colour cyan' - it's more 'I know the world is a sphere, while you choose to believe it's flat'.

If you actually learned ~real~ science you would know that. You don't know that - hense you're ignorant (regarding science). You aren't ignorant regarding theology I'm sure...

"Evolution is a secular scientific interpretation of the fossil record, DNA ,etc. There is also a christian scientists interpretation of the fossil record,DNA, etc. it is the Christian scientists interpretation that I accept."

You sound like you believe that this "Christian scientists interpretation" is a valid choice. Like decaf over regular coffee. That isn't the case.

There is a reason why ICR can't give out accredited degrees in biology - it is not a legitimate science organization that does not do any actual science. Haven't you wondered about that?

As you said - it's your "right" to accept whoever's interpretation you want... but by accepting the interpretation that the entire educated world discounts seems rather silly.

greenstheman,

"why is believing in evolution the be all end all. why does a person not accepting evolution automatically make you ignorant?"

Bear in mind that non-believers view you the same way that you probably view people who wear aluminum-foil hats so that the government can't read their brainwaves.

Do you think that one of these people will ever be able to convince you to join them?

Rickk101: to your:

"But it was the DNA evidence of exactly that - that man and modern apes shared the same ancestors - that you refuse to look at."

You keep telling me I refuse to look at the DNA evidence that man shared the same ancestors. I have not refused to look at anything, I have heard it before, I do not accept it because I believe the biblical account, that is my right. It does not make me ignorant because I do not agree with you.
-------------------------------------------

"Now, if you look on that website, you'll see the names and affiliations of all the signers. Why don't you find one of them near you and ASK THEM how you can believe in Jesus without lying about evolution?"

why is believing in evolution the be all end all. why does a person not accepting evolution automatically make you ignorant?

Evolution is a secular scientific interpretation of the fossil record, DNA ,etc. There is also a christian scientists interpretation of the fossil record,DNA, etc. it is the Christian scientists interpretation that I accept.

edbyronadams,

"If science cannot resolve the five forces, the myth of all mysteries falling before the inquiring mind of man is exposed."

Assuming, of course, that there is a "myth of all mysteries falling before the inquiring mind of man".

I have never before heard of such a myth.

To Your reply

Psolus:I was once smacked up aside the head with a catechism by a nun; does that count?

LOL man, not what I had in mind, but i did get hit by a flying eraser a time or two. I wonder if nuns have to go to lern how to pitch objects before they become as nuns.

The basic physics of the very small and the very large are unresolved for a hundred years and that problem may never be solved by science.

If science cannot resolve the five forces, the myth of all mysteries falling before the inquiring mind of man is exposed.

"Would you contend that science has or eventually will answer all the questions of the human experience."

Probably not.

"I am referring to questions of the origin of our existence (not just the "origin of the species"), questions of the meaning of our existence, questions of how we arrive at morality, and questions of our ultimate destiny?

Again, probably not.

I will, however, still get out of bed tomorrow and go about my business.

RCofield asks: "Would you contend that science has or eventually will answer all the questions of the human experience. "

I don't know. Some things may simply provide insufficient evidence from which to gleen answers. And some questions, like "why are we here", may simply have no answer - there may be no reason.

We've learned more about our origins from scientific investigation than from religious mythology. As for our ultimate destiny, if we continue to be confined to this universe, then that question has been answered to a high order of confidence - all life will ultimately fade to cold dark.

As for morality - reading "The Blank Slate" will teach you MUCH more about the real origins and composition of human morality than "The Holy Bible" will.

Science (or natural philosophy) isn't perfect - it is after all a human endeavor. But it has taught us more about the world and about ourselves than any other philosophical or religious discipline.

If there are unanswered questions, I don't think the right response is to make up an answer like "God did it" or "Mork did it" or "Xenu did it".

'Would you contend that science has or eventually will answer all the questions of the human experience. I am referring to questions of the origin of our existence (not just the "origin of the species"), questions of the meaning of our existence, questions of how we arrive at morality, and questions of our ultimate destiny?'
_____________

Science will continue to search for the answer to how life first emerged. If and when a satisfactory solution will be found is anyone's guess.

As far as meaning, morality, and ultimate destiny being topics for science per se - they are not.

These are perennial philosophical and existential issues with a wide variety of solutions relative to time, place, circumstance and culture.

We make the answers up as we go along, subject to revision - this includes religious doctrines, dogma, and beliefs - all of which arise out of the human imagination.

As far as we know, the human mind as it interacts with it's environment is and has been the only source for both questions and answers, as far back as our earliest hominid ancestors.

The nature of the human mind, the attributes of conscious awareness, memory, and array of other cognitive faculties continues to be a highly debated issue.

As far as our destiny goes, prognosticators are never in short supply. See futurist Ray Kurzweill's predictions below.

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

TO ALL ATHEISTS ON THIS THREAD,

Would you contend that science has or eventually will answer all the questions of the human experience. I am referring to questions of the origin of our existence (not just the "origin of the species"), questions of the meaning of our existence, questions of how we arrive at morality, and questions of our ultimate destiny?

Thomas Baum asked: "Just where did those "simple elements and simple mechanisms" come from?"

You mean before the Big Bang? I don't know. It's still a mystery.

But I don't feel the need to make up an answer. And I certainly don't think the answer will be found in the campfire stories of some desert tribes from 2500 years ago.

You can sit back and point at every gap in our knowledge of nature and say "God is the answer", and you won't have said anything of meaning whatsoever. I could just as easily point at the same gaps and say "Mork is the answer". Your "answer" is as meaningless as mine.

Greenstheman said: "I do not buy the whole lateral evolution, that man evolved from apes."

But it was the DNA evidence of exactly that - that man and modern apes shared the same ancestors - that you refuse to look at.

You have a fundamental belief, one that is important to you as demonstrated by your constant posting about how you don't believe it. But you won't look at important evidence.

How honest or strong is the foundation of your belief if you refuse to question it?

Here, maybe one of these people can help you. At this website is a list of over 13,000 Christian CLERGY - priests, pastors, ministers - who all accepted the truth of evolution.

http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm

They all signed this statement:

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. "

Now, if you look on that website, you'll see the names and affiliations of all the signers. Why don't you find one of them near you and ASK THEM how you can believe in Jesus without lying about evolution?

greenstheman,

"what I was refering to there was, if you had ever studied the bible and given it to touch your heart."

I was once smacked up aside the head with a catechism by a nun; does that count?

Joeagnost

My stance is not one of "belief". I don't believe the fossil evidence supports the ToE - I know it does. I've learned enough about the subject to ~understand~ the evidence.

Your "evidence" (which you claim I refuse to look at) is one of "belief". You ~believe~ that the beauty of the rainbow is evidence for your god... my views don't involve "belief".

I understand how you see things, trust me I do. Does it bother me? not in the least it's your right.
-------------------------------------------
Oh, and what does "Have you even given it a chance??" mean?! Given it a chance to ~what~??

what I was refering to there was, if you had ever studied the bible and given it to touch your heart.

I don't know you so that is why i asked that. The way I asked that was vague, my fault.

Joeagnost

You won't look at the fossil evidence supporting the theory of evolution (ToE), while claiming it doesn't exist.

I have heard the interpretation of the fossil record, believe it or not it's not like I have never heard of the different theories out there, I have also heard Christian scientists findings of the very same fossil records and I have accepted the Christian scientists interpretation over the secular version.
-----------------------------------------
I look at the rainbow you claim is "evidence for god" and explain that it's a property of light.

I see the effects of light that God created.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

You won't look at the DNA evidence supporting the ToE, while claiming it doesn't exist.

that is a secular interpretation of dna is it the only one? no Christian scientists have and interpretation as well, I have accepted their interpretation.

I look at the beauty and complexity of life you claim is "evidence for god" and explain that science has a lot of this answered already.

the evidence for God does not rest solely on what He created , I bet you know people in your neighborhood, at work that have had their lives changed by God, if you asked some of the how they may be able to tell you their story.

The evidence for God exists each and everyday in many of peoples lives today.

Can't you see the difference?

I know the difference.

But hey - at least greenstheman admits that he both refuses to look at the evidence AND denies there is any evidence! It's a start!

I am familiar with the so called evidence, I do not accept it. I believe in God and believe in His word and truth.

Science is climbing a mountain and when the scientists finally get to the top of it they will find a group of theologists have been waiting for them there all along.

Hey TW,

Looks like they closed the other thread down.

I wanted to ask you what you meant when you said you "understood the point I was trying to make" with the computer analogy.

But hey - at least greenstheman admits that he both refuses to look at the evidence AND denies there is any evidence! It's a start!

When it was pointed out that it was dishonest of greenstheman to both refuse to look at the evidence for evolution AND claim that there wasn't any he replied:

"You take the same stand against my belief in God, there is evidence there and you deny there is any there. Have you even given it a chance??"

To which the only reply is W...T...F?!

You won't look at the fossil evidence supporting the theory of evolution (ToE), while claiming it doesn't exist.

I look at the rainbow you claim is "evidence for god" and explain that it's a property of light.

You won't look at the DNA evidence supporting the ToE, while claiming it doesn't exist.

I look at the beauty and complexity of life you claim is "evidence for god" and explain that science has a lot of this answered already.

Can't you see the difference?

My stance is not one of "belief". I don't believe the fossil evidence supports the ToE - I know it does. I've learned enough about the subject to ~understand~ the evidence.

Your "evidence" (which you claim I refuse to look at) is one of "belief". You ~believe~ that the beauty of the rainbow is evidence for your god... my views don't involve "belief".

Oh, and what does "Have you even given it a chance??" mean?! Given it a chance to ~what~??

Paleontology and other scientific disciplines provide powerful conclusive evidence that modern man is in fact one species of primate - sharing a common ancestor with other primates.

It is not clear at present whether early Homo sapiens inter-bred with our first cousin Neanderthalensis, or simply killed off the competition....given our current propensities, probably both are true.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

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

Thomas wrote "Just where did those "simple elements and simple mechanisms" come from?"

But couldn't you ask the same question of God?

greenstheman,

"I do not buy the whole lateral evolution, that man evolved from apes."

I don't "buy" it either.

If I'm not mistaken, the term "lateral evolution" is similar to the words "Darwinism" and "Evolutionist".

Also, if I'm not mistaken, few people think that "man evolved from apes".

Joeagnost to your:

The worst part is that you continue to state that there is no evidence. You don't just refuse to look at the evidence - you then continue to deny the evidence (which you refuse to look at) even exists!!

You take the same stand against my belief in God, there is evidence there and you deny there is any there. Have you even given it a chance??
-------------------------------------------
I have read and seen the evidence you proclaim exists, I don't believe in it the way you do, just like you don't believe in the God I believe in.

-------------------------------------------

That's dishonest... willful ignorance is pretty bad, but the dishonesty is abhorant.

Same to you pal!

Persiflage wrote:

Matters of faith without evidence are not subject to scientific scrutiny - because that is not the purview of science. Our current crop of a/theist writers are merely making the general point that religion is not science, and the two should never be confused.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe I actually agree with this point, feel frre to disregard my earlier post.

Rick101

What is your single biggest objection with evolution of species? What specifically do you not "buy"?

-------------------------------------------

I do not buy the whole lateral evolution, that man evolved from apes.

Persilage wrote.

On the other hand, most everyone but yourself (and greenstheman) has provided a pretty firm foundation for their observations and their respective positions. Debating the scientific perspective is a futile exercise, if you're trying to replace factual evidence with personal convictions.

I don't have a problem with practical science. I have a problem with speculative ( theories ) that have not been proven.
-
------------------------------------------

if you are telling me science has all the answers to everything, then I disagree. Science cannot prove or disprove the supenatural ( God ).

Thomas Paul Moses Baum wrote:

"God also created satan and God has His Reasons for this also."

Hmmmm... sounds convenient. You don't have to explain how a loving god allows evil to persist - it's the old 'god works in mysterious ways' cow patty.

And Thomas Paul Moses Baum cont'd: "God is uncreated, everything else is created."

That is SO convenient... you manage to answer absolutely nothing that way!

So - there is no need to consider where/how god came from... he just "is".

This answer seems to be fine for god, but when discussing science Thomas Paul Moses Baum feels the need to ask:

"Just where did those 'simple elements and simple mechanisms' come from?"

Why do you want/need to know? Aren't you happy assuming they've always "been"? That answer works for your god, why not "simple elements and simple mechanisms"?

Of course when science doesn't have an answer it doesn't make such nonsensical claims like 'it has always been there' - it looks into it in an attempt to actually understand it...

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

"God also created satan and God has His Reasons for this also."

What were his reasons?

Surely he told his BFF and favorite messenger his reasons?

Or is he keeping secrets from you?

Look both ways before crossing the street.

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

RCofield,

You appear to be verging on hysteria.

Try breathing into a paper bag for a while.

RickK101

You wrote, "Nature is nothing but examples of simple elements and simple mechanisms forming vast complexity."

Just where did those "simple elements and simple mechanisms" come from?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

'Persiflage,

"As as famous saying goes, science is hard and religion is pretty darned easy."

That is insightful. May explain why there are so many amateur scientists trolling these religion blogs.'
_________

On the other hand, most everyone but yourself (and greenstheman) has provided a pretty firm foundation for their observations and their respective positions. Debating the scientific perspective is a futile exercise, if you're trying to replace factual evidence with personal convictions.

As a consequence, monotheism is particularly hard to support, if it comes down to a matter of refuting accepted scientific principles in the process.

Why not say, 'I just believe what I believe without any substantial evidence', and let it go at that? Then there's no problem.....that's religion for you.

Matters of faith without evidence are not subject to scientific scrutiny - because that is not the purview of science. Our current crop of a/theist writers are merely making the general point that religion is not science, and the two should never be confused.

They of course do point out (with precision) certain fallacies equated with a number of widespread religious beliefs as well - another reason why religion shouldn't inform secular forms of government.

If it weren't for this continuous and highly publicized, media-driven confusion between scientific fact and religious fancy, Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, et al probably wouldn't have the large and growing reader audience that they do.

If politics and certain political parties weren't infused with religious ideology, why ever would non-religious folks even be bothered by or with religion, except as an academic exercise?

RICKK101,

Exhibit #102378245664.01

See Psolus' last post.

Not theist could possibly understand science as well as he does. If you don't think so, just read his posts.

You guys just can't help yourselves, can you?

RickK101 Part I

You wrote, "The universe is amazingly complex - enough to inspire awe,

therefore

it was created by the Christian God who once required animal sacrifice and practicied global genocide, but doesn't any longer.

That's quite a leap."

What I wrote was that this "awe" may inspire some to "think about" if there is more than just a "how" to the universe but if there is a "why".

You then wrote, "I look at the complexity of the universe, feel awe and a desire to understand more. But I don't jump to the conclusion that there is a loving God that cares about me personally, but who also creates the occasional tsunami."

As far as "creates the occasional tsunami", yes, God did come up with the "natural laws" that govern the "workings" of the universe which includes the earth, so one could put it this way.

God also created satan and God has His Reasons for this also.

You then wrote, "In fact, I don't even jump to the conclusion that there must be a "who" behind it all. Where's the evidence? Uncounted amazing natural events occur every day with no apparent need of an intervening "who"."

You can come to whatever "conclusions" that you want but there are some things that science still hasn't come up with answers to, 2 of which are:

1. Origin of life, the Origin of Species has nothing to say on the origin of life just the differentiation of life.

2. Exactly "how" the universe came into being.

RickK101 Part II

You then wrote, "All evidence points to natural phenomena having natural causes. Millions of natural phenomena throughout history have had divine/supernatural explanations, which were later replaced with reliable natural explanations."

We look at natural causes causing natural phenomena governed by natural laws but do we ever wonder about these natural laws?

It is the "realm of science" to discover these "natural laws" and that is all that we do is "discover" these laws and built into these "laws" are consistent inconsistencies that make them even more intriguing, do we ever "wonder" if this could be pointing to something beyond our "intellectual" abilities?

You then wrote, "If divine causes have had such a high failure rate, why do you jump to your conclusion of a divine cause?"

This "high failure rate", as you put it, is in your way of "looking and judging".

No matter how much some may exult themselves, we are all limited in our humanness.

You then wrote, "Besides, who created the "who"?"

No one, God is uncreated, everything else is created.

You then wrote, "I think, Thomas, that you believe God is behind it all because you believe in God. But that is not an objectively rational conclusion one can derive from the evidence found in the physical universe."

As I have previously stated, I used to believe in God and it was God, Who revealed to me that God Is, and is a Trinity and is a Being of Pure Love.

I agree with you that I, nor anyone else, could come to a "knowledge" of God thru our limited intellectual abilities, this can only come thru the direct intervention of God, however, one can come to a "belief" that there is "more" than our limited, finite, human abilities can "concretely" point out.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

RICKK101,

Exhibit #102378245663.01

Joeagnost states: "RCofield--Of course you likely don't know what a 'straw-man' is... like "inorganic", the theory of evolution, etc..."

RCofield,

"That is insightful. May explain why there are so many amateur scientists trolling these religion blogs."

One does not necessarily need to be a scientist, amateur or otherwise, to understand science.

RICKK101,

Just pointing out some of the absurdities and inconsistencies of some of the arguments posted here by amateur scientists who think they are theologians but are not keeping up with the debate in the scientific community yet feel no constraints when it comes to displaying their lack of understanding of issues that have challenged brilliant men of every discipline from philosophy, to theology....to science....for thousands of years and who insist that science has trumped every other branch of study but yet feel compelled to spend all their time talking about science on a religious blog because religious people are so ignorant while they themselves are so brilliant.

Oh...I'm sorry. That was a run-on sentence, wasn't it?

RCO: "Just pointing out the inconsistencies of the arguments taking place here."

Except that you're not... you created a straw-man with your mother nature comment and then proceeded to ridicule the idea.

Of course you likely don't know what a 'straw-man' is... like "inorganic", the theory of evolution, etc...

RCofield - I'll ask again. What's your point?

Are you asking who made the natural laws?

Are you saying species don't evolve naturally?

What are you trying to say?

Greenstheman said: "I have not heard one scientist say without a doubt that the theory is true, usally years later new evidence may surface and they have to rethink alot of what evolutionists thought they knew."

In my analogy, nobody said they're 100% certain you didn't steal $100,000 from a church. So regardless of the evidence that points to your innocence, we can't say it's "proved" you're innocent, can we?

But then we can't say for certainty that all matter is made of atomic particles, because we haven't examined all matter.

So with your "black and white" logic, you must not "buy" atomic theory either?

Scientific theories are never "proved" in a mathematical sense. Do you understand the difference between "proved" in a mathematical sense and "proved beyond a reasonable doubt" in a scientific sense?

Just as the evidence proves your innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that species evolve. We know species evolve naturally with the same assurance that we know germs can cause disease. Do you understand?

What is your single biggest objection with evolution of species? What specifically do you not "buy"?

Persiflage,

"As as famous saying goes, science is hard and religion is pretty darned easy."

That is insightful. May explain why there are so many amateur scientists trolling these religion blogs.

JOEAGNOST,

"Oh, and nice "mother nature" straw-man you created RCO! You're really advancing your position!"

Just pointing out the inconsistencies of the arguments taking place here. Not interested in sound-byte apologetics. :)

RICKK101,

"RCofield - I can't wade through all your quotes and emotives and contrivances. You're painting a big, strange strawman story to make a point when you could, instead, just make your point. What's your point?"

So...you don't know what my point is, but you are certain my argument is a straw man. Closed mind, maybe?

Notice the absence of quotes, emotives and contrivances.

'Ah! So there IS a “who behind it all”....Nature. So, can you tell me a little more about this nature character? Are you referring to “Mother Nature?” Could you maybe describe her personal attributes? Is she “divine,” and therefore non-material or is she a material being? Do you have any photographs of her? Is her autobiography available yet? I've never personally met her, so could you possibly arrange an introduction?'
_________

This seems to be where a good many modern day theists make their stand (standing on the shoulders of science, that is).

Religionists from the school of 'strong' anthropic cosmology believe that because of the close tolerances of the physical constants necessary for our present universe, a designer must have been behind it - but this is a teleology that assumes quite a lot without evidence, and puts the cart before the horse.....when the horse is (and remains) the unexplained mystery. There is metaphysics and then there is physics.

For physicists the God principle is pretty unsatisfactory as far as explanations go.

See the redoubtable physicist Roger Penrose below profer his own ideas about the material universe and the physical constants. And where is that Higgs boson when you need one?

As as famous saying goes, science is hard and religion is pretty darned easy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation

rcofield wrote: "My, my. Inorganic 'elements' and 'minerals'...'turning themselves into a 150' tall sequoia.' Wow!"

Add "inorganic" to the list of things that RCOFIELD doesn't understand. The list is getting really long...

Oh, and nice "mother nature" straw-man you created RCO! You're really advancing your position!

Persiflage,

Sounds like the old "my creation myth/god is better than your creation myth/god" argument. :)

RCofield - I can't wade through all your quotes and emotives and contrivances. You're painting a big, strange strawman story to make a point when you could, instead, just make your point.

What's your point?

edbyronadams,

Are you aware that you are using a false accusation of faith as a pejorative?

Isn't that a strange thing for a person of faith to do?

edbyronadams,

"So, you have no compelling evidence. It must be faith."

Faith in what?

RICKK101,

Part 2 of 2

Rick writes: “Your analogy is a sad failure (because) Commodore 64s don't reproduce.”

I agree whole-heartedly. Except, its not my Commodore 64 that is reproducing....it is the ordered, highly complex programs within it that seem to be reproducing. I dunno.....maybe it is the Mother Nature fairy.....no, wait....maybe it is the “Laws of Nature” causing this evolution. But...then again, who established these “Laws?” Maybe it was “Mother” herself, who knows?

Rick writes: “I strongly suggest you understand how deeply your little story fails before you repeat it again. It's not working for you.”

To the contrary, my friend. I have had the “scientific community” analyze the situation, and, after gathering mountains of irrefutable data, they have arrived at the “consensus” that my “little story” is indeed TRUE! This is no “creation myth.” The programs on my computer are indeed “evolving” on their own with no intelligent cause “behind it all,” no source of power necessary. It sounds to me like you just may have a closed mind.

Ah well. It's off to church for me. (Did I mention that a large group of people are meeting regularly at my home to worship this evolutionary process that is taking place on my Commodore 64? Most of them don't like to call it a “church” or a “religion,” but I think they know in their hearts that's really what it is.)

Oh! Here's an idea. Maybe the church of “Mother Nature and The New Atheism” could meet with us in an ecumenical gathering next Thursday! Can I get an amen, brothers?

May the Force be with you.

RICK101,

Part 1 of 2

Rick writes: “You made up the story.”
You don't say!

Specifically, why do you think I made up the story?

Rick writes: “Nature is nothing but examples of simple elements and simple mechanisms forming vast complexity.”

Ah! So there IS a “who behind it all”....Nature. So, can you tell me a little more about this nature character? Are you referring to “Mother Nature?” Could you maybe describe her personal attributes? Is she “divine,” and therefore non-material or is she a material being? Do you have any photographs of her? Is her autobiography available yet? I've never personally met her, so could you possibly arrange an introduction?

Rick writes: “But tell me, how can a tiny seed and a bunch of scattered elements and minerals turn themselves into a 150 foot tall sequoia tree without somebody assembling it? It must be those invisible tree fairies.” and “the magic without a power source is nonsense and has no parallel in nature.”

My, my. Inorganic “elements” and “minerals”...”turning themselves into a 150' tall sequoia.” Wow! Life from non-life, and that without a “power source.” Ladies and gentlemen, we have spontaneous generation. Looks like all those scientists who couldn't “cause” spontaneous generation to take place in a petri dish were wrong after all....but no...wait...there was the ability of the seed to germinate...oh, yeah, I almost forgot—Mother Nature. I sure wish this “nature” fairy could reveal herself to us, for she really seems to be quite something.

TBC

"Well, for starters, the "primordial soup" was probably not limited to one of Pasteur's "famous swan necked flasks", or to the comparatively short length of Pasteur's professional life time."

So, you have no compelling evidence. It must be faith.

@greenstheman

The worst part of your stance isn't that you refuse to look at the evidence. Wanting to remain ignorant, though not commendable, is ~your~ issue.

The worst part is that you continue to state that there is no evidence. You don't just refuse to look at the evidence - you then continue to deny the evidence (which you refuse to look at) even exists!!

That's dishonest... willful ignorance is pretty bad, but the dishonesty is abhorant.

edbyronadams,

"Psolus, since you claim to know about spontaneous generation and the history of that theory in biology, could you point out the evidence that you find compelling enough to overturn the findings of Pasteur in favor of abiogenisis?"

