The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The struggle between evolution and creation: an American problem > Comments

The struggle between evolution and creation: an American problem : Comments

By Michael Ruse, published 13/5/2008

Why does the evolution-creation debate persist, and why in America?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. All
Michael.
Congratulations on an excellent article. Your exposure of the use of the theory of evolution for ideological purposes is trenchant.
Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 10:31:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The "struggle" is nothing other than an ongoing history of the religious right attempting to hijack proper education and science to peddle their own agendas.

Over in the US, cosseted by a history of tax exemptions and a higher penetration of fundamentalist and extremist religious groups, the religious right has formed multi-billion dollar lobbies that rival industry lobbies and even outgun "l"iberals and the ACLU.

Evolution is taught as a theory when its taught. The trouble with ID and other religious agendas, is they're taught as having the same validity with not a scrap of proper evidence. Same as the abstinence lobby, despite thousands of peer-reviewed papers attesting to the reduction in sexual diseases due to distribution of condoms in Australia and Europe, still thousands needlessly die in Latin America, Africa and Asia due to religious groups having successfully hijacked the agendas for family planning and AIDS prevention.

When holy rollers quit attempting to impose irrational belief on the rest of us, then we can rest.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 11:04:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The ID v Darwin argument can go on forever. What counts is this:

In the absence of a belief in evolution, all biology [including medicine and agriculture] makes no sense.
Posted by healthwatcher, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 11:18:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"...materialistic humanism, something that promotes abortion, homosexuality, premarital sex, feminism and much more. It is something that pits itself against the family, and proper standards and honour and respect, and all of the other supposed Christian virtues."

No. Materialistic humanism simply says that if you advocate something you are obliged to supply evidence for it. If you disagree with homosexuality, abortion or premarital sex for yourself, then don't do it. If you disagree with it for others -- and plenty of materialistic humanists do -- then please explain why and allow people to make their own decisions on that basis. Asserting "I believe God doesn't like it!" is no longer adequate. Prove that God doesn't like it, by all means, if you can, and then explain why that should make a difference. Or come up with some genuine empirical arguments. But don't expect a free ride for your moral beliefs just because you think they've been whispered to you by your invisible friend.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 12:01:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Michael,I reckon it persists because ID / Creationism is desperately attempting to recover lost ground in the continuing advancement of Scientific knowledge which is the antithesis of attempts to describe Intelligent Design as Scientific.
Why in America ?

I have no doubt it has it's roots in the emigration to America of British and other European religious sects to escape persecution because of their religious beliefs or political affiliations and allegiances.
And in Australia ?

I am aware that the "struggle" has spread to Australia where imported evangelicals and other religious zealots seek to spread their gospel and further the fight against Atheism.

This "struggle" is not confined to Christian religion but has similar goals as Islamic fundamentalists; that is to preserve their use of superstition , myth and ignorance to perpetuate thought control on those moral issues such as Homosexuality, Birth Control,Abortion,the Rights of women,Rights of the terminally ill, etc.

The debate is proving lucrative for authors of both camps; Richard Dawkins is paving the way for others who are prepared to have the courage of Charles Darwin and challenge what has been until now, the majority view. I am looking forward to Bob Avakian's "Away with All Gods: 'unchaining the mind and radically changing the World.'
Posted by maracas, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 1:56:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Evolution is a theory of biology, not theology. If people want to read more into it than that, that's their business.

Some people - both religious and atheists alike - attribute to evolutionary theory a whole host of theological, material or moral implications that simply aren't a part of the theory. They want to make the theory fit with their view of the world, which is a completely arse-about way to think about science.

Much fruitless discussion and anxiety ensues, for no useful purpose.

As for intelligent design, well, it doesn't fulfill the tenets of a scientific theory - it seems to be more a stalking-horse for debate. So any discussion of it probably falls under the rubric of literary criticism.
Posted by Mercurius, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 2:02:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Throughout history any unexplained phenomenon has always been given religious significance and therefore must be the work of some magical deity, purely because there was no obvious answer and given the inadequate knowledge of the time.
Science has gradually been able to fill gaps in this knowledge that have become generally acceptable. However they all started off as theories. So many discoveries of the last 150 years would have been considered outrageous. How could you have explained radio waves to Napoleon or nuclear physics or carbon dating to someone that didn't even know they existed ? You would have been considered insane. We now have a theory on evolution that seems to answer nearly all the questions of where we originated and I am quite certain that science will continue to shed more light on the subject than a two thousand year old book written by mostly ignorant peasants through heresay.
Posted by snake, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 2:35:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all non-pastafarians who haven't been touched by his His Noodly Appendage.

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Posted by Usual Suspect, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 2:55:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could someone, Michael Ruse included, tell me even one single moral principle that can be derived from evolutionary science?

Evolutionary theory, if it does anything, simply tries to describe how things happen to have come about. It tells us nothing and can tell us nothing about how things ought or ought not to be. Evolutionary theory leads only to amorality.

Ruse says that E O Wilson says that we have a "need to keep the evolutionary process moving forward" and this "translates out as a need to promote diversity." Is this supposed to refer to some moral requirement? Would Wilson and Ruse say that someone who deliberately killed all the whales in the world did something wrong?

No, from an evolutionary viewpoint the world is no better or worse off, nor more right or more wrong, for there being whales or there being no whales. Any moral judgments about the virtue of the existence of whales or anything else are made up by people and are not intrinsic to evolutionary science.
Posted by GP, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 3:41:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
very well said, GP. evolution may inspire non-biologists into any manner of tenuous analogy, but that has nothing to do with the science of evolution.

ruse writes:

"Dawkins is today the most popular writer on things evolutionary but this book is a rant against religion, blaming it for all of society’s ills. The moral prescriptions of conservative religion are labelled ridiculous and the teaching of them is labelled “child abuse”. Hence, anyone today who says that evolution is morally neutral is just plain ignorant."

whatever the value of dawkins' arguments on religion, ruse's "hence" is just plain wrong. evolution may be why dawkins started paying attention to religious beliefs, but it has nothing to do with his criticisms of associated moral codes. and this "hence" is at the heart of ruse's tendentious argument
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 4:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Huh? Evolution has no moral dimension therefor leads to immorality? Yeah That makes sense, GP.

Americans don't believe in evolution because most of them don't believe in science.

Only in America. Let's hope it stays that way.
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 4:12:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So why is this article from an American published on an Australian forum?
Posted by Steel, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 4:12:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction - amorality. Science is like that.
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 4:13:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GP, "tell me even one single moral principle that can be derived from evolutionary science". There are lots of them. Some off the top of my head:

- Be kind to your neighbours.
- Look after your spouse.
- Don't eat your children.
- and even: join your local church.

Any rule of thumb for living that enhances the odds of your genes perpetuating themselves is "derivable" from evolution. Whether you would call those rules of thumb "morals" is to me a matter of personal taste.

All these rules, if they are actually taught and followed, are in place because over thousands of years because the people who followed them lived, and those that had other rules died out. So people who are nice to their neighbours tend to do better than those that aren't, and there are some good theories as to why joining a church has the same effect. It not like most of us have a whole pile of choice about whether we followed them, either. Most of us a suspicious of strangers, most of us are naturally nice to our neighbours and are recoil in distaste when we see people on television who aren't, most of us, when given no alternative form of justice, would take an eye for an eye.

I realise this all sounds a bit odd to someone like yourself who thinks in terms of "ought and ought not". But odd or not that is how we in the other half see it. Personally, I find "be nice to your neighbours because they may be nice to your when you need it" far more persuasive than "be nice to your neighbours because God said so".

The perplexing thing to me is Richard Dawkins knows all this. He knows a good many of us a naturally spiritual, and he knows there are benefits to being so. Yet he rails against people who see the world through the prism of their spirituality. Its sort of like railing at a Negro for being black, or an Intuit for being white.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 6:21:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More of the same old "evolution is a religion too" drivel. Argue from the position of believing in an imaginary friend if you must, but don't try to impute the same type of silliness to scientific reasoning.

To borrow from (and paraphrase) a like-minded poster in another forum - atheism is not a religion just as baldness is not a hair colour.
Posted by BC2, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 7:14:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael Ruse wrote:

"But not in America! It was founded by people (the Puritans) who were determined to have their own religion, and right down to the present religion plays a major role in the lives of many (most) Americans."

In stating the above Michael Ruse subscribes to another myth. The first English colonists in what is now the United States were in Virginia. The first permanent settlement there was in 1607. Massachusetts was first settled in 1620. Massachusetts had a state church until the nineteenth century. The Virginians with their declaration of rights in 1776 were responsible for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits an establishment of religion and has been interpreted to mandate separation of church and state.

The present contest in the United States to a large degree is between those who would break down that separation and those who would keep it. The Puritans embody one tradition, and the Virginians another. The creation/evolutionist controversy is only one episode in a continuing struggle between Americans with different views on the relationship between religion and state.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 7:27:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GrahmY et al,

Important Note:

The Struggle between Evolution and Creation: An American Problem
Michael Ruse. Issues. Victoria: Mar 2008. , Iss. 82; pg. 11, 3 pgs

Copyright Control Publications Pty Ltd Mar 2008

Cited: Proquest [Online]

Please note, that Control Publications holds copyright on this article. Also, in Australia self-plagiarism is frowned upon. I suspect Florida State would agree.

Myself, I tend be careful at conferences and avoid venturing too close to material intended for a journal. I have for received permission, on the one occassion, on behalf of a Singapore-based journal, to use a table I produced for OTEN/SBS.

Michael,

A big, bad secular humanist would not be so unethical.

Also, this most recent contribution is way out of context with your contribution to ISIS [Vol. 82 (4), December 2007). I do agree with you that the "Selfosh-Gene" is brilliant and Dawkins' writing should focus on his areas expertise - He isn't very good at cultural anthropolgy, either.

Interesting, you claim, in ISIS, that it is the evangelical believers, rather than the athiests, who are attracted to Dawkins' latest book. Might Dawkins have created a Piltdown Man? Where the religions, especially halleujah ones, say the scientists "said", when orthodox practitioners said no such thing.

As I have said before on OLO posts, Dawkins should have edited an anthrology using subject experts. There is an excellent example this approach with Harry Wolf, in ISIS, c. 1961, on Quantification In Science.

Sells,

Trust it only an oversight, but I didn't receive a reply to post, whereas I did put some effort into some of the research my retort:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7323&page=0#113075

Incidently, in ISIS Michael states that Darwinism should not be linked to atheism.
Posted by Oliver, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 7:58:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart - you say "Any rule of thumb for living that enhances the odds of your genes perpetuating themselves is "derivable" from evolution."
That statement implies that perpetuating our genes is a good thing. You might like to think that the perpetuation of your genes is a good thing but there is nothing in evolutionary science to say that the perpetuation of your genes or the genes of anything else is good.

As far as evolutionary theory goes whatever happens is what happens and whether that is life or death is neither here nor there. End of story.
Posted by GP, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 9:38:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent post, GP. If you ask an evolutionist why perpetuating the human race is a good thing, you won’t get an answer. I tried really hard a while back. Evolution doesn’t give value, it just (at best) explains how things have come to pass. It may account, for example, for a common practice of something that looks like altruism but, as you imply, it doesn’t follow that altruism is good.

The other thing missing is the sense of choice: evolution is deterministic, whereas morality (as I understand it) is about choice.

Of course, none of this means evolution didn’t happen (or isn’t happening). I, for one, believe it did and is. I just believe we get our sense of value from elsewhere. In God’s absence, all we have are facts. The facts are exciting, of course, but it’s annoying when people like Dawkins try to commandeer value by saying evolution can account for it. He should just be content with the facts.

As for humanism, I really don’t know how an evolutionist can be a humanist at all. A few months ago, in the midst of the theist/theist affray, I tried to get agreement on humanism as a common starting point. The theists were up for it, as were some atheists. However, some other atheists declined – on the basis of evolution. “Humans are nothing special”, they said; and, in saying this, I think they were quite consistent.

Not sure how much of a morality can be built on the proposition, “Humans are nothing special”. If it’s a morality bent on nothing better than the reflex protection of the human species, I can see that morality being rather ruthless. For example, the species might have a better chance of surviving if there was a very substantial cull. No wonder Dawkins et al are at pains to conjure a more respectable morality out of evolution – but, I think they’re reaching.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 10:14:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a refreshingly erudite and intelligent article that addresses issues that constitute not only an "American problem", but also one which is of apparent concern to many Australians - particularly those of fundamentalist Christian persuasion.

That it comes from a philosopher rather than a scientist, however, does not enhance its credibility. Yes, evolution (and natural selection - which is strangely absent from Ruse's discussion other than in passing) is a concept that attracts socially derived moral valence. From time immemorial, humans have attached value-laden meaning to natural phenomena.

However, Ruse stretches logic when he segues between Huxley and Dawkins. The resort to fringe sociobiologist E.O. Wilson doesn't improve matters much.

Some comments thus far are interesting - e.g. GP's apparent blindness to the adaptive value of religious and 'spiritual' belief systems. The invention of religion was one of humankind's most adaptive social strategies for millennia.

It is only lately that such nonsense has been rendered culturally and socially maladaptive, and hence obsolete :)

Despite the best efforts of the 'Florid' professor, I'm not convinced that those of us who don't subscribe to hocus pocus and mumbo jumbo are necessarily bespelled by the alternate purported religions of agnosticism or atheism.

And I don't think it's a coincidence that a nation, comprised of people of whom a majority believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis, would be led by someone who is on record as claiming to have had God's approval to invade Iraq.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 10:54:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
goodthief wrote:

"As for humanism, I really don’t know how an evolutionist can be a humanist at all. A few months ago, in the midst of the theist/theist affray, I tried to get agreement on humanism as a common starting point."

Evolutionist? That makes it sound as though one who accepts evolution is an ideologue like a communist or fascist. A humanist can accept evolution in the same way that the humanist accepts gravity. That makes the humanist neither a gravitist nor an evolutionist - just one who accepts scientific evidence.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 11:18:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah now good thief when you say;

“The theists were up for it, as were some atheists. However, some other atheists declined – on the basis of evolution. “Humans are nothing special”, they said; and, in saying this, I think they were quite consistent.”

I was wondering if you might be referring to our little jam over in Preachers and Presidents? If you are then you might just be engaging in a slight misrepresentation. I thought the position put was that we had difficulty in regarding the human species as MORE special than other life, not that we though humans were nothing special.

While the religious fundamentalists certainly try to narrow the applicable morality band to their ilk and proscribe a particular immorality to those they consider unenlightened, I certainly don’t group you with them good thief. I would however argue that our position reflected a greater morality than the one you purport to have. It is certainly more encompassing in that it extends to all life.

Let’s contemplate an infant. Their empathy initially extends to their mother then later to siblings and father. In adolescence it encompasses friends and extended relations, and as the person matures it may take their wider community, those of their faith, their countrymen and yes even the entire human race. If we are really lucky this not exclusively human trait may extend to other living creatures and even ecosystems.

I might argue that true morality is derived from true empathy.

In a way good thief your morality might just be suffering from theistic inspired arrested development.

In the words of the article “Grown-ups have simply gone beyond that.”
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 13 May 2008 11:38:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief, CJM;

Did you read my post? This well written article is not original, self-plagiary. It appears first in Issues and is at a tangent-in-opinion to Michael's recent ISIS book review. I wont say anything Florida State but Michael should know better.

Sorry Sells,

I think you will find that Michael is an "unbeliever", who feels, like me, unlike you, researchers should use authorative sources. Here, you know I have criticised Dawkins outside his field; despite my concerns regarding theology. Albeit, I respect Peter Abelard and Martin Luther. Sells, which atheists do you respect?

Darwin it might suprise you to learn was influenced "The Essay of Population" (1838) by "Reverend" Tomas Malthus (Bronowski, 1973). Ouch! That must hurt a religionist Irony?

Michael,

As you very well know, H.G. Wells was also an accomplished historian. You should have mentioned that fact: An established non-fiction writer too.

I find Richard Leakey more compelling than Dawkins. Herein, life has existed for one billion years. A different path of life died out in the Pre-Cambrian extinction, 500 million BP. The alternative path expanded greatly in the Cambrian period and became use and millions of other animals.

If humanity is a god's goal; why have a five hundred milllion year path terminate? Seems a needless loss of billions of animals. Note this is not necessarily natural selection, but some sort of massive extinction event.

Thomas H. Huxley on Charles Darwin:

"The conception of evolution was henceforward irrepressible, and it incessantly reappears, in one shape or another, up to the year 1858, when Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace published their 'Theory of Natural Selection.' The ' Origin of Species ' appeared in 1859; and it is within the knowledge of all whose memories go back to that time, that, henceforward, the doctrine of evolution has assumed a position and acquired an importance which it never before possessed." [Huxley, "Science and Culture: And Other Essays", 1882]

Before Darwin and Wallace first work there was Erasmus Darwin's "Zoonomia," 1794 and regarding morphology, Goethe (1791)

Michael, I have enjoyed reading your work, but please remember acknowledge, acknowledge, acknowledge :-).
Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 12:16:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well spotted Oliver. Apologies.

However - I think my point still stands :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 1:05:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f, All I mean by “evolutionist” is someone who not only believes evolution occurs, but believes that that fact is all we have to go on when we try to establish values. That person is likely to be an agnostic or even an atheist, but they might not bother to say so. (I believe in evolution, but because I’m a Christian I see it as a part of what I have to consider, and by no means my source of values.) I think that, if evolution is all there is, then it’s difficult to develop values. Unless you think survival imperatives are values. This is what leads to the question, “SHOULD the human species survive?”. What do you think of that question, it’s what GP was getting onto.

csteele, I like that “ah now”. Yes, we have discussed this where you say, and there was an earlier discussion on <Morality and the 'new atheism' by Benjamin O’Donnell.> In that earlier discussion, I was told things like “Nothing significant about us [humans], just a bit larger brain than other species and superior vocal chords” – and – “So, I’d say that human beings ‘should be’ considered by human beings because of the need to survive ... for self-preservation. There is no reason from an evolutionary [point-of-view] why humans have more value than any other species or more right to survive.”

If you’re saying humans are great but no greater than any other species (is this what you’re saying?), then –

i) How far “down” the development chain or foodchain does this go? Where is the line drawn, if one is drawn at all?

ii) If we’re no better than a gnat or a dolphin or a chimp, then how does humanism get underway?

iii) If we and other species are of equal value, then what do we mean by “justice” and “equality”?

iv) If everything that lives has equal value, what is that value? If high, what makes its value high?

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 7:47:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Einstein was no God-Botherer according to an ABC piece this morning, quoting a letter of Einsteins up for sale that has been in a private collection for 50 odd years.
Seems the Atheists are in good company...
Posted by maracas, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 10:02:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GP, "That statement implies that perpetuating our genes is a good thing". It might do, depending on whose definition of "good" you use. Which once are you using? Jesus's, Mohammad's, Zeus's, or something you made up? You are probably appealing to something you believe exists - an "absolute definition of good", which you think exists and everybody would agree to if we could only just find it. This is where we differ - I don't believe such a thing exists.

There is however a very simple definition of "good" that we can all agree exists - and that is the definition our genes have. Anything that perpetuates them is good - at least to them. Its not of course a universal definition as it makes no sense for everyone to adopt it, so you won't like it. But it is roughly the definition evolutionary science uses, your comments notwithstanding.

It is also a very selfish definition. It is amazing to me that out of such a selfish thing all sorts of behaviours that we see as anything but selfish arise. Things like mother raising child, husband supporting mother, neighbour helping neighbour. To me seeing such complexity arising our simple rules is a thing of beauty - more inspiring than any fable passed down between the generations. That is another difference between us I guess.

Moving on from the beautiful to the ironic. You too are a product of evolution, as is your belief in absolutes - ironic because that belief causes you to disavow the process that created you. That belief must of served your forebears well - probably because it helped them form a united front to the adversaries they confronted. I am not so sure it serves you well now though. In fact if it means to you that your absolute religious belief must dominate over science, then it doesn't. That is that dogma the understandably pisses Richard Dawkins off.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 10:05:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay goodthief,

i) How far “down” the development chain or foodchain does this go? Where is the line drawn, if one is drawn at all?

Since evolution is more of a tree than a chain it is rather hard to draw a line. If the water levels were a thousand metres higher we might have to give the badge of best developed to our friends the dolphins “Goodbye and thanks for all the fish!” What if you had control of the God button and had to make a decision of removing humanity or the rest of the life on earth which would it be? You know my answer.

ii) If we’re no better than a gnat or a dolphin or a chimp, then how does humanism get underway?

Surely humanism is just a reflection empathy. It can be understandably species specific but when fully developed can embrace more of the life we share this orb with.

iii) If we and other species are of equal value, then what do we mean by “justice” and “equality”?

I don’t see why justice and equality can’t be thought of as formalized expressions of empathy.

After Mikolka had finished beating the mare to death why would Dostoevsky have written ““No mistake about it, you are not a Christian,””? Grown from empathy it was a recognition of the gross injustice they had witnessed.

iv) If everything that lives has equal value, what is that value? If high, what makes its value high?

Value is relative. A mother’s distress at being separated from her calf illustrates the value she has placed on her young but if I value a slice of veal every now and again who is to say my values out-weigh hers? Ultimately I do or else I wouldn‘t eat it, but my empathy affords me the good grace to realise how egocentric that decision is. My empathy for the suffering of penned sows has driven me to forego pork for the moment. Am I engaging in a moral act? Is it of greater or lesser import than that of an observant Jew?
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 12:20:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
goodthief, welcome back. i welcome your contributions, but, as before, i think you're missing the point. i also think csteele is right, that you at least misrepresented the tone of the previous discussion, but i'm not fussed. i know you write in good faith.

GP and davidf say it much better. but here goes:

you define “evolutionist” as "someone who not only believes evolution occurs, but believes that that fact is all we have to go on when we try to establish values."

well, you're free to define words to help discussion. but if your word is used by others with another meaning, then you're not helping much! and, though you may find an "evolutionist" or two, i don't think they're thick on the ground.

evolution says nothing of ethics or values. even if altruism is an evolutionary construct, the science of evolution does not say that altruism is "good", just that it is adaptive. morality is simply not something evolutionary theory can, or attempts to, deal with.

yes, Man has evolved. at a deeper level, we're a bunch of atoms. maybe at a deeper level we're a jumble of strings. but none of this, no matter what you believe, matters a jot to morality. none of it tells you how to deal with your consciousness, or the awareness that other beings are also conscious.

i am hugely confused by concepts of morality. before that, i am hugely confused by consciousness. i simply have no understanding of my place in the universe, on the feeling that it's "my" universe, but with the recognition that others exist to see it and feel it from their perspective. on the appropriate thread, i am happy to engage with you on such questions. plenty of room for gods in that discussion!

evolutionary theory is behind the instincts we have, it may constrain the way we tend to interact with others. but we're here with our brains, ready to think about how we think, and think about how we feel. and those who believe in evolution are just as capable of that as anybody else.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 1:01:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All that we believe is based on faith
faith based on what we believe is most logical

So this debate is biased on both sides by what we of our freewill chose to believe ,the high priests of science are as blinded by their science as the religions are blinded by their holy texts.

If there is a solution let science first create its own life [then dare to prove how it was done] i would advise they first create their own dust [because despite all its theory it is even now yet unable to replicate its own cell membrane ,yet dares to speculate how that first cell evolved.

A quick studdy reveals genomic stasis is reflected in all life [darwins pigions [and his finches] were all yet pigions [and finches] that any species can micro evolve in its own genome is beyond dispute ,as witnessed by our many breeds withing any given specie genome [read cats breed cats , dogs breed dogs , pigions breed pigeons humans breed humans and apes breed apes]

Science has claimed intermediates [but none living] ,nor has it made any virus become a bacteria ,nor made birds become snakes ,it is a theory ,ok sure we can randomly add a strand of this or that to an egsisting 'life' but it didnt create it [just as faith based religion dares to speculate on a judgmental god wrongly ,science dares to speciate without science proof.

If you look at a flower long enough you see what god is teaching us just in the one flower ,then in time through all flowers , if you look at one science long enough you know that one has not got all the answers ,just as if you know enough about your own belief you soon find no belief has all the answers

god sent many messengers , many flowers , many living things each has their own teachings ,they when joined reveal a living loving god ,but no one belief [nor one science] can reveal the glorious truth of the whole story of itself alone.
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 3:03:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Um, rstuart, you miss my point completely. I’ll try to make myself clearer.

You say that roughly the definition evolutionary science uses to define “good” is “Anything that perpetuates them [genes] is good - at least to them.” But that is just it – evolutionary scientists make up the idea that perpetuation of genes is “good”. There is nothing inherently “good” about genes or their survival or anything else. Genes just “are”. Science can tell us nothing about whether there existence or survival is good or bad. Any value statements about their existence are simply made up by people.

Do you get what I am saying yet? Science tells us nothing, and can never tell us anything, about what is “good”.

You then go on to talk about my “absolute religious belief” - I have made no religious claims in these posts. I have just repeatedly pointed out that evolutionary science can tell us nothing about moral values. That is not a religious claim – it is simply a logical fact.

CJ Morgan, you refer to my “apparent blindness to the adaptive value of religious and 'spiritual' belief systems”. Here is another instance of a moral value being smuggled into the argument. Your reference to “adaptive value” implies that it is ”good” that creatures adapt and therefore increase their chances of survival. You, like rstuart, are begging the question and are just assuming what is being argued about.
Posted by GP, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 3:46:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GP,

You were clear the first time. Equally I thought I had made it plain: we have a different definition of "good". Good, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Good for the murderer isn't good for the murdered; good for the person isn't good for the cow being eaten. So 'evolutionary scientists make up the idea that perpetuation of genes is “good”' aren't wrong just because you disagree.

You originally asked "tell me even one single moral principle that can be derived from evolutionary science". Perhaps we define "moral principles" differently? To me moral principles are short cuts we follow when confronted with familiar situations. When we all follow them we are all better off. Things like "be nice to your neighbour", "share food so no-one starves", and so on. They have to be taught to kids because often instincts tell you do to something else - like eat when you are hungry rather than share.

You can have whatever moral principles you want, but if you want me to go along with them there has to be some benefit to me and mine. They are useless if you can't do that - rules on interaction don't work unless the majority follow them. No appeal to universality or higher authority is going to work for me. You have to show me they will benefit both of us.

This is where science comes in. When it comes to a way of reasoning about rules and their effects the scientific method is king. So when you said: 'Science tells us nothing, and can never tell us anything, about what is “good”', you were completely wrong. Predicting good outcomes, good and bad, is in one sense the only thing science is good for. This makes it the ideal tool for justifying and deriving moral principles.

As for you being religious - belief in a absolute some moral compass, a universal (and usually unquestioned) definition of "good" is the basis of all religions. You seem to share that viewpoint, so I made an intuitive leap - sorry if I was wrong.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 6:50:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
goodthief wrote:

david f, All I mean by “evolutionist” is someone who not only believes evolution occurs, but believes that that fact is all we have to go on when we try to establish values. That person is likely to be an agnostic or even an atheist, but they might not bother to say so. (I believe in evolution, but because I’m a Christian I see it as a part of what I have to consider, and by no means my source of values.)

Dear Goodthief:

I am an atheist but don't believe in evolution. Belief means a leap of faith. There is no proof for either the existence or non-existence of God so one must have faith to believe in God. I have had a religious education but have become an atheist. I think the evidence of the fossil layers with species dying out and new species appearing, bacteria evolving and developing resistance to antibiotics along with other manifestations indicate that there is such a thing as evolution. I accept evolution because of evidence but do not believe in it.

We both are atheists regarding the Greek and Roman pantheon and the Norse gods. Neither of us believes in them. I see no more reason to believe in the monotheist God of Jews, Christians and Muslims. I reject all belief in any kind of supernatural. We are both atheists, but I don't believe in one more god than you don’t believe in.

Social Darwinism emphasizes competition and justifies war, complete laissez-faire capitalism without amelioration and racism on the basis of Darwinian theory. This distorts Darwinian theory and is unacceptable to both Christians and humanists. Fitness to survive in Darwinian theory includes both intraspecies and interspecies cooperation. We humans survive both by competition and cooperation.

However, I know of no one who believes that evolution is all we have to go on when we try to establish values. That seems as unreasonable as believing gravity is all we have to go on when we try to establish values. Can you name such a person?
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 14 May 2008 9:50:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
On the Professor Richard Dawkins programme on Monday Nights on ABC he summed it all up when he quoted it is the belief in superstition against the science of reason.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Thursday, 15 May 2008 12:01:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dawkins is a fraud ,he picks on the most foolish and gullable then edits his stuff to make himself look good

science measures itself against a placebo[ie their neo [new] medicine] versis nothing ,as if somehow medicine knows better [it cant even explain what placebo affect is , let alone better it.

when a new medicibne goes to trial ,the spin docters are after a NNT number [if you never heard of a NNT number read this link]
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/05/08/medicine-s-dirty-little-secret.aspx?source=nl

yes its sciences dirty little secret ,it basiclly reveals how many doses need to be taken for a set period of years to cure one person more that nothing [ie than a placebo]

nnt for many medicines is 50 to 100 [plus many are well over 100 ;thats number of patiants taking doses of their new medicine to CURE JUST ONE PERSON

So a nnt of 50 means the medicine wont work for 49 [ie 49 take the medicine [and get the side affects ,BUT GET NO ADVANTAGE WHATSOEVER ,yet are still paying via a deception of that science dorkins defends ,in calling the phycic treatments ''placebo'' affect

mr dawkins uses the same deciets to spin evolution upon the unthinking evolution athiests [like a fish rubbibg his eyes in the sand] is how he seriously reveals how a flat fish has both eyes on one side of their bodies [yet cleverly dosnt mention their own young fry of the same fish parental species have 'normal shape like any other fish while in their juvinile developmental stage.
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 15 May 2008 1:19:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"one under god" wrote:

"mr dawkins uses the same deciets to spin evolution upon the unthinking evolution athiests [like a fish rubbibg his eyes in the sand] is how he seriously reveals how a flat fish has both eyes on one side of their bodies [yet cleverly dosnt mention their own young fry of the same fish parental species have 'normal shape like any other fish while in their juvinile developmental stage."

The fact that the young of the flat fish have eyes on both sides of their body is merely an indication that flatfish have ancestors who are not flatfish. Human embryos have a similar development. Our embryos are similar to that of other creatures and diverge more toward the human form as it develops. The development of the flatfish and the human embryo are records of evolutionary development.

Atheist means one who does not have a belief in god. One may accept evolution and have a belief in god. A belief in god does not mean that one has to accept the Jewish tribal myths in Genesis. Christians such as Bishop Spong along with other thinking Christians and Jews recognise that the Bible contains mythic material.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 15 May 2008 8:59:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DavidF

I would like to commend you on your clear, concise and rational posts. Anyone who cannot understand what you are saying, are simply doing so wilfully.

The evidence for evolution is irrefutable and provides the foundation for our current medical, agronomic and construction engineering today. I always find it ironic that the very technology that the creationists use to proselytise, is the result of scientific inquiry and refinement. Seems they have no difficulty using the benefits of science, but have a major impediment when science fact conflicts with their treasured beliefs.

Your patience is a credit to you.

Thank you
Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 15 May 2008 9:58:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sells,

"Congratulations on an excellent article. Your exposure of the use of the theory of evolution for ideological purposes is trenchant." - Sells of Michael Ruse.

Pleased you did comment psitively on Michael Ruse, he is good writer. One small thing though: He is not a believer. He is in my camp not yours'.

Like me he is a critic of Dawkins, when steps out of the field of Genetics. But when, say, paleo-anthropolist, Richard Leakey, the Pre-Cambrian Extinction, he is knowledgeable.

Michael,

If you are still following OLO here; your ISIS article was excellent, methinks! Suspect Sells [Peter Sellick] thought you one of his own.

If you haven't read already read it already, Richard Leakey's, "Sixth Extinction" is very interesting. It would not be hard to guess the main meal topic at Louis', Mary's and Richard's house [tent?], when little Richard was growing-up? :-)

I have always felt Mary should been given more kudos for key discoveries
Posted by Oliver, Thursday, 15 May 2008 7:29:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When Australia finally becomes a Republic we must make sure that we do not fall into the same trap as the United States and make reference to a high spiritual being that is abstract and based on superstition. To rid ourselves of a Monarchy will be a triumph but the satisafaction will be an anti climax if we include any such mention of religioun. All religioun is from the dark ages when everybody was gullible. Today with the right sensible logical education we can teach our children that it is a waste of tome and space to even consider praying. If somebody want to believe in spirits that is their problem but please do not damage our young with all that codswallop.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Thursday, 15 May 2008 7:54:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele, That’s a terrifying question you ask: “What if you had control of the God button and had to make a decision of removing humanity or the rest of the life on earth which would it be? You know my answer.”

Pardon my obtuseness, but I think your answer is “remove the humans”? My answer is different, but I’m certainly torn – mainly because I see it as the humans who might one day make the question real and not hypothetical. I’m rather angry with the humans, so loving them as instructed is a challenge.

You say, “Surely humanism is just a reflection empathy.” No, I don’t think humanism is an emotional state at all, but a principle. For myself, there are many people with whom I do not empathise, so my obligation to be just cannot be based on empathy: it’s way too fickle. If justice was based on empathy, then the moral rule would be “One SHOULD empathise equally with everyone” – every human at least – which would sound silly.

You seem to be trying to graft moral ideas onto a fabric made of emotion, and I don’t see that working.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Thursday, 15 May 2008 10:34:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello bushbasher. Thanks for easing me off the misrepresentation hook: amazing the things we accuse each other of. You say, “evolution says nothing of ethics or values. even if altruism is an evolutionary construct, the science of evolution does not say that altruism is "good", just that it is adaptive. morality is simply not something evolutionary theory can, or attempts to, deal with.”

Perhaps we agree. I believe evolution just gives us facts – or, an explanation of facts. It doesn’t give us value, and shouldn’t try to. Trouble is, many people try to glean a morality out of it: some are in this discussion (eg rstuart). When I tried to recommend humanism a while back, it was the strict and consistent evolutionists who baulked.

If we don’t get value or morality from God, or from the facts of evolution, then from where? Same question for david f.

david f, thanks for replying. You don’t accept the supernatural because it involves a leap of faith. I agree with under-one-god who says that “All that we believe is based on faith”. You have decided to believe only what your senses reveal to you. So be it. I have not made a decision to limit myself in this way. I see this as the main difference between us: you do not or cannot regard non-empirical pathways to knowledge or belief as reliable. You avoid them as a matter of prudence, which you might describe as intellectual honesty. I understand this, and am even very sympathetic to it, but it’s a voluntary self-limitation and it happens that I don’t subscribe to it.

This doesn’t mean there is a God, of course: one must really apprehend God for oneself, and I’m not attempting to push you towards that. I'm just saying that we all make leaps of faith - I towards God, and you to your view about what can and can't be real. And I'm not suggesting that your position is eccentric: you are in large company.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Thursday, 15 May 2008 10:40:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief,

“csteele, That’s a terrifying question you ask”

What a terrifying answer you give. You would really sacrifice all the teeming millions of species with all that splendour, diversity, uniqueness etc for the human species? Can you see why some might regard it as pretty damn species-centric? Possibly understandable in a gnat or a dolphin or even a chimp, but in an enlightened person such as yourself?

‘And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.’ Gen:6-6

It does however fit in with what I regard as two of the great conceits of the human race, thinking that God made us in his image and secondly that, along with millions of species, he created billions of stars and galaxies just for us.

Justice has to be based on empathy.

Justice and equality are just words without empathy, a lack of which allowed the USA to become the great slave owning nation of the 19th century despite the bold words at Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.“

It took Wilberforce and the Shakers in England to tell the horrors of the slave ships and the brutality of servitude, and in so doing were able to go harvesting empathy, ultimately causing the end of slavery.

Without empathy we don’t have compassion or sympathy, those incapable of these emotions are called psychopaths. I don’t think you are one so I don’t agree when you say “there are many people with whom I do not empathise”. To take an extreme example, if you were to witness your worst enemy being burnt alive like most people you would intervene. One SHOULD be capable of empathising with all humans to some degree.

So I’ll stand by the notion that true morality is derived from true empathy. So if someone has a more encompassing empathy than yourself does that make them a more moral person?
Posted by csteele, Friday, 16 May 2008 12:41:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi goodthief, yes i think we largely agree: for moral pondering, evolution is a red herring.

you ask:

"If we don’t get value or morality from God, or from the facts of evolution, then from where?"

i'm not sure what you mean. So:

"thou shalt not kill". why?

a) god tells us we shouldn't kill

b) being created in god's image, it is in our nature that we "know" we shouldn't kill

c) from the way society (?) works, we reason we shouldn't kill

d) because of evolutionary forces, it is in our nature that we "know" we shouldn't kill

e) "then from where?" ( (i) culture? (ii) arbitrary? )

i guess you lean towards (b)? i lean towards (d), with maybe some (e)(i).
but i honestly don't see much practical difference, or that any of this helps. it cannot explain to me why i FEEL the moral principles that i do.

understanding the origins of something doesn't explain the feeling of it. i know that i feel hunger because my body needs to tell me to eat, but that doesn't in any way explain the feeling of hunger. my understanding of my moral feelings is very much the same.

why do i feel i shouldn't kill? because i do. it is a moral axiom, and religious and scientific attempts at explanations are not going to change anything.

it is in this sense that i can believe the source of my morality may be evolution, but that helps not a jot in my understanding of my morality. it makes no difference to me whether the underlying source is (b) or (d).

i've included e)(i) there as a little wriggle room for moral relativism, and i don't rule out the strong effects of culture. but that's not really what morality feels like to me, for anyone: whatever people's stated moral beliefs, i feel there's some underlying moral foundation, a la (b) or (d). and (b) or (d), i don't care. (a) on the other hand ...

sorry, it's late and it's meandered. enough for now.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 16 May 2008 1:46:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
goodthief wrote:

"This doesn’t mean there is a God, of course: one must really apprehend God for oneself, and I’m not attempting to push you towards that. I'm just saying that we all make leaps of faith - I towards God, and you to your view about what can and can't be real. And I'm not suggesting that your position is eccentric: you are in large company."

One meaning of ‘apprehend’ is 'to recognise the existence or meaning of'. My mother got very upset at one time when I told her I didn't think here was a God. I couldn't believe in a God who told a man to murder his son as that entity in the Jewish Bible told Abraham to do with Isaac or a God who subjected his own son to unspeakable torment as that entity does in the New Testament. The binding of Isaac, if it describes an event that actually happened, is a psychotic episode in which a deluded man heard a voice in his head telling him to kill his son. We certainly have had cases where psychotic killers have operated that way. Fortunately his mind manufactured a scenario where he didn't have to kill his son.

I think it was probably fiction and never happened at all. I assume that people in ancient times had as good an imagination as people have today and were as capable of writing fiction.

I can't apprehend the Bible God and know no other. Eccentricity is immaterial. Truth or falsity does not depend on how many people agree with a position.

I don't like to be accused of making a leap of faith. Believers in a supernatural sometimes accuse those who reject such a belief as making a leap of faith. I just follow what the evidence I have indicates. If I should have reliable evidence that there was a God I would accept the idea. If I had reliable evidence it would not be a leap of faith to apprehend God. I respect the sanctity of doubt and do not feel faith is a virtue.
Posted by david f, Friday, 16 May 2008 4:54:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f,

Yes, before we jump to a belief in Jesus or Zeus we need to is ask there a need for a god? What is the nature of god? Why does infinite regress need to lead to a god? Why not infinite indeterminancy in phase-space [Penrose & QM]?

In the twenty-first century we hopefully will get our minds around conditions that are not cause-and-effect. In twenteith we moved from 3-D space, to 4-D space-time to n-manifolds.

Why does creation need a creator? Seems primative and anthromorphic to me.
Posted by Oliver, Friday, 16 May 2008 10:28:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Damn, that should have been Quakers not Shakers...sorry Mr Roundtree.

I have just been imagining a conversation between a couple of mutton bird chicks on Griffith Island.

"Hey so what you are saying is that our parents have deserted us and now you want me to join you in a 15,000km long flight over featureless ocean where half of us won't make it just to cop a bit of a feed then fly back here all within a couple of months? How can this be good for the species?"

"It just requires a leap of faith my son."

I am incapable of looking at a mutton bird colony without conjuring up images of the Hajj. Maybe it is just the plumage and the fact that both are seeking nourishment of some kind.

Faith...a formulized instinct?

I could go into seagulls and shining lights but Mr Livingston might intrude.
Posted by csteele, Friday, 16 May 2008 11:24:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
under one god - never watched a David Attenborough doco? He talked about just this thing (flatfish & their eyes). David's real diplomatic and never talks about his faith, but his naturalist explanation for these fish made uncommonly good sense. A whole lot better than, "because", I can promise you.

All you believe may be based on faith. Others, myself included, prefer empiricism. The article points out it's under attack in many places - remote Spanish villas, far-flung Indonesian kampungs, most of the USA...
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 17 May 2008 2:27:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele, A very reasonable post (16 May, 12:41am) if you will excuse the compliment. (Compliments seem to be a problem on OLO, unless offered to someone in one’s own camp.) Yes, I would make the sacrifice, but remember I was “torn” about saying so. Also, it’s just a hypothetical: I don’t think God will let it get to that, unless it’s time to fold the show anyway. I think letting the human race go down the gurgler is also horrific.

“Species-centric”? Almost. Actually, God-centric. And if God says that humans are made in His image, and if He also seems to have gone to a lot of trouble over us, I’m prepared to be human-centric out of respect for those circumstances.

The “conceits” you mention (made in God’s image, and the world made for us) are only conceits if they’re false and made up. If false and made up (as I suppose you regard them?) then, yes, they are gargantuan conceits and probably very troubling. I’m not human centric because of the observable merits of humans: no way. Perhaps in that we agree?

On the other hand, if these conceits are true, then we're simply stuck with them. Mind you, people like me don't believe that we God-image creatures have carte blanche over the planet and over each other. My neighbour is also made in God's image, no less than me. And I'm instructed to take care of the planet, not exploit it.

You empathy points are interesting, thank you, and I’ll think about them. I certainly agree that empathy is critical to compassion. Mind you, I’m not sure even compassion is essentially a feeling – at least, not the moral requirement to be compassionate. I think moral duties are essentially calls to action – we should act compassionately – and, if we wait till the feelings are right, that delay could be very costly to those who need compassion. On the other hand, developing moral feelings like empathy would greatly increase our practical moral output. Excuse my meandering, I’m exploring as I go on some subjects.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Saturday, 17 May 2008 7:11:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbasher, Very clear post, thank you. Yes, I’m with b). But, I’m mainly with a), and b) helps me to understand a).

One problem with b) is that it speaks about our nature to “know” not to kill. True. However, it is also our nature to kill (in my opinion). So, we really need a).

We might also agree with your “but i honestly don't see much practical difference”. This is true if neither of us is killing. However, if we feel like killing, what constrains us (apart from fear of consequences)? I don’t think your d) on its own is sufficient. We MIGHT have evolved a repugnance for killing, but we haven’t evolved out of the desire/need to kill. So, what constrains us if the need is stronger than the repugnance?

david f, You say “I don't like to be accused of making a leap of faith. ..... I just follow what the evidence I have indicates.”

I realise you’re just following what the evidence indicates. However, you’re assuming that that’s the way to go. You’re assuming that evidence is the only path, and that there is no other reasonable or respectable way of apprehending facts. Let’s just call it an assumption, then.

Now that the assumption is on the table, though, can you explain it? Why is evidence the only means of knowing or believing? More important, what is the evidence for such a claim? If there is no evidence to support your claim, then it's back to leap of faith. Which is fine, until you start bagging leaps of faith.

bennie, You say to under-one-god “All you believe may be based on faith. Others, myself included, prefer empiricism.”

I suppose my post to david f is also to you.

If atheists simply “preferred” empiricism, and didn’t call people like me deluded, I probably wouldn’t argue with you. I like my senses, too, and use them frequently. :)

I believe in God. Do you regard me as deluded? If so, then your empiricism is not merely a preference.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Saturday, 17 May 2008 7:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief wrote:

"david f, You say “I don't like to be accused of making a leap of faith. ..... I just follow what the evidence I have indicates.”

I realise you’re just following what the evidence indicates. However, you’re assuming that that’s the way to go. You’re assuming that evidence is the only path, and that there is no other reasonable or respectable way of apprehending facts. Let’s just call it an assumption, then.

Now that the assumption is on the table, though, can you explain it? Why is evidence the only means of knowing or believing? More important, what is the evidence for such a claim? If there is no evidence to support your claim, then it's back to leap of faith. Which is fine, until you start bagging leaps of faith."

I have never contended evidence is the only way of believing. For believing one needs no evidence. IMHO that’s what’s wrong with belief. I have no reason to respect leaps of faith. A leap of faith shows lack of respect for reason. I respect reason. You are bagging reason, but I won't get upset over it. People who make leaps of faith bag reason.

To quote John Adams, second US president: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

In the Roman Empire most people believed in a divine pantheon. Now most people who believe in God believe in the Bible God. Belief in the ancient pantheon is no longer fashionable. You don't have to justify your lack of belief in what so many people believed in the past nor do I have to justify my lack of belief in the current and past fashion.

Yes, I think evidence is the only way to go. It is an assumption. I know of no better assumption.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 17 May 2008 8:24:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi goodthief,

Thankyou for the compliment and can I return the sentiment by say well done on keeping at least four plates spinning (conversations) continuing. Damn aren’t these threads a different place without those 2 ‘unintended servants of Satan’ getting all our backs up.

Don’t get me wrong, just as I wouldn’t have a problem with an indigenous person relating their creation story I don’t really have a problem with you having yours. Where I have gone and had a nibble back is with the proposition implicit in your claim “Not sure how much of a morality can be built on the proposition, “Humans are nothing special”. If it’s a morality bent on nothing better than the reflex protection of the human species, I can see that morality being rather ruthless.”. That proposition here is that your morality is superior not only in span but also in quality than mine.

However I do recognise that by arguing that my morality may be more encompassing and more innate I am guilty of the same conceit. My only defence is that these arguments have been defensive in nature so to speak.

And this seems to be a common thread in some of the past discussions on OLO on this topic. It has been dominated by those who are not content with living their lives embraced in their own belief system but feel the need to decry the systems of others. You would be probably one of the most benign in this good thief but there are others who are not so reticent, those who indeed lack empathy.

Cont
Posted by csteele, Sunday, 18 May 2008 3:19:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont

So I am happy for you to enjoy what your faith brings, to revel in it, and yes even proclaim it. I will even acknowledge periods in my own life when I have looked with some envy at the comfort and security afforded those who have embraced a faith based system.

But I do reject the notion that these systems deliver real empathy directly through their moral codes. They certainly may afford opportunities for it to develop such as helping at a church run soup kitchen may expose people to the human stories present in those experiencing homelessness. But empathy can not be delivered by imposing a moral dictum. I have far greater respect for those who give to charity because of a compassion for the victims of calamities rather than because they are tithed within their churches or mosques.

I have always been bemused by the ’Christian’ bumper sticker ’Be kind to your enemies because it will drive them crazy’. Empathy is expanded from basic human interactions. By placing Jews in ghettos, or refugees behind razor wire in our deserts, our higher powers try to thwart this very human trait.

While you see them as coming from top down my position is our moral codes have been developed from the ground up. I think you sense that when you say “developing moral feelings like empathy would greatly increase our practical moral output.” It becomes almost a nature/nurture question. In many ways it is another creation story so I will respect your version and appreciate the fact we have achieved a little of that consensus that it so often rare in these conversations.

Geez, I had better stop before I break out a few bars of ‘Imagine’.
Posted by csteele, Sunday, 18 May 2008 3:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All religions, goodthief, I regard as mild hysteria.
Posted by bennie, Monday, 19 May 2008 12:35:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
well i don't want to make it a new age huggy thing, but i've also very much appreciated the company and the conversation on this thread. I'll now try to change that by telling goodthief what he (?) really thinks, that he really agrees with csteele.

yes, apart from moral impulses we have selfish impulses and vengeful impulses. so, we need some further authority, godly or stately. and assuming none of us here are psychopaths (on other threads, i'd hesitate to make that assumption ...), we at least acknowledge the substantial legal/practical authority of the "authority".

but i think csteele's onto it when she (?) says: "But empathy can not be delivered by imposing a moral dictum." that is, if it doesn't have that empathy, it is not morality, it is simply following authority. following authority may be rational, and it may do "good" from an external viewer's moral eye, but it's not moral: it's just not what the word means.

so, i think my (a) is not really a source of morality at all. (it wasn't meant to be a trick question: i have a bad habit of typing first and thinking second). and, goodthief, if i try to make sense of how you have talked about god, it actually seems to me that you agree.

forgive me if i'm misrepresenting you, but you have seemed to talk of just "knowing" god, a la (b) or (d). so, if this "known" god then "tells" you rules a la (a), this is really just an extension of (b). in effect, you "Know" these rules really just as an extension of "knowing" god.

so, it seems to me that your source of the morality is really (b), and that (a) is just your way of thinking about it!

of course, i'm not trying to tell you what you should believe. i'm just trying to make sense of what you say you do believe. (and of course i'm trying to make sense of my own beliefs, too).
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 19 May 2008 1:40:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It never ceases to amaze me that Darwin can continue to ruffle feathers in 2008.
Shouldn't we be moving on and evolving and refining the theory of Evolution and Natural Selection (as are many?)

I am no biologist, but I am a sociologist, and it seems to me the article is more about social theory and history than biological/scientific theory.

The fact that social engineers and theorists have hijacked Darwin's theories to promulgate their own social agendas seems to be the only point of the article.

I think few would believe in the "ever upwards" movement of human society, promulgated by misguided social Darwinism, these days. Nowhere does biological evolutionary theory propose development from a "king butterfly to a king " Quite ludicrous.

The biology & science of natural selection makes no value judgements.
Evolution can go, or not go, any which way including loose. Including "backwards," (sorry for the value laden word) side ways, or hardly at all

We do Darwin a disservice when we apply his research and concepts to other than the biological world.
Posted by michael2, Monday, 19 May 2008 4:52:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f, You say – “I have no reason to respect leaps of faith. A leap of faith shows lack of respect for reason. ………… Yes, I think evidence is the only way to go. It is an assumption. I know of no better assumption.”

Well, my assumption is that God exists. I call it a leap of faith.

Here’s a difference. My leap of faith towards God leads to a life that is directly linked to that leap. I admit my assumption and live its ramifications.

You do the opposite. You begin with an assumption – with no empirical basis to support it – and you spend the rest of your life being an empiricist who bags assumptions and leaps of faith.

This is not an argument for God’s existence. It’s a reason to suggest that your claim to monopolise reason has no merit. “More logical than thou” is the empiricist’s conceit.

bushbasher, For a start, I realise that many decent people (say, people who bother being moral at all) are likely to come to many similar conclusions. At risk of causing general irritation, I believe God whispers to people who don’t believe in Him.

While I regard empathy as [very] highly desirable, I also think it’s just phenomenal. I don’t regard my feelings, even nice ones, as having the power to justify the actions they lead to. To me, that would be at least as conceited as some of the conceits theists are accused of. But, I regard God’s views, utterances, preferences, feelings etc as inherently authoritative. I believe God alone gives value, and that everything else is just circumstances.

Killing in cold blood is wrong because God says so – not because humans are especially worth saving (on their evolutionary pedigree alone) and not because I have a moral “feeling” that I shouldn’t kill in cold blood. If I had a feeling that killing in cold blood is right, it would still be wrong. Different people might feel differently about it, but it’s wrong. Moral feelings have limited relevance.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Monday, 19 May 2008 9:06:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bennie, “All religions, goodthief, I regard as mild hysteria.” I’m sure you do. Why “mild”, though? The strongest hysteria I’ve come across in recent times is “The God Delusion”, the bible of neo-atheism.

csteele,

I agree with Michael2, when he says, “The biology & science of natural selection makes no value judgements”. Its realm is facts. What you have is a [partial and probable] factual explanation of the way things are, not a guide to determining how they should be.

This is my point. You and I might, in fact, have some very similar moral views – coincidentally – but that’s not what I’m on about. It’s not about “better morals”, but about a basis for any morality at all. I’m saying that God (given how God is understood by people who believe He exists) is an authoritative source of value. Evolution is not, and its adherents and advocates shouldn’t claim that it is.

You don’t like it when people of my ilk “decry the [belief] systems of others”. That’s understandable. But, I too feel like I’m playing defence. It was the torrid abuse of Dawkins’ book and what is said to me by Dawkins’ disciples that have put me on the defensive.

I would say that the love required by what Christians call the Love Commandment (“love God and your neighbour”) probably incorporates empathy, but it doesn’t wait for it

I hope the bumper sticker was a joke. Anyhow, I empathise poorly with heavy-duty evangelistic Christians who are so into marketing.

“Imagine”, Yes but I thought your position would be one must imagine that there IS a heaven! :)

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Monday, 19 May 2008 9:09:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
o.k. goodthief. i meant no offense. i wasn't trying to put beliefs into your mouth.

but now i honestly don't know what to make of your beliefs. you say it very clearly, that your morality is (a)-type. for me, as i've said, this does not seem like morality to me. i can see your actions may consequently be "good", from my moral standpoint. but, i can't see that your actions have a moral basis.

maybe this is just semantics. honestly not sure. i know csteele and davidf are much better at this stuff, if they're still around.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 19 May 2008 9:34:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief wrote:

"david f, You say – “I have no reason to respect leaps of faith. A leap of faith shows lack of respect for reason. ………… Yes, I think evidence is the only way to go. It is an assumption. I know of no better assumption.”

Well, my assumption is that God exists. I call it a leap of faith.

Here’s a difference. My leap of faith towards God leads to a life that is directly linked to that leap. I admit my assumption and live its ramifications.

You do the opposite. You begin with an assumption – with no empirical basis to support it – and you spend the rest of your life being an empiricist who bags assumptions and leaps of faith."

The above is amazing. You tell me how I started when you don't know me, and you don't know how I started. It seems a tad arrogant to claim such knowledge. However. I will tell you about myself.

As a young boy I either heard or read the story of God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son. Being willing to murder because one thinks God has told one to do it is reasonable cause for commitment to an institution for the criminally insane. I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice from God telling him to murder me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. I felt secure with my father but knew I could not accept the God of the Bible. However, most of my life I thought there might be a God even though the monster called God in the Bible was not an entity I could accept. After examining the question off and on during my life I decided in my sixties that it was extremely unlikely that any God existed. I am now 82 but certainly did not start with that assumption. It was a conclusion I reached after much deliberation.

There is no empirical evidence to support either the existence or non-existence of God. Kant, the German philosopher, examined the proofs.
Posted by david f, Monday, 19 May 2008 10:26:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief wrote:

"I would say that the love required by what Christians call the Love Commandment (“love God and your neighbour”) probably incorporates empathy, but it doesn’t wait for it."

It really isn't a Christian commandment. When Jesus gave the advice to love one's neighbour he was speaking from his Jewish religious training. Jesus was not a Christian.

The Jewish Bible commands one to love God and one's neighbour.

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Deuteronomy 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

To remind people that Jesus was not a Christian and got his best lines from the Jewish Bible I wrote and sang the following on the radio:

The Imitation of Christ

Six feet two, eyes of blue
Jesus Christ, he was a Jew
Has anybody seen my lord?

Big hooked nose, There he goes
Preaching so that everyone knows
Has anybody seen my lord?

Speared by a Roman
In the abdomen
Blood gushing out

Rose from the dead
So it is said
People believe without a doubt

Jesus died, still a Jew
He's a Jew so why aren't you?
Has anybody seen my lord?
Posted by david f, Monday, 19 May 2008 10:29:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey good thief,

It is not my goal to diminish your beliefs but rather to hold mine up to give you some idea of why they sustain me. Meanwhile I do agree that Dawkins and some of his followers are lacking a degree of empathy.

Maybe it is the curse of the optimist but I have a faith in the human race. I believe that given a chance most humans want to live in peace and harmony. Also given a chance for our natural empathy to develop, free from the whims of those who would confuse or deny it, I feel any of us could comfortably co-exist with any other human being. Whatever gets in the way of that is my take on ’evil’ and if that includes any of your lot good thief then they will have to put up with me telling them why they are wrong.

Like davidf I had real problems with the story of Abraham, but the biblical story that troubled me most was the Passover. To think of a God who would actively harden the Pharaoh’s heart against releasing the captive Jews then to slaughter the firstborn of every Egyptian family when he didn’t was incomprehensible. What partly resolved the issue for me was learning that when Jewish families gather at their Passover celebrations there is a little wine spilt from the cup in remembrance of the children who had to die to secure their release. In the enormity of the whole God epic this little annual human act of empathy, resting outside the bible, something that was not commanded by god, proclaims something about us as a species and it is that something I cling to.

To paraphrase your good self, is God the only source of morality? No he is not, and his adherents and advocates shouldn’t claim that he is.” But you do have a great advocate for empathy and that was Jesus. May I chastise you for omitting ‘enemies’ in your Love Commandment? He was saying to love them you have to think of them as fellow human beings. Empathy!
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 1:46:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey bushbasher,

This (?) is a he.

Watching Compass the other night I thought about your (a). It was a story about a Jewish teenager who survived the concentration camps and who later became a Jehovah's Witness after observing them in Auschwitz. Here was a bunch of ordinary people who refused to salute Hitler, or the Nazi flag, or fight in the war and where imprisoned and executed for their beliefs.

In the camps they were offered their release if they chose to renounce their faith. Most refused and many lost their lives.

I'm not sure I can dismiss lightly the thought that a critical mass of people who hold a deeply felt religious belief against war might be capable of a great service for the human race.

Don't know about giving up my birthday though.

Just had the thought, it would be a little depressing if we were all JWs since every weekend we would be out knocking on doors and there would never be anyone home.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 1:34:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What has all this bumph got to do with Darwin, evolution and Natural Selection?

You either decide to take a leap of faith and believe in God or not.

Then you take another major leap of faith in believing that the bible is the inspired, literal word of GOD

It seems to me that the Biblical version of creation depreciates "GOD"
Why couldn't he/she/it take a million ++ years to perfect his creation; rather than c. 5,000 years?

What has all this got to do with the original article under discussion?
Posted by michael2, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 3:08:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
hi michael2, i think all of us left have either decided the original article was pretty boring or pretty dumb, or both. but i'm sure if you wait around, there'll be a silly anti-evolution article along soon.

hey that-he-csteele, i don't dismiss for a minute that a community of people following (a) could, and do, do great good. of course, with the wrong (a), they could do great harm ...

but are they being moral? again, maybe i'm just playing semantics, but i don't see following rules as being moral, even if we judge their actions (from our moral perspective) as doing good.

what i was suggesting was that perhaps people know their gods a la (b), and then (a) is really an extension of (b). then, i could see (a) as being a form of morality. but goodthief for one seemed very dismissive of this formulation. which is fair enough, of course.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 4:50:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It’s the nature of the creation/evolution debate to lend itself to complex moral and social issues. The meaning we apportion to life (or anything else) depends on how we perceive its origin.

The reason the debate will inevitably continue is that we are arguing over a theory of history, of how we came to be here. As history cannot be repeated, one of the major planks of the scientific method is sidestepped. Therefore the debate will always be outside of the practical realm of repeatable, scientific investigation, and will always tend towards social and philosophical considerations.

Why America? That the most predominantly Christian founded nation also became the most technologically advanced the world has known is no surprise; the contradiction exists only in the minds of some. Scripture has alway encouraged sensible, lucid, and logical thinking.

Another weakness in the article is it’s decent into undefined terms and name calling, in particular the term ‘literalist’. Such a creature does not even exist. Nobody in the world takes all of Scripture literally. Instead, we try to apply reasonable exegetical principles, assessing the style and genre of the writing. In the end creationists take Genesis as straight forward narrative – the same way Jesus took it, the same as all of the New Testament writers, as well as all of the church fathers and church theologians up until about the 19th Century, not to mention all leading Hebrew language scholars.

I also tire of the intended insult that I often read in these posts, referring to Christians acting upon ‘whispers in their head’. This only shows a lack of understanding and even lack of will to understand the faith and the propositional truths contained in Scripture.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 5:28:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm no great fan of Crhistopher Hitchin's writing style goodthief, his self-righteousness occasionally mimics that of bible-bashers and is likely to offend. But I, like him, don't accept it takes a belief in the supernatual to sustain morals. Many with strong faith seem to believe atheism leads to poor morals. I've never seen an example of this. I have however seen those professing strong faith with poor morals.

The bible's a fine read - if you take out the supernatural bits. I agree with its sentiments. However there's no reason religion and science should be in such opposition to each other, it's not either/or. Such a position posits science as a religion. Science is a verb, not a noun. How anyone can fault a logical process because they don't like where it leads, is beyond me. Perhaps they don't use their god-given powers of reason?
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 7:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
nice post, bennie.

dan, it's not clear to which posts you're referring. i think, like a number of others here, i've been working hard to try to find and clarify the common ground, and i intended no insult to anyone. but i have no doubt that if i stick around, my intentions will change and be unambiguous.

goodthief, csteele, and davidf thank-you very much. i very much enjoyed and appreciated the conversation. hope to see you on a future thread.

michael2, i think you may have gotten your wish
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 10:20:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher, you said, “I'm sure if you wait around, there'll be a silly anti-evolution article along soon.”

However, I’m not so sure.

Has there ever been an article published on OLO from a creationist perspective? Perhaps there has, but I’ve never seen one.

It’s part of the nature of the creation/evolution debate that creationists rarely get to argue their case on a level playing field. These and other forums are filled with posts arguing their position, for or against creationism, but when do the creationists themselves get to put their case, a decent length article, in their own words, in secular forums?

(Attention, Graham, or whoever else may have a say in this matter! If it’s good for the goose…!)

What I would appreciate is to see an article from a qualified creationist, that is, a qualified scientist who accepts the account of Genesis as straight narrative, and the best explanation for the origin of life on this planet.

I’m willing to take a bet that I won’t see this on OLO, but I am also quite happy to be proven wrong in this regard.

(I think its more likely I’ll get responses from those who say creationists don’t ‘deserve’ the right of reply, or equal time in debate.)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 10:28:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue wrote:

"I also tire of the intended insult that I often read in these posts, referring to Christians acting upon ‘whispers in their head’. This only shows a lack of understanding and even lack of will to understand the faith and the propositional truths contained in Scripture."

I wrote about a man willing to kill because he heard a voice telling him to sacrifice his son. It was no Christian but Abraham, a Jew, who, according to the Bible, heard the voice. This was long before Christianity was invented. The 9/11 fanatics probably thought they were following God's will. Timothy McVeigh was executed for the April 19th, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which claimed 168 lives and remains the deadliest incident of domestic terrorism in the United States. He contended that his bombing of the Murrah building was a justifiable response to what he believed were the crimes of the U.S. government at Waco, Texas, during the 51-day siege of the Branch Davidian complex that resulted in the death of 76 Branch Davidian members. McVeigh and the 9/11 murderers followed the precedent of Abraham. They were willing to commit atrocities to demonstrate their faith. I am afraid of what people with faith do to demonstrate their faith.

Such pathology is not limited to Christians, and I do not single out Christians. The problem is unreasoning faith whether it is in religion or ideology with a shorter shelf time than religion. There are believers in both the eventual Marxist classless society and the Second Coming. Both belief systems accept the myth of the millennium. The problem is broader than Christianity and religion. The problem is faith in unprovable propositions.

I understand religious faith because I have had such a faith. It was only after questioning and long deliberation that I abandoned it. Scripture with its ambiguities and an inconsistent deity is an inadequate guide for life. I am tired of religionists confusing faith and truth.

I think questioning, looking at the evidence and reason are far better guides for human knowledge and action than faith.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 20 May 2008 11:19:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bushbasher, Yes, I’m essentially a) type – because I distinguish between what is and what should be, and believe we need authoritative guidance on the latter. My thinking is not “God is good” but “goodness is Godly”. I start with God and proceed from there: anything that accords with His nature and will is “good”. Doesn’t mean God exists, just means the belief in God is a basis for attributing/recognising value.

david f, Thank you for your candour. I’m sorry if it seemed I presumed to know your personal history. I was only trying to track your thoughts “back” to the assumption. My point is that empirically minded people have chosen to be so, they didn’t have to be. The assumption was chosen. You could have chosen otherwise – eg a wider base, not limited to evidence. Empiricism tends to close God out. The possibility of God, I mean. So, if ever there was any risk that you might [again] believe in God, your demand for evidence has securely locked that possibility out. Okay if there is no God. Very sad if there is.

For what it’s worth, I think I understand the bemusement or repugnance one can feel at some biblical episodes and how that reaction might influence your large decisions. For myself, because I already love God very dearly, the bemusement is something I try to reconcile with the very loving God I am (or imagine myself to be?) acquainted with. I may wrestle with such episodes, or study them (they’re usually not as bad as they first appear) or just put them aside till I can deal with them.

Yes, Jesus was a Jew, but a precocious one. Your quotes are a good example: the Hebrew scriptures didn’t link the two ideas you refer to. Jesus took it upon himself to coalesce them into a single Commandment. No Jewish rabbi would have dared take such a liberty (and expect to retain any credibility).

“six foot two, eyes of blue”: the Western co-opting of Jesus is natural, I suppose, but unfortunate. I imagine it piques Him occasionally.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 7:05:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteele, You say, “I have a faith in the human race. I believe that given a chance most humans want to live in peace and harmony.” You seem to be saying that humans are a source of value. I only have a bunch of questions:

i) Why – evolution, our track record?

ii) People disagree about a lot of moral questions, so how do we glean something authoritative?

iii) “Most” – majority rule? Can’t the majority be wrong?

iv) What’s good about peace and harmony? I see the practical advantages to humanity, but why “should” humanity be advantaged? This goes back to GP’s original question.

The hardening of Pharoah’s heart. I lack expertise here. What I can say is that most difficult and troubling passages of the Old Testament tend to be difficult and troubling when read literally. The scary religious people are the literalist adherents to the text. The Jewish and Christian scriptures, especially the former, are varied, layered and usually not straight narrative. Atheist critics of scripture also tend to read it literally. They can’t all be scientists, can they, so why do they/you approach the text in this unsophisticated way? In the case of people like Dawkins, I think if is for polemical convenience. As far as I’m concerned the reference to the hardening of Pharoah’s heart is simply an acknowledgement that God is ultimately in control.

My starting point with scripture is totally different: I love God and regard God as essentially loving. I do this because of the Jesus exercise in sacrificial love. I view scripture from this standpoint. In addition, the scholarly examination (actually very inquisitive and rigorous) of the Old and New Testaments is slowly helping explain what is meant.

Dan S de Merengue and david f, “Whispers in the dead”. I think we’re slightly at cross purposes. People like me believe God really exists – so that means He exists for everyone and finds a way of connecting with everyone. EG by “whispering” into every individual’s conscience. I know it’s annoying to say so, but how could I believe otherwise?

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 7:11:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief wrote:

"Yes, Jesus was a Jew, but a precocious one. Your quotes are a good example: the Hebrew scriptures didn’t link the two ideas you refer to. Jesus took it upon himself to coalesce them into a single Commandment. No Jewish rabbi would have dared take such a liberty (and expect to retain any credibility)."

“six foot two, eyes of blue”: the Western co-opting of Jesus is natural, I suppose, but unfortunate. I imagine it piques Him occasionally."

What do you mean by "No Jewish rabbi would have dared take such a liberty (and expect to retain any credibility)."

Jews connect loving God and loving one's fellow man. In the NT is the saying that only through me can you enter the kingdom of heaven. Judaism is not so narrow. A non-Jew is considered righteous if the person lives a righteous life regardless of whether that person accepts the Jewish beliefs. Living a righteous life includes concern for social justice. Jews accept converts but send no missionaries as one does not need to be a Jew to be a righteous person.

In Israel there is a monument to the Righteous Gentiles and accompanying recognition of particular individuals who opposed the Nazi horrors. To the best of my knowledge there is no similar monument to righteous Jews anywhere in Christendom.

Jews are not a race. In Jewish tradition the messiah will be a descendent of David. According to the Bible David was a descendent of Ruth who was a gentile and became a Jew. According to Jewish tradition David had red hair and blue eyes. Jesus, if David was his ancestor, could have inherited those blue eyes.

Jews come in all colours. I am a blond and blue-eyed Jew at least I was before my hair turned white. I also belong to a synagogue and participate in many of the social and cultural activities. Beliefs are not emphasised in most of Judaism although some Jews do emphasise beliefs. It is what one does and how one lives that is important.

Learn more before you pontificate about Jews.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 8:31:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've just read your post Dan S about never hearing from a qualified creationist. The nearest you might get is intelligent design, itself as scientific as creationism.

No, it's unlikely we'll get anyone in a secular forum saying creationism is the 'best' explanation for anything at all. That would be the same as suggesting everything we know that supports evolution - things we've learned about from the atoms to the stars - is all inconsequential.

Creationists do deserve as much right of reply as anyone else but I'll say without reservation they cannot expect to be taken seriously. The prevalence of this belief in America is, well, hard to fathom. Your claim "Scripture has alway encouraged sensible, lucid, and logical thinking" appears contrary to experience. I would suggest it's exactly the opposite.

There are tens of thousands of deities, each of unique origin. There are six billion faiths today, each as certain as the next. There is only one science. Evolution is as much proved (or not) as gravity. Why accept one unblinkingly but not the other?
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 7:33:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher,
I often read in these threads the accusation that religious people and Christians are guided by voices in their heads. Here, I was referring to the post of JonJ. In fairness to Jon, after reading again what he said, he wasn’t trying to define Christian teaching nor the Christian mindset.

Christians follow the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, in effect, the lessons of the Bible. This is what’s normative for the Christian.

In the case of Abraham, he clearly was not following a whim, a hunch, or a personal vendetta. God had spoken to him uniquely in the history of his communication with mankind. The result was a prophetic picture of the sacrifice Jesus would make on the cross over a thousand years later. The bottom line is that the boy Isaac was not harmed. He was saved from death. Christian Scripture says Abraham believed God could raise the dead, which was also a prophetic insight into Jesus’ resurrection.

My overall point is that Christianity should be judged according to its teaching. The Scripture doesn’t advocate listening to whatever voices enter your head. And, more relevant to this thread, no one has ever got the idea that life evolved over millions of years by reading Genesis, or any other part of the Bible.

Bennie,
You seem to hold the notion that there aren’t any highly qualified scientists who are creationists. Though a minority, they’re not hard to find. I’ve met plenty of them (Aussies).

I would suggest that the reason you say their prevalence is ‘hard to fathom’ is because you haven’t looked into the issue well enough, nor the strength of their arguments.

When I spoke of Scripture encouraging logical thinking, I was thinking of the founders of western science, such as Bacon, Copernicus, Newton, Kelvin, Boyle, Ramsay, Pascal, Mendel, Pasteur, and many, many more. All were solid Bible believers, and accepted its first few pages as straight forward as it is written (as any Hebrew language scholar would agree.)

Evolution is not nearly as defensible as gravity. But you are entitled to your opinion.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 9:58:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Goodthief: “You seem to be saying that humans are a source of value.” Well not quite, I have said they are a source of empathy and compassion from which have flowed morality, equality and justice.

i) “Why – evolution, our track record?” Well yes both. There are some reasonably valid theories for why empathy has developed and evolution certainly has played its part, but our culture has rapidly taken over the reins particularly in the last 8 to 10 thousand years. Even our technology has contributed. I think the photograph from the moon of this vulnerable little orb we call home had immeasurable value in extending human empathy not only to include the entire human race but all life. It punctuates the notion of a world view. As to our track record look at the treatment of women. The cause of the downfall of man, regarded as chattels, spoils of war, periodically unclean, temptresses of Israeli Kings in the old testament to subservant wives, not permitted to speak in churches in the new testament to now, when until a month ago one of them looked likely to assume the highest office in the world’s most powerful nation. The changes even within our own society within the last 5 decades have been remarkable. Humane changes to divorce and custody rules. Police intervention in domestic disputes. Equal pay. All illustrate a positive progression, an ‘evolution’ if I might be cheeky.

ii) “People disagree about a lot of moral questions, so how do we glean something authoritative?” Here I think empathy can again triumph if allowed. Recent changes to laws that discriminated against homosexuals is a case in point. The vast majority of our parliamentary representatives, whenever their moral inclination saw the old laws as wrong. The authority to act came from the people.

iii) ““Most” – majority rule? Can’t the majority be wrong?” Certainly, see an earlier post regarding slavery.

iv) “What’s good about peace and harmony? I see the practical advantages to humanity, but why “should” humanity be advantaged?” Because we are humans and we think we deserve it.
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 21 May 2008 11:58:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now goodthief if you would just block your ears….

Hey Dan S,

Just in case you think I’m pissing in davidf’s pocket may I quote and paraphrase some posts I made in February.

Genesis is a story about a God falling in love with a people and a people returning that love. To quote Rabbi Kushner "the Bible tells us that God's love for Abraham and for the Jewish people is, like all love, irrational. It cannot be logically explained or understood. God has at least the same right that we do to fall in love with someone and leave others wondering what he sees in her".

This is certainly the case with Abraham who is far from the most likable of the OT characters.

Abraham so loved his God that he was prepared to give his son, born from the union with Sarah, the woman whom he also loved so much he was prepared to sacrifice his first born.

We see ourselves doing desperately irrational acts when we fall in love and it's a deeply human thing, not always complying with notions of sacred love. What could be more irrational than sacrificing ones child for love, and what does it say about that enormity of that love? Importantly any claims from you or Christian scriptures that Abraham knew his son was going to be raised from the dead are rot and dramatically devalue the narrative.

Possibly it is an intuitive understanding by Christians that they really stand on the periphery of this intense love story, gathering 'crumbs from the table' where they can, that is at least partly responsible for two thousand years of persecution of a God's chosen people.

Genesis is such a marvellously Jewish book, dramatically human, and we in the West are privileged to have been able to adopt it. So let’s have the good grace to refrain from too much retrofitting.

P.S.

When I think of Scripture discouraging logical thinking I think of Galileo, not exactly sure why he was missing from your list.
Posted by csteele, Thursday, 22 May 2008 1:17:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f, No need to be so sensitive. Just because I say something you don't like, it doesn’t mean I’m “pontificating”. The Jewish scriptures don’t “connect” the two love commands in the way Jesus did: they were separate, as indicated by your earlier post. “Coming to the Father by me” is not narrow because everyone is invited to do it. Whatever the Jews thought of Gentiles, they still believed in a distinction: Jesus made clear that he saw no distinction. It’s the Christian Church that has constricted things.

Jesus often said things like "It is written that ....., but I say to you ......". This was obviously presumptuous.

“Jews are not a race”. Okay, but not relevant to our discussion.

csteele, I just can’t attach to empathy the kind of significance you do. I see it as merely phenomenal.

I asked why humanity should have peace and harmony. You answer, “Because we are humans and we think we deserve it.” That’s the problem. I’m not concerned with what we think we deserve, but with what is right. We might think we deserve the moon, and yet not deserve it. What do we actually deserve? Evolution has led us to a point where we think things, but it doesn’t mean the things we think are right.

Still, I think we’ve exhausted the topic. Good doing business with you.

By the way, though I was only eavesdropping, I accept much of what you say about the Old Testament/Hebrew scriptures. The NT is a dry read by comparison, or at least seems so. Mind you, it’s written in Greek by different and later people. What I am highly critical of is the way in which Christianity, especially Protestants, has blanched the scriptures. They read passages from the OT in a monotone, which I regard as tragic. They’ve really missed the chemistry that exists between people and God. The Jews have been onto it for ages, while many Christians are still struggling with it: must seem unhygienic, or something.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Thursday, 22 May 2008 10:13:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amazing how many people bring up Abraham's willingness in offering His son Isaac as sacrifice. Of course God did not expect him to go through with it. The clever ones who bring this issue up have no problems with the thousands of babies murdered for convenience in mother's wombs each year. If you want to know about a murder/death culture just look to secular humanism and spare us your pathetic attempts to question the character of your Creator.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 22 May 2008 10:44:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Goodthief,

“I just can’t attach to empathy the kind of significance you do."

And I’m happy that you don't since in reality for you to now think the way I do would mean I may have dented your faith and that was never my intention. Hopefully though in conceding we may enjoy similar morals you might be a little less dismissive of those who profess a different narrative for explaining those morals. Indeed be a little more empathetic if you like :).

“I asked why humanity should have peace and harmony. You answer, “Because we are humans and we think we deserve it.” That’s the problem. I’m not concerned with what we think we deserve, but with what is right.”

I would have thought peace and harmony for the human race was the ‘right’ thing to wish for. (Sorry, being cheeky again)

“Still, I think we’ve exhausted the topic. Good doing business with you.”

And we have both managed it while keeping the big guns holstered so indeed it has been good. Thankyou.

Now if you could just block those ears one last time.

Hey runner,

“Of course God did not expect him to go through with it.”

Tsk, tsk.

While I don’t accept the authority of your ‘creator’, you certainly do. So how on earth can you justify claiming to know the mind of your God. I mean I personally would find that incredibly presumptuous, I can’t imagine what he would be thinking as we speak. I feel it might be okay to circumspectly assume something about God’s will but how could you state as fact what God was thinking at that precise moment he ordered Abraham to murder Isaac? Genesis gives no indication either way. After all God certainly repents from other instances of evil he planned to commit elsewhere in the bible.

A little repenting here from yourself might not go astray me-thinks.
Posted by csteele, Friday, 23 May 2008 1:16:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteelte,

You were a bit quick in your criticism of my interpretation of the story of Abraham.

When I said that Abraham believed God could raise the dead, this was not a just a ‘Christian’ interpretation, nor a modern, nor Western interpretation. And I didn’t make it up. It comes from the Bible (Hebrews ch. 11). And all of the Bible, New Testament and Old, was written by Jews, people that saw themselves as 100% Jewish.

However, I would thoroughly agree with you that we in the West are privileged to have been able to adopt it (the Scriptures).

When I consider that list of men above, all who thoroughly believed the Scripture, I think of what a different place the Western world might be without our having been profoundly influenced by its teaching and logic.

As for the question, should Galileo be on that list? By all means, definitely, he should be. For he also was a man of logic who believed the Scriptures from cover to cover. He even defended his position Scripturally before the Pope.

There is a common misconception which interprets the ‘Galileo Affair’ as a case of the church standing in the way of progress. However, scratch the surface of history a little and see what comes to light.

The scientific community itself was pretty slow (even slower than most of the church) to accept Galileo’s findings as they were so radical. The stoush that Galileo had with the Pope was more a personal clash of two dominant personalities. The church had no reason to hold to geocentrism, as this was Greek philosophy and had no real connection with the Bible.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 23 May 2008 9:25:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S,

You said: “You were a bit quick in your criticism of my interpretation of the story of Abraham.”

Sorry I don’t agree. The bottom line was not that the boy Isaac was saved from death but that his father was willing to murder him in the first place. This is where the story’s power is derived.

You said: “When I said that Abraham believed God could raise the dead, this was not a just a ‘Christian’ interpretation, nor a modern, nor Western interpretation. And I didn’t make it up. It comes from the Bible (Hebrews ch. 11). And all of the Bible, New Testament and Old, was written by Jews, people that saw themselves as 100% Jewish.”

Again I don’t agree. I only have a fairly basic grasp of biblical history but even I know the authorship of Hebrews is inconclusive. To quote the great biblical scholar Edgar Goodspeed writing in 1908...

“The letter as we have it is anonymous, and of its author little can be said. We cannot even be sure he was of Jewish blood. If he knew Hebrew at all, he preferred to use the Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish scriptures”

And

“the writer's Judaism is not actual and objective, but literary and academic, manifestly gained from the reading of the Septuagint Greek version of the Jewish scriptures, and his polished Greek style would be a strange vehicle for a message to Aramaic-speaking Jews or Christians of Jewish blood.”

Therefore I would say it is certainly modern with respect to Genesis, certainly christian, and has a good claim to being a western interpretation or at the very least a midrashic one.

I’ll stand by the criticism for now thank you.

As for Galileo, the church taking 360 years to admit it had wronged him is not what I would call speedy.
Posted by csteele, Saturday, 24 May 2008 12:33:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan I'm aware there are qualified scientists who are also creationists. To me science and creationism are mutually exclusive, and such people are fine examples of how humans can rationalise virtually anything.

Thier argument rests solely on the OT. Without this there would be no suggestion creationism took place. There is nothing else. No proof, no evidence, no inference from anything you care to look at.

The great minds you cite were creationists in spite of, not because of, their success in their respective fields. And how dare you mention Copernicus! The finest example of the church hobbling knowledge, which is what I had in mind the previous post.

In the view of science the theory evolution is as valid as that of gravity. If you're a creationist Dan just say so and I'll leave the thread. You make me look the bigger fool for persisting.
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 24 May 2008 1:44:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
this thread seems to have little to do with Darwin, his theories, science, or even the sociology or silliness of Yanks.
Posted by michael2, Saturday, 24 May 2008 5:22:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
csteelte,
Like you, my knowledge of Biblical history is not deep. But I’m pretty sure that lots of Jews were quite comfortable using the Greek version of the Scriptures. Otherwise, why did they bother having them? In the first century, for anyone writing something to a wide intended readership, Greek might well be the choice language.

You say you stand by your criticism. Fair enough, but I’ll stand by the book of Hebrews. Even accepting what you say about it, it was still most likely written by a first century Jewish disciple of Jesus.

Though again, I agree with you that we are only on the periphery of this intense love story. We ‘gentiles’ are privileged to have been given insight into the history and blessings of the book of Genesis.

Bennie: “If you're a creationist Dan just say so and I'll leave the thread.”

If you take that attitude to people that you disagree with, I’m not sure why you’d bother clicking on a website like this. OLO I thought was about opinions, and listening to the other guy’s point of view, and maybe even daring to interact with it.

But each to their own.

You say that the creationists’ argument rests solely on the OT, with no other proof. This couldn’t be more wrong.

It’s true that creationists (for argument’s sake) find their starting presuppositions in the Bible. But everyone has to start somewhere. Evolutionists have a philosophical base of atheism or materialism.

After that, the empirical evidence is pretty much shared. We all live in the same world, and are looking at the same available evidence. Creationists try and deal with all the evidence, be it in whatever their specialist field: genetics, astronomy, geology, microbiology, palaeontology, etc.

Then the scientists’ tools are the same, logic and observation. Finally we aim to arrive at a conclusion.

Are matter and energy and the processes we see present in the natural world sufficient to have created life as we see it? The creationist says they are not.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 25 May 2008 7:10:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough Dan. My last post was unaccommodating. Creationism is a definite minority with most christians - and the vatican for that matter - accepting evolutionary theory.

America is resting on its intellectual laurels. I, like the author, find such a debate in the 21st C "quaint and incredible".
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 25 May 2008 10:14:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan said
"Evolutionists have a philosophical base of atheism or materialism."

This is not true. It is a ill-informed slander of many fine minds.
Darwin was a Christian.
Can't you imagine a god greater and more complex than that depicted in the old testament?
Posted by michael2, Sunday, 25 May 2008 12:20:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
michael2 wrote:

"Dan said
"Evolutionists have a philosophical base of atheism or materialism."

This is not true. It is a ill-informed slander of many fine minds.
Darwin was a Christian.
Can't you imagine a god greater and more complex than that depicted in the old testament?"

Both Dan and Michael2 are wrong. Darwin was a Christian when he collected the data which went into his work, but he did not remain a Christian. He lost his Christian faith due to his daughter’s death.

Evolution did not have a philosophical base of atheism or materialism. It developed from the evidence.

From the net:

"Charles Darwin had a non-conformist background, but attended a Church of England school. He studied Anglican theology with the aim of becoming a clergyman, before joining the Voyage of the Beagle. On return, he developed his theory of natural selection in full awareness that it conflicted with the teleological argument. Darwin deliberated about the Christian meaning of mortality and came to think that the religious instinct had evolved with society. With the death of his daughter Annie, Darwin lost all faith in a beneficent God and saw Christianity as futile. He continued to give support to the local church and help with parish work, but on Sundays would go for a walk while his family attended church. However, at the time of writing On the Origin of Species he remained a theist, convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause.
In his later life, Darwin was frequently asked about his religious views. He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities." However, he was always insistent that he was agnostic and had "never been an atheist"."
Posted by david f, Sunday, 25 May 2008 12:58:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

I have worked with a number of scientists over the years, and a fair few of them were religious believers. However, the Christians among them were almost invariably of the Rhian/Goodthief persuasion. I can only think of one man, a physicist, who had creationist beliefs. He reconciled religion and science as follows:

God created the world 6,000 years ago as described in Genesis, but with all the evidence of a 4.5 billion year old earth and a 13.7 billion year old universe in place. The light was on its way from distant galaxies with just the right redshifts. The microwave background was there to suggest a big bang that never happened. There were radioactive minerals in the rocks in just the right proportions to suggest decay chains that had been going on for millions or billions of years. The fossils were in the rocks too, in just the right strata, with no rabbit bones in the Pre-Cambrian. The order of DNA bases and amino acids in proteins of all forms of life were altered just enough from species to species to suggest an ancient common ancestor and genetic relationships that did not exist, etc. Why the deception? Presumably to trap people who are too smart for their own good.

You aren't just arguing with a few biologists, but with all of modern science. There is also the question of whether a God who would engage in such a deception, presumably with the intent of finding an excuse to send people to hell, deserves to be worshipped.

There may well be genuine creationist scientists. The capacity to compartmentalise and deceive oneself is endless. There are also those with less creditable motives. See Ian Plimer's book, "Telling Lies for God".
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 26 May 2008 10:00:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,
My recollection of reading Darwin's biography was that he was a Christian.
Struggled for years with his faith before publishing but was a Christian to the end.
It is a long time since I have read his biography and perhaps the web is a better source?
Posted by michael2, Monday, 26 May 2008 7:27:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Son of god was actually crucified on Mars.
When NASA greets the return of Phoenix from Mars lo and behold all will be revealed. Black Cats will be seen to cross your path, Those that walk under ladders will be smitten and dammed. The sea scrolls will be found within the Mars crust. and the ten commandments tablets will also be brought back. The true God will also be revealed it may be Allah or Jehovah so all along it did not happen on earth Adam and Eve were created on Mars and gave bith to Cane and Abel there. If you do not believe that then you all must be gullible because it has been written We were not born yesterday. We must all continue to pay our ten percent tithing for our great temples which are an icon to GOD. We do not worship idols we worship spirits that the naked eye cannot see. So hurry back Phoenix and enlighten us so that we can all prove that science has been wrong all the time silly us. It is just as well that the American leaders believe in God so that we can refrain from invading defenceless countries and blow up innocent women and children with depleted uranium and cluster bombs and napalm and agent orange in the name of God and freedom and democracy because we all believe in god. It is all the fault of those sinful transgender gays that need counselling. Who have the cheek to want to marry each other how dare they. Marriage is only for Heterosexuals because they are normal. Why should we create stemcells to save those with Parkinsons and Moto Neuron disease this is all an act of God. When will the civilised world educate our young properly and stop teaching them superstition and fear. So Much for love thy neighbour as thyself.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Monday, 26 May 2008 11:49:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael 2 wrote:

"Dear david f,
My recollection of reading Darwin's biography was that he was a Christian.
Struggled for years with his faith before publishing but was a Christian to the end.
It is a long time since I have read his biography and perhaps the web is a better source?"

It was easier to cut and paste from the web than to key in the following:

From Darwin's autobiography written in 1876 in "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" edited by Francis Darwin published by Basic Books in 1859:

"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,-and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,--that the men at their time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible to us,-that the Gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneously with the events,-that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me, to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye-witnesses;-by such reflections as these, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation." p. 278

From that Darwin came to the following:

"The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music." p. 281
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 1:26:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence,
I don’t doubt that that guy you met said something like what you said he did, but I’m also guessing that he’s pretty old. But such ideas of the deceptive God fiddling with the evidence have nothing in common with the modern creationist movement. Biblical creationists believe in a God who spoke clearly and trufully, as in the book of Genesis.

In the 1950s (Centenary of Origin of Species) Darwin reigned totally unchallenged. In the 1960s Morris and Whitcombe released a book reviving ideas of catastrophism in geology (as opposed to Lyellian uniformitarianism). This book detailed an alternative explanation for much of the earth’s geology, including the fossil evidence, as having been the result of the flood at the time of Noah. This book was the beginning of the modern creationist movement, and it has grown from there.

Also, I don’t think the evidence lines up so neatly the way you described. To say ‘all of modern science’ is in agreement with the things you listed would be nonsense. Much debate surrounds them all. For example, the big bang cosmology is losing favour in many circles, as evidenced by this statement put out by leading astronomers, http://www.cosmologystatement.org

In line with these new cosmologies, creationists such as Humphries and Hartnett have developed some interesting theories to account for red shifts, distant starlight, and other astronomical evidence.

I have read Plimer's effort at mudslinging and slander. I would encourage all to read it but only if they are also prepared to read his critics. Anyone who compares what he said to the facts of his subject matter will see how full of hot air he is. And this is being kind. Let’s just say he’s well qualified to write a book with that title.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 5:59:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think many of us forget that Darwin described the process of evolution without the insights into the mechanism that discoveries around DNA were to later bring to the field.

The strength of that validation was extraordinary and complete.

Why then in America is there so much resistance to the idea of an evolutionary history? Might it have something to do with the patriotism expressed so energetically by that society? Could the thought that because their trust in God has enabled them to become the world's superpower then any perceived weakening of God's hand is somehow a threat to their sense of themselves and their security?

To list the things people have been willing to die for it seems it would have to be headed by family, faith, and country. These stand as the pillars of many American lives and are often so intertwined that threats to any one have direct implications for the others.

America’s unofficial anthem;

God Bless America,
Land that I love.
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.

Although written only in 1938, by 1955 the words “God bless America” had supplanted the Latin for “Out of many, one” on the currency. The patriotic fervour cranked up by the victory in WW2 and the ensuing ‘Cold War’ seems also to have strengthened the birth to the modern creationist movement.

Even the words of “The Star Spangled Banner”,

Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”

oozes the theme of God’s deliverance and protection of their country.

As fundamentalists instinctively recognise to concede any part of the bible puts the whole lot at risk so I think many Americans extend that view to include family and country. This is possibly the reason for their tenacious hold on creationism.
Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 2:37:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Csteele

According to creationists everything has a reason and a place: the world was created for man, woman was created for man and so on. This centrist type of thinking with MAN as the focal point for god’s creation is completely destroyed by the concept of evolution.

If we evolve, then may be MAN is not the ‘glory of god on earth’ may be something else can evolve that is superior to MAN. May be women weren’t created FOR men’s use.

To people whose entire identity is based on a belief that they were created by a superior deity; evolution is like a slap in the face.

They will present any argument whether or not it is rational to sustain the identity in which they believe. America was founded by religious fundamentalists and the American ideal/identity fragments into chaos if evolution is given transcendence over creationism. Evolution means that people from other countries, other cultures and races are just as valid. America thrives on a superiority complex that they believe is god-given
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 3:12:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1764

The private papers of Charles Darwin were made available online, in their entirety, by the Darwin Online project on Thursday 17 April 2008
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 12:46:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Csteele

After rereading my post I guess I sounded like I was preaching at you and I apologise. Also I do know that there are many Americans as uncomfortable with the idea of ID and Creationism as any rational person - I did live there for a while. It is just a worry that ID & Creationism is even getting any serious traction, in spite of the knowledge of our world. I find it really disturbing.

Could the same happen here in Australia? Well the fundy Christians groups here keep trying, but as Australia was founded on quite different principles, I am confident that our independent ethos will save us from becoming a complete clone of the states.

Davidf

Thanks for the link to the Darwin papers, I certainly appreciate it. However, the problem is that the people who really need to educate themselves, won't bother seriously considering his work.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 7:53:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Religious fundamentalists did not found the US. A myth has been promulgated about the Pilgrims in Massachusetts. Their spirit is found in the fundamentalists, but they were not an important voice in forming the basic law of the land. The first Thanksgiving and first English-speaking colony were both in Virginia.

The United States Constitution mentions neither God nor Christ in the preamble or in the main body. Because of the present social attitudes an atheist could not be elected president, but there is no legal prohibition.

The United States was not founded on the basis of the private religious convictions of the founders. The founders after extended discussion and debate wrote a Constitution that contained no references of any sort to religion except for the first amendment prohibiting an established religion and the banning of any religious test for office.

The Federalist Papers contains the political theory behind the US Constitution. It is no accident that the founders made only those references to religion in the Constitution. In Federalist Paper No. 10 written by Madison is the following:

"A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good."

There are five other references to religion in the papers. None of them express any particular religious views. The only concern about religion expressed by Hamilton, Madison and Jay was that its divisive powers be limited.

The Constitution was set up as a document that would be relevant for future generations. Provisions for amendments were made to add to and change those parts no longer relevant. In injecting his personal religious convictions into government acts the current president (I prefer not to name him.) has not followed the spirit of the founders.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 9:04:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To repeat

"Dan said
"Evolutionists have a philosophical base of atheism or materialism."

This is not true. It is a ill-informed slander of many fine minds.
. . .
Can't you imagine a god greater and more complex than that depicted in the old (or new) testament?"
Posted by michael2, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 2:45:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Fractelle,

Yes the finger wagging was interesting but no problems here.

I would hope that Mark Latham wasn't the last athiest contender for PM but only time will tell. You are correct in identifying the influence of religious fundamentalists and who could forget the parade at Hill Song.

I do see a rise in patriotism evidenced by growing ANZAC crowds and even the speeches made on the day. Past pronouncements have been about the futility of war now even in conservative Melbourne there is a real sense of triumphalism intruding. Marry that with the mantra of 'working families' touted by both sides and you have the three pillars I spoke about.

I'm not sure the future is as settled as you might think.
Posted by csteele, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 5:51:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What evidence is there for Noah's flood? It appears the "modern" creationist has substituted one myth for another.

There is certainly doubt about the big bang theory and no-one, evolutionist or otherwise, is in a position to say this is near being settled. Stephen Hawking recently recanted on one of his own theories of cosmological development. The basic precept of evolution however is not under dispute among archaeologists, geneticists, astronomers et al.

Is there any evidence the universe or even the planet (or even a little bit of the planet) is merely six thousand years old?
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 28 May 2008 6:35:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bennie,

The scientists who have come up with alternatives to the conventional Big Bang model, like Neil Turok with his Ekpyrotic Universe, have to explain the same evidence. They also (usually) make testable predictions, although these might have to wait for better space observatories. They are not Creationists. My point would be that modern science, from all disciplines, forms a reasonably consistent picture, although there can be disagreement about individual details and speculation around the edges. Noah's Flood was first seen to be an inadequate explanantion in the 19th century.

The Creationists try to exploit any disagreement as evidence that the whole project is somehow flawed. I will take them seriously when I see them making testable predictions and getting peer-reviewed papers published in Science, Nature, Physical Review Letters, etc. It is true that it might be difficult at first, as "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence", but they should regard this as a challenge.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 30 May 2008 10:56:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bennie,
You speak of ‘the basic precept of evolution’. I’m wondering what this might be, as the same word ‘evolution’ can mean different things in different contexts.

If by evolution, we mean the ability of living things to adapt to specific environments after favouring certain characteristics, then there’s no dispute. Everyone accepts those things which are observable, measurable, and verifiable.

If evolution means that all living things have descended from a common ancestor, then science as departed from that which has been observed, and jumped towards the realm of philosophy. This version of evolution is what is in dispute.

Michael2,
Part of the philosophy that supports the ‘goo-to-you-via-the-zoo’ type of evolution is the desire to arrive at only natural or materialist types of explanations. These must exclude the idea of a creator God a priori. I know too well that many Christians accept evolution. But to exclude God at the start of your investigation into origins is assuming, even if temporarily, an atheism by default, agreeing with them that the processes were all natural, following the innate properties of matter. Christians who say that ‘God used evolution to create’ may as well be saying that God used a method of creation in which he did not create.

You ask, can’t I imagine a god greater than that of the bible, the creator of the wonders of the heavens and the complexity of all life on planet Earth, who has kept a plan for renewing his corrupted creation, a plan with such empathy for the people he created that it included the decision to create himself as one of them and humble himself as the lowliest among them? No, something greater is difficult to imagine.

Can I ask you, when the Bible speaks of creation being restored to its perfect state, how it was in the beginning, do you think that could mean going back to the billions of years of waiting for life to appear, followed by millions of years of dog-eat-god struggle for survival waiting for the supremacy of those who rose above the weak?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 31 May 2008 6:09:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
bennie,
The evidence is often a matter of interpretation. Interpretation depends much on your perspective or what you expect to see.

If you suspected that the flood Noah’s may be historical reality, what evidence would you expect? Thick layers of sedimentary rock over much of the land’s surface; remains of plants and animals that were trapped in the sediment, often protruding through different layers of sediment; fossils of sea creatures found on the continents.

Fossils in themselves can even suggest catastrophic occurrence, as is it not easy to form a fossil in the first place. Have you ever buried a dead animal in the ground? If you dug it up a few months later, what might there be? The flesh probably rotted to nothing and possibly a skeleton, which may also disintegrate after more months. It takes special conditions to form a fossil, especially the ones we often find displaying intricate detail, for example, fish scales, etc. Mud must cover the animal, perhaps seal it away from oxygen, and harden quickly. A great flood, with the accompanying turbulence and soil movement might just be the perfect conditions to account for the evidence.

As for the age of the earth, evolution theory demands long time periods for life to evolve.

Several possible chronometers (off the top of my head) come to mind which give maximum ages of the earth much too small for evolution to occur, for example, measuring the rate of salination of the sea; the increase in distance of the moon departing the earth; the shrinkage of the earth’s magnetic field. Extrapolating these measurements backwards in time and you soon arrive at impossible situations: sea with no salt, moon close to the earth, an impossibly strong magnetic field.

Explanations must be found for incongruity. Radiometric dating methods are favoured by evolutionists as long ages result.

Consistency across dating methods (and even within one) is not found across the board. Evidence is selective, and interpretations are usually theoretically or philosophically driven. No one stood there with a stop-watch
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 31 May 2008 6:27:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Is there any evidence the universe or even the planet (or even a little bit of the planet) is merely six thousand years old?" - Bennie

No. But there is evidence, administrative priesthoods, as opposed to shamanism, began in Sumer, 6,000 B.P.

Would Hydrogen atoms be older than heavy elements, given Sol is a third generation star?
Posted by Oliver, Sunday, 1 June 2008 7:13:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

<<If evolution means that all living things have descended from a common ancestor, then science as departed from that which has been observed, and jumped towards the realm of philosophy.>>

So if something can't be observed then we disregard it completely? Based on this flawed logic, you would have to disregard many other scientific theories too, yet Creationists remain strangely silent on those...

We've observed micro-evolution, therefore given the age of the Earth (which is an irrefutable fact mind you), there is nothing to suggest that one species can't evolve into another.

If we had observed one species evolve into another, then that would be evidence against evolution. Therefore, to disregard macro-evolution based on those grounds, is illogical and would be a dangerously stupid thing to do in regards to science and progress.

<<The evidence is often a matter of interpretation. Interpretation depends much on your perspective or what you expect to see.>>

And there is no way to interpret any evidence to support Creationism other than to say: “God must've done it” - which you could apply to anything, rendering it meaningless.

<<If you suspected that the flood Noah’s may be historical reality, what evidence would you expect? Thick layers of sedimentary rock over much of the land’s surface; remains of plants and animals that were trapped in the sediment, often protruding through different layers of sediment; fossils of sea creatures found on the continents.>>

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

It is a fact that there has never been a world-wide flood. We know this from the evidence.

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

Particularly: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#implications

So no, the fossil record absolutely does not support the Flood in any way.

Why would the different layers of rock just happen to bury the more primitive and ancient life first?

Why would there be fossils of ancient deep ocean creatures at the top of Mt Everest?

<<Fossils in themselves can even suggest catastrophic occurrence, as is it not easy to form a fossil in the first place.>>

Strange to see you admit this. Especially when the whole 'Gaps-in-the-record' argument assumes that fossilisation is prevalent.

...Continued
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 2 June 2008 12:08:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Continued...

<<As for the age of the earth...>>

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.

*Ocean Salinity

This method of aging has two major problems: -

1) It assumes that the rate in which salt is added to the ocean has always been the same.

2) It doesn't take into account the processes that remove salt from the oceans.

Even still, based on this method of dating, the Earth would be hundreds of millions of years old – not thousands.

*Earth's Magnetic field

This too is based on old, incorrect data. The Earth's magnetic field varies in intensity.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

*Increasing distance of the Moon

At a rate of about 3.8cm per century, the moon would have been about 45% closer than it is now after about 4.5 billion years. But this assumes that the rate in which the Moon is increasing in distance has always been static.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

<<Explanations must be found for incongruity. Radiometric dating methods are favoured by evolutionists as long ages result.>>

No, radiometric dating is used because it is the most accurate.

<<Consistency across dating methods (and even within one) is not found across the board.>>

While they may give different readings, those differences are relatively small.

There are many different types of radiometric dating, all of which are based on different clocks and different principals, and they all point to the same magnitude of age.

<<Evidence is selective, and interpretations are usually theoretically or philosophically driven.>>

Here you go again, trying to drag scientists down to the same fundamentalist level of Creationists.

The evidence is there for all to see and review. There is no evidence at all for a worldwide flood, or a young Earth. Yet there are mountains of irrefutable evidence for an ancient Earth and evolution - nothing that contradicts them.

The only philosophically driven belief here, is the Creationist's rejection of evolution. As I mentioned above, Creationist's don't have a problem with all the other 'unobservable' scientific theories.

<<No one stood there with a stop-watch>>

No one had to.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 2 June 2008 12:09:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
I’ve just finished reading the biography of Neil Armstrong by James R. Hansen. In it he says that the moon is receding from the earth at a rate of about an inch-and-a-half per year. This is quite a bit different from the figure you quoted.

But thanks for your counter arguments.

To answer to the question at the very top of this page, “Why does the evolution-creation debate persist?” One simple answer is that there is such a lot of interesting stuff to debate.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 5 June 2008 5:43:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

MSNBC July 2007
Posted by bennie, Monday, 9 June 2008 12:23:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue, "Neil Armstrong ... says that the moon is receding from the earth at a rate of about an inch-and-a-half per year. This is quite a bit different from the figure you quoted."

AJ Philips said: "Increasing distance of the Moon. At a rate of about 3.8cm per century."

A minute of so with google shows that AJ is right. However, 3.8cm is equal to 1.5 inches. As some stage "century" got changed to "year".

Dan S de Merengue, "One simple answer is that there is such a lot of interesting stuff to debate."

I doubt most of the anti-ID brigade enjoy debating ID any more than they would enjoy debating about the existence of the tooth fairy. I'd guess most debate it only because they can't stand to see the arguments trotted out by ID go unchallenged. If you want an interesting puzzle, how about this: the minds of those preaching ID are, from an evolutionists point of view, the product of evolution themselves. How can it be that somebody who flatly denies a theory overwhelmingly supported by the evidence in favour of something little better than proposing the land is the carcass of a dream-time serpent be so dammed good at getting their progeny into the next generation?
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 7:10:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To extend upon this...

The evolution/creationism debate is not in itself interesting. What is, as the article highlightes, is that it still takes place.

The enlightenment is centuries old yet many disregard all objective evidence in favour of mythology and legend, which is OK except such positions cannot be defended in any measure, much less on a site such as this. Someone claiming to believe in the tooth fairy can easily be dismissed as deluded; that so many claim to believe in creationism makes it no more defensible.

To a large degree the US population has become disconnected from critical thought and analysis, lulled by media and hubris, by politicians and exceptionalism, to the point an alternate reality has been created. Witness the 'museum' showing dinosaurs living side by side with humans or the extraordinary success of the 'left behind' series. The self-superiority that attends American evangelicalism is breathtaking.

Fortunately Bushworld is nearing an end. This rule of the boy-king, where truth became the enemy and white became black; where science was ridiculed or simply ignored by the leadership, such as it was; where might is right, slogans substitute for thought and adults are merely children in disguise, all this will (hopefully) eventually devolve into a sense of maturity. This decade of madness is nearly over.
Posted by bennie, Tuesday, 10 June 2008 7:43:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart,
When you said, “the minds of those preaching ID are, from an evolutionist’s point of view, the product of evolution themselves,” should I presume you would also include the minds of the evolutionists?

This brings us to the question of the nature of mind and logic. If our thoughts are just random chemical impulses in the brain of an up model monkey, with progeny surviving into the future the main thing of any concern, why should anything we think, say, or write here be judged logical, true, or correct in any objective sense?

If I may, I’d like to tackle the contention that the creation/evolution issue is anything to do with America, stars and stripes, apple pie, George W B, or domineering foreign policy. Yes, creationism has a lot to do with evangelical (Bible believing) Christians. And there’s the link. America has a lot of those, but so do other countries.

The creation museum in Kentucky that Bennie mentioned was founded by Ken Ham, a Queenslander. While God’s spokesperson on earth, the Pope, seemed genuinely disappointed about the number of creationists in his home country of Germany.

Creationism is associated with a Bible believing tradition. This is funny, as countries with strong biblical traditions have also historically been those with strong scientific legacies. How peculiar!

Next year is the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of Species. I expect there will be some fanfare and a few firecrackers. But after that, Darwin will begin to sink the way of other thinkers of his contemporary, such as Marx and Freud.

The evidence is not stacking up. It’s taking the simple minded Christian, with the childlike clarity of vision, to point out that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 11 June 2008 11:52:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whereas the evidence FOR creationism is...?
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 12 June 2008 10:20:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan it's time you came clean with your evidence on creationism. While you're prepared to throw stones at scientific theory you're not prepared to proffer any rational explanations in support of your fantasies. I'm curious which evidence does not 'stack up'. Tell me more.

The church doesn't teach it; society doesn't support it; science has debunked it. The only proponents of creationism are fundies & fringedwellers, of which America has plenty. Are you one?
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 12 June 2008 11:41:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

<<This brings us to the question of the nature of mind and logic. If our thoughts are just random chemical impulses in the brain of an up model monkey...>>

But our thoughts aren't “random chemical impulses”. Who said they were?

If you're trying to imply that evolution is a completely random process, like the Creationist fallacy about the chances of a 747 being randomly assembled by a cyclone passing through a junkyard, then you need to educate yourself a bit more as you are debating a topic on something you know nothing about.

Therefore the question you pose is inconsequential.

In the previous thread, I posted you a link that explained just how incorrect this fallacy is. In fact, all the links that I had posted, together, debunked Creationism conclusively. I suggest you go back and actually check them out before you continue to embarrass yourself any further.

<<If I may, I’d like to tackle the contention that the creation/evolution issue is anything to do with America...>>

Of course! There are people who delude themselves all over the world. America just gets special mention because unlike third-world countries, and just like their fellow Western countries, they should know better.

By the way, the Creation Museum is not a museum. It is an animatronics display stating absolutely no scientific facts or evidence whatsoever. Even Christians protested against it. It was a monumental waste of money that could have gone to much better and charitable use.

This so-called “museum” talks about “Super-evolution” - a way of trying to get around the fact that it would have been impossible to fit two of every animal on Noah's ark. This unscientific absurdity implys that 10,000 species “Super-evolved” into 1,000,000 in the space a couple of hundred years after The Flood!

This would mean that evolution had to happen at about 10 times the rate that it does, and that a speciation event occurred every 4 hours!

To be consistent though, the Creationists say that this happened without beneficial mutations or increases of information in the animals DNA.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 12 June 2008 8:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

No, God had endowed them with the ability to evolve quickly.

It appears that God isn't very smart though. I mean, why would he create more work for both himself and Noah with the whole flood, when he could simply snap his fingers and start over?

It is the many little illogical points like this that demonstrate that the Bible and Creationism are utter rubbish.

<<...countries with strong biblical traditions have also historically been those with strong scientific legacies. How peculiar!>>

Not peculiar at all. To try and link the two so strongly is precarious at best.

The parts of the world that chose to take on Christianity were already well positioned to develop into the scientifically strong nations.

Considering how many other factors are involved, we can't know that the same nations wouldn't have been as scientifically strong had Constantine, adopted the Qur'an.

Either way, considering that Creationism has been conclusively debunked in it's entirety, your point is meaningless.

<<I expect there will be some fanfare and a few firecrackers. But after that, Darwin will begin to sink the way of other thinkers of his contemporary, such as Marx and Freud.>>

Why would there be any sort of fanfare?

The study of evolution isn't a religion or a following. It's merely a field of scientific study.

<<The evidence is not stacking up.>>

Like Bennie asked, how is it not stacking up?

The evidence for evolution is irrefutable - there is absolutely nothing that contradicts it. It all fits together perfectly.

<<It’s taking the simple minded Christian, with the childlike clarity of vision, to point out that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.>>

Errr... no. The “simple-minded Christians” are doing nothing more than making fools of themselves.

Again, Creationism has been completely and conclusively debunked. The fact that there is a minuscule fraction of Creationist scientists means nothing considering they are merely repeating misconceptions that have been dis-proven time-and-time again.

There is no serious debate out there. Just a few loopy fanatics trying to create a sense of confusion in order to justify their delusion.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 12 June 2008 8:17:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips (or perhaps rstuart),
You say our thoughts are not the brain’s random chemical impulses, without saying what they are. Do you have an opinion on what they are?

Bennie,
You ask if I’m an American? No. The closest I’ve been to America is England (going one way) or New Zealand (going the other).

You said about creationism:

“The church doesn't teach it”.
It does. It’s on page one of the manual. The Pope doesn’t go for it but many others in the Catholic Church do. Currently, the stronger, healthier sections of the church which are growing also do.

“Society doesn’t support it”
Well, the media certainly doesn’t support it. Despite the near blanket ban for the creationist point of view from much of the media, and evolution being nearly unchallengeable in education curricula, surprisingly, surveys indicate that much of the public remains unconvinced over evolution’s claims.

“Science has debunked it”
I didn’t hear when and where this happened. It would be news to the tens of thousands of practicing scientists around the world who view the creation model as the more useful for explaining origins.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 14 June 2008 8:27:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What evolutionary evidence does not stack up?

So far on this thread, there’s been precious little evidence put forward to discuss. That’s understandable, as the original article was more discussing the moral and social implications. Yet the author, Ruse, (and many other posters) were allowed to make grand sweeping statements such as, “organisms evolved slowly through the process of natural selection,” without being challenged to substantiate them in any way. At least I offered something (on May 31) with regard to the evidence we should expect to see if there was a great flood, compared to what we do see.

Nevertheless, I’m glad you asked.

The intermediatory linking fossil evidence is still missing, despite daily fossil finds over many decades.

An explanation into the origin of a possible first living cell is a total conundrum, despite everything we know concerning chemistry saying that the elements will never arrange themselves in that manner. Pasteur’s law of biogenesis says that life only comes from life. Life forms are never seen to spring into existence. The food preservation (canning) industry depends on this well established, observable fact.

Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome, such that that might bring about new and useful functioning systems, which should be a regular occurrence if the theory be true.

However, I doubt that this is really the forum to debate these things with the necessary detail required.

If you’re looking for these evidences and arguments in more detail, I would recommend this website www.creationontheweb.com

Please note, this site is an Australian based site; not from ‘loopy’ America. Most of the contributors are holders of PhDs in their disciplines. People may call them fundies and fringe dwellers, fanatics trying to support a fantasy, but they are really not that bad.

The main contributor is a former New Zealand chess champion. Now I know chess is thought to be a bid nerdy, but that doesn’t make him a fringe dweller.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 14 June 2008 8:41:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thankyou for the link Dan. I'm getting a better idea of where you're coming from.

"The key thing to realize is that the whole of science operates within a paradigm...essentially assumed to be true. Basically the paradigm is a concept, a big idea."

Nothing more to add, really.
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 14 June 2008 3:26:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

<<You say our thoughts are not the brain’s random chemical impulses, without saying what they are. Do you have an opinion on what they are?>>

Not entirely sure what you're asking here. Very little is know about the brain. And if we resort the the "God must've done it" argument, then we're no better than the primitive people who wrote the book of Genesis - and look how foolish they seem now.

I was more focusing on the word “random”, because it sounded like you were implying that our brain's chemical impulses were entirely random. And I know how much Creationists love the word “random” to mis-represent evolution.

<<Well, the media certainly doesn’t support it.>>

That's because there's no evidence for it. The “evidence” you provided is not evidence, they are misconceptions about evolution uncertainties about abiogenesis – not to mention the twisting of the meaning of Pasteur's law.

It is a fallacy to assume that there are only two possibilities, and that therefore, if there is something about evolution/abiogenesis that has not yet been fully explained, then it must prove Creationism.

<<It would be news to the tens of thousands of practicing scientists around the world who view the creation model as the more useful for explaining origins.>>

These scientists will openly admit that they disregard any data that contradicts their religious beliefs. Yet normal scientists don't need to disregard anything. Everything in existence supports evolution.

<<Yet the author, Ruse, (and many other posters) were allowed to make grand sweeping statements such as, “organisms evolved slowly through the process of natural selection,” without being challenged to substantiate them in any way.>>

Why would they need to repeat any of the evidence? You can check the it for yourself if you'd like... But that would be too confronting now, wouldn't it?

<<At least I offered something (on May 31) with regard to the evidence we should expect to see if there was a great flood, compared to what we do see.>>

Yes, and if you'd read the links I posted, you would see that you were actually wrong.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 15 June 2008 12:53:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<The intermediatory linking fossil evidence is still missing, despite daily fossil finds over many decades.>>

But hang on, you said earlier that fossilisation was rare. You can't have it both ways.

There are plenty of intermediatory linking fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC

If fossilisation was so prevalent though, then why don't we see fossils of the animals migrating from Noah's ark?

<<Pasteur’s law of biogenesis says that life only comes from life.>>

No .Pasture's law debunked the Spontaneous Generation's idea that mice and maggots can appear fully formed. There is no law of biogenesis that says that very primitive life cannot come from increasingly complex molecules.

<<Life forms are never seen to spring into existence. The food preservation (canning) industry depends on this well established, observable fact.>>

No. The food preservation industry relies on the fact that packaging doesn't contain the right conditions for life to start.

Not only are conditions completely different on Earth now, but any new life forms that would come into existence would soon be swallowed-up by more complex organisms.

Just because abiogenesis hasn't been seen, it doesn't make the argument against it “observable” - that would be a contradiction in itself.

<<Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome, such that that might bring about new and useful functioning systems, which should be a regular occurrence if the theory be true.>>

Again, debunked and entirely incorrect. Mutations have been seen to add information to the gnome plenty of times:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB

Interesting that Creationists continue to state this without ever really defining “information”.

As for http://www.creationontheweb.com, well, you can debunk every point the "Refuting Evolution" section has to say with simple Google searches!

Give it a go... it's fun!
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 15 June 2008 12:53:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue, "Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome".

That is no longer true. We have been able to see real, live organisms evolve for some time, but only in incremental steps, as Dan says. As of this month, we can confidently say we have seen a step that isn't incremental, if incremental means just doing the same thing better:

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 15 June 2008 2:04:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
Thanks for responding with some astute phrases – but also some clangers.

You say something like, “Everything in existence supports evolution,” which compares in every way to the universal stop gap phrase, ‘God must have done it,’ (something I never said). But I’d agree that such phrases don’t add much to reasoned debate.

Please don’t put words in my mouth – I never said that fossils were rare. I said they were difficult to form, as in the phrase, ‘raising kids these days is difficult’ (though not rare).

Highlighting the difference between these words helps to magnify the point I was making. I said that to form a fossil requires special conditions. That there are so many fossils found all over the world is possibly an indication of an unusual occurrence. A universal flood is a good explanation for the evidence found.

The following statement was curious, “The media doesn’t support it [creation]. That’s because there’s no evidence for it.” This implies that you have confidence that the media are a competent, fair, and honest judge of scientific merit!?!

Here’s a peculiar one, “The food preservation industry relies on the fact that packaging doesn't contain the right conditions for life to start.” So someone out there knows what are the right conditions for life to start? Then they need to inform those who are urgently searching for just such conditions, those that might create a living cell from non-living matter. They would easily get a Nobel Prize.

In fact, inside a can of food, with all the nutrients and proteins contained in a casing which would allow heat and other energy to pass through, is probably about the optimum conditions for life to spring into existence by itself, if it was ever going to happen. However, it never has or will.

Actually, thanks for picking me up on my slip in saying an occurrence that no one has seen (life springing into existence from non-living matter) is observable. I should have said its non-occurrence is well attested.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 11:42:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
If I may discuss with you an aspect of logic, that is, the law of the excluded middle. In some cases only two options are available. Such as when your mother yells, ‘Can you check if your father is in the bathroom,’ there are only two possibilities: He’s either in there or he’s not. So evidence against one is positive evidence for the other.

For the question, who or what is responsible for the origin of life on this planet, the laws of matter and energy, or a higher being beyond the natural laws? Most would answer it is either one or the other, and it would then be appropriate to apply the law of the excluded middle.

rstuart,
Regarding mutations, I think I will stick with my original comment for the moment.

Occasionally, mutations can aid in the continued existence of an organism. Creationists are well aware of the durability and adaptive qualities of living organisms, but say that any changes are kept within limits by the genome.

In all cases, mutations cause corruption or degradation of the genes. This is likely the case in that experiment from the United States that you raise.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

AJ says we firstly need to define information.

Information – a characteristic or quality that stands for, expresses, or tells about one group of things instead of others. Genes can be described as a blueprint for the design and function of living things, and are written in a coded sequence in the DNA.

Information, in our experience, implies intelligence. A code is transmitted which is understood by both the sender and recipient. This is the basis of the SETI project, with its telescopes listening for evidence of intelligent ET life in outer space.

So, in summary, the coded information contained within DNA is a pointer to a designer. For our experience tells us that information implies intelligence. Also, as in my previous post, our repeated experience reveals that life only ever proceeds from life, which implies that something living must be at the cause.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 11:51:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue: "Occasionally, mutations can aid in the continued existence of an organism."

That's quite an admission. So I take it you agree evolution on that scale can and does occur?

Dan S de Merengue: "any changes are kept within limits by the genome."

So how does cancer come about then? Or are you saying only good changes are kept within limits, all the bad ones are allowed to run awry.

Regarding your link, is "Dan S de Merengue" actually "Dr Don Batten"? If so that explains why it took you a while to respond. You had to go out and research it.

Dan S de Merengue: "In all cases, mutations cause corruption or degradation of the genes."

One organisms corruption is an others innovation. This citrate adaption is a case in point: if it worked well for E. Coli in their natural environment they would already be doing it, since they don't I presume it was just a "corruption" to them. But it wasn't in the new environment Lenski created.

Your argument seems to hinge on saying "mutations can never create something new" - where you get to define what "new" is. I guess now that you acknowledge spontaneous change does occur, and that natural selection does ensure good changes are kept and bad ones are discarded you had to find refuge in a new argument. You are going to have to work pretty hard to convince me (and I think most people), that this new argument isn't just playing with words. You could start by defining when different DNA is or is not "new", so you can't just keep changing the definition.

Regarding your link: I can't comment. I am not a microbiologist and besides we don't know precisely what happened - just that the results were spectacular. The link did loose a lot of credibility in my eyes when it suggested that somehow the research implied E.Coli was about to turn into a crocodile.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 11:03:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

I acknowledge that you personally have never said “God Must've done it” (I was referring to the many other examples such as the assertions made at the Creation “Museum”), the two phrases “Everything in existence supports evolution” and “God must have done it” aren't on par, my statement can be verified, whereas “God must've done it” is lazy logic that can be applied to anything.

<<I never said that fossils were rare.>>

I know. Note that I used the word “fossilisation”... and you would be correct too. So again, you can't have it both ways.

<<A universal flood is a good explanation for the evidence found.>>

Absolutely not.

And if you'd actually read the links I provide then you could save yourself the embarrassment of repeating this falsehood.

Here's a link that explains why the fossil record is most certainly not the result of a universal flood (a sub-section of one of my previous links):

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html#georecord

<<This implies that you have confidence that the media are a competent, fair, and honest judge of scientific merit!?!>>

But again, everything supports evolution – nothing supports Creationism. If you'd bother to look at both sides, then you'd see this.

<<Here’s a peculiar one, “The food preservation industry relies on the fact that packaging doesn't contain the right conditions for life to start.”>>

Well, not even that actually.

The food preservation industry is only concerned with existing bacteria and minimising it – not new lifeforms.

<<In fact, inside a can of food, ... is probably about the optimum conditions for life to spring into existence by itself, if it was ever going to happen.>>

Maybe if you left it sit there for a few million years or so. By then though, not only would there be nothing left of it, but it would be well and truly past it's 'use by' date anyway.

So your original point about the food packaging industry was incorrect to begin with.

Either way, even if new life did form in food packaging, it would be so primitive that it would be defenseless against our immune systems.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 9:54:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<...its [abiogenesis's] non-occurrence is well attested.>>

Not really. We can't have the entire planet under a microscope. And like I said before, any new life would soon be swallowed up by more complex life.

In regards to the 'Law of the Excluded Middle'...

Yes, if you look at it as simply spiritual or physical, but what if both have multiple possibilities?

What if we've been 'barking up the wrong tree' with evolution and there is another explanation that we haven't found?

What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster made everything and we're all going to hell for not worshiping him?

As far fetched as the above sound, all I'm saying, is that even if Creationists disproved evolution, it wouldn't prove the Bible to be literally correct – a huge leap of faith would still be required for that. After all, considering the Bible's murky origins, it takes a huge leap of faith to believe that a God dictated the bible to it's authors.

To extend on what rstuart said... There is no known 'mechanism' or reason to believe that the E-coli in Lenski's experiment couldn't evolve into far more complex life given the right conditions and millions of years.

This is where Creationists become unstuck. They don't know why evolution has boundaries, they just know it does. Yet there is nothing to suggest any such boundaries, so they rely on the completely debunkable "young Earth" theory.

<<In all cases, mutations cause corruption...>>

Absolutely not. In fact, this has been debunked so many times it's amazing that Creationists still repeat it!

Again... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB

I concur with rstuart, the 'crocodiles' comment was poor form and came off a little panicky.

For me though, the article was ruined from the beginning with the use of the term “neo-Darwinism”. You can no more have a “Darwinist” than you can have a “Newtonist” or an “Einsteinian”.

Then this...

“This was an appropriate expectation for one who believes in evolution.”

Belief in evolution is not required, as a 'belief' in something requires a leap of faith. One need only accept evolution as it is backed evidence.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 18 June 2008 9:55:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart,
You ask if I’m Don Batten? No, but I can say that I’ve met him a few years ago, and found him an amiable chap. So I’m happy that you might lump us together. Although his scientific resume and his writing ability would eat mine for breakfast.

Regarding the timing of the posts commenting on the Lenski experiment, Batten posted his http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827 on Saturday, the day before yours, and (by chance) I read his before reading yours.

Regarding creationists ‘finding refuge in a new argument’, I would say it is the right of the scientist, even the obligation, to refine their model as new evidence comes to light. This is normal. However, I don’t think that’s what’s happening here.

Creationists haven’t changed (or needed to change) their position on ‘beneficial mutations’ for decades.

Well known creationist, Carl Weiland, in his basic introductory booklet on creationism, Stones and Bones, written in 1994 for the layperson, said, “There are in fact a tiny handful of mutations known which make it easier for an organism to survive in a given environment.” This is in comparison to the overwhelming numbers of mutations which are either harmful or just meaningless genetic ‘noise’.

One example he sites of a beneficial mutation is the beetle living on a windy rock that lost the ability to make wings. They survived better as they weren’t been blown into the sea when attempting to fly. But this was a corruption of the genetic information to make wings, thus a loss of information.

Weiland asks, “Where do we see any example of real upward increases of information – new coding for new functions, new machine programs, new useful structures?”

Pointing to the Lenski experiment isn’t going to help solve the evolutionist’s problem. And I don’t think it is a question of playing with the definitions of ‘new’ and ‘genetic information’. In Dr Batten’s post, he explains his definitions tightly in terms of faults and loss of specificity in previously operating functions.

The limits from mutational possibilities are helped made evident by Lenski’s and other experiments.

… (continued)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 22 June 2008 4:25:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
With regard to mutations which may induce harmful diseases, natural selection does have a role in their elimination (by selecting the strong rather than the weak). Though Weiland notes that these genetic defects “… are not usually eliminated by natural selection, since most only show up as a problem if they are inherited simultaneously from both parents. Thus one can ‘carry’ these defects without suffering them – in fact, all of us carry many such mistakes in our DNA” CW, 1994.

AJ,
Your phrase, “lazy logic that can be applied to anything” is well applicable to your comment “everything in existence supports evolution”. Can this be applied to anything? In fact, you apply it to everything. And you used the phrase again later on.

Can anyone possibly know everything? It’s like saying, “God told me X.” Well, if God told you that, then how can anyone argue? Similarly, if “everything in existence supports evolution”, I don’t where any reasoned discussion could go after that.

Continuing to claim this kind of absolute knowledge will only make it harder for you to deny the accusation that evolution tends towards a religious belief, and is ultimately a faith position.

My comment, “In all cases, mutations cause corruption...” was problematic. As Rstuart also pointed out, the statement is vague and loose. This is further evidence that I’m not Dr Batten, who wouldn’t make such a loose comment. Mostly mutations are neutral, creating genetic ‘noise’. The harmful mutations are plentiful. And the tiny number of those that could be described as beneficial, I’ve spoken of above.

Dr Batten’s hyperbolic ‘crocodile’ comment was well used, and to good effect. If I claimed I could crawl from Perth to Sydney, the first thing I would have to demonstrate is my ability to crawl from my starting point onto the path. Batten did not say that the E Coli was about to turn into a crocodile, but that the experiments show it had not even found the path.

Science fails to demonstrate or validate any pathway for molecules-to-man evolution (except to the satisfaction of true believers).
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 22 June 2008 4:29:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

<<Your phrase, “lazy logic that can be applied to anything” is well applicable to your comment “everything in existence supports evolution”.>>

No, it's not. Again, my statement can be verified and falsified.

Why am I having to repeat myself so often? The fact that I am is a good sign of how much religious belief can act as a 'blockage' logic and reason.

<<Can anyone possibly know everything?>>

Okay. I'll rephrase it: Everything in existence, that we know of, supports evolution.

<<It’s like saying, “God told me X.” Well, if God told you that, then how can anyone argue?>>

Because you can't disprove “God told me X”. Whereas, my statement could be disproven providing the evidence against it was found.

<<Similarly, if “everything in existence supports evolution”, I don’t where any reasoned discussion could go after that.>>

You could find something that countered the statement.

<<Continuing to claim this kind of absolute knowledge will only make it harder for you to deny the accusation that evolution tends towards a religious belief, and is ultimately a faith position.>>

Not at all.

Faith isn't required to accept evolution. You will never be able to equate the acceptance of evolution with the belief in a deity, no matter how hard you try. No reasoned discussion can occur until you're able to grasp this very simple concept.

And besides, I've never claimed absolute knowledge. All I'm saying is that everything in existence (that we know of) supports evolution to some degree or another - nothing contradicts it (at best you might be able find data that remains neutral). All the data fits together perfectly like a puzzle. Trying to argue against evolution is akin to putting together much of a puzzle, then breaking it apart and saying: “No, no. That's not how it goes.”

<<And the tiny number of those that could be described as beneficial, I’ve spoken of above.>>

Yes, and beneficial and inheritable changes over millions of years makes evolution entirely plausible.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 22 June 2008 1:55:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<Batten did not say that the E Coli was about to turn into a crocodile, but that the experiments show it had not even found the path.>>

Yes, I understand that. But it was still a poor comment considering there's nothing to suggest that the E-coli couldn't become a far more complex life form given millions of years and the right conditions.

The fact that we haven't observed this means nothing considering that it would actually be evidence against evolution if we had.

So again, it was incredibly poor form for a scientist (even if he is just a pseudo-scientist) to make such a statement.

<<Science fails to demonstrate or validate any pathway for molecules-to-man evolution.>>

This comment would have been a little more accurate if you had added the words “definitively and conclusively” at the end of it. As it stands, this statement is a gross exaggeration at best.

Either way, you could make statements like this about many scientific theories, but it would hardly be a reason to abandon or deny any of those now, would it?

Without even saying it, you're implying that we then conclude that 'God must've done it'. This would be scientifically irresponsible considering the biological knowledge we now have because of the study of evolution.

<<(except to the satisfaction of true believers)>>

Again, 'belief in' evolution isn't necessary as the evidence supports it. So much so that if a God did dictate the Bible to it's authors, he most certainly didn't speak truthfully or clearly as you believe.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 22 June 2008 1:55:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
Perhaps you are able to reveal what scientific qualifications you possess, qualifications enough to tag Dr Batten a pseudo-scientist?

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/582
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 24 June 2008 10:24:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue: "Dr Batten a pseudo-scientist?"

Dr Batten holds qualifications in agriculture. Maybe he does science in agriculture - I have not looked. In any case he does not do science in evolution, and any related area. Creationism is not science. It is religious belief dressed up a science. All its adherents hold strong religious views, and for some reason are given to perpetuating this fraud. I find this behaviour perplexing as they are mostly Christians, yet this strikes me as a rather unchristian thing to do.

Science has a very real purpose, and is useful only to the extent that it fulfils that purpose. The purpose is simple: to predict the future. It does this by creating a model of reality. For example, the model might be that if you give a dog a bone he will wag his tail, or it might be that an event moves through 4 dimensional space time at a constant speed: the speed of light. In any case, if we want to make the dog wag his tail, or we want to know if our father will end up younger than us if he goes on a space trip, we apply the model.

Evolution is one such model, and it does make predictions. Like all models its predictions aren't perfect, but they are good enough to be useful. For example Lenski predicted that his E.Coli would breed faster after a few generations. They did.

Creationism explains everything, but predicts nothing. Thus it is not useful to us like science is, yet it seeks to undermine scientific models that do successfully predict things. Why would you want to do this?

If Batten is a scientist, then he applies rigorous scientific principles to his field of work. He ruthlessly tests the predictions made by his models against reality, keeping those that work and discarding the rest - regardless of what he religious beliefs might be. If he doesn't do this but still claims to be a scientist he is at best deceiving himself, at worst a fraud - deliberating trying to deceive everyone.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 25 June 2008 11:32:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart,
You raise some thought provoking questions: Who qualifies as a real scientist? What is the purpose of science? Are creationists truly engaged in useful scientific endeavour? However, your accusations of unethical behaviour ought not pass without a defence.

Who is a real scientist? Firstly, let’s remember that large Australian governmental learning institutions don’t issue Doctor of Philosophy degrees just for fun. Dr Batten’s training and experience in the agricultural industry qualify him well to comment on matters of mutations and the limits on variations possible in living things.

What is the purpose of science? Science is the search for truth, or possibly a tool in that search. If not, then I’ll happily give the game away.

The role of creationists? Creationists investigate origins. As forensic scientists investigate recent events, archaeologists investigate past eras, likewise creationists aim to piece together the evidence to arrive at a picture of mankind’s origins.

Like evolutionists, creationists create models (which aren’t perfect), and like the evolutionists, they make their predictions.

Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record was incomplete and a weakness in his argument. Scientists of his era predicted that the intermediatory fossils would be found. They weren’t. The overall picture of the fossil record is not a lot different to that in Darwin’s time.

The creationist, Louis Pasteur, demonstrated that life does not spontaneously generate, but rather that maggots appearing on meat were the result of contamination by microbes. Pasteur predicted that life would never be seen to spontaneously appear (as evolutionists claim it once did). His prediction is not only thus far true but useful to the food industry.

In recent decades, creationists have predicted that mutation will never be seen to add useful genetic information to the genome.

Regarding alleged ‘unchristian’ conduct, Christian ethics is defined by the teachings of Christ and the Bible. According to numerous Biblical references, Jesus often quoted from Genesis, believing those accounts to be real and historical. The apostle Paul spoke of the creator God when he debated the various philosophers in Athens (Acts 17). Creationists are indeed following these Christian examples.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 28 June 2008 3:31:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

I don't have any formal scientific qualifications. But you don't need to be a scientist to understand scientific method and recognise when someone's debauching it.

Creationism is a religious belief and nothing more. Whereas evolution adheres to the definition of “science”. The ill-informed and convenient argument from Creationists, that macroevolution is not repeatable is a furphy – not to mention hypocritical.

A theory doesn't need to be repeatable to be considered scientific – just as a court of law doesn't need a criminal to carry out his crime again, in front of the jury, to be proven guilty. Evidence is all that is needed. The evidence is validated, and if the pieces don't fit, it is eventually abandoned.

<<Dr Batten’s training and experience in the agricultural industry qualify him well to comment on matters of mutations and the limits on variations possible in living things.>>

Yes, they do.

Which goes to show just how dishonest his article was.

If Dr Batten knows anything about mutations then he knows that evolution is an entirely plausible theory. Again, Creationist “scientists” simply discard that which does not support their religious beliefs – not very scientific, is it?

You need to learn how to recognise when someone's speaking from their qualifications, and when they're speaking from their religious beliefs. There's a huge difference.

<<...creationists aim to piece together the evidence to arrive at a picture of mankind’s origins.>>

Then they're doing a horrible job of it considering biology, astronomy, geography and archeology conclusively disprove the literal interpretation of Genesis.

<<...and like the evolutionists, they make their predictions.>>

No they don't.

They spend their time trying to disprove certain aspects of certain fields of science, and twisting and over-simplifying the facts to support their religious beliefs.

<<Scientists of his era predicted that the intermediatory fossils would be found. They weren’t.>>

Wrong.

There are many intermediatory fossils. I've already explained this to you and provided a link to some examples. Repeating a falsehood is not going to make it true.

But thank you for demonstrating that Creationists simply discard information they don't agree with.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 28 June 2008 9:36:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<The overall picture of the fossil record is not a lot different to that in Darwin’s time.>>

Wrong again.

There have been many fossil discoveries that help fill the gaps. But like you said earlier, fossilisation is not exactly common. Finding them is even rarer.

<<The creationist, Louis Pasteur...>>

I like the way you've add “The Creationist”. This is a common attempt to give Creationism some undue prestige.

Two points:

1. Pasteur accepted evolution. He was just a little skeptical of some aspects of it.

2. Even if Pasteur didn't accept evolution, it would be meaningless considering how little we knew back then compared to now.

<<Pasteur predicted that life would never be seen to spontaneously appear (as evolutionists claim it once did).>>

Two points:

1. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. Evolution explains how existing life evolves.

2. No scientist claims that life spontaneously appeared. You are either far too uneducated to be commenting, or just plain dishonest.

So no, this isn't an example of Creationists making predictions.

<<In recent decades, creationists have predicted that mutation will never be seen to add useful genetic information to the genome.>>

This prediction is based on religious belief, so it hardly qualifies as a scientific. But it's a good reason to label them as “pseudo-scientists”.

Too bad it turned out they were wrong anyway.

<<...Jesus often quoted from Genesis, believing those accounts to be real and historical.>>

But we can't know for sure that the alleged Jesus even existed. Even if he did, then of course he would have believed Genesis, being a Jew and living in times where they didn't know any better.

That he claimed to be the son of God is something that you have to have faith in. There are no reliable sources that say he said any such thing... and no, the Bible is certainly not a reliable source.

<<Creationists are indeed following these Christian examples.>>

If you'd bother to look any further than Creationism, you'd see how deliberately dishonest Creationist “scientists” are.

Hardly a Christian way to behave.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 28 June 2008 9:36:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue. I see I have come dangerously close to casting aspersions on Batten's abilities in whatever work he does. My point was merely that if Batten is a scientist there are standards I expect all scientists to uphold. They must continue uphold those standards regardless of whatever University awards they have been conferred on them in the past.

If Batten had devoted a lifetimes work and reputation to studying microbiological evolution then I might subject his words to less scrutiny than others - perhaps accepting at face value statements he makes that I don't have the time or expertise check. You understand comments about E.Coli evolving into crocodiles in our lifetime in a flask wreck any chance of this happening - yes? As it stands now, I subject Battens statements to the same scrutiny as AJ Phillips or yours - any that can't be verified are treated with scepticism.

Regarding the definition of science: I find myself bridling at yourself "search for truth" definition. But whatever. I suspect we both happily accept Poppers definition of what science is, and possibly even on some of the reasons for doing it.

Dan S de Merengue: "In recent decades, creationists have predicted that mutation will never be seen to add useful genetic information to the genome."

As I said earlier, this statement is meaningless without a concrete definition of "useful". And you continually mention Louis Pasteur. I thought AJ Phillips addressed that in convincing manner earlier. Surely you have more examples in your repertoire?

Your statement "The overall picture of the fossil record is not a lot different to that in Darwin’s time." is bordering on the absurd. Prior to Darwin's time fossil's were just bones of odd dead animals. It was Darwin who caused us to look at them in a new way - as a history of life. In "Darwin's time" the overall picture was just the acorn he planted, not the oak it has grown into now.
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 29 June 2008 11:03:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart,

I hope you're in this for the long-haul! It's been said before that debating Dan is like playing tennis with a brick wall.

You'll have to repeat yourself over-and-over again, but it's fun debunking what he regurgitates from Creationist sources... I certainly enjoy it!

Rest assured though, in the next thread, Dan will be back to repeat the same falsehoods, misconceptions, half-truths, fallacies and over-simplifications that you've already shown to be false.

Dan,

A few points I wasn't able to fit in the last two posts...

<<...creationists aim to piece together the evidence to arrive at a picture of mankind’s origins.>>

This isn't scientific. Science is analysing data to make discoveries and learn more – not selectively choosing data to fit a conclusion.

<<Pasteur predicted that life would never be seen to spontaneously appear...>>

A third point: Not only have scientists never claimed that new life spontaneously appeared out of nowhere, but Pasteur's prediction was that mice and maggots don't appear fully formed. He said nothing of abiogenesis. In fact, he didn't even really say too much about evolution either. Although Creationists like to make-out that he did.

<<Creationists are indeed following these Christian examples.>>

Then they forgot one of the ten commandments...

"Thou shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbour."

So why the quote mining?

Remember, 'quote mining' isn't just selectively picking quotes. It's taking quotes out-of-context and twisting their meaning with the intent of making it look like scientists are questioning evolution, or to create a sense of confusion that simply isn't there.

Many classic examples of quote mining can be found at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

As you would be aware, this commandment also includes 'lying'.

So why the dishonesty in Batten's article? If he knows anything about mutations then he knows full well that there is no “edge of evolution”. This blatant dishonesty comes not from evidence but from his religious beliefs.

This is a good example of the squirming Creationists do when more evidence against Creationism comes to light. The 'young Earth' theory is unmistakably false, so they have to invent an “edge” for evolution.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 30 June 2008 12:31:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

Some more blatant examples of lying can be seen all through your posts. My favorites were...

“...tens of thousands of practicing scientists around the world who view the creation model as the more useful for explaining origins.”

- How can they possibly view it as more "useful" when it is scientifically "useless"?

“The intermediatory linking fossil evidence is still missing...”

“An explanation into the origin of a possible first living cell is a total conundrum, despite everything we know concerning chemistry saying that the elements will never arrange themselves in that manner.”

“Pasteur’s law of biogenesis says that life only comes from life.”

“Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome, such that that might bring about new and useful functioning systems...”

- Regardless of how you define “information” or “useful”, this is totally incorrect.

“A universal flood is a good explanation for the [fossil] evidence found.”

“The limits from mutational possibilities are helped made evident by Lenski’s and other experiments.”

"Scientists of his era predicted that the intermediatory fossils would be found. They weren’t."

"The overall picture of the fossil record is not a lot different to that in Darwin’s time."

“His [Pasteur's] prediction is not only thus far true but useful to the food industry.”

Then the most blatant one of all...

“(as evolutionists claim it [life] once did [spontaneously appear])”

I'm not accusing you of DELIBERATELY lying though. You are merely a 'casualty' in the dishonesty of Creationist “scientists” and the dogma of religion. The ones who really have to live with their dishonesty are those who peddle these falsehoods (yet know better) to the uneducated and to those who would already agree anyway... Those who I think we can now safely label “Pseudo-scientists”.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 30 June 2008 12:31:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips: "I hope you're in this for the long-haul!"

No, probably not AJ. I am more interested in figuring out what drives Dan. Once I have done that I will probably go away. I did answer truthfully for myself anyway when I said earlier "I doubt most of the anti-ID brigade enjoy debating ID any more than they would enjoy debating about the existence of the tooth fairy".

It may turn out that my interest in Dan also ends that way: ie, his antics end up seeming about as interesting as watching a fly repeatedly and instinctively bash into a window, never seeming to be able to acknowledge its existence.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 30 June 2008 12:11:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘A fly repeatedly bashing into a window!’ With that air of futility, I’ll venture a summary.

If the idea of man’s evolution from lower life forms and lifeless chemicals is to be based on anything more than philosophical grounds, then we would expect clear evidence substantiating all major steps along that evolutionary pathway.

So where is the physical evidence we can point to?

The first major hurdle is to explain the arrival of the first living cell. Chemistry demonstrates that non-living chemicals never organise themselves in that manner. Chance over long ages (AJ,18/6) cannot achieve what chemistry shows is impossible. Sidestepping the problem by saying it’s ‘nothing to do with evolution’ (AJ,28/6), or appealing to some vague distant past where conditions on earth may have been different (AJ,15/6), does not put anything on the evidence shelf. The cupboard is still bare.

Next mystery, the volumes of information in the genome of higher animals, necessary to structure, eyes, bones, nerves, etc. Evolutionists can only attribute the addition of such genetic material to mutations. The problem is that we never observe mutations adding useful genetic material to a genome. (Note: science = observation, as opposed to musings and ideas alone).

The excitement surrounding the Lenski experiments highlights how desperate evolutionists are to point to any evidence that might help validate their philosophy. Yet, as described above, the genes in these bacteria had lost specificity, i.e. were unable to perform a function they previously completed. That’s a downhill falter, not uphill evolution.

(Rstuart,29/6) If the lack of intermediary fossils wasn’t an issue for Darwin, why did he describe it ‘the most obvious and serious objection’ against his theory? Since then a few disputed candidates have been found to help “fill the gaps”, but many are now resigned to the “missing links” never being found. With even those like AJ giving reasons for fossil rarity (28/6), you know there’s not much evidence to point to.

Lastly AJ (28/6), repeatability is indeed a vital part of the scientific method. That any theory of history cannot be repeated is why this debate will never end.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 5 July 2008 6:32:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart,
You say you’re interested in “what drives Dan.” So I’ll try and explain my motivations.

I enjoy participating on OLO. Since it’s usually never censored, and such freedom is not usually abused, it’s one way of interacting with real people and hearing some real opinions. By contrast, in newspapers or most mainstream media, you usually only get fed the opinion of the owners or editors, or the politically correct stuff they like to think will sell.

I would unashamedly describe myself as a seeker of truth, and guess that that may be a fair description of many who click on this website. I believe in the effectiveness of healthy debate in helping people to see things from different view points and thus help truth come to the fore.

Since AJ was honest enough to admit he had no “formal scientific qualifications”, I may as well reveal my (limited) science background. I’ve done quite a bit of undergraduate studies in mathematics, philosophy, languages, theology, and education. My only scientific qualification is a graduate diploma in Applied Science in linguistics. So without having taken a profound investigation into any one aspect of science, I feel my generalist education well enables me to investigate areas that interest me and assess their value.

I’ve been interested in the creation/evolution debate for over 20 years. I remember them conducting some debates on the university campus where I studied in the 1980s.

Being a Christian believer, acquainted with the creationist argument, I put that forward to try and stimulate debate. Though I’ve already acknowledged that a thread like this is not the best place for formal debate, I am curious to know why people might believe in evolution, other than just because it’s currently the ‘predominant view’. I am interested to see if any contributors can put forward anything compelling, coherent, or perhaps novel in an argument for evolution.

I’m happy to discuss any real evidence if presented with some.

But for now I’ll wait in expectation of the next wave of flat denials, familiar rhetoric, and name calling.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 5 July 2008 6:35:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

With all due respect, your cognitive skills are simply appalling.

<<So where is the physical evidence we can point to?>>

Err... Everywhere. You honestly don't have any idea of just how much evidence there actually is, do you?

<<The first major hurdle is to explain the arrival of the first living cell.>>

Not it's not. Now you're talking about abiogenesis. Evolution explains the variety we see in nature and how existing life evolves.

The only reason you find it impossible to separate these two is because you cannot come to terms with the fact that evolution is not a religion. Nor does evolution exist to disprove God.

Evolution is nothing more than a study of the diversity of the natural word, and it would be completely irresponsible and scientifically neglectful of us to not study this. You seem to be living in fantasy world where the “Evolutionists” are out to disprove your (evidentially non-existent) God.

But if you want to talk about abiogenesis, then I suggest you educate yourself a little on it first. You're only revealing just how ignorant you are of abiogenesis if you could seriously assert that scientists think that a living cell, as complex as the ones that are around now, just sprang into existence.

<<Chance over long ages (AJ,18/6) cannot achieve what chemistry shows is impossible.>>

Now you're just making things up. Chemistry shows no such thing.

Various stages of abiogenesis have been repeated in experiments. But the length of time that it may take for the entire process to occur naturally, makes it difficult to wait around for; Nor do we have the technology yet to speed the process up in order to observe it.

<<Sidestepping the problem by saying it’s ‘nothing to do with evolution’>>

The only way you could honestly consider this “sidestepping” is by actually believing that evolution is a religion out to disprove God... as contradictory as that sounds.

Either way, there's no sidestepping needed. Even if you could conclusively debunk abiogenesis, it wouldn't disprove evolution. The evidence for evolution is abundant and irrefutable.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 9:13:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

But since you evidentially don't know much about biological science, you're just going to have to take my word for it.

<<...or appealing to some vague distant past where conditions on earth may have been different >>

What do you mean “may have been different”? Of course it was different! The Earth certainly didn't spring into existence looking like it does now. In fact much of it's surface would have been montmorillonite, a clay that is the perfect catalyst for nucleotides to join and become polynucleotides.

Here's a short video done by a scientist that explains abiogenesis so that you can understand better what it is that you're actually trying to refute... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

<<science = observation...>>

Wrong! Science = a deduction based on evidence.

<<... as opposed to musings and ideas alone>>

If you think this is all there is to evolution, then you need to come back when you've at least learned some of the basics.

<<The problem is that we never observe mutations adding useful genetic material to a genome.>>

We see plenty of it.

I like how you won't define “useful” though. It's one of the tricks of Creationism: Either don't define certain terms, so that when more evidence comes to light, you can still claim it's not enough; Or set ridiculous standards that we would never be able to see in a life-time.

Very slippery indeed!

<<The excitement surrounding the Lenski experiments highlights how desperate evolutionists are...>>

Any scientific benchmark is exiting.

And why would there be any “desperation” when everything in the natural world is evidence of evolution?

<<Since then a few disputed candidates have been found to help “fill the gaps”...>>

Wrong. There are fossils from all different species that help “fill the gaps”, there were only several 'early Human' frauds, but science proved that they were frauds. There are quite a few early Human fossils that are genuine.

Again, you need to educate yourself a little more on what it is that you're trying to refute.

But I'll have to continue this tomorrow as I have now reached my post limit...
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 8 July 2008 9:13:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued from yesterday

<<With even those like AJ giving reasons for fossil rarity (28/6), you know there’s not much evidence to point to.>>

Of all the deceitful tricks; of all the examples of the shotty logic of Creationists, this remark takes the cake.

The whole reason 'fossil rarity' is mentioned, is to point out the inadequacy of the “gaps in the record” argument. Yet here you are, blatantly twisting the reason for mentioning 'fossil rarity' to make it sound like it's a desperate defense for a supposed 'lack of evidence'.

Tell me, Dan... Why is it that Creationists need to be slippery and deceitful, when normal scientists do not? Anyone one with an ounce of rational thinking would put two-and-two together here.

<<...repeatability is indeed a vital part of the scientific method.>>

Yes, observations need to be repeatable, you don't have to repeat an actual event. If this was cause to disregard evolution, then you would have to disregard many other fields of science too – yet you're not complaining about them...

And besides, like I've said before, to disregard everything we now know would be ludicrous. The fact that you are unable to see this demonstrates a marked lack of logical thinking.

<<That any theory of history cannot be repeated is why this debate will never end.>>

I disagree. Personally I think that Creationism will eventually disappear with the spread of information via technology, and the increasing amount of people realising how ridiculous, out-of-date, irrelevant and mythical religious belief is. Especially now that we're learning how historically inaccurate the Bible is – not to mention how non-existent the evidence for it's events are. Although I don't think this will happen in our life times.

<<I would unashamedly describe myself as a seeker of truth...>>

Sorry Dan, but I find this extremely difficult to believe.

If you are, then why don't you look into the evidence of that which contradicts your literalist beliefs? Over the past two threads, I've posted enough links to completely debunk Creationism, yet here you are, repeating falsehoods and misconceptions that are demonstratively false.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 10:20:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

Also, to claim that you are a “seeker of truth” is simply laughable considering that you actually believe the 'Noah's Ark' story. There are a few events that archaeologists strongly suspect that this story comes from. To claim that you are seeking the truth, at the same time as believing in the literal interpretation of the Bible is demonstratively and undeniably absurd.

You're certainly not being honest with yourself here.

<<I believe in the effectiveness of healthy debate in helping people to see things from different view points and thus help truth come to the fore.>>

Then why don't you listening to anyone?

<<I feel my generalist education well enables me to investigate areas that interest me and assess their value.>>

Yes, it does. It's pity though, that you're not yet taking advantage of that. Just a little hint... It helps if you look at both sides of a story.

<<I am curious to know why people might believe in evolution>>

They don't. They accept it.

To put your curiosities to rest though... All the evidence supports evolution and absolutely nothing supports Creationism.

<<I’m happy to discuss any real evidence if presented with some.>>

You've been presented with plenty. From the logical reasoning put forth to you, to the links provided with indisputable facts that back it.

Here we come back to the slipperiness and dishonesty of Creationists... It doesn't matter what evidence they're presented with, they'll simply say it's not enough - which is why you won't define “useful”.

So to claim that you are seeking the truth, or that you're happy to discuss any real evidence is a flat-out lie (either to yourself or everybody else).

<<But for now I’ll wait in expectation of the next wave of flat denials, familiar rhetoric, and name calling.>>

Firstly, none of your opposers have had to deny anything – nothing factual anyway.

And secondly, no one has called you names. Although you do receive a bit of ridicule due to the incoherent, illogical and uneducated arguments you've put forth.

You're making this far too easy, Dan. Try again...
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 9 July 2008 10:20:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue: "I enjoy participating on OLO."

This is something we have in common. I consider all your observations about OLO are pretty close to the mark. Posts on OLO are subject to moderation and some are deleted without notice, but it is done with a very light and remarkably unbiased hand.

Dan S de Merengue: "I may as well reveal my (limited) science background."

Since we are all doing that ... I have a tertiary education which included some maths and science, but have no formal quantification relevant to this discussion and I didn't study biology. That said, I do like it. If I hadn't taken my current career path, I probably would of chosen entomology instead.

Dan S de Merengue: "I would unashamedly describe myself as a seeker of truth"

And now onto business. Your words remind me of a sign I see everyday I ride my pushy to work. It says: www.TillingForTruth.org. For me the world is what I can perceive (see, hear, touch ...), and what I can deduce from that. The rest is a matter or faith. My trust in faith was never very high to start with and it has dropped over time, precipitously so recently as I have read the posts of those who proclaim to have faith here on OLO. For example, if you want a lesson in name calling, look at this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7528#116955

Frankly Dan, we atheists treat you very kindly in comparison. But back to TillingForTruth. It doesn't exist now, but when it did I doubt I would of found anything on there I would recognise as the "truth". I suspect that you Dan, on the other hand, would. So, Dan how do you recognise the truth when you see it? And do you think its possible that you and I could ever agree on a way of determining the truth, or at least some part of it?
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 11 July 2008 12:03:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you want to know the meaning of the word ‘useful’, look it up in the dictionary.

For the words: slippery, dishonest, deceitful, and liar, in the thesaurus, they are categorised alongside slander and insult, not logic and argument.

I hope you can manage your language better in the future.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:21:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart,
You ask about the nature of truth, and whether an atheist and Christian could ever agree on any part of it.

Agreement in one sense is impossible, as Christianity is inseparable from the Bible, whereas an atheist would recoil after reading its first few words (In the beginning God…).

On the other hand, atheists and Christians share many timeless truths in line with their common humanity. Making reference to either conscience or simple logic, intuitively we hold certain laws or values to be self evident or natural e.g. murder is wrong, charity is good, etc.

Atheists (if I may presume momentarily to speak for them) might appeal to a pure form of logic as a basis for assessing truth. However, within our human limitations, we will never figure everything out. There will always be some mystery, something beyond our ability to know. Absolute knowledge is a pipe-dream.

The Christian says that finite man cannot hope to comprehend the infinity of God. That is, unless God first takes the initiative to explain himself and reveal his true nature. We call this action of God ‘revelation’.

Therefore, conscience, investigation of the natural law, and even science, are stepping stones helping us move towards recognising and understanding truth. All these should lead us towards that place of clarity, with our consciences bearing witness to the Biblical revelation. Yet ultimately, I cannot presume to determine truth. It stands above me, like a judge, and in a sense, determines me.

In Christian theology, truth is not a precept, but a person. He is Jesus, the author and creator, culmination and conclusion of all human history. This is vividly portrayed in Mel Gibson’s film ‘The Passion of Christ’, where the Roman governor (perhaps symbolic of the educated European) is in direct conversation with Jesus (his face battered, bruised, and bleeding, and about to be sentenced). Pilate asks, “What is truth?” The irony being that he was staring right at him who is the truth.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:27:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue: "we will never figure everything out."
Dan S de Merengue: "man cannot hope to comprehend the infinity of God."

This is the same conclusion, reached from the two different viewpoints. Not that its relevant to this discussion, but its interesting to see.

Dan S de Merengue: "If you want to know the meaning of the word ‘useful’, look it up in the dictionary."

From the dictionary definition of 'useful', learning how to metabolise citrate would be right up there Dan. You implied it wasn't, which is why you are asked to define it. It was not an unreasonable request. But you are familiar with the arguments on both sides, so I presume you know this definition this is the Achilles heal in the "mutations can never create something new" argument. So you refuse.

Which I guess serves to illustrate what I think your position is. You pay lip service to truth and logic, but should they conflict with your faith and the bible then religion must triumph over science. As you know, science can't work like that. When facing irreconcilable differences the polite thing to do is to agree to disagree, and get on with our lives - perhaps pointing out the disagreement when the opportunity arises, as it did at the start of the thread.

But do you do that? No. Like the big kid in the sandpit, you demand to have it all. You dress up your religion as "creationism", try to bully the rest of us into calling it science, and seek to have laws passed to teach it in science classes. You know, not even Richard Dawkins treats religion that way. He is quite happy to let it coexist with science. He would never dream of dressing up some scientific theory as religion and demanding it be given equal time in the religious education classes. Yet, you seek to do that to science.

If I continue here then I am the fly, banging against the pane of glass that calls itself Dan S de Merengue. Its time to move on. Goodbye.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 10:06:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Before I continue, I want to make it very clear to you that in no way do I view you as an inherently dishonest person. A little slippery with your arguments because you're defending the indefensible – but not a deliberately dishonest person. Like I said earlier... The dishonesty in your arguments comes from what you read on the intensionally misleading websites such as www.creationontheweb.com. It is the scientists on these kinds of websites who are the real “false prophets”.

Moving on...

Since you're happy to go along with the dictionary definition of “useful”, how do you explain your acceptance of adaptation and microevolution? This is a good example of how dishonest claims eventually become unstuck with their contradictions.

Here is a video done by a scientist that explains just some of the many beneficial mutations that we see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs

And here's another video done by the same scientist that explains just how rich and (surprisingly) complete the fossil record actually is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU

<<For the words: slippery, dishonest, deceitful, and liar, in the thesaurus, they are categorised alongside slander and insult, not logic and argument.>>

I'm not sure which thesaurus you're looking at, because I certainly didn't see the words “slander”, “insult”, “not logic” or “argument” any where near “slippery”, “dishonest”, “deceitful”, or “liar”.

“Slander” means to make FALSE claims in order to damage the reputation of someone. So it is wrong to claim that I am “slandering” you. Especially since I have clearly demonstrated why your arguments are so dishonest and slippery. Therefore, I think it is you who needs to manage their language better.

As for “insults”, well, I'm sorry that you feel insulted, Dan. But if you make claims that are dishonest and slippery, then “dishonest” and “slippery” is what I will label them, as I am the kind of person who calls a “spade” a “spade”, and for that, I cannot apologise.

But I suspect that you're merely trying to 'play the victim' here (another slippery and deceiving tactic), because Christians often make the fundamental mistake that good = correct and bad = incorrect.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 18 July 2008 7:31:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

For example, Creationists like to point to Hitler and claim that Hitler was an “Evolutionist” because of his idea of “selective breeding” with Humans - which has nothing to to with “Natural selection” mind you. According to this flawed logic Creationists would have to condemn animal breeders – not evolution.

Even if Hitler was trying to emulate evolution, it wouldn't disprove it. This type of flawed logic is akin to saying that stealing is wrong, therefore the act of stealing is non-existent (Yet another example of the poor logic from Creationists; The same kind of poor logic that I was trying to point out to you in the previous thread).

But Creationists do this to try to make people feel sickened by the thought of evolution and reject it. Just one of the many reasons why Creationism is so deceitful.

Anyway, I feel this thread has now run it's course, and I see that you have now resorted to using the Bible to prove Creationism (I have been waiting since the previous thread to see how long that would take), which is absurd considering there is precious little to support anything that the Bible says. So until next time...

I wish you well, Dan.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 18 July 2008 7:32:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
I don’t see why you should accuse me of lies simply for voicing an opinion. Opinions are what this website is about. It seems your main debating tactic over the last few posts is simply to cry ‘liar’ whenever faced with a difficult comment. It almost seems useful, that when you cry ‘foul’ it mainly serves to highlight to us where your argument is weak.

In these inane accusations of spreading falsity, we can see you’ve probably been reading from the Ian Plimer guide to debating, and paid special attention to his chapter entitled, “Throw enough mud at the wall and some of it might stick”.

For your question about adaptation and macroevolution, at risk of being accused of repeating myself, I’ll reiterate. “Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome, such that that might bring about new and useful functioning systems, which should be a regular occurrence if [evolution] theory be true.”

Adaptation usually involves selection of genes that were already present. The rare occurrence of a beneficial mutation usually involves the destruction (thus loss) of genetic information. Occasionally destroying certain genes can be useful or beneficial. Such was the case in the Lenski experiments, according to one highly qualified biologist in the field, who points out that E Coli were already able to metabolise citrate under certain conditions.

If I make an expression of faith in the Bible, I do so unashamedly. The history of Western science would be an altogether different scene without men of faith. The Bible contains valuable insights for science, history, ethics, the salvation of one’s soul, and even has marked relevance to this part of the debate (see Matthew 5:11).

I’m sorry for not being able to download the videos from your youtube selection. My Internet connection is not as strong as what you might think it is (I use a mobile phone). So in future, maybe I’ll ask you to summarise their contents into your text, if you want me to comment on them.

Until then, best wishes.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 20 July 2008 10:50:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart,
You raise the issue of teaching creation in science classes.

Nowhere did I suggest that teaching creation be mandated in schools. Neither has this been suggested by any major creationist organisation. Such a mandate would be counter-productive as the creation position would be misrepresented by those who don’t accept it.

Some have dared suggest that more freedom be allowed to discuss the problems and weaknesses with the evolution view. Could such critiquing be allowed, or is evolution such a precious idea that it must be shielded beyond any scientific questioning?

For what am I accused of bullying?

I try to put my points clearly. On one thing I insist, that this debate be conducted on a level playing field. When an atheist holds a philosophical position, it is permissible, but when a Christian holds one, it is not? How can this be? When creation scientists are accused of being influenced by their religion, shouldn’t everyone have to declare their biases?

Is it just coincidence that the main opponents to creation, both on this thread, and others mentioned (Dawkins, Plimer) are declared atheists?

One leading evolutionary geneticist (and self declared Marxist), illustrated how much the debate involves bias and presupposition rather than facts alone.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Professor Richard Lewontin, 1997.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 20 July 2008 11:03:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

<<I don’t see why you should accuse me of lies simply for voicing an opinion.>>

But we're not talking about mere opinions here, we are talking about facts versus falsehoods. I don't like the word “lies” though. It implies that you know better.

<<It seems your main debating tactic over the last few posts is simply to cry ‘liar’ whenever faced with a difficult comment.>>

Not at all.

In fact, you haven't yet presented me with anything that I haven't been able to answer (please tell me if I've missed something though).

<<It almost seems useful, that when you cry ‘foul’ it mainly serves to highlight to us where your argument is weak.>>

Again, not at all.

Not one of my arguments has been weak so far, and every time I “cry foul”, I have been able to point out why, in an indisputable manner. This is evident in that way that you are unable to give me a counter argument as to why your claims aren't dishonest or slippery.

I don't need to sling mud at all, Dan. You're arguments are covered in them. And again, I am always able to demonstrate why.

<<For your question about adaptation and macroevolution, at risk of being accused of repeating myself, I’ll reiterate. “Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome, such that that might bring about new and useful functioning systems, which should be a regular occurrence if [evolution] theory be true.”>>

And at the risk of repeating myself, there are many examples of mutations adding information to the genome. If by “functioning systems” you mean like a new body part, then no, mutations haven't been seen to add a new functioning systems, and nor would they – If we witnessed this in even as short amount of time as a few thousand years, then it would be good evidence against evolution.

<<Adaptation usually involves selection of genes that were already present. The rare occurrence of a beneficial mutation usually involves the destruction (thus loss) of genetic information....>>

This is incorrect... http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101_2.html

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 21 July 2008 10:18:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<...who points out that E Coli were already able to metabolise citrate under certain conditions.>>

Not the E-coli that Lenski started with.

<<The history of Western science would be an altogether different scene without men of faith.>>

And these men-of-faith that you speak of were around before Natural Selection was known about or thought of. So of course they would have believed in a God. Heck, They didn't even know dinosaurs existed! Thus your point here is irrelevant.

<<The Bible contains valuable insights for science...>>

Such as?

<<...history...>>

Not really. Much of the Bible's history evidently never happened. The Flood... The Exodus...

<<...ethics...>>

Some of it... yes. But you have to pick and choose which parts of the Bible you follow. Most of it is horrendous.

<<...and even has marked relevance to this part of the debate (see Matthew 5:11)>>

Nope. Matthew 5:11 talks about FALSE claims against one's self.

None of my claims of the dishonesty in your arguments are false, and I have been able to demonstrate why they are dishonest.

As for your internet connection... that's unfortunate. Here are the transcripts of the last two videos that I linked to, but with out the visuals, they won't mean as much...

Mutations: http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/8thFFoC.html

Transitional fossils: http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/9thFFoC.html

<<When an atheist holds a philosophical position, it is permissible, but when a Christian holds one, it is not?>>

But we are not talking about mere philosophies here. We're talking about two views of the origins of everything. One theory is backed by mountains of irrefutable evidence, the other has no evidence to back it at all.

<<Some have dared suggest that more freedom be allowed to discuss the problems and weaknesses with the evolution view.>>

All scientific theories have problems. That's why research continues... to find the answers to those problems.

It would be waisting school time to be explaining the problems of every scientific theory to students.

Your quote is yet another example Creationist deceitfulness...

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Lewontin_on_materialism
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Richard_Lewontin

This is why quote mining is such a "slippery" tactic.

P.S. What does Lewontin being a Marxist have to do with anything?
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 21 July 2008 10:18:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was just thinking, Dan... If we're going to start 'quote mining', then I have a quote for you:

"There is no God." (Psalms 14:1)

Now, would you say I was being "honest" here?

You see, my claims of Creationist dishonesty are not an opinion, they are a fact - a clear and demonstratable fact.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 24 July 2008 9:29:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Colonies have to cling on to a commuinity crutch that is why Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints is so strong in the United States, Australia and New Zealand. Yet if we dwell in the United Kingdom it is a Secular Society. After slaughtering the Christians the Romans decided to create their own Church Catholicism. When the Roman Catholic Church would not allow King Henry the Eighth to divorce he created his own Church Anglican. When A renegade did not like the Protestant Church he created his own Church Latter Day Saints. Religion is man made and divides people, as long as people believe in fairy stories Capitalism will prosper to the detriment of the people. No God did not create Earth within seven days no spirit could ever do that. Science exposes religion for what it is a superstitious fantasy.
Posted by Bronco Lane, Friday, 25 July 2008 8:24:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy