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 empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief > Comments

The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief : Comments

By John Gray, published 21/12/2007

While theologians have interrogated their beliefs for millennia, secular humanists have yet to question their simple creed.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 38
  7. 39
  8. 40
  9. All
So true. We live according to meaning whether we are aware of it or not. The atheist is a fundamentalist in believeing there is no God as a believer is in believing there is a God. Both are aggressive in their beliefs because it is a life and death issue. At least the Godly believer has hope but the atheist is doomed to failure because they don't have any hope beyond the present. And this is the basic difference and a hopeful hope is better for living then a hopeless hope. As Billy Graham once said, I win both ways because I live in hope in God which transforms my present and if I am wrong it does not matter, but if I am right then even better.
Posted by jeshua, Friday, 21 December 2007 9:18:02 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
Oh Dear, The Author seem very confused here. "Modern secular thought contains nothing as profound as this ancient biblical story." What rot modern Secularist myth is the scientific story of how life evolved and how the universe was created, no nothing profound in that.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 21 December 2007 9:27:45 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
Confused Kenny :) you said "and how the universe WAS CREATED"..at last..you get it :) even though you don't know it yet.

It's much easier to cling to emptiness which makes no moral demands, than to substance which does.

Smart people (like Author Harold Robbins) can make quite a life for themselves.. sex orgies, drunken binges, parties on yaughts...plenty of booze, women and drug enhanced promiscuity... ok.. fine.. while you are not made aware of the consequences..or are healthy enough to simply deny them.....

but the chickens come home to roost, we reap what we sow, and Robbins did just that. The misery of the end of his life, alone, broken.. an empty shell of a man with nothing but a Christless eternity to look forward to.. (though for him it was just a hopeless oblivion of death)

But...aah...the Good news is that God not only created, but also manifested His person in Christ Jesus. Christmas..

"God so loved the world..that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life" John 3:16
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 21 December 2007 9:45:59 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
Strange article especially from a highly respected thinker who specialises in European Thought. Perhaps it tells us how shallow and one-dimensional European "thought" really IS.

It dosent really say anything substantial, and is really only a confession or expression of the authors own fence-sitting doubt mind.
The doubt mind that is the common feature of ALL university trained intellectuals, even those who argue for traditional Christian exoteric belief.

It is also the same doubt-mind within which we have all been brought up. It is the mind that permeates every aspect of our so called "culture". It is even structured into our bodies. It is so "natural" and "obvious" to all of us, being the invisible sea (or mind) in which we are all embedded, or more accurately TRAPPED.

He is not arguing for religion and spirituality with any real ESOTERIC depth, but only the usual cartoon based childhood mommy-daddy parental, santa claus, good luck "god".

Such paper thin myth laden "religion" being nowhere near enough for fully grown adults.

These two references describe how the mind of such intellectuals is formed or moulded.

1. http://www.dabase.org/ilchurst.htm
2. http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/asana_of_science/index.html

Reference # 2 is from a book titled The Transmission of Doubt, a book which thoroughly investigates the origins and CULTURAL consequences of the ASANA thus desribed in ref #2.

This reference describes the origins and consequences of the usual shouting match between reductionist scientism and reductionist exoteric religionists and theolgians.

1. http://www.dabase.org/noface.htm
Posted by Ho Hum, Friday, 21 December 2007 9:47:07 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
Professor John Gray seems to have read Dawkins with insufficient care. Whilst I am not necessarily a great fan of his extreme materialism (it leaves out linguistic intersubjectivity for starters), to suggest that Dawkins does not account for human free from Darwinian science is clearly false to anyone who has actually read his works. To Dawkins free will is a result of evolution.

Likewise, the author's conclusion that "secular humanists have yet to question their simple creed" is quite erroneous. Debates within secular humanism are extremely significant, from the origins of moral decisions to the number of dimensions the universe truly consists of
Posted by Lev, Friday, 21 December 2007 10:14:24 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
The ancient biblical story is in many places the story of racism and brutality that would put Stalin and Pol Pot to shame. Read the exploits of Joshua and even Moses for example. Often the main actors are people who hear voices, almost certainly in their own heads, and in recent times would have been considered candidates for a straight jacket. The New Testament is not a lot better and the way in which the gospels were selected for inclusion in the lead documentation is proof that religion is man made. As Terry Lane once commented all "theology is made up as they go along." Christopher Hitchens points out that, "The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was only announced by the Vatican in 1852 and the dogma of the Assumption in 1951." Dicoveries since about 1930in Africa of fossils several million years old of our forefathers makes the few thousand year history of modern religions of the book look rather puerile. As Robert Ardray stated, "We are risen apes not fallen angels." Thank god!
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 21 December 2007 10:31:24 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
I was struck by a phrase at the end of the article

"One searches in vain in the company of militant unbelievers for signs of the creative doubt that has energised many religious thinkers."

I'm left wondering how much of that creative doubt the author would find amongst militant religious types (fundies). Unbelief has it's fundies just as religion does and we are unlikely to find serious thinking or a search for deeper understanding amongst the millitants.

Perhaps if the author compared apples with apples he may find a different situation.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 21 December 2007 10:54:10 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
Robert said:

"Unbelief has it's fundies just as religion does and we are unlikely to find serious thinking or a search for deeper understanding amongst the millitants."

Does this mean what I think it means? I assume you would agree with the author's characterisation of Dawkins, Hitchens et. al. as "militant" atheists, so by your statement, is the reader to assume you mean that the above are not capable of "serious" thinking or searching for "deeper understanding?" Does a belief firmly held, necessarily render its holder incapable of nuanced thought?

Or have I misinterpreted you?
Posted by stickman, Friday, 21 December 2007 12:19:54 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
i guess it's too much to hope that these nasty, obtuse, thoroughly stupid articles will ever cease. "militant"? nonsense, unless dawkins has started throwing bombs. questioning belief? yeah, sure, within the narrow parameters which faith permits. "secular humanism" as insult? truly unbelievable.

the underlying idea, that atheism is life without meaning is preposterous. can't you guys get it? to be atheist is not a way of life, it simply means we don't believe in gods. if you want to, go ahead. if you want to try to prove it, go ahead. but stop pretending your beliefs are so obvious that everyone must share them. and stop pretending you're questioning your faith. for a moment, think about what the word "faith" means. grow up.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 21 December 2007 12:34:01 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
The author of this article does seem to be quite confused. For starters, lumping 'atheist', 'secular humanist', and 'science' together as though they are one and the same. Someone can believe in all three, or any combination. Further more, the concept of 'human progress' is not the exclusive domain of any one, and I'm quite sure many people with faith are just as concerned with 'human progress' as those without.

As for myths, I'm puzzled as to what one would consider an atheist myth. Science deals with observations and logical conclusions, and is quite open about criticism. Secular humanism is about how we should behave, and has no must-be-true stories about the past. Atheism is quite simply no believing in any deity, no stories, myths or absolute rules. Quite different to the myths of religion that are absolute and cannot be questioned. So much for creative doubt.

Few people argue that the religious stories aren't compelling, or don't have moral points to make. But that is a separate issue to believing them to be an accurate historical recount of what happened. I think the story of King Arthur and the knights of the round table is a compelling story. Though I doubt it actually happened. Choosing an arbitrary, unchangeable selection of stories (true or not) to determine morality seems like it could lead to gaps or oversimplification of ones moral choices. Life is far too complicated and frequently changing to determine a static set of arbitrary rules.

The final paragraph criticizes atheists and secular humanists as lacking creative doubt and questioning their beliefs. It's been my experience that most of these people have chosen their path after questioning their previous faith and finding it wanting in truth, reason and purpose.

Ultimately, what I find most detestable about religion isn't the blind faith, stories, rituals or rules, but rather the political organizations that seek control and to dictate what is the one unprovable truth.
Posted by Desipis, Friday, 21 December 2007 1:06:25 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
Dear Foyle...

and of course you speak from the vivid personal experience and perspective of a semi tribal existence where the only law was 'kill or be killed/enslave (or kill) or be enslaved' etc.. where the only borders between groups where their by virtue of pure raw 'power' balances.

Or..perhaps you (shallowly) look back from your cumulative 'Western/Post modern' experience of reality and evaluate ancient situations on that basis?

Or..perhaps you are just trying to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and claim a righteousness greater than Moses or Joshua... while enjoying the luxury of the freedom and peace which their exploits in fact contributed to... (yes..I can easily make a viable historical connection)

Joshua.. Moses BADDDDDD
Foyle.... GOOOOOD.

Perhaps you should look at each incident they were involved in, and evaluate them in terms of:

Did they do anything out of carnal spite, lust for power, hate of mankind
OR...
Did they treat their enemies as enemies.. did they kill those who would have SUREly killed them,.... Did they do what God TOLD them to do in cases of mass executions... did those specific events give us any permission or valid example to follow? If so..how?

yes.. there is much to think about aye..
blessings
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 21 December 2007 1:40:23 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
Once more we hear about militant atheists, anti religious missionaries, evangelists of unbelief,
I am not as educated as the learned professor. In my mind his word spin is dazzling
It’s the last sentence that sums up this professor’s thoughts though!
“One searches in vain in the company of militant unbelievers for signs of the creative doubt that has energised many religious thinkers. While theologians have interrogated their beliefs for millennia, secular humanists have yet to question their simple creed. Evangelical atheism is the mirror image of the faith it attacks - without that faith's redeeming doubts.”
‘Militant unbelievers?’
‘Searching in vain for any creative doubts by these unbelievers?’
The fact that atheists were hunted to their death while theologians honed their debating skills for many hundreds of years to try to make some sense out of religious nuttery, endeared them to their followers who either knew no better, or worse, were cowered into following the bible bashers lest they were thrown into jail or killed and/or tortured, and they blindly followed the teachings of these ‘mythical truths’ . The fact that there are more vocal atheists now, than ever before, is because they are now able to vent their thoughts, without the fear of being put to death. So the religious do-gooders try their hand at name calling.
Creative thoughts are in the minds of the beholder. But creative thoughts out of the bible? Give us a break! Any child can come up with fantasies that are far kinder then those in the bible!
There are more murders in that book then there are truths, mythical or not. There are more incitements to hate by those brandishing their bibles then any creative atheists can summon up.
Ubique
Posted by ubique, Friday, 21 December 2007 1:54:46 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
The whole religion sham based on an actual carpenter of good deeds to his fellow man is ludicrous. Churches only exist to make money from poor souls that they have managed to convert. The evengelic cult/Churches are the worst for lightening a parishener's wallett. Look at Jimmy Baker and the Assembly of God for example. I have attended these services as I looked around it looked as if the "pastor" was preaching to hundreds of programmed robots. The same robots who contribute a percentage of their weekly pay every week to belong. Nothing more than mass hypnosis and should be criminally outlawed.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 21 December 2007 2:15:42 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
stickman, I've not studied the work of the individuals in any real detail and am not trying to make a comment about specific individuals.

My point is that if the author is only concerned with militant unbelievers and see's less critical thinking than he see's in some theological circles it may be because he is not comparing apples with apples. Compare militants with militants.

My impression is that the religious thinkers who deal honestly with doubt are not the militants. Doubt by it's nature tends to temper views and lessen the desire for militancy (expect for those who hide in denial and get all the more strident to cover the uncertainty).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 21 December 2007 2:28:24 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
Boaz_David
Yes I do evaluate ancient happenings based on my western enlightenment education and experiences. Joshua claimed to hear a voice telling him, “Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given to you.” As I said earlier people who hear voices in this age are considered somewhat loony. His claimed voice led to power seeking aggressive behaviour against peoples who were no immediate threat. The people who lived in Jericho and other cities had walled their domains because of earlier experiences with marauders but the treachery and brutality of Joshua and his troops knew no bounds. Men women and male children were slaughtered wherever he led, as were the livestock, and only the virgins were saved for the use of the troops.
There have always been people who have known how to live but they have often been the victims of religious or political totalitarians. I would put Joshua and those responsible for the Inquisition in one or both of those classes.
You claim the ability to establish an historical connection between those events and how things are now. Everything now is connected in some way to what has happened in the past and I am grateful that from Joshua’s era my necessary forebears survived if only because they weren’t in his path.
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 21 December 2007 7:14:07 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
The very idea that there could or should be progress to higher levels of life is an indication of progress itself. The fact that this idea is post-Christian indicates that Christianity prevented such progress in the first place.

In parts of the world where ethical advances have been made, they have, on the whole, been kept and built upon throughout history thanks to secularism and maintenance of a separation of religion and state. Eg America and Australia.

Where the foundations of these ethics begin to come under attack, religion is most likely at play (albeit further in the background that in previous times) influencing people's morals to be tolorant of such things as torture by justifying them with propoganda like "The War On Terror" or the "Axis of Evil". These moral infuences then flow into societal ethics.

This is why it is imperative that we continue to push towards a global, secular society free of religion and more so now than ever before because the downward slide toward a very oppressive, neo-religious world seems to have already started.

As far as truth and meaning go, the story of the tree of knowledge in the bible is anything but profound. This is simply another blatant attempt by Christianity to prevent people from seeking the truth and therefore meaning because their versions of the two serve their own purposes.

Knowledge is the key to truth and meaning and to suggest that science (or secular thought- the distinction is not very well made) should have something as ridiculous as this story added is totally counter to the concepts themselves.

Lastly, the ideas that 1) religion is somehow self-questioning and 2) that science and/or secularism need to be more self questioning are simply false. Religion, by definition, is followed unquestionably while science and secularism by their definitions came about and continue to exist because of questioning.
Posted by LifeByTrent, Friday, 21 December 2007 10:32:28 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
Typical Christian chutzpah. The idea of progress ending in an apotheosis is derived from the Jewish Bible as is the injunction to love thy neighbour as thyself. It is Christian plagiarism to call it a Christian idea. Nevertheless utopianist or messianic thought has resulted in tragedy whether in the Crusades, the thousand year Reich or the eventual classless society. Better to recognise that there is no magic recipe to regain paradise and face life without a big daddy in the sky or any place else. We can try to leave the world a little better for our existence and dispense with pie in the sky by and by.

David F
Posted by david f, Friday, 21 December 2007 11:31:12 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
Is the author really trying to suggest that atheism is some sort of religion?

As I suggested elsewhere, that's like calling baldness a hair colour.

The true mythology happens when significant parts of religious texts are deliberately edited and whole sections mysteriously inserted by unnamed authors for political or ecumenical reasons. Then the end result becomes so far removed from the original version that the true meaning is lost and hijacked by self-interest.

Leave out the added "Sermon on the Mount" and "casting the first stone" stories and change "Son of God" back to the original "Son of Man" for a start, and see how subtley the story changes.

As for the notion of evangelism, atheists tend to be reactive and it's generally the hardened sectarians that start these sorts of tiresome unresolvable discussions.

I'm yet to have an atheist knock on my door to tell me the good news about there being no God or see them picketting places of worship.
Posted by wobbles, Saturday, 22 December 2007 12:38:34 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
Very well said "bushbasher" and "wobbles". This whole business of trying to force the discussion into a paradigm of "one religion vs another" is disingenous at best, and otherwise quite simply dishonest.

It is only those on one side of this "debate" who believe in an imaginary friend.
Posted by BC2, Saturday, 22 December 2007 5:23:15 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
By definition God or the spirit are not of the physical world. Bit hard to prove one way or the other. We can measure the manifestations of life all we want, but this is not measuring 'life' in the religious sense.

The idea that life is somehow not quite a tangible thing has been with us across cultures and across time; and is not about to go away. Ultimately science and religion are both about the same sort of answers.

Good luck in your strivings people, and have a great Xmas and New Year.
Posted by palimpsest, Saturday, 22 December 2007 7:31:44 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
It remains up to those who profess that there is a God to prove their claim. If their claim is based on Jesus a man who lived more like a socialist than a capitalist and challenged the leadership of the church. It is merely a hangover from the days of superstition the bible cannot be legitimized in science, it could well be a book of fairy tales.

The greatest achievements are made by man and until the churches can prove there is a god I suggest the churches are merely businesses making huge profits from selling hope and fear.
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 22 December 2007 8:50:28 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
I think a lot of the folks on this thread are barking up the wrong tree. Gray isn't a Christian (as far as I can discern) and his ideological position is rather slippery. He criticises widely, but he doesn't seem to offer much of an alternative. He criticises atheism, but doesn't endorse Christianity per se, merely diagreeing that when "the world is rid of religion, immemorial evils such as war and tyranny can be overcome, and humanity will be able to fashion a new life for itself better than any known in history."

I can't disagree with Gray's basic tenet, that atheism holds no promise, in itself, of improving humanity. That doesn't mean that I believe that Christianity fulfills its promise of ending war and tyranny. The Crusades, the Inquisition, Franco's Spain or Ngo Dinh Diem's Vietnam (to pull just a few samples from the grab-bag of history) suggest Christianity has not solved our problems, even when professed Christians are in charge.

Gray seems to be setting up Dawkins et al as strawmen. His position seems to boil down to advocating introspection to temper strident ideologies. It's a sensible argument, but I'm not sure it leads us anywhere useful. Surely reasonable people already believe in self-examination? It's the unreasonable ones we need to be wary of.
Posted by Johnj, Saturday, 22 December 2007 2:22:02 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
I agree with Ho Hum that the article is saying little of substance. But I would like to question some of the posters.

Ubique,
You speak of the atheists that were hunted to death for many hundreds of years. Could you be a bit more specific if I’m not expected to think that you are making fuzzy and indiscriminate generalisations. Who are you referring to? Could you suggest some names or perhaps some places or times eras?

Wobbles,
You have alleged that parts of the New Testament have been altered so as to put into question the integrity of the texts that have been passed down to us.

This would be news to the scholars. The New Testament is without doubt the most analysed and scrutinised collection of literature of all antiquity or perhaps any era. If you know of where these documents may have been altered, could you specify by who or when this may have happened, or are you just throwing mud at the wall?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 22 December 2007 7:51:50 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
I was taught by some great thinkers at LSE. Perhaps this less-learned professor seeks to demonstrate by his example that there can be regress as well as progress, something which few would deny. As for saying that "This idea of progress is a post-Christian myth," the Prof seems to have no knowledge of, for example, much earlier Indian and Greek thought. A fail at undergraduate level, perhaps it's his (or the SMH's) estimate of the level of the SMH reader.
Posted by Faustino, Saturday, 22 December 2007 9:06:42 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 S de Merengue said:
Ubique,
You speak of the atheists that were hunted to death for many hundreds of years. Could you be a bit more specific if I’m not expected to think that you are making fuzzy and indiscriminate generalisations. Who are you referring to? Could you suggest some names or perhaps some places or times eras?
I am happy to oblige
Where do you want me to start?
The Crusades perhaps?
Or the witch hunts?
The Spanish Inquisitions
The Conquistadors and their bible bashing missionaries?
How many millions died at the hands of them?
Or perhaps more recent?
6 million Jews? Many of whom never practiced any religions and were self declared atheists?
Or even Protestants killing Catholics and vice versa?
Or do you wish me to list all those who opposed religion in any form and paid the price for it?
Just as soon as you can clarify that every bit of the bible as being the absolute truth.
After all, if, as you said that scholars studied that bible now for thousands of years you’ll have no problem proving that the bible is correct and that a god exists.
Ubique
Posted by ubique, Saturday, 22 December 2007 9:37:46 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
Empty myths indeed. This atheist regards monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam as empty and useless as witchcraft, astrology and cults of personality. It's interesting that Gray refers to Dawkins et al (and presumably people like me) as "evangelists". Talk about projection! And talk about ignorance. To put it another way, the Iliad (for example) is as useful to atheists as the Book of Genesis or the writings of Stalin. It's not a matter of proselytising - it's a matter of simply rejecting nonsensical beliefs.
Posted by DavidJS, Sunday, 23 December 2007 10:44:30 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
>Though they are not true or false in the way scientific theories are true or false, myths can be more or less truthful in reflecting the human situation.

But if they're not true in the sense of being correct, what other sense is there? Who interprets them for us, an old man in a frock? And who decides what's a 'truthful' reflection of the 'human situation'?

This kind of meaningless gibberish has become the favourite style of 'enlightened' Christian apologists who desperately want to cling to the idea of a God but can't bring themselves to endorse the obvious nonsense associated with the traditional trappings of religion. The only possible response is to demand a full explanation: how can a myth about imaginary beings tell us anything at all about real ones -- except about their gullibility, of course?
Posted by Jon J, Sunday, 23 December 2007 2:04:41 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
My goodness! Where to begin...Almost none of the claims made by John Gray about the positions, assertions or "beliefs" of atheists in general, or Dawkins in particular, is true or even marginally accurate. The straw man argument is the easiest to refute, of course, because it is custom-designed for that precise purpose. However, from this man, even though he is a christian, we might have hoped for a little more intellectual integrity and a little more sophisticated, and honest, historical analysis than merely trotting out the tired, old, already discredited, evil atheism versus saintly christianity.
He has comprehensively misrepresented what atheists are about (those who can be bothered to say anything). Most of us don't "believe" in the lack of a god. We just think that gods are unnecessary as an explanatory theory. As someone said, "We are both atheists. I simply believe in one less god than you. When you understand why you have dismissed all the other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." It was always like this, of course. The god-botherers are so desperate not to be wrong that they will say or do almost anything to convince themselves that they are right. They do not, as Gray avers, universally question their beliefs. To the contrary, they almost universally twist and writhe in their sophistry to justify their beliefs, and parse their "holy" books in whatever way suits their purpose as Gray has done here with his revision of Genesis.
Atheists, in my experience, constantly question their worldview. We call it "science"
Posted by roger migently, Sunday, 23 December 2007 5:36:44 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
Ubique, thanks for clarifying. I asked you who were these atheists who were hunted to death.

You mention the Crusades. The crusades were poorly organised military attempts to claim back regions overrun by Muslim invaders (not atheists).

The Spanish Inquisitions were an institution set up by the Spanish monarchy (largely politically motivated) which mainly targeted Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and a few protestants (not atheists).

The ‘witch hunts’ were a limited madness occurring in a few backwater villages in the early days of the American settlements (I didn’t read about any atheists among the alleged witches).

The conquistadors were attempting to claim land for Spain (but I didn’t hear about any atheists among the Native Americans).

The Jews who died in the holocaust committed no crime other than being of Jewish descent. Among those who died with them were probably as many Christian believers as atheists (as well as others).

Atheists have been with us for a long time, but in its popular form, atheism is more of a post enlightenment thing. But if we want to point score across history, you’d better not look at the millions who died at the hands of the communists (a form of atheism) in the 20th Century.

If you want to make a claim that history is full of atheists suffering persecution at the hands of Christians, you’ll need to come up with something better.

You also challenged what I said about the bible. According to studies of textual criticism, we can have confidence that the biblical texts have been passed down to us accurately. I can understand an atheist doubting the content, but if you doubt the science of textual criticism you would then have to doubt every other historical document from antiquity (e.g. the Iliad, or the writings of Josephus.)

I cannot make an irrefutable proof for the existence of God. Similarly, I would have trouble proving the existence of the sun though standing in an open field at midday. The bible claims that evidence of his existence is clear in the things God has made (Romans 1:20.)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 23 December 2007 11:57:48 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
Jon J and others,
I’m not sure we can say Gray is a Christian apologist. As one or two others have pointed out above, though he may be critiquing humanism, he is not making a case for faith. He calls himself a sceptic. Maybe someone else who knows this guy can throw some light on which side he’s on.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 23 December 2007 11:59:48 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
dan, you may not be able to prove the existence of the noonday sun, but if you don't put on a hat whilst trying, that big hot yellow thing up there is likely to give you cancer. maybe noel coward should have sung about mad dogs and englishmen AND religious sophists?

i liked your posts above, but please don't now go do the silly 1st year philosophy skeptic thing. the existence of the sun is just a trifle more obvious than the existence of a christian god, biblical claims notwithstanding.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 24 December 2007 12:51:56 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
Christian or not, apologist or not, this guy has less than nothing to say.

Whoever is paying him to think is being horribly short-changed. What, for example, is worth paying for in this sequence?

"From where does Dawkins derive this faith in human freedom? Not from science. It comes from Christianity, which has always held that humans are different from all other animals in possessing free will."

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Christianity has always held this to be true, therefore anyone who agrees must "derive it from Christianity."

What arrogance!

It has been a common theme on this Forum that Christianity is the only vessel that can contain virtue, and this is just another attempt to occupy the high moral ground to the exclusion of others.

The man's a charlatan, pure and simple, and anyone buying his argument that atheism has some kind of evangelical force is simply paying the academic prostitute for some temporary mental satisfaction.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 24 December 2007 7:36:55 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
Richard Dawkins, the envoy intellect for many atheists, appears to have a problem only with the representation religion gives us (i.e. its extreme in your face fundamentalistic form) “If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible…” - R.D.

Dan S was able to provide some nuance and illustrate not all is a polarized black and white, which is after all a fundamentalist perspective. Bushbasher offered a subjective criticism when using as an analogy, 'proof' of the sun’s existence as akin to God’s. We have now, to a certain degree, empirically quantified the once mythically held hydrogen mass – source of light and life. Modern myth is a little more subtle – however, despite its sophistry it remains essentially the same as held by the ancients.
Posted by relda, Monday, 24 December 2007 7:38:20 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
Can an atheist still hold spiritual beliefs? Do atheists have any room left for an interest in the paranormal? I loved the story in Esquire mag a while back about the surgeon who has erected a sheet over the operating table because he is tired of his patients relating their 'out of body' experiences and describing his actions and words spoken whilst they are anaesthetised.

I am constantly amazed at the vitriol of the anti's and the level of misinformation that fuels some of their claims- in this one thread I've read 'empty myths, meaningless gibberish, nasty, obtuse, detestable, ludicrous, loony etc'.I've also learned that Stalin and Pol Pot were relatively good guys, and that the Crusades were all about getting the atheists. Sheeesh! As intemperate as an religious fundamentalist.

Nor do I have time for the Christians on this thread. Boaz's moral boomerang will get him too.

Christianity has perverted the search for meaning and understanding of life. The concept of 'spirit' is just that to them, a concept without any day to day significance. If understanding of life is conditional on 'belief' in JC and their idea of the supreme being, then heaven help us all.

It is possible to regard self as just that; self/spirit/soul, without being caught up in dogma. Just ask the Buddhists, Hindus or New Agers.

As someone with a foot in both camps on this subject, I say everyone lighten up and don't take it so seriously. When science has finished splitting the atom etc and finds there is nothing there after all between 2 non existent 'points', then maybe the concept of the soul will come back into vogue.

(It is pretty obvious that this article is an abridged version of something that may have hung together much better in longer form.)
Posted by palimpsest, Monday, 24 December 2007 8:12:44 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
holy cow. reida, the sun example was dan's, and his example was dumb. you say my criticism was subjective? what does that even mean? what would you regard as objective criticism?

look, i liked dan's posts (though pericles nailed john gray perfectly). but dan's example was was plain silly. healthy doubt is fine. the arrogance of scientists who think they know everything can be really annoying. but equating the scientific method with myth-making is absurd.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 24 December 2007 8:56:42 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
The author is struggling to bring together 'atheist'/'god the creative'... I think hindu's struggled longest to answer...and they concluded...'one can find god using either extremes, pure logic or pure faith, or use both.'[ie pure faith is 'god does exist', then fit daily life...to pure logic which starts with 'does god exist' and thought process proceeds from then which effects daily life...]

An all inclusive 'grouping' with above sentence needed. I think that three basic groups will cover all humans...those that struggle to survive a daily life(due to mental, physical, circumstantial reasons and so least interested in religion/spirituality), 'true searchers' and 'true haters' of god. The last is the least spoken/discussed.

If dawkins is a 'true searcher' and concludes hes an atheist, it could be that he is actually on the spiritual path to god but currently at widest point between logic_faith approach...and as he proceeds the difference starts confluencing to single point again...ie 'atheist-believers' start seeing common ground once again ie when were children and belief in god easier and purer...

If dawkins is a 'true hater'...then gods existence is known, but revolt against god...(bit like devil as angel whom went to war with god cast away for 1000years before arising to become one with god)...the hatred arising from having acted against god due to 'unbalanced self interest' and want to reject the accountability of it whi8ch must come...so here the extreme of range is to convince others god does not exist and down a false path or damage gods name to cause others to reject god to self/group loving...

Hope above makes sense...

And to 'secular humanism' and 'human progress'...is akin to principle of communism...as capitalism and its apparent success but unsustainable due to destruction caused to balance of things ...both dont work...keeping the balance in all materially relevant areas is what will...suppose like god...balanced in all....and acting quickly against any unbalancing factor/organized-force...if we want 'humans' to have survive-able future...

Sam
Ps~even if we could jump into a self sustaining space ship going from planet to planet...unless the above issue is effectively dealt with...that is doomed as well...
Posted by Sam said, Monday, 24 December 2007 9:15:41 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
Bushbasher, Yes, the sun example was Dan's and you criticised it - quite fairly I thought. I think Dan was quite objective and correct in his critique to Ubique - atheism is, after all, a modern term, probably quite incoherent if somehow presented to the medieval mind.

Though science is anti- mythical in its study of objects, it is myth-creative in its conceptual theorizing. Science can make sense of its world of things only by making use of concepts (such as "evolution”) that are transcendent to things. By its nature, myth (like science) seeks to unify — or to at least make it intelligible - under a single conceptuality
Posted by relda, Monday, 24 December 2007 10:20:49 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
Communism a form of atheism? Wrong, wrong, wrong! In theory, yes. As practised by Mao or Stalin etc it had nothing to do with atheism. To believe your beloved leader has super-human powers (as people did in 1930s Russia) is not atheism but a belief. As I said, atheists put Stalinism and other mystical beliefs in the same bucket as Christianity.
Posted by DavidJS, Monday, 24 December 2007 12:26:02 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
Marxism is a form of belief. It is a variant of Christianity. It proposes a primitive Eden in an economy of scarcity with property in common. There is no evidence for a primitive Eden. Marx appealed to Morgan's description of the Iroquois and extrapolated it to all tribal societies. Tribal people such as the Kwakiutl can be quite acquisitive. Then there is original sin in the advent of private property. The class struggle is a battle of good (the proletariat) against evil (the capitalist exploiters). The realisation of the messianic vision is the eventual classlesss society. Religious myths are powerful and get absorbed by secular ideologies. The enemy of critical thinking is belief in unprovable propositions. Such belief is no more valid when given to a secular ideology than when it is given to a religion.
Posted by david f, Monday, 24 December 2007 1:27:36 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
DavidJS and david f,
I do not know what are your experiences with communists (I lived through their system, both the Stalinist and post-Stalinist forms) but I can assure you, they would object to having their atheist ideology called religion (even "a variant of Christianity") the same as many contributors here object to calling the dawkinsian world view a religion and his convictions a faith. Nonetheless it is true that the communists copied many bad things from the two millennia old history of the Church without wanting to acknowledge it, the same as many secular humanists (not all, of course) do not wish to acknowledge their indebtedness to the Christian heritage. This is the big difference between the two, but they both, the communists and the dawkinsians, call themselves atheist - whatever that means, I often think many dawkinsians are rather agnostics - and I think one should respect that.
Posted by George, Monday, 24 December 2007 6:27:11 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
Dear George,

My uncle was a Bolshevik in Czarist Russia and was arrested by the Czarist police. In 1921 he left the Soviet after having lived under Lenin and was completely cured of Bolshevik.