Your question indicates that you still do not understand what aiogenisis is.

Did you not attempt to Google it?

"Surely he had plenty of biological molecules in his culture solutions in his famous swan necked flasks, yet no life arose. What makes any proposed "primordial soup" any different?"

Well, for starters, the "primordial soup" was probably not limited to one of Pasteur's "famous swan necked flasks", or to the comparatively short length of Pasteur's professional life time.

greenstheman,

"When it comes to the theory of evolution, it is not proven, no one can without hesitation say hare is proof of lateral evolution and show you a series of skeletons in every step of evolution."

That statement shows only that you do not understand the theory.

"I have not heard one scientist say without a doubt that the theory is true, usally years later new evidence may surface and they have to rethink alot of what evolutionists thought they knew."

This is true of all scientific theories, even the ones the you "buy".

"It is not that I gave never heard the theory of evolution, I just dont buy it, thats all."

One should never "buy" any scientific theory.

Psolus, since you claim to know about spontaneous generation and the history of that theory in biology, could you point out the evidence that you find compelling enough to overturn the findings of Pasteur in favor of abiogenisis?

Surely he had plenty of biological molecules in his culture solutions in his famous swan necked flasks, yet no life arose. What makes any proposed "primordial soup" any different?

RC -

'If you scroll down to #9 you will find "EVOLUTIONARY SPIRITUALITY" is also listed under "creation MYTHS." That, my friends, is what you call irony.'
___________

Having read over this 'Epic of Evolution' a couple of thoughts come to mind. Firstly, this laudable piece of anthropic cosmology is a brand new tale of mythic proportion, straight out of the imagination of Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson.

He and others since have seen that by presenting modern cosmology as mythos, one can actually get the attention of folks that would otherwise be taking Genesis as the literal and final truth - in other words, a fairly clever way to get folks to pay attention to SCIENCE and the wonders therein, as an alternative to religously inspired mythology.

This all seems to be based on the observation that the quest for meaning in central to much human behavior. Meaning emerges very clearly in traditional mythologys (see Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, et al). Religion is all about mythology.

What we have with the 'Great Story' below, is human ingenuity and more than a little creative license hard at work, in an effort to 'take science to the masses' in a digestable format - at least that's how I see it.

You'll also note that while 'evolution' is used rather liberally in this somewhat hyperbolic fable, it does make note of the fact that evolutionary theory is actually settled science among scientists.

There is no hemming and hawing and head-scratching among scientists with regard to evolution and natural selection - they're a done deal. Creationist doubters are not found among the ranks of credible scientists.

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

RICKK101 to your reply:

I have heard about the theory of evolution and also heard many differentscientists talk about it. There is a science that has given us electricity, cars,planes etc. I call it practical science.

When it comes to the theory of evolution, it is not proven, no one can without hesitation say hare is proof of lateral evolution and show you a series of skeletons in every step of evolution.

I have not heard one scientist say without a doubt that the theory is true, usally years later new evidence may surface and they have to rethink alot of what evolutionists thought they knew.

It is not that I gave never heard the theory of evolution, I just dont buy it, thats all.

RCofield,

"That, my friends, is what you call irony."

No, Alanis, that is not what I call "irony".

RCofield said: "if you had any theories about how order and complexity could appear on my computer like "magic"...without "a who behind it all."

They didn't. You made up the story.

But tell me, how can a tiny seed and a bunch of scattered elements and minerals turn themselves into a 150 foot tall sequoia tree without somebody assembling it? It must be those invisible tree fairies.

Nature is nothing but examples of simple elements and simple mechanisms forming vast complexity.

And to date we've never seen one single example of where a divine hand was needed to make it work.

Your analogy is a sad failure for two reasons: (1) the magic without a power source is nonsense and has no parallel in nature; and (2) Commodore 64s don't reproduce.

I strongly suggest you understand how deeply your little story fails before you repeat it again. It's not working for you.

EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD,

Persiflage writes: "One can find Genesis about half-way down the rather long list of creation myths below. Genesis is likely of Babylonian origin, and was adapted and edited to conform to the monotheism of Judaism and later Christianity."

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

If you scroll down to #9 you will find "EVOLUTIONARY SPIRITUALITY" is also listed under "creation MYTHS." That, my friends, is what you call irony.

RickK101,

You ask: "What ARE you talking about?"

Just wondering if you had any theories about how order and complexity could appear on my computer like "magic"...without "a who behind it all."

Hey TW,

Just testing a theory. You know, scientific method and everything.

I posted concerning the point of my computer analogy on the other thread.

edbyronadams,

"It is the idea that life arose from non living materials."

Wrong.

Do you know how to use Google?

"Do you know what spontaneous generation is?"

Yes.

"How about its history in science?"

Yes.

PSOLUS,

"Do you even know what abiogenisis is?"

It is the idea that life arose from non living materials.

Do you know what spontaneous generation is? How about its history in science?

RCOFIELD: What ARE you talking about?

Greenstheman - I didn't say you closed your mind because you didn't agree with me.

I said you closed your mind because you wouldn't even LOOK at the evidence. You made no attempt to understand what I said.

Accepting the truth that species evolve is not a matter of differences of faith any more than accepting or denying that the Holocaust happened is a matter of differences of faith.

Is the theory of relativity a matter of faith? How about the germ theory of disease? How about atomic theory?

These aren't belief systems. They're actual models, built on evidence, tested through experimentation, rigorously questioned. And we know they work because they make accurate predictions.

To put it another way - is the fact that you are guilty of grand theft just a matter of belief? If I believe you stole $100,000 from a church and you don't believe you did, are our beliefs equal? How would we determine whose belief is correct?

Let's say there's a lot of evidence that you didn't steal the money. There's no money missing from the church. There's no more money in your bank account. You were in another country at the time I think you stole the money. Nice solid evidence.

Using YOUR reasoning, I can just refuse to look at the evidence and continue to tell everyone my belief that you are a thief.

Is that honest of me, Greens?

Because that's exactly what your'e doing when you deny evolution and refuse to look at evidence that proves you wrong. THAT is what I consider a closed mind.

RC,

I see you are copying and pasting from one post to the other. And your point about the Commodore 64 is?

One can find Genesis about half-way down the rather long list of creation myths below. Genesis is likely of Babylonian origin, and was adapted and edited to conform to the monotheism of Judaism and later Christianity.

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

"Who are we to tell God that God could not come up with a "method" to His Creation of life, which is just part of God's Creation and who are we to tell God that He had to be in a rush with His Creation just because we seem to be in a rush with everything."

"Better go back and read Genesis very carefully again, I know what Genesis says and I know what the theory of evolution says, I will stick to God's word if you don't mind, I don't how many MIT graduates or Physicist genius's say other wise."

Hey, look!

Believer fight!

Rowr!

ThomasBaum to your post:

Who are we to tell God that God could not come up with a "method" to His Creation of life, which is just part of God's Creation and who are we to tell God that He had to be in a rush with His Creation just because we seem to be in a rush with everything.

Better go back and read Genesis very carefully again, I know what Genesis says and I know what the theory of evolution says, I will stick to God's word if you don't mind, I don't how many MIT graduates or Physicist genius's say other wise.

OK, you closed your mind. It is more important to you to retain your interpretation of your faith than it is to be honest.
Where did you learn those priorities?
Posted by: RickK101 | July 21, 2010 10:31 AM

I am staying true to what I believe, just because it does not agree with your logic does not make me closed minded.

I can say the same thing about you that you are close minded and you reject Gods truth.

What do we do now repsort to my car is better than your car??? lol

'I am at my wit's end here. I can't find anyone who can give me the slightest insight into how this is even possible. I hope you can help me.

And oh, did I mention, this thing is STILL not plugged into a power source and is STILL, two weeks after my discovery, whirring, clicking, and working away!'
_______________

You clearly have a ghost in your machine...I recommend viewing a detailed video of how this can happen on the youtube series below - start with Part I and work forward.

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=_QD5U_IhTe8&feature=related

PSOLUS,

Awwww, man! I am so deeply wounded by your rapier-like wit I fear I shall never recover.

RCofield,

"I hope you [RickK101] can help me."

A decent education might help.

Emphasis on "might".

RICKK101,

(Part 2 of 2)

Upon further investigation I discovered a highly complex accounting program, a cabinet software program capable of rendering 3D drawings, cut-lists, and cost estimates, and even an internet search engine! (Did I mention that this computer was still, even as I was discovering all of this, NOT PLUGGED IN TO ANY SOURCE OF POWER??!!)

My head spinning, I picked up the phone and called the neighborhood computer geek. Though I don't think he believed me initially, he dropped what he was doing and rushed right over. After poking, prodding, and typing furiously on the keyboard for the better part of an hour he sat back, gripped his head with both hands, and stated: “Mr. Cofield, I have never seen anything like this in all of geek-dom. Your Commodore 64, though not even plugged in, seems to be generating some rather sophisticated programs on its own. There are software programs on here that are so complicated I am not even sure what they do. Further, it appears that this computer is somehow generating additional memory at an astounding rate. If my calculations are correct, the 64K that was originally on this computer has now expanded to 950 gig!"

You can imagine my consternation. Having a friend who is a computer programs analyst for NASA, I picked up the phone and dialed him. To make a long story bearable, after expressing doubts about my personal sanity, my friend finally agreed to come over and take a look. This is what he discovered.

This little Commodore 64 computer now has programs on it that (according to my friend from NASA—this is WAY over my head) are capable of putting a satellite into orbit around the earth. Further, according to this NASA programs analyst's calculations, if this computer continues to expand its memory and create these new, highly complex programs, it will, in a matter of a few months, be capable of putting a man on the moon!

I am at my wit's end here. I can't find anyone who can give me the slightest insight into how this is even possible. I hope you can help me.

And oh, did I mention, this thing is STILL not plugged into a power source and is STILL, two weeks after my discovery, whirring, clicking, and working away!

RICKK101,

Part 1 of 2

I have a problem with a computer I was hoping you could help me with. Not knowing much about computers, this one really has me stumped.

I was looking for some business records in a climate-controlled room in my attic a couple of weeks ago, and I noticed a humming sound coming from a box I had stored up there. When I opened the box it contained an old Commodore 64 computer that my father had discarded some 20 years ago. (Being something of a pack-rat, I couldn't bring myself to throw it away.) This thing had been sitting in my attic untouched for almost 20 years

Upon further investigation, I discovered that, though the computer was not connected to a power source of any kind, it was running! You can imagine my incredulity. My curiosity then being more than mildly aroused, I gathered it up and hastily brought it down to my study and set it up on my desk. As I began to investigate, I was astounded at what I found.

Rather than the expected simple programs that characterized the old Commodore 64 model (it only had 64 K memory), I began to discover some rather sophisticated programs! There was a fully-intact word processor that looked curiously similar to Microsoft Word '07, an amazing spreadsheet program, and an audio program that looked every bit as capable as itunes.

TBC

RickK101,

"Thomas Baum: So your logic is:"

Logic is not the correct word here; belief would be the correct word to use.

Thomas Baum: So your logic is:

The universe is amazingly complex - enough to inspire awe,

therefore

it was created by the Christian God who once required animal sacrifice and practicied global genocide, but doesn't any longer.

That's quite a leap.

I look at the complexity of the universe, feel awe and a desire to understand more. But I don't jump to the conclusion that there is a loving God that cares about me personally, but who also creates the occasional tsunami.

In fact, I don't even jump to the conclusion that there must be a "who" behind it all. Where's the evidence? Uncounted amazing natural events occur every day with no apparent need of an intervening "who".

All evidence points to natural phenomena having natural causes. Millions of natural phenomena throughout history have had divine/supernatural explanations, which were later replaced with reliable natural explanations.

However, the reverse has never happened.

If divine causes have had such a high failure rate, why do you jump to your conclusion of a divine cause?

Besides, who created the "who"?

I think, Thomas, that you believe God is behind it all because you believe in God. But that is not an objectively rational conclusion one can derive from the evidence found in the physical universe.

Teach the Bible like the literature that it is (along side Homer, the Upanishads, Shakespeare, Moby Dick) - beautiful, complicated stories that reveal our common humanity and possibly lead us closer to wisdom. Do this and all the tired theology about “faith” “religion” “gods” “divinity” “belief” "angels" suddenly vanishes, along with the strife that always accompanies it. We can still sing the beautiful songs without buying in to the outdated myths.

CalicoJ

You wrote, "That's the position Christianity is in. You advanced your theory, provided no evidence, got no love from the smart people, and now you just won't shut up about it. Provide new proof or admit you should have listened to the people who shot you down!"

As I have said, God will provide the "proof" in God's Time, God chose me to speak, it will be God Who will show, in God's Way, that it was God Who chose me.

You then wrote, "Secondly, yes, I do hold it is impossible for one person to believe in both science and religion at the same time while using the same set of standards for the evaluation of all new concepts, which is what I mean when I refer to the integration of science and religion."

I agree that it is absurd to even attempt to "integrate" science and religion the way that you "refer to the integration of science and religion".

There are many who have "integrated" science and "belief in God" into their lives and many who have "deepened their faith in God" thru their study of the "how" of God's Creation.

You then wrote, "The two worldviews are mutually exclusive."

This is simply not true, one is looking at the "how" of creation and one is looking at the "why" of creation, there are many that look at both and do not divorce themself from one or the another.

They are not "mutually exclusive" but are two different ways of looking at God's creation that some have absolutely no problem embracing.

You then wrote, "No, I don't respect people who would use two different sets of standards for two different subjects."

Is "respect" something that you can "scientifically quantify"?

You then wrote, "A concept is a concept, and the subject matter is irrelevant to the process of evaluation."

If one subject matter is the painting, the Mona Lisa and the other subject matter is the Sun in our solar system, would you use the same "process of evaluation"?

You then wrote, "To have a seperate process for religious matters just so they have a chance of standing up to scrutiny is sheer moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty."

Seems as if you just may be coming up with your own "religion" here, speaking of "moral" cowardice and intellectual "dishonesty" and what is "acceptable", in your "judgement" on "religious matters".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

RickK101

You wrote, "Someone said: "banish feelings and emotions from our "intellectual pursuits" then what have we become?""

Is that what people think - that scientists who spend their lives investigating and trying to understand how the world works are cold and emotionless about it?

That is a foolish, shallow stereotype."

I happen to be the someone who wrote that and it is not a "foolish, shallow stereotype" but is exactly how some come across on these posts and I would say relatively few, if any, are actual "scientists".

You then wrote, "Do people really think that understanding how something works removes the emotion from it? Is looking at the night sky LESS awe inspiring when you learn that the photons hitting your eyes have been traveling for 10 million years???"

I have thought and said for quite a while that I would think that people involved in the study of the micro and the macro of the universe should be "awe inspired" and that this should bring to mind thoughts and contemplations besides just the "physical workings" of the universe.

Such as, is there a why behind the how?

There are many scientists who do just that.

I know that science is in the "business" of the "how" not the "why", but it seems that the "interconnectedness" of all of creation, or whatever one wishes to call it, should also be "awe inspiring" not just some of the "individual parts".

You then wrote, "Where do people get this cold, unemotional impression of science? Do you really need rationalize why you don't understand science by painting a false picture of people who do?"

Read what some write on these postings, is the best answer I can give you and as I have already said many who give this "cold, unemotional impression" are not scientists but attempt to use science in a way that is ultimately not even scientific.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

greenstheman

You wrote, "That would be the science wich gave us the Theory of evolution etc."

Do you realize that evolution is about the "Origin of Species", it is not about the Origin of Life?

Who are we to tell God that God could not come up with a "method" to His Creation of life, which is just part of God's Creation and who are we to tell God that He had to be in a rush with His Creation just because we seem to be in a rush with everything.

God also created time.

God's Creation is ongoing and as it says man came into being on the sixth day, well we are still in the sixth day and as Jesus told us, "Night is coming...", and as it says, "On the seventh day, God rested, blest and made Holy", the new heavens and the new earth.

God's Plan, which God has had since before Creation, will come to Fruition and God's Plan, which includes God becoming One of us, is for All of us and All of creation to, ultimately, be with God in His Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth at the dawning of the seventh day, forever.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

GREENSTHEMAN said: "Well I will reject what you have written, just because there are similarities doen not mean they are your ancestors."

OK, you closed your mind. It is more important to you to retain your interpretation of your faith than it is to be honest.

Where did you learn those priorities?

BLAISEP:

You said: "Well, I am going to have to reject that analogy. Because after Einstein “discovered” e=mc2, what did he do?"

He wrote a letter to the President of the United States saying essentially: "we must use this knowledge to build an atomic bomb before somebody else does."

Show me where Darwin said "we should employ eugenics to improve the human race."

Oh, and "eugenics", or selective breeding of humans, existed long before Darwin. Tell me - did development of the atomic bomb pre-date Einstein.

Hitler co-opted Romanticism and a love of the natural world over urbanization in his philosophy. Does that mean we should condemn Romanticism?

Slave owners used the Bible for justification, and slavery was a somewhat important social issue, don't you think? So do we condemn Christianity and blame slavery on it?

Your logic reminds me of the story I heard from the Middle Ages (I think) about a church bell that was used to signal heretics during an uprising. The uprising was quelled, and the church bell was put on trial, convicted, and beaten.

And of course, none of this changes the fact that - whether you like it or not, and no matter how the idea may be used - SPECIES EVOLVE. And Darwin wrote the first, best summary of the mechanisms of that evolution.

Just because may make a bomb with it doesn't change the fact that dynamite explodes.

Rickk101 made an excellent comment to greenstheman - he said everything that needed to be said.

And greenstheman replied in his typically ignorant way: "Well I will reject what you have written, just because there are similarities doen not mean they are your ancestors."

He'll further display his ignorance by mistaking "ignorant" for "stupid". Ignorance means that you're simply without knowledge regarding a subject. I am wholly ignorant regarding ballet - ignorant is not an insult, sometimes it's just true.

And greenstheman rejected the suggestion that he go and look at the evidence for evolution, deciding to maintain his ignorance on the matter. He wears his 'ignorant' badge like a badge of honour.

I mean really - who thinks that because we evolved from fish that there shouldn't be any fish left? How ignorant is ~that~ idea!??! (the same applies to apes greenstheman!)

When told that humans evolved from apes, greenstheman replies: "OH really? where's the proof, there isn't any"

And when he's presented with a link to the "proof" he's looking for he ignores it and refuses to have a look! Classic creationist - claim there's no evidence, then when confronted by the evidence plug your ears and claim 'nah-nah-nah, I can't hear you'... it's pathetic.

It seems to me that conflating science with social policy is a common and disingenuous trick employed by religious believers in order to discredit or cast doubt on the science.

It just won't work.....the science comes first, and any misuse/abuse or misapplication of scientific theories comes later - and 'sooner or later' matters not. It's still an 'apples and oranges' dichotomy.

Why (some) religionists have such a problem with evolutionary theory is a bit mysterious - and this opacity or mental block is particularly disturbing among the more educated types.

For example, if humans and other primates did not have a common ancestor as various strains of religous fundamentalism seem to imply, then what are the origins of modern man? Surely we are not going to be offered some version of Genesis?

And is there a 'better' theory that both refutes and supplants all the existing fossil evidence that supports the evolutionary ladder model of the ascent of homo sapiens sapiens? Of course there is not.....

A worthwhile link just below -

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html

To Rikk101;

The fossil record is simply icing on the cake.

Now, you can reject what I've written. You can just dismiss it as a lie. You can close your mind. Or you can invoke some divine magic, some trick of God's to test your faith.

-------------------------------------------

Well I will reject what you have written, just because there are similarities doen not mean they are your ancestors.

I do not have to invoke divine magic, that is forbidden by God for one. God is not a magician or a magic fountain to use as a means of proving to yourself that He exists.

I do not expect you toi understand what I mean by that, not because I think you are ignorant or anything like that. But because you believe God does not exists so you will more than likely not give God an opportunity for Him to reveal Himself to you, that requires and open mind and heart to do that.

RickK101

Re: Einstein's theory of relativity leading directly to the atomic bomb and *Origin of Species* as a major causal factor of the eugenic movement.

You cited: "On August 2, 1939, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Roosevelt explaining that it was theoretically possible [to construct an atomic bomb" and concluded that the theory led *directly* to the construction of the bomb. Hence the comparison betw. Darwinian influence on social policy and Einstein influence on same is wrong."

False contention on at least two fronts.

* Immediacy

When did AE publish his theory of relativity? 1905, I think, some 35 years earlier. Darwin's 'discussion' of the problems of vaccinating the poor followed *directly* after "Origin". In fact, Herbert Spencer's discussion of the same 'problem' *preceded* the publication of "Origin" by 10 years! You can't get away from it:

the concept of "survival of the fittest" quickly became a core 'canon' of the eugenic movement.

*Relativity had no influence upon social policy, it led to a technical innovation (better bombs) but no social movement like eugenics

See above. Darwinian evolutionary beliefs *immediately* allied themselves to the eugenic movement. And this had grave consequences on the ideology of welfare for the poor as well as serving for justification for a particularly nasty form of capitalism. While relativity--with a delay--influenced the construction of the bomb it had no influence on how we viewed the victims of the same. In contrast, Darwinism put the blame for poverty squarely upon the victim.

Finally, just because creationists cite the Darwin publication doesn't make it any less disgusting. There's a fallacy here: someone might be wrong in one thing but it deosn't mean he's wrong in another. Darwinism and its 'child' Social Darwinism led to some of the most disastrous policies ever enacted upon a helpless population and no scientific paper can ever negate that.

To GREENSTHEMAN

Every day people answer difficult, life-changing questions like:

- Are these remains from the South Tower all that's left of my father?
- Will my baby have a terrible deformity?
- Does this man belong on Death Row?
- Is this stranger really my birth mother?

We answer these questions with confidence because of the power of the unique information in DNA.

That same information proves beyond any doubt that you are a blood relative of the chimpanzees in your local zoo. If you can believe the DNA that proves you are related to your cousin, then you must accept the DNA that proves you are related to all life on Earth.

"But...", you might say, "God could have used the same DNA for humans and chimps. It doesn't prove we're related."

And you'd be wrong.

I'm not talking about just the coding DNA that determines your features. There is other proof in your DNA. Over 25% of your genome is made up of unique bits of DNA left over from ancient retroviral infections suffered by your ancestors. Retroviruses, as you may know, can leave bits of themselves in a cell's DNA. These markers are highly unique and easily recognizable. If the cell that is infected is a reproductive cell (like sperm or egg), then that marker can be passed to offspring as a permanent part of their DNA.

Because they are unique, and because they are inherited, they show a roadmap of inheritance.

Guess what? You (and I) share unique markers with chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and old world monkeys (and other species). What's more, we share them in EXACTLY the pattern predicted by the evolutionary tree.

There is more DNA evidence that you and other apes evolved from a common ancestor than all the DNA evidence used all criminal trials combined.

The fossil record is simply icing on the cake.

Now, you can reject what I've written. You can just dismiss it as a lie. You can close your mind. Or you can invoke some divine magic, some trick of God's to test your faith.

But none of these would be intellectually honest responses. The honest response would be to examine this link, read the background information, understand the diagrams, and consider the conclusions.

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

Species evolve. You are the product of evolution. The proof is there - it's just a matter of learning about it, just like you learn about the periodic table of elements.

Yes, if you accept evolution you'll have to resolve it with your theology. But then you won't be denying the truth or lying any more. Doesn't the Bible teach that honesty is a virtue?

@ Thomas Paul Moses Baum

Oops, I got to raving so enthusiastically I forgot to mention...

"There are many things in this world that don't "stand up to rigorous intellectual examination" and when this world gets so "cold" that we completely banish feelings and emotions from our "intellectual pursuits" then what have we become?"

Easy! Much better off! Next up...

"Seems as if some get "uncomfortable" when I mention that I met God and met satan and experienced hell and experienced spiritual death."

Yeah, myself included, most likely because that's some creepy s%$t right there. You met God and Satan? And felt all the torments of Hell and survived? I see...(Backs slowly away.)

@ Thomas Paul Moses Baum

Firstly, you cite the example of a lone scientist sticking by an unpopular theory, then eventually being proven correct. There's the key element--proven to be correct. If that scientist never got his/her proof, just continued to write angry letters to scientific journals for the rest of their career about how great the pet theory was, how pathetic would that be? Wouldn't you just tell them, "Hey, wake up and move on, dude"? That's the position Christianity is in. You advanced your theory, provided no evidence, got no love from the smart people, and now you just won't shut up about it. Provide new proof or admit you should have listened to the people who shot you down!

Secondly, yes, I do hold it is impossible for one person to believe in both science and religion at the same time while using the same set of standards for the evaluation of all new concepts, which is what I mean when I refer to the integration of science and religion. The two worldviews are mutually exclusive. When examining a scientific theory for validity, one uses standards like "Is it internally consistent?" and "Does it meet all available evidence?", that sort of thing. Religion implodes when confronted with such questions. And if you use religious standards such as "Does it feel right?" and...well, whatever tests religious people use for judging religious concepts...on science, then we'd still believe in a flat Earth and geocentric solar system motion. No one set of standards is successful in both arenas.

This brings us to my third point, respect. No, I don't respect people who would use two different sets of standards for two different subjects. A concept is a concept, and the subject matter is irrelevant to the process of evaluation. To have a seperate process for religious matters just so they have a chance of standing up to scrutiny is sheer moral cowardice and intellectual dishonesty. I say again, what is there to respect there? Fah!

Someone said: "banish feelings and emotions from our "intellectual pursuits" then what have we become?""

Is that what people think - that scientists who spend their lives investigating and trying to understand how the world works are cold and emotionless about it?

That is a foolish, shallow stereotype. Watch Carl Sagan present astronomy some day and describe how he banished feelings and emotions from his intellectual pursuits. Or Neil deGrasse Tyson. Or Richard Dawkins discussing evolution.

Most research science doesn't pay. People do it because they are driven by a passion to learn, to understand.

Do people really think that understanding how something works removes the emotion from it? Is looking at the night sky LESS awe inspiring when you learn that the photons hitting your eyes have been traveling for 10 million years???

Where do people get this cold, unemotional impression of science? Do you really need rationalize why you don't understand science by painting a false picture of people who do?

joeAgnost in reply to your post:

greenstheman wrote: "I still don't understand how atheists hate a God that to them dosen't exist... Why do you care what someone else believes."

Why do you?

Because you're not content with being merely ignorant yourselves... you want to make my children equally stupid by introducing creationism/ID into science classes.

If you havent noticed but everyone is allowed to teach whatever they want in public classrooms as long as it does not involve God, you know the God that does not exist according to you, yet you are so threatened by Him. I don't want anyones children to be stupid, that's a ridiculous assumption by you.

Just because I don't believe like you that makes me ignorant? could not the same be said about you?

You make 'museums' of ignorance and try to pass it off as reality.

No I think making museums that pass off the THEORY OF EVOLUTION as FACT is trying to pass that off as reality

And then we could move onto the rights you want to deny fellow citizens because they dare to live their lives gay...

Again you show your prejudice to people of faith , I don't deny anyone their rights, you can do whatever you want, I don't have to be made to agree with the choices other people make for themselves, I am only responsible fro the choices I make.

There are lots of reasons to appose religion... For you and that's your right, I certaintly don't hold a grudge toward you for it.

even though god doesn't exist. Much wrong is done by his believers.

I agree with that statement in part, there are people who call themselves believers, but when you look at those peoples actions you can see that they do not match what they say they believe. When people kill in the name of God they prove to be liars and blaspheming murderers not Christians.

That is why you cannot be prejudist about Christians by lumping everyone together. Some truly walk the walk and many say they walk the walk.

Seriously, look at this statement: "BTW if man evolved from monkeys, why are there monkeys still around? they will never find the missing link!"

That is EPIC level stupidity. Epic.

Prove it

(for those that care: every single fossil we find is a "missing link". To what??

It's a step on the evolutionary ladder.
still unproven

And we evolved from apes, not monkeys.)

OH really? where's the proof, there isn't any

I response to your :

What "Theoretical science" are you speaking about?
Take care, be ready.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

That would be the science wich gave us the Theory of evolution etc.

twmatthews

You wrote, "Why do you believe that it is an either or situation?"

I don't believe that it is an "either or situation" but if you read differents postings, it seems the case that for some it is and I suppose this is by their own choice.

God gave us reason for a reason and God gave us emotions for a reason, among other things, and if one relies totally on one and rejects the other than they are rejecting a part of themself.

You then wrote, "Fortunately for us, science by definition, re-examines its ideas, conclusions and theories all the time. We still don't bleed people because we discovered it didn't help."

What I was trying to point out is that just because "something" is held by a majority or by those in power does not in and of itself mean that it is correct.

We may not "bleed people" but we do give transfusions and in a similiar way, we do "bleed people" of their immune systems to transfuse a new one.

You then asked, "Does your religion foster the same kind of self examination of core beliefs that science does?"

Personally, I do not look at it as a "religion" but as a relationship and wouldn't it be more accurate to ask me "If I?", rather than "Your religion?"

As far as the "core beliefs", it seems as if some of my "beliefs" seem to be in constrast to some others considering that I have been labeled a heretic, delusional and psychotic, to name a few.

You then wrote, "I watch with interest the Catholic church's struggles regarding pedophilia, celibacy, and the second class state in which women are treated and I wonder how often and how quickly beliefs and traditions get mixed up and become ironclad."

This "beliefs and tradition" thing is not just limited to "religion".

Have you also noticed that there are some that seem to think that the "Catholic church" can do no wrong and that there are also some that seem to think that the "Catholic church" can do nothing but wrong?

Both are wrong.

You then wrote, "I'm really not sure on this one since I don't think science has evidence for a 5-headed, 16 foot long, pink tiger. Does that mean that it's scientific to reject their existence?"

Maybe it is extinct and they just have not found it in the "fossil" record.

This answer of your is at best a non-answer.

However, you replied, "The answer is yes, just like it's reasonable to reject the existence of God or an intelligent designer without some evidence as to their existence."

Maybe the evidence is all around you but you just do not see it.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

greenstheman wrote: " Also it's the Theoretical science that is at odds with God."

You wrote: "What "Theoretical science" are you speaking about?"

Bear in mind that greenstheman probably hangs with a different imaginary god from the imaginary god that you hang with.

Therefore, he may know what he is talking about.

Remember, only you can prevent forest fires.

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

Rongoklunk

You wrote, "But by now the religious have had to change their beliefs to accomodate this reality - that there was no creation, and the world was not created in six days, etc. Even the pope has had to swallow his pride and admit that Darwin was right. So Hirschfield too has to get in line and accept this reality. Evolution is simply fact, and as in many other things - religion got it wrong."

What does evolution have to do with creation?

Evolution is just speaking about the ongoing working of creation, it does not speak at all about creation itself.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

greenstheman

You wrote, " Also it's the Theoretical science that is at odds with God."

What "Theoretical science" are you speaking about?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

greenstheman wrote: "I still don't understand how atheists hate a God that to them dosen't exist... Why do you care what someone else believes."

Because you're not content with being merely ignorant yourselves... you want to make my children equally stupid by introducing creationism/ID into science classes. You make 'museums' of ignorance and try to pass it off as reality.

And then we could move onto the rights you want to deny fellow citizens because they dare to live their lives gay...

There are lots of reasons to appose religion... even though god doesn't exist. Much wrong is done by his believers.

Seriously, look at this statement: "BTW if man evolved from monkeys, why are there monkeys still around? they will never find the missing link!"

That is EPIC level stupidity. Epic.

(for those that care: every single fossil we find is a "missing link". It's a step on the evolutionary ladder. And we evolved from apes, not monkeys.)

Psolus said, "Oh, and ask him about ear wax; I mean, what's up with that?"

The intelligent designer had only our best interests at heart when he designed man. First, when he said "let there be light", he meant only during the day. Mankind needed a light, something built in, something readily available. The answer was of course the candle (God didn't think about incandescent light bulbs for the same reason why he didn't think that text messaging was superior to prayer).

Once man mastered fire, the use of candles to illuminate his home, became both practical and fashionable. However, being an INTELLIGENT designer meant he thought of all contingencies. What happens at night if man runs low on candle wax?

You guessed it. Earwax. And thus God accounted for all of mankind's needs; well excluding some minor details -- the Ebola virus, HIV, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, viruses and a few others.

Thomas Baum stated; "There are many things in this world that don't "stand up to rigorous intellectual examination" and when this world gets so "cold" that we completely banish feelings and emotions from our "intellectual pursuits" then what have we become?"

Since when did a reliance on science and reason have anything to do with emotion? I would classify myself as someone who respects science and reason (I own a software company and you can add logic) but I have no problems related to my wife, my children, my friends on both an intellectual and emotional level. Why do you believe that it is an either or situation?

You also state, "How about in science, or other fields, when the "unreasonable" person that is shunned by his/her fellow scientists or workers in that field, sticks with a "so small" theory or hypothesis that "eventually" is shown to be true, should this "unreasonable" person have listened to his/her "learned" know-it-alls?"

Fortunately for us, science by definition, re-examines its ideas, conclusions and theories all the time. We still don't bleed people because we discovered it didn't help.

Does your religion foster the same kind of self examination of core beliefs that science does?

I watch with interest the Catholic church's struggles regarding pedophilia, celibacy, and the second class state in which women are treated and I wonder how often and how quickly beliefs and traditions get mixed up and become ironclad.

You also said; "Science, it seems, has no "evidence" on whether there are or are not "spiritual beings", so it is very "unscientific" to "reject" something of which they have no concrete data, one way or the other, on, is it not?"

I'm really not sure on this one since I don't think science has evidence for a 5-headed, 16 foot long, pink tiger. Does that mean that it's scientific to reject their existence?

The answer is yes, just like it's reasonable to reject the existence of God or an intelligent designer without some evidence as to their existence.

greenstheman,

"BTW if man evolved from monkeys, why are there monkeys still around?"

Who told you that man evolved from monkeys?

Was it that guy in the park?

greenstheman,

"I wonder if you ever go back and read your post and realize how by reading your post people of faith are glad that they are not atheists."

Actually, I don’t, but, if that's what it takes to make people of faith glad that they are not atheists, than I'm happy I could be of help.

You're welcome.

"You come across like you have a misserable unhappy time you are going through or something."

You know, it's really not all that bad.

I mean, it could be better, sure, but I'm doing OK.

Thank you for your concern.

"You know it's a good thing we live to please God, and not people like you, we don't need your approval to be happy."

No, actually I didn't know that.

But, I am glad that you don't need my approval to be happy; that certainly takes a lot of pressure off me.

Tell your imaginary god I said "hey" next time you see him.

Oh, and ask him about ear wax; I mean, what's up with that?

Oops, two typos below.

Replace BLAISEREP with BLAISEP

Replace "Einstein did" with "Einstein didn't"

BLAISREP -

I didn't call you a creationist, I said you repeated the creationist crime of taking Darwin out of context and twisting the meaning of his words, which you did.

I didn't call you an ignoramus - those were your words, not mine. Were you intentionally trying to mis-quote me?

As for the organisms we've watched evolve, they became different than their original population - different in all the ways I said - size, shape, metabolism - major differences. That's evolution.

So your statements that I pointed out as false were indeed false. And your mis-portrayal of Darwin's statements was indeed a tactic used over and over again by creationists.

In fact, that particular quote you used is so often exploited by creationists that there are web pages devoted to addressing that very tactic.

If you're not a creationist, why are you copying tactics of theirs that are so easily debunked?

Oh, and just one more example of just how wrong you were. You said Einstein did discuss social policies, in response to someone saying blaming Darwin for eugenics is like blaming Einstein for the atomic bomb.

On August 2, 1939, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Roosevelt explaining that it was theoretically possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction, and to secure a source of uranium and to research the development of an atomic bomb with utmost urgency before Germany developed one.

So BLAISEP, I think that rather firmly places responsibility for the bomb on Einstein in a VASTLY more direct fashion than you can blame Darwin for "social Darwinism".

If you don't want people pointing out when you're being dishonest, why do you make demonstrably false statements? If you're going to take it personally when people point out when you're wrong, perhaps you should avoid being so demonstrably wrong.

to your : WMARKW

" The push for Creationism as fact is largely driven by Southern-style Protestants who believe that the literal truth of Adam's fall and Jesus' resurrection are THE absolutely necessary components of Christianity, without which their religion falls completely apart. "

------------------------------------------

Not quite ALL cristians must believe in creation or you are not a christian regardless of denomination.

I think it's atheists who need evolution. Atheists believe in a cosmic coinsidence for life so it matters little in what you believe as long as you don't have to be accountable to anyone for your actions. Truth to you becomes relative.

I still don't understand how atheists hate a God that to them dosen't exist, and have to go out of their way to prove (yeah right) that God is non-existent. Why do you care what someone else believes.

Realize that no one on this site is neutral in their beliefs, no one here is going to change anyone elses mind, I am certaintly not under that delusion.

BTW if man evolved from monkeys, why are there monkeys still around? they will never find the missing link!

PSolus | July 19, 2010 12:47 PM

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,
"It's God's Plan, not mine, I am just a messenger."
Did your imaginary god give you a really cool messenger bike and messenger bag?
I had to buy my own; that's what I get for not believing, huh?
Never get into a van with a grown-up that you do not know.
Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

-------------------------------------------

I wonder if you ever go back and read your post and realize how by reading your post people of faith are glad that they are not atheists.

You come across like you have a misserable unhappy time you are going through or something.

You know it's a good thing we live to please God, and not people like you, we don't need your approval to be happy.

"How does one get to life, the lowest definition of which is a collection of self replicating biochemicals from non self replicating molecules except by some self assembly."

I don't know, and I'm pretty sure that no one else currently knows either.

"It is a reversion to the hoary old watch and watchmaker analogy but those who wish to do away with the watchmaker need to make it clear how that is accomplished before anyone should take abiogenisis seriously enough..."

Do you even know what abiogenisis is?

"...to sell it to teenagers."

You're not confusing abiogenisis with ecstasy, are you?

RickK101 |
Firstly,I am not a creationist. Secondly, you are over-emotional.

Please, personal attacks. They don't prove your point. And neither do charges that "you are an ignoramus" or suchlike.

Like this one:"You then go on to say evolution cannot be observed or duplicated, which again is utterly false. We've WATCHED organisms evolve new shapes, sizes, and metabolisms".

So what? What happened after that? What life do these organisms you've WATCHED become?

And your comment: "The ends do not justify the means". Who said they did? Not me, Magee. Not me.

"I don't think there is a "theory that those molecules self assembled"; except, perhaps, in your mind."

How does one get to life, the lowest definition of which is a collection of self replicating biochemicals from non self replicating molecules except by some self assembly. It is a reversion to the hoary old watch and watchmaker analogy but those who wish to do away with the watchmaker need to make it clear how that is accomplished before anyone should take abiogenisis seriously enough to sell it to teenagers.

BLAISEP said: "But after Darwin published “Origin” he *did* directly question the efficiency of vaccinating the poor against smallpox...Darwin amended his ‘discussion’ by saying that, despite all the problems, the poor should continue to be given protection against smallpox. A twinge of conscience, maybe?"

BALISEP, this is so completely dishonest of you. You are repeating the nausiatingly frequent creationist crime of lifting Darwin's quotes out of context in an attempt to smear Darwin.

Darwin was a good scientist, and he examined his own theories and conclusions from as many different angles as he could think of. He spent entire chapters of his books asking hard questions of his theories, and then showing how his theories answered the questions. Or he asked hard philosophical questions, and then gave answers.

What people like you do is quote the question as if Darwin had serious doubts, then you leave off the answer.

Darwin asked of his ideas "does this mean we should not vaccinate children, so as to let evolutionary forces take their natural course?". He then ANSWERS this hypothetical question with:

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."

He didn't "amend" his discussion - he posed a potential conclusion of his ideas, then pointed out why this conclusion was invalid. He highlighted the nobility of human compassion.

Similarly, your comment about evolution being "only a theory" purposely mixes the common and scientific definitions of "theory" in a blatant attempt to make evolution look like a "hypothesis". Evolution is as solid as atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of relativity.

You then go on to say evolution cannot be observed or duplicated, which again is utterly false. We've WATCHED organisms evolve new shapes, sizes, and metabolisms, and we've even backed up and "re-played" parts of that evolution. Google the Lenski evolution experiments if you're so ill-informed.

I'll tell you what is NOT a noble part of our nature - the behavior of some people to distort the truth to promote their ideas. BLAISEP, the ends do NOT justify the means.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

"It's God's Plan, not mine, I am just a messenger."

Did your imaginary god give you a really cool messenger bike and messenger bag?

I had to buy my own; that's what I get for not believing, huh?

Never get into a van with a grown-up that you do not know.

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

CalicoJ

You wrote, " I can't state as a fact there is no God. I can state as a fact the possibility is so small that most any reasonable person would dismiss it out of hand and never look back unless new evidence came to light that indicated a reevaluation is in order."

How about in science, or other fields, when the "unreasonable" person that is shunned by his/her fellow scientists or workers in that field, sticks with a "so small" theory or hypothesis that "eventually" is shown to be true, should this "unreasonable" person have listened to his/her "learned" know-it-alls"?

You mentioned that "integration" of religion and science is impossible, if I read you right.

At least some of those that believe/know that God Is, can very well see that science is the "looking into" the workings of God's creation.

You wrote, "Coexistence with no attempt to integrate is something I just cannot have any respect for."

So in other words, you have respect for people that can look at science as an explanation of God's creation but you have no respect for those that reject out of hand that "Someone or Something", greater than human beings, could have had anything to do with whatever you may call what we can see, hear, touch, smell, taste..., is this right?

You then wrote, " It basically acknowledges that religion doesn't stand up to rigorous intellectual examination,"

There are many things in this world that don't "stand up to rigorous intellectual examination" and when this world gets so "cold" that we completely banish feelings and emotions from our "intellectual pursuits" then what have we become?

You then wrote, "it's just too uncomfortable to abandon that happy fantasy."

Seems as if some get "uncomfortable" when I mention that I met God and met satan and experienced hell and experienced spiritual death.

The "fantasy" that I rejected was that Jesus lived and died for all except me and the "fact" which I have to chosen to speak, is that Jesus lived and died for ALL including me.

It's God's Plan, not mine, I am just a messenger.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"The theory that those molecules self assembled is the faith statement of those who think science can explain everything."

I don't think there is a "theory that those molecules self assembled"; except, perhaps, in your mind.

"The fact that it makes it into curricula all the way down to the high school level undercuts any argument that science dwells only in the realm of supporting data."

This theory that you imagine cannot "make it into curricula all the way down to the high school level" unless you yourself introduce it; it's all in your head.

"This is exactly why 'the survival of the fittest' is not particularly meaningful"

The biggest problem with this popular phrase is that it really fails to get to the heart of evolution. Survival alone means nothing in terms of evolution. Having many offspring is also necessary so that the fittest genes crowd the lesser fit out of the particular niche that the species occupies.

Furthermore, there may be unknown mechanisms for evolution. After catastrophic extinction events, the fossil record records a new radiation into the empty niches. Whether random mutation can explain this rapid evolution to new forms is not firmly established. There also is the problem of reversion to norm. Artificial selection by humans has bred many new forms of Canis. However, we have never developed an entirely new species, nor have we succeeded in breeding dogs beyond certain innate limits.

"Does "Darwinism" teach where "life" came from?

Does "Darwinism" teach how "life" came to be?

Does "Darwinism" teach that "life" always was?"
Thomas Paul Moses Baum
_________________________________

Darwinism is itself silent on these matters. His theory merely elucidates how the many forms of life on this planet took shape after the advent of the first self reproducing accumulation of molecules occurred. The theory that those molecules self assembled is the faith statement of those who think science can explain everything. The fact that it makes it into curricula all the way down to the high school level undercuts any argument that science dwells only in the realm of supporting data.

'It is your opinion that they are not "fact-based" but as far as "testable", I would agree and that is why "faith" and "science" are two different avenues.'
__________

T. Baum, it is my considered opinion that mystical or religious experiences are deeply subjective, and while they may be real and even life-changing to the experiencer, they are not real to anyone else. Inner personal experience of the intuitive kind cannot easily be shared or translated in a meaningful way - and especially by using conventional, time worn concepts that are limited to religious symbology.

Prophecies and prognostications along religous lines in particular, are going to be met with extreme skepticism if not outright disbelief, and perhaps even viewed as the result of an overwrought religious imagination.

And it's pretty hard to argue against the observation that (lifelong) religious affiliations are directly due to a very large constellation of events that lead to the time, place, and circumstances of our birth, upbringing, and overall socialization.

Everything about being human is essentially learned - one can argue biological drives and territorial imperatives, but the shape and expression of those drives and inner promptings are determined by and through learning.

This is exactly why 'the survival of the fittest' is not particularly meaningful - because the application of such a statement is directly determined by and relative to which traits, characteristics, and human attributes are held as valuable to a culture and society at any given time. Values change, and values drive behavior.

best regards, Persiflage

"Would add as well evolutionary theory is tautological. "Survival of the fittest", or best adapted or whatever you want to call it, so what? Tells us nothing we did not know to begin with."

Your comment also "tells us nothing we did not know to begin with": You are criticizing a scientific theory that you do not understand.

Would add as well evolutionary theory is tautological. "Survival of the fittest", or best adapted or whatever you want to call it, so what? Tells us nothing we did not know to begin with.

“If only Einstein hadn't written E = mc^2, hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't have been killed by atomic bombs.”

Well, I am going to have to reject that analogy. Because after Einstein “discovered” e=mc2, what did he do? What social policies did he discuss with his colleagues? None that I have read.

But after Darwin published “Origin” he *did* directly question the efficiency of vaccinating the poor against smallpox, on the ground that weak children who might otherwise have died, would then survive and the weakest specimens would thus reproduce, concluding with the chilling words “No owner would allow his animals to multiply in this fashion.” Darwin amended his ‘discussion’ by saying that, despite all the problems, the poor should continue to be given protection against smallpox. A twinge of conscience, maybe? However, subsequent Darwinists had no such compunctions.

@GalaPete asked "What is your point?"

I would challenge the hold Darwinism has on us today and evolution’s exalted position as a ‘science’ when it is still a theory, and one with some real problems. After all, unlike physics and geometry, evolution is set in time, dependent upon mutations that happen only once, and cannot, by definition, be observed or duplicated. Additionally evolutionary theory—flawed as it is—has had devastating effects upon society. As an idea of ‘progress’ dependent upon the mechanical elimination of the weak, how could it be otherwise?

That is my point.

persiflage

You wrote, "Without the requisite educational exposure, and being emotionally committed to a particular religion based on an accident of time, place, and circumstance,"

This statement, "accident of time, place, and circumstance", I suppose, if repeated enough, will become "gospel truth" to those that think everything is just a fluke.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

edbyronadams

You wrote, "That is one of the reasons that I find that the teaching of abiogenisis in high school biology curricula so galling. I fully support Darwinism because of the evidence to support it."

Does "Darwinism" teach where "life" came from?

Does "Darwinism" teach how "life" came to be?

Does "Darwinism" teach that "life" always was?

Does "Darwinism" have anything to say about this?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ceflynline

You wrote, " It would therefor follow that those who object to scientific conflicts with Divine revelation thereby oppose their own concept of god."

I agree, knowing God's Name does not mean that someone knows anything else about God.

I have also said that some people who "reject God" do not really reject God, they reject some people's "conception" of God.

Since God created everything that is, except God, and God gave us the "ability" to come to "knowledge" of the physical world there is no way that any of this "knowledge" would conflict with the "reality" of God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

persiflage

You wrote, "because faith based beliefs are not fact-based and testable,"

It is your opinion that they are not "fact-based" but as far as "testable", I would agree and that is why "faith" and "science" are two different avenues.

I suppose some reject both, some reject one or the other and some embrace both.

One, as you have seem to have put it, is about the "testable" and the other is about not just the "why" of it all but if there is a "why" at all and also the "fact" that some would even contemplate that there might be a "why" and not just a "how".

You also wrote, "Knowledge is a double-edged sword."

Ever heard of the "knowledge of good and evil"?

Knowledge of the "workings" of creation, I would say is "neutral", application of that knowledge can be anything else but neutral.

Just because we can do something, should we?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

troisieme

You wrote, "This is not much different from outright animism. Science rejects that too and does not take seriously challenges to its theories and data from that quarter."

I looked up the word "animism", there are different meanings to the word, two of them are:

1: belief in spiritual beings or agencies.

2: The belief in the existence of spiritual beings that are separable or separate from bodies.

Just because "science rejects" the "belief in spiritual beings" is nothing more than conjecture:

1: the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2: an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.

Science, it seems, has no "evidence" on whether there are or are not "spiritual beings", so it is very "unscientific" to "reject" something of which they have no concrete data, one way or the other, on, is it not?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"The only way out of that box, once science and technology worked their magic on the methods of war, is a spiritual reawakening."

I can’t wait; will this spiritual reawakening include fairy dust and rainbows?

BLAISEP,

I think the Thomas Sewell article is worth reading. It clearly points out a few of the ways in which complex and controversial ideas e.g. evolutionary theory, are used, misused, and abused either through a lack of understanding or by way of darker motives.

For example, right wing fundamentalists and their public apologists(Ann Coulter, et al) are either completely disingenuous or monumentally stupid, or both - as regards their re-invention of evolutionary theory in order to suit their religiously charged political ideology. The transperent and quasi-sympathetic emotional appeal designed specifically for the legions of Fox News fans is hard to miss.

It's also not surprising that psychopathic personality types with any degree of formal education would skew Darwinian theory to support their narcissistic agenda i.e Sewell's reference to recent mass murderers, etc. About 3/4 of any given prison population are diagnosed with anti-social personality disorder.

We're seeing plenty of articles these days on how the undiagnosed psychopath without blatant criminal tendencies may flourish in business and corporate environments - and this has been noted since the early research done by Hervey Cleckley, et al.

However, pathological personality types deviate from the norm substantially, and do not make the case for a 'survival of the fittest' view of how society and social groups actually function.

Re-constituting Darwin is not limited to the apologetics of social misfits. In the same way, the field of sociobiology has generated considerable controversy, and has been accused of employing a similar value-laden (subjective) strategy in order to explain human behavior in the social milieu - shades of Herbert Spencer!

While I don't agree with everything Daniel Dennett has to say, he deals with many of these issues in 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea' - a book well worth reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea

"If only Einstein hadn't written E = mc^2, hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't have been killed by atomic bombs."

___________________________________

No, more across Japan would have been killed in conventional war and Americans would have died in the process of invading the Japanese home islands.

The crux of the problem is that the process of evolution has produced a tribal species whose instincts cause us to divide the world into our kind and the other and then proceed to try and kill the outsiders. The only way out of that box, once science and technology worked their magic on the methods of war, is a spiritual reawakening.

BlaiseP:
"These are examples of how easily Darwin's writings can lead to very disturbed ways of thinking."

If only Einstein hadn't written E = mc^2, hundreds of thousands of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't have been killed by atomic bombs.

Spidermean2: Your points are, well, pointless.

1. Consciousness - consciousness is not the act of talking. And other animals use sounds to communicate. We simply took it a step further.

2, 3, 4 - Of course everything seems as if it was designed for us - we evolved to fit it over billions of years. It would be strange if it *didn't* seem designed for us.

If conditions were different, another form of life might have evolved here. Or none at all.

Sorry about your brain hurting. Mine is fine, thank you.

Wow, there's a few real Whack-a-Mole crazies on this thread. Odd how they all seem to be deeply religious. Hmm.

@ Spidermean2
Just too stupid to answer. Fruit proves the existence of God? Really? I'm embarrassed for you.

@ samuellenn
I've read the Bible--both the New International Version and the good ol' King James--cover to cover, even the immensely boring genealogy sections. I somehow managed to remain an unrepentent Atheist. Huh--I guess the bible doesn't really convey understanding after all, you'd better come up with a new plan.

@ elisa2
"...they see the attacks made against them by atheists as part of a movement to turn the government of the USA into a communist one." See, anyone who'd believe that is so clueless and ignorant that they really shouldn't have much of a voice in any sort of discussion, either political or religious. They need to understand what Atheism is before commenting. And as for your contention that people of faith are persecuted in any arena, well, I'll wager you've never walked a mile in an Atheist's shoes.

@ Thomas Paul Moses Baum
No, I don't have any evidence of God's nonexistence. To me the issue is simple--extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. A guy floating in the sky that knows everything and can do anything and created everything we see around us is one bad mutha of an extraordinary claim. And the proof? "Well, we've got a dusty old book that's been mistranslated through a dozen extinct languages successively and altered at various times by people with political agendas. And fruit tastes good!" I can't state as a fact there is no God. I can state as a fact the possibility is so small that most any reasonable person would dismiss it out of hand and never look back unless new evidence came to light that indicated a reevaluation is in order.

I agree that the coexistence and integration of religion and science are two different things. The first is possible, albeit in a forced fashion, and the second is simply impossible. Coexistence with no attempt to integrate is something I just cannot have any respect for. It basically acknowledges that religion doesn't stand up to rigorous intellectual examination, but refuses to act on that knowledge because it's just too uncomfortable to abandon that happy fantasy. What is there to respect in that mindset?

BLAISEP says, "Darwin's *ideas* might have helped science, but (mis)applied to the social sphere they were disastrous."

Yes. I agree.

What is your point, exactly? What do you feel should be done now?

ISLAMi' Ummah (NOt JU ummah) now Must Ask, "WHY why Does The World [Kafirs] HATE US"???
.
.......... .( . P E A C E?
...........(_) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ _|
..........#.## . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. |::|\|::|
..........(#c ..... _\|/_ . . . . . . . . . . .|::|/|::|
.......... #.\...... www . . . . . . . . . . .|::|\|::|
.......... \ .\-.. . (/. .\) . . . . . . . . . . .|::|/|::|
.......... /\. /,`\. /\ . /\ . . . . . . . . . .. |::|\|::|
.......... |.\/ . .. _) (_ . . . . . . . |:|"|/|||::|/|::|\|||/||:|
.......... `\.' . ; . ; . ,. ;`\ . . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
............ `\; . ; . . . .. . ; /.\ . . . ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~
............. .`\; . . . . .; . ;| . .\ . "Give U.S. Liberty
............... ; . . '' ' ; . . . . . ./ . O'Give US Death"
............... |_.'' . . . . .; | . ./.)
.
.
....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./
...................... . . . . . . . / . . . . . . /
...................... . . ./ . . . / . . . / . . / . . . . . . . . . /
...................... . . / . . . . . . . / . . . . . / . . . . . . /
...................... , ---------------------- . . . ... . ,.-,
.................... / . . . . . .`--- . . . . . . . \ . __ . / . |
.................. [ . by: . K . A . F . i . R .. _|_ . . . |
.................... \ . t.h.e .---.Jyoktan / . . . . .\ . |
...................... `----------------------- . . .. ....`.-`
.
.
....................... ,--------------------,
................... ,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'|
................ ,' . K . a . a . b . a . '#| . . . "Never--Again
............ ,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '# # | . . . PELEG-EBER
.......... :---------------------- '# # # |. . . .O' YaHaBeBe"
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | #ALLAHaKBAR#| # # # |
.......... | # [ البيت المعمو ر‎] # |[ الكعبة‎].|
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| \_\_\_\
.
. . . . . . Credits To "jj" http://onwapo.com

BlaiseP,

How about all those people who fall to their deaths?

Are their deaths the result of "Newton's Dark Legacy"?

Maybe if he had not come up with F = ma, all those people would have been spared.

A longer article by Sewell:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6905259.ece

"Pekka-Eric Auvinen, a Finnish schoolboy who murdered eight people at his high school in November 2007, wrote on his blog that "stupid, weak-minded people are reproducing ... faster than the intelligent, strong-minded" ones. Auvinen thought through the philosophical implications of Darwin's work and came to the conclusion that human life is like every other type of animal life: it has no extraordinary value. The Columbine killers made similar arguments. One of the shooters, Eric Harris, wore a "Natural Selection" shirt on the day of the massacre. These are examples of how easily Darwin's writings can lead to very disturbed ways of thinking."

Dennis Sewell: "Darwin's Dark Legacy"

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1942483,00.html#ixzz0u40v02jm

Herbert Spencer and Darwin were close, and after Darwin's death Spencer was annointed the foremost evolutionist of his time. It was Spencer himself who gave us the term "survival of the fittest".

Darwin's *ideas* might have helped science, but (mis)applied to the social sphere they were disastrous.

Almost as bad as Marx, but not quite.

'By attempting to agree with Darwinism, religion gives up much while science gains almost nothing.'
___________

On the contrary, when religion admits to the truth and scientific primacy of evolutionary theory, they appear to be in the camp of the rational and the educated... and this needs to happen much more.

Even the Catholic Church was forced to come to it's senses in recent decades and admit to the truth of evolutionary theory, after censoring the work of Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin, an avowed evolutionist who was shackled by Vatican restrictions for many years..

Social Darwinism has long been a misapplied term, having much more to do with Lamarkian processess as they apply to far more rapid societal developments/changes.

Given that evolutionary processes occur very slowly and at micro-biological levels, societal macro-level changes that seem to favor certain social castes/classes occur at a far more rapid generational pace (say 30 year periods as contrasted with time frames measured in millenia). This is actually in line with Lamark's ideas about inherited characteristics.

Darwin of course replaced Lamarkian thinking with natural selection, an idea now greatly clarified and enhanced by the mechanisms of DNA.

Social Darwinism is a largely elitist, undemocratic, and pejoritive concept often applied to politically motivated Libertarians of various stripes and persuasions - and elucidated most recently by the writings of atheist Ayn Rand.

And again, it has virtually nothing to do with evolutionary theory and Charles Darwin.

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

By attempting to agree with Darwinism, religion gives up much while science gains almost nothing.

How can a Weltanschauung based upon the mechanical elimination of the weakest give way to anything but the gravest of bad behaviour? I am surprised that the Rabbi failed to acknowledge the large role Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism played in National Socialism’s perverted ideology. Most recently SD manifested itself in the behaviour of the Goths at Columbine who slaughtered 10 of their ‘unfit’ schoolmates before killing themselves.

Atheists or evolutionists are dumb people who can't use their brains properly. So let us help them by teaching them how to think.
.
There are more than A Thousand Reasons Why There is a Supremely Intelligent Creator but I'll list down just a few.

1.Consciousness - The act of talking using the mouth, vocal chords and lungs requires tough science. Im not so sure if man's science can replicate it. But talking and at the same time understanding the words spoken cannot be duplicated by any means. Only a Supremely Intelligent Creator is the reason why humans has that capacity.

2. Extremely complex balanced life system - Earth has just the perfect distance, gravity and size revolving around the sun to create millions of life forms from bacteria to plants and animals to humans with each creature having a very complex system to live on its own and yet has important functions for the continued existence of the whole system. Take away plants and the whole system will die. Take away the bacteria and the whole system won't work. Take away one element and the whole system will be in danger. Perfectly balanced in a jumble of billions of matter. Only a Supremely Intelligent Creator can be able to link all these complexities.

3. Fruits - If one requires you to make a shoe or clothes , the first thing you would ask is the measurement. It will forever be puzzle how would fruit trees be able to make very tasty fruits without knowing the "measurement" or requirements of the tongue. Whoever taught them the complexities of the tongue to be able to assemble a colorful and tasteful treat just by using SOIL?

4. Flowers - Perfumed flowers delightful to the sight and the only construction materials are soil, air, sun and water. There are many steps to do it and I want the atheists to name just the first 5 steps if they can.

If my head ached just by thinking of four reasons, the atheists brains will explode just by trying to think of one.

It's a pity that their stupidity will result to their damnation. After Doomsday, they'll fry forever.

"It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” (Matthew 26:24)

Stupidity will pay a very dear price.

FAITH ON SPACESHIP EARTH;

You are a good soldier. You are probably delivered to us from The "MECHIZEDEK ARMY" as foretold. Rabbinate of Israel, the Vatican of Rome and the Meccan's of Saudi and the Lahasa's of Tibet and the Delhi's of India and others is probably in fear of Your Coming yet once more are in denial, a fatal mistake once more upon them. You are wiser than the chosen; WE ARE WAITING to hear some more sermons from our beautiful New Song.

.......... .( . P E A C E?
...........(_) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ _|
..........#.## . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. |::|\|::|
..........(#c ..... _\|/_ . . . . . . . . . . .|::|/|::|
.......... #.\...... www . . . . . . . . . . .|::|\|::|
.......... \ .\-.. . (/. .\) . . . . . . . . . . .|::|/|::|
.......... /\. /,`\. /\ . /\ . . . . . . . . . .. |::|\|::|
.......... |.\/ . .. _) (_ . . . . . . . |:|"|/|||::|/|::|\|||/||:|
.......... `\.' . ; . ; . ,. ;`\ . . . . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
............ `\; . ; . . . .. . ; /.\ . . . ~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~
............. .`\; . . . . .; . ;| . .\ . "Give U.S. Liberty
............... ; . . '' ' ; . . . . . ./ . O'Give US Death"
............... |_.'' . . . . .; | . ./.)
.
.
....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./
...................... . . . . . . . / . . . . . . /
...................... . . ./ . . . / . . . / . . / . . . . . . . . . /
...................... . . / . . . . . . . / . . . . . / . . . . . . /
...................... , ---------------------- . . . ... . ,.-,
.................... / . . . . . .`--- . . . . . . . \ . __ . / . |
.................. [ . by: . K . A . F . i . R .. _|_ . . . |
.................... \ . t.h.e .---.Jyoktan / . . . . .\ . |
...................... `----------------------- . . .. ....`.-`
.
.
....................... ,--------------------,
................... ,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'|
................ ,' . K . a . a . b . a . '#| . . . "Never--Again
............ ,' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '# # | . . . PELEG-EBER
.......... :---------------------- '# # # |. . . .O' YaHaBeBe"
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | #ALLAHaKBAR#| # # # |
.......... | # [ البيت المعمو ر‎] # |[ الكعبة‎].|
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... | # # # # # # # # # | # # # |
.......... |_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_| \_\_\_\
.
. . . . . . Credits To "jj" http://onwapo.com

to your reply Posted by: PSolus | July 18, 2010 3:45 AM

You must be a comedian,you need to refine your work. I think you have potential but you are not there yet.

"There are THREE valid reasons why evolution is false. I hope all evolutionists read this so I don't keep on repeating myself."

Wow, those are some compelling arguments; sounds like you really know what you are talking about.

You must be licensed plumber, or something.

"One day every knee shall bend and every head will bow and ackowledge Jesus Christ is Lord. God does not need us to defend Him."

Sing it sister!

"In the end human intellect will show itself to be foolishness before God Almighty,"

Praise the lord!

"His truth is the standard by which all things must be measured, anything that does not measure to be true by His standards is False weather you agree with Him or not, His truth stands."

Hallelujah, can I hear an amen?

"That's not excatly accurate, archeology has proven time and time again that the historic events and places and time frames in the Bible are acurate."

Ummm... that's not exactly accurate; archeology can't prove anything.

"Also it's the Theoretical science that is at odds with God."

Science is at odds with all forms of ignorance and superstition, including a belief in a magical, imaginary, god.

"While practical science is useful to us everyday."

You're welcome.

"Evolution has not been proven in any way shape or form to be true, yet it is allowed to be taught as truth... WHY?"

Ummm... that's not exactly accurate; evolution is taught as the current scientific model for how life evolves on this planet. It will never be proven to be true; but if you study real hard, you may be able to help attempt to prove it wrong, and develop a better model.

There are THREE valid reasons why evolution is false. I hope all evolutionists read this so I don't keep on repeating myself.

Reason no. 1 -- it is impossible that a single-celled bacteria can become or transform into a two-celled bacteria or into a multiple-celled organism. There is no available science to explain such a fairy tale. This is the myth of evolution.

Reason no. 2 - soil and water existed before any living thing existed. It is impossible that those brainless substances (soil and water) can form by themselves a very complex matter called plants and animals. There is no available science to explain that such a transformation is possible. This is the myth of evolution.

Reason no. 3 -- Science is the study of nature. Engineering is part of that kind of science. Engineers took many years to extract energy from sunlight and even at this moment they are still scratching their heads how plant leaves have been doing it for eons already. The level of intelligence nature demonstrates is just beyond human intelligence. The only probable explanation is the existence of a Supremely Intelligent Creator.

With these THREE valid reasons, I don't think I mentioned faith or religion. EVOLUTION IS A MYTH BASED ON REASON.

The fact remains that the dispute will end when the Darwinists will self destruct in WW3 as the Bible prophesied. Stupidity is self destructive. Nothing will change these idiots' mind until they self-destruct. That's part of the law of nature.

Before Darwin - everyone believed the creation myth. Even Darwin. This caused him much grief, and caused Christians to strongly oppose his theory of evolution, because it contradicted what religion had told them for many hundreds of years. He realised then that God didn't exist.

But by now the religious have had to change their beliefs to accomodate this reality - that there was no creation, and the world was not created in six days, etc. Even the pope has had to swallow his pride and admit that Darwin was right. So Hirschfield too has to get in line and accept this reality. Evolution is simply fact, and as in many other things - religion got it wrong.

Jamalmstrong in response to this part of your post:

"Trying to deflate a scientific theory using a sacred text leads nowhere. They are non-overlapping majesteria. Neither speaks to the validity of the other. Read your Popper."

That's not excatly accurate, archeology has proven time and time again that the historic events and places and time frames in the Bible are acurate. Also it's the Theoretical science that is at odds with God. While practical science is useful to us everyday.

Evolution has not been proven in any way shape or form to be true, yet it is allowed to be taught as truth... WHY?

One day every knee shall bend and every head will bow and ackowledge Jesus Christ is Lord. God does not need us to defend Him.

In the end human intellect will show itself to be foolishness before God Almighty,

His truth is the standard by which all things must be measured, anything that does not measure to be true by His standards is False weather you agree with Him or not, His truth stands.

John Scopes was not "hauled into court". A group prominent men in Dayton Tennessee decided that a trial would be good for business (one of the men in the group that favored the legal questioning of the law was a transplanted New Yorker who was personally abhorred the restriction).

Scopes admitted to violating the Tennessee law against teaching evolution, and agreed to be the "scapegoat" for challenging the law. The ACLU assigned two lawyers to the case, but later decided to bring in the big legal gun Clarence Darrow, once it was realized that the prosecution would be represented by the great orator Williams Jennings Bryan.

Oddly, the legal protagonists in this case, Bryan and Darrow, agreed on a number of political issues.

The Scopes incident was a classic show trial, since the offense was merely a misdemeanor. A formal trial was not legally required.

Unfortunately for Bryan, he was a fundamentalist who insisted on being questioned by Darrow, who skewered his beliefs on the basis of logic.

Fortunately for Bryan, the jury was on his side, and took little time in ruling for the prosecution. The fine was paid, but not by John Scopes.

Again, unfortunately for Bryan, he died soon after the trial.

The struggle continues.

samuellen

"If you people want proof just look around its everywhere darwin is just a leftest that thought up some liberial idea theres a reason Israel is still there and if you liberial lefties would read the Bible you would understand"

OK, I'm neither a liberal nor a leftie (by the way, one does not imply the other,) and all you have provided is the equivalent of "because I said so". The continued existence of Israel can be ascribed to a variety of reasons:
1. It operates under the tacit protection and financial backing of the United States.
2. The opposition to Israel in the Middle East is by no means unified.
3. Many of those opposed to srael actually benefit politically and monetarilly by the continued existence of Israel.
4. Israel is (for now) technological superior to any of its near opponents.

Trying to deflate a scientific theory using a sacred text leads nowhere. They are non-overlapping majesteria. Neither speaks to the validity of the other. Read your Popper.

If you people want proof just look around its everywhere darwin is just a leftest that thought up some liberial idea theres a reason Israel is still there and if you liberial lefties would read the Bible you would understand.

Is this guy for real?....little guys@#$^....clearly, he fancies himself a big guy....just look at his photo....'nuf said.....

This rabbi,

always a champion of Israel...

wants a shift from conflict based
based approach to a conversational approach.

"Personally", he "finds the fight unnecessary".

And he wants the big guys to be gentler to the little guys.(He's so superior, so smart, so powerful, be good to the
evangelical "little guys"...)

An IDIOT column. By an unbearable man.

Premises, premises, premises!

This an argument that is irresolvable, Descartes' "Safer Bet" conclusion notwithstanding. If the core of your philosophy resides in an acceptance of "revealed" "Truth", then the evidence of your own eyes and the repeatable observations of others have no weight. If you if your basis of faith is that only that which is repeatably observable can explain the universe around us, revelation is irrelevant (sorry).

That we know and understand far more about evolution than gravity matters little - they are both scientific "theories" (as in repeatedly demonstrable, well established explanations of observed phenomena).

We wage continual (shallow) cultural wars over evolution because the concept, in and of itself, challenges our perception of ourselves and our place in the universe. In the end, there are no common premises in the discussion, so no resolution is possible. In the end, all of the accumulated and growing evidence of evolution is powerless before faith as is the obverse.

Let's move on to something even more annoying and pointless - the discussion of race and intelligence. It seems that we have reached about that point in the cycling of stupid philosophical and pseudo-scientific battles.

Oh and Braun i cannot disprove the god theory, (nor would i need to since the burden of evidence is upon you) but i can reduce the chances of him existing to near zero.

I love it when someone sees something of a never ending conflict and tries to take the middle road in some inane attempt to settle the disagreement. Darwin won. No mythical book could possible answer the question where humans came from. Only hard cold and real biology.

Darwin authored “The Ascent of Man” and “The Origin of Species”. These works were based on his observations of the physical world using deductive reasoning. Both works showed how life advanced through the ages, but not how it got started in the first place. So if “fundamentalists” are in a fight with Darwin, it is a Darwin of their own imagination instead of the one of publication.

Darwin is a symbol for the self-identified fundamentalists that I have spoken to on the subject. He represents the forces that would usurp their perceived place in the world. That place can be a number of things - Christian primacy in American life; the United States as the preeminent world power; or even racial supremacy. I have never meet a self-identified fundamentalist who didn’t feel that he or she was fighting for one of these things and some I have meet were, sadly, fighting for all three.

God and Darwin aren't fighting and never have been. Instead, it's the small-minded who can't possibly conceive that perhaps something or someone, call it what you will, set the whole thing in motion. I guess that might help explain why this being called god left us with an appendix that appears to be totally useless. Otherwise, I'd say this perfect being had a bit of a design flaw on his hands. He might want to look into this autism thing as well. It seems his genetic model is prone to errors.

"Assertions of superior knowledge do not count as evidence."

Can't argue with you there, but, I have to ask, where the hell did that come from?

"Try to find a link to fear in the word, willya?"

First, I don't think that "willya" is a word.

Second, I don't see a link anywhere in "willya", either to "fear", or to anything else.

Gotta go, I think I'm about to be attacked by some abiogenesis.

Scopes wasn't "hauled into court", but rather Scopes purposely broke the existing law to provoke a show trial, which is exactly what he got. He was certainly a showman, but not a scientist.

Assertions of superior knowledge do not count as evidence.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gall

Try to find a link to fear in the word, willya?

"Pasteur and his swan necked flasks disproved spontaneous generation over 200 years ago in a landmark of biology. The evidence to overturn his convincing evidence in an exception, under a new name, is simply absent. Feel free to believe in it on faith."

It is also quite natural to be confused by what you don't understand.

And, it's probably the confusion that causes the fear.

Be sure to check under your bed tonight; there might be some abiogenesis hiding there.

Boo!

"It's quite natural to fear what one does not understand."

Pasteur and his swan necked flasks disproved spontaneous generation over 200 years ago in a landmark of biology. The evidence to overturn his convincing evidence in an exception, under a new name, is simply absent. Feel free to believe in it on faith.

One poster asked -

"What could a scientist possibly learn from Christian fundamentalists who want to destroy America's science education to accommodate their childish religious beliefs?"

I think one of the first things they would learn from talking with them, as I have, is that they see the attacks made against them by atheists as part of a movement to turn the government of the USA into a communist one.

The second thing they would find out once they talked to others whose leadership positions did not rely on holding a hard line, is that a huge amount of fundamentalists do read and study science and regard what they learn as the method that was used by God, who they regard as a spirit of intelligence and energy, to accomplish his goals. Most fundamentalists will accept statements that are labeled as theories of life and evolution from what science has learned so far.

A natural process of religious adaptation to new scientific knowledge was taking place until the past few decades, when persecution against people of faith within academia and unfair favoritism for atheists within academia became common practice for hiring and promotions.

It became even worse when religious attitudes towards sexual activity had them labeled as hate groups and parental rights to pass on faith based morality increasingly became threatened.

Evolution vs Creationism is a minor conflict compared to the greater conflicts that exist between modern academia and faith based groups.

Morality and religion are tools for survival that develop to create cultures that provide for the survival of the group and increase their standard of living.

The people within the cultures of atheists and fundamentalists both feel their lives threatened by the other because of what they see as the incompatibility of the people of those two cultures living successfully together.

The first conflict that should be addressed and settled is the teaching of social norms for sexuality within public schools, something that should not take place, let alone be dominated by either side. That can be settled by a strict policy of only teaching biological functions of the body.

The second conflict that would have to be addressed would have to be the persecution of people of faith and the favoritism for atheists that exists within academia. This would include politically based persecution and favoritism within academia, as the two issues are so intertwined now as to virtually be the same issue.

Failure to address the seriousness of this conflict will lead to ever escalating extremism from both sides, as has been happening, causing unnecessary suffering and anguish for millions of people.

Jerusalimight:
"Whereas religion offers a very logical explanation: some Creator made all this because He loves us."

Great. Now answer the following question: *How* did He make all of it? If God exists, He is smarter than you. How do you know He isn't using evolution to build His creation?

You are essentially putting limits on what God can do. You believe He could just magic everything into existence with a wave of his hand, but for some reason He is not allowed to do it by evolution. Why is that? Why do you want to shackle God with your meager beliefs?

"Occam's razor says when you are faced with two explanations and neither can be proved you take the one that makes the most sense."

No, it doesn't Add Occam's razor to the list of things you don't understand.

"That's simple philosophy 101."

I guess you failed Philosophy 101.

'Dawkins is on to this. He views Evolution as an alternative to Christianity, and he believes that Evolution should be taught to children before they can learn the religious beliefs of their parents. His vehicle for proseltyzing future generations is the public school teacher, and the public school teacher's moral force is... the Truth.'
______________

Personally, I read Dawkins for his science rather than personal views on religion - I can handle that one all by myself, having studied the subject for many decades.

However, Dennett and Dawkins are both educators, and in that spirit, they have recommended that firstly, science and religion should never be confused or taught together, and secondly, that people need a much broader historical perspective on religion in a comparative and socio-cultural sense.

Without the requisite educational exposure, and being emotionally committed to a particular religion based on an accident of time, place, and circumstance, will inevitably get in the way of an objective view of religion as a culturally embedded and relativistic human phenomenon.

When religion takes on supernatural attributes all is pretty much lost, as far as objectivity is concerned.

In other words, some genuine academically based book learnin' about religion, both primitive and modern, should ideally take place in a classroom setting by a trained educator (yes, there are advanced degrees available in comparative religious studies).

I don't believe that Dawkins is taking a science vs religion approach with regard to what is 'best' for society. He knows full well that most folks know very little about science, and could basically care less. This hardly makes him an ideolog, but he may come across that way to some critics that see an 'us vs them' mentality in light of his professed atheism. This is mainly what they are objecting to.

As far as science underpinning a new totalitarian dictatorship of the future, we can read Orwell's '1984', Huxley's 'Brave New World', and an entire library of science fiction that imaginatively offer endless iterations of where we may be headed with or without religion.

According to chaos theory, no one can possibly say with any degree of certainty what the future may hold - but something will happen, because it always does. A notable movie of past years that deals with the very real problem of global over-population and a science-based solution can be found below in the Soylent Green link. Hey, it's just entertainment!

We should keep in mind that religion has never prevented the worst in human behavior from surfacing, and has on many occasions advanced and justified evil behavior in the name of various religious codes of moral/divine authority.

Totalitarian regimes may use and manipulate science for it's own ends, but this will always be a result of political ideology rather than a science based goal - and these same unscrupulous personalities also have no problem manipulating religion for their own ends in the hear and now.

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

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

"That is one of the reasons that I find that the teaching of abiogenisis in high school biology curricula so galling."

It's quite natural to fear what one does not understand.

Science is not religious faith. Science changes based on what is observed. Religious belief is the denial of observation so that faith can be preserved.

How many billions of words have been wasted by people saying "everything happened exactly at the Bible says" regardless of the fact that the Bible got cosmology wrong, got the formation of the Earth wrong, missed a few things like dinosaurs and evolution, and so on....

Science has been wrong about stuff in the past. But it is always SCIENCE that corrects the mistakes. Good scientists constantly question their assumptions and biases. When new evidence or better ideas come along, the science changes.

Religious faith is designed to preserve and protect biases and assumptions, regardless of the evidence.

"One place where the danger and blindness of the religion of science is best on display is in education. The desire to teach the Truth (with a capital T), provides science educators with a morality far superior to any other Truth-peddlers in the bazaar. But the other Truth-peddlers are known to range from devout to charlatans. Scientists though won't tolerate criticisms of their faith."

POSTED BY: BLASMAIC

That is one of the reasons that I find that the teaching of abiogenisis in high school biology curricula so galling. I fully support Darwinism because of the evidence to support it. It is science. Abiogenisis support is almost entirely based on scientists' faith but it is fixed in biology curriculum for over forty years that I know.

People often use the "actual proof" of science to prove its truth. Technology, science's offspring has proven powerful. However, the science of technology works mostly on a Newtonian scale while the cosmic questions of science remain elusive and have for a hundred years. The basic forces of the universe are still not resolved into a unified whole and may never be.

What scares the fundamentalists is any suggestion that the Book of Genesis should not be taken literally. They fear a domino effect: Genesis falling will start a cascade of all the others books in the Hebrew Bible falling (and eventually the New Testament too). Then all the preachers will be out of work.

"God and Darwin are still fighting after all these years, at least in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans." ... ...who will never be biologists, because no-one would hire a biologist that didn't believe bacteria evolves from one strain to the next. A technocrat nation that has to drain the rest of the world of its scientists to keep up...

The cascading effects of this kind of endemic ignorance is why you see so many obese fundamentalists, too stupid to care for their own health because "God" will take care of them... Take a look at their fat kids and wonder if god will save them from an early grave..

That this topic is actually bothered with, Darwin versus God, after all the scientific evidence, is a sad indictment of the general intelligence of all Americans...

paladin7c,

If your intent was to show that you understand science, you failed; all you showed was that you know how to copy and paste text using a computer.

"While beliefs (theories) drive scientific research, the beliefs are based on accumulated evidence, facts, and data - which may or may not eventually support the beliefs.....and in such cases are then either discarded or seriously re-configured based on research findings."

Well that is how it is supposed to work, but scientists are humans and 98% of all humans have some religious belief -- which means scientists as humans are likely to develop religious beliefs in the way they understand the world. That's why scientists believe that eventually science will explain everything when they confront situations where the science is weak. They have faith in science... a religious faith in science.

Why is this so important to understand? Well, what the scientific community fails to understand about their religious faith in science is that religion is the most powerful human force on earth. Scientists believe that a nuclear bomb is the most powerful thing on earth. It isn't.

The nuclear bomb cannot detonate itself. To go boom, a nuclear bomb needs a human who believes he or she is morally justified in using it. And religion is the best source of moral justification for acts of huge violence.

Religious belief is the most dangerous thing on earth. But scientists deny that their science could be a religion, which is like an artist denying that he could ever fall in love with his model. The consequences to society are far greater though when the humanity of scientists overtakes them and they begin to practice the religion of science.

One place where the danger and blindness of the religion of science is best on display is in education. The desire to teach the Truth (with a capital T), provides science educators with a morality far superior to any other Truth-peddlers in the bazaar. But the other Truth-peddlers are known to range from devout to charlatans. Scientists though won't tolerate criticisms of their faith.

Dawkins is on to this. He views Evolution as an alternative to Christianity, and he believes that Evolution should be taught to children before they can learn the religious beliefs of their parents. His vehicle for proseltyzing future generations is the public school teacher, and the public school teacher's moral force is... the Truth.

The original fundamentalist objection to Darwin lead to their insistence on the literal inerrancy of the Bible, rather than the contrapositive. They hated the thought that they could be in any way related to animals, period.

It is notable that the composers of the First Testament, the Jews, had no such problems and no such insistence on the literal inerrancy of THEIR Scripture, in its original language, and that the Catholics, who wrote the Second Testament equally have no such insistence on the literal inerrancy of THEIR contribution to scripture, even in ITS original language, but Fundamentalists seventeen centuries removed from either Testament demand that a poor translation of those scriptures, deliberately so to permit using "Basic English" with its much reduced vocabulary and periphrastic approach to anything Jacobean translators found unseemly should be the literally inerrant word of God.

The Fundamentalists demand that their unscriptural and unjustified prejudices be included in the instruction of other peoples children because, when their cramped Calvanistic Protestantism isn't forced on those children early, they may learn that they aren't obligated to those Calvanists for religion, should they seek religion. Let children grow old enough to begin trusting their own knowledge and judgment and not being constrained by pinched and loveless preachers who forgot the basic principles Christianity springs from.

There is no disagreement between God and Darwin. Truth cannot be anything but truth, and the knowledge of truth cannot be in any way opposed to God. It would therefor follow that those who object to scientific conflicts with Divine revelation thereby oppose their own concept of god. But their motivations are clear. They must impose their beliefs on others lest the others learn not to trust them.

To conflate religious mythology with science is to insult both religion and science.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

"Time will tell."

Did your imaginary god tell you to post that comment twice?

Or, did you do that all on your own?

You're becoming quite that anarchist, aren't you?

Always sneeze or cough in the crook of your arm, never in your playmates faces.

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

there is no contradiction between the truth of science and the truth of proper faith.

remmber very well ,
mankind is only a discoverer ,
mankind discovered the law of gravity but never created the law of gravity .

so more science is more faith.

in order to have faith ,
you need to have brain (people who donot have brain do not need no faith nor science)and the opposite is absloutly right if you donot have science nor faith you donot need no brain .

this universe is full of creatures much smarter and much wiser than mankind ,can you be as enginer as a spider ,can you see like a mosquito,can you carry what an ant can carry,are you as tough as camel are you strong as an ox?

science is not limited to the physical science,

why you have faith in this scientific universe but do not have faith in the word of the creator of this scientific universe?

please look for the word of the creator in order to see the whole scientific picture,

its as scientific reality as the blood that run thru your veins.

PSolus

You wrote, "Is that statement substantiated with anything besides it being a hallucination that you experienced during one of your psychotic episodes?"

Time will tell.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

PSolus

You wrote, "Is that statement substantiated with anything besides it being a hallucination that you experienced during one of your psychotic episodes?"

Time will tell.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

"Is there "evidence" that there is no God?"

The "evidence" that there is no god is the same "evidence" that there are no unicorns, leprechauns, and tooth fairies.

Or, have you been visited by unicorns, leprechauns, and tooth fairies as well as by your imaginary, magical, three-in-one god?

This package contains desiccant silica gel - throw away; do not eat.

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

...
Later in the journey the people began running low on supplies and again murmured against Moses and Aaron and said they would have preferred to die in Egypt, but God's provision of manna from the sky in the morning and quail in the evening took care of the situation.
...

CalicoJ Part I

You wrote, "By its very definition, faith is believing something when there isn't any evidence to support it."

Is there "evidence" that there is no God?

There may be "evidence" that some, of the people supposedly speaking for God, don't know what they are talking about but that is not "evidence" that there is no God.

God can and does at times give "evidence" to individuals of the reality of God, of course this may not be "scientifically" verifiable, but that does not mean that it is not true.

You then wrote, "Exactly how can a concept like that conceivably be integrated with the rigors of the scientific process?"

Why should it be?

You then wrote, "They're too smart to be able to look at a logical, backed-by-evidence scenario like evolution and just go "Bah! I'll believe in my imaginary friend instead!","

There are many things that evolution does not answer and it most definitely is not a "proof", one way or the other, of the reality of God.

Some of the questions that evolution should bring up, have been brought up on this site:

Has "life" always been?

If not, how did "life" start?

I would think that there would be many other questions, but considering the fact that I am not a scientist nor am I overly concerned just how God created everything, I would think that these 2 questions are 2 of the most basic and according to some of the posts, there are scientists who are exploring these questions.

CalicoJ Part II

Coexistence and integration are two different things.

Coexistence of "faith and science" in an individual is integrated all of the time, there are many that have absolutely no problem with this, as a matter of fact, many see both of these as gifts from God.

To force, so to speak, faith into science or science into faith is to dilute both.

Many "scientists", in their study of the micro or the macro of the physical world, come to a "faith" or a deepening of their "faith" by the "wonder" that they "see" in their "studies".

The world is a mess but God's creation can be quite beyond words at times and I also believe that it is more than the sum of all of the mathematical equations that some want to boil it down too.

Some call it God's creation; some call it creation's creation; some call it the forever been here, not created, ultimately meaningless place; some call it the breathe-in breathe-out universe; and many, many other things.

Some think there is a reason for the universe, multiverse, or whatever, I simply call it God's creation and some think that there is no reason, just a fluke.

Some think that there is a reason why we have reason and some think that we should not use our reason and there are also those who think that we have no reason that we are just the equivalent of "biological machines".

Not only are there many ideas about God, there are also many different ideas concerning mankind among those that do not believe in God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

'But as humans, they are just as susceptible to developing religious belief in their science as artists are susceptible to falling in love with their models. They disavow religious belief, but they practice a religious belief in their science.'
_____________

If this is meant to point out that scientists are susceptible to obsessing over particular knowledge areas in the science spectrum, then would could disagree?

Obsession and obsessive belief is a fairly common human attribute that can lead to some pretty undesirable behavior. Sometimes religious mania is thus described, and is directly associated with the accompanying destructive fanaticism that we're all familiar with.

Compared to religion, science is neutral as regards morality issues, but scientists are not - great intellects were and are behind the continued development of nuclear weaponry and other devices of mass destruction.

On the other hand, intense focus might also be mistaken for obsession.... and this state of mind is often how great scientific discoveries are made - often for the better, but sometimes not.

While beliefs (theories) drive scientific research, the beliefs are based on accumulated evidence, facts, and data - which may or may not eventually support the beliefs.....and in such cases are then either discarded or seriously re-configured based on research findings.

And for the sake of argument, religion(s) seldom changes in any significant way, because faith based beliefs are not fact-based and testable, or in most ways subject to revision. All one needs to do is check out the long list of dogmatic assertions made by the Catholic Church, and that are to be taken as literal fact by the faithful. I supplied that link on another thread.

We alos see what a hard time the Catholic Church has had over the centuries coming into line with the findings of science, as compared to mythology. Only in recent decades have they bought into the idea of Darwin's evolution.

Evangelicals and assorted new earth fundamentalists still reject evolutionary theory out of hand, insisting on the literal word of the bible as a kind of absolute truth. Is this focused, or blindly obsessive?? There is quite a difference.

Along these lines, I have to compliment the Dalai Lama, who has taken a big interest in the sciences, and has declared that religious tenets/doctrines that are outright contradicted by the findings of science must be rejected. This is a pretty bold statement from a reknowned religious authority figure.

But then, some would say that Buddhism is far more conciliatory to science, compared to certain strains of Islam and Christianity, to name two of the world's major religions.

Knowledge is a double-edged sword.

I would fault the line "faith-connected science." What is meant is religious thoughts about the origin or function of the material world. Put that way, we can include such ancient beliefs as the idea that spirits motivate rocks to fall on the heads of our enemies (or relatives or us). This is an idea that science rejects. In fact it is so outrageously false that scarcely anyone, religious or not, holds to it. But the same style of thought is at work in present day creationism. Somehow a spirit animates the material world. This is not much different from outright animism. Science rejects that too and does not take seriously challenges to its theories and data from that quarter.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

"Yes, it was substantiated by God in revealing to me that God Is a Trinity and that God Is a Being of Pure Love, that is Love is not an attribute of God but is God's Very Being."

Is that statement substantiated with anything besides it being a hallucination that you experienced during one of your psychotic episodes?

Never stick anything in your ear that is larger than your elbow.

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

CalicoJ

You wrote, "By its very definition, faith is believing something when there isn't any evidence to support it."

Is there "evidence" that there is no God?

There may be "evidence" that some, of the people supposedly speaking for God, don't know what they are talking about but that is not "evidence" that there is no God.

God can and does at times give "evidence" to individuals of the reality of God, of course this may not be "scientifically" verifiable, but that does not mean that it is not true.

You then wrote, "Exactly how can a concept like that conceivably be integrated with the rigors of the scientific process?"

Why should it be?

You then wrote, "They're too smart to be able to look at a logical, backed-by-evidence scenario like evolution and just go "Bah! I'll believe in my imaginary friend instead!","

There are many things that evolution does not answer and it most definitely is not a "proof", one way or the other, of the reality of God.

Some of the questions that evolution should bring up, have been brought up on this site:

Has "life" always been?

If not, how did "life" start?

I would think that there would be many other questions, but considering the fact that I am not a scientist nor am I overly concerned just how God created everything, I would think that these 2 questions are 2 of the most basic and according to some of the posts, there are scientists who are exploring these questions.

Coexistence and integration are two different things.

Coexistence of "faith and science" in an individual is integrated all of the time, there are many that have absolutely no problem with this, as a matter of fact, many see both of these as gifts from God.

To force, so to speak, faith into science or science into faith is to dilute both.

Many "scientists", in their study of the micro or the macro of the physical world, come to a "faith" or a deepening of their "faith" by the "wonder" that they "see" in their "studies".

The world is a mess but God's creation can be quite beyond words at times and I also believe that it is more than the sum of all of the mathematical equations that some want to boil it down too.

Some call it God's creation; some call it creation's creation; some call it the forever been here, not created, ultimately meaningless place; some call it the breathe-in breathe-out universe; and many, many other things.

Some think there is a reason for the universe, multiverse, or whatever, I simply call it God's creation and some think that there is no reason, just a fluke.

Some think that there is a reason why we have reason and some think that we should not use our reason and there are also those who think that we have no reason that we are just the equivalent of "biological machines".

Not only are there many ideas about God, there are also many different ideas concerning mankind among those that do not believe in God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thank you Rohit57, for sharing your beautiful hymn, as well as pointing out that most of the world's people are not Christians, and that not all religious views are incompatible with science, including those of some Christians. I also think your hymn may be a partial answer to why the children of Indian immigrants kick butt in math and science...

"very few of these specialists aka scientists are religious believers - and science rightfully has enormous prestige. The a/theist population in general also tends to be more highly educated across the board."

But as humans, they are just as susceptible to developing religious belief in their science as artists are susceptible to falling in love with their models. They disavow religious belief, but they practice a religious belief in their science. And like the artist, no amount of education or sophistication can save them from their basic humanity.

If the story of Adam and Eve is literally true, how does Intelligent Design explain Cain's fear for his life? Who else was out there to be afraid of?
Genesis 14 "Behold, thou hast driven me this day away from the ground; and from thy face I shall be hidden; and I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will slay me." 15 Then the LORD said to him, "Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him."

Here is the Hymn to Creation from the Rigveda:

The non-existent was not; the existent was not at that time. The atmosphere was not nor the heavens which are beyond. What was concealed? Where? In whose protection? Was it water? An unfathomable abyss?

There was neither death nor immortality then. There was not distinction of day or night. That alone breathed windless by its own power. Other than that there was not anything else.

Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. All this was an indistinguishable sea. That which becomes, that which was enveloped by the void, that alone was born through the power of heat.

Upon that desire arose in the beginning. This was the first discharge of thought. Sages discovered this link of the existent to the nonexistent, having searched in the heart with wisdom.

Their line [of vision] was extended across; what was below, what was above? There were impregnators, there were powers: inherent power below, impulses above.

Who knows truly? Who here will declare whence it arose, whence this creation? The gods are subsequent to the creation of this. Who, then, knows whence it has come into being?

Whence this creation has come into being; whether it was made or not; he in the highest heaven is its surveyor. Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not.
---------
What you see in this Hymn is not dogma and "I will kill anyone who does not agree with me." What you see is Wonder, and wonder is the right attitude to questions which lie outside the province of science.

Why is it science against the Bible? In case you did not know, there are other religions in the world, and most of them are not at war with Darwin. Read the Essential Writings of the Thich Nhat Hanh, his message of love and peace and THEN ask yourself if religion is all bad.

There ARE, in my view, questions which science does not answer, questions which science cannot even address, like the origin of consciousness. But it is a mistake to conclude that just because science does not answer these questions, they must be answered in the Bible. Bible may be the the only game in the town in the South of the US, but it is not the only game on our planet.

Read the Hymn of Creation in the Rigveda. I will post it after five minutes are up.

oops:
it should read "for a day". Well evolution didn't spare me...

How uneducated must one be, AnnsThought, to really, really believe that Josua stopped the sun of a day in order to be able to carry out another genocide?

Evolution, unfortunately, brings about also such warped minds. But 99% of all species which ever populated the earth have disappeared, so there is some small hope...

Addendum to previous post:
Can someone actually understand science, and still believe in religion?
I don't think so.
---------------------------------------
Per Asimov
What happened at the very beginning of the universe (Planck time-- Time 0 to time 10 -43 seconds from time 0). Science can explain if an error of velocity is permitted which is greater than the speed of light (which is a contradiction).

Why is a 70000 atom collection of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,and oxygen called a protein molecule (non-living) and a 60000 atom collection of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen called bacteria? Can't use the response that one can self-replicate, because that would be the tautology, it is life becasue it is life. Why is it life? If the why question is not answered, than how can you have the field of exobiology?

In what part and how is there an integration of neural processes in a small portable computer (the human brain), smaller than the size of laptop which permits self-awareness and sentience? Is there a minimal size that a neural net can be which permits movement? reflex action, self-awareness, intelligence, and why is that size key? (Great question to answer within the next fifty years as we attempt to develop engrams to put great intelligence into ever more and more sophisticated robots). As we increase the thought sophistication, is there a point where we no longer are creating machines to meet our needs but self-aware machines to serve us? If because of memory, a robot knew who it was, where it was, why it was, and had the intelligence to operate, should we build such a robot or, in another words, an "artificial life form"?

Science alone doesn't answer the questions--and I would be very concerned if it tried to.
Religion alone doesn't answer the questions--and I would be very concerned if it tried.
It is perhaps the fuzziness between the two which is the best site of evaluation

Science (like DNA) answering the question "What we are" and Religion (like experience) answering the question "who we are" that is the best combination.

"faith-connected science"?

American prisons are full of believers of all sorts, and almost no atheist, considering the proportion aspect. Religion= morality? It is actually the contrary.

I'm literally heading to Dayton, TN and the Rhea County Courthouse right now for the annual re-enactment of the Scopes Trial. What people miss here is the obvious grandstanding and profiteering behind the whole ordeal. The Scopes trial was concocted at the Robinson Drug Store to drum up interest - and business - in a dying 1920s town. As H.L. Mencken noted at the time, the town's leaders cynically exploited religion for private gain. And the good people of Rhea County bought it hook, line and sinker (I'll be traveling along Wm. Jennings Bryan Highway to Bryan College today). Has anything changed?

'Ninety-eight of the world's population believes in some type of religion. Religious belief is as natural to humans as sex.'
_____________

This very fact led Emile Durheim and many others to begin studying and theorizing about the functions of religion in society. Religion was a core area of study for the early social scientists, as it is today.

The academic study of religion never presumes that the doctrines and dogma of religion are anything other than myth, but in order for religon to play such a prominent role in any culture, there must be good reasons.

The primary needs for social identity, cultural cohesion, the regulation of behavior, and other functions combine with the remarkable ingenuity of the human imagination in order to create religious forms that are then handed down generation by generation.

Religion is typically so well integrated into any societal structure that the typically small minority of non-believers are seen as aberrations.

The problem for religion in the USA is that while science is populated by a relatively small number of highly trained specialists, very few of these specialists aka scientists are religious believers - and science rightfully has enormous prestige. The a/theist population in general also tends to be more highly educated across the board.

The divide between conventional religion and science will only continue to grow in the future......

I agree with Daniel Dennett that religion should be taught academically in secondary public schools. Unfortunately this is rarely done in the USA anywhere, and comparative/religious studies are generally found only at the university level.

http://media.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/dss/Durkheim/DURKW3.HTML

PSolus

You wrote, "Is this statement of yours, "not only is this statement unsubstantiated but it is wrong", substantiated with anything besides it being your opinion?"

Yes, it was substantiated by God in revealing to me that God Is a Trinity and that God Is a Being of Pure Love, that is Love is not an attribute of God but is God's Very Being.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Why should taxpayer supported schools have to teach the bible and tell students if you just have faith in what it says you'll go to heaven? Aren't schools suppose to teach the facts about what we actually know? Didn't the Supreme Court already rule that schools have to teach the facts? The bible was written when people had no knowledge of the natural world. Look at what happened when Galileo said the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. Darwins "theory" has been tested thousands of time in thousands of research papers and after all these years it has never been found wrong yet. The church changed the bible several times just to keep the general population ignorant. Why go back to the Dark Ages? We don't need religion in schools. Isn't that the reason we have churchs? People don't want to bother with going to church anymore so they're trying to get it in schools. Faith has nothing to do with science. I know the Earth is not the center of the universe and I know it has nothing to do with faith. Religion and science are two very different things, thats why we have them both. Keep bible teachings in the church where they belong, the spiritual world.

schaeffz

You wrote, "Religion is NOT about "why"! It is about "how" we humans are to live, amongst ourselves and within the world. Jesus said religion (the greatest law, read "rule") is about Love, which is exactly "HOW TO LIVE"."

Jesus also said, "I and the Father are One.

Jesus, when asked how to pray, said, "Our Father Who art in Heaven..."

Jesus also said other things and by the way when you wrote about what Jesus said, "(the greatest law, read "rule") is about Love,", instead of "rule" read God since God is a Being of Pure Love and the LAW IS GOD IS LOVE.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"...each side should begin asking what it might learn from those on the other side of the issue."

One side teaching you that 2+2=4, the other side teaching you that 2+2=5.

Both sides should be taught in schools...

Every word in the Bible is true. Once this truth is accepted, one can consider the "theory of evolution" and see just how ridiculous it is. God created everything.
Once you accept that every word is true; that everything written did in fact happen; and that everything in prophecy will happen; your life will change for the better.

There’s a name for it.

To BOB2DAVIS:

Regarding your comment about the virgin birth, the correct name for that is the “Immaculate Deception.”

Sorry! I couldn’t resist. The Devil made me do it.

You have to remember that monotheist religions have been the basis of tyrannical kingdom power for centuries, and that religion invariably persecuted scientists those claims contradicted beliefs based on the bible. Claiming that science can be replaced by religion simply reflect a lack of collective awareness of these historical facts. After all, America have never been a Kingdom...

Facts are facts. Data are data.

The faith in science is based on the results of evaluation and testing. You create models. You test them. If they don’t work, you go back to the basics to find out what went wrong. If you have to start over by creating a new model and going through the process until it’s verified, that’s establishing the truth for the basis of belief in the model and the science that created it. Science converges on the truth based on facts and data. On the other hand, religion hasn’t converged on anything since the beginning of the concept. If it did, you wouldn’t have the variety of religions and the sects that sprout from them. All of them babbling that they are the one and only true way, but none of them are able to show it. If you can get the religions to converge, or start to converge, to a common truth for the believers, then you can talk about your compromise. The reason is if the believers can converge their thinking, they’ll have gone through the same critical thought process scientists do. But, I guess you can’t do that if the only thing you can offer is unfounded faith.

Ninety-eight of the world's population believes in some type of religion. Religious belief is as natural to humans as sex.

Evolutionists, though, think that they are not practicing religion. But when they are certain science will explain everything but have no evidence, they are.

They are like artists who fall in love with their models. They begin on one path, but the fact that they are human derails their original intention.

the human genome project concludes that humans and chimpanzies share 96% of the same dna. But those who have faith won't believe it because their book of talking snakes and virgin births tell them otherwise. I found your creed that those with powwer should be a little gentler with those who do not offensive considering the millions of people murdered by the church when it had power. "Faith must trample underfoot all reason sense and understanding".- Martin Luther

Quick look at the bible:

If the story of adam and eve were true, we would all be physically and/or mentally disabled due to incest.

If the Noah story were true, we would again be physically and/or mentally disable due to incest. The idea of collecting 2 of every animal who would peacefully co-exist on an ark is patently absurd.

The story of Job is patently absurd.

The story of david and goliath is patently absurd. If indeed he slayed goliath, david would certainly have been killed by goliath's comrades.

There exists absolutely no evidence in egyptian history of the exodus. Certainly, if there were several heinous plagues and moses was raised by the pharaoh, someone would have written about them.

There is no evidence of a jesus or of an itinerant preacher performing miracles in the history of the roman empire. Certainly, if someone was raising the dead or healing the blind, there would be at least a footnote.

The idea of a virgin birth is patently absurd.

No one, certainly not the roman empire would have people return to their birth towns in order to determine a census. This would be ridiculous.

The above is just a smattering of absurdities in the bible. However, since these stories cannot be true, I think it is safe to say that all the rest is myth and falsehoods as well. I dare anyone to prove me wrong.

Blasmaic

"But when cornered, a believer in the religion of science will say that eventually science will explain it. That's an act of faith."
__________________________________________

Actually no, we don't say that; we might say we are looking for a model to explain it. What we might say is this: science works, plain and simple. Yes science can have at dark side (but then so does religion,) but to quote te gospels: The hungry are fed, the lame made whole, the blind see.

In reality, the underlying (unprovable to date) assumptions of both science and faith are 'faith statements'.

Science starts with the faith statement that it is only 'random processes' that has resulted in the universe and life. The assumptions underlying this 'narrative' provide a legitimate frame of reference to explore and probe the world we live in.

Faith starts with the faith statement that intelligence is involved in the creation of both the universe and ourselves. Also a 'narrative' providing a legitimate frame of reference to conduct inquiry - as many scientists have proven through history, and up through the present.

Humility would suggest, however, that assumptions not be treated as dogmas to batter the 'other side' with.

Science communities, of course, do this just as much as faith communities - just look at the crowd following Richard Dawkins (whom some label 'athiest fundamentalists').

No high ground there, just reductionism and straw men.

However, it seems people threatened by a competing 'narrative' that explains reality feel someone must win. Because the assumptions are unprovable, most of these discussions deteriorate into invective to villanize the 'other side'.

No win here, just heated mudslinging.

The best course is to search out truth and then explore with an open mind which assumption 'narrative' is a best fit.

That can indeed produce light.

This is how I personally came to believe in God.

"Ninety-eight percent of the world's population believes in some form of religion."

So thats your proof is it? weight of numbers doesnt mean something is necessarily correct. Baywatch is one of the most popular shows ever made, doesnt mean its good, just that boobs attract people to mindless TV.

"The science model however, seeks to falsify what it already believes as a way of pushing science forward."

But when cornered, a believer in the religion of science will say that eventually science will explain it. That's an act of faith.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen." Hebrews 11:1

Ninety-eight percent of the world's population believes in some form of religion. That makes religion as natural and normal to the human experience as sex, and yet Evolutionists somehow believe themselves to be unlike artists who fall in love with their models.

For anyone but a rigid fundamentalist, there is no contradiction between the Bible and evolution. Anyone who believes God is the creator of all things can easily view evolution as humanity's best effort to understand the mechanism God used to bring us into being. Even if we had evolved from apes, the Bible's "dust to dust" explanation of our lives would still ring true- but Darwin never claimed humans evolved from apes, just that at some point we shared a common ancestor.

Jerusalem might:

Just FYI. Its University 101 that you dont use Wikipidia as a source for anything. Your astounding lack of knowledge and basic referencing skills from totally unviable sources such as wikipedia to attempt to prove facts makes you look as stupid as u obviously are.

There is no science in the bible.

Science requires testable hypothesis. The fact that biblical literalists cant even prove one single element of their theory of creationism makes it completley unacceptable as science. And thus a complete fabrication.

And Spidey: How moral is the creationist story? Adam and Eve have kids, the kids commit incest and the rest of us (like trailer park trash in Alabama) are thus the offspring of incest. Very moral. But with u it explains alot.

@ Eric 12345

Here's the thing--when you use one set of standards to judge a scientific principle and another set to judge a religious principle, well, you really haven't brought science and religion together at all, have you? All you've done is create a loophole in your decision-making process so that you don't have to reject religion. Because let's face it, if you subject essentially any basic religious concept--i.e., God, the afterlife, etc.--to the same process by which a scientific theory must be judged, they fail even the most basic of initial examinations. When I say that science and religion cannot be integrated, I mean there is no feasible single set of standards for judging a new idea that can be used for scientific purposes and still allow the user to believe in religion, at all. You're right, there are many people who believe in both science and religion. Just because there are lots doesn't mean they're right, though--it means there are plenty of people who, to be quite blunt, are guilty of engaging in intellectual dishonesty by way of willfully holding a double standard. (Or by way of just plain not thinking their ideas out past the end of their noses. Jerusalimight--here's lookin' at you, kid...)

There is no conflict between Buddhism and science. Buddhists just believe that cause and effect work on a transcendent scale as well.

Eric12345,

Thanks for your clarification. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying you don't use a strictly evidenced based reasoning system in order to evaluate different belief systems. Correct me if I'm wrong in my understanding of your position.

My concern with people who claim to know truth without evidence is that those are the kind of people who "know" that when they die, they will be met by 72 dark-eyed virgins -- or substitute your belief system's end game conclusion.

If you say that much of your belief system stems from the way you were brought up and your environment, I would say that's dangerous depending upon your upbringing. Although Christianity has evolved (this word intentionally used) past the point where we bash the skulls of native babies right after they were baptized to protect their eternal soul; those actions are entirely plausible when we accept belief without demanding evidence since it lets us "make it up" as we go along.

Maybe I've missed it. Give me the evidence you use to conclude there's a God and the evidence you use to conclude that your understanding of God is the correct one, versus those of Jews, Mormons, Muslims, etc. (If you are one of these, then substitute Christianity).

JERUSALIMIGHT,

The pen of faith needs the blank paper of Evolution's being hidden in order to write.

Complicated but true.

Hey--I don't have to prove Evolution exists. All I have to do is say that God has not been proven. It hasn't. Or duplicated. It hasn't. All claims to the contrary have been shown time and again to be twisting facts, 'general consensus' kind of fakery.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Well. Why don't you just trot out those big ol' facts, buddy?

Saying 'the bible say' just won't cut it.

Like I said, show me God curing an amputee. What a ridiculous concept.

TWMATTHEWS - Thanks for your question. In my mind, there's a difference between evidence that points to some conclusion and scientific fact. There's nothing I can point to that will offer irrefutable scientific proof that one religious belief system is true and another isn't, which is why I don't go around saying that I know religion X is true and religion Y isn't. But there's evidence I can point to that leads me to believe certain things, both about the existence of God and the relative truthfulness of certain faiths. There's also a mixture of cultural upbringing involved as well as personal experience that lead people to consider certain faiths true and others untrue. I don't think you can pin it down to one thing that leads people to one faith over another.

My point to CalicoJ was that a person can have faith in some areas while still expecting scientific certitude in other areas. It might be inconsistent, but it's not wishful thinking to hope it can happen, because it does.

Addendum to previous post:

Can someone actually understand science, and still believe in religion?

I don't think so.

"There are millions of people of faith who accept what the wonders of modern science have told us yet still have steadfast faith in some sort of God or religion. They're not incompatible."

If this is true, it's probably because these millions of "people of faith" believe in science exactly as they believe in religion.

It's as easy to believe in science as it is to believe in religion.

What is difficult is understanding science.

As Barbie says, "Math is hard".

Eric12345, "There are millions of people of faith who accept what the wonders of modern science have told us yet still have steadfast faith in some sort of God or religion. They're not incompatible."

Then if you don't need evidence to support your belief, how do you evaluate one incompatible belief system over another? Is the Book of Mormon a god inspired, angelic dictated book? With enough faith, you should accept it. If you don't then what did you use to discern which articles of faith to accept?

What about the Koran? How do its guidelines for living get evaluated against the bible? They offer dramatically different rules and traditions. Without science, how else can you accept one over the other or do you just "feel in your heart" that there must be something that put all this together? (And of course that brings up the natural question as to what brought "that" into being?

If God's against evolution, why did he create Darwin in His image?

CalicoJ,

You wrote, "It's a wishful-thinking exercise to believe science and religion can coexist. By its very definition, faith is believing something when there isn't any evidence to support it. Exactly how can a concept like that conceivably be integrated with the rigors of the scientific process?"

It depends on what you mean when you say "integrated." If you want someone of faith to only believe things that can be backed up by facts, then I'd agree with you that it's a wishful-thinking exercise (but I'd also wager there are certain things that you believe or have faith in, that aren't or can never be 100 percent-guaranteed backed up by scientific study and research). But if by "integrated" you merely mean that someone can have faith in a God while accepting the truths that science can show us, then I don't think it's wishful thinking at all. There are millions of people of faith who accept what the wonders of modern science have told us yet still have steadfast faith in some sort of God or religion. They're not incompatible.

jerusalimight has done a pretty good job of showing us what the anti-science side of the argument looks like... insane. Let's have a look at some of his comments:

"Nobody ever spilled ink and had it write a newspaper!"

"a million monkeys pounding on typewriters for a million years would still never
pound out even one Shakespeare sonnet."

He repeatedly ignores the fact that evolution is directed by natural selection - it is not random like the examples he uses to illustrate his stupidity.

"Occam's razor says when you are faced with two explanations and neither can be proved you take the one that makes the most sense."

Not surprisingly he gets this wrong too. It's not the explanation that makes the most sense - it's the explanation that is simplest and makes the ~least~ amount of assumptions.

The god hypothesis makes the ~biggest~ assumption (that god exists and doesn't need a first cause) and thus fails Occam's razor right out of the gate!

Having been told many times that scientific theories are NEVER "proven" he continues to claim that they are:

"Any theory you cannot prove in the laboratory is just that. Some conceited guy's latest fantasy..."

Wow. The theory of gravity, germ theory, atomic theory... all just "some conceited guy's fantasy".

He continually states that dissent is NOT allowed within the ToE - hell, you're not allowed to question any of it! It's a religion and dissent is strictly forbidden... but then he claims:

"evolutionists are poking each other in the eyes like Laurel and Hardy over critical parts of speciation. Stephen Jay Gould thinks it happens in big jumps, others think it does not."

But that contradicts your belief that nobody's allowed to question the ToE... which is it?? You can't have it both ways... either they are fighting over how it works, or they aren't allowed to question it. Which is it?

What a twit...

JERUSALIMIGHT:

This is something that has bugged me for a while. Why are so many people impressed with the Judeo-Christian creation myth? To me it is so much more awe insipiring that over millions of years billions of different life forms scratched and clawed their way through life, some surviving to pass on their advantages and the others disapearing forever, until we were produced. It's so cheap to say some omnipotent entity was bored one day and snapped their fingers so here we are! To say that our creation took less than a day does a great disservice to all those who struggled and died so you could exist. Just because you have such a superiority complex that you can't take being distantly related to a chimp does't make it untrue.

By the way Occam's Razor states that when you're left with two theories of equal weight, the simpler one is usually right. I fail to see how your imaginary friend theory is simpler or equal? The theory of evolution is based on scientific observation and actual physical evidence. ID just says "I can't imagine how what I observe could have come to be by accident, so an imaginary man must have done it". That is what we call junk science and all it does is devalue our existence and the struggle of our forebears.

'Whereas religion offers a very logical explanation: some Creator made all this because He loves us.'

If only one person suffered from such a mind-altering delusion they'd be locked away in protective custody.

How we protect ourselves from 1 billion similarly deluded believers is another matter altogether. So far, we haven't had much success......

William of Occam, a 14th century English Franciscan friar, was not completely free of religious delusions by any means, but apparently had a few sane moments when he wasn't thinking about God.

Oddly, we find the new iteration of Spidermean claiming Jewish roots and celebrating Catholic thinkers.... Oh how the worm turns! Forget Occam's razor. Jerusalimight should be checking out Maimonides, a much more rational thinker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

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

To avoid being thrown out of paradise, Spidermean / Jerusalimigth has avoided eating of the fruit of knowledge. In fact, he apparently has avoided any kind of knowledge other than that found in a 2,000 year old book.

Can I get an amen?

MONO you are very entertaining and quite smart.

However.

You left out the difference between junk science and religion.

When faced with the unknown, junk science makes up explanations that do not make logical sense. What idiot would ever think that the wonders of creation happened by accident? Nobody ever spilled ink and had it write a newspaper!

Whereas religion offers a very logical explanation: some Creator made all this because He loves us.

Occam's razor says when you are faced with two explanations and neither can be proved you take the one that makes the most sense.

That's simple philosophy 101.

Exactly Eric, what's wrong with Science trying to find and explore or explain how we came to be and our surroundings. Its exactly the same approach as any religion except without the metal, wood, etc etc, statue's adoration . Finding the Creation of Life.

scientists who are diging in the scientific lab trying to find origin of the species are,
no less delusional than those faithiests who are diging in the relics trying to find the remmants of god or what its called son of god or man incarnate god

both camps are no more no less human haluciniation in the garb of scientification.

both capms lack not only common sense but the scientific approach in seeking knoweldge,

both are exploring in the unexploral zone.

then what if you going to find god in the relics or to find the orgin of the species ?

scientists ideological parasites are no less harmfull than religionsts delusional academic parasites,both are regresing and backwarding mankind and nations,both are fooling and deludeing mankind .

nothing fail nations like human halucination in faith as well as science.

what is funny both camps failed to find any thing nor came to any shore,
no body found the origin of the species and no body found god,

2010 and stll smokeing ,
juchristianity is not sure who god is ?is he one or 3 ,is he the son of god or the god incarnate?is he in the relics or above the sky?

god and prophet science bless you soooooooo good!!!!!!!!!!

JUSTCAPITAL:

Whereas 'scientists' are so conceited that not only do they think they know it all when they do not, but even worse: when they come to something they do not know, they just make up baseless and unprovable theories to explain it.

Then they pick up their paychecks at the alchemist's payment window and go home.

Absurd.

When I was twelve Scientific American declared in black and white that the earth's gravitational field had shifted from the Bahamas to the North Pole millions of years ago.

Some stupid 'scientist' had made up that loony, and they naively published it.

Then they discovered plate tectonics and never came back and apologized.

Any theory you cannot prove in the laboratory is just that. Some conceited guy's latest fantasy about whether the back of some distant moon is made of green cheese. String theory included.

God/gods and religion were invented by man to serve two purposes:
1) To explain the (at the time) unexplainable world.
2) To control the people.

Both of the purposes I mentioned have been replaced by far more effective modern substitutes:
1) We now use our minds to generate theories, rather than fiction, about how the world around us works and valid theories are accepted until they are disproven using the scientific method.
2) We now have laws and (imperfect but stable) government to maintain order and enforce basic morality (murder and stealing are illegal, etc.).

Religion has long outlasted its usefulness. It may be comforting for some people to wrap themselves in a blanket of ignorance but all that does is hold the rest of us back. And when one of the ignorant decides to wrap themselves in explosives, we all lose.

Spoiler alert: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and God are all figments of our imagination. It's time to grow up.

I read that sloppy and inaccurate Wikipedia article about speciation. It's well named. Specious. (If any of the benighted evolutionists reading this have developed any knowledge of what that word means.)

First of all the evolutionists are poking each other in the eyes like Laurel and Hardy over critical parts of speciation. Stephen Jay Gould thinks it happens in big jumps, others think it does not. They really do not have any idea, except that they are right and better than everybody else. True junk science style, of course.

But anyway, the observed speciation described there is not at all the creation of any new limbs or body parts. It's just the filtering out of some capabilities that were reticent in the same gene pool beforehand. Take a look at it.

Obviously any creation of any true bodily power has never been observed. That is supposed to take a minimum of 100 million years.

And a million monkeys pounding on typewriters for a million years would still never pound out even one Shakespeare sonnet. But hey, the human eye is sooooo much easier to make than a Shakespeare sonnet. Just ask any evolutionist. A few nerve endings, a little DNA, and, 'Voila!', vision!

What I would hope to see now is Rabbi Hirschfield demonstrate his admonishment to "always be a little gentler" with "the little guys in this fight."

JERUSALIMIGHT, and edbyronadams are excellent candidates. Show us what'cha got, Rabbi.

But beware, Rabbi, these little guys cannot be allowed to play with matches again.

Since most of the article was about the coexistence of religion and science, I'll limit my remarks to that, and leave smacking down fanatical zealots to others better versed in the nuts-and-bolts of evolutionary theory. Which is true. Bite me, Genesis!

It's a wishful-thinking exercise to believe science and religion can coexist. By its very definition, faith is believing something when there isn't any evidence to support it. Exactly how can a concept like that conceivably be integrated with the rigors of the scientific process? Ridiculous, just downright silly. I suspect the people who are most determined to integrate science and religion are the people who really aren't wholeheartedly confident in their religion but can't bring themselves to make the jump of leaving it. They're too smart to be able to look at a logical, backed-by-evidence scenario like evolution and just go "Bah! I'll believe in my imaginary friend instead!", but can't bring themselves to say "God never existed in the first place. I'm an Atheist." so they try to make logic and dogma coexist and avoid the conflict. It's an attempt to quiet the little voice in the back of their heads that grumbles "Yeah, but that really doesn't seem to make sense..." when they read the bible. Maybe this isn't the case for all coexistence fans, but I'll bet it certainly is for some.

I suspect that persiflage is right. In reading the rants of Jerusalimight look surprisingly similar to the rants of Spidermean. I suspect they are one in the same. His form of argument is similar -- decry the lack of science and throw a few terms around (quantum mechanics) all in an attempt at sounding reasonable and all while ignoring vast troves of evidence.

Statement signed by over 13,000 Christian CLERGY:

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. "

-- Butler College Clergy Letter

The full statement, plus the names and affiliations of all signatories are available online.

Jerusalimight :
"Anyone who believes that the evidence for evolution is as good as the evidence for quantum theory has no idea what science is or how it works."

That's pretty ironic, coming from someone who says...

"Quantum mechanics has been observed in the laboratory. Nobody has ever 'observed' evolution create lifeforms."

Except speciation *has* been observed. Many times.

"When you can put some mud in a jar and have it turn into an eye, and then make babies out of itself, you will have duplicated evolution."

No, because that's not what evolution means. If you're going to argue against something, it might behoove you to actually learn what it is you're arguing against so you don't make a fool of yourself on a public forum.

Jerusalimight said: "But they have not proven it with a thousandth of the strength of the proofs available all day long for real Newtonian science"

How unfortunately false this is. Do you really think your statement is true, or are you only repeating something you know to be false like an advertisement repeats "it tastes just like butter!"

Every day we make hard, critical, life-altering decisions based on the evidence of DNA. We answer such fundamental questions as:
- Will my baby be born healthy?
- Is this bit of flesh from the South Tower all that is left of my father?
- Does this man belong on Death Row?
- Is this stranger really my birth mother?

We answer such questions with complete confidence because of the accuracy of what DNA tells us.

And it is that same DNA that proves that all (known) life on Earth shares common ancestry. The genes, the precise molecular formations of proteins, the patters of ancient retroviral remnants - all provide direct and incontrovertible evidence that you are a blood relative of chimpanzees, finches and fruit flies.

But the evidence that species evolve doesn't stop there. It is further supported by evidence found in: shared & divergent morphology, co-evolved relationships, convergent evolution, observed speciation, Lenski experiments, shared DNA, inherited ERV markers, molecular biology, vestigial traits, atavisms, genetic mutation, embryology, the fossil record, paleontology, archaeology, transitional species predictions, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, thermoluminescence dating, ice core dating, biostratiography, archaeogenetics, biogeography, plate tectonics, geology, chemistry, and physics.

So, while you may repeat over and over that there is no evidence for evolution, Jerusalimight, your statements are false - provably, demonstrably and blatantly false. In other words, your statements are in direct violation of one of the commandments from that book you hold dear.

Aren't you just the least bit curious, Jerusalimight - If your God DIDN'T use evolution to create life's diversity, then why did he go to all the trouble to make it look like he DID?

Jerusalimight:
"Since evolution cannot be proven, I only say it should not be taught as truth. Too confusing to infuse such deep faith into the hearts of school children."

Spidermean, is that you?

Once again: You can't prove ANY theory. So by your logic, we shouldn't teach children about gravity, atoms, electricity, or the germ theory of disease, since it might confuse them.

"And let them keep their Taliban-like insistence that they are the only ones right out of my life thank you very much."

No worries. You keep your God out of the science classroom and we'll keep our evolution out of your church.

It's really simpler. It doesn't matter what your idea of God is. Science just moves on accumulating data and ideas to break those data into manageable information.

It doesn't matter whether evolution is fact or fancy. It explains the world in a manner that allows us to find out stuff that otherwise would be unknowable. By treating it as fact, we can achieve great things. Its power to explain is greater even than Newton's theories.

If the theory of evolution bothers you, just treat it as s convenient model that explains everything that's been thrown at it so far.

And that's why it must be taught to students who otherwise would be denied this powerful tool. You might as well deny an astronomer a telescope as attempt to deny biologists evolution.

It matters not whether you're Jain, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, or Christian. Science has nothing to do with your faith and everything to do with reproducible results and models to explain them.

oh my soul but why then must we make every thing complex then. why must we blame every one who is on the fringe for an apossing side having to be right what a fallacy is that. it is the simplicity of seeing it all the eyes of a child that allows it the reverence and the beauty and if you ever tasted that it would fall in place for you I think but again you are entitled to your beliefs you could get mired down my these complexities never being pulled up enough to see past the battle to where the victory is all ready won I believe in an omnipotent victorious god who doesnt allow me all his wisom but the sheer strengh and beauty of his prescence in my life is enough for me have a good day

Really I dont have to understand the specifics of my origin I know I was created by god I met his son on the road to calvary and began weeping for the beauty of god and the sacrifice of his son. I fell into his words and found them unfathomable when I approached truth like a child in awe of my creator and my king once when a babe in christ I thought vehemently I must attack every thing that did not correspond with his teachings and my beliefs when they said mary magdalene might have been the wife of jesus I said I dont know but how wonderful if he had in his brief time on earth had a companion always knowing as he did that he was headed to that cross. and as far as dwarism well how would any of else really know for sure what we looked like in the beginning of mans time but one thing remains ever the same man is still searching and I find myself not discontent with the conclusions i come to for I sit with a king by faith borne of walking with him and I dont need to know how I looked when I got here Im waiting for a better me in a better place that I ve been promised by the best friend Ive ever had and if you want to know of my walk with him Ill share it with you and if it offends you in someway I will not force you to believe your greatest gift from god is free will so continue your search but may I wish you this jesus

APaganplace - Actually, it's a little more nuanced than that. There's actually a big debate within churches about science and it's appropriate place. But if it makes you feel better, you can distill it down to your simple formula.

The dichotomy of science/how and religion/why is completely artificial. The reason that religion and science CANNOT co-exist is that religion is really just BAD SCIENCE. The ancients created the religion/ GOD hypothesis to explain what they observed around them, but lacked the sophistication to either carry their hypothesis to theory or discard the hypothesis. That's why we are left with a child's proof of God's existence; God exists, JUST BECAUSE.

I know I am ignorant. But it feels so good!!

"I'm not smart enough to satisfactorily convince some of you scholarly experts that God created you and it is by his will that you exist."

No, you are not smart enough.

"Only the humble and contrite of heart can understand such a thing."

Well, that explains it.

There's no condemnation from me in believing otherwise, I would just ask you to be sure of what believe."

I believe in nothing.

"Are you sure?"

Absolutely.

"No" yourself, joeAgnost, ever heard of Miller or Urey,"

I love the hoary old Miller experiment. Getting electricity to trigger the formation of more complex chemicals out of simpler ones is a neat trick. However, how those complex chemicals would be trapped away from the same high energy that formed them, breaking them down again remains a mystery. Miller's filter in the system goes unexplained in his "primitive atmosphere" that he, now proven in error, proposed in his experiment. There are subsequent experiments that get "biological molecules" to form spontaneously but that means they merely have posited a way for the gears to form, which hardly does away with the watchmaker analogy anyway.

Not that I am proposing an original creator, just that abiogenisis is a theory held up mostly by faith itself and runs counter to a milestone in biology history done by Pasteur when he disproved spontaneous generation.

I'm not smart enough to satisfactorily convince some of you scholarly experts that God created you and it is by his will that you exist. Only the humble and contrite of heart can understand such a thing. There's no condemnation from me in believing otherwise, I would just ask you to be sure of what believe.
Are you sure?

Rabbi,
Changing to a gentle conversation with one's opponents (as opposed to vigorously opposing them)is NOT a good thing if the opponents are objectively wrong, and wish to impose their viewpoints on the innocent and unsuspecting. It's NOT OK to humor those who want to kill those Allah satirizers - or those who want to lie to our children about science - or those who want to deprive some citizens of their civil rights. Some things are worth fighting for. It's not OK to go easy on a Stalin/Hitler/Bin Laden once we start to win.

I'd be willing to wager that God and Darwin aren't fighting at all.

@Jerusalimight
1) Ignorant of the basic facts of your subject
2) Repeat denialist arguments that have been debunked frequently
3) When corrected, just repeat the same nonsense.
Clearly, you are a very dishonest person and proud of it.

Shame!

"God and Darwin: still fighting after 85 years" UPDATE: Darwin has been proven to have existed. +1 for Charles!

Jerusalimight, you said "When you can put some mud in a jar and have it turn into an eye, and then make babies out of itself, you will have duplicated evolution."

The most obvious issue is that evolution is generational based on environmental requirements, so you can not see it from a mother to her son, but perhaps a mother to her 15th generation.

The closest we have seen in humans is the recent story of the Tibetan evolution to accept high altitudes (as opposed to the Han genetics) over 3300 years. You can read it at http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/07/02/tibetans.evolution/index.html.

Also true with skin tone, hair and eye color, hair oils, nose length and width, etc.

...most of the convincing evidence for evolution arises from DNA and genetic markers. Solid science. It's more reliable than your driver's license proving your identify to be an American citizen. As certain as we are of evolution we definitely should be teaching such theory to our children...

lufrank1 wrote: "...ever heard of Miller or Urey, Sidney Fox, and numerous other biochemist who have devoted their scientifically active lives to research on the abiotic origin of life? Indeed, THE CENTRAL ULTIMATE Goal of biochemistry is the understanding of the process or processes of
the mechanistic origin of living matter!"

None of that changes the ~fact~ that the theory of evolution deals with how life (already present) developes over time.

Abiogenesis is a very real field of study - but it has no relation to the theory of evolution. None.

Listen, its been great talking to you sweet innocent people. I just finished saying my evening prayers in the synagogue, yes, I pray in a quorum of ten men three times a day, never touch women except my own family, never eat shellfish or anything prohibited by the Bible, never turn on a light on the Sabbath, and so on...

Devoutly learning God's Holy Torah day and night...

it's bedtime in Jerusalem. Yawn. Night night, ya'll.

jerusalimight wrote: "Well, Joe, then you don't know who made that original life."

Right. Nobody does... it's a facinating subject though, and worthy of deeper investigation.

My problem with your comments aren't that I think you're wrong about god starting it all (although I do), it's that you're trashing a theory you don't even know the definition of!

The more you comment on this the more obvious it is that you're ignorant of basic biology... and someone as ignorant as you has no place criticizing it.

jerusalimight cont'd: "Can't argue with me when I say I do. It was the Boss. Number One up there. God made it, buddy."

Whatever floats your boat!

The theory of evolution is true - and your ignorance doesn't change that.

CITIZEN4TRUTH1:

How wrong.

Since evolution cannot be proven, I only say it should not be taught as truth. Too confusing to infuse such deep faith into the hearts of school children.

Leave faith in evolution to the faithful, with their bibles of OOS, and their models of the Beagle that they bow down to, and their mantras of 'natural selection' that they utter.

And let them keep their Taliban-like insistence that they are the only ones right out of my life thank you very much.

Posted by: joeAgnost:

jerusalimight wrote: "Evolution claims--got this dudes?--that out of primordial matter...that is to say, water and oxygen and so on...life forms suddenly developed."

"No no no no no!!! That is NOT what the theory says! The theory doesn't touch that subject... it says nothing about how the first life developed - only how life (which is already present) developes over time."

=======================================
"No" yourself, joeAgnost, ever heard of Miller or Urey, Sidney Fox, and numerous other biochemist who have devoted their scientifically active lives to research on the abiotic origin of life? Indeed, THE CENTRAL ULTIMATE Goal of biochemistry is the understanding of the process or processes of
the mechanistic origin of living matter!

JOEAGNOST:

Well, Joe, then you don't know who made that original life.

Can't argue with me when I say I do. It was the Boss. Number One up there. God made it, buddy.

Yes, the world is flat; the universe revolves around our sun; and the earth is 6,000 YO. If people want to believe such things they can. I have no problem with it. BUT, when anti-intellectuals want to teach revisionist science and history in schools then we need to draw the line and protest. Strongly. Adam and Eve and ID are just fine in bible study. They do not belong in the science classroom. Such beliefs do not promote the development of new technology and innovation.

I often hear the argument that since evolution cannot be proven (beyond a shadow of doubt) then this proves (beyond a shadow of doubt) the existence of God. No, it means there can be a hundred other explanations. New experiments will reveal an understanding using what is called the Scientific Method. If something is not white (even though it looks white), it does not mean it is therefore always black. That is a very weak argument to me but one that persists within the evangelical community.

OMG... the stupid... it burns!!!

There is a HUGE difference between a biologist making a statement about abiogenesis, and abiogenesis being included in a theory the biologist authored.

You know what else Darwin said? He said that the sky was blue! Does that mean that the theory of evolution claims the sky is blue??

I don't care ~what~ Darwin said about abiogenesis - it has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolution. Nothing.

JOEAGNOST:

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

Origin of Life:

"Charles Darwin addressed the question, suggesting that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes".

If evolution believes mud just sat up and clapped its hands its a crock. If not, evolution believes in God.

jerusalimight wrote: "Evolution claims--got this dudes?--that out of primordial matter...that is to say, water and oxygen and so on...life forms suddenly developed."

No no no no no!!! That is NOT what the theory says! The theory doesn't touch that subject... it says nothing about how the first life developed - only how life (which is already present) developes over time.

How sweet.

Now all the junk scientists are telling me that they eye was yes developed from evolution, but no it wasn't.

Evolution claims--got this dudes?--that out of primordial matter...that is to say, water and oxygen and so on...life forms suddenly developed. And then those forms 'accidentally' developed rudimentary but working organs like hearts, eyes, and so on.

Right down to the snaky plants miles under the ocean that live off of hot springs...

And picked each other out to get married to whenever someone developed a better eye. Ain't that sweet. What a crock.

And yet they say it's ridiculous for mud to grow an eye. Why not--maybe it wants to see what a talking monkey looks like?

Really.

"God and Darwin: still fighting after 85 years"

Darwin's facts won over myths about "God" 4.5 billions years ago.

jerusalimight wrote: "Just take an eyeless animal and watch it have babies until it accidentally makes an eye."

Yeah - you sure do understand the theory of evolution! (roll eyes)

Do you wonder why nobody will take you seriously? You haven't the foggiest idea what the theory says or how it works... but you're certain that it's wrong. How does ~that~ make sense?

JERUSALIMIGHT:

You seem to lack even a basic understanding of the theory you're happy to bash. I could never show you an eye growing out of mud because one never would. What possible advantage would inanimate mud gain by somehow developing an eye? In fact how could it even begin without being alive? The very idea is obsurd. I'd say mud with an eye would instead be proof for your camp that your omnipotent invisible friend is playing a joke on us.

Now I'm sorry but I've got to get back to work before I devolve into a man without a job.

JUSTCAPITAL:

But you are the one who said the primordial mud developed an eye.

But that's okay. Just take an eyeless animal and watch it have babies until it accidentally makes an eye. That works. You know, with nerves going back to the brain and all that.

You can even give it an incentive to see, like food that it cannot smell or something.

You believe this stuff, I don't.

Who put Galileo in jail for saying the Earth flew 'round the Sun?

Who eventually won that one?

JERUSALIMIGHT:

You seem to lack even a basic understanding of the theory you're happy to bash. I could never show you an eye growing out of mud because one never would. What possible advantage would inanimate mud gain by developing

Here's Jerusalimight sounding suspiciously like a blood relative of that established defender of biblical illogic, the noted 'engineer' Spidermean:

'You're just trying to get a free ride off of true science. Go back to the sand box with your 'established,' ie we decided to accept it without proof, 'science.''
__________

Evolutionary theory is settled science, because science does not currently accept or acknowledge competing theories regarding the origins and development of life forms in general and humans in particular. Since Lamark fell by the wayside there are no acceptable alternatives to evolutionary theory, and it continues to achieve an ever-higher level of proof over time.

Underlying processes that are explained and understood by way of scientific theories are pretty much invisible, and evolutionary changes are no exception.

Is anything in science ironclad? So far, the accuracy of the statistical predictions of quantum theory represent a very high degree of predictability....and yet, no one has ever seen or directly observed an atom, much less an electron, photon, quark, or a sub-atomic particle of any kind.

Whether they are truly existing entities or merely conceptual/mathematical constructs for understanding the behavior of matter doesn't effect their explanatory power either way.

Some would say that the invisible world of atomic theory remains the bedrock of all scientific thought as it pertains to the physical world.

It's odd that a good many religious fundamentalists claim to subscribe to what they perceive as the hard sciences, while preferring biblical descriptions of the origins of man over evolutionary theory. Is this a case of 'monkey see, monkey do'?

In the mean time, evolutionary theory is based on evidence that is as 'hard' as hard science gets - go figure.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

jerusalimight wrote: "Anyone who believes that the evidence for evolution is as good as the evidence for quantum theory has no idea what science is or how it works."

You can say that - but then you continue to lose ALL credibility by showing that you don't even know what the theory of evolution is!! I don't think "science" means what you think it does...

"Quantum mechanics has been observed in the laboratory. Nobody has ever 'observed' evolution create lifeforms."

That's because the theory of evolution (ToE) doesn't make any claims about "creating" lifeforms. It says ~nothing~ about how life starts, it only deals with how life evolves.

How life "starts" is another matter (pun intended) entirely. Abiogenesis.

"Ridiculous."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Your comment(s) ~are~ ridiculous.

"When you can put some mud in a jar and have it turn into an eye, and then make babies out of itself, you will have duplicated evolution."

No - you will have duplicated 'creation'. And I agree that it (creationism) is utterly stupid.

Theory is the highest of highs in science. It's the apex that ideas aspire to. There is more evidence in support of the ToE than for any other scientific theory to date (including the theory of gravity). You don't "prove" a theory in science - proofs are for math - you attempt to disprove it.

In over 150 years of testing the ToE has never been disproven. The evidence which supports it grows daily. Many theistic scientists support the theory - so why do so many theists think it's an affront to their religion?

Oh - and it ~has~ been observed:

http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/scientists-witness-evolution-lab

There are many cases of evolution being shown to happen... the problem is that you have to actually ~read~ and be willing to learn.

"Like I said, show me an eye being developed out of mud. What a ridiculous concept."

As I said, you do not understand Evolution Theory, and statements like that illustrate your lack of understanding.

It would be better for all of us if you just tried to think about something else instead of worrying about things that you are incapable of understanding.

The bible is a fairy tale but Hollywood does fairy tales waaaaaay better than religion now. That's why religion is so down on Hollywood. Stole the show...

JUSTCAPITAL:

Well. Why don't you just trot out those big ol' facts, buddy?

Saying 'scientists say' just won't cut it.

Like I said, show me an eye being developed out of mud. What a ridiculous concept.

PATMATTHEWS:

If God showed His hand there would be no free will.

Religious philosophy 101.

People are judged by their actions. By the faith that they put into action. If God were sitting right in front of you 'proving' His existence, then your faith would be worthless.

The pen of faith needs the blank paper of God's being hidden in order to write.

Complicated but true.

Hey--I don't have to prove God exists. All I have to do is say that evolution has not been proven. It hasn't. Or duplicated. It hasn't. All claims to the contrary have been shown time and again to be twisting data, 'general consensus' kind of fakery.

JERUSALIMIGHT,

I'd just like to point out the inherent contradiction in your attacks on those defending the Theory of Evolution. You claim there are no facts to support the theory, because you choose not to acknowledge them. Then you say the whole thing can't be true be use there are no facts. What facts support ID and Creationism? Are you really going to sit there and bash someone else for having Faith in something? You are the worst kind of hypocite.

Science can at least admit when it's wrong when presented with new evidence, you on the other hand seem to be content walking through life with your eyes closed telling everyone else how they're wrong and you're right. You ask for evidence but be honest would you ever admit it if absolute proof were presented to you? Of course you wouldn't because you've already made up your mind.

Actually, Darwin died, science went on, proved more evolution, and the Churches are still trying to 'fight' 'him.' Even though knowledge has long since gotten past all that nonsense.

It's not 'Churches V Darwin,' it's
'Churches V. Knowing Anything.'

While the agrument surounds the public provide proof of science, I would like to offer please have those in the public provide proof of GOD's existence and his/her direct hand in creating the universe as we know it today.

Simple. Leave faiht out of the conversation as their is no faith in proving facts.

PRESTO668:

Anyone who believes that the evidence for evolution is as good as the evidence for quantum theory has no idea what science is or how it works.

Quantum mechanics has been observed in the laboratory. Nobody has ever 'observed' evolution create lifeforms.

Ridiculous.

When you can put some mud in a jar and have it turn into an eye, and then make babies out of itself, you will have duplicated evolution.

Join ONWAPO's:
"Let's Make Fun Of Bin Laden Month'
Note: Osama B.L.[Expired around 06.??.07] Has around 38 Kids + 9 dead kids. Also, The Ayatollah/Wahhabi-bi of Satanic-VersUS Had 5 Wives & 4 Concubines. Note: Islami Concubines r unlimited!?
.
..
...
....... (/('('('(')')')')')\)
......... /. . . . . . . . \. . . . Hi, im w/72 Virgins now
....... _| ...._...._....|_ . . . and we fly on carpets.
....... |.|..-(♠)--(♠)..+
........ \| . . . m . . . |/
......... \ . . (---) . . /
........... \. . . . . . /
.............. ”###”
................. '##'
................... '#'
...
..
.

See Osama B. L.'s s Phony-Family-Feud & His 3-Musketeer Sons; "MUHAMMAD, SAAD & ABDUL REHMAN"

http://news.rediff.com/report/2010/feb/03/bin-ladens-daughter-created-saudi-iran-rift.htm

See IRAN: the Guardian of [Dead] Osama Ben Laden's OffSpring:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/2009/12/200912258253483951.html

See: Omar Bin Osama Laden Using a MUM"MY to insult a Queen. Now Islami Ummah want to Insult & desecrate America's 911 site?

http://islamizationwatch.blogspot.com/2010/06/osama-bin-ladens-son-wants-to-call.html

Jerusalimight:
"Quantum theory, by the way, is riddled with holes. Einstein didn't even agree with lots of it. He said, 'God does not play games.'"

Yes, but Einstein was actually wrong in this case.

"But be that as it may quantum theory is light years ahead of evolution in provability."

You cannot prove *any* theory. You can only disprove them.

"Duplication in the laboratory. Categorical evidence. And so on."

All of which exist for evolution as well.

"But go ahead and think you are right."

Done!

"Yes, science is all about the "how". Part of that is the question, "How did life start?", that is, a search for the "creation" event. Natural selection, evolution, survival of the fittest, does not include "randomness" in its theory."

Do not conflate abiogenisis and natural selection. Darwin's theories are born out by a mountain of evidence. How life began before random mutations and the selective process worked on them to produce the myriad forms of life present today is unknown.

PSOLUS:

Just like I said. The junk scientists are always trying to hitch a ride on real science.

Quantum theory, by the way, is riddled with holes. Einstein didn't even agree with lots of it. He said, 'God does not play games.'

But be that as it may quantum theory is light years ahead of evolution in provability. Duplication in the laboratory. Categorical evidence. And so on.

But go ahead and think you are right.

And when you teach evolution and your students rightly question where the proof is, you can tell them you said it was just like quantum theory and they have to believe you. Maybe, you could add 'Yeah!' at the end. Just like all the other junk science teachers.

Jerusalimight,

You do not understand Evolution Theory.

But, that is OK, because it does not require that you understand it, just as Quantum Theory does not require that you understand it, and Maxwell's Equations do not require that you understand them.

Just try not to think about it too much.

Here... Here's $100... Go out a buy yourself something pretty.

My problem with the piece is the assumption that science has won out. As a former professor, I can tell dozens of stories from my students about their public school education on evolution. One student from Texas explained that her teacher claimed dinosaurs never existed, helping the teacher explain the 6,000 years of earth's existence. Other students from rural areas were given a disparaging view of evolution, and then a good dose of creationism. Woe be it to the parent of a student who would object -- physical threats, vandalism, social ostracism, loss of jobs.

So perhaps we need to be aware the dangerous "Armies of the Night" that still want to control this country.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

You wrote, "I would also add that not only is this statement unsubstantiated but it is wrong."

Is this statement of yours, "not only is this statement unsubstantiated but it is wrong", substantiated with anything besides it being your opinion?

Lather, rinse, repeat if desired.

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

Secular

You wrote, "Now coming to the "Whys" & the "Hows", there is no "Why", there."

Is this statement of yours, "there is no "Why" ", substantiated with anything besides it being your opinion?

There is no way that I could see any reputable scientist state, "there is no why", as a fact, since this is "outside" the realm, so to speak, of science.

I would also add that not only is this statement unsubstantiated but it is wrong.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Yes, science is all about the "how". Part of that is the question, "How did life start?", that is, a search for the "creation" event. Natural selection, evolution, survival of the fittest, does not include "randomness" in its theory. Science attempts to uncover the "rules" of life. Rules explain the purpose and logic of how things are. Creationists like to use the "random" word a lot, but science abhors randomness, because there is no explaining it, no describing it with laws and rules.

Religion is NOT about "why"! It is about "how" we humans are to live, amongst ourselves and within the world. Jesus said religion (the greatest law, read "rule") is about Love, which is exactly "HOW TO LIVE". Religion then is an extension of science, in the search of the big HOW that equals LOVE. I contend that science or religion both will never explain "How life began" to everyone's satisfaction. But LOVE is part of every human. LOVE can be understood, expressed, experienced by every human in the exact same way. For instance, Love would be using your resources to heal the sick, feed the hungry, cloth the naked, take care of widows and orphans. Love is NOT using your resources to fund court cases to fight or defend the teaching of evolution in public schools. WHAT A WASTE! Imagine if the money and time spent in this wasted endeavor were instead used for Love?

SCIENTIST5:

You wrote: 'Take some incipient sensitivity to light, add a few hundred million years, and voila - you can get a pretty good eye!'

Or, I say, just take a turtle, put the world on it's back, and voila! you have New York City!

First of all who gave you the 'incipient sensitivity to light' that you started off with? Rocks don't have it! And who says a million years make a difference. You do!

For no reason.

Isn't that wonderful. Imagine that the back of some planet 2 trillion light years away could be made of green cheese. It is! Yay!

No logic, no sense, no reason. Just isn't that nice.

Junk science.

Just a detail, but to sort of quell the dramatic style of this opinion piece, Mr. Scopes was actually quite cheerfully "hauled in" to that court, because his trial was all arranged in advance specifically to be a test case (the arrest was actually a very jovial and jokey affair). This is all described in the excellent book Summer for the Gods, by Edward J. Larson.

It's worth pointing out these small things, because I think when people writing on the subject of evolution inaccurately inflate the drama through a few choice words, they artificially stoke the tension surrounding the idea of evolution, which becomes a disservice to everyone. Holding reader interest should not take priority over conveying information.

I think it's wrong for believers in evolution and science to trash those who are religious, as many commenters have done. Religion can help explore many questions beyond science, such as what is right and wrong. But I also disagree with having a 'gentle discussion' on teaching evolution in biology classes. If power has swung in favor of evolution, it is only because dedicated people have tirelessly advocated for its rightful place in the science curriculum, despite opposition from so many who blindly deny it.

For those who say there is no evidence for evolution, you are missing amazing discoveries all around us! Many independent lines of evidence, from different scientific disciplines, all support the notion that life has evolved, and continues to evolve, by natural selection.

Much misunderstanding could be cleared up if people take the time to learn about evolution with an open mind. For example, one poster wrote:

"I tell you what. The eye can 'see' electromagnetic waves. According to you, this happened by some animal accidentally evolving this ability and then breeding it in to the species. According to you, then, some people should be born sometime with the ability to 'see' other parts of the exact same spectrum. Like radio, TV, and of course broadband.
What a crock. If you believe that you might be closer to a monkey than you think!"

The eye is actually a great example of how evolution can work. The visible light that we see (yes, a type of electromagnetic radiation) not coincidentally is in the range of radiation where our sun shines the brightest. Whether by design or natural selection, you would want an eye on Earth (but not necessarily in other solar systems) to perceive what we call visible light, and not to bother with much dimmer things like radio waves. Getting back to natural selection, we can find a very amazing sequence of complexity from simple cells that can sense light (incipient eyes) to progressively more complex organs that can gain more information from light in the environment. This doesn't prove that complex eyes result from natural selection, but it shows plausible routes for that evolution. Does anyone doubt that sensing light is advantageous, and could improve survival among individuals that can do so? Animals that go blind don't fare very well in the wild, that's for sure. Take some incipient sensitivity to light, add a few hundred million years, and voila - you can get a pretty good eye! I don't see any reason to suppose that the ability to perceive television waves is likely to evolve, but who knows? The creativity of evolution is wondrous to behold.

I’ll begin by noting that Rabbi Hirschfield is not as unbiased as he claims, otherwise he would have found a different profession. For the same reason, I doubt any soldier who claims to be a pacifist. And, I certainly own my bias as someone who has spent nearly 40 years as a scientist and educator.

The Scopes trial was very theatrical, but did nothing to change laws regarding teaching evolution. The significant cases have been: Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) Supreme Court decision that invalidated the 1928 Arkansas statute prohibiting teaching evolution. McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982) a Federal District Court ruling that found the law mandating “balanced treatment” of "creation-science" and "evolution-science." McLean v. Arkansas was cited by Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), a Supreme Court decision that found the “Creationism Act” of the State of Louisiana was unconstitutional. This directly lead to the renaming of “creation science” as “intelligent design.” This was proven by Barbara Forest’s testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005), a Federal District Court specifically addressing teaching "intelligent design” creationism in public schools.

What matters in these cases is the recognition that biblical creationism is inherently religious, and cannot be shorn of its supernaturalism even when falsely called “science” or when its supporters actively deny (albeit inconsistently) their religious basis. What is also important regarding Rabbi Hirschfield’s editorial, is that each of these cases was brought by concerned parents and teachers who opposed legislated teaching of religion in public schools.

For a review of nearly all relevant law suits, I recommend the excellent reviews on the National Center for Science Education website.

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/creationism-law

alexandrempinto

You wrote, ""The truth shall set you free", indeed, and the ONLY way to the truth is the Rational, Skeptical, and Scientific method!"

Has science "proven" this assertion of yours or is this just your opinion?

By the way, concerning one of your posts that you said was never posted, it could be that it was too long and for you to post it, you will need to break it up into pieces, of course there may be another reason.

It was not science or religion that proved to me that God Is and is a Trinity, it was God Who proved this to me.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ANONYMISS - Thank you for injecting some sanity into this conversation.

Wow persiflage:

'Virtually all of the scientific world accepts evolutionary theory as established or settled science.'

In other words you did not say that evolution has been proven and duplicated and accepted as a fact.

Of course not. Evolution, even in your words, is only 'accepted' as (what a mouthful of gobbldygook!) 'established or settled science.'

'Established?!' 'Settled!?' In other words, apparently, you mean 'unproven.'

Is Newton, or Einstein if you will, equivillantly 'established' or just in case you did not like that 'settled?'

Of course not. Those theories are proven.

Now quick, junk science teckies! Jump on the bandwagon! Declare that your science is just as good as Einstein's! Fast!

You're just trying to get a free ride off of true science. Go back to the sand box with your 'established,' ie we decided to accept it without proof, 'science.'

PROFESSOR4 - You write that "I have never heard of any way that works to change a frame." Clearly people are not always stuck in the frame they are brought up with. How do these "frames" explain people who leave the faith of their childhood or adopt religious faith later on in life?

'People who believe in evolution (get it? believe!) are constantly claiming that there's is a true science. But they have not proven it with a thousandth of the strength of the proofs available all day long for real Newtonian science.'
_________

Virtually all of the scientific world accepts evolutionary theory as established or settled science - discoveries in the future will only enhance the strength of the evidence for evolution as THE dynamic and primary life process.

The link below provides an example of a good teaching tool for evolutionary theory at the high school and undergraduate levels.

In order to understand the real place of Newtonian science these days one would need to thoroughly understand how Einstein's thinking and theorizing preempts Newton e.g. the theories of general and special relativity.

Newton was good with the macro-world, but the ensuing conclusions and suppositions were largely illusory... Einstein straightened all of that out, only to be buffaloed by the 'uncertainty' of quantum mechanics! Newton is now twice removed from the cutting edge of modern physics.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

Knew these comments would all be angry even before I looked. :)

I believe you can have faith in God and also believe in the evidence of science. I don't believe there's anything in the Bible that contradicts the notion that humans and animals (and the rest of the world) change over time.

I think science should be taught in science class and religion in religion class. I wouldn't mix the two any more than I'd teach math in a Spanish class. They're inherently different but not mutually exclusive.

"The whole reason that the social/science world believes so strongly in evolution is because they want to practice immorality."

This is not true.

I was practicing immorality long before I understood anything about evolution theory.

The "scientists" have so carried the day that they have managed to insert their own faith based curricula into biology texts down to the high school level for 40 years. That is the theory of abiogenisis. The evidence for the chemical evolution of life is tissue thin, but the idea gets into "science" curricula because the the science establishment simply hasn't the temerity to say, "We don't know" to the question of how life began and they fear leaving a door open for creationists to run through.

SCHNAUZER2:

Populations changing in new environments has been discounted as a 'proof' of evolution for probably over a hundred years.

You're just filtering out variations that already existed in the system.

I tell you what. The eye can 'see' electromagnetic waves. According to you, this happened by some animal accidentally evolving this ability and then breeding it in to the species. According to you, then, some people should be born sometime with the ability to 'see' other parts of the exact same spectrum. Like radio, TV, and of course broadband.

What a crock. If you believe that you might be closer to a monkey than you think!

RICKK101:

Over the last thousand years I believe many more weird religions were created and modified even than were scientific theories. The 'the true nature of God' is always being thrown around. Too much for me.

And don't call me insulting. Evolutionists are insulting themselves when they claim the mantle of 'science' for a pursuit that has never been proven let alone duplicated. Just because Boyle's law works does not mean evolution is right. Think about that.

And indeed, evolution has been going through warp after warp of fundamental changes. Every time they find new evidence that they are wrong.

Just like the Ptolomaic monks adding new angels to the firmament every time they discovered a new star.

People who believe in evolution (get it? believe!) are constantly claiming that there's is a true science. But they have not proven it with a thousandth of the strength of the proofs available all day long for real Newtonian science.

You can tell by how they communicate. Evolution's 'scientists' spend all their time raising upbraided voices about how they are right, and attacking the character of their opponents.

If they were really right they would spread the evidence out on the table and it would speak for itself. That they don't is the firmest evidence yet that they are no more than latter-day alchemists pushing the latest fool's gold on a naive public.

Posted by: Jerusalimight "As usual in this argument the devoted faithful gather before their esteemed leaders, who pull out their bibles of The Origin of Species, and they bow to the Great God of Darwin...
in total faith, with no proof whatsoever."
------------------
Obviously you have not read origin of the species or ever been to a natural history museum. The proof of evolution and natural selection is all around. We still see it today in populations of plants and animals that get cut off from their main groups by canges in climate or even our intervention in the landscape. In as little as 20-30 years poluplations begin to change as they adapt to their new environment, while the originating population does not. Thats called evolution.

A religious scholar friend of mine pointed out that if we can keep changing our technology to the changing environment and needs of the people, why can't god do the same with his animals. Why can't we have Sparrow 4.0? Thats still evolution, just with a different cause.

I taught evolution for 30 years at a university. This article's idea of a nice conversation is impossible. When you spend decades defending evolution from the creationists, you know they are highly aggressive and totally willing to say "anything" persuasive that will reinforce the beliefs of the fundamentalist religion. The guy got it right, without creation, abstinence, and other issues such as gay marriage, the pews would be empty. Right now, 80% of people are living paycheck to paycheck. Job security is history. People need something unchanging to cling to, however silly, such as creationism.

Psychologists tell us that people have "frames." They are mental constructs implanted from our earliest experiences or from constant repetition (tax and spend liberal). The Bible as the literal word of God is heard when children have their first church experiences and is constantly reinforced over the years through repetition. We don't educate our kids about religion, we indoctrinated them. The thing about frames, people will believe anything however nonfactual or illogical that fits the frame. And, their brains reject anything that does not fit the frame, no matter how factual and logical. Scientists need to find a way to present science that breaks through the frame of creationists. Unfortunately, I have never heard of any way that works to change a frame.

Jerusalimight, while it is indeed insulting to refer to a science as if it is just some religious belief, it is inaccurate.

Science changes based on what is observed. Faith denies observation so that belief can be preserved.

How much has the discussion of the true nature of God changed in the past 1000 years? What breakthroughs have been made? What do we indisputably know about God now that we didn't know 1000 years ago?

Now ask the same question about any natural science - what do we know now versus what we knew 1000 years ago?

See the difference?

Could this column be any more vapid? Science and religion are mutually exclusive! We should all just get along! I think this has been written, again and again, ad naseum.

The only fight here is inside the minds of knuckleheads. There is not a public school in the land in which Darwinism is not taught and precious few in which Creationism or ID is mentioned in biology class.

Natural selection is the binding principle of all biology and has been for generations. While conversation with those in denial is a fine idea out of compassion for their lack of wits, making up stories that the religious have made any real progress in polluting science curricula is foolish.

There is big money involved in this fight:
once the faith in creation is left to totally collapse, the pews will be almost empty.

AREYOUSAYING - I presume you tell your Mexican students that it's a small minority of American schools that ban evolution, right? Do all middle schools in Mexico teach evolution?

AreYouSaying says abstinence is as bad for him as people who don't believe in evolution.

Of course he feels that way. The whole reason that the social/science world believes so strongly in evolution is because they want to practice immorality.

This is not only my opinion.

I read it in the prestige US journal 'Science.' A professor of sociology wrote there that the real use of the theory of evolution was to 'break the stranglehold the religious people have on our lives and allow us to be intimate with whomever we want.'

Darwing = there is no sin. Darwinism eliminates God from your life.

So it makes every bit of sense to link morality to evolution. Very bad sense.

Because it won't help. God is indeed very involved in your life. In the most intimate details of it. The Jewish Talmud asks this question. It asks, 'How can a person be punished if he does not know that adultery is a sin?' It answers, 'He should have figured it out!'

Abstinence and Creationism - curse of the RepuBPlican Huckabees and Donohue Catholics.

'That false dichotomy was exposed years ago by Pierre Tielhard de Chardin. Read The Phenomenon of Man.'
___________

An influential thinker and philosopher, de Chardin was a Jesuit priest whose work was suppressed by the Catholic Church during his lifetime. His views on evolution and consciousness are remarkably Buddhistic and pantheistic.

They really show little similarity to standard Catholic theology.

The USA is a surprisingly backward country in a number of ways, not the least of which is the retrograde trajectory of education in primary and secondary schools that are under the sway of fundamentalist thinking - recent controversial textbook changes via a religiously driven schoolboard in Texas are a good example.

The Christian fundamentalists here are as backward as they are in any Muslim country - and they also seem to oppose abortion rights, villify gays, celebrate capital punishment, guns and the second ammendment... almost as devotedly as their professed love for Jesus.

Other of their attitudes are similarly confounding.

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

Don't read Tielhard de Chardin. He misrepresents evolution by imagining it to be some progressive stepping stone to becoming God, which is just as big a misinterpretation as social Darwinism. This is not how evolution works. We happened to become intelligent because it greatly increased our reproductive survival, but evolution has also driven creatures to become more simple, such as parasites that lose much of their ability to live without their host, or cave animals that lose their sight and coloration, because they are expensive traits that disappear when necessary.
Evolution is all about the maximization of reproductive success, not about "progress". Reading Tielhard de Chardin will just put funny notions in your head.

Here in Catholic Mexico where evolution is taught as a part of science in middle school, my students are incredulous it's banned in some American schools by bullying theocrats.

That false dichotomy was exposed years ago by Pierre Tielhard de Chardin. Read The Phenomenon of Man. He was a Jesuit priest and world famous paleontologist who showed that belief in evolution and God are not opposed, in fact one in the same.

Or it could be that science asks the question "What is life", and religion asks the question "Why is life".

Isaac Asimov brought the question forward in on of his science books. A protein molecule had about 60,000 atoms in it, and was not considered alive. A bacteria had about 60,000 atoms in it, and was considered alive. If the atoms did not make the difference in life, what did? Science could not answer the question.

As usual in this argument the devoted faithful gather before their esteemed leaders, who pull out their bibles of The Origin of Species, and they bow to the Great God of Darwin...

in total faith, with no proof whatsoever.

Blindly following their deep soulful commitment to the religion of Darwinism...

...and blasting with fire and brimstone any reprobate heretic who dares ask for proof...or reproduction of evidence...or any other scientific backup for Darwin like there is for Newton, Boyle, and all other simple science:

Satan!, they call at him. How dare you contradict the general collection of scientific thought! How dare you go against what Harvard scientists really more or less think must be kinda true anyway!

Dearly beloved...people of faith...we are gathered here to eulogize true science...and replace it with pop Darwin social jargon...Amen...

Brad said: "But it should encourage a more open and gentle approach to those with whom we disagree."

Why should we "be gentle"? There are vast, well-funded organizations whose primary missions are to erode public understanding of science, degrade public school science education, and cast doubt and confusion on evolution, astronomy, geology, and any other science that conflicts with a narrow, literalist interpretation of some ancient campfire stories.

Why should we be gentle with such blatant, mechanized, industrialized lying?

We treat with derision people who base important decisions on astrological signs. We treat with scorn people who deny the existence of AIDS or the Holocaust. Why should we be "gentle" with people who are trying to stand between our children and an understanding of our natural world and our origins?

Human-Ape - Your beliefs are as "insane" as those of the terrorists and those who want to teach creationism in school as science.

Saying someone is no better than a terrorist just because they believe something that's not true is ridiculous.

To all the creationists and theists, "Science is the only way to the truth". The rest is sheer speculation, to put it euphemistically. The best you can say about religions is that the are the first iterations of science. They being the first iterations are devoid of discipline of science that has evolved over several centuries. Additionally religion is saddled with dogma that prevents them from reconciling with the evidence. Science on the other hand, may be said to have been born out of religion, is not saddled with dogma, which enables it to gladly appropriate new evidence and re-tune its understanding of nature. One is thoroughly disciplined and open for new evidence, the other is saddled with dogma hence not open to evidence and for ever mired in superstition.

To the ID enthusiast, you are deluding your self and driven by the dogma of religion. The motivation here, is not to postulate a new understanding of nature, but to fish for a means to show that religion has it right. They have been going from goal posts to goal post, started with the eye and have been beating the beat on "Bacterium Flagellum". Each of the has been beaten now, I am sure they will find their next "Irreducible Complexity", which will be beaten too. The fact that the IDers do not even attempt rationalize, the whole host of stupid and outright blunders in design by their Intelligent Designer, is proof positive that they are driven by dogma and nothing else.

Now coming to the "Whys" & the "Hows", there is no "Why", there. Religion in the face of the onslaught of science, is seeking a place at the table of relevancy. So it does what it does best, pontificate stuff, without the burden of evidence or proof. This, it calls the purpose or the "Why". These are non-scientific questions for most part and are answered with speculation and then palmed off on the credulous as some kind of profound knowledge. The fact of the matter is it is all made of the stuff coming out of the north end of a south bound mule/horse/bull or whatever favorite barn animal of your choosing.

Magical thinking and superstitious beliefs do not deserve any respect. Religion is dumb, it's really that simple.

85 years and still smokeing.

america still stuck in the 2 caves of original ape and the original sin,

one degrade mankind to an ape ,
and the other stamp and foreforge mankind to a siner unless sony die for the sin.

nothing fail nations like delusional naive brainwashed people who donot read nor think ,
and nothing double fail nations like delusional academic think tank heads.

you think the gulf of mexico is a mess?
wait and see the clash between the 2 caves.

What is most surprising about the creationist side is that their description of god's creation is actually an insult to the creation they hold up as god's handiwork. The universe that we inhabit is a far more wondrous place than the stick-figure description given by biblical literalists.

RobertLC:

You're equivocating on your use of the term theory. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory - it explains the mechanism by which the life we see on earth came from our earliest ancestors. ID is not a scientific theory. It is a "guess" and a theory in layman's terms only.

It's a myth that evolutionary theory is not open to criticism. What is not allowed is trying to pass religious nonsense such as ID off as science.

From a previous comment: "Why is someone who doesn’t like the fact that religion has “lost” no better than a terrorist?"

Because Christians share the exact same idiotic cowardly belief that makes terrorism possible, the childish belief in a magical heaven.

Christians are part of the terrorism problem and they are as insane as terrorists.

Grow up Americans. Your magic god fairy is the most ridiculous idea ever invented.

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

Sajanas,

Unless there's another typo I'm unaware of, I think the copy and paste error you're referring to was actually "cdesign propensist".

HUMAN-APE – Why is someone who doesn’t like the fact that religion has “lost” no better than a terrorist? Terrorists kill innocent people in the name of a cause. Not liking the result of something is a far cry from killing people, is it not? I think you’re letting your disdain for “Christian fundamentalists who want to destroy America's science education to accommodate their childish religious beliefs” effect your capacity for logic and reason.

ID is no scientific theory. It is a rebranding, such that at one point, an ID book was found to contain typos like "cIntelligent Designeationism" where they Literally copy pasted it over the word creationism. ID is designed to make people stop asking questions, to accept that a Designer (God) made the world and that is that, no need to figure out how or why. Cause your church can do that for you just fine.
And ID will be rebranded later, I assure you, and people will love it, because they would rather any sort of wishy washy junk than to accept that the universe just does not care.

"Instead of trying to win, each side should begin asking what it might learn from those on the other side of the issue."

What could a scientist possibly learn from Christian fundamentalists who want to destroy America's science education to accommodate their childish religious beliefs?

This conflict is over with. Science won. Religion lost. If anyone doesn't like that, they should expect to be relentlessly ridiculed and treated with contempt, because they are no better than terrorists.

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

First, intelligent design and creationism are not the same and you should not lump them together. ID is not based on any holy scripture. It is based on the same scientific method as modern evolutionary theories. The theory of intelligent design simply says that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection, and that cause is detectable by scientific endeavor.

Second, advocating an alternative theory such as ID is different from asking challenging questions about Darwinian evolution, or examining it critically. There are lots of legitimate scientific challenges to, and criticism of, modern evolutionary theory. All of this should be acceptable to discuss in public schools.

As for what should be taught in science classes, that's fairly simple -- we should teach more about evolution, not less. Instead of mandating intelligent design, science classes should teach evolution fully and completely, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community.

Darwin said it best: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

ALEXANDREMPINTO - Thank you for showing us that the Rational, Scientific mind can also be filled with wild, wacky theories, just like the religious mind! :)

The Rabbi makes some good points here. I particularly liked his distinction between what question Science and Religion attempt to answer.

Mark Noll, in his book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, makes a good point about Christianity (and it could be applied to any faith that believes in a creator-God) and how it should approach science. He said something to the effect of, if Christians truly believe God created the universe and everything in it, they shouldn’t be scared of science or what scientific discovery tells us about God’s creation. They should be eager for it, because what science discovers tells us more about the Creator.

Brother H I R S C H F I E L D & CO.:

Good NEWS; APOCALYPTICALLY speaking; Brother "Charles R. Darwin" [pbuh] Is a Natural-Winner! And PRE-APOCALYPTICALLY, both YOURs & HIS {pbuh}

Mr. G-D, Mr. Hashem, Mr. Amen-ra, Mr. Omen-re, Mr CHOMESH, Mr. Allah, Mr. Ishvara SYSTEMs & By Manymany god-head Names [either a HE or SHE or both or 1/2 Beast, 1/2 Man or woman or neither of all the above} all r LOST! Fact & or Reality:

SCiENCE [GOG/truth] is incompatible with RELIGION [MAYGOG/illusion] & vis aviz. A DOCTOR of or a Degree in G-D//ALLAH//iSHVARA & by many names as if be a Discipline of Religion-Science is NOt a real PH.D in Physics/science or Anthropology/science etc..

Secret: Our Prophet {pbuh} Hir Albert Einstein {pbuh et al} thought highly of Mr. Baruch SPiNOZA {pbuh et al} G-D System. But Mr. Einstein [pbuh] & or Mr. Spinoza {pbuh] did NOt have a Science Degree in G-D//Allah//Ishavara//lalala. Soo, having a PHYSICS Degree or an Optical Designer Degree does not make them THEOLOGIANS;. Like Wise a Theologian Degree (doctorates) does NOt make one a real SCIENTIST. Only Wishful-Thinking. So There is a Difference between a PRE-APOCALYPTIC (wannabe)Scientist {like YO/YE} and an APOCALYPTIC (Real)Scientist!

REVEALation: YE & Other Licensed Jealous Folks {aka Pre-Apocalyptic Theologians; especially of the P-E-L-E-G types) are Victims of "EiNSTEIN'S BIG LIE".

COMMENTARY: Ye see; Because it was still Pogrom-Era of 1930's; Our father/Prophet {pbuh] only said It (The BIG-LIE; if repeated enough times will be believed) "RELIGION w/out SCIENCE is Lame & SCIENCE w/out Religion is Blind" because The Xrstian's & Islami's was about to annihilate the stateless "JEW". So

GO back to The YESHIVA & tell All Teacher Theologians That Hir Albert Einstein {pbuh} only said that (Big Lie) to stall for Time or to Appease the Jews potential Murderers (Islamis, xrstians & similar JEALOUS ummah). So

The Right Song or New Song (com'th from Old) is that (none Deity)SCIENCE (i.e. Physicist)is NOt Compatible nor Complimentary to (Deity based) SCIENCE (Theologian). Soo

An APOCALYPTARIAN Scientist Like Hir Albert Einstein {pbuh} is Never the Same as a PRE-Apocalyptarian Scientist. Even when Both have Same degree, same school. Charles Darwin {pbuh} PH.D is NOt same as the POPE's PH.D. Even if they attended the same school. SECULAR FAITH, is NOt DEITY Faith! An Atheist is NOt same as a THEisT!

IT was all B.S.! Today is 2010; And Ye Theologian's fell for slick Alberts {pbuh} "LAME Religion & BLIND side Science" analogy! Oye Vayze-Meer! Ha Haaa aHaaa haaa aaah! PS: Our Father {pbuh} is Chuckling himself.
-
Hark: The "'RELiGION' of everything before the 'SCiENCE' of everything" is now [Apocalyptically] COME! Note: A.E. {pbuh} was a Eberu Yj O K T A N race; Not a Eberu PELEGian race! Hope Ye Yahudi Ummah learned something Today. Apocalyptically speak'thng A-M-E-R-i-C-A is "G-D"s (if any) Country; Not Middle-East, Europe, Asia, etc.. And N.Y. Is truly the "Empire State"!

I think you are in error that evolution has 'won'. Certainly, that is the case in science, as no religions really have proof for anything supernatural they believe (or it would be just natural). But so many people don't acknowledge the truth of evolution in this country, and it is not taught well, or at all at a High School or lower level. This is entirely because of religious objectors, and they are far, far more numerous than you make them sound in your article. Religion cannot challenge science as a method for discovering the way things work, but they can intimidate teachers, take over school counsels, and most importantly, they constantly deride the concept of evolution to their children, who trust their parents rather their teachers.
What we have is less of a post-civil rights situation, and more of a post-Row V Wade one. Our rights to proper science education are constantly under challenge from religious institutions, foundations, and even our own parents. And frankly, your Non-Overlapping-Magisteria doesn't help.
Why does religion have anything at all to say about the "Why"? Science may not have good answers for that, but CERTAINLY religion is no more qualified. Studying one book over and over again does not give you moral insight. It just means you've learned a story really well. Its only our luck that we have reasonably benign religions, rather than blood thirsty human sacrifice oriented ones.

Whoever thinks there is no conflict between science and religion clearly has no idea of what the scientific method is.

Science talks about facts without certainty; religion talks about certainty without facts.

And for the record, I'd like to see this comment of mine published this time, since my previous comment on another news article of yours was never published.

I thought the USA had Freedom of Speech, but maybe I'm wrong, and you still live under the dictatorship and censorship of the various religious lobbies.

"The truth shall set you free", indeed, and the ONLY way to the truth is the Rational, Skeptical, and Scientific method!

"Religious approaches are concerned with "Why" things come to be."

Religions don't ask "Why", or attempt to find the answer to "Why", but each religion attempts to impose its own version of predetermined "Why" on other people, especially those who do not believe in that religion's particular version of "Why".

Rabbi, in your Jewish tradition there is a fairly small number of people who believe that the literal truth of every word of the scriptures is a necessary component of the faith. In American Christianity, the number is much greater.

The push for Creationism as fact is largely driven by Southern-style Protestants who believe that the literal truth of Adam's fall and Jesus' resurrection are THE absolutely necessary components of Christianity, without which their religion falls completely apart.

Since "faith" is what one is willing to believe without the need for proof, it should never contradict known facts. Unfortunately, there are enough people who consider the inerrancy of the bible their #1 fact in their lives, that mere scientific knowledge like radiocarbon must be wrong because it contradicts what God said.