Millennialism was not restricted to the Soviets. Joachim of Fiore an 11th century Calabrian abbot proposed a three stage theory of history: Father - peace in Paradise, Son - conflict on earth, Holy Ghost - the millennium. He was an influence on Hegel whose followers split into left Hegelians headed by Marx and right Hegelians who were German nationalists. For Marxists - primitive communism, class struggle and a classless millennium. For Nazis primitive Germanic tribal nobility, decadent democratic capitalism and a racially pure millennium called the Thousand Year Reich, a term coined by the Nazi Manfred von der Drucke in 1923. Nazis and Marxists both believed in unprovable millennial speculations.
Posted by david f, Monday, 24 December 2007 6:48:53 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
Dear david f,
being knowledgeable about an ideology or oppressive political system, and having experienced them on your own skin are two very different things; otherwise I can only agree with what you wrote. Thank you for the info about Joachim of Fiore that I was not awr of.

It only illustrates the obvious fact that neither the communist nor nazi ideologies nor the dawkinsian naive scientism, like many other ideas and ideologies of the last centuries including the less evil and less naive ones, fell from heaven but evolved within the Western cultural tradition that on the abstract level derives from Christianity which in its turn builds on Judaism and the Hellenic heritage.
Posted by George, Monday, 24 December 2007 11:55:12 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
reida, i take your point, that the concepts used in science do not have the same type of reality as the underlying objects. but to refer to this as myth-creative is way too strong. the underlying objects always provide a test for the accuracy and value of these concepts.

and yes, i can appreciate the source and the value of myths to humans and human society. but there is also huge danger, to the extent that these myths are unchallengeable, and i would suggest that most religious people regard their myths in that manner.

further, religious myths are not necessarily there to make to the unknowable intelligible. they can also be there to blind, to simply hide our fear of the unknowable. they can simply be lies.

in any case, merry christmas, whether it happens to be a special birthday or not.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 25 December 2007 9:49:25 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
.. and a merry Christmas to you too bushbasher. Despite our perhaps differing views on the Christmas myth we can certainly transcend them with our good-will.
Posted by relda, Tuesday, 25 December 2007 10:58:17 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 George,

To call Dawkins' views naive scientism is to argue by adjective. It saves the trouble of pointing out exactly where the views are at fault and addressing the fault. Arguing by name calling tells one that you do not like those views but are not willing to specify precisely what is wrong with those views.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 25 December 2007 3:53:32 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 are right to a point: I should not have used the term “dawkinsian naive scientism“ without further explaining what I meant. I was not referring directly to Richard Dawkins but to some contributors on this forum, without wanting to name them. The marxist (more precisely marx-leninist) educators that I was exposed to many years ago said many naive, sometimes plain stupid, things (as my father used to explain, and I myself found out later) but today I am aware that Karl Marx would not have endorsed many of those things. The same about dawkinsians and Dawkins (and, you would probably add, Christians and Jesus).

As to Dawkins himself, I sort of read both The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene, and I am grateful to him for many insights into evolutionary biology I gained as a non-biologist and non-geneticist. In spite of the occasional “non sequiturs” when he delves outside of biology, even science. However. I have to admit I never read his latest book, only some reviews, that seem to confirm my reservations about his “non sequiturs“ or, as some reviewer said, that the title of the book should have been “The Dawkins Delusions about What the Belief in God Means.”

Besides, as you might know, Dawkins just recently proclaimed himself a cultural Christian (albeit atheist) which I do not think the dawkinsians I was referring to would all want to call themselves. This admission might not mean much in terms of a world view, but it makes him more sympathetic, at least in my eyes. Maybe after all, he is not that negative, and appreciates the value of belonging to a cultural tradition that I referred to in my previous post, and is not shy about appreciating the Christian contribution to it. (ctd)
Posted by George, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 12:27:37 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
(ctd) Also, the term “naive” could be pejorative, but also a technical term (e.g. naive realism in philosophy). By naive scientism I mean the attitude in philosophy of science that sits well with Newton’s physics (philosophically underpinned by e.g. Immanuel Kant) that had to be abandoned in the last century because of relativity theory and, notably, quantum mechanics, including recent attempts to reconcile them. Suddenly there are not only ambiguities concerning whether one creates or discovers mathematics, whether God created man or man created God, but there seem to be similar ambiguities in the philosophy of contemporary physics. As far as I can tell, Dawkins does not address these ambiguities.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 12:29:25 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
Unchallengeable myths. This is a pretty good description of biological evolution. Is there any one thing we know for certain about how the protozoa became the pelican, palm tree, or philosopher? But dare challenge the story that they so did transform.

You are allowed to tinker with the details but, for many, the idea of evolution is an unassailable tenet of faith.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 9:20:34 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
dan, now you're just talking vacuous nonsense. evolution is an unchallengeable myth no more nor less than gravity, and you have no more grounds to doubt the one than the other.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 26 December 2007 11:36:52 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
When one wavers from a logical critique to a purely subjective belief in a divine interference in nature, where miraculous catastrophic interventions occur in the course of the history of life and the history of earth, one is bereft of any critical thinking. As early as 1830, Charles Lyell with his Principles of Geology (1830-3) rightly challenged Victorian orthodoxy. It is impossible to get on with the actual practice of geological science (or any other science for that matter) if one always had to entertain the possibility that the facts were not to be explained by the laws of nature, but that this case was a miracle or the result of laws of nature which had ceased to act.

Darwin and Darwinism have become clichés for a much wider movement. Faith and evolution have no relation. I fear there are many whose mental DNA throws back to a Victorian orthodoxy. Neither can a 'natural theology' apply, where, as shown by Thomas Malthus in 1798 (Principle of Population etc.) with some apparent mathematical force, nature's 'harmony' is far from perfect. Population increase was geometric and food production arithmetic. Even in the 19th. Century it appeared as evident, not only was nature niggardly, but vice, misery, war, famine, and death were inevitable consequences of nature's laws, unless man could restrain his sexual appetite.
Posted by relda, Thursday, 27 December 2007 9:47:49 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
A lot of posters here seem to think that if the Bible (or any other religious mythology) is not *literal historical fact* it's worthless junk and should be thrown in the garbage immediately!

This is just as "fundamentalist" in attitude as the religious people they oppose.

So what if it's not literally true.
Neither are the Scandinavian, Greek or Roman myths.
Can we not still learn important lessons from these stories?

I was severely bible-bashed as a child.
If anyone would feel resentment and hostility, it would be me.
But I don't.
I dislike Bible-bashers, but not the Bible itself.

I particularly like the Eden story, but interpret it rather heretically.
To me, the snake is the Hero.
Adam and Eve may have lived in Perfection.
But it was a Prison, and the snake made them realise this.
Through disobedience, they gained true freedom.

See, I neither think of Eden as historical fact, not interpret the story in the orthodox way, but I still *get something* out of it!

And the childish "Prove there's a God" routine.
This is pointless.

You can neither prove nor disprove such a thing exists.

There also seems to be an assumption that all mythologies are treated as literal fact and that all religious people are theists.
Neither is true.

Even if it were scientifically proven that there is no spiritual dimension (by any definition), does this "truth" automatically make the world a better place.

Imagine a culture, with (to our eyes) a ludicrous mythology.
Yet all the people in that culture are happy, sexually fulfilled, productive, peaceful and materially prosperous.

Would these people be better left to live their "fantasy"?
Or should we "enlighten" them with the cold hard truth?
Does "truth" have a value that overrides all other considerations?
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 27 December 2007 8:51:56 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
shockadelic, i for one have no trouble with valuing myth. but i think you have the wrong end of the stick. the main issue here is not people demanding the bible be literally true, though they may hold up for ridicule people who try to claim this. the main issue is religiously motivated hostility to biological truth.

don't talk to me, talk to people like grey, and dan. they're the ones who can't seem to get straight that truth means truth and myth means myth.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 28 December 2007 1:08:25 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
Unquestionable Articles of Faith:

Aristocracy
To live correctly, political power should be kept by an elite.

Humanism
To live correctly, morality must be based on universal human qualities, particularly Reason.

Anarchism
To live correctly, compulsory government must be eliminated.

Relativism
To live correctly, you must accept that context determines the truth of anything.

Authoritarianism
To live correctly, we must strictly obey authority.

Environmentalism
To live correctly, we must cause as little environmental degradation as possible.

Hedonism
To live correctly, pleasure should be our most important pursuit.

Conservatism
To live correctly, we should maintain traditions and resist radical change.

Socialism
To live correctly, the community should control the distribution of wealth.

Scientism
To live correctly, knowledge of natural science must be the basis of all action.

Nationalism
To live correctly, our people must constitute an independent political community.

Republicanism
To live correctly, our country must not be led by a hereditary monarch.

Liberalism
To live correctly, the interests of the individual must prevail over those of the community.

Communitarianism
To live correctly, the interests of the community must prevail over those of the individual.

Secularism
To live correctly, religion must remain separate to government.

Utilitarianism
To live correctly, morality must be determined by the outcome of our actions.

Totalitarianism
To live correctly, the state should regulate both public and private behaviour.

Despotism
To live correctly, our society must be ruled by a single authority.

Materialism
To live correctly, we must base all actions on our knowledge of physical reality.

Meritocracy
To live correctly, we should be governed by those with appropriate demonstrated abilities.

Communism
To live correctly, society must be classless, stateless, and based on common ownership of the means of production.

Democracy
To live correctly, the people must have the authority to govern themselves.

Feminism
To live correctly, patriarchy must be abolished.

Nihilism
To live correctly... Hang on, there's no way to live correctly!
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 28 December 2007 6:39:12 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
There is a clear difference between gravity and evolution. If I were silly enough to want to challenge gravity, I need only to set up a test, perhaps try stepping off the roof of my house.

However, what is the test for whether one kind of animal morphed into another in some distant past? Unfortunately, evolution has no real tests. We accept it by faith or on the authority of those who created the story.

This fairy tale belongs in the same category with the myths, not with gravity.

P.S. Nice list, Shocka.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 28 December 2007 7:58:54 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
shockadelic, reida, i rest my case. dan's not interested in truth. he's only interested in denigrating anything which threatens his myths. there's nothing honest here, there's no integrity or good faith in dan's response. just a smug, childish, defensive dismissal.

dan, there is all variety of scientific truth which you, personally, would find difficult or impossible to test. do you regard quantum mechanics as fairy tale? relativity? electromagnetism?

why is it that the one body of scientific truth which you seek to dismiss as "fairy tale" is evolutionary biology?
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 28 December 2007 9:15:52 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
The Catholic Church, in a turn around, has embraced the general principles of evolution in order to distance itself from a logical counter point - Creationism, a scientific absurdity. Dan, I fear, is treading on tricky ground - with all due respect, has he the intellectual capacity to offer a more compelling myth than that of evolution, or does he agree with a pseudo scientific method?

In continuing in a similar vein from my previous post - challenging the science of evolution is part of a broader social and political program that includes establishing absolute hierarchical relationships in families, churches, and communities; protecting unambiguous boundaries between men and women, gays and straights, and Christians and non-Christians; and finally, preserving an unchanging nature to gender roles, the function of churches, and the religious nature of government.

If, by ignoring the science of evolution and replace it with the pseudo-science of creationism, where it is believed the Earth's species are too elaborate and varied to have arisen by evolution. A creator, essentially God, must have created them. This dumbs down an ancient myth into literal belief, belies the subtlety of faith but is quite true to fundamentalist form.
Posted by relda, Friday, 28 December 2007 7:35:51 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
Bushbasher,
The cavalier manner in which you throw around the words ‘truth’ and ‘scientific truth’ displays a confidence that could outstrip many among the devout. I would question whether the term ‘scientific truth’ even belongs in this discussion, unless you want to give more ammunition to Gray’s position that the secularists are borrowing too much from those of faith.

I don’t think science even has ‘Truth with a capital T’. Science is more a method, hopefully with truth as the goal. But such knowledge advances in a cumulative and self correcting manner.

One of the planks of the scientific method is testability or repeatability. The problem with evolution is that it is a theory of history, an explanation of what happened in the past, and therefore unrepeatable. For the others, not so. If you don’t like my idea on electromagnetism, I’ll demonstrate it with an experiment, again and again. If I can’t then you can question whether it’s really scientific.

Relda,
The Catholic Church is monolithic, but rarely capable of speaking with one voice. The pronouncements which come from the Vatican don’t always represent the broad spectrum within the ranks. There are still highly respected scientists within the Catholic Church critical of Darwin and evolution.

When speaking of these Christian moral issues you seem worried about creationists bringing a Trojan horse along with them. While creationists largely do have great respect for the Bible, this in itself should not discount their arguments. I can say this in view of the great pioneers of modern science who were nearly all deeply Bible believing (Bacon, Newton) as well as other great names of science post Darwin (Mendel, Pasteur). I put it to you that many concerns against creationists show fears of this Trojan horse and not their arguments themselves.

In investigating our origins, in the end we have two possibilities: a great intelligence beyond our own created the cosmos, or it created itself. Neither is ultimately provable scientifically. But I use the emotive term ‘fairy tale’ as I believe the evidence for evolution is insubstantial or not compelling.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 29 December 2007 9:14:51 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
not much point in arguing the subtleties of science with someone who attacks the idea of scientific truth. i used no capitals, dan, but feel free to keep attacking your straw man.

and your opinion is that the evidence for evolution is "not compelling"? why would i possibly care about your willfully uninformed opinion?

dan, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. but i realise i have no chance of convincing you of anything your religiously addled mind refuses to consider.
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 29 December 2007 10:21:16 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
Your last paragraph is the most telling, Dan, for you confuse scientific truth with your own beliefs. In doing so and by your logic you equate all that is scientifically unprovable to a fairy tale (including, by implication, your own religious beliefs). If you wish to talk credibly on any scientific truth you need take the approach of a scientist. You talk as some evangelist, where your mission is not to support or reveal any scientific understanding, but to forge apologetic defenses for some generic or universal truth as contained in your particular biblical interpretation.

Darwin’s theory of how evolution happened, i.e. natural selection, is quite distinct from the fact of evolution. Other scientists have different theories of evolution, but only a negligible few deny the fact of evolution. It would appear scientists are far more uniformly aligned than a "monolithic" catholic faith. In the Origin of Species Darwin provided vast amounts of data about the natural world that he and others had collected or observed. Only after providing the data did he demonstrate how his theory accounted for the data much better than the theory of special creation - his theories were certainly, nor have ever been, beyond critique.

My problem with the Creationists is not with your so called "trojan horse" but their total disingenuousness . They consider as false any evidence or data contradicting their reading of the Bible. I do in fact question the basis of their argument. Despite their somewhat devious approach, their morality (Christian or otherwise) is not a central issue here. Creation scientists see no need to test their theory, since God has revealed it. Infallible certainty is not the hallmark of science. Scientific theories are fallible. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but the pseudoscience you appear to happily support. Intelligent design is a mere re-format of Creationism - both ideas are unscientific, unprovable and therefore by your own definition, fairytales.... but we are free to believe what we want.
Posted by relda, Saturday, 29 December 2007 1:36:46 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
"The problem with evolution is that it is a theory of history, an explanation of what happened in the past, and therefore unrepeatable".

Not so. You can go to any high-school science lab in the country and watch selection and adaptation happen in a petri dish. By exposing an agar plate of bacteria to an antibiotic agent, most will die and the survivors will grow into a new culture with antibiotic-resistant properties. Voila! They have evolved!

This can be done in a matter of hours, so the changes wrought over billions of years are hardly surprising.

The standard counter-argument is that the progress from a single-celled organism to a human being is far more pronounced, and therefore a different kettle of fish. This is a nonsense, like saying that the theory of addition can be trusted when adding 2 apples to 2 apples, but not when adding 2 million apples to 2 million apples.

As for "a great intelligence beyond our own created the cosmos, or it created itself", if the former is so, who or what created that intelligence?
Posted by Sancho, Saturday, 29 December 2007 2:19:09 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
darwin and natural selection...'fact' or 'theory in evolution?'... he wrote a pretty good book but some significant inconsistencies still exist that cannot be explained away...http://www.kheper.net/evolution/Darwinism.htm

Yes...lot of observational evidence to evolution eg all vertebrates with independent mobility...all have a brain at one end, senses to tell what its surround are, associative process to assess all the information in each moment and understand it while using its 'past memory base'...this linked to 'applied intelligence activity' eg achieving life sustaining activity like feeding most effectively...

But great doubts/mysteries of natural selection exist...one of the greatest is intelligence of man itself...as its clear intelligence aids in survival...and if all life forms, including man, started at same original point...then purely on probability man should not be the only life form to such superior intelligence to aid in survival...meaning we should be competing with technology of other evolved advanced intellectual species on earth for survival eg 'toolmaking language formed' bird species...or for that matter shark/crocodiles which one of the longest 'time' existence without significant evolutionary change to intelligence...yeah they are effective predators but we all can use more intelligence and by natural selection it should have happened...otherwise mans intelligence should have stopped after he became a successful predator...

so 'the god factor' still exists and may play an important part to explain all we know currently...

smart money is continuing to applying our logic and reason to 'existence of god' question...as the definite evidence would only occur when body dies and 'soul is freed into afterlife events'...then even blind freddy would know and too late to do anything to 'survival' then...but most importantly open your 'spiritual eye' ie 'eye of energies' as integral to answering any question on god...otherwise your handicap to inquire is severe indeed...its like proving to 'blind from birth' that the colour yellow exists...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Sunday, 30 December 2007 10:49:29 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
sam said, yes there is plenty which is not understood about evolution (see reida above). but that is neither here nor there. the exact same can be said of any scientific field. this does not change the fact of evolution, any more than modern advances in physics changed the fact of newtonian gravity.

as for the god factor, i'm sorry but i cannot see how that can be part of any scientific explanation. the questions raised by proposing a god are much larger than the questions answered (see sancho above). you can believe in a god, in fact many scientists do, but it's not productive science. in the particular case of intelligent design, it's not only not productive, it's not honest.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 30 December 2007 11:09:40 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
bushbasher...I take your point...and accept that evolution is current;y taken as 'fact' by lot of people...and it is to a great extent...people laughed at darwin when he first propounded the theory...I just hope that a broader and open and inquisitive mind is always held with all things we currently accept...lest we fail to correct ourselves when we should...

To god and scientific explanation/productive science...again I take your point it lacks both significantly...but if one expands those limits...as god would come more under interpersonal relationships of man...to question of 'existence of god'...a scientific approach can be used I think...and why not...if one chooses to not just believe but make an inquiry into the very existence so be it...and I for one would be very interested in the process/path the person takes and to where the conclusions lead...

so once more 'facts/truth' are known it may be provable that god does have 'scientific explanation/productive science' factor...who knows...as one may not immediately see the connection between themselves in Australia and a slum dweller in usa...on some thought it strikes me that we both consume the same oxygen...to god its that we both use the same type of energy to drive our fundamental process...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Sunday, 30 December 2007 12:19:28 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
Bushbasher,
I never accused you of spelling truth with a capital T. I accused you of having the idea that there is some body of knowledge out there, infallible and unquestionable, called ‘scientific truth’. You are still using the phrase in Saturday’s post and now Relda is using it as well. Do you still believe this?

If I ever found the book called “Scientific Truth” it would be quickly out of date because science is in a constant state of revision, always updating its findings. Today’s truth is tomorrow’s outdated fallacy.

You ask me a specific question (see your post from Friday morning) and when I try to answer you say, “Why should I care about your opinion?” (Give a guy a break!)

Relda,
Similarly, you challenged me to offer a more compelling myth (your word) than evolution. Then when I attempt to explain my position, you accuse me of sounding like an evangelist in defending one interpretation. Well, what did you expect?

I still contend there are only two games in town. Either a great intelligence beyond our own created the cosmos, or it created itself. Sancho and Dawkins and others are busy defending the latter (which currently boils down to a version of neo-Darwinism). I prefer the former on the available evidence.

(Perhaps I didn’t explain my “Trojan horse” well enough, but I was referring to your concerns about the ‘social and political program’ involving ‘gender roles’, etc. etc. If you are no longer concerned with these outside issues and just want to stick with the arguments, then that’s fine.)

You say infallible certainty characterises not science but pseudo science. But just before this, you speak of the ‘fact of evolution’ as if it was a certainty. Well, what is it? Is it a certainty? The ‘fact of evolution’ is looking a bit like a tenet of faith.

Yes, creationists (as Christians) find revelation in the Word of God. Their bias is explicit and not hidden. The evolutionists have their own biases, however implicit. Each has a creation myth from which they begin their investigations.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 30 December 2007 12:53:03 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
Sancho,
You have not fully understood what I was trying to say regarding history. Yes, we can examine the way bacteria multiply in a petri dish, but that doesn’t directly tell us what happened to particular bacteria a hundred million years ago. If I could change a reptile into a bird in my laboratory, that would be pretty darn impressive, but it wouldn’t prove that reptiles changed into birds millions of years ago. History simply can not be repeated.

For this reason, forensic evidence in a court of law is useful but not sufficient in proving the guilt or otherwise of an accused, as they will be arguing over a theory of history as to what happened in the past. The event cannot be repeated. A jury will have to decide on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt.

With the petri dish, I am glad you acknowledge that there does exist a counter-argument, however, you haven’t really grasped what the standard creationist counter-argument is. Going from a single cell animal to a mammal is (as you noted) a totally different kettle of fish to bacterial resistance. The resistant strain of bacteria was already present in the original bacterial population. They have simply survived and multiplied. Nothing new was created, and much new genetic information needs to be added to get to anything like a mammal from a bacterium.

There is not one creationist in the whole world that denies that selection and adaptation are observable phenomena. They just deny that such processes create new genetic information. In the process of speciation, genetic information is shifted around, corrupted or lost, but never added

A better analogy would be to describe the foolish shopkeeper who sells stuff at retail at a price slightly less than he bought it wholesale. He knows he makes a loss on each single sale; however he somehow thinks that he can make it up in volume.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 30 December 2007 12:56:49 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 and Sam, you're looking at evolution from a design perspective, as though adaptation is a process which goes in one direction until it arrives at the perfect form - humans.

That's a common misconception. We are not at the apex of a pyramid of life; we are what's left when nature has filtered out the less efficient forms.

Throughout the vast ocean of time that preceded us, there had to be winners and losers. By a chance of billions to one, the genetic code that became us consistently out-competed most others in the environment. But it could have been much different. At countless points throughout history, it might have been a lizard or marsupial that acquired the mutation necessary to survive, instead of mammals. In that case, the dominant species might now be a form of giant intelligent lizard, or a society of echidna-people. Or, more likely, it would still be a wilderness of unintelligent animals, as it has been until the most recent, vanishingly small period of time.

But - and this is important - if we had evolved into bipedal lizards, echidna-men, or creatures with five tentacles, two heads, green hair and horns, religions would still claim that we were created by god, in his, her, or its image.

SAM
> "we should be competing with technology of other evolved advanced intellectual species on earth for survival eg 'toolmaking language formed' bird species"

We had that competition a long time ago, and our ancestors won. There are however, many animals that use tools (mostly our relatives, the apes, but some birds, too). As for language skills, Google "Alex the parrot". There is no clear line between intelligent humans and dumb animals. All of our behavious is present in "lower" creatures, in some form or other.

Regarding the petri dish, yes, the antibiotic-resistant genes were already present. As a previous mutation, they had absolutely no effect on the bacterium's fitness (suitability to its environment). However, once the antibiotic was introduced, those forgotten genes were the difference between life and death.

...
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 30 December 2007 2:16:36 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
Now, let's say the chromosome which carried those genes had another mutation which turns the bacterium blue (the others are green). Subsequent generations would all be blue. Then let's say that a species of dust mite arrives on the seen which can spot light blue bacteria, but not dark blue. After a few more generations, the dark blue ones would be dominant. Add in more variables like this - environmental factors giving some mutations an advantage - over millions upon millions of years, and our existence makes perfect, elegant sense.

That's how evolution works. Not, as the Discovery Institute says, by a generation of fish suddenly appearing with legs and walking onto land, or a macaque monkey giving birth to a baby that speaks Swahili, but by chance mutation, bare survival, and time. Lots and lots of time.

To that, I add that the facts of natural selection and evolution don't deny god. They only deny the Biblical account of creation. Was evolution kicked off by an intelligent agent? You're right - it's impossible to know (for now). But if it was, that doesn't validate any sort of religious belief. It may have been a god that hates us and wishes to torment us for sport, or aliens who seeded the earth as an experiment or protein farm.

For that reason, the entire design versus blind evolution debate is redundant. The science is clear and reliable, and uncontested. Any other facet is a matter for philosophers and the individual's conscience.
Posted by Sancho, Sunday, 30 December 2007 3:13:45 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
dan, you answered my question, in a happily and deliberately ignorant manner. it was at that point i gave up on you. and you did accuse me of using metaphoric capitals. it is still a straw man. i do not use "fact" as "Fact", and you know it. i use it in the common sense meaning of the word: true in its essence; every good reason to believe; absolutely no reason to doubt. whatever the hell you want.

you're not using doubt in any reasonable manner. what your saying is "there is no absolute truth, therefore anything might be false". yeah, well whoopee. you get a B in 1st year philosophy. your manner has nothing to do with an honest evaluation of scientific method. you're just playing games.

sam said, i agree that science has to be humble about what it knows. but it doesn't have to fake humility when it knows what it knows. evolution is not merely taken as fact, it is fact, the way gravity is fact.

will the theory of evolution change? absolutely no question. is it less than the whole answer? will other theories such as lamarckism play a role? maybe. but evolution is true, however many religiously motivated sophists wish to claim otherwise.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 30 December 2007 3:38:37 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
I think that the following two “non-sequiturs” pop up frequently in this kind of debates:

(a) that belief in e.g. the Christian God (as revealed in the Bible and interpreted by contemporary theologians) excludes the acceptance of all of the body of contemporary scientific knowledge (that includes evolution of the neo-Darwinian or other kind), and (b) that acceptance of the latter excludes the former.

In particular, you can defend evolution without having to attack or ridicule religious faith, and you can be a good Christian without having to attack evolution. You can believe in God without having to believe that He created “single handed” each species or even each creature. Also, Intelligent design (that evolution had been pre-programmed) is a meta-scientific hypothesis that does not need to involve belief in a God (see for instance the book “Biocosm, the new scientific theory of evolution: intelligent life is the architect of the universe” by James N. Gardner)

bushbasher,
by “evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact“ you can mean either
(1) their a priori observable (thus undeniable) manifestations: that there are simpler and more complex creatures, and that unsupported objects fall to the ground, or
(2) the interpretations of these observations (which have become accepted only in the last centuries), namely that creatures have evolved from simpler to more complex ones, and that material objects are attracted to each other.

You cannot verify evolution in a laboratory, neither can you verify the mutual attraction of heavenly bodies in a laboratory. However, in case of gravity you have a mathematically well formulated theory (actually theories, Newton’s expanded by Einstein, with claims to further expansions to e.g. the superstring theory). In case of evolution, you have today many theories, that do not have non-trivial mathematics to make their relation to each other, and applicability to particular situations, so clear cut, as in the case of gravity. Perhaps this is the reasons why some people think that evolution theories, but not mathematically rather hard to understand theories of gravitation or particle physics, threaten their faith.
Posted by George, Sunday, 30 December 2007 4:57:53 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
Dan, Your reaction is what I'd expected. I'd hoped for your critical thought, devoid of religious apologetics. George's eloquence surmises that evolution shouldn't pose a threat to a theism or Christianity - I agree, note also the dependence modern biotechnology has on the process of evolution. If it (evolution) were not in fact true this recent and important science could have no basis. I suggest you read 'The Fractal Logic of Evolution' (http://www.science-art.com.au/fractallogicofevolution.html). This article provides something quite insightful.

Also, as you were keen to mention Sir Isaac Newton, you should also note his unpublished paper,' The Vegetation of Metals'. Here he wrote of his conviction that a more profound natural philosophy existed to balance the mechanical description of his 'infinite' universe and that its basic principles would be derived from particle movement. Newton dared not publish this during his lifetime, as even today this work is referred to as Newton’s Heresy Science. Heresy, because he was in disagreement with a politically powerful church, as was incidentally, Darwin, who hesitated to publish his thesis for similar reasons and for fear of causing offence. The political and social construct within an old church hierarchy has mutated into a different form - but as before, the very idea of evolution appears to upset a conceived 'divine' order. A fearful fundamentalism appears to have captured a significant and clearly visible strain of Christianity.

History repeats itself as the Jesuit Priest, Tielhard de Chardin, was chastised by the Church for developing theories employing evolution as a basic premise, - the Church however has recanted, for perhaps she now sees science a legitimate ally in the exposition of truth.

Objective being and intelligence are sides, one to the other. I accept an objectivity beyond the mind of man - "(Our)transition from the prehuman to the human state has a cortical maturity - its moment of attaining supremacy is the hallmark of our kind. It tells us why the human has been called nature’s religious creature, and with this, religion, evolution and the physiology of neural process come together under one roof." - Dr. Stephen Taylor
Posted by relda, Sunday, 30 December 2007 9:22:01 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
While I didn’t get a lot out of Gray’s original article, one thing I think he was saying was that the humanist / atheist types (I think he meant Dawkins and his followers) were a little too sure of themselves without good reason. After reading so many of the comments above, I think he may have been onto something.

Bushbasher and Relda are still beating this ‘fact of evolution’ drum. For something to be accepted as a fact, in any ordinary sense of the word, it requires more than repeated assertion that it is indeed a fact. Saying something often enough and loud enough doesn’t make it a fact. Neither Relda saying ‘only a negligible few deny it’ turn it into a scientific fact, for science is not done by counting noses.

Establishing scientific fact has something to do with evidence.

Sancho protests that the science is clear, reliable, and uncontested. Can I say, Sancho, that I didn’t find your explanation of the gene accumulation starting from a one cell organism to human beings very clear. You seem to be talking about latent genes, selection of genes, and corruption of genes, but never accrual of new genes. I guess you weren’t suggesting that the genes for a human were already present, latent in the bacterium, for that would be ludicrous.

I’m not sure what you mean by reliable. Perhaps this means testable or repeatable? How could we test for whether one of our ancestors crawled out of a lake several hundred million years ago?

Uncontested? I’ve heard and read too many debates by competent scientists who dispute evolution to think that the subject is ‘uncontested’. If only someone would present some more compelling evidence, we wouldn’t need these debates.

Sancho, I may be excused for looking at evolution from a design perspective, for even the great one, Dawkins himself, said that living things give the appearance of being designed for a purpose, before trying to explain away the illusion.

Relda, I love your phrase, ‘science a legitimate ally in the exposition of truth’.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 31 December 2007 11:33:35 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
“Evangelical atheism is the mirror image of the faith it attacks --.” Hardly a brilliantly illuminated phrase – rather a concoction appearing through the shrouds of Gray mist from an ill-informed, or disingenuous, mind.

Gray singles out Dawkins for opprobrium, yet Dawkins in his most outspoken work on the supernatural, The God Delusion, demonstrates quite good relations with church leaders who do not go out of their way to force their ideas upon others.

How “evangelical” is atheism compared with Salvos and tambourine, saffron-robed Buddhists behind drums, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sending forth “elders” to prey (uninvited) upon suburban housewives, door-knocking “Awake” peddlers of their faith, the Pope’s dictatorial stance that children of Catholic/non-catholic partners be inducted into the Catholic Church, ---.

Reference to “The Selfish Gene” is a very long shot indeed by Gray, and he has not hit gold with his misdirected arrow. There is little doubt that evolution of the human mind has enhanced the options of Homo sapiens for avoiding pitfalls. A great many major problems could be avoided if only we could make better use of the human brain, our greatest evolutionary inheritance.

The family tree leading to that inheritance is tremendously interesting. Deniers of its existence miss out terribly from their lack of curiosity. The tree and its branches is all around them – how can they shut their eyes, close their ears, to the real world to such an extent - Ignore comparative anatomy, the fossil record – ? Almost any geological or biological text would need to be avoided. But, for anyone with a genuine curiosity in the family history of Homo sapiens and of the world it shares, Mary White has provided a delightful book with the title Earth Alive! – From Microbes to a Living Planet; Rosenberg Publishing ISBN 1 877058 05 X.

No proof! – the deniers say. What waffle. Next thing they will be telling me the old Herberton hospital hasn’t shifted, stumps, grounds and all, 5 metres north away from the South Pole since I was born in it
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 9:27:14 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
"Bushbasher and Relda are still beating this ‘fact of evolution drum" - not to mention also Sancho, colinsett, most of academia, most reasonable people of many faiths and any scientist worth a mention. There are some, no matter how loud the drum beat, will always resolutely stick their fingers in both ears, failing not only in a lack of curiosity but in a misappropriation of their myth as dogma.

Explanations of the origin and nature of the world and life are not final truths passed down through generations by mendicant monks preserving the knowledge and wisdom of the ancients; instead, they are always provisional and ever changing, and are best couched in empirical evidence, experimental testing, and logical reasoning.
Posted by relda, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 10:14:51 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 said above i wouldn't try to convince you of anything, and i said why. but perhaps you can sucker reida and sancho into playing your silly games. then you can tell them all about the "competent scientists who dispute evolution". i'm sure they'll be fascinated.

george, very nice post. i mostly agree with what you wrote. in clarification, i meant (2), the interpretation of observations, followed up by the usual predictive, falsifiable stuff. that is, science at work, and not dan and his mates jumping off roofs whilst considering the majesty of the biological world.

however, i think you're wrong about the lack of solid mathematical foundation as the reason people are skeptical of evolution. i guess having no clearly accepted mathematical foundation gives them an apparent weak point to attack, but that doesn't explain why they attack it. the point isn't how apparently weak the theory might be, the point is how much the theory threatens Man's place in the universe.

take dan as exhibit A. it's not that he had doubts that evolution is true: clearly he created those doubts because he's scared of evolution, because he wants evolution to be false. and it's a very natural fear. dan's not a lousy human, just a lousy scientist.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 10:15:58 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
Speaking of crawling out of swamps, cane toads are spreading across the country at an alarming rate. Interestingly, the ones that are spreading fastest have longer legs than most toads, and can travel faster into uncontested areas: a mutation is giving them a survival advantage. Eventually, all cane toads in WA will be of the long-legged variety. < http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=2344 >

Where do new genes come from? Some emerge through interspersed repetition (when genes damaged during meiosis are "patched up" with a different sequence to the original), occasionally through damage from radiation, and virii and bacteria have been shown to move genes around, as well as actually incorporate themselves into the genome of other species (e.g. mitochondria). Genes also "shuffle" within exons. Good introduction here: < http://darwin.uky.edu/~sargent/ExonShuffling.pdf >

I have to say I'm confused by this: "I’m not sure what you mean by reliable. Perhaps this means testable or repeatable? How could we test for whether one of our ancestors crawled out of a lake several hundred million years ago?"

Do you mean that demonstrating adaptation today doesn't mean that it existed in the past? Isn't that like saying that just because there is gravity today is no proof it was in effect 3 million years ago? Or that because no-one alive today saw Da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa, we should be skeptical of claims that painting existed in the 16th century?

I would very much like to see valid science from a competent scientist which actually casts doubt on evolution. That's been a goal since the advent of Christian Science, and has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Lots of challenges have been put forward, all have been disproved. Keep in mind that a Christian scientist declaring his own skepticism of evolution isn't a scientific argument.

Also, if there were even a hint that the science was unsound, even the most atheistic biologists would be researching it night and day in the hope of winning a Nobel Prize.
Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 11:42:28 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
Creationists and their debunkers are confusing two different things:
1. The creation of the universe.
2. The creation of life on Earth.

There aren't just two opposing beliefs, but multiple possibilities:

(a) The same "God" (intelligent being/s) created both universe and life on Earth.
(b) "God" created the universe and its rules, but not specifically life on Earth.
(c) No God created the universe, but a "God" created most of the life on Earth.
(d) One "God" created the universe, but *another* "God" created life on Earth.
(e) No God created either.

Believers of theories (a) and (e) control the debate.
But theories (b), (c) and (d) are left out!
And they're the most intriguing!

How do the debunkers explain the Cambrian explosion?
Or even how life appeared at all?

For most of this planet's history, there was no life.
Science has *no standard model* to explain how life began.

When life did appear, evolution was *incredibly slow*, and only produced *simple* organisms.

Then a *massive* amount of genetic diversity and disparity appeared *suddenly*, including very *complex* organisms!

Why?

Also, just prior to this, a mass extinction took place.

Could the present lifeforms on Earth be "manufactured" by some intelligent being or beings, first wiping out most of the existing lifeforms?

These "creators" subsequently modified their creations, adding extra brain sections to humans for example, but not bothering to modify crocodiles at all.

One "explanation" suggests that prior to the Cambrian period, there was insufficient oxygen to enable such diversity.

However, this in a *backwards* argument, based on our knowledge of today's lifeforms requiring oxygen.
Couldn't lifeforms have evolved that didn't require oxygen?

This "creation" has been mythologised, and mixed in with universe-creation myths to produce the familiar legends.
Just because the legends are not historical fact doesn't mean their original inspiration isn't.

The fact of evolution doesn't negate the possibility of either a universal creator or a life-on-earth creator.

Nor does it explain the *origins* of life, or the sudden complexity and diversity of the Cambrian period.

"Debunkers, I cast you out! The power of Doubt compels you!"
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 1:41:05 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
ah, shockadelic, at least your posts are fun!

"The fact of evolution doesn't negate the possibility of either a universal creator or a life-on-earth creator."

you're absolutely correct. but, once again, you should be telling Fearful Dan, not we debunkers. it's not the belief in a god which is getting up we debunkers' noses, it's the anti-scientific special pleading twaddle believers come out with for the sake of their beliefs.

BUT, the failure of current theories of evolution to explain everything is a poor argument against evolution, and a very poor (and standard) argument for god. positing a god doesn't explain anything, it simply is a way to avoid looking for the explanation.

shockman, gaps and contradictions in scientific theories is the norm. it may well be that a later, fuller understanding of the cambrian explosion will radically alter evolutionary theories. but that would not alter the fact of evolution, the evidence for which is overwhelming. once again, with feeling, einstein didn't make newton wrong.
Posted by bushbasher, Tuesday, 1 January 2008 2:02:41 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
bushbasher,
“Positing a god doesn't explain anything, it simply is a way to avoid looking for the explanation“. I could agree with that, provided you keep the terms ‘explain‘ and ‘explanation‘ within a scientific context. Belief in God - which is the rational background, or axiom if you like, of religious faith - explains many things, for instance the purpose of one’s existence, to many people (including dan or me) but I agree that this is not a scientific explanation, so it cannot collide e.g. with Darwin’s/Dawkins’ or Einstein’s theory.

I agree with what you say about the reasons why some people are scared to accept evolution as a fact of life. “Perhaps this is the reasons” in my post should have been “Perhaps this is ONE OF the reasons“, sorry for the slip.

I never experienced that fear, but I remember that many years ago as a student I was confused and “scared into rational insecurity“ when I first read about relativity theory: it seemed to go against common sense. Only after I learned the maths behind it did I realise that what I had to abandon were the presuppositions of Newton‘s physics, not common sense or even logic.

There are still many philosophical ambiguities underlying quantum physics, although its conclusions have been verified by practice, and the mathematics it builds on is very clear. In case of evolution you do not have these abstract certainties to fall back on. Perhaps therefore you have more militant atheists among biologists than among cosmologists, who are tempted - to paraphrase Marshal McLuhan - to call “the scientific explanation (evolution) is the Message”. Thus no wonder, some people object to seeing the Message (that gives meaning, purpose, to one's life) reduced to a scientific explanation.

I think dan‘s contributions are of interest not so much because of the arguments, but because of the insights into a kind of religious thinking, they offer. You can learn a lot from observations and evaluations offered by a scientist without knowing anything about his/her personal disposition. You cannot, when religion (or “anti-religion”), not science, is involved.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 1:39:54 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 believe the polemic offered by bushbasher, sancho, myself and others certainly don't reduce the "meaning or purpose of life" to scientific empiricism or explanation through supporting evolution and the countering of creationism . The subject of life's purpose or meaning is a separate, albiet worthy topic of exploration. I haven't a problem with religious myth, through its either its expression or culture, where a profound dimension can be added. When our myths, however, are no longer confined to the interior, to indeed become 'fact', a false religiosity appears. Resulting religious militancy has historically had its fair share of blood-shed.

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact.

"Theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory.

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered
Posted by relda, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 10:38:05 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
hi, george. yes i'm happy to qualify what i said, that introducing a god cannot be part of a scientific explanation, and leave open more human questions. i'm skeptical more generally, but it is not the issue here. but also, as reida has just written, no one is reducing the meaning of life to science. dawkins is strident and aggressive, but he is very solidly and caringly human. he is not the parody that gray and others make him out to be. it is only a question of whether you think "secular humanist" is an insult (gray) or a compliment (dawkins).

i think you might be underestimating the level of mathemetical framework in modern evolutionary theorizing. i know basically nothing about it, but my understanding is that at the level of genetics and biochemistry, there are pretty clear and quantifiable characterizations of evolutionary processes. maybe not F = ma, but still chunkily mathematical.

my guess is that the reason more biologists are "militant" atheists (a silly adjective, which you should refrain from using) is that they have been defending their turf from creationists, and are simply sick of it. i think the new nonsense of intelligent design was the last straw, and there has been a conscious decision amongst some biologists to replace an exhausted defense with an aggressive offense.

i can appreciate both. my favourite science writer was stephen jay gould, who was very conciliatory towards religious belief. but i also really appreciate dawkins' "no more mr. nice guy" approach.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 10:58:15 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 been called a lot of names in this thread so far (I could make a list) from those whose knowledge of the scientific method is so much better than my own. I wonder where name calling falls into the scientific method? Latest posts reveal that I’m ‘fearful’ or ‘scared’.

Relda’s idea of the scientific method was fairly good: ‘empirical evidence, experimental testing, and logical reasoning’.

Sancho, for those questions regarding past events, I’ll try and clarify. Adaptation is an observation. Everyone sees it. No one denies it. Our ancestor crawling out of a lake in time past is a (dubious, unrepeatable) historical event. What happened three million years ago is beyond observation, unless someone invents a time machine.

It is impossible to prove any historical event scientifically, whether from the 16th Century or even last week, because historical events can’t be repeated. (We know a lot about the dates of paintings and other human history through historical records.)

Let’s look at a half empty glass of water. You can analyse the water up and down and perform any test you like, predict when it will evaporate, etc. But if I claim that I drank from that glass last week, how could you prove my claim? It’s ultimately impossible. That’s the difference between historical (e.g. forensic) science and operational science.

Whether people allegedly descended from ape like creatures (in the past) and assessment of (present day) gravity are questions in a different league.

Yet, as Relda points out, most scientists believe in evolution. This is evolution’s greatest strength; the ‘billion people in China can’t all be wrong’ type of argument. It also sometimes gives creationists a little credibility, as they are forced to swim against the stream, as they risk denial of research funding, failure by militant academics, and name calling. I would say this is evidence of courage, not fear.

Sancho, if you are looking for a valid biologist who casts doubt on evolution, I would recommend reading “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”, by Michael Denton, a molecular biologist at the University of Otago, New Zealand.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 7:52:01 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
Colinsett, I’m curious as to what you see that is compelling or so tremendously interesting in the fossil record or comparative anatomy regarding our family tree?

Bushbasher, are you not impressed by the majesty of the biological world?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 7:53:31 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
dan, i don't respect your method of arguing, and i won't pretend to. am i impressed by the majesty of the biological world? absolutely. it's just not science, any more than your ability to fall off a roof is a test of newton's theory of gravity.

i'll let sancho rip into your absurdities on science and history.
as for denton, try the following:

http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 2 January 2008 9:01:19 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 curious as to what you see that is compelling or so tremendously interesting in the fossil record or comparative anatomy regarding our family tree?”(Dan)
How can anyone find it otherwise?

We didn’t jump from the shoulders of monkeys to an eternal pinnacle of biological finality. We are but an ephemeral leaflet on the tree of life, with plenty to celebrate.

How great it is, our ability to appreciate the sigh of beach sand-and-water massaged by a gentle swell; the roar of an angry “sea-god” crashing giant swells against rocks; soft rustle of breeze-moved casuarina leaflets; the drum-roll of thunder up-and-down some remote gorge; a glorious rendition of Beethoven’s Romance for Violin and Orchestra.

Pity our distant cousins of the Fungal kingdom: comprising 20+% of all present biological mass; providing yeasts for our bread, flavor for Roquefort cheese, manipulating productivity of both leaves and roots of plants, assisting development of raindrops. But, never able to appreciate a Vermeer.

We have many such cousins, and are fundamentally dependent upon many.

The seed of our family tree germinated close to 4 billion years ago. The remnants of a close cousin of ours at the time can be seen south-west of Broome - Stromatolite fossils 3,500 million years old. Their family still has a living presence at Shark Bay – poor things still unable to appreciate the squeaking of resident dolphins.

Our great, great--- grand-daddy, who was first with a spinal cord, developed 500-or so million years back - perhaps an Amphioxus, queer old cuss!

The milk of human kindness did not arrive until great-great --- grandma came on the scene somewhere about 200 million years back. Her progeny hung to milk production in spite of the differing comparative anatomy of whales, mice, tigers, humans and kangaroos.

We stopped aping-around about 2 million years back. We are the last of our tribe – the sole remaining representative of our genus.

All of the above is evidenced in the fossil record, current biology, and my enthusiasm for the joys of life (shared with friends who include non-militant godly).
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 3 January 2008 11:21:13 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
reida, I think you should be more careful with your distinction between “fact” and “theory“: Apples falling from a tree have always been a fact, gravity that explains this phenomenon has become a fact only after Newton‘s theory was accepted. And conversely, the independence of space and time on the observer was considered a fact in physics until Einstein came. However, we are not dealing in these posts with philosophy of science, where the contemporary battle has been not between theists and atheist but between what can be traced to C. P. Snow’s “two cultures” (cf. the “culture wars“ triggered by the Sokal hoax, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair), where the “theist“ scientists “fought” side by side with their atheist colleagues against post-modernist deniers of an “objective truth” that their research is aimed at.

I almost agree with what you say about religion. The “almost” refers to your objections to myths, when they are no longer “confined to the interior“ and become a 'fact', mainly because of the relativity (and ambiguity) associated with the term ‘fact‘ I hinted at above. Myths - both as understood by “primitive“ people and by such scholars as Mircea Eliade - serve as models of a reality - of course, a priori assumed to exist - that otherwise could not be grasped. Like theories in contemporary physics need mathematical models of reality without which reality could not be grasped: e.g. you could not understand the first thing in quantum mechanic without knowing what are linear operators in a Hilbert space.

Of course, here the analogy ends: everybody understands a religious myth as such, even those who do not accept (or understand) its relevance to a world “out there”. Something like visual models in science - e.g. electrons like tiny billiard balls orbiting a larger ball, the nucleus - that were superseded by 20th century physics. In the past most everybody accepted the existence both of a world that senses (later instruments and science) informed us about, and also of a spiritual world that various forms of “religious experience“ and “sacred texts“ informed humanity about. (ctd)
Posted by George, Thursday, 3 January 2008 10:36:13 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
(ctd) Very few philosophers ever doubted the existence of something independent of us that can be reached through our senses, whereas today there are many in the Western world who deny the existence of Something that our religious experience (personal as well as cultural) points to. The Church thought for centuries that one could use one’s “spiritual insight” to gain insight into the workings of the material world: today some people think this works the other way around, that one gain insight into what faith and “religious experience” is about, by reducing it to its outside - cultural, psychological or just neurophysiological - manifestations.

That is a fact, that a tolerant person - on both sides of the divide - has to accept without trying to denigrate or ridicule (e.g. taking the moralistic or rationalistic high ground) those standing on the side of the divide. This, of course, is a general remark, not aimed at anybody taking part in this illuminating (for me at least) debate.

bushbasher, I was not naming Dawkins, see my previous post about my impressions of him. However, I do not think you could state ‘nobody’ is a reductionist in the sense I mentioned. The same as I could defend this or that Christian from accusations of “religious militancy” but I would not claim that ‘nobody’ deserves this label. “F=ma” needs only high school maths to understand, and I agree that contemporary genetics works with much more sophisticated maths. Nevertheless, I am convinced that e.g. Stephen Hawking needs to understand much more mathematics than Richard Dawkins. To understand the claims of string theory you need a contemporary PhD in maths.

The claim that there are more atheists among biologists than among physicists comes from John Polkinghorne, who should know, though I do not have any data to support that. Fanatics of whatever persuasion can irritate people with more informed and balanced views, but you have aggressive people on both sides of this world view divide, and it is a matter of opinion where you see the action and where the reaction
Posted by George, Thursday, 3 January 2008 11:09:54 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
Just as Luke claimed that there were eye-witness accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, the high priest of scientism, Dawkins, claims that there were eye-witness accounts of the evolution of the common ancestor of fish and man 300 million years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g
Posted by Philip Tang, Friday, 4 January 2008 3:01:46 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
I can acknowledge some overlap, George, in our posts as we perhaps share a similar Gestalt. Our perception of the so called facts are always critical. The very nature of how we determine our facts and pronounce our theories will often have a high degree of ambiguity - hence evolution being both fact and theory. There will be some who 'see' a certain reality whereas others are blind to it. The empiricism of science measures something all are able to see but as Einstein has noted, there is a lameness to science without religion and blindness to religion without science.

Many of those bound to religion often do not, in fact, understand their own religious myth just as many scientists are quite feeble in the full appreciation of their discoveries.
Posted by relda, Friday, 4 January 2008 7:56:01 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
Phillip Tang,

Dawkins said that IF you could've been there, then you would have seen the first steps of a fish coming out onto the land.

Stop making things up.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 4 January 2008 11:38:13 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
george, i think any disagreement between us pretty much at the nitpicking level. but a few comments on your last posts.

i don't think you should make too firm a distinction between fact and theory. i would say newton's theory of gravity is a fact. it's an abstract fact, but it's a fact. part of this is simply a matter of terminology, and it's no big deal. the trouble is, the anti-science crowd misinterpret "theory" as in "only a theory". a scientific theory can have much more solidity than that.

quick comment on linear operators on hilbert spaces: i think you're being elitist, and historically revisionist. i doubt that heisenberg and his mates knew much functional analsyis. but i accept your later point, that evolutionary biologists need much less mathematics (so far) than theoretical physicists.

re your comments on tolerance and fanatics. i take your point, but i will take it only so far. nonsense is nonsense, and i have no time for people who come with a conclusion and then fill in the argument (viz intelligent designers).

the expression militant in regard to athiests is entirely inappropriate. if you want "militant" consider the disgusting pronouncements of anti-homosexual bigots such as jennings and pell. or christians who blow up abortion clinics, or muslims who blow up anything. i know of no athiest who promotes athiesm in even a remotely similarly violent or divisive fashion.
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 4 January 2008 7:55:01 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
AJ

Compare the eye witness accounts by its advocates.

St. Luke.

“ Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account…”

R. Dawkins
“…fish are modern animals, they are just as modern as we are. They’re descended from ancestors which we’re descended from. Way back 300 million years ago, there would be an ancestor which was the ancestor of modern fish and the ancestor of humans. And that ancestor, if you could’ve been there then, you could’ve seen the first steps towards a fish…”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g&feature=related

Dawkins is sure that the common ancestor of human and fish started to evolve 300 millions years back and, tells us that we can be sure to witness the changes if we were there.

We could equally argue that if we were to go to the end of a rainbow, we would see a pot of gold. But since no one has walked to the end of a rainbow they have to believe by faith that there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

The Talibans have hijacked religion and made it an excuse for their acts of terror. The Dawkinites are intellectual Talibans in that they have hijacked science and claimed that evolution is scientific whereas it is a myth
Posted by Philip Tang, Friday, 4 January 2008 8:53:20 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
Philip,

My whole point, was that you had twisted Dawkins' words to mean something entirely different to what he was actually saying; A practice that's becoming very common among Theists.

<<Dawkins is sure that the common ancestor of human and fish started to evolve 300 millions years back and, tells us that we can be sure to witness the changes if we were there.>>

Because there's a lot scientific evidence to suggest so. Bacteria mutating to immunise itself against antibiotics is just one of many examples.

<<We could equally argue that if we were to go to the end of a rainbow, we would see a pot of gold. But since no one has walked to the end of a rainbow they have to believe by faith that there is a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.>>

And I could use the same argument against religion.

<<The Talibans have hijacked religion and made it an excuse for their acts of terror. The Dawkinites are intellectual Talibans in that they have hijacked science and claimed that evolution is scientific whereas it is a myth>>

Now that's a harsh comparison don't you think?

The Taliban use an unproven theology to oppress people, for their own extreme purposes; While “Dawkinites” use science, that hasn't yet been conclusively been dis-proven, to search for definitive answers.

I think searching for scientific answers is more healthy than blindly accepting doctrine that contradicts itself (and sometimes historical records) so often. At the same time, I think questioning evolution is also healthy.

Unfortunately though, so far, the arguments against evolution are weak, and have more holes and unanswered questions, than evolution does.

The difference between Theists and “Dawkinites”, is that most Dawkinites would abandon the theory of evolution tomorrow if it were conclusively proved to be false. Whereas the Theists rely on a book of scriptures, with questionable origins, to base every point-of-view on.

Instead of searching for answers, most Theists use ad-hominem attacks on people like Dawkins; twisting their words and meanings (as you have done), as soon as their belief system is threatened.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 5 January 2008 1:33:39 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
relda,
I could not have described better the ground on which open minded believers and honest unbelievers/doubters (or honest believers and open minded unbelievers/doubters, if you like) could meet. Thanks.

bushbasher,
I don’t know about nitpicking but I agree that we disagree only in details. “you should (not) make too firm a distinction between fact and theory“ (your words), and "you should be more careful with your distinction between fact and theory“ (from my previous reply to relda). Where is the difference?

“Being elitist“ is a standard accusation of anti-evolutionists to arguments by people like e.g. Dawkins that they could not follow. However, you picked ‘linear operators in Hilbert spaces‘ from my post to relda where I tried to explain the difference in language between myths and visual models on one one hand, and mathematical models needed to understand modern physics on the other, by illustrating the non-intuitive nature of the latter for which I needed an “elitist” term.

I agree I should not have brought the term “militant” in connection with Dawkins. However, having lived in Stalinist Czechoslovakia I have had my share of experiencing violent and oppressive (if you do not like the term militant) atheists. Of the tens of millions of those who perished in the Gulag, many were there because of their religious faith. I do not think Pell wanted - and living in the 20th century could, even if he wanted - condemn people to death because of their atheism or homosexuality. However I agree that claiming that Dawkins, and other only verbally aggressive atheists, are comparable with the atheist Stalinist (or Nazi) criminals would be as outrageous as relating George Pell to deranged attackers of abortion clinics and islamist terrorists.
Posted by George, Saturday, 5 January 2008 8:40:35 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
Colinsett,
I share the wondrous appreciation you have poetically expressed regarding the biosphere. I only disagree that it is displayed in the fossil record.

AJ Philips, ‘The difference between Theists and “Dawkinites”, is that most Dawkinites would abandon the theory of evolution tomorrow if it were conclusively proved to be false.’ – Not really.

As I have elaborated above, theories of history cannot be conclusively proved. In law courts, historical scenarios are decided upon on the standard of beyond reasonable doubt or on the balance of probabilities. These standards are as sure as we can get. Both evolution and creation are historical models, in which we attempt to find a ‘best fit’ for the evidence. Neither can be proved conclusively in a scientific sense as testing requires repeatability, and history can’t be repeated.

For this reason, Dawkinites will never abandon their theory, as it will never be proven false. It cannot be, since it cannot be properly tested. (Some above have already declared it to be ‘fact’. And if it is ‘fact’, how could we ever abandon it?)

Evolution is the current reigning paradigm through which the evidence is viewed. In itself, it is beyond testing.

Bushbasher,
Earlier you mentioned ‘straw man’ arguments. I think your comment about “only a theory” is also leaning that way. Nobody on this thread has described anything as “only a theory”.

For certain, I’ve heard some uneducated people use the word ‘theory’ with its ordinary street meaning as an idea or hypothesis, but I don’t know any creationist who doesn’t well understand the term in its technical sense.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 5 January 2008 10:07:25 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
jesus. once again with the sophistic doubting. dan, evolution is a fact, in the common sense manner which i referred to above, and the only people who now deny this fact are the ignorant and the religiously perverted.

dan, you pontificate - ignorantly - about the dearth of testable evidence of evolution. (what happened to your mate denton?). but the laughable reality is that you engage in this deny-everything nonsense only because you are wedded to religious beliefs for which you have not a single scrap of testable evidence. it's amazing. it's beyond a pot calling the kettle black: it's a black hole calling the kettle black.

as for straw men, your reference to my comment as straw man was in fact itself a straw man, to which you added a beauty of your own. you claim that nothing of history can be proved to your sophistic staisfaction. and so what? so you have logical license to believe whatever you wish? hilarious.

the main thing, dan, is not that your nonsense special pleading is bad science. it's worse religion. it's tacky.

george, i didn't for a minute mean to associate pell/jennings with bomb-throwers. in fact, such connotations are the very reason why i dislike the term "militant" to describe non-violent people. but jennings' and pells' cheap god-on-my-side moralising is highly distasteful.
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 5 January 2008 11:35:28 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
“pells' cheap god-on-my-side moralising is highly distasteful“

bushbasher, here I cannot object because “de gustibus no est disputandum”. I for myself find other people’s - atheists or not - holier-than-thou moralizing distasteful. In case of Pell moralizing is at least part of his job.
Posted by George, Saturday, 5 January 2008 11:57:33 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
Dan,

I'll get to your response soon, but first...

I have only just read through your posts here, and the posts of everyone else who has responded to you, and I must say: You have either trivialised everything that everyone here has said to you, or simply dismissed the evidence that you cannot explain. You also seem to confuse “reasonable doubt” with “conclusive, undeniable evidence”.

Your arguments in this thread have amounted to something along the lines of:

“There were no eye-witness accounts. Therefore it's very unlikely that it happened.”

But if you want to use the legal system as an analogy, then we need to apply it fairly - to ALL aspects of the argument. So:

If there are no eye-witnesses to a crime, does it mean that it didn't happen?

No.

You piece the evidence together, and then you come to a logical conclusion. The fossils; the radioactive dating; the adaptation we see nowadays; the mutation of bacteria to immunise itself against antibiotics...

They all come to a conclusion that suggests that all species evolved from simple lifeforms.

Again, If you want to use the legal system as an analogy, then we need to apply it to all aspects of the argument - not just the one's that suit your viewpoint. And when we apply your 'legal system' analogy to everything, your dismissiveness becomes apparent.

Now, you can claim that the evidence isn't beyond reasonable doubt, but considering your demonstrated willingness to overlook, and trivialise anything that might contradict what you believe, I'm not going to bother arguing with you.

Moving on...

(Cont'd)
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 6 January 2008 3:17:36 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
(Cont'd)

Dan, what you've quoted from my last post, only half illustrated the point I wanted to make there, because of the editing I did to fit the post within the word limits.

What I was trying to illustrate, was the flaw in the logic of those who accuse the so-called “Dawkinites” of being just as much fundamentalists as the Theists are.

This couldn't be more wrong.

Theists are fundamentalists, because they will never change their view on anything scientific, if it clashes with what their Holy Book says. Never!

Dawkinites, on the other hand, would be willing to change their position on the origins of life - whether it be to creationism or any other theory - if either, evolution were conclusively dis-proven; or if another theory started to look more plausible.

And your silly logic about Dawkinites never abandoning their theory because evolution cannot be dis-proven, is trivial and inconsequential.

The fact that evolution can't be conclusively dis-proven, doesn't automatically mean that the “Dawkinites” wouldn't dump their theory if it could actually be dis-proven.

It sounds to me, like you are trying to suggest that evolutionists would never change their views on Darwin's theory (even if it had been found to be completely wrong), in a vain attempt to lower their logic and mindset, to the same sub-standard level of a Theist's.

You can do this, because of the high probability that no one will ever be able to dis-prove your “Fundamentalist Dawkinite” theory. But trying to bring evolutionists down on to a level playing field, by claiming that they too are fundamentalists, isn't going to work.

If you're not trying to do this, then you need to construct your arguments a bit more coherently.

But if in fact, this is what you are trying to do, then your argument is presumptuous; it is a very sloppy debating tactic; and quite frankly, it's an insult to the intelligence of everyone on this forum.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 6 January 2008 3:44:15 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
george, yes obviously one can be holier-than-thou without a god, and it certainly exists, in abundance. i'd suggest having an authoritarian god-figure makes it a damn sight easier.

as for moralizing being in pell's job description, well i'm not paying him. if catholics are happy with his nonsense, that's up them (give or take the issue of children). but if he moralizes for society in general, if he comments upon the personal, consensual behaviour of non-catholics, then his "job" is irrelevant, and i and others have every right to object to his smug pontificating.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 6 January 2008 12:13:26 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
bushbasher, thank you for your sincere words. I do not think anybody denies you the right to object to views you do not like. There are many opinions expressed by public figures - political, religious etc. - "smugly pontificating" about how society should conduct itself that I do not agree with. Some of them I simply ignore, some of them I might be tempted to react to emotionally like you. I usually do not because I know an emotional reaction points more to myself than to the public pronouncements that irritate me.
Posted by George, Sunday, 6 January 2008 9:22:50 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
Bushbasher,
Who described anything as “only a theory”? You are punching at shadows.

How’s my mate, Dr Michael Denton? He’s doing well from what I’ve heard. Thanks for the link to that book review of Denton’s latest book, “Nature's Destiny. How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe.”

Last I heard, he does describe himself as an ‘evolutionist’, but he’s more open-minded than most. He sees the glaring problems with it.

It seems different people take different things out of this book. To quote Denton, he says that natural and artificial selection is ‘completely incapable of accounting for the broad picture, the complex adaptations required by the tree of life’. From other reviews I’ve read, it seems he sees problems with the nature of mutations, preferring the idea that evolution must have been directed.

My main overall point in all of this debate is to demonstrate that there is an actual debate going on. This would only be more confirmed by anyone reading that book review.

AJ Philips,
You complain about word limit restrictions. Try debating five people at once. If I have to save a response for a later post, you might understand why.

If I read you correctly, you have understood my point that evolution can't be conclusively proven or disproved. And you are right in saying that this does not mean that evolutionists would never change their views on Darwin’s theory. It only means that they will never be compelled to. They are free to hold to them as long as they believe the evidence warrants.

But then again, so are creationists. So there’s the rub! (By the way, I am hoping for a level playing field. Why can’t we compare apples with apples?)

I do not say that where there were no eye-witness accounts, then it's very unlikely that it happened, or that we are therefore free to believe anything. I only say that any possible historical account or scenario can only be held tentatively, not definitively. We try to make a case for a model which best fits the evidence.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 6 January 2008 9:56:47 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
AJ,
You accuse me of glossing over the evidence of others. This was not my intention. If you can point out which pieces of evidence I’ve glossed over, I’ll try and go back and address them. However, largely speaking, there hasn’t been much evidence put forward to address.

You say, “The fossils; the radioactive dating; the adaptation we see nowadays; the mutation of bacteria to immunise itself against antibiotics...”

The fossils. No one has really said anything about fossils, except to say that they show evolution. That’s not evidence. That’s an assertion.

Radioactive dating. No one’s brought that up yet.

Adaptation. I’ve partly addressed that already (30/12//07 ‘In the process of speciation [adaptation], genetic information is shifted around, corrupted or lost, but never added’.) There is always an amount of variability within a gene pool, but there are limits. E.g. the cane toads had variability amongst their population for longer and shorter legs, and those with the long legs were more suited to their environment, and so prospered. But the genes that created the long legs were already there. Now, if they were sprouting wings, this would be different.

The mutation of bacteria. I’ve partly addressed this already (31/12/07).

You alledge that there is all this evidence that all living things evolved from simpler life forms. Well, I haven’t read much on this thread. (And remember evidence, the things we touch, see, and measure, don’t speak for themselves. They are to be interpreted by the human element. So please don’t confuse evidence with conclusions.)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 6 January 2008 10:14:59 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
dan

no one said "only a theory", and i wasn't claiming anyone had. that's why it was a straw man. but what we do have is people like you demanding an absurd absolutist level of proof, and an absurd disregard for the proof there is. you don't know the meaning of the word "fact". it's time you learned.

you introduced denton as someone who "casts doubt on evolution", referring to his "a theory in crisis". and now denton's a believer? but you seemed to miss the point of the book review: denton's later book threw denton's earlier book under a bus.

ah, but you don't break stride. not a word about why denton might have changed his mind. you simply slap the back of this "open-minded" evolutionary theorist, and stride into how evolution might be directed. hilarious. no religious motivation there. just honest open-minded scientific enquiry!

the reality is that there is no crisis. there are huge unresolved questions about evolution, but absolutely no crisis. evolution is a fact. honest scientists with integrity debate the nature of that fact, the mechanism and extent of evolution. but this debate has nothing in common with the conclusion first argument second absurdity that you, and denton, throw up.

dan,you are a joke. there is not an ounce of integrity in the manner in which you represent science or the arguments over evolution. i'm bored of your nonsense. you complained of having to respond to five writers: it's now down to four.

george, i've enjoyed your posts. i take your point about my emotional manner of addressing the issues here. but my manner of expression has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of what i've written.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 7 January 2008 2:14:13 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
bushbasher, so have I.
Posted by George, Monday, 7 January 2008 3:00:47 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
Dan,

You're a master of tricky wording... But it won't work.

<<And you are right in saying that this does not mean that evolutionists would never change their views on Darwin’s theory. It only means that they will never be compelled to.>>

I like the way you've used the word “compelled”. By using the word “compelled”, you are trying to suggest that evolutionists are somehow “forced” to support evolution.

In fact, it sounds like, you're subtly trying to suggest (again) that evolutionists are fundamentalists too?

<<By the way, I am hoping for a level playing field. Why can’t we compare apples with apples?>>

...Yep, you are.

The key word here is: “Motive”.

Perhaps "level playing field" was the wrong term to use. All I was saying that you can't just drag evolutionists down to the same sub-standard fundamentalist level as Theists, by implying that they too are fundamentalists.

Again, there's a big difference between being believing something because the evidence suggests it, and believing something because a Holy Book says that's what you should believe - regardless of what the evidence suggests.

So for the second time, evolutionists are not fundamentalists because they would be willing to dump the theory of evolution if is was either, conclusively dis-proven; or if another theory started to look more plausible.

Theists, on the other hand, are fundamentalists because they will never change their view on anything scientific if it clashes with what their Holy Book says. The key here word being: “Never”.

This is a distinction I am happy to make over, and over, and over again, because Theists have been getting away with muddying the waters with this misconception for far too long.

<<They are free to hold to them as long as they believe the evidence warrants. But then again, so are creationists.>>

So why don't you start showing the evidence for Creationism, instead of playing with words?

<<We try to make a case for a model which best fits the evidence.>>

And hence, evolution.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 7 January 2008 7:30:58 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

<<If you can point out which pieces of evidence I’ve glossed over>>

Colinsett's point about fossils.

<<The fossils. No one has really said anything about fossils, except to say that they show evolution. That’s not evidence. That’s an assertion.>>

And here you are playing with words again. I'll get to the definition of “evidence” soon.

<<Radioactive dating. No one’s brought that up yet.>>

Doesn't mean it's not a part of the evidence.

<<You alledge that there is all this evidence that all living things evolved from simpler life forms. Well, I haven’t read much on this thread.>>

Dan, you haven't addressed much at all in your previous posts. And what you have addressed, is minimal considering the mountain of evidence to suggest otherwise. The points you have made just beg more questions about evolution, they don't necessarily dis-prove it.

In fact, all you've really done, is nit-pick with the definition of “evidence”.

<<(And remember evidence, the things we touch, see, and measure, don’t speak for themselves. They are to be interpreted by the human element. So please don’t confuse evidence with conclusions.)>>

...See what I mean? Yet another sloppy debating tactic. The definition of “evidence” is a lot broader than you're admitting:

Evidence: Information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/evidence?view=uk)

If you're after some evidence on evolution, how about you read a bit about it here http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html ?

A good place to start would be the page on the misconceptions about evolution here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html.

Dan, I've gotta say, I'm not impressed with your debating style at all.

How about you come up with some evidence for creationism, instead of nit-picking with definitions? Because, one important point you need to remember, is that even if you could dis-prove evolution, that wouldn't necessarily prove creationism. This kind of logic is as absurd as saying: “The sky is not red, therefore it must be blue”.

I await you nonsensical reply, with the same arguments, worded differently...
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 7 January 2008 7:36:52 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
August 3, 2016 AD

An earthquake hits California.
On the beach, a domestic cat is chasing a pelican.

The quake collapses the earth beneath them, burying them on top of each other.

August 3, 3418 AD

A meteor shower hits Earth, destroying almost the entire human race and all computer files.

All knowledge of history, archeology and paleontology is lost.
Mankind must build civilisation (and its knowledge) again from scratch.

August 3, 450985 AD

Paleontologists digging in California discover some bone fragments.

The ten fragments indicate the extinct animal had legs and a tail like a cat, but the head and beak of a bird.
Only one specimen is ever found.

It is presumed the animal lived on the land, but could fly into the sea to feed on fish.

The "Pelican Cat" becomes a pop cultural phenomenon, with millions of posters sold.
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 7 January 2008 2:47:57 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
They should DNA test the bones. Even a bone density test should prove it was different animals. Or haven't they invented that stuff yet?
Posted by botheration, Monday, 7 January 2008 2:58:01 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
botheration: "Or haven't they invented that stuff yet?"

Exactly!

The "facts" of science and history not only depend on the available "evidence" (e.g. fossils, artifacts), but the available technologies to analyse that evidence.

You can only analyse fossils you have unearthed, not ones you haven't discovered yet.
And you can only examine them with currently existing technologies, not technologies that haven't been invented yet.

New fossils or new technologies could result in different conclusions and revisions of previously believed "fact".

And you must *interpret* the results of any analysis, determining how it fits into existing knowledge.

Many of the fossils used to "prove" evolution are tiny fragments, like a tooth or a toe.
From this miniscule basis, elaborate conclusions are drawn.

This is why Dan says "Don't confuse evidence with conclusions".
The evidence is a toe bone.
The conclusions are based on available technologies, other fossil records, current scientific theorising and hypothetical conjecture.

In a hundred years time, that toe bone will be exactly the same "evidence".
But changes in technology or theory, or the discovery of additional fossils, could lead to different conclusions about what it means.

BTW, Pelican Cat continued to have widespread popularity, even after scientists had disproved it.

There was even a cartoon superhero.
The theme tune went:
"Pelican Cat, Pelican Cat.
He'll show those bad guys just where it's at.
Pelican Cat, Pelican Cat.
Fighting for Justice. No turning back.
Go, go, go, go! Pelican Cat."
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 7 January 2008 3:46:41 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
I think what shockedelic is saying is that error always exists in all past events clues we use to 'create the fact'...ie from bones of cat/pelican to concluding pelicancat in which case the error is 100%...

And why I dont understand some posters 'group' taking a 'more right that you' attitude when any reasonable mind understands that the above factor of error exists in all things we now take as having occurred in the past...and form the basics of statistical error eg chi factor...or in the alternative those whom have a belief of events did happen but do not have the definite proof...eg before dead sea scrolls were discovered the oldest existent bible was 9thcentury...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Significance ...what happened to all those who said there is no evidence to Christ when dead sea scrolls carbon date to almost 100years after...meaning actual events within limits of living memory of the authors...

so if we then take that all those miracles did happen...walk on water (an example cris angel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBQLq2VmZcA )feeding thousands, calming storms... then a human existed with such enormous powers over material/nature and to whom souls of the time had a special acknowledgment with...who said 'god does exist'...now go figure...

I think all souls need to find a balance between materialism/spiritualism...materialism is the study/use outside us while spirituality is the study/use within us eg http://www.hinduism.co.za/self-rea.htm ...great minds have applied themselves to this question...as well as numerous lesser minds...so wade through the information with care...

And spending too much thought/action/use in one area over the other cant be too good in eventual practical outcome to the person ie 'self'...and while the power of 'the reasoning mind' is always applied to all information/beliefs we receive/perceive...it at least make for an interesting effective life...responding to the full breath and extent of the 'real' daily reality we find ourselves in...

Sam
Ps~yep that makes it a total of material/self/spiritual factors to make the whole to 'meaning of life' for a start...
Posted by Sam said, Monday, 7 January 2008 3:59:19 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 only disagree that it is displayed in the fossil record.” (Dan) “The fossils. No one has really said anything about fossils, except to say that they show evolution. That’s not evidence. That’s an assertion.” (Dan)
“You can only analyse fossils you have unearthed, -- you can only examine them with currently existing technologies”, “Many of the fossils used to "prove" evolution are tiny fragments,”(Shockadelic)

These statements are grossly extreme in selective use of evidence and abuse of science: Religious-myth evangelical indeed. Hardly worth pursuing the theme after that, but here is a short romp through the fossil record.

3,500 years, complete representation, not fragments, of stromatolites. If you don’t believe the science behind the dating, don’t trust those scientists who put together the necessary for medical radiography to treat cancers etc..
2,500 years ago, first appreciable concentration of oxygen (resulting from evolved biological activity) in the ocean and the rusting of iron in it – causing formation of the Hammersley Ranges iron ore deposits in Western Australia. Unusually large for a fossil, but there you are. Age obtained as for stromatolites.
500 years back, oxygen-breathing animals had evolved, and “notochord” (predecessor of spinal cord) animals (full-size specimens) were recorded for the first time.
400 million years past, some plants evolved for a land-based existence. We’ve got full-sized fossils from that time, some just like Tassell Ferns. Animals also evolved to inhabit this new plant world. Lungfish (full-size fossils available) had a bob-each-way at 380 million years. They or their cousins started the evolutionary chain of air-breathers to reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals.
There were plenty of full-size fossils (the complete 3 centimeters length of them) of early mammals about 200 million years ago. Our milk-ancestors, or their cousins.
From 2 million years ago to the present, a great many fossil human-like skulls have been unearthed. Sorry about the dearth of toe-bones, but the head-bones are the most important bits.

For those dismissing the fossil lineage as evidence of evolution, I note that all successful oil-exploring enterprises believe in it, and find it most useful.
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 7 January 2008 8:54:21 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
One difficulty with conversations like this is that we assume we are all speaking the same language when we are not. George used the word naive in one post and later had to explain that he had not intended its popular meaning but rather had in mind a technical use of the word. Likewise the word myth is being used throughout the thread with different meanings. There are those in this thread who regard myth as more or less synonymous with 'lie'. Others seem to be using it for its literary, technical meaning as an 'identifying narrative' within a community. While one side regards myth as worthless lies and the other holds myth up as of fundamental importance in forming and maintaining community this converation is doomed to go around in circles.
It is also worthing noting the dull repetition evident in the creation-evolution squabble.
There is also a widespread misunderstanding of the nature of scientific knowledge. Here the word 'theory' is mishandled in much the same way as the word 'myth' as in ... it's only a theory...
There is also some very bad science being suggested such as the suggestion that one can 'prove' gravity theory by jumping off the garage roof.
Posted by waterboy, Wednesday, 9 January 2008 8:18:19 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
Colinsett thinks this statement is "grossly extreme" and "religious-myth evangelical":
"You can only analyse fossils you have unearthed, with currently existing technologies."

Extreme? Religious?
What?!!

I support no particular creation mythology, but am merely open to the idea that "all is not what it seems" and that any number of things may have happened throughout time to create all this weirdness around us, including "intelligent involvement".

I doubt and question everything: science, religion, political ideologies.

I *adore* Darwin.
(He's in my Top 100 Adored Persons List. And no FrankGol, Hitler doesn't make it.)

Darwin was a brave and curious person, who questioned and wondered.
A description that would rarely apply to his subsequent disciples.
(He was even honest enough to be concerned about the "problem" the Cambrian explosion presented.)

Oil-exploring enterprises believe in finding oil, not scientific or spiritual truth.
Fossils lead them to oil, that's all.

Evolution is supposed to be going on *all the time*, yet there are species that have changed little, or not at all, for hundreds of millions of years!

The mean species turnover time (the time a species lasts before it is replaced) averages about 2-3 million years.

These guys didn't get the memo:

Army ants: 100 million years (so far)
Wollemi Pine: 150 million years
Salamanders: 150 million years
Cicadas: 150 million years
Tuatara: 200 million years
Cycads: 200 million years
Emperor dragonflies: 230 million years
Cockroaches: 250 million years
Green sturgeon: 250 million years
Ginkgo trees: 270 million years
Horseshoe crabs: 300 million years
Lungfish: 350 million years
Coelacanth fish: 400 million years
Colymbosathon ecplecticos: 425 million years
Velvet worms: 500 million years
Nautiluses: 500 million years

Come on, guys. It's been 500 million years already!
Mutate, dammit, mutate!

You're making the evolutionists look foolish, so please behave yourselves and start evolving.

The religious aren't the only "true believers".

Try having a sensible "doubt-based" discussion with an anarchist, feminist, environmentalist, socialist, laissez-faire capitalist, multiculturalist, or protestor/activist (animal rights, pro-choice, anti-globalisation, you name it).

These aren't religious ideologies, but question their "faith" and they react like rabid demon-possessed epileptics!
Grrrr!!
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 9 January 2008 9:15:51 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
Evangelistic myths of the overzealous faithful - Shokadelic clings to them, otherwise (his?) curiosity would indulge some further exploration and understanding of the evolutionary record before racing to print. “Evolution is supposed to be going on all the time, yet there are species that have changed little, or not at all, for hundreds of millions of years!” – he says, and proceeds to list some that have hung in there as evidence supporting his concept, while ignoring my previous mention of a 3,500 million year persistent life form.
It would have to be evangelical faith in a belief to be able to dismiss the evidence for a continuing evolutionary process by pointing out a list of more persistent species. The process is a smooth ride for periods, extremely bumpy at others.
With a minor amount of investigation, for those not dogmatically opposed to having their faith bent, it would become apparent that medical science in matters of disease and repair is dependent upon understanding the evolutionary make-up of the human body, and its development, its step-by-step build-up of components of bacterial cells, from such early ancestors of three and a half billion years back. That build-up is of components, many of which have changed little for all that time – but have formed consortiums of entities, and essential symbiosis of others. Without that understanding, the treatment of a vast range of infections, and the pathway to repair of bodily damage would have remained stunted. For instance, we now know that giardia infection is difficult to treat because components of our biological make-up remain closely related to that nasty bit of goods called giardia - which has hardly changed in a billion years.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 9 January 2008 12:31:38 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
Well, you've convinced me, Shocker. Obviously, everyone knows that all organisms evolve in one long, smooth, entirely consistent timeline.

"The mean species turnover time (the time a species lasts before it is replaced) averages about 2-3 million years."
A mean is calculated by adding all the species turnover times and dividing them by the number of species you've counted. It doesn't mean they'll be between 2 and 3 million years.

Sorry, did that seem epileptic?
Posted by botheration, Wednesday, 9 January 2008 12:41:44 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
botheration, don't you think the difference between 3 million and *500* million years (and counting) is a little more than just normal variation?

Consider how much the planet has changed in the last 500 million years.
Evolution says mutations *will* occur randomly (whether you like it or not, velvet worms!) and the best adapted will survive.

Surely these 500 million year old species must have needed to adapt to all the changes taking place over that extensive time period?
Surely they must have had some random mutations that were better adaptations to these changing environmental conditions?
So why are they still the same today?

colinsett, I thought it would be clear from my last post that I have *no* "evangelical faith".

None. Whatsoever.

I question everybody and everything.
Including: *you*.

Which is why I point to evidence that doesn't fit with *your* belief.
This does not mean I'm supporting any *alternative* belief!
My God, believers are dumb!
Swap a Bible for a test tube, and they don't get any smarter.

So there's evidence for evolution (but not for *all* species), but does that mean it is the *only* thing that has ever occurred that would explain the variety of lifeforms on this planet?

The *one and only* explanation!

You're the ones "dismissing the evidence" of creatures that haven't changed one bit in 500 million years, the incredibly vast period of time between the first simple lifeforms and the first *complex* lifeforms, the latter's *sudden* appearance in great diversity during the Cambrian period, and the statements of qualified scientists who question the theory.

Like I said, "rabid demon-possessed epileptics".
It's impossible to discuss anything with "believers".
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 9 January 2008 2:22:18 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
Thanks, Shockadelic, for your common sense and helping to expose the antireligious bent of Colinsett and many others.

Bushbasher,
I can’t say much about Denton’s second book, as I haven’t read it. But different reviewers seem to take different things out of it. But to say that Denton’s second book throws his first book ‘under a bus’ reveals what you desire to find in it.

This book does not repudiate what the author wrote, in scrupulous detail, in his first book. Rather, it elaborates on certain parts. To quote from the first line of Amazon.com’s review of Denton’s ‘Nature’s Destiny’, “…biologist Denton continues the assault on Darwinian science, especially the theories of evolution and natural selection, that he began in ‘Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.’”

AJ,
This brings us to the issue of ‘motive’. We’ve now seen Bushbasher’s not hiding his.

I never challenged your point about fundamentalists as it is essentially true. Fundamentalists don’t compromise on the clear teachings of their Book. Their bias is explicit. Biblical creationists don’t hide from this. With evolutionists, the bias is more implicit, but no less strict. I’ve heard over and over on this thread how evolution is a fact, come what may.

Has it never occurred to you that these two following phrases are contradictory?

(AJPhilips) “evolutionists are not fundamentalists because they would be willing to dump the theory of evolution if it was either, conclusively dis-proven; or if another theory started to look more plausible.”

(Bushbasher) “there are huge unresolved questions about evolution, but absolutely no crisis. evolution is a fact. honest scientists with integrity debate the nature of that fact, the mechanism and extent of evolution. but this debate has nothing in common with the conclusion …etc.”

This last statement I’ve heard many times and it always tickles me. Imagine if we were discussing the integrity of our local policeman. ‘There are huge unresolved questions about his integrity. We debate the nature and extent of his integrity and his method of employing it, but his integrity is a fact. There is no crisis.’
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 9 January 2008 11:00:00 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
With regard to assessing the evidence, starting assumptions are going to influence much about how you interpret what you see. E.g. creationists point to great gaps in the fossil record that, to them, indicate the distinction between different types of created original life forms. Evolutionists try to justify the gaps.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3832

Evolutionists use radiometric dating methods which allow for the great ages required for evolution. Creationists point to other dating methods that make long ages impossible.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837

Evolutionists point to comparitive anatomy as evidence for common decent. Creationists say finding such similarities are a prediction of one God using common design structures.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3271

We all have all the same evidence but interpret it differently.

(And logically, demonstrating the sky’s not red, does indeed help show it may be blue.)

Colinsett,
A good test for your contention about the reliability of fossil lineage aiding oil exploration would be to see who could find oil better, an evolutionist or a creationist. I know of two experienced geologists involved in oil or mineral exploration in Australia who did not subscribe to the usual Lyellian, uniformatarian explanations for the geological column. Their careers were successful.

AJ,
My main motivation in this debate is to help point out that there is in fact a real debate occurring. For this reason, Dawkins and his followers should not be so brash and overconfident.

The web links that you directed me to earlier only confirms the battle, right there in the name of the website: “Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy.” This is quite a detailed website. If I could direct you to an equally thorough (probably more so) website that gives the point of view from the other side of the fence,
http://www.creationontheweb.com

Thanks, people, for the debate. It’s late and crissy holidays are over. But if anyone wants to get your teeth into a real juicy creation/evolution debate, I would direct you to this web debate conducted by the Sydney Morning Herald in 2005. All participants (from both sides, creation and evolution) were PhD holders in various scientific disciplines and very conversant on the subject.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3466/
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 9 January 2008 11:05:11 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,

There are more than 8000 species of ants,380 species of salamanders and 305 species described for cycads. In Australia alone there are 250 species of cicadas, 428 species of cockroaches, 195 species of dragonflies and 74 species of Velvet worms.

Please let us all know which ones haven't been mutating. I'd really like to know which of these species you happen to be referring to.

The others on your list are really nice examples of remnant endangered species with a far greater diversity in the fossil record than exist today and most share a remarkable feature, a lack of diversity of species and a generally low number of individuals with those species (hence the endangered tag). Why do you think that is? Do our intelligent designers just like them? Perhaps they're a pet project or noone to tell them to go extinct and so they hung around in the proverbial closet until discovery by the family that just moved in.
Posted by Bugsy, Thursday, 10 January 2008 1:55:15 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
Shockers wrote: "botheration, don't you think the difference between 3 million and *500* million years (and counting) is a little more than just normal variation?"
Define "normal variation", and I'll answer this question. Common sense would dictate, though, that given that some viruses (HIV, for example) can evolve at a rate we measure in hours, there's got to be a correspondingly extremely slow rate on the other side of the continuum. So I'd say no, it doesn't sound like a little more than just normal variation to me.

"Surely these 500 million year old species must have needed to adapt to all the changes taking place over that extensive time period?"
Not if they already had appropriate attributes. You've listed the teensiest, tiniest proportion of all possible species. I'm not surprise that some species didn't actually need to vary over 500 million years. I'd be surprised if it turned out to be 1% of all species, but we're not talking about those kind of numbers.

"Surely they must have had some random mutations that were better adaptations to these changing environmental conditions?"
Why?

I no little about evolution, but your argument isn't logical to me. If you give me some science to go on, maybe I could get my head round it.
Posted by botheration, Thursday, 10 January 2008 12:22:22 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
Instruction Manual For Evolution Dissemination

Humans, the sole survivor of the genus Homo, share ancestry with today's chimpanzees and apes, and like them the first Homo had light skin under its body hair.

Although completely disadvantageous, Homo "lost" its body hair.

Burning under the intense African sunlight, it evolved darker skin.

The now-dark creatures then migrated to Europe and Asia.
Where they became lighter skinned, but Europeans and Asians did so *independently*.
(Light, then dark, then light again: efficient!).

Pale skinned, red haired Neanderthals (a separate Homo species) were already in Europe when dark Homo Sapiens arrived from Africa.

European Sapiens then evolved pale skin and red hair, but did so *independently*.

The Neanderthals then "disappeared".

If they interbred with Sapiens, then Europeans are actually a *new species*, a politically dangerous proposition, so let's just ignore that can of worms and say we "don't know" what happened to the Neanderthals.

Asians, like all modern humans, are descended from Homo Erectus, and most Erectus fossils are from east Asia.
But Modern Asians didn't directly descend from Asian Erectus, but from *African* Erectus' Sapiens descendents.
Got that?

We're Old World Monkeys.
These split from the New World Monkeys 40 million years ago.

New World Monkeys mysteriously appeared in South America, crossing the Atlantic Ocean somehow.
(If anyone asks, it was floating trees unearthed during a storm).

Similar genetics and climates produced no clever toolmaking primates in the Americas.

If anyone asks why 40 million of years of evolution produced no clever toolmaking New World primates, while clever toolmaking Old World primates evolved within the last 3 million years, excuse yourself and go to the toilet.
Hopefully, the topic of conversation will have moved on when you return.

Also, do this if anybody brings up Egyptian mummies with traces of cocaine and nicotine (from American plants), Olmec sculptures with Negroid faces, or the mysterious appearance of African primates, rodents, boa constrictors, and freshwater cichlid fishes in South America during the Oligocene (when South America was disconnected from the other continents).

See, no confusion about genetic history whatsoever!
It's all so clear and simple!
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 10 January 2008 3:38:29 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
Shockadelic, you've pointed to gaps in scientific knowledge about evolution. I'm not sure what your point is. There shouldn't be any gaps? The gaps disprove the larger theory? Science is bunkum? You know a lot of dodgy scientists who urinate frequently? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is playing sleight of hand with us? You are a brilliant, questioning, possibly bearded free-thinking beast while the rest of us are slaves to orthodoxy?

Seriously, I'm too thick to understand you point. Given your point about mean evolutionary time, I'm also slightly sceptical of your scientific understanding. What are you trying to say?
Posted by botheration, Thursday, 10 January 2008 4:58:31 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
botheration: "You know a lot of dodgy scientists who urinate frequently? The Flying Spaghetti Monster is playing sleight of hand with us?"

The rabid demon-possessed epileptics strike again.

Is it just evolution or did I press too many of your other buttons Agent Botheration?

You wouldn't happen to be an anarchist, feminist, environmentalist, socialist, laissez-faire capitalist, multiculturalist, or protestor/activist (animal rights, pro-choice, anti-globalisation) by any chance?
(I forgot gun control. That's another tender subject.)

"You are a brilliant, questioning, possibly bearded free-thinking beast while the rest of us are slaves to orthodoxy?"

Bingo!

Darwin was a brilliant, questioning, sometimes bearded, free-thinking beast.
I'm in good company.
I would love to have been on the Beagle. Helping collect specimens and taking notes.

"What are you trying to say?"

Nothing is True. Everything is Meaningful.

"Too thick to understand?"
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 10 January 2008 6:44:17 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
Dan,

Thanks for your reply. I appreciated the tone you used that time.

The only thing that got up my nose originally, was the suggestion that “Dawkinites” are just as much fundamentalists as Theists are.

I have always accepted and understood what you meant about the ‘strictness’ of beliefs, but I still don’t think you’re quite understanding my point about the ‘motives’. When I say “motives”, I’m not just referring to the desire of Creationists and Evolutionists to each prove that that they are the ones who are right.

What I am taking about, is WHERE the ‘strictness’ of their beliefs come from. Evolutionists are more free to change their own opinion/theory because they don’t fear the wrath of a God if they do. Theists on the other hand, have the a belief that they face possible eternal damnation if they abandon their beliefs, and hence my emphasis on the word “never”. This was my fundamental point.

Yes, on the surface, the biases of evolutionists would seem just as strict, and no doubt, even if evolution had been conclusively dis-proven, you’d probably have some ‘true believers’ cling to it for a while; But given time, this would fade and the new theory would soon be adopted. Theists though, would never abandon their faith or change their views, even if evolution had been conclusively proven. I can’t stress the word “never” enough.

The apparent contradiction between Bushbasher’s statement and mine, just goes to show that you didn’t quite understand what I meant with my point about fundamentalism.

Yes, I can see what you mean by the apparent “contradiction”, but Bushbasher doesn’t believe what he believes because a Holy Book is telling him that he’ll go the Hell if he stops believing it. Evolutionists FEEL more able to change their views if the evidence suggests differently.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 10 January 2008 11:02:29 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 a Creationist will only ever accept the science that fits their beliefs because their God is looking over them. Their scientific progress is therefore stunted a lot more than a devout evolutionist, because of a bias that runs far deeper than an Atheist’s - emotionally speaking.

So my point still stands there.

In regards to your links to the Creationism pages, well, they didn't really tell me too much more than I didn't already know about the Creationist viewpoint. Because, believe it or not, Dan, I used to be a Christian/Creationist.

I remember in my days as a Christian, walking around all cocky-like and snickering at evolutionists because I thought I knew 'The Truth'.

There were many, many reasons I left the church, but I was particularly disappointed when I decided to take a look at this theory of evolution that those “misguided” Atheists were on about.

It was a big wake-up call to realise that the so-called “evidence” that apparently debunked or seriously questioned evolution, were just very small and carefully selected data samples that were either half-truths and exaggerations, or just complete misrepresentations of what the theory of evolution is.

As you'd understand, there's far too much to go into with such a restrictive word limit, and I'm certainly no scientist, but let's just say that I cross-referenced many of the relatively few points made at http://www.creationontheweb.com with the incredibly large list of explanations to Creationist claims at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CH100 and my view still hasn't changed at all, sorry. But I was never on this thread to 'prove' evolution anyway.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 10 January 2008 11:10:21 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
Lets face it people: The Biblical story of creation is literature. Evolutionary theory is science but within science there is no problem with contradictory theories co-existing so creation, as a scientific theory, does not cause any particular problems in science. If creation science turns out to be productive and stimulates lots of new scientific work that turns out to be useful then it can hold its place in the scientific community irrespective of the contradictory theory of evolution which also happens to be immensely 'scientifically productive'. The conflicting theories concerning the nature of light (wave or particle) proved to be very stimulating in physics for most of the last century.
Obviously evoution is a well established and productive scientific theory. Creation science, on the other hand is struggling to gain recognition in the wider scientific community BUT if creation science can generate the sort of creative tension that is exemplified by the wave-particle debate then lets get on with it. Of course, if the respective parties are just irrationally commited to a 'belief' in their respective, favourite theory then that will simply stifle productive debate. So lets not have any more of that!
Furhtermore lets not confuse Creation (ancient near eastern literature) with creation (scientific theory) because these are very different beasts epistemologically speaking.
Posted by waterboy, Thursday, 10 January 2008 11:56:57 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
It does really need to be conclusively stated (ad nauseam), "creation science is an oxy-moron". Creation 'Science' does not offer a valid scientific theory regarding our origins and, therefore, it does not belong in the scientific arena any more than the 'theory' of leprechauns and the 'theory' of unicorns do - perhaps it could be included in a course on comparative religion or abnormal psychology, but certainly not science.

As A.J. Phillips has poignantly found, left unchecked, Creation 'Science' will damage the public perceptions of both Christianity and science. In a way that Charles Darwin never could, Creation 'Science' has the potential to make monkeys of us all.

Isaac Asimov sums it up quite nicely when he makes his lament, "...it is precisely because it is fashionable for Americans [and Australians, no doubt] to know no science, even though they may be well educated otherwise, that they so easily fall prey to nonsense. They thus become part of the armies of the night, the purveyors of nitwittery, the retailers of intellectual junk food, the feeders on mental cardboard, for their ignorance keeps them from distinguishing nectar from sewage.
Posted by relda, Friday, 11 January 2008 7:20:20 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
Relda

I think you mean to say that 'Creation Science' is an antilogy. I dont really think it qualifies as a figure of speech and I suspect you regard it as an actual rather than apparent contradiction of terms.
Posted by waterboy, Friday, 11 January 2008 2:46:23 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
relda,
rather than comparing Creation Science to “ the 'theory' of leprechauns and the 'theory' of unicorns“ I would compare it to “Liberal Science“ or “ALP science”: It is legitimate to ask which party better reflects the political scene, and whose programme is better suited for Australia; it is just not legitimate to claim that (natural) science supports your political preferences. Similarly, it is legitimate to build your world view on the metaphysical premise that God created the universe (or that the universe is self-explanatory or what); it is just not legitimate to claim that science can justify, or even verify, the premise your world view is built on.
Posted by George, Saturday, 12 January 2008 12:28:53 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
Relda you said..
Creation 'Science' does not offer a valid scientific theory regarding our origins and, therefore, it does not belong in the scientific arena...

The quality (or lack thereof) of the hypothesis does not, in itself, invalidate the scientific work done by creation scientists. Clearly the 'hypothesis' of creation is an article of faith rather than evidence-based and the raison-detre of creation science work is apologetic rather than being driven by intellectual curiosity.

As for the rest of your recent post it was little more than a barrage of abuse and of little value to the debate at hand. Indeed, it gave the impression that you might be 'irrationally committed' to a belief in evolution.

There is also a curious strand to this thread regarding the use of the words 'hypothesis' and 'fact'. It has been suggested by some that well-established scientific theories like gravity and evolution become, by virtue of the confidence placed in them, new facts. This is plain nonsense. Fact refers to a repeatable experiment that produces consistent results. Hypotheses are formed as plausible explanations for some set of known 'facts'. It is extremely rare to be able to 'prove' a scientific theory which is what would be required to establish it as a fact. Gravity and evolution have not been 'proved' in this sense.

Much of this debate would evaporate if we used language a little more precisely and made clearer distinctions between metaphorical and technical language.
Posted by waterboy, Saturday, 12 January 2008 8:10:31 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
waterboy,
I referred to the term 'creation science' in the context as you used it - and presumably meant . 'Creation science' is literature based (or 'bible' based). The contradiction occurs because it is argued (by creation scientists)that geological and biological 'facts' must always attest to a literal biblical truth. This does not form a part of the scientific process - it is simply not legitimate science.

George,
The grandparents of today's 'scientific creationists' were fundamentalists, to be sure, and fundamentalism appealed to biblical authority in a fashion parallel to the Roman Catholic appeal to church authority. The difference between Fundamentalist authoritarianism and contemporary 'creation science' is these people are willing to argue their case in the arena of science in order to legitimize their version or interpretation of biblical account. Their assumption is that biblical truth and scientific truth belong to the same domain. When there is a conflict between a scientific assertion and a religious assertion, then we allegedly have a conflict in scientific theories. The creationists argue that the book of Genesis is itself a theory which tells us how the world was physically created: God fixed the distinct kinds (species) of organisms at the point of original creation. They did not evolve. From a theological viewpoint I can see the process evolution as being creative - however, I do not take the Hebrew concept of Elohim (the polytheistic notion of multiple gods) in Genesis as literal. The development of written language was in its infancy around 4,000 years ago - probably also around the time Genesis was written. In our infancy, where we literally marked the beginning of time, we created our myths based on the eons of story telling.
Posted by relda, Saturday, 12 January 2008 8:11:11 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
relda,
as far as I could understand you, I'll probably agree with what you wrote. I just do not see the relevance to what I said, namely that "God created (or nobody created) the universe" is a (metaphysical) statement that makes 'logical' sense (provided the terms involved are properly defined) but is not a scientific statement (like e.g. statements about the 'mechanics' of evolution) with conclusions that could be experimentally verified or falsified.

Authority - being the Magisterium of the RC Church, or a collegium of respected scientists-specialists - can serve as a good guideline for you when forming your own opinion (on theology, exegesis, ethics, etc. or physics, biology etc.) but has nothing to do with the unscientific - I would prefer the term meta-scientific - nature of the problem of Creation.
Posted by George, Saturday, 12 January 2008 9:01:36 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
George,

<<Similarly, it is legitimate to build your world view on the metaphysical premise that God created the universe (or that the universe is self-explanatory or what); it is just not legitimate to claim that science can justify, or even verify, the premise your world view is built on.>>

I disagree.

Jumping to the conclusion that a God (or whatever) must have created the universe, and then basing your science on that, is a prime example of what I was talking about before in regards to the 'stunting' effect that religion has on science and our progress in general.

Just because you can't explain where matter came from, it doesn't automatically mean that a God created it. This is the point I was making with my 'sky is not red' analogy before.

It is MORE illegitimate to build your world view on the metaphysical premise that God created the universe. Because if God exists, he would be an immensely complex being. Evolutionary science is built on the idea that everything starts from a simple entity and then gradually evolves to become a more complex entity.

Therefore, to suggest, or try to explain that relatively simple things - like everything in the universe - started with a more complex entity such as a God, is far more illogical.

When this is pointed out to Theists, their response is even more proof of the stifling of religion on science: “But God is not of the physical world. He cannot be explained”.

Well isn't that just too easy!

All this is doing is making excuses to not look further by declaring that God is, by decree, beyond explanation.

For any logical thinker who searches for answers to the mysteries of the universe, this simply won't do.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 12 January 2008 10:20:38 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
The word 'creation science' pulls a lot of frustrated people out of many religious bodies teachings on god of 'just blindly believe what I state about god'...meaning man/women claiming to be certain and without doubt on an issue on god...and here evolutionist whom have no doubt have common ground...

Primarily using religious books, bible/quran/tanach...anything quoted to support the current 'message' must be taken without questioning 'book' or context...this week I heard 'preacher' using verse in romans(bible) to assert 'man must not reason but only use gods reasoning'...I mean with such fear based manipulation leaves little hope for the enforced/willing blind/'grouped for benefit' masses...

As scientific study...further macdougall study of 21 grams weight loss at death(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_MacDougall_%28doctor%29)...and we know 21grams existing as pure energy is a lot ie not part of matter, Hiroshima was some 6grams of neutronium becoming pure energy...was on wiki but seems like its replaced with tnt based...and cant track an article quoting it...

and another with well defined selection of controls and test subjects, blindfolded and if able to detect changes in 'base energy pattern' of test subjects exposed to stimulus provoking like/dislike notwant/want, hate/attached feelings, ie spiritual eye or 'eye of energies' learnt skills...we know it exists like its referred to as womens intuition etc

If above two becoming scientific fact, who knows where science on god could lead to...after all it is a study on energies just like electricity http://inventors.about.com/cs/inventorsalphabet/a/electricity.htm and look around your surroundings to see the benefits...and when more is know this has an connected effect of dispelling doubts/fears/deceit...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Saturday, 12 January 2008 11:26:02 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
I looked up the reference in Wikipedia on MacDougall. It contains the following:

Although generally regarded either as meaningless or considered to have had little if any scientific merit, MacDougall's finding that the human soul weighed 21 grams has become a meme in the public consciousness. It lent itself to the title of the film 21 Grams. In the end, however, his practices were considered fallible due to shaky methods and small sample size. Scientists disregard his research into this field due to allegations of bias (MacDougall was a fanatical Christian). Any reference to MacDougall in philosophical debates regarding the soul (see also Mind-Body Theories) are mostly for novelty or to ridicule his supposed "scientific experiment."

David Fisher
Posted by david f, Saturday, 12 January 2008 11:44:49 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
david f...look at little deeper...search for information...judge all sources...even wiki on this section seem like they have a bias against the notion of weight loss at time of death...after all you do want to be sure that what you take to be the truth/fact is actually the truth/fact...like in that earlier hindu web site defined such person as a 'rishi' ie seeker of truth

eg http://www.missionarysjournal.com/archives/have_you_ever_wondered_about_life_after_death.html "At the end of three hours and forty minutes he expired …. AND SUDDENLY, AT THE EXACT MOMENT OF DEATH, THE BEAM END DROPPED WITH AN AUDIBLE STROKE, HITTING AGAINST THE LOWER LIMITING BAR, AND REMAINING THERE. THE LOSS WAS ASCERTAINED TO BE THREE-FOURTHS OF AN OUNCE."

And the key point is that in his actual study he concluded that 'the threefourth ounce was not significant'...and people think he didnt realized the amount of energy 3/4ounce/21grams of energy is...einstiens e=mc2 paper came around this time....Im still searching for that link to original study...though on googling I am surprised at amount of written links from closed biased minds disregarding all information that lead to possibility that a soul may exist and departs body after death with a detectable weight loss...and its troubling to see the vast quantities of aggressively driven authors so sure to debunk when real doubt exists to if there actually was decrease in weight and cause...to hence why I suggested a study to further macdougalls...to settle this issue...and serves as a caution to watch out for 'mass-attack' to debunk it without solid basis...

If you do find that original study could you post it...thanks

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Saturday, 12 January 2008 12:35:52 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
Dear Sam Said,

One does not need to go back to the original account of Dr. MacDougall. Scientific findings rest on reproducibility. If Dr. MacDougall's results are valid they can be reproduced by a similar experiment with another dying person following a strict protocol. When the results of an experiment are consistent with the bias of the experimenter the experiment must be tried again.

David Fisher
Posted by david f, Saturday, 12 January 2008 1:56:54 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
Sam,

<<...meaning man/women claiming to be certain and without doubt on an issue on god...and here evolutionist whom have no doubt have common ground...>>

No they don't.

For the umpteen-millionth time: Creationists are the fundamentalists, not Evolutionists.

Those men/women who are certain, and without a doubt that a God doesn't exist, are certain because of what the evidence suggests, not because a particular doctrine is dictating to them what they should, and should not believe - with the threat of eternal punishment.

They feel free to change their minds at anytime. Therefore you cannot put them in the same category as Creationists.

To give an example of fundamentalism using extremes, how many times have you heard of:

-Evolutionists/Atheists starting wars ‘in the name of’ Atheism?
-Evolutionists/Atheists committing acts of terror ‘in the name of’ Atheism?

Evolutionists/Atheists don’t a have belief-system that would enable them to see the silver-lining of a mushroom cloud over a major city, because it could mean that their Lord is coming.

Evolutionists/Atheists aren’t trashing the environment for shot-term gain, with the certainty that the son of their God would return long before any detrimental damage could be done.

Now sure, not all Creationists/Theists are so extreme. But the portion of Evolutionists, who would be THAT fundamentalist, is infinitely smaller.

So again, my point still stands.

That this very basic fact is so hard for Theists to absorb, just proves more and more what non-believers say about the blindness, and deliberate shutting-out of anything that may contradict their beliefs.

If this is not hard for them to understand, then it suggests another point: That Theists deliberately try to confuse the issue to create an unnecessary and unjustified level of doubt.

<<even wiki on this section seem like they have a bias against the notion of weight loss at time of death>>

Wikipedia is free for all to edit, so if you can find enough references to support otherwise, then go for it.

<<...you do want to be sure that what you take to be the truth/fact is actually the truth/fact...>>

Agreed.

I've told theists that before too.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 12 January 2008 3:57:49 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
AJ,
we obviously have different understandings of the term “legitimate”, though it usually means “conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standards“ (Merriam-Webster). We all know that there were times when atheism, or any other world view not “conforming to recognized principles” (as seen by the Church) were deemed illegitimate. I do not think it is helpful to anybody - including atheists - to want to turn this around by denying legitimacy to philosophical views not conforming to principles recognized by (a group of) atheists with a narrow view of what science can and cannot provide.

As for “jumping to conclusions” please recall that I spoke of a premise, the exact opposite of conclusion. I never said one should “base one’s science“ (whatever that means) on a theistic or atheistic premise, and I can fully agree with you that one should not. Many philosophers build their world view on metaphysical premises, both those that you might like and those that you might not. Also, there are books by philosophically inclined scientists explaining that belief in a God who created the universe and acceptance of e.g. the neo-Darwinian version of evolution are not mutually exclusive. I tried to argue along the same line in my previous posts, and I do not see the need to repeat myself. After all, there are many respectable e.g. Christian scientists - as there are respectable atheist scientists - which just proves my point that the two positions are not mutually exclusive.

Neither do I want to repeat my objections to the misuse of logic by fundamentalist atheists to justify their position. They are at the same level as my objections to fundamentalist e.g. Christians‘ misuse of the term moral to justify their position. Logic - unless you mean its popular meaning, where ‘common sense‘ would be a better, albeit very vague, term - is the mechanism of thinking that leads from premises to conclusions and has been formalised into mathematical logic in the last centuries. Your computer - which is neither a theist nor an atheist - is “running on it“.
Posted by George, Sunday, 13 January 2008 3:22:21 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
George,

I partially agree with you, but I can sense that we are both going to start nit-picking and repeating ourselves far too much considering how stale this thread is becoming.

Perhaps we can save it for another time?
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 13 January 2008 4:22:30 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
AJ,
I don’t mind describing myself as a fundamentalist under a proper definition of the word. But it’s like you’re running a smear campaign. I reject the term fundamentalist as meaning someone who wants to start a war or push the button on a nuclear bomb. Nor does it mean someone who lives in fear of condemnation by an angry God (see Romans 8:1, or the same chapter, v.15).

When you ask, how many times have you heard of atheists starting wars in the name of atheism? Plenty in the 20th Century. We could start with a guy named Stalin.

But if we want to have a reasonable discussion, let’s try and limit the definitions. For fundamentalist, I’m happy with someone who accepts the plain and clear teaching of Scripture. (Historically, Fundamentalists held about half a dozen ‘fundamentals’, including the virgin birth, etc.)

I’ll try and define ‘creationist’; someone who accepts the book of Genesis as a true and accurate account of the world’s beginning, and thus a reliable basis for further investigation of the natural world.

You said that religion has a ‘stunting’ effect on science. This could not be more wrong. For every famous scientist you could think of, I could name ten who fit the ‘creationist’ definition above: Von Braun, Pasteur, Mendel, Faraday, Newton (…tell me when to stop). Modern science was virtually born out of the protestant reformation in Western Europe.

Later other philosophical movements grew to challenge Biblical thinking, such as Lyellian geology (see Relda’s entry above, 27/12). These made for the popularity of Darwinism, or something like it, virtually inevitable.

There has been much discussion so far as to whether evolution is a fact or theory (or both). I would best describe it as a philosophy. In some circles, Charles Darwin is considered one of the great philosophers of modern times.

Darwin’s success was in giving people a framework for viewing or interpreting the evidence. At heart, Darwinism is the explanation for how the world came to be what it is if God didn’t create it.

(continued…)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 18 January 2008 7:22:12 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
(…continued)

So we have, and possibly forever will have, two competing philosophies. One is attempting to explain our origins without reference to God. As a result we currently have in vogue uniformitarian geology, neo-Darwinism and other associated atheistic views. The other is an explanation for our origins taking into account the creator God.

Each case lives in the same world, looks at the same evidence, views it through different glasses, and claims the evidence matches their case better.

I say all of this in the context of your argument about ‘motives’. A Christian fundamentalist will never change their view of creation because they are committed to the authority of Scripture. You say that is a bind. I say that’s what allowed science to begin. The belief that there is a God of order behind the natural world provoked people to study his creation and the laws he had established within it.

An evolutionist will also never change his view, ever, as they are committed to their philosophy. Even if they dragged Noah’s ark down from Mt Ararat into Main Street, an explanation would be found (perhaps a CIA plot or something). God must be kept outside the door.

On the other hand, we are still free to change our views. People do change boats or adopt new philosophies or outlooks, even in this debate.

But I’m happy to swim against the stream. I can’t see how evolutionary philosophy is any benefit to science. I think of the Wright brothers who studied birds in flight attempting to discover the principles of aerodynamics, or current scientists studying the human cooling system to try and design more economical methods of refrigeration. That we could deny the creative qualities apparent within biology and then try and emulate them is hypocrisy, or at the very least, counter-intuitive.

By the way, the website http://www.creationontheweb.com has hundreds of pages and is very comprehensive. If you say you cross referenced them all, you must not have searched it properly.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 18 January 2008 7:33:54 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 am thankful for the evolutionary process which has produced the family structure where fathers stay around unlike many mammalian species where mother must rear the offspring all by herself. I am thankful for having a father who I could ask about the binding of Isaac when I heard the story. I asked him if he would sacrifice me if he heard a voice telling him to do it. He said he would see a psychiatrist and gave me a hug. I believed in my father and started to doubt the existence of a God who would demand atrocity to prove belief.
Posted by david f, Friday, 18 January 2008 8:58:23 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,

<<I reject the term fundamentalist as meaning someone who wants to start a war or push the button on a nuclear bomb.>>

I simply used extremes to illustrate a point. But I don’t see how you couldn’t define the above as fundamentalist.

<<Nor does it mean someone who lives in fear of condemnation by an angry God (see Romans 8:1, or the same chapter, v.15).>>

Not entirely, no. But that’s part of the parcel, and ultimately what stops Theists from questioning too much. Romans 8:15: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”

Yes, if they reject the idea that Jesus is Lord, then they face eternal damnation. Therefore, Theists are more inclined to shut-out anything that contradicts the Bible.

That being said, Romans 8:15 doesn’t help your point.

<<When you ask, how many times have you heard of atheists starting wars in the name of atheism? Plenty in the 20th Century. We could start with a guy named Stalin.>>

Wrong.

Stalin (among others) was a psychopath, who happened to be an Atheist. But he didn’t start a war IN THE NAME OF Atheism. The banning of religion in the Soviet Union was just one of the many methods he used to oppress the people.

Stalin was ‘religious’ in the sense that believed strongly in a particular world-view. But he never committed his atrocities ‘in the name of’ Atheism.

For example, Hitler was a Roman Catholic, but that doesn’t mean that he started WWII ‘in the name of’ Roman Catholicism.

<<You said that religion has a ‘stunting’ effect on science.>>

Certainly does. Atheists start with a blank sheet, then collect the evidence to fill it. Theists though, need to selectively collect evidence that fits their rigid doctrine; While discarding everything else.

<<...I could name ten who fit the ‘creationist’ definition...>>

My only fault was that I was not specific enough. Religion only stunts certain types of science, depending on the day and age.

Good examples of my point were scientists such as Galileo and Copernicus, who risked charges of heresy for their theories.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 18 January 2008 7:41:04 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
...Continued

<<An evolutionist will also never change his view, ever, as they are committed to their philosophy.>>

Some maybe. But Atheists are independent thinkers who don’t have an absolutist doctrine that never changes. So you can’t just categorise them all like that.

Now, if Darwin had proclaimed that he was the son of a God and his theory was the absolute truth, and that rejecting both him and his theory carried the penalty of eternal damnation, then you might have had a point here. But he didn't, so you don't.

I thought it was very revealing too, the way you used to word “authority” in: “authority of Scripture”. You're not supposed to question Authority, but you can question Evolution.

<<Even if they dragged Noah’s ark down from Mt Ararat into Main Street, an explanation would be found…>>

One way or the other, yes. But by using rigorous scientific testing - not an unproven authoritative scripture.

<<That we could deny the creative qualities apparent within biology and then try and emulate them is hypocrisy, or at the very least, counter-intuitive.>>

It would only be counter-intuitive if God could be proven with more than an old book with murky origins. There are also some species with qualities that don’t fit the 'design' theory too, like the Halibut.

Complexity doesn't necessarily imply design. There are simple things that are designed, and complex things that originate naturally. On the contrary, simplicity is a goal in most designs.

<<By the way, the website http://www.creationontheweb.com has hundreds of pages and is very comprehensive. If you say you cross referenced them all, you must not have searched it properly.>>

Firstly, I said that I cross-referenced MANY of them - not all.

Secondly, there are only 12 chapters, with approximately 125 pages that actually refute evolution.

But if you can show me a substantial amount of points that aren’t explained by the link that I provided, then I’ll start to take Creationism a bit more seriously. I did a bit more cross-referencing and still couldn't find anything.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 18 January 2008 7:41:29 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
AJ

You said..
For the umpteen-millionth time: Creationists are the fundamentalists, not Evolutionists.

You seem to be equating Biblical Literalism with Fundamentalism. Fundamentalists are those who attempt to restore the religious forms and practices of the earliest church. While they are often also Biblical Fundamentalists that is not necessarily always the case. The converse is more interesting that Biblical Literalists are not necesarily fundamentalists. Many Evangelical and Pentecostal Churches are not fundamentalist.

You also asked for examples of evolutionist/atheists committing crimes of war and terror. Stalin was an atheist/evolutionist and committed crimes against humanity on a massive scale persecuting the church in particular. Your imploication that all wars and all terrorism are committed in the name of religion is most ingenuous.
Posted by waterboy, Saturday, 19 January 2008 8:36:49 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
Waterboy,

<<Fundamentalists are those who attempt to restore the religious forms and practices of the earliest church.>>

And hence my whole point about Creationists, in regards to science.

If you read through my responses to Dan, you'll see that all I'm arguing against, is the lazy tactic of Creationists to label staunch Evolutionists as somehow being just as 'fundamentalist' about their beliefs as they are.

This is patently wrong, as Evolutionists are more likely to change their views on the science of the origins of life, since they are not bound by a rigid and absolutist doctrine; No matter what the new theory proves to be.

I cannot make this anymore clear than what I already have in all my previous posts.

<<You also asked for examples of evolutionist/atheists committing crimes of war and terror.>>

No, I asked for examples of evolutionist/atheists committing crimes of war and terror IN THE NAME OF Atheism. There's a very big difference.

In regards to Stalin et al - I've already answered that in the first of my last two posts to Dan above.

<<Your imploication that all wars and all terrorism are committed in the name of religion is most ingenuous.>>

At no point have I ever implied any such thing!

As I said in my last response to Dan, I was simply using extremes to help illustrate a point; The point that Creationists are the scientific fundamentalists, in the the sense that their stance on the issue of the origins of life are immovable.

Religion may not be the cause of ALL wars and terrorism, but when there's nothing left to divide people enough to incite violence, like race or tribalism, then religion makes quite a nice fit.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 19 January 2008 11:11:13 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
AJ,
It’s a strange point you are trying to make about atheists not starting wars ‘in the name of atheism’. I don’t suppose you are meaning that it is okay for atheists to start wars against whoever so long as they don’t mention the ‘A’ word.

But roughly, I agree. It’s largely religious people that have started all wars, since it’s people that have started wars and most people are by and large religious. (It is pretty easy to make big generalisations if we are allowed to play fast and loose with the definitions.)

“For the umpteen-millionth time: Creationists are the fundamentalists, not Evolutionists.” Sorry, but repeating something often, doesn’t make it true.

I think your point is about what atheists believe in. Well, they often say there is no such thing as god. To be an intellectually satisfied atheist, you need a good creation myth to try and explain how come we are all here discussing everything. That’s where Darwin helped out. He gave us a pitch at reading the world without making reference to God. (Although by suggesting that we are all evolving, perhaps at different rates, with some of us being more evolved or superior to others, didn’t do a lot for slowing down the rate of wars in the 20th Century).

You say, “Atheists start with a blank sheet.” This gets to the heart of this thread. Of course they don’t start with a blank sheet. I’ve seen their book shelves. They often start with Darwin, then move through to Sartre, O’Hare, and often have a solid collection of Dawkins. We are all to some degree constrained by our upbringing and education.

I said back on December 26, dare challenge the story of evolution, and see what fury of hell breaketh asunder from those fundies who hold such faith so dearly. The result was the longest debate on onlineopinion in months.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 24 January 2008 8:45:42 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
AJ,
Earlier I directed you to Romans chapter 8 to help get a feel for the psychology of a Christian. For you were suggesting that Christians were motivated by fears of hell. Though I must say to start with that it is wise to be aware of eternal consequences, and the reality of being on the wrong side of a God of absolutes.

Let’s think through this for moment. Christians (at least the ones I’ve met) are not motivated by fear. Fear is obsolete against perfect love. The analogy in Romans chapter eight is of someone adopted into a new family. A Christian is one who has sensed the love of Jesus, and knows that they have been adopted into his family. Imagine a family where you are continually loved and affirmed. There is no thought of ‘dropping out’, and so there is no thought of the consequences of such.

So Christians are not living in fear, for fear is what they have left behind. They are sure of their position. They know Jesus didn’t go to the trouble he did of dying and rising again just to give them a half baked promise of salvation.

Rather it is those who are not sure who maybe in a more urgent state of fear.

If I was to play the psychologist, I would suggest that it is those who have rejected the idea of God who have the more pressing need to create a satisfactory explanation for how we all came to be here without God. Hence, the theory of evolution.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 24 January 2008 8:53:47 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
A J Philips "Fundamentalists are those who attempt to restore the religious forms and practices of the earliest church."
That is not so. The earliest church was still a Jewish sect. Fundamentalists remain Christians.
Fundamentalists
1.maintain the inerrancy of scripture and reject higher criticism. [during the earliest church the New Testament was not yet written.]
2. defend the main Christian doctrines. (God, revelation, the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, the Holy Spirit, inspiration)
3. characterize those who do not accept their views as non-Christian (Catholics, Christian Scientists, Mormons, rationalists, Darwinists, socialists)
4. emphasize evangelism and missions
5. have personal testimonies by people telling how Christ worked in their lives.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 24 January 2008 2:32:06 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
Dan,

<<I don’t suppose you are meaning that it is okay for atheists to start wars against whoever so long as they don’t mention the ‘A’ word.>>

Not at all.

There were plenty of deadly conflicts that started because of the actions of Atheists during the 20th century.

You're missing the point.

Stalin, Pol Pot and the likes, were dangerous people who HAPPENED TO BE Atheists, but they didn't do what they did BECAUSE they were Atheists.

<<It’s largely religious people that have started all wars, since it’s people that have started wars and most people are by and large religious.>>

Again, you're missing the point.

Would it be fair to say that the 9/11 hijackers were psychopaths who just HAPPENED TO BE Islamics? Of course not. They did it in the name of their religion. Without Allah, what would they have had?

<<It is pretty easy to make big generalisations...>>

Agreed. But if a group of gang rapists all liked hot dogs, it wouldn't be easy for me to say that they all raped a girl because they all liked hot dogs.

<<Sorry, but repeating something often, doesn’t make it true.>>

I agree.

The only reason I had to repeat it was because the religious on OLO were trying to approach the 'fundamentalist' argument from different angles. But it didn't work.

<<I think your point is about what atheists believe in. Well, they often say there is no such thing as god.>>

And that's where it ends.

Atheists are individual thinkers who are not bound by an absolutist doctrine. So you can't categorise them all by saying: “what atheists believe in”.

<<Although by suggesting that we are all evolving, perhaps at different rates, with some of us being more evolved or superior to others, didn’t do a lot for slowing down the rate of wars in the 20th Century.>>

Who said it was supposed to? I don't think that was what Darwin had in mind.

<<Of course they don’t start with a blank sheet. I’ve seen their book shelves.>>

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 25 January 2008 11:49:46 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
...Continued

So then, what do you think they had before Darwin?

If evolution is dis-proven, then their sheet will be cleared again. But after all this time, Creationism has still failed to fill the sheet with any evidence.

<<We are all to some degree constrained by our upbringing and education.>>

And Creationism has failed to prove the Theist's upbringing and education so far.

<<The result was the longest debate on onlineopinion in months.>>

Only because Theists cannot accept basic logic. Which has been confirmed in this thread. The length of the debate doesn't mean much if blind faith has made it necessary to repeat basic logic over-and-over-and-over again, in many different ways.

<<For you were suggesting that Christians were motivated by fears of hell.>>

No, I wasn't, remember? I said “not entirely”, but “ultimately”, in regards to the fear of Hell.

<<Though I must say to start with that it is wise to be aware of eternal consequences>>

You see what I mean?

<<Let’s think through this for moment. Christians (at least the ones I’ve met) are not motivated by fear.>>

Of course not. But they dare not question too much because of your point about “eternal consequences”.

<<The analogy in Romans chapter eight is of someone adopted into a new family.>>

And if they reject that family, they fry.

<<They know Jesus didn’t go to the trouble he did of dying and rising again just to give them a half baked promise of salvation.>>

Of course not. But we have no real proof that that is the way it happened. Stories are usually exaggerated over time.

<<...I would suggest that it is those who have rejected the idea of God who have the more pressing need to create a satisfactory explanation for how we all came to be here....>>

Hence my point about religion stifling our naturally curious minds, and the stunting effect religion has on science.

“Create” is the wrong word though. You're implying that Evolutionists have invented a theory out of thin air. An implication that is patently wrong.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 25 January 2008 11:52:37 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
Dan,
you might find the following review of the book "Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion"
by Francisco J. Ayala of interest to you:
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/reviews/377.
Posted by George, Saturday, 26 January 2008 8:53:11 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 wouldn't have thought that evolution is the point. There are many theists who are content with evolution, or indifferent to it. The truth or otherwise of evolution just doesn't answer the God question.

Even if we humans are nothing more, physically speaking, than the current gorilla upgrade, it can still a situation that is ultimately presided over by God. And, if God saw fit to insert a spark into the latest upgrade, so He can relate to that upgrade, that's God's affair.

The mistake I think a lot of evolutionists make is - being narrow-minded and presumptuous as we humans typically are - is to leap to the conclusion that evolution is all that is true, and that nothing else can be true as well. I suppose that Darwinism gave rise to such a tidal wave of thought, that this mistake is understandable. But, the water has settled, and it is time for our proudly inquisitive empiricists to consider the possibilities beyond their senses.

Bound up in their empiricist strait-jacket, they might just miss something.

Pax,
Posted by goodthief, Saturday, 26 January 2008 10:13:58 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
There is evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for God. Kant examined all the proofs for the existence of God and could accept none of them. However, he held to a belief in God and the Lutheran church because of faith. All theistic religions have as their basis faith in unprovable propositions.

Unfortunately faith in God has often led to atrocity. On this string Stalin has been cited as an atheist who also was responsible for atrocity. However, Marxism shares with theistic religion faith in unprovable propositions. Secular deterministic ideology is merely religion with a shorter shelf time.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 26 January 2008 10:44:54 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
Davidf,

The quote from your post (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784#104200) wasn't anything I said. It was just a line I quoted from Waterboy's post because it ironically helped my argument. I wasn't saying that that was the entire definition of a fundamentalist.

The reason it helped my argument, was because there are many Christians (mostly in the US) who would love to rid the teaching of Evolution from schools, and replace it with Creationism - or at the very least, teach it alongside Evolution. But doing this, would be debauching the very idea of teaching science.

I went to a Christian school in year 8, and their idea of teaching us about evolution was to show us an half-hour video, and then just state at the end of it: “But we don't believe that anyway”. I'll never forget the contempt shown by the teacher that could be seen in the very way she switched the TV off afterwards. Although, back then, my opinion of evolution was the same.

All that being said though, most of the points you listed, also help my emphasise my point.

You'd have to read all posts from both Dan and myself to see what I mean.

<<Marxism shares with theistic religion faith in unprovable propositions.>>

Not quite.

You can test Marxism. In fact, it already has been tested and it failed.

<<Secular deterministic ideology is merely religion with a shorter shelf time.>>

Not really.

A lot of what I've said already, dis-proves this. Look at all the Secular Democracies and compare them with the Theocracies throughout History and I think you'll find this is seldom ever the case.

Theocracies are dictatorial by nature, and like Communism, require breaches of basic freedoms to be maintained.

Communism may have had horrific results, but Atheism was only a part of it - it wasn't the fundamental reason for it, and this is just one of the many points that Theists have a lot of difficulty understanding.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 27 January 2008 12:10:51 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,

<<I wouldn't have thought that evolution is the point.>>

Evolution Vs Creationism is what's being discussed on this particular thread at the moment.

<<There are many theists who are content with evolution, or indifferent to it. The truth or otherwise of evolution just doesn't answer the God question.>>

Yes, I know a Christian who believes that God created life on Earth through an evolutionary process. Evolution doesn't necessarily dis-prove God.

But you'd have to have read the posts between Dan and myself to see where this thread is at, at the moment.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 27 January 2008 12:21:26 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
A J Philips wrote: "You can test Marxism. In fact, it already has been tested and it failed." One can say the same thing about Christianity. It has continued to hold out the hope that the messianic era is at hand. That hope has proven to be unfounded. I know Marxists who still believe in the ideology. They admit the setbacks but do not admit it has failed. Like Christians who expect the second coming they still expect the eventual classless society. I know a Marxist in Sydney who even speaks in apocalyptic terms of the final battle which will result in the triumph of Marxism.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 27 January 2008 1:11:57 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, (and AL)
Perhaps this might interest you as well:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/is_it_kiss_and_make_up_for_science_and_religion/.

It is a comment on an 88 page book "Science, Evolution, and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies" that can be bought at

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876,

or its free summary brochure

http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf,

where one of the authors is the biologist Francisco J. Ayala that I referred to in my previous post.
Posted by George, Sunday, 27 January 2008 10:14:22 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
The challenge issued by "Seek the truth - come whence it may, cost what it will" may certainly be heralded within many a Christian institution (or perhaps the founding ethos of a scientific community) but the ideologies of both Christian Fundamentalism and modern Relativism provide not reason but a rationalization for timidity.

It does appear, david f, that institutionalized Christianity has been tested and has failed - like every institution, its primary concern is its own survival and viability. This is the inevitable result of institutional religion. The fundamental hypocrisy of many 'truth' proclaimers and also the relativists is more in action than in word. A balance needs to be struck between the extremes of both close minded fundamentalism, that lives in prejudice and bias judgment based on the myths of others and a relativism, that lives in the melting pot of open equalitarian society of diluted values which whitewash all standards, reducing all values to hypothetical opinions.

The empiricism of science simply does not attempt to communicate any moral imperative or value. Communication destroys such meaning and when men attempt to write in symbolic, metaphorical, poetic direction, they can point and transfer only under a mask of indirect terms. The perversion of literalists define such words of conveyance in literal, historical terms, destroying all such meaning of the irrational, existential, essence of being - 'creationism' is one such aberration. George's link to 'The seeds of genesis and creation' in reference to evolution is quite succinct, "there is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been so extensively tested and corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms".
Posted by relda, Sunday, 27 January 2008 12:28:56 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
Davidf,

I agree with, and am aware of what you've written in your last post. You'll get your 'fundies' in all walks of life. That being said though, I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to point out because it's missing my main point on this thread.

If you're using Marxists as an example of Atheists committing atrocities 'in the name of' Atheism, then it doesn't really work. Because, going back to what I said previously, Atheism is a part of Marxism/Communism, it's not what Marxism is based on.

Marxism is more based on the ideal of a classless society, and since there has been a certain 'elitism' attached to religion throughout history, doing away with religion was just one of the methods of achieving that.

But in no way were Stalin et al, carrying out there horrific deeds in the name of Atheism.

The only reason I raised the point about war and terror committed in the name of religion, was to give an extreme example of absolutist belief due to a rigid doctrine, and therefore, demonstrating how Creationists are the scientific fundamentalists, not Evolutionists.

But going back to my main point about scientific fundamentalism: If you're using Marxists as an example of Atheistic absolutist belief, then that still doesn't really compare with Theistic belief either. Because Marxists can change their opinion of Marxism without fearing an omnipotent, all-seeing God.

Marxism is also not as psychologically difficult to breakout of, because if a Marxist converts to Capitalism, they're not tormented for years after with ingrained thoughts of possible eternal consequences if they've got it wrong about their new belief.

George,

Thanks for the links. It looks like an interesting book.

Some points from the first link about the book though:

<<...the first explicit statement by a significant scientific body asserting that the acceptance of evolution and belief in God are compatible.>>

To say they are compatible, I think, is stretching it a little. Religion may be able to provide answers to questions that science can't, but there's still nothing to say that the answers it provides are correct.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 28 January 2008 5:27:41 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
...Continued

The fact that religion can provide comfort and purpose, doesn't necessarily make it true, and many Theists seem to confuse comfort with truth.

Another point to make, is that if Christians were to start translating the Bible loosely enough to accept evolution, then surely at some point, they would start asking themselves: “Well then, does God even exist in the first place?”

<<Science can never really answer the question: Why is it so?>>

Well no, but there's nothing to really show that religion does either. Unless, of course, you're willing to start halfway down the back straight and assume that a God really does exist.

I also don't think that there has to necessarily be a definitive (let alone a divine) answer to the 'Why' question. The 'Why' question also begs another question: “Why does there have to be a reason as to why it is so?” The desire to ask why it is so, could simply be an evolutionary survival/advancement mechanism for all we know.

I remember watching the movie 'Children of Men', and it occurred to me how pointless our existence would become if we could no longer reproduce. Perhaps reproduction is our only purpose? Why does our purpose have to be a divine one?

<<And importantly, science cannot answer the question: how ought we to live (ethics)?>>

No, but if the theory of Natural Selection is correct, then religion becomes fairly irrelevant. Because Natural Selection rewards good traits, both physically and behaviourally.

The are a multitude of examples throughout history which demonstrate that morals and ethics don't come from the Bible. On the contrary, it has been factors outside religion (such as the shifting moral zeitgeist that Dawkins speaks of) that have enabled us to cherry-pick the good bits from the bible, and know what parts we should follow. Without the 'shifting moral zeitgeist' or Natural Selection's role in morality, we could still be stoning homosexuals, and burning heretics.

That being said though, from what I can make of the book from the links, I would still recommend it to Dan.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 28 January 2008 5:32:27 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
George wrote:

"Marxism is also not as psychologically difficult to breakout of, because if a Marxist converts to Capitalism, they're not tormented for years after with ingrained thoughts of possible eternal consequences if they've got it wrong about their new belief."

The statement is problematical. It equates two different concepts. Marxism is an ideology. It is not socialism. Capitalism and socialism are economic systems. One does not convert to an economic system. One may abandon Marxism and still be a socialist.

However, the psychological processes used in keeping people in line are much the same in a religious cult as in a Marxist cell. One becomes immersed in the activities of the group so that one has cut the bonds with people not in the group. Excommunication from the religious sect or expulsion from the party have much the same effect. The individual has been cast off from the group adrift in a world where one is an atomized individual.

The consequences in this world are much the same.
Posted by david f, Monday, 28 January 2008 5:52:29 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
david f,
You say > George wrote: "Marxism is also … about their new belief."< These are AJ’s words not mine. I do not want to comment on these things, except by repeating that I experienced life under a marx-leninist regime (yes, I know there are many versions of Marxism, and many meanings of the term socialism), as well as the Christian faith (in particular loyalty to a Church whose ‘headquarters’ were in the then ‘free world‘) that sustained me during those years. However, I agree that this is hard to understand for somebody with only an outsider‘s theoretical knowledge of both.

AJ,
I appreciate the fact that you actually read the pieces I linked to. Let me just try to address some of your objections.

> To say they are compatible, ... there's still nothing to say that the answers it provides are correct.<

I think compatibility and correctness are two very different things: The professional qualifications of a scientist and the Christian outlook are shown to be compatible if you can find a person who is genuinely both. I hope I do not have to list here contemporary (or 20th century) Christian scientists.

The term ‘correct‘ is more ambiguous. You refer to the correctness of answers Christianity provides. That is a very complex issue even if we could agree on what ‘correct‘ means in this context, because among other things, as you know, there is a whole variety of answers claimed to be Christian, some of them mutually incompatible.

Of course I agree that the meaning of ‘correct answer’ in a metaphysical context of the Christian faith is quite different from its meaning in a scientific context, and, of course, it is the former, not the latter, that is disputed on this thread. Like the correct answer to the question “What is this piece of paper, what is its meaning, purpose?“ will be different when given by a scientist, who tested it in a chemical laboratory, from the answer given by a banker who recognised it as a note in a foreign currency etc. (ctd)
Posted by George, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 12:19:18 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
(ctd) Another term you mention — perhaps even more difficult to define so that everybody, especially philosophers, will accept it (including philosophers of science) — is ‘truth’. I do not like people who quote the bible in every suitable or unsuitable situation, but “What is truth?“ is exactly the question that Pilate addressed Jesus with. We know how it ended, partly also because Pilate did not understand Jesus’ answer. And theologians for two millennia, together with philosophers, have been struggling to understand it or find another answer. So we must be careful with terms like, correct, truth, evidence, facts, etc., unless, of course, we deal with philosophically trivial situations.

I agree that for different people answers to the question of the meaning of life, or how they ought to live their lives, are different, perhaps even meaningless. Some find it in this or that religion some in a mental setup that does not like to be called religious. I can accept that. What I cannot accept is if somebody tells me what should be the meaning of my life (unless he/she is a therapist - it used to be a priest - whom I asked to help me to find the meaning of my life). Neither can I accept if somebody tells me that my world view is irrational, immoral, illogical or worse, just because it does not fit into the rational construction of his/her world view.

There, I think, I can agree with you, and other tolerant secular humanists (yes there are both tolerant and intolerant humanists as there are tolerant and intolerant Christians).
Posted by George, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 12:29:29 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
Davidf,

<<The statement is problematical. It equates two different concepts...>>

All irrelevant.

Marxism, Socialism, Communism, Keynesianism, Capitalism, Fascism, Economic ideology, Social ideology, it doesn’t matter.

The point remains that Stalin and the other Atheist evildoers of the 20th century, did not commit their atrocities in the name of Atheism. I don’t know of any wars that had been launched in the name of Atheism, and even if you could find one example, it would still be insignificant compared to the amount of times wars have been launched in the name of a God.

There may be some comparisons between social ideologies and religious belief when you look at the extremes. But the fact that Marxists (and others) don’t believe in eternal rewards and punishments, separates them from Theists in a way that you could never compare – no matter how hard you try.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 9:31:45 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
George,

<< I think compatibility and correctness are two very different things…>>

Yes, I agree.

I was specifically referring to evolution, not science as a whole. After all, there are Christians out there who believe that God created life on Earth through an evolutionary process, and that each of the 6 days mentioned in Genesis could have actually meant 100 million years, since that amount of time would feel like a mere day to a being like God.

But my main point was the question of how loosely could/should a Theist translate their Holy Book before they give the whole thing up?

<< The term ‘correct‘ is more ambiguous...>>

’Correct’ probably wasn’t the best word to use in that situation.

All I was saying is that you run the risk of potencially heading down the wrong track if you apply Theology as the only method of answering the “Why” question. That’s not to say that it's the wrong method, but just that the answers that are derived from Theology rely on the assumption that there really is a God. For example, if I’m told to go and look for a black book, I’m never going to find it if the book I’m supposed to find is actually red. I might find other black books, the not the one I was actually supposed to find.

<<I do not like people who quote the bible in every suitable or unsuitable situation, but “What is truth?“>>

Would “rightness” be a better term then?

An analogy of what I meant when I used the word “truth”, is if a doctor tells you that you’re fine, when in fact you actually have terminal cancer, that’s comforting, but it doesn’t mean it’s true.

But if you can ask: “What is truth?”, then that’s a good thing. One thing that can really get up my nose, is when some Christians find it impossible to type the word “truth” (in regards to Biblical truth), without starting it with a capital ‘T’. I find this kind of certainty concerning.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 9:40:18 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
AJ Philips wrote:

"There may be some comparisons between social ideologies and religious belief when you look at the extremes. But the fact that Marxists (and others) don’t believe in eternal rewards and punishments, separates them from Theists in a way that you could never compare – no matter how hard you try."

I didn't compare them. I only compared the effects in this world. I think there is an ingrained skepticism even in supposed believers that causes most of them to ignore the supposed eternal rewards or punishments for the immediate gratification or disappointment.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 10:39:06 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
AJ,
>> if a doctor tells you that you’re fine, when in fact you actually have terminal cancer, that’s comforting, but it doesn’t mean it’s true.<<

That is why I said that terms like ‘truth’ etc. are unambiguous in philosophically trivial situations. Such a naive understanding of truth will not suffice in contemporary philosophy of science, even with the falsification principle (especially after the advance of QF), so you cannot expect it to be sufficient when asking philosophical questions about religious outlooks.

>> when some Christians find it impossible to type the word “truth” (in regards to Biblical truth), without starting it with a capital ‘T’.<<

Normally, capitalisation of an abstract word means that you have in mind a different meaning of the word, as much as it might relate to, or be derived from, its uncapitalised version. You have ‘Catholic‘ (referring to a church) and catholic, meaning universal, and of course you know that in Australia one speaks of “small el” liberals to distinguished them from the political party.

Capitalisation in religious treatises, or in metaphysics when dealing with an “Ultimate Reality“ (my favourite capitalised words), is an indication that one does not mean their uncapitalised, trivial, counterparts, and one does not want to (or cannot) spell out the difference.

Yes, one can speak of Truth to indicate something (or Something) that is a priori accepted within the context of a religious discourse (and to distinguish it from the everyday use of the word, like in your example of the terminal cancer patient).

Since faith (religious) is a state of mind attainable by a philosophically sophisticated as well as a rather naive person, you have to have understanding for the latter who can grasp Truth only if he/she equates it with truth naively understood.

For instance, in mathematics you have words, like space, function, map etc., that have specialised meanings, only loosely related to the way they are used in everyday language. They are not capitalised, apparently because there is normally no danger of them being misunderstood by somebody who does not understand the language of mathematics.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 30 January 2008 2:46:12 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
Thanks, George, for the review of the Ayala book. Though I usually take what comes out of the AAAS and NAS cautiously given their past records. I would be interested in more detail about what was said towards the end regarding the difficulties of the current population arising from a small population. It may make for an interesting investigation. I notice the rabbit population seems pretty robust considering it started from pretty small numbers in Victoria not that long ago.

Summary statements such as this one quoted by Relda are pretty bold, "there is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been so extensively tested and corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms". However such statements are a little out of line with reality. If these notions have been so extensively tested and corroborated, why are such institutions having trouble convincing much of the public at large about their validity? I would suggest it is because they are philosophically driven, not empirically. The more incapable these notions are to convince, the bolder these statements become.

I’ve heard elsewhere that the most confirmed and attested notion in all of science is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which is by no means a friend of evolution. But can I put this statement to a test? If the evolutionary origin of living things is so extensively corroborated, can we state one single fact about such origins that we can put on display as evident and beyond question?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 31 January 2008 7:03:39 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,
With regards to Christian fears and motivations, all ought to have a healthy respect for God and the consequences of rebellion against him. By analogy, I have a healthy fear of crossing the road. I don’t take it lightly, but I also don’t live in fear of cars. That you are always referring back to certain fears seems to betray what is going on in your own psychology since departing the church.

As for religion stifling curiosity and creativity, try answering this: name a branch of modern science, e.g. genetics, physics, that wasn’t pioneered by a Bible believing Christian. I suggest most were. Modern science was born out of the Christian mind set of Western Europe.

You said theists have failed to accept basic logic provided on this thread. If you could provide an example of anything in this line, I’d be interested to see it.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 31 January 2008 7:08:39 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 assertion has been made be de Merengue that the roots of modern science come from Bible believing Christians.

Science is not restricted to any religious belief. Physics, biology and many other branches of the natural and physical sciences came from the writings of Aristotle born 384 BC. His speculations built on the work of others. It is rare that one person can be said to have founded a science. However, the founder of chemistry as a science is generally acknowledged to be Jabir ibn Haiyan, a Muslim Arab of Yemeni extraction who was born in 722.

Modern physics can be said to be the product of the brain of the Jew, Albert Einstein, whose ideas of time and space revolutionized classical physics.

Modern biology rests on evolutionary theory which was based on the work of Darwin and Wallace. Darwin was raised to be a Bible believing Christian but gave it up. Wallace was a spiritualist.

Astronomy has preChristian roots. Eratosthanes measured the circumference of the earth within 1% of the currently accepted figure. He was born in 273 BC.

The fate of such scientists as Servetus who was burned at the state by Calvinists and Galileo who was imprisoned by Catholics is well-known.

Bible believing Christianity does not encourage the spirit of inquiry which is necessary for a scientist although there are cases where it has not succeeded in stifling it.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 31 January 2008 4:09:55 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
George,

Good points about the capitalisation. But personally, I've also known of it to be used because it is believed to the ultimate truth: 'The Truth'. A truth supposedly truer than all other truths.

Thanks for the hints about using certain words that could potentially become philosophical trivia. But I think your words: “...philosophically trivial situations” demonstrate that they are just that: Trivial. Personally I would view them as relatively unimportant in most situations.

Dan,

<<...2nd law of thermodynamics, which is by no means a friend of evolution.>>

This is yet another common Creationist misconception:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/creationism.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

<<...all ought to have a healthy respect for God and the consequences of rebellion against him.>>

How can someone rebel against a being they don't believe exists? How could we have a healthy respect for a being, when we cannot be absolutely certain of the existence of it?

<<By analogy, I have a healthy fear of crossing the road.>>

At least you can prove that cars exist.

<<I don’t take it lightly, but I also don’t live in fear of cars.>>

Firstly, try not to hyper-focus on the word “fear”. The mere belief of such an imprudent eternal consequence is enough to support my point.

Secondly, I have never said that Christians “live in fear”. The rewards of Heaven also support my point.

<<That you are always referring back to certain fears seems to betray what is going on in your own psychology since departing the church.>>

Not at all.

Do I know for certain that there is no God? Of course not, no one can really know that for sure (Although the probability of the existence of God is near zero).

Do I believe there is a God who would so unjustly punish his creations, that he is supposed to love so much, with such an awful punishment? Absolutely not!

If there were such a God, then he would have less wisdom than his own creations, and that doesn't make sense.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 31 January 2008 10:24:13 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
...Continued

Would you keep your own child alive to be subjected to an eternity of torment, simply because they rejected you and didn't love you? No.

<<As for religion stifling curiosity and creativity>>

I never said religion stifled creativity.

<<...name a branch of modern science, ... that wasn’t pioneered by a Bible believing Christian.>>

That's a very narrow way of looking at it. You're ignoring the fact that when Christianity took over in Europe, scientific and technological advancement almost totally came to a halt.

Not only are you ignoring the centuries before the 'Modern' era, but you're ignoring the discoveries that the study of Evolution has lead to. How is there any curiosity in explaining away the origins of life by stating: “God did it!”?

How about the stifling effect religion is having on stem cell research for starters?

There are many more examples of the stifling effect religion has on scientific curiosity. But to emphasise my point, I need only to mention Christian Right in America.

<<Modern science was born out of the Christian mind set of Western Europe.>>

Hardly.

It would be highly presumptuous to assume that because some of the pioneers of modern science were Christians, they're scientific pioneering was a result of their beliefs. Even if you could provide examples of this, they'd be minimal compared to the examples on the contrary.

Modern science was born 'despite' the Christian mindset, not 'because of' it.

<<You said theists have failed to accept basic logic provided on this thread. If you could provide an example of anything in this line...>>

Well, it's taking a long time to sink in that Evolutionists can't be compared with Creationists when your talking about scientific fundamentalism. It's been approached from many different angles but none of them have worked.

But what I also should have said, is that the length of this thread doesn't mean much if some have had to explain themselves over and over, and in many different ways, simply because words are being put into their mouths, meanings twisted or definitions of words, such as "evidence", are being trivialised.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 31 January 2008 10:24:29 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
AJ,

>it is believed to the ultimate truth ... supposedly truer than all other truths<
More or less so. However, this makes sense only to those who “carry within themselves, pre-formed, a mental space where the Truth may eventually lodge” (Ortega y Gasset), and should not be forced on those who do not. Returning to my previous example, somebody unfamiliar with Australian politics would not understand why one has to say “small el liberals”, although in this case it is not hard to explain the need.

Yes, Truth, as I understand it (or Ultimate Reality, cf. above), has a rationally objective as well as a psychologically subjective dimension. (And yes, one would need to define properly all these terms.)

Thank you for reminding me that I perhaps should not have used the term ‘trivial’ in the sense of ‘everyday” (in maths one uses the term to denote problems easy to solve). What i meant was, that e.g. to decide about the truth of how many fingers are there on your hand you have to be knowledgeable in neither anatomy nor mathematics, although anatomy, and certainly mathematics, deals with many ‘non-trivial’ questions that cannot be answered that simply.

In principle (though not always in practice, and never mind Goedel) it is easy to decide about the (formal) truth of a mathematical proposition; the question about the truthfulness of a physical theory is principally much more complicated, and I maintain that it is much, much more complicated to decide about Truth where so many other things - metaphysics, psychology, tradition etc. - are involved and interconnected. So there are all sorts of shortcuts (myths, doctrines, etc.) offered as a “first approximation” of the otherwise incomprehensible Truth. The philosophically unsophisticated - but not only those - equate these shortcuts with that Truth, or reduce Truth to the truth as they see it in their (or others‘) scientific investigations. Both shortcuts are legitimate, rationally self contained. Only those who Ortega y Gasset refers to above see these as only approximations - some good, some not so good - of the whole, principally incomprehensible, Truth.
Posted by George, Friday, 1 February 2008 12:09:36 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
George,

I'd have to say, conversing with you is certainly is a thought-provoking experience. We may not necessarily change the minds of others, but if we can broaden them, or at least provoke some thought, then OLO has served a valuable purpose.

Dan,

I need to expand on what I wrote in my last response. Some of my points were far too brief due to the word restrictions, and if I don't take the opportunities during the extensive periods between your posts to clarify what I am saying, then I could be here for the rest of the year explaining simple concepts to you.

My point about the differences between the commitment of Creationists and Evolutionists, in regards to their beliefs, cannot be put down to one simple notion: The fear of God. So hyper-focusing on the word “fear” and stating that Christians don't live in fear isn't going to debunk a logical point.

My point is very basic and logical, and this is one of the reasons I've said that some Theists here are having trouble grasping basic logic.

Forget eternal consequences (both good and bad) here for a moment. There is another major difference between both Theistic belief and Atheistic belief that Theists often have difficulty grasping, and that is the motives that can be derived from the belief in something, as opposed to the absence of a belief in something.

This is why I raised the point about wars and terror in the name of religion. The belief in something divine can drive people to do, say and think things that wouldn't otherwise be done, said or thought in the absence of a belief in something divine. This is one of the reasons that the 'Stalin' argument is so silly, and doesn't work. Yet it is repeated over and over!

So getting back to my main point, and forgetting eternal consequences, some of the many ways you can distinguish between Evolutionists and Creationists, is the fact that Evolutionists don't believe their theory as unquestioningly as Creationists do. Evolutionists don't love Darwin, or his Theory.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 1 February 2008 10:47:11 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

Especially not with the undying passion that Creationists do.

So my main point on this thread is still standing strong, and hence, one of my points about the Theists (George aside) on this thread.

I was astonished when you said you'd be interested to see my examples of Theists failing to grasp basic logic on this thread! The more you post, the stronger my points become, since you give me more and more angles to approach my arguments from, and your counter-arguments do virtually nothing to weaken my points.

As for the trivialisation of the definition of “evidence”, this is a poor way to argue your beliefs. You can narrow down the definition of 'evidence' all you like, but it doesn't take away the fact that there is far more evidence for Evolution than Creationism.

The way we interpret the evidence is also quite insignificant if you're trying to prove different theory. Bringing Evolution into question doesn't prove Creationism, but none of the Creationist's arguments even do that! This is why they're ridiculed so much, and treated as a joke.

The assumption of many Theists, that there are only two possibilities (creationism and evolution), goes back to my point earlier about the Theist's assumption that the mindset of Atheists is comparable to the mindset of most Theists.

The only real argument that Creationists have, is the so-called “proof” of design. But this is ridiculous for many reasons - complexity is not necessarily synonymous with design. Even the 'Irreducible Complexity' argument - which was debunked shorty after it was raised by Behe - never proved design.

The points that Creationists come up with, are either gross misunderstandings of science and/or evolution, or half-truths that ignore many other logical points.

Even if Creationists could dis-prove evolution, they'd only be part-way there, because they'd still have to prove Creationism. A belief that, so far, has no credible proof at all.

That fact that there is a 'controversy', or that this thread has continued for so long, means nothing when there are some out there, who have unshakable and fundamentalist-style beliefs.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 1 February 2008 10:47:24 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
AJ,
After another four posts of fervent support for evolution, your concluding comment concerned those out there with unshakable, fundamentalist-style beliefs (raise eyebrows!).

This does partly explain the length of this thread, but I disagree that all such people are found on only one side of the argument.

However, I would like to get away from using the term ‘fundamentalist’, as it carries little meaning outside of a particular context. (Thanks, david f, for giving us some dictionary type definitions of the word, a few posts back, to try and keep us on track.) These days the word ‘fundamentalist’ is often used as little more than an insult, a bit like calling people ‘communist’ in the McCarthy era.

You accused theists of having failed to accept basic logic provided on this thread. When I asked you to supply an example of this, you came up with ‘that Evolutionists can’t be compared with Creationists’ or (as best I understand) there being some qualitative difference between evolutionist and creationist scientists.

Well, that’s your opinion. And opinions are great. Opinions are what this website is about. You believe evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe evolution is largely held to for philosophical or historical reasons, but not for the force of evidence. But opinions and logic are a different category of beast.

I’ll admit to not being able to follow your points very well, but it is impossible to ‘fail to accept basic logic’ until we are first presented with some.

If you want to find those with unshakable beliefs, have a look at those who posted comments above declaring evolution an established ‘fact’ in a similar sense to the testable and repeatable assertion that water boils at 100 Deg.

For many, evolution is an unshakable tenet of faith, and for some, an important base in their philosophy. However, in you, AJ, I’m glad for having discovered an evolutionist that is so open to being persuaded of the possibility that it may be wrong.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 3 February 2008 5:12:18 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
david f said,
“Bible believing Christianity does not encourage the spirit of inquiry which is necessary for a scientist although there are cases where it has not succeeded in stifling it.”

The idea that Christianity is somehow in conflict with science, or that they are in some way ideologically opposed not only runs counter to history, but would be a surprise to the thousands of practicing scientists who happen to be Christian. It is a false dichotomy.

Science is a method which can be applied successfully by anyone. Without doubt, Western science owes much to the Greek philosophers. And scientific impetus also had tentative beginnings in other parts of the world.

Yet I stand by what I said about modern science owing much of its beginnings to the European Christian mindset.

Science started to flourish in Europe roughly in the middle of the last Millennium at a time when certain currents of thought came together, not least of which was the influence of Christian theology and the increased availability of the Scriptures (via the printing press). Crucial was the assumption that the universe was made by a rational creator and therefore could be rationally interpreted. People began searching for the laws set in place by an orderly creator. If there was no creator, or if the Greek gods, who were always fighting with each other, made the world, why should people have assumed that the universe contained any order?

David f mentions these scientific categories:
chemistry – try taking away the contributions of Boyle and Ramsay,
physics – think of Kelvin and Isaac Newton,
David f says, ‘biology rests on evolution’. I say codswollop!
biology – the greatest biologists, Mendel and Pasteur, argued against Darwin,
astronomy – Copernicus, Galileo.
All of these solidly believed the Scriptures. Even Galileo defended his views scripturally to the Pope (with whom he was having a personal spat. Others throughout the church gladly welcomed his views).

Christianity is not in any conflict with the scientific method, or any healthy, practical science.
It is, however, willing to pick a bone with philosophy masquerading as knowledge.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 3 February 2008 5:20:54 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
de Merengue wrote:
The idea that Christianity is somehow in conflict with science, or that they are in some way ideologically opposed not only runs counter to history, but would be a surprise to the thousands of practicing scientists who happen to be Christian. It is a false dichotomy.

de Merengue left off my adjective Bible believing. I take Bible believing Christianity to mean a literal belief in a seven day creation, in a world wide flood, in Jesus walking on water and turning water into wine and other instances where laws of nature were suspended. That is totally opposed to science.

Modern biology rests on evolutionary theory. It is the accepted scientific consensus.

As de Merengue wrote 'science started to flourish in Europe roughly in the middle of the last Millennium,.

However, it certainly was not due to Christian theology. It was a restoration of the spirit of inquiry that existed in the classical world, knowledge of such thinkers in the Arab world as Avicenna, Averroes and the Jewish physician, Maimonides and the Reformation with the questioning of religious doctrine that accompanied it.

Galileo argued from Scripture because he could not argue from experiment and observation and be listened to. Copernicus published his works posthumously because he was afraid of Christian persecution. Isaac Newton spent the last part of his life in theological ruminations. Apparently he was a Unitarian who opposed the church doctrine of the Trinity.

de Merengue wrote 'the greatest biologists, Mendel and Pasteur, argued against Darwin.'

Pasteur argued against Darwin, but his argument was not based on science. It was based on his faith in the Bible.

Darwin lacked an adequate mechanism to explain inheritance. Mendel could have provided that.

From the net: Mendel concluded that organisms evolved from the simple to the complex. He might have supported Darwin and his work. Some think that Mendel not only did not understand Darwin but was actually opposed to some of Darwin's ideas."
Posted by david f, Sunday, 3 February 2008 10:48:23 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
We perhaps need to refer back to the implied premise of this discussion, i.e. John Gray's reference to the truth and the meaning of myth where, absolutely, there should be no emphasis placed on a literal meaning given to biblical account. David f quite validly refers to literal biblical belief as being quite incompatible with science - this point is fundamental to any polemic surrounding evolution and creationism. If we move from beyond this hurdle, which I fear biblical literalists are near unable to do (fortunately, A.J. shows us his escape from this binding literalism) we can perhaps further ruminate. '[M]yths can be more or less truthful in reflecting the human situation. In this sense the Genesis story is a truthful myth. It tells us that knowledge need not give humanity life or freedom; it may only bring slavery and death…'

Maybe we should be asking, "Is the more modern and secular myth of human progress dangerously shallow and superficial when attempting to address a deep emotional need.' I digress a little, but as also mentioned by Gray, the prohibition of torture is supposedly the mark of civilisation - G.W. Bush, however, 'fudged' this tenet and found little problem with the inquisitional torture method of water boarding . Can we take this as a mark of 'progressive' evangelical Christianity - or perhaps just an inept President regressing in order to favour a 'moral majority'? Just how far, in moral terms, have we really progressed and how thin the veneer of civilisation? Undoubtedly, those who perform in the name of a wrathful Allah or a powerful and retributive Judeo-Christian God are staunchly theistic. These performances, incidentally, are reckoned to be requisites for justice (and supposedly, ultimate peace). Where in fact does true morality lie - can it be through theistic belief or through atheistic belief? Perhaps ultimately, neither.

cont'd...
Posted by relda, Sunday, 3 February 2008 4:30:56 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
...cont'd

I find many a-theists to be not only highly evolved examples of intelligence, but tolerant and gentle of disposition. Theists, such as Issac Newton share a similar brilliance - but are of a different age and paradigm. Some here will have the perception as to who wrote the following - hopefully there is also the wit to grasp its reality, 'There is mystery in the universe, beguiling mystery, but it isn't capricious, whimsical, frivolous in its changeability. The universe is an orderly place and, at a deep level, regions of it behave like other regions, times behave like other times. If you put a brick on a table it stays there unless something lawfully moves it, even if you meanwhile forget it's there. Poltergeists and sprites don't intervene and hurl it about for reasons of mischief or caprice. There is mystery but not magic, strangeness beyond the wildest imagining, but no spells or witchery, no arbitrary miracles.'
Posted by relda, Sunday, 3 February 2008 4:36:28 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
Dan,

<<After another four posts of fervent support for evolution, your concluding comment concerned those out there with unshakable, fundamentalist-style beliefs (raise eyebrows!).>>

But Creationism has been debunked – evolution hasn't. So your point here is irrelevant.

<<This does partly explain the length of this thread, but I disagree that all such people are found on only one side of the argument.>>

There may be an extremely small minority on the evolutionist side but ALL on the Creationist side fit this description.

<<However, I would like to get away from using the term ‘fundamentalist’,...>>

OK. So where to now then?

<<as it carries little meaning outside of a particular context.>>

And perfect meaning in the context I used it in.

<<(Thanks, david f, for giving us some dictionary type definitions of the word, a few posts back...>>

Yes, and those dictionary definitions also supported my point.

<<These days the word ‘fundamentalist’ is often used as little more than an insult...>>

That doesn't mean it's not true, as I have clearly demonstrated.

<<You accused theists of having failed to accept basic logic provided on this thread.>>

Yes, and the more you post with arguments that I've already demonstrated to be false. The more you prove my point.

<<When I asked you to supply an example of this, you came up with ... Well, that’s your opinion.>>

But you haven't been able to dis-prove my opinion yet.

<<I believe evolution is largely held to for philosophical or historical reasons, but not for the force of evidence.>>

Then why don't you prove your belief with some evidence of your beliefs? Why can't Creationists come up with anything that seriously questions evolution?

<<But opinions and logic are a different category of beast.>>

That they are.

But until you can dis-prove my logic, you have no point here.

<<I’ll admit to not being able to follow your points very well, but it is impossible to ‘fail to accept basic logic’ until we are first presented with some.>>

I've presented plenty. Yet you can't give any examples of my lack of logic

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 4 February 2008 7:20:51 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

<<If you want to find those with unshakable beliefs, have a look at those who posted comments above declaring evolution an established ‘fact’ in a similar sense to the testable and repeatable assertion that water boils at 100 Deg.>>

But they're opinions are based on evidence, yours aren't – which goes back to my point.

<<However, in you, AJ, I’m glad for having discovered an evolutionist that is so open to being persuaded of the possibility that it may be wrong.>>

We could all be wrong. It's a just pity that Theists can't accept that they could be too. Especially Creationists, who have no proof at all. Instead, Creationists/ Theists claim that their beliefs are The Ultimate Truth!

<<Yet I stand by what I said about modern science owing much of its beginnings to the European Christian mindset.>>

Yet you can't demonstrate this...

<<Science started to flourish in Europe roughly in the middle of the last Millennium at a time when certain currents of thought came together>>

So why didn't those certain currents of thought arrive before that then, when Christianity took a strong hold in Europe? On the contrary, science and technology came to an almost total halt.

<<Crucial was the assumption that the universe was made by a rational creator and therefore could be rationally interpreted. People began searching for the laws set in place by an orderly creator.>>

Davidf answered this well.

You're implying that without the the “orderly creator”, people would have never started studying science. This is absurd...

<<If there was no creator ... why should people have assumed that the universe contained any order?>>

...Because you can see it everywhere.

<<David f says, ‘biology rests on evolution’. I say codswollop!>>

Then tell us why it's “codswallop”?

The study of evolution has lead to many biological discoveries. Creationism has lead to virtually nothing.

<<...philosophy masquerading as knowledge.>>

Then prove that it's “philosophy masquerading as knowledge”. And while you're at it, try proving Creationism.

Creationism is the only philosophy masquerading as knowledge:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ

Here's a 15 part video that debunks Creationist claims:

http://au.youtube.com/results?search_query=Why+do+people+laugh+at+creationists&search_type=&search=Search
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 4 February 2008 7:20:58 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 going to have you pre-empt you on an argument that I know you're going to come back with to help make this thread even longer, and give it the appearance that there is actually a serious debate.

I said: “So why didn't those certain currents of thought arrive before that [era] then, when Christianity took a strong hold in Europe?”

So I'll need to address the 'printing press' argument...

Well, I did bit of research on the printing press and found there was nothing that mentioned this significance; which let's face it, would be pretty damn significant if it had has such an impact. They never even mentioned it in the 'Historical Impact' section of this Wikipedia article either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing_press#Historical_Impact

However, if you can prove your claims, then I would suggest that you edit this article to include them (along with a lot of reliable source references) as they would be quite significant.

I found many mentions of science being documented better since the founding of the printing press, which encouraged scientific research, but to assume that religion inspired all this is pure speculation. And remember, Dan, in a court of law (your previous analogy), speculation is dismissed.

So yes, the printing press did play a role in the beginnings of modern science, but to assume that there had to be a belief in an “orderly creator”, is highly presumptuous. It almost sounds as though you're implying that without the “orderly creator”, no one would have ever bothered to study the universe. If you're not implying this, then there is very little validity to you claim. Especially after all that Davidf pointed out.

Anyway, that's all I'll say for now. If I start talking about too much, you might forget about the examples and proof of your claims that I've requested above in my last response to you.

So I'll just leave you with a video of some evidence of evolution that left Creationists unable to respond – not even with their usual half-truths, misconceptions or 'God did it's:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 8:03:01 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 found many mentions of science being documented better since the founding of the printing press, which encouraged scientific research, but to assume that religion inspired all this is pure speculation.>>

I know, I am quoting you out of context (in which Dan makes you defend evolution by attacking Christianity).

However, it is an interpretation of western history, you might or might not agree with (yes, you cannot verify that "inspiration" in a laboratory) but I do not think you can dismiss it as pure speculation. Many philosophers of science and history (of course, not all) will agree e.g. with Alfred North Whitehead:

"Faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology." (Science and the Modern World).

Even if you call Whitehead's philosophy speculative you have to accept that he was respected by Bertrand Russell, and his process philosophy has recently had a "second coming" in philosophical debates.
Posted by George, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 8:36:52 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
The earliest book known to have been printed was by wood-block in China in 868. It was a Buddhist sutra. Between 1040 and 1050 Pi Cheng got the idea of movable type.

Development of printing in Europe had more effect on religion than on science. Those dissatisfied with simony and other abuses of the Catholic Church had been making similar statements before Luther, but the printing press was a mechanism by which Luther's statements could be spread. The first printers in Europe looked for material to sell, and Luther's prolific writing was at hand. His polemics and his translation of the Bible into the German were available. The early printing press in Germany sparked the Reformation.

According to Fernand Braudel, the historian, printers were slow to produce scientific and mathematical works.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 11:11:51 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
George,

<<However, it is an interpretation of western history, you might or might not agree with (yes, you cannot verify that "inspiration" in a laboratory) but I do not think you can dismiss it as pure speculation.>>

I certainly accept that it may very well have played a role – regardless of my (sometimes harsh) wording.

My point though, was that those curiosities would have happened regardless of the “orderly creator”. Which is why I added this:

“It almost sounds as though you're implying that without the “orderly creator”, no one would have ever bothered to study the universe. If you're not implying this, then there is very little validity to you claim.”

But I should have said “significance” rather than “validity”, for two reasons

Firstly, because although it would be reasonable to say that the Christian mindset played a role in the birth of modern science in this sense, I think it would be exaggerating to say that modern science was "born" from it, as there were other factors at play;

And Secondly, even if modern science was purely born from the Christian mindset, that doesn't discount Davidf's last post which was very much what I was talking about in regards to the stifling effect religion can have. Nor does is discount the fact that there are many Christians who will blindly assume that if the interpretation of data conflicts with the literal interpretation of the Bible, then it is automatically wrong - which also goes back to my other point about 'fundamentalist-style' beliefs.

It's not so much the belief in God that I have a problem with. It's the literal interpretation of the Bible.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 5 February 2008 11:22:17 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
AJ,
<<as though you're implying that without the “orderly creator”, no one would have ever bothered to study the universe.>>

There is a big difference between natural science, and humanities, theology or other such intellectual endeavours. You cannot conduct laboratory experiments of the kind “what happens if I change parameters, leave out this ingredient, etc.”, not even “thought experiments” like the famous experiment about the free falling elevator, that Einstein used to convince people about the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and which one can perhaps apply to check some conclusions of neo-Darwinian theory. Historical events are irreversible, in distinction to events that (most of) natural science studies. I used to tell students that one cannot replicate a situation in Europe in, say 1925, leaving out Hitler, and see what would happen.

Neither can you replicate European history leaving out Christianity, the Greeks, Islam, belief in an “orderly creator”, or other ingredients and see what would happen. You can quarrel about the importance of this or that “ingredient” without being able to check its irreplaceability. For many years historians saw the essence of Western civilisation in its predominantly Christian nature (with Judaic, Hellenic and Islamic contributions). I see Christianity as providing, so to say, both the thesis and (indirectly) antithesis which led to a synthesis that we now call modernity or scientific age. However, you can have an opinion differing from mine (or Whitehead’s), and as I said, there is no way to check which one of us is more right. It is not the same as different opinions about the validity of e.g. the neo-Darwinian theory.

Only one thing can be accepted, namely that investigative critical thinking that led to present day levels of science, technology, but also human rights, is a product of Western civilisation, while in other civilisations - Islamic, Chinese, Aztec - this kind of development stagnated after reaching a certain level. Whether you ascribe the merit of this to Christianity - as most scholars did until recently - or consider other influences in our civilisation as the main initiators/contributors, is a matter of opinion.
Posted by George, Wednesday, 6 February 2008 11:41:37 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
George,
On the surface, the theology of Altizer may appear as rather depressing or sad with his apocalyptic visioning. However, a more contextual reading (as you suggest of the Pope) is appropriate. Undoubtedly , the theology offered is radical but he suggests a new beginning. It is only on the basis of this understanding that we can see how radical the choice between an apocalyptic hope and an apocalyptic despair would be.

One should remember Newton not only as not a scientist, but as a heretic and apocalyptic theologian (as his later years show) - he was also a profoundly Christian believer. It is only Spinoza in that world who rivals Newton as a radical theological thinker, and we could even understand that finally Newton made possible not only Spinoza but the whole tradition of modern radical theological thinking. Newton understood God’s presence as a substantial presence in the world, and just as God exists necessarily, ‘by the same necessity He exists always and everywhere’ (Scholium Generale).
Through the Newtonian revolution, and for the first time, infinity is fully realised as the infinity of the world.

The type of thinking offered by Newton was but a starting point. Altizer's belief in an absolute apocalypse that is the death of God, looks like a stubbornness, from the perspective of the surface, but should be read as kenotic—as the absolute emptying that makes the surface sacred, and not just a space of possible experiences. Thus, not only is Christianity the origin of our nihilism, but a full or absolute nihilism is necessary and essential for Christianity, or for an apocalyptic Christianity, or that Christianity which is an original Christianity.
Posted by relda, Thursday, 7 February 2008 10:37:13 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
Sorry, The above post belongs to another thread.
Posted by relda, Thursday, 7 February 2008 11:07:36 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
BOY WHAT A SUBJECT!What about ME? Yes, "I don't know!" When I saw the Dalai Lama on the ABC, PROGRAM, when asked a LONG serious question, to which he listened very carefully,Then gave his answer-"I, DON'T KNOW!" I said, " That's my boy!" My upbringing was religious, which stopped me sowing any wild oats, but that's the only regret.I DID KNOW LOTS OF GOOD WELL-MEANING PEOPLE who believed and some downright hippocrits.The ones who don't try to shove their beliefs on others and do good works helping others are my friends.We are just another species of animal, with similar desires and motivations. But we did send a man to the moon. Explain why we have that power, if we work together. No one of us could do it alone.God or NO God, we have an instinct of right and wrong.An atheist can be honest and good as any believer.
Posted by TINMAN, Thursday, 7 February 2008 3:40:31 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
Davidf,
When I wrote of Christianity and science not being in opposition, I always intended Christianity to mean ‘Bible believing’, as the Bible is central to the faith. I am happy to let my comment stand with or without that addition.

It doesn’t change that there are many thousands of practicing scientists who accept the teaching of the Bible. E.g. Tinman brought up the moon landings. Few realise that Nasa’s primary rocket scientist, Werner Von Braun, was a six day creationist. When I point out that the country that won the space race, the most technologically advanced nation the world has ever known, is also the most openly Christian, I wait for the howls of protest claiming ‘wild co-incidence’.

You mention positively the Reformation. This was nothing if not a Christian movement, with the teaching of Scripture as its highest priority.

You reveal that Isaac Newton openly questioned the doctrine of the trinity. But you don’t find anywhere the great physicist questioning six-day creation.

In Copernicus’ day, the church was entangled in Greek philosophy (Ptolemy) which taught that all planets revolved around the earth. Copernicus and Galileo, both Bible believers, were about to liberate the church from this error.

Tinman,
I’m curious, did you get your name from the Levison, Dreyfuss, DeVito, Hershey movie?

AJ,
Regarding the printing press, what I was suggesting was that Christian thinking helped kick start or inspire scientific enquiry (as George has supported) and the printing press helped spread Christian thinking during the Reformation (as Davidf has supported). If you want, I could find more quotes from historians backing up the contention of Whitehead (in George’s post), and continuing on into the Reformation. With this information, you will be able to make changes to the Wikipedia, if you are so inclined.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 9 February 2008 5:48:51 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,
We are still struggling for words and definitions which will aid meaningful discussion. I tried pointing you to Davidf’s definitions of the word ‘fundamentalist’. Could you explain what you mean by ‘scientific fundamentalism’?

You keep talking about ‘your point’ and how it has been supported and proven. With all your words, I still can’t work out what your point is (other than that you don’t think creationists make good scientists.)

Another phrase of yours was not clear, “The study of evolution has lead to many discoveries”. Compare that to this phrase, by analogy, “The early explorers’ search for Australia’s inland sea lead to the discovery of gold reefs”. The implication here is that these lucky explorers were quite lost or at least misinformed.

You said I couldn’t give any examples of your lack of logic. Of course not. It is, by definition, impossible to give an example of an absence of something.

When I said ‘codswollop’ to Davidf’s assertion that ‘biology rests on evolution’, I thought it deserved such one word rhetoric because he didn’t even try to back up this assertion with anything. At least I backed up my rebuke with the names of two great scientists who contended with his assertion. But I don’t see you taking him to task. (In a later post, he did say that this was scientific consensus. And it largely is, except amongst those scientists who disagree.)

You suggest I should try ‘try proving creationism’. You either think I am more capable than you’re otherwise making out or you have a strange definition of the word ‘proof’, if you think I or anyone else could prove any one explanation for the origins of the world in 350 words.

Anyway, my main position so far has been, and George recently alluded to this in his post, that it is impossible to prove or test a theory of history, as history cannot be replicated. Since evolution (as well as creation) is an historical explanation of how we all got here, it has not and cannot be proven.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 9 February 2008 5:55:24 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
Dan wrote:

"It doesn’t change that there are many thousands of practicing scientists who accept the teaching of the Bible. E.g. Tinman brought up the moon landings. Few realise that Nasa’s primary rocket scientist, Werner Von Braun, was a six day creationist."

The fact that Von Braun was a six day creationist simply means that was ignorant outside of his area of expertise. Dear old Werner was a monster. He was a Nazi who employed slave labor at Peenemunde. He was one of Hitler's boys who accepted the Nazi genocide which was an expression of applied Christianity. The centuries of Jew hatred promoted by Christianity made fertile ground for the Holocaust.

David Fisher
Posted by david f, Saturday, 9 February 2008 11:58:53 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
The beginning of the Dark Ages in western Europe was the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Christianity was the destroyer of the spirit of enquiry in the classical world. Charles Freeman in "The Closing of the Western Mind" tells the story.

It was only when thinkers started to question the blinders put on them by Christianity that we could move into the modern era.

Intelligent men can have all sorts of primitive beliefs and superstitions. One of those superstitions is a belief in the inerrancy of scripture.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 10 February 2008 12:11:23 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
George,

<<You cannot conduct laboratory experiments of the kind “what happens if I change parameters...>>

Sometimes we can. We can change the breathing air of rats and observe what happens to them.

But all your point, about the 'matter of opinion' does, is weaken Dan's point, as his relies solely on his “orderly creator” premise. I have given other examples to demonstrate my point.

Dan,

<<Copernicus and Galileo, ... were about to liberate the church from this error.>>

Yes, and Christian Evolutionists today, are trying to liberate the church from their 'Creationist' error. But the fundamentalists are trying to keep a lid on it, just as the church authority was back then – hence my point.

Again, the more you post, the more angles you give me to approach my argument.

<<Regarding the printing press, what I was suggesting was that Christian thinking helped kick start or inspire scientific enquiry...>>

Yes, as I admitted to George, it may very well have. But that doesn't mean that religion isn't often a hindrance to science and scientific curiosity. I've already given other examples of this but you never addressed them.

<<We are still struggling for words and definitions which will aid meaningful discussion.>>

You're the only one struggling for definitions, Dan. Just because you're losing this debate every step of the way, it doesn't mean this isn't a meaningful discussion.

Why can't we use dictionary definitions? After all, we are largely talking about the physical proof of Creationism and evolution. You've avoided using God as proof of Creationism because you know it would prove my point about fundamentalism.

I'm mostly disputing creationism, not God.

<<Could you explain what you mean by ‘scientific fundamentalism’?>>

How about you re-read all my posts on this thread then?

Put simply: “Creationism” (you haven't even checked the links I provided, have you?). Put it this way...

Normal Scientists:
"Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?"

Creationist Scientists:
"Here’s our conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?"

But before you claim that Evolutionists fit the latter description, please provide some examples.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 10 February 2008 11:30:33 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 rebuttals to the links I provided would be a good start.

<<I still can’t work out what your point is>>

I know, and it's a very sorry sight too.

I'm not necessarily implying that you're dumb. More that you're using the typical Creationist tactic of trying to create a sense of confusion.

<<...Compare that to this phrase, by analogy...>>

You're analogy is flawed in the sense that it assumes that Evolutionists are 'misguided'.

I'm willing to accept your analogy, and withdraw my point in that comment, if you can demonstrate that Evolutionary scientists are lost. Until then, you don't have a point.

<<It is, by definition, impossible to give an example of an absence of something.>>

Slick!

All you're doing here is evading my request by pinching and debauching the Atheist argument that you cannot >>DIS-PROVE<< a God that doesn't exist – it has nothing to do with "examples".

Here, I'll give you an example of your lack-of-logic to help start you off:

You've argued that evolution cannot be conclusively proven because we cannot repeat history, and admit the same can be said about creationism.

The lack of logic here, is that you are implying that they're now 'Even-Stevens'. Yet unlike creationism, evidence can be provided for evolution.

<<You suggest I should try ‘try proving creationism’ ... if you think I or anyone else could prove any one explanation for the origins of the world in 350 words.>>

Again you're evading my request.

You could always provide some links. You did that before, and when I checked them out, and told you that I couldn't find anything from those links that wasn't easily explained by the link I provided, you then moved on as if to pretend it was never brought up – a tactic of your's that's becoming all too frequent.

Why didn't/couldn't you find something that wasn't explained/dis-proven with the link I provided? If it's because you don't have the time, then there can't be many there.

As for your last paragraph, I'm going to have to save that for tomorrow due to the word limits.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 10 February 2008 11:30:43 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
AJ,
<<We can change the breathing air of rats and observe what happens to them>>

That is exactly what I was saying: you can conduct this kind of experiments in natural science (when studying e.g. rats) but not when dealing with historical phenomena (concerning e.g. the role of Christianity in shaping the cultural West).
Posted by George, Sunday, 10 February 2008 11:13:31 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
Dan,

You've lost every other one of your arguments, so here you are now, going back to your main point because you think you've pulled a trump card with it.

<<...it is impossible to prove or test a theory of history, as history cannot be replicated.>>

Another deceptive Creationist tactic: Attempting to re-define science.

Firstly, if science was such a narrow field of study, then our progress would be slowed significantly.

Secondly, science requires that OBSERVATIONS can be replicated (not just experiments), and we have observed speciation and microevolution. Scientists can even replicate these with experiments!

Ahhh... that's right... No one's observed one species completely evolving into another.

Firstly, there isn't much at all that can be proven with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. So it's odd that evolution is the only field of science that you reject for this reason.

Secondly, if we had directly observed one species evolving into another, then this would be good evidence AGAINST evolution.

And thirdly, taking advantage of the fact that we don't live long enough to witness a total change in a species is slack, frivolous and futile.

Considering all the evidence we have for evolution, and what we have witnessed, your main argument against evolution is like suggesting that, while the theory of gravity works here and now, it possibly didn't work somewhere else in the world millions of years ago, because there was no one there to see it and the experiment cannot be repeated.

Now there's another example of your lack-of-logic (You see? It's not hard give examples of it).

<<Since evolution (as well as creation) is an historical explanation of how we all got here, it has not and cannot be proven.>>

So then, why believe in creationism and mock evolution, when there is no proof for creationism, unlike evolution? Do you you translate the Bible literally? ...There's my point about fundamentalism again.

It's ridiculous to claim that there is no logic in my arguments, when they all interlock so beautifully. Your arguments, on the other hand, seem very scrambled, sneaky and misinformed.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 11 February 2008 12:02:26 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
Davidf brings up scientists who speak outside their area of expertise; a common trait of the evolution/creation debate. Must we undergo the contemplations of Dawkins (the atheist) discussing theology, or Plimer (the geologist) discussing biochemistry? Problem is, it’s hard finding a true expert on ‘the origins of life, the universe, everything’. Most universities don’t have a ‘department of evolution’ (perhaps none), as evolution is such an all pervading philosophy.

AJ,
I’m happy to use dictionary definitions. Unfortunately ‘scientific fundamentalism’ wasn’t an entry in my scientific or theological dictionary. So thanks for your ‘good cop, bad cop’ type definitions:

Good Scientist:
“Here are the facts, what conclusions can we draw from them?”

Bad Scientist:
“Here’s our conclusion, what facts can we find to support it?”

Then you ascribe creationists to one category and evolutionists to the other, for no apparent reason.

In fact, scientists do fall into two categories: male and female. As humans, they’re subject to biases, social conditioning, funding pressures, etc.

Here are some quotes from some real scientists:

“It is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.” -Boyce Rensberger (evolutionist)

“Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” -Biologist, Professor D.M.S. Watson.

We all have biases. This professor was revealing his.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 16 February 2008 5:48:35 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
AJ,
You tickle me when you say all of my arguments are lost and I’m losing the debate. When did OLO appoint you as their official adjudicator? But, please, feel free and keep making such pronouncements whenever you like.

However, I’m not in this discussion to ‘win’ anything, if that means I must first persuade those who are already hard-boiled in their views. I enter OLO discussions because I enjoy the interaction of ideas from people of differing opinions.

I never attempted to ‘mock’ evolution, as you accuse, but I aim to respect those who hold differing beliefs to mine. I always admired the ex-trade union leader, John Halfpenny, who, despite being the most hated person in our state, always spoke to everyone calmly, politely, and respectfully.

You tried to summarise what I said about historical investigations, again comparing evolution to gravity. If this is the best summary you can arrive at for my argument, then either you have terribly misunderstood, or I’ve been terrible at explaining it to you,

“While the theory of gravity works here and now, it possibly didn't work somewhere else in the world millions of years ago, because there was no one there to see it and the experiment cannot be repeated.”

No. I’ll try and put it in my own words. As distinct from things that we can test and observe occurring in the present (e.g. gravity), we cannot test an explanation for what happened in the past (evolution). We don’t see evolution happening in the present, and don’t have any good reason to presume it happened in the distant past (given we have no preference for a materialistic or atheistic type explanation).
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 16 February 2008 5:53:40 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
Evolution is simply the disappearance of species and the appearance of new species. The fossil record supports this. Men before Charles Darwin such as Erasmus Darwin were aware of this. It is obvious from the fossil record that the earth was populated by different species at different times. Methods such as radio active dating tell the times the new species appear, and the old ones become extinct. There are gaps since special conditions are necessary for fossilisation and not fossils have been found. Evolution is a fact.

Darwin provided a theory to explain the fact of evolution. If Darwinian theory were to be disproved the fact of evolution would remain.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 16 February 2008 8:09:28 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,

This is becoming pointless. I'm just repeating myself now, and you can't bring anything I say into question at all. Most of your arguments rely on tactical trickery.

<<I’m happy to use dictionary definitions. Unfortunately ‘scientific fundamentalism’ wasn’t an entry in my scientific or theological dictionary.>>

Do you have a really bad short-term memory, or is this just more Creationist trickery?

I clearly proved my point and you couldn't confute it.

<<In fact, scientists do fall into two categories: male and female. As humans, they’re subject to biases, social conditioning, funding pressures, etc.>>

You don't seem to realise just how much evidence there is for evolution; evidence that's open and out there for all to see. Most of the evidence for evolution is not disputed by anyone – not even Creationists.

Considering how much evidence there is, your argument here means absolutely nothing. Why is it that no one can even start to come up with any other theory? Why is it that there is no evidence that brings evolution into question? Why is it that all the pieces fit perfectly together?

I liked your quotes though. They're good examples of another deceitful Creationist tactic: Quote mining.

For example, the second quote was said in 1929. Considering we didn't have as much evidence, or know anywhere near as much about evolution back then as we do now, your quote doesn't mean much.

Here's a little light reading on why your quotes don't mean anything at all:

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

<<...When did OLO appoint you as their official adjudicator?...>>

There doesn't need to be an adjudicator. You're refuting my arguments, but have not yet confuted any of them. That speaks for itself.

So, my point still stands.

<<...I enter OLO discussions because I enjoy the interaction of ideas from people of differing opinions.>>

Fair enough. But I don't think your use of the word “opinion” is very accurate in this situation, because an opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. This is not just some Left vs Right issue we're talking about here.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 16 February 2008 10:30:35 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
...Continued

There is overwhelmingly strong evidence that supports evolution – more than you or I even know about because we haven't studied it.

<<I never attempted to ‘mock’ evolution...>>

Then why do you treat it with such contempt?

<<You tried to summarise what I said about historical investigations, again comparing evolution to gravity...>>

You've made yourself perfectly clear. But all this does is show your misconceptions about what exactly evolution is, and your ignorance to what we've observed.

So, my point there still stands.

<<As distinct from things that we can test and observe occurring in the present (e.g. Gravity)...>>

...and microevolution, and speciation...

<<...we cannot test an explanation for what happened in the past (evolution).>>

But evolution is still happening, and many elements of it are testable. I think you need to re-read my response to you.

<<We don’t see evolution happening in the present...>>

Yes, we do. See above.

<<...and don’t have any good reason to presume it happened in the distant past (given we have no preference for a materialistic or atheistic type explanation).>>

Then how do you explain all the evidence? Again, there is far more evidence than you and I are aware of, or even know about. It would take us years to study it all.

If you are going to claim that the evidence for evolution (and an old Earth for that matter) are just based on one particular way of interpreting the data, then the onus is on you to demonstrate why by suggesting another way of interpreting it that makes sense. But you can't because the majority of the evidence is irrefutable; hence why http://www.creationontheweb.com is so relatively brief. They really have nothing at all. You can disprove them completely using Google!

If you are going to continue this ludicrous point about interpretations, then explain to me why the points made at the following two links are wrong...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA230_1.html

...they're a lot better than the deceitful trickery of quote mining, aren't they?

Here's a challenge...

Try responding to me without using any of the tactical trickery so frequently used by Creationists.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 16 February 2008 10:30:45 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
AJ,
“I clearly proved my point.” “So, my point still stands.” You’ve been talking about ‘your point’ for a while now, but I honestly don’t know what your point is. If it’s creationists differ in their views from evolutionists, I agree. If it’s creationists are being illogical in differing from evolutionists, I disagree. Unless you can state ‘your point’ properly, I won’t have any chance of agreeing or otherwise.

Regarding the evidence, mostly it is “not disputed by anyone – not even Creationists.” True, most evidence is not disputed, only their implications and interpretations. Creationists don’t dispute the gaps in the fossil record that Davidf recently reminded us of. They just suggest that such gaps may go beyond the usual evolutionist rationalisations, and point to real distinctions between different types of living things.

What are the observations (the evidence)? As Davidf said, we do see species disappearing (extinctions). We see speciation (adaptation, which I agreed was evident many posts ago). Certain changes are evident. What is not evident is the type of (upward, even minimal) changes that may eventually allow protozoa to become a pelican, or a fish to become a philosopher.

From information theory, we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information. In the changes evident with adaptation, we don’t see the types of additions required within the coding of the genome to develop new structures.

But guys, I’ve already spoken about these things above (30th December) and I fear we’re about to go around the block again.

As for your latest challenge, those links simply talk about the nature of evidence and interpretation. We’ve been discussing these for a while, and there’s nothing new there. This link gives a good overview of that kind of stuff:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830

Davidf is placing much confidence in the accuracy of radioactive dating methods. These are internally inconsistent and depend on various assumptions. The only sure way (logically) to measure elapsed time is to do so while time is elapsing. Not to discourage enquiry, I say this just to point out that unverifiable parameters (preconceptions) are being assumed.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 6:18:15 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 agree that in repeating ourselves the discussion becomes pointless.

Your complaint about debate trickery is unfounded. If you were playing chess, and you had trouble dealing with a knight fork on c7, or you’ve lost your queen to a discovered attack on the d-file, to accuse your opponent of tricky tactics is giving him a compliment.

I don’t see what is wrong with quoting people if what they say helps throw light on the situation.

The timing of what the prof said pre-WWII was significant, for it demonstrates how society was keen to believe in something other than special creation decades before the mountains of evidence (that you speak about) appeared. It is curious that evolution is even less firmly believed now, after decades of compiling evidence, than in 1929 when the prof said it (or at least in the 1950s when hardly anyone questioned evolution).

Why do I treat evolution with such contempt? I’m glad you ask.

A frog turning into a prince by a princess’ kiss is stuff of fairly tales. But then I’m expected to swallow the story that an amphibian turned into a mammal, many eons ago, by a process that no one has ever seen or can demonstrate or even properly explain, simply because a majority of people believe it, while I’m continually reminded of the story’s ‘factual’ nature.

Though it’s an adult’s fairy tale, it’s not harmless. Davidf recently pointed out certain sentiment within European Christianity that contributed to the Jewish holocaust during WWII. Such animosity toward the Jewish race ought to have no place within the church. Likewise, we see the dangers of other mischievous philosophies. We can’t deny the influence of evolutionary theory on Hitler’s Germany, and their belief in the Aryan (more highly evolved) race, or eugenics that became active in several countries around that time. Overall, evolution is used in rationally justifying atheism and as well as other anti-Christian philosophies and practices.

Out of curiosity, I could return the question. What’s your beef with special creation?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 20 February 2008 6:22:34 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,

<<You’ve been talking about ‘your point’ for a while now, but I honestly don’t know what your point is.>>

Stop playing dumb.

It was claimed earlier that “Dawkinites” were just as “fundamentalist” about their beliefs as Creationists are. I said they weren't; you refuted it and didn't get anywhere.

<<If it’s creationists are being illogical in differing from evolutionists, I disagree.>>

Why? They have no evidence for their beliefs. They can't even find a way of interpreting the evidence to fit their beliefs.

<<What are the observations (the evidence)?>>

I've already explained that. When a speciation can occur to the point where two different groups of the one species can no longer reproduce together (and yes, we've observed that) there is nothing to say that they can't continue to change.

If you don't deny adaptation and speciation, then the onus is on you to explain what exactly occurs to stop species evolving to the point where they become two totally different species.

<<From information theory, we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information...>>

Another Creationist misconception: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

<<But guys, I’ve already spoken about these things above...>>

And what you said just showed a lack of understanding and knowledge of many things. That's why the others gave up – not because you actually had a point.

<<...those links simply talk about the nature of evidence and interpretation ... there’s nothing new there>>

Yes, but they put it into context; making your points about interpretation almost meaningless.

As for the link you provided, it contains more quote mining (you didn't even look at the link I provided before about that, did you?); not to mention the assumption that the old book of Genesis is actually accurate. They're forgetting that people of ancient times simply used a God to explain what they could explain. How do they know that Genesis is the right mythology?

<<These are internally inconsistent and depend on various assumptions...>>

Another Creationist half-truth and misconception: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 21 February 2008 7:47:59 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
...Continued

<<Your complaint about debate trickery is unfounded...>>

Wrong!

I've already mentioned quote mining. Although you're posts are mostly filled with strawman arguments.

Here's a good list of Creationist trickery (many of which you have used): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

<<I don’t see what is wrong with quoting people if what they say helps throw light on the situation.>>

The problem is that the quotes rarely “throw light” on the situation. Here's the link for you again: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

<<...decades before the mountains of evidence (that you speak about) appeared.>>

The evidence didn't “appear”, it was always there; Yet none of it supports Creationism! Funny that.

<<It is curious that evolution is even less firmly believed now, after decades of compiling evidence>>

This is one of my favourite Creationist fallacies. It's mentioned in the YouTube link I provided, but here's a lot more on it:

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

<<Why do I treat evolution with such contempt? ...>>

Yes, you've made that clear. But it is nothing more than a strawman argument – another Creationist tactic.

<<Though it’s an adult’s fairy tale, it’s not harmless...>>

Another Creationist fallacy:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA002_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA008.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA009.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA012.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA040.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA042.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA045.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH010_1.html

<<What’s your beef with special creation?>>

Well, There's no evidence for any of it; It's nothing more than 'studied ignorance'. I also find it deeply saddening that there are those out there who actually still take the bible literally after all we now know about the origins of both life and the Bible. But I'd have to say that the deceitfulness of the arguments of Creationists is what upsets me the most.

Anyway, I asked before that you try to post without using any tactical trickery, and you've failed miserably. Your last response was probably the most fallacy-filled response of yours yet.

Try again.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 21 February 2008 7:49:59 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
Dan,

Yet another example of my point (that you're pretending not to have yet undertood in order to create a sense of confusion – that other method of Creationist trickery) is Kurt Wise (I'm sure you know about him).

Kurt Wise knows there's enough evidence to prove that the world is billions of years old, yet he rejects all of it because of his fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the Bible – and for no other reason.

Consider this statement from Answersingenesis.com: “No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about/faith)

...Enough said.

Another point I'd like to make, is that your 'interpretation' argument is absurd when you apply the 'Court of Law' analogy to it that you were using earlier in this thread.

Considering how much evidence there is for evolution (much of it irrefutable), your point about interpretation is as silly as a guilty criminal filing for an appeal on the grounds that the evidence against him was flawed, because it was simply the interpretation of the police who investigated the crime (to which there were no witnesses).

Going by your logic, we should also disregard crimes in which there were no witnesses to, simply because the evidence relies on the interpretation of those who investigate it. This kind of logic this would be as dangerous to society as it would be to the study of biology, since everything we know about biology intertwines with evolution perfectly. To deny evolution would slow the progress of the discoveries of biological science.

If you want to continue this absurd justification for you beliefs, then please address some of the points made in the link I provided earlier (that you obviously didn't check) that points out the absurdity of creation science: http://au.youtube.com/results?search_query=Why+do+people+laugh+at+creationists&search_type=&search=Search

And remember... No Creationist trickery or fallacies...

On another point, I've been giving some thought to the compatibility of religion and evolution, and have come-up with another theory that the fundamentalists have failed to think of with all their literal interpretation of the Bible:

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 22 February 2008 9:48:01 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
4.65 billion years ago, God gets bored of sitting around and doing nothing for eternity, so he decides he's going to create life that he can love.

God fills the universe with elements and applies some laws of physics that can start his grand plan. He then sits back and watches as the laws of physics that he applied, draw the elements together creating a big bang.

After this 'big bang', he now has himself a universe. He looks around this universe in order to spot the a planet that life would most likely start on (taking into account the elements he originally filled the empty universe with). He then spots Earth; decides that it was the most suitable for life; then sits back and observes it.

He sees that single-celled life is forming and gets excited: “Yes, this is the right planet”, he thinks to himself. God then sits back for a few billion years and observes what happens. He notices that a certain species is progressing faster than the others. He sees that this particular species discovers how to start fires to cook their food; Then he notices that they invent the wheel. He then gets exited and thinks to himself: “Yes! That's them! They will be my chosen species! When they become intelligent enough, I will reveal myself to them.”

Then, at around 4000BC he reveals himself to his chosen species (but for some reason, only to the people of the Mideast – condemning those before Constantine's exploitation of Christian beliefs to Hell for some irrational reason, since they never could have known about him, or Jesus) and the rest is history...

Yes, there are verses in the Bible that would contradict my little scenario. But you need to remember that the Bible was written by relatively primitive people who didn't know any better, and perhaps God wasn't fussed about the technical errors in the Bible because, overall, it sent his main message to his chosen species.

So now, please explain to me why this would be more absurd than the belief of Creationists?
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 22 February 2008 9:49:03 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
AJ,
As to why the others have dropped out of this debate, there could be many reasons, but I don’t presume to speak on their behalf.

If I’m being accused of clever debating tactics, thanks for the compliment. However, I reject any accusation of slight of hand or deceitfulness. I think I’ve been fairly open. But no matter, I’ll just add deceitful to the name calling list, to which some in this thread think is appropriate to use in debate.

Thanks for clarifying your point, which was a denial that “Dawkinites” were just as “fundamentalist” about their beliefs as Creationists are.

Either way, the claim is not particularly significant. Its validity will hinge on the definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’, which simply leads to an argument about the meaning of words. Under some very general definitions, possibly yes, under others, probably not. (For a general definition of fundamentalist, possibly try something like: ‘strict adherence to certain basic principles’.)

You say that you are happy with dictionary definitions. In its original sense, ‘fundamentalist’ has a technical meaning. Many creationists would be perfectly happy to be described as fundamentalists under its theological dictionary definition (something like, adhering to certain clear teachings and principles of Scripture, e.g. the virgin birth).

Dawkinites (and mostly all others, understandably) would want to reject the term fundamentalist associated with themselves for no other reason than its negative connotations (e.g. extremism, terrorism, etc.). However, the term may be somewhat appropriate in regard to their strict adherence to the necessity of evolution as a basic principle.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 5:20:46 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
Dear Dan,

There is evidence for evolution as a basic principle. There is no evidence for creationism unless one accepts a book written by humans as evidence. That is only evidence that the mind of man could construct science fiction based on the knowledge available in ancient times.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 5:44:37 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
Dan,

<<If I’m being accused of clever debating tactics, thanks for the compliment.>>

They maybe clever to a certain extent, but during a debate, they only discredit you. If there was any credibility to your beliefs, you wouldn't need to use them... I haven't.

<<However, I reject any accusation of slight of hand or deceitfulness. I think I’ve been fairly open.>>

Then perhaps you're not deliberately doing it? Perhaps you've just managed to get yourself caught up in all the deceitfulness because of the beliefs you have, but don't realise that all the rubbish you're reading on Creationism is in fact deceitful, and uses deceitful tactics.

<<I’ll just add deceitful to the name calling list, to which some in this thread think is appropriate to use in debate.>>

Another slick maneuver.

I didn't say you were a deceitful person. I said the tactics you're using are deceitful. There's a difference. Just as God doesn't hate evil people, he hates what they do.

If you don't want such suggestions levied at you then either demonstrate why your tactics are not deceitful, or stop using them. I provided a link for you earlier that lists many of them so you understand what the fallacies and sneaky tactic are. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

<<For a general definition of fundamentalist, possibly try something like: ‘strict adherence to certain basic principles’.>>

Yes, that's a very broad definition of a fundamentalist. Most definitions of fundamentalism though, point to a strict authoritative and religious doctrine: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define%3Afundamentalism&btnG=Search&meta=

And if you re-read many of my posts, you will see that I have clearly illustrated (in many different ways) that Creationists fit this description far better than evolutionists since their strictness extends beyond reason, by ignoring so much evidence and relying purely on mythology.

Your argument about Evolutionists being the same, however, relies entirely on the assertion that they will never abandon their philosophy.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 28 February 2008 12:20:47 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
...Continued

<<However, the term may be somewhat appropriate in regard to their strict adherence to the necessity of evolution as a basic principle.>>

Not entirely. Especially not it the 'religious' way I was using the word – the same 'religious' way that Creationists use it against Evolutionists.

You will only be able to describe Evolutionists that way if they continue to believe in evolution, even when the evidence dis-proves it – or at least starts to make it look extremely shaky. Until then, they are just following a theory that makes perfect sense, and would be stupid to do otherwise.

It would only take one piece of evidence to dis-prove evolution, despite all the overwhelming evidence for it, yet no one can come up with anything.

In regards to your point about interpretation, and since you find it so hard to “swallow” that one species can evolve into another, I've provided a couple of links below to explain it all to you in a very simple way.

These links completely blow your arguments about 'interpretation' and 'witnesses' out of the water, and they're a lot easier to swallow than believing that a magical being did it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 28 February 2008 12:20:55 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
AJ and David,
Your latest posts suggest that all the evidence is pointing one way.

This contention is countered very easily by pointing out the many scientists out there (a small though significant minority) who also view the evidence as compelling, but pointing in the other direction.

However, I strongly suspect that you guys are grown up enough and been around OLO discussions enough to already know this as well as I. It is easily referenced. So I wonder what motivates you to say it. I wonder what motivated me to bother repeating it. But this is more evidence that this discussion is getting stale (or probably now well beyond).

AJ,
I think we are in agreement that many creationists find motivation for what they do in their faith and their acceptance of the accuracy of Scripture. I have always agreed with that, but I also argued that all people have various motivations. It is not necessarily a bad thing. (It actually comes with being human.)

Your contention, as I understand, is that evolutionists differ from creationists in that they don’t have any bias, but are completely as neutral, dispassionate, and unprejudiced as pure driven snow. I think if you really believe this, then you need to get out and meet a few of them. I can tell you about one in particular who has strong religious leanings. His name is Dawkins. His belief is atheism, and he has stated publicly that his understanding of evolution allows him to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”. (I’ll find the whole quote if you want.)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 2 March 2008 3:45:45 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
Dan stated: "Your contention, as I understand, is that evolutionists differ from creationists in that they don’t have any bias, but are completely as neutral, dispassionate, and unprejudiced as pure driven snow."

I made no such contention. I merely stated that there is no evidence for creationism. Dawkins has a great deal of passion and bias. His passion and bias is based on the fact that there is no evidence for creationism, and creationists maintain their position regardless of the lack of evidence.

Prejudice is an irrational bias which people cannot justify. Dawkins can justify his bias. It is based on evidence.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 2 March 2008 7:44:32 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 contention is countered very easily by pointing out the many scientists out there (a small though significant minority) who also view the evidence as compelling, but pointing in the other direction.>>

Your points about a “significant minority” of scientists, and evidence “pointing in the other direction”, are simply more Creationist fallacies. I couldn't possibly respond to this one adequately in two posts, so I'm going to have to provide some links:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA110.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA112.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA113.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA114.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf2B4AideIU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx4MlURl0nA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09zW7-MZiXM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gii8-rel4Ug

So no, it's certainly not “countered easily” at all. Not even in the slightest. There were many more links I could have posted, but if I post too many, then you may not check any of them out. Although, each YouTube link leads to many more, so knock yourself out.

This statement of yours, not only shows that you don't know what all the evidence for evolution is, but that what evidence you do know about, you use the Creationist tactic of 'shifting the goalposts' to disregard it. Just like Kent Hovind and his $250 000 reward for finding evidence for evolution. It doesn't matter how much evidence he's presented with, he simply shift the goalposts and says that it's not evidence.

But please do give examples of the evidence pointing in the other direction. It's difficult to falsify claims that are made without any examples.

<<However, I strongly suspect that you guys are grown up enough and been around OLO discussions enough to already know this as well as I.>>

Well, I've been reading OLO articles and posts now for about 3 years, and I am yet to see a Creationist put forth an argument that isn't either easily countered, or demonstrated to simply be a misconception or a fallacy. So I'm not sure what you mean there.

The sad thing though, is that the same culprits come back time and time again, with the same old arguments, only for someone else to correct them again. Kind of like what's happening here. This goes back to my point about the failure to acknowledge basic logic.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 2 March 2008 9:59:43 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 yes, I've been around for a while now and I've been on both sides of the debate. This is why why I'm so astonished that you're maintaining your position. Had I been in your position 15 years ago (as a Creationist), I'd be eating humble pie right now. The only explanation I can come up with for your blatant and deliberate shunning of logic, is loyalty.

<<...I also argued that all people have various motivations.>>

And I've already responded to this, making your point almost meaningless.

The problem here, Dan, is that you're inventing the motivations of scientists who don't ignore all the evidence. You seem to think there is this battle going on, to prove that God doesn't exist, or that Atheist scientists are trying to dis-prove God (yes, I'll get to your misconception about Dawkins tomorrow – who mind you, is only one person). Most of them aren't. Most scientists simply ignore Creationists and get on with their work. It's as though you think that scientists are finding evidence and then construing a way to interpret that evidence so that it supports evolution – far from it, and many of the links in my posts (if you bothered to check them out) demonstrate this.

Anyway, where would this leave the Christian Evolutionary Scientists? If God is so great, why is he not great enough to use evolution as a mechanism for creating life?

<<Your contention, as I understand, is that evolutionists differ from creationists in that they don’t have any bias, but are completely as neutral, dispassionate, and unprejudiced as pure driven snow.>>

I think David has answered this sufficiently – for now.

But I'll have to continue with the rest of your post tomorrow, as there was too much nonsense in your last post to address in 700 words – most of which I've already confuted many times over, but no matter, we'll press on...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 2 March 2008 10:00:42 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 can tell you about one in particular who has strong religious leanings. His name is Dawkins.>>

Hmmm... You haven't read The God Delusion, have you? Obviously not, because you don't seem to have a clue about why Dawkins is so outspoken. You've jumped to the conclusion that Dawkins does what he does simply because of a 'religious' style of Atheism – this couldn't be more wrong.

The reason Dawkins is so outspoken is because he is passionate about ridding religion of the undeserved respect that it has in many societies. Just some of the many examples are:

- The fact that an Atheist can't be elected president of the United States for absolutely no good reason – forcing Atheist candidates to pretend they're Christian.

- The fact that religion, throughout much the world, is unjustifiably held to be virtuous. So much so, that it can be dangerous in the sense that it gives extremists more of a justification and cover for what they do, and makes it easier to (inadvertently) breed extremists by teaching children from a very young age, that religious faith is a virtue that society shouldn't be questioning – when it should.

- The fact that religious organisations are tax free. While the charitable work of churches should continue to be tax free, it makes no sense from them to be entirely tax free. Especially now that we know that there may very well be no God at all. More importantly though, we have certain religious organisations using their wealthy tax-free status to excessively influence politics – a potentially dangerous concept.

I think these three reasons for Dawkins' outspokenness alone, are enough to consider what he is doing to be admirable – whether or not there really is a God.

Until you have at least read some of his works, you are completely unqualified to make judgments about him, or assertions about why he does what he does.

And besides Dawkins is just one man. As I said before, most Scientists simply ignore Creationists and get on with their work.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 3 March 2008 10:52:40 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
...Continued

<<His belief is atheism...>>

The problem with the way you say this is that you imply that Atheism is a set belief system, like religion. It's not. Atheism is simply the lack of a religious belief. Atheists are individual thinkers not bound by a set doctrine like you imply they are with evolution.

But I already addressed this much earlier in the thread.

<<he has stated publicly that his understanding of evolution allows him to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”. (I’ll find the whole quote if you want.)>>

No need to. It's the first quote listed here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/dawkins.htm

So what was your point?

All Dawkins was saying, is that although it might have been logical to believe that there was no God before Darwin, it wouldn't have been as intellectually satisfying since we didn't know how we all came about. We have a pretty good idea now, so it is therefore more intellectually fulfilling to know that we don't have to invent a God to explain that which we don't know.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you were trying to imply that evidence has deliberately been interpreted to fit evolution so that Atheists can feel more fulfilled and satisfied, in a similar way that Theists feel, and that Dawkins is therefore just as much a fundamentalist as Creationists.

But if this is what you're trying to point out, then it's a pretty weak point, because I've illustrated many different reasons why Creationists are the fundamentalists, and you haven't been able to counter any of them with anything more than the assertion that Evolutionists will never abandon their philosophy.

I'm glad you mined this quote though, because it's good example of why quote mining is such a weak, frivolous and slippery tactic.

So now, after all the rebuttals you've made, all of my arguments are still standing as strong as ever.

Sorry, Dan. Try again...
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 3 March 2008 10:53:26 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
David,
I don’t see why you should think that that statement was directed towards you. I thought it was clear to whom it was directed.

In regard to what you said about evidence, I think we’ve stated our positions. But I’ll state it again, once more for clarity’s sake.

You say there is no evidence for creationism. I say that it depends on your framework through which you view the evidence. There is no ‘creationist’ evidence or ‘evolutionist’ evidence. There is just evidence. We try to make a case for a model which best fits all the evidence.

Evolution is currently the reigning paradigm through which the evidence is most commonly viewed. But this paradigm is not unchallenged. Neither will be the one that replaces it.

You are happy to admit that Dawkins has his own personal bias (he openly states his atheistic preference), but you say it can be justified. You said, “Dawkins can justify his bias. It is based on evidence.”

In this, it seems you are claiming that there is conclusive (or at least convincing) evidence for the atheist position. Is this so?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 5 March 2008 9:29:34 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
Dear Dan,

I repeat my words:

"I made no such contention. I merely stated that there is no evidence for creationism. Dawkins has a great deal of passion and bias. His passion and bias is based on the fact that there is no evidence for creationism, and creationists maintain their position regardless of the lack of evidence.

Prejudice is an irrational bias which people cannot justify. Dawkins can justify his bias. It is based on evidence."

There is nothing in the above statements referring to atheism. Dawkins can justify his bias toward evolution since there is evidence for it.

I don't know why you brought up atheism since that is another subject and I had not referred to it.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 5 March 2008 9:53:02 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
David, you admit that Dawkins has a great deal of bias.

Dawkins openly states his atheism (I didn’t bring it up, Dawkins himself did). His atheist position forms part of his bias (predisposition or partiality).

You said that Dawkin’s bias is justified by the evidence.

This is why I asked you whether you think atheism can be justified.

Do you not think it is possible that Dawkins is allowing his atheism to colour his view of the evidence?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 8 March 2008 3:44:28 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
Dear Dan,

Whether one is an atheist or not there simply is no evidence for creationism. Atheism cannot bias an attitude toward evidence where there is no evidence.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 8 March 2008 4:57:40 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
David,
Atheism can certainly bias your view so that you ignore clear evidence that is likely to infer a conclusion contrary to your predisposition.

I don’t criticise Dawkins for having a bias. Everybody has one. But which ‘bias’ takes best account of all of the evidence?

I’ll repeat what I said on 20/2/08. “Most evidence is not disputed, only their implications and interpretations. Creationists don’t dispute the gaps in the fossil record that Davidf recently reminded us of. They just suggest that such gaps may go beyond the usual evolutionist rationalisations, and point to real distinctions between different types of living things.”

These gaps are clear evidence in the fossil record for distinctly separate categories in the history of living things (as depicted in the book of Genesis). However, those with particular blinkers on their eyes will, as anticipated, avoid seeing such an interpretation.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 8 March 2008 8:23:50 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
"These gaps are clear evidence in the fossil record for distinctly separate categories in the history of living things".

ah, yes. the god of the gaps: the argument for god when all else fails.

david, aj, of course your debate is akin to playing tennis with a brick wall, but i hope you're having fun. i've certainly been having fun watching.
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 8 March 2008 8:33:39 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
Dear Dan,

Why should one believe the creation myths in the bible any more than one should believe the Aboriginal creation myths of the Rainbow serpent or the Age of the Gods in Japanese mythology?

Evolution is a fact. Species have arisen, and other species have disappeared. Sure there are gaps in the fossil record. The various creation myths arose when there was no fossil evidence at all.

You can choose one of the many creation myths, but what criteria can justify choosing one myth over the other myths?
Posted by david f, Saturday, 8 March 2008 8:44:01 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
Ah, Bushbasher, welcome back.
I like playing squash. Usually there are no gaps in the wall.

Regarding your ‘god of the gaps’ comment, in this case, we are not making statements with reference to our lack of knowledge. We know a lot about fossils. So the ‘missing link’ type of argument is not based on what we don’t know but what we do.

Ernst Mayr said in 2001, “Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” If it’s okay for evolutionists to talk about the gaps, then why not creationists?

Bushbasher, if a forensic scientist found something like a bullet hole in clothing, this might be evidence for something significant. You wouldn’t want to dismiss this evidence by saying that it’s just a gap in the clothing, and gaps are not evidence, would you?

David,
By what criteria do we choose between the Rainbow serpent myth, the Japanese myth, or the other myth which I spoke about on 20/2/08? This is a good question.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 13 March 2008 7:06:46 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
Dear Dan,

You wrote: "By what criteria do we choose between the Rainbow serpent myth, the Japanese myth, or the other myth which I spoke about on 20/2/08? This is a good question."

Thank you for writing that it's a good question. We can enjoy all the myths and recognise them as products of different cultures. We don't have to make a choice.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 13 March 2008 8:19:43 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
Ernst Mayr said in 2001, “Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” If it’s okay for evolutionists to talk about the gaps, then why not creationists?

Ernst Mayr has made a problematic statement. There is no reason to expect a gradual steady change. Unless the environment changes there is no pressure on a population that has adapted to its environment to change. Apparently evolution is not a gradual steady change at all. Events such as changes in climate, meteor impacts which apparently caused the extinction of the dinosaurs and other environmental changes cause species which have adapted to their environment to either become extinct or to develop new forms. From the record there are periods of little change with periods of rapid change interspersed. When there is a mass extinction such as with the dinosaurs other life forms evolve to fill the vacant niches as we mammals have done.

In 1972 Eldredge and Gould wrote "Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism explaining the process. Ernst Mayr made an out-of-date assumption.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 13 March 2008 8:36:35 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
oh dan, dan, dan, you're such a cutey.

yes, of course you can talk about gaps in the fossil record. however

*) if you really understood that "we know a lot about fossils", you would also understand that evolution is a fact.

*) you should not pervert the discussion of the gaps with totally inappropriate analogies such as gaps as bullet holes.

*) you should not quote an evolutionary biologist discussing the puzzle of the gaps as if he is suggesting or implying that that is a threat to the theory of evolution. to quote mayr:

"evolution is so clearly a fact that you need to be committed to something like a belief in the supernatural if you are at all in disagreement with evolution. It is a fact and we don't need to prove it anymore. "

*) despite your denials, you are making a god-of-the-gaps argument, and it is as manipulative and as special-pleading and as weak and as boring as such arguments always are.

other than that, i loved your post. please, continue your game.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 13 March 2008 8:39:11 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
Bushbasher,
You make four points. Two of them simply insist that evolution is a fact.

I’ve heard the ‘evolution is a fact’ song many times now, but it isn’t getting under my skin. Facts are not established through repetition of chorus. Evolution has not earned the right to be accepted into the pantheon of things we call ‘facts’. My contention is that it is not even a good candidate.

I’d already included the ‘evolution is fact’ statement in my quote from Mayr, so I already knew Mayr believes it. Therefore I don’t see how your secondary quote added anything to what was said.

Your other two points relate to the god-of-the-gaps argument that you accuse me of using. The phrase ‘god-of-the-gaps’, as I understand it, is as a shorthand way of saying, ‘when our knowledge is inadequate, we can blame it on god’. For example, once when a lightening bolt struck, people might have asked why here and not there, or why anywhere at all? With inadequate knowledge, they may be tempted to shrug their shoulders and say it was an act of god. Now, with greater understanding of lightening, we aren’t so quick to say that, and we don’t shelter under trees in thunderstorms.

So a god-of-the-gaps argument is one that is counter-inquisitive, or one relying on inadequate information. But where exactly am I using a god-of-the-gaps type argument?

Thanks for your encouragement to continue.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 15 March 2008 6:13:05 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
David,
By what criteria do we choose between all the myths? I thought your question contained a touch of rhetoric, so I wasn’t sure if you wanted me to answer it.

You said, “We can enjoy all the myths and recognise them as products of different cultures.”

I don’t particularly enjoy evolutionary thinking, the idea that we’re accidents descended from bacteria, fish, and ape like creatures. This is the myth that derives from atheist culture. No, thanks.

Gould and Eldridge said that punctuated equilibrium is the way to explain the absence of transitional fossils between the phyla. Another way is to propose that there was never transition between the phyla. I think the second option is plausible. We might have to ask Bushbasher which case he thinks is doing the special-pleading.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 15 March 2008 6:23:01 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
Dear Dan,

You wrote: "I don’t particularly enjoy evolutionary thinking, the idea that we’re accidents descended from bacteria, fish, and ape like creatures. This is the myth that derives from atheist culture. No, thanks."

The above is a nonsense statement. I see no need to give an answer since it is a meaningless statement.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 15 March 2008 6:44:03 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
David,
I’m sorry if I wasn’t terribly clear. I’ll say it again a bit differently.

You brought the discussion over to myths. Evolution is the current popularly accepted creation myth, with special application for the atheist. Or at least, nothing so far on this thread has suggested otherwise.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 28 March 2008 5:17:19 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
Dear Dan,

Calling conclusions reached from scientific observations and reasoning a creation myth does not mean it is a creation myth. It just means you have chosen to ignore the scientific observations and reasoning. I am afraid you are arguing by name calling.

Equating evolution and atheism as you have done postulates a limited God who must fit the creation myth of the Bible. That is truly a myth as there is no evidence to support it.

Evolution does not mean we are here by accident. It means we have arrived where we are by a process of natural selection which is not an accidental process.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 29 March 2008 1:00:41 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
David,

I’m glad you picked up on the name calling. It was mirroring your 2nd post on March 8, when you called the biblical account a ‘myth’.

The common labelling of evolution as ‘scientific’ and creation as ‘myth’ means evolutionists avoid having to properly defend their view. Their position will always be the only ‘scientific’ position by default. But a proper investigation or debate requires a level playing field.

By accidents, I was referring to the everyday properties and processes of matter and energy present in the natural world. The evolutionist says these are sufficient to have created life as we see it. The creationist says they are not.

Which is the most justifiable conclusion to reach after observation and logical reasoning? That is the question, and not attaching the labels would help keep the question in focus.

As for there being ‘no evidence to support’ creation, such a comment is misplaced considering we’ve only recently being discussing how the fossil record is consistent with creationist predictions.

You speak of the God who is limited within the constraints of the Bible. I believe in a God who is capable of speaking clearly and always truthfully.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 30 March 2008 11:18:44 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
Dear Dan,

You wrote: "I believe in a God who is capable of speaking clearly and always truthfully."

One can believe anything. Does he speak to you? Did he write the Koran?

I called the biblical account of creation a myth because there is absolutely no more evidence for it than for any other creation myth. Christians unlike the Australian Aborigines and the Japanese didn't even invent their own creation myth. They used a Jewish one.

Arguing from your belief really means you have no argument. Belief is no indication of validity. Best wishes.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 30 March 2008 11:34:32 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. 38
  7. 39
  8. 40
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy