Are the lads at The Good News hiding under the bedsheets and hoping the wicked world of science will go away? It seems so. After promoting their anti-evolution booklet (a decadent confection of wishful, woolly thinking and bad science) via Google ads on P. Z. Myers' blog (big mistake!), they got a whole lot of orders. But not the sort of orders they wanted it seems. What to do? Maybe if we shut our eyes really tight the problem will go away!Alas...
Way back in July, I proposed that an appropriate response to the inane creationist ads that were appearing on scienceblogs was for people to take advantage of one, an offer of a free booklet on creationism, and then we'd all tear it apart mercilessly. I ordered mine, a lot of you did likewise, and some of you have even written critical posts already.
I forgot.
It wasn't my fault, though. They didn't send me my booklet! I jumped through their hoops, I filled out their form, I did everything they asked, and I set the issue aside, anticipating that the arrival of tripe in the mail would be my wake-up alarm to get going. It never happened.
Anyway, we'll salvage something. If you already wrote a dissection, leave a link in the comments here. I'll try to pull off a web copy of their garbage, and use that instead. Let's set a date — a week from today — on which I'll post my criticisms and link to everyone else's. Cheesy cheap creationist frauds,[grumble, grumble, grumble]
Myers titles this entry Hey, where's my booklet? Good question Good News. Or do we only send the lit (short for either literature or litter, I forget which) out on a selective basis to folk who are more likely to be less capable in the critical analysis department?
Whatever. Regardless of the GN's side-stepping, fallout is pending, and it'll be interesting following the thread. Do you think "Super Mario" Seiglie might deign to poke his head up from among the pillows to defend his writing?
Update: Here's one pretty cool response to the UCG booklet.
187 comments:
The evolution of human beings is a given among all but the most fundamentalist. The Adam and Eve story is a tale about the demise matriarchy, goddess worship and the female principle in leu of priesthoods, temples and the male dominance of women. From goddess to having babies painfully and saying "yes sir" to me, for disobedience...it's a no brainer.
We are physically hairless apes with consciousness. We can hope the consciousness factor is a spiritual leap whereby we are spirits having a human experience instead of just humans having a human experience.
The COG's, as many, need to admit that the story of Adam and Eve is mythology at it's best and was never intended as a scientific explination of origins. It is a dethroning of women and the rise of male religion and control over women at it's best.
In relation to evolutionary theory the COG’s today are in the identical position the Catholic Church was with respect to heliocentrism back in the 16th and 17th centuries. They are simply backing the wrong horse!
But they will be able to do this for only so long.
Yes, among the common members there is a LOT of what I refer to as innocent ignorance (they just don’t know that they don’t know), but among the ministry there is a considerable amount of purposeful ignorance. They COULD know better, SHOULD know better, and in some cases, DO know better. But they simply cannot admit to error in this foundational area of scientific discovery.
From what I know of him, Mario Seiglie seems a good and honorable man. He was being trained as a physician before coming into the ministry. And he’s smart enough such that he could know better if he was just willing to carefully look into the FACTS rather than desperately trying to defend the ideological FANTASY. But defending the fantasy has now become his livelihood and identity.
I’ve often predicted that in the years to come you'll see virtually all the COG's gradually going extinct, in no small measure due to the fact that they refuse to accept the essential findings pertaining to the controversial reality of evolution.
In this, as in many other areas, because of their insistence in holding onto an outdated and pre-scientific belief system, they are fighting against objective reality. And it will cost them. Ignorance is NOT bliss. Ignorance is pain. Ignorance has a terrible price tag. HWA left a tragic legacy in this regard. He himself was an intellectual victim of the anti-evolution crusades of the early 1920’s, back when he claimed to have first exhaustively studied the topic.
Fundamentalist religion has a long, inglorious and well-documented history of fighting against the findings of science, and being proven wrong time and again – and this subject will be no exception.
Will we ever learn that we will NEVER win when we fight against the demonstrable facts of objective reality? But the fundamentalist mindset is just so smug and sure that evolution is a wrong, unscientific Satanic speculation, and with the vast majority of them in the intellectual stranglehold of creationism, it seems the vast majority of them will go to their graves in denial.
If this isn’t a tragedy, then I don’t know what is.
I can't believe UCG fell hook, line, and sinker for professing Christianity's Kreationist Krap.
Whatever happened to the Gap Theory of Worldwide's glory days?? We were preaching Intelligent Design and Gap Theory years before the world was even calling the plain truth by those names!
I’ve not had the opportunity to browse through this piece of UCG literature yet, but I’m guessing that it is primarily a collection of the anti-evolution articles Mario Seiglie has been writing the past several years or so for the Good News magazine, all bound together in one slick magazine-like booklet for the troops to mindlessly slurp up.
If it is, it won’t be all that hard to refute with actual scientific findings – for the author has merely repeated the same stale and obsolete arguments borrowed from Intelligent Design proponents, and even certain creationist ones, just with a COG spin put on them.
In a certain sense it’s astounding how far behind COG members and ministers are in this area of knowledge—and yet, on the other hand, not surprising at all.
About a year or two ago, an ardent anti-evolutionist (though very good-hearted) friend of mine excitedly sent me one of these articles from the GN in the hope that he might persuade me that an aspect of evolutionary theory was definitely false. I’ve even forgotten now what the exact topic was about.
Anyway, I carefully responded to his email (and the article) by citing in some detail why the argument Seiglie was attempting to employ was in gross error, and why scientists have proven it to be so. I also provided him with numerous examples from both fossil finds and current creatures in nature that demonstrated how Seiglie’s overall point was completely fraudulent, and essentially based upon sheer ignorance of the actual facts well-known to experts in the field.
My friend never replied to my email.
Why is it that when well-informed people actually take the time and effort to answer (often in great detail) the many arguments and assertions of the creationists or Intelligent Design adherents – they very rarely ever receive an intelligent reply back?
Oh, there’s the usual smug assertion that, in spite of the careful answer you’ve provided them, in spite of the virtually iron-clad evidence you’ve marshaled together in order to prove your point, they still somehow will give only a shallow reply like “Well, I still know evolution is completely wrong.”
But they will almost NEVER reply with an intelligible or fact-based answer or serious counter-challenge, just further baseless assertions of faith in their supernatural account of origins.
Strange.
And why do I get the feeling that this blog topic will trigger off a few more of these superficial "preach and run" comments the fundamentalists are know far and wide for?
Gavin,
United might have crashed on cash, and be unable to a-fraud to have their tract printed.Of course,they could always post it online.
Using the example of the importunate widow, hassle,harangue,harry and harass until the "goodies" arrive.
Was not Count Felix von Luckner,the original ripper?
Cheers,
Jorgheinz
I doubt any defense will be forthcoming.
For one, the COG's do not have a very good track record for publicly defending themselves against criticism. They see no need. It's "Satan's World," after all.
Secondly, the UCG, as a defender of Kreationism, is most likely third tier, probably getting their "research" from places like AIG and Behe. No original research into science, or critical thinking, will be involved. It's cut and paste and add commentary.
But I hope they do. I hope UCG is foolish enough to defend their anti-science stance in the public arena.
The Apostate Paul
It should be called Kretinism.
I never could get why they couldn't view evolution as a creative process. An energy efficient process at that.
I think most fundamentalists secretly want the Harry Potter approach to creation. God waves his wand its there!
The real issue is they know that once people question the 6,000 year creation idea, the rest of their fundamentalist house of cards starts falling. There's simply no substance there.
Anyone who's fallen victim to any one of the new strains of hospital acquired anti-biotic resistant bacteria, knows first hand bacteria evolve. They do it very rapidly.
Soy bean farmers are now finding their weeds are picking up herbicide resistant DNA sequences from soy plants. Bacteria seem to be the transport agents.
What does seem to be wrong with the current model of evolution is the idea of a competition at any cost. It seems cooperation is the way nature works.
Before the Kreatards start knocking down their straw-men and flaunting their Cloaks of Incredulity on this thread, I have one request:
Please, for the hundredth time, learn what evolution actually is, and what it actually says. There are several recent books written expressly for the lay person, and all are easy to read and understand:
Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters"
Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True"
Richard Dawkins's "The Greatest Show On Earth"
The reason I say this is because 99% of ALL Kreationist arguments against evolution is based on misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of evolution. Be the first kid on your block to argue against evolution with a firm grasp of what evolution is.
I mean, what do you have to lose?
The Apostate Paul (Not Holding His Breath)
Anonymous (Sat Oct 17, 09:20:00) said...
“I can't believe UCG fell hook, line, and sinker for professing Christianity's Kreationist Krap.
Whatever happened to the Gap Theory of Worldwide's glory days?? We were preaching Intelligent Design and Gap Theory years before the world was even calling the plain truth by those names!”
Maybe you should try actually reading the booklet? (Hint:- Try the last chapter).
Anonymous 9:20 wrote:
"I can't believe UCG fell hook, line, and sinker for professing Christianity's Kreationist Krap. Whatever happened to the Gap Theory of Worldwide's glory days?? We were preaching Intelligent Design and Gap Theory years before the world was even calling the plain truth by those names!"
UCG still preaches the gap theory. They tend to rely more on Intelligent Design reasoning than pure creationist nonsense. The COG’s have too much of a history of ridiculing pure creationism to adopt it now. The problem is that they’ve merely exchanged one set of chains for another - that is, one intellectually indefensible position for another equally indefensible position, though for different reasons.
As a rabbi once explained to me, to adopt the gap theory one has to do "great violence to the original Hebrew text" in order to stretch it to say this. This was a man who had spent his entire life from childhood studying the Pentateuch in the language in which it was originally written.
The Apostate Paul (Anonymous 11:02) wrote:
“…the UCG, as a defender of Kreationism, is most likely third tier, probably getting their "research" from places like AIG and Behe. No original research into science, or critical thinking, will be involved. It's cut and paste and add commentary.
Not as much from the strictly creationist-oriented AIG (Answers in Genesis) as from the ID movement (Behe, etc.). But you hit the nail on the head – Seiglie’s articles were indeed little more than “cut & paste” jobs with standard COG commentary added throughout. Although I do know of a UCG elder who actually used a film from the laughable AIG organization in an anti-evolution sermon fairly recently, perhaps a couple of years ago or so. So no doubt AIG literature is consulted.
Bamboo_bends wrote:
“The real issue is they know that once people question the 6,000 year creation idea, the rest of their fundamentalist house of cards starts falling.”
BINGO! I was discussing (via email) the concept of evolution with a dyed-in-the-wool Armstrongite awhile ago. He desperately attempts to defend the traditional WCG explanation of Genesis. He can never argue with facts or logic, just mere assertions and subtle forms of circular reasoning, as usual. But here’s what he wrote, verbatim:
“I’m never going to place Genesis [chapters] 2 – 12 into the category of myth; those sections are too specific and intertwined with other sections of scripture. If they are a myth, yet Jesus Christ refers to them as reality, biblical veracity is undermined.”
And after all, it’s not objective TRUTH these folks are after, it’s the defending of a cherished ideology they’ve built their entire lives around, devoted a lot of their time to, and financially supported, often to the point of destitution. So obviously they’re not all that interested in anything that will potentially threaten the foundation of sand their religion is ultimately built upon. The real-life implications would simply be too much to bear for most of them. And I understand the metaphysical angst involved here. I agonized through it myself after 30+ years in COG fundamentalism. But it all comes down to this: what are you more interested in, demonstrable FACTS or ancient FICTIONS? Everybody has to decide this on their own.
Bamboo_bends further writes:
“There's simply no substance there.”
Absolutely. And that’s why they can’t publically nor intelligibly defend their assertions at all. There’s nothing really to defend. It all has about as much actual substance as cotton-candy on a drizzly day. But it is “sweet” – and that’s why they’re so addicted to it.
Bamboo_bends concludes:
“What does seem to be wrong with the current model of evolution is the idea of a competition at any cost. It seems cooperation is the way nature works.”
Well, the most cutting-edge aspects of evolutionary theory does not teach “competition at any cost” strictly speaking, but that would get into a whole other subject.
Actually though, there is a lot of fruitful research being done in that very area now. And you’re correct, there is indeed much more mutual cooperation going on under the surface than meets the eye.
There is a reason why even the Catholic Church is studying into this controversial subject – and have been since the late ’40’s. There’s just too much evidence that points in one direction for them to arrogantly dismiss it, because the last thing they need at the beginning of the 21st century is another Galileo case!
Not so with fundamentalism however – they’ve carelessly allowed themselves to have gotten into the destructive intellectual habit of sweeping aside anything that stands in the way of their ideology. Read “The Creationists” by Ronald L. Numbers for the history of that.
The Apostate Paul wrote:
"99% of ALL Kreationist arguments against evolution is based on misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of evolution."
You're absolutely right. But I'm afraid many are extremely reluctant to learn what the plain, objective evidences actually consist of. I was willing to do this, and look what happened to me! They are, after all, quite compelling once accurately understood with an intellectually honest and open mind.
What makes these cartoonish mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory so amazingly long-lasting it that they now enjoy the unearned status of self-evident truths within the fundamentalist community, which obviously includes the COG’s.
This is so even though such mischaracterizations have been refuted and discredited over and over again both by evidence and argument alike. In this they resemble nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened by massive boulders, blown to bits by sticks of dynamite or pushed over the edge of high cliffs (think the Wiley Coyote character of the famous Road Runner cartoons), always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact in the very next scene. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, these “straw man” misrepresentations of evolution simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.
People seem to almost always prefer the easy path to the true one.
"The way to belief is short and easy, the way to knowledge is long and hard." Ernst Stuhlinger
In addition to the comment about the soy bean farmers, this cartoon humorously points out the flaws in the creationist position.
http://www.b12partners.net/mt/images/doonesbury_ID_060702.gif
There is no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Genesis 1 is a poetic description of re-creation in one small corner of the Mideast where the Garden of Eden was located. Adam and Eve were simply improved models of men and women who had already evolved and who already had achieved considerable cultural sophistication. Adam and Eve and their descendents jump-started what had already been accomplished culturally, which is why the story of their creation coincides with the widespread development of towns and cities and the beginning of recorded history. The old questions of where Cain got his wife and why his mark would matter in a world with very few people are easily answered by the fact that there were already plenty of human beings around. The incredibly long lives of the patriarchs happened only with them, because they were directly descended from Adam and Eve, and had no impact on the world as a whole. And the flood of Noah's time was a local deluge, most likely between the Tigris and Euphrates in jolly old Iraq, where we have been having such a splendid time for the past few years. It all makes sense if you just avoid the extremism of creationism on the one hand and atheism on the other.
What's all the fuss about, Jethro?
You mean to tell me Miss Hathaway believes we all came from APES?
Jethro points out what Christianity is coming to but it won't work. The story is meant to be literal. Proof?
Moses, who supposedly wrote it under inspiration, says that Genesis 1 is literal (Ex. 20:11).
The flood, if not worldwide, would not require that Noah take specimens of all clean and unclean animals and birds aboard the ark. There were plenty of animals and birds outside of Mesopotamia 4300 years ago.
If it was only a Mesopotamian flood a lot of other people would have made it to higher ground also, just like they do in local floods today.
You can't squirm out of it by making Genesis other than literal, Jethro. The entire rest of the Bible and the story of Jesus all depend upon Genesis being literal.
The Apostate Paul (Not Holding His breath) wrote:
"Please, for the hundredth time, learn what evolution actually is, and what it actually says. There are several recent books written expressly for the lay person, and all are easy to read and understand..."
I feel your pain here, Paul!
But, though I fully understand your appeals, 99.999% of the time they will fall on willfully deaf ears.
You wouldn't believe how much time I have spent with COGer’s who APPEAR to want to understand the fundamental basics of evolutionary theory – patiently, gently, painstakingly and meticulously walking them through the basics, step-by-step, and yet, to my consternation, the vast majority don’t WANT to learn the facts. It’s just too threatening to their belief system.
A fellow student back from my AC days once asked me to supply him with the basics of natural selection. I carefully selected sections and passages from various books, such as “Finding Darwin’s God” written by scientist Dr. Ken Miller (who is also a professing Christian), and even some of the books you’ve recommended above. And I sent it to him via email.
Several months passed, perhaps maybe even a year or so, and the subject arose again in discussion, and he asked me the same questions he had asked before. I reminded him how I had laboriously compiled a list of pages from numerous books that would answer his inquiries. Did he read them, I asked. I think you know the answer.
He didn’t.
And I’m pretty sure I know why. Even though I did all the time consuming legwork in assembling the various passages that addressed the specific questions and issues he had raised, he just couldn’t bear the thought that he might be wrong with respect to evolution. And that’s really hard for someone indoctrinated with all the anti-evolutionary nonsense the COG’s are known for. Evolutionary theory was a standard whipping boy of the old WCG.
So I have accumulated a LOT of experience in dealing with fundamentalists on this topic in particular. It has taught me, among other things, and to my great disappointment, that most people prefer to believe falsehoods rather than facts.
And this is gut-wrenching to me, because I always had naively assumed people, when given the actual facts in a clearly understandable format, would almost always prefer them over comforting fictions.
But such is not the case, I’m afraid to say.
Anonymous said...
In addition to the comment about the soy bean farmers, this cartoon humorously points out the flaws in the creationist position.
http://www.b12partners.net/mt/images/doonesbury_ID_060702.gif
Now that is funny!!! Thanks for sharing it! And exactly my point!
It all makes sense if you just avoid the extremism of creationism on the one hand and atheism on the other....
I wouldn't label atheism such an extreme (and I don't consider myself an atheist)... The atheist doesn't believe in the ancient gods of greece, they don't believe in the egyptian sun gods, they don't believe in the mayan gods, etc, they really just believe in one less god than the christians.
Jethro wrote:
"There is no conflict between evolution and the Bible."
Jethro, I've heard some version or another of that basic statement many times before, but have never heard anyone defend it very well.
How can you say that - unless you take the Bible as essentially metaphorical in nature?
What evidence do you have to support it?
Jethro said...
There is no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Genesis 1 is a poetic description of re-creation in one small corner of the Mideast where the Garden of Eden was located. Adam and Eve were simply improved models of men and women who had already evolved and who already had achieved considerable cultural sophistication.
You know I'd have no problem with that explanation if that's what they taught, but they don't. They want to read the texts literally without art or poetry. However you might find that explanation in the more liberal mainstream religions.
The story is an archetype.
Its either a step in evolution, or someone meddled with our DNA, or its man re-emerging from a post-apocalyptic world (tohu and bohu post nuclear winter world?) that the Mahabharata hints at a global war tens of thousands of years ago. There's ruins in India that are radioactive, and they've found bones that are some of the most radioactive things on the planet. There's also glass made from fused sand that only occurs in a nuclear blast. Maybe Pakistan and India went at it eons ago?
Bamboo Bends, hmmmm. Wasn't it the gods who had the war in the Mahabharata?
It seems that whether that story or the Sumerian story or the Jewish stoy, humans are always the pawns to be sacrificed in these good god/bad god conflicts.
I think we can really dispense with the idea that men gained knowledge of nuclear power and then lost it during our time on this planet.
If there are really radioactive bones and stones in that part of the world it's because men didn't know what uranium was while they were digging wells or gold mines.
Jethro said
"There is no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Genesis 1 is a poetic description of re-creation in one small corner of the Mideast where the Garden of Eden was located."
If the Genesis story was used in a poetic fashion, I'd have no problem with that statement but the Genesis story is used to create guilt and fear in christians with the fallacy of original sin. Poetic? Hardly.
Surely the days of living in the WCG (Worldwide Church of GUILT) helps make you run screaming from the Genesis account.
The problem with proving both evolution and creationism is that they are both faith based systems.
At least creationists admit this, but evolutionists cannot do this, as they must maintain the concept that their belief is 'scientific'.
When evidence is thin on a particular point:-
The creationist says ‘we don’t know exactly how this happened, but it did happen, because (whatever the fact being discussed) is here now. That’s OK, God can do anything’.
The evolutionist says ‘we don’t know exactly how this happened, but it did happen, because (whatever the fact being discussed) is here now. That’s OK, one day we will find the evidence to understand how it occurred’.
Admit it guys, both are faith systems – both interpret existing evidence the way that suits the particular belief.
Questeruk, you're babbling something you read or heard from bad apologetics. My challenge: read Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth," and get your head straight about what science actually claims before repeating any more of this waffle.
Even if the first few chapters of Genesis are mythological, it should make no difference in the faith of a Christian. A myth is not a lie. A myth is simply a pre-scientific attempt to explain that which was not understood. Myths also established religious ideas and cultural norms. We may disagree with some of those cultural attributes, such as the inferior position of women in society, but 6,000 years from now people will probably look back at our time and disagree with some of our cultural norms. If parts of Genesis or any other book of the Bible are mythological it does not mean that God lied. It simply means that the Bible was produced through human beings who did their best to explain things and keep their society intact with the knowledge they had at the time. I can be a Christian and still accept evolution and the possiblity that parts of the Bible may be mythological, allegorical, or whatever.
"You can't squirm out of it by making Genesis other than literal, Jethro."
Sure I can. I can squirm all I want to. Squirming means I am thinking about the issue rather than just blindly accepting an extreme position on either side. I believe in God, I believe in the inspiration of the Bible, I believe in the Big Bang origin of the universe, and I believe in evolution. If I have to squirm a little bit to make all that work then that's okay. Nobody has all the answers. That includes me, and that's why I squirm.
I suppose in this illustrious, erudite company, anyone who attempts to defend the biblical revelation will either be abused or judged to be clinically insane.
In addition, you no doubt will be delighted to learn that P.Z. Myers banned me from posting on his blog, because I poke fun at his idiotic opinions and call him the oracle!
"If they are a myth, yet Jesus Christ refers to them as reality, biblical veracity is undermined."
But the fact that the christological figure is completely myth and allegorical, does not undermine "biblical veracity" in any way whatsoever.
Right! Who wants this lovely bridge I've got for sale? Mint condition, never been used! Hop on this while you can, it's a buyers market.....
My view:
1) The first issue is the failure of evolution to explain the geologic record. For example, T. Rex is present in the geologic record. But evolutionary
gradualism would require that the record be replete with precursors to T. Rex and we generally do not
find this for any organism. There is one candidate precursor for T. Rex I have read about and it may
well be an unrelated dinosaur.
I believe there was genetic manipulation of prehistoric species but the engine of mutation and natural selection is not robust enough to explain the prolific speciation that has occurred on this planet during past epoch, based on observing present conditions. Not enough time and not enough of an effect.
2) The evolutonist/atheist version of the Anthropic Principle cannot be verified. The Anthropic principle originally stated, in brief, that the Universe is fine
tuned for man. This is demonstrable and measureable science. Atheists did not know what to do with these findings. Atheists have always tried to cloak themselves with the mantle of science. So they developed a new form of the Anthropic Principle. It essentially asserts that there are an infinite number of universes and the one we live
in just happens to have the fine tuning necessary for man's existence. That is why we exist to observe it.
This reformulation of the Anthropic Principle is
interesting in the debate because it admits that fine tuning exists and is scientifically recognizable. But the counterpoint to this is unverifiable. There is no scientific evidence that other universes exist. At this
point atheism becomes a faith. The unverifiable belief in multiple universes is
the "substance of things hoped
for and the evidence ofthings not seen." Atheism, of course, is not a god centered religion but it is a
religion of some sort.
3) Behe and Dawkins extensively debated evolution at the micro level. They examined the evolution of flagella to nobody's satisfaction. So let us assume that Behe is wrong and Dawkins is right. There is no special
creation and no special creator. We are just seeing natural processes in operation. Chemistry and physics and no God. Atheists have always wanted a test tube
verification of the existence of god. The sword cuts both directions and we might request a test tube verification of Dawkin's views. If these are simply
natural process, nothing supernatural required, why
isn't life being routinely created in the laboratory. The implication of Dawkin's assertions is that our
society should now be teeming with biobots of all sorts and types created by molecular biologists.
In truth we run into lots of trouble with the theory of evolution if we are to explain how life arose. The debate seems to always assume "simple" creatures and then goes on to explain how they became more complex. At one time, we are to believe, the planet was covered with oceans that were a soup of first atoms and then molecules. What conditions might exist that would cause one molecule to be selected over another? How does
the surivival of the fittest occur among atoms and molecules that would result in progress towards
useful complexity?
The Bear
i know you folks are hoping and praying (?) that evolution is true, otherwise you are in big trouble ;-)
The cog rag should have just stated that
"Satan put those bones there just to confuse us".
People would have more easily bought into the lie.
Questeruk wrote:
“The problem with proving both evolution and creationism is that they are both faith based systems…Admit it guys, both are faith systems – both interpret existing evidence the way that suits the particular belief.”
I’d admit it IF there were any truth to your statement, but there isn’t – not even a kernel of it.
Quest, I’m sorry to have to state it so directly, but your comments clearly indicate that you simply don’t know what you are talking about. They just highlight your basic ignorance of the methods of science in general, and how these methods are applied to the subject of origins specifically.
This is a standard creationist line – and a poorly thought-out one - that naturalistic evolution is just as much a faith-based religion as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc.
It does NOT require faith at all – certainly not in the way the term is typically used.
It does, however, take meticulously accumulated empirical EVIDENCE, painstaking examination of that evidence, and provisional interpretation in the light of other forms of evidence, and cross-examined by experts from many other different fields of endeavor. Such interpretations are always subject to further evidence that may be found in the future, and either further refined or totally refuted.
Plus there’s the screen of peer-reviewed journalism such findings must pass through as well, wherein findings and interpretations are subject to the rigorous scrutiny of fellow scientists, who often have it within their professional interests to knock down your research by finding "chinks in the armor" of your work, so to speak.
Moreover, the above briefly-stated methods have an extremely successful historical track record of discovering objective truths which by and large have proven extremely useful to mankind – unlike religion and religious folks, who benefit everyday on the practical level from such findings while simultaneously ridiculing the very methods used in their discovery. This assertion is easily demonstrated by the historical record.
But faith requires NONE of these intellectual filters.
I don’t even know where to start with your zany assertions except that to say any number of easily understood non-technical books (such as the Apostate Paul has recommended above) could simply and easily eradicate your current view, if you’d be willing to actually read one or two. But I sense from your comments above that not only are you poorly-read in science, but that you don’t read much at all, period.
In conclusion, your basic assertions are completely erroneous on every level.
Furthermore, I think your attempt to imply that faith-based systems of “knowledge” and scientifically-based systems of (real) knowledge are virtually the same is reprehensible. Its main weakness lays in the fact that it’s only an appeal to people’s ignorance regarding the subject – the ignorant speaking to the ignorant, as it were.
Now I appeal to you, my fellow blogger, PLEASE be willing to expand and deepen your base of knowledge in this area. That way, at least if you still disagree with evolutionary theory as currently understood by scientists, then at least you’d be equipped to actually make some intelligent comments about it that could add to the discussion.
“He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.” Proverbs 18:13
“The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” Proverbs 18:15
The only problem with that Doonesbury cartoon is that many fundamentalists will concede that MICRO-evolution takes place (such as in various strains of viruses and bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics). The everyday evidence for this is so obvious and part of the general knowledge base of culture that even they won’t argue against it.
But the standard creationist tack in this area is that there is a huge chasm between obviously observable MICRO-evolution (subtle changes over time WITHIN species) and MACRO-evolution (accumulated small changes over vast epochs of time which eventually change one species into other separate species such that they can no longer breed together, ultimately arriving through time at the many varieties of living organisms we see today). This is the basic finding they object to.
We now know beyond question that about 99.9% of all living things ever to exist on our planet—from one-celled microscopic organisms all the way to massive sea creatures and brontosauruses—have gone the way of total extinction. When this finding was just beginning to be discovered in the early 1800’s, even someone with such great a natural intelligence as Thomas Jefferson had a hard time accepting this fact.
Of course, it seems that only few realize that once you’re willing to accept micro-evolution, then given the massive geological time spans clearly apparent and demonstrable from radiometric dating methods (around 4.3 billion years for earth), then you’re forced to logically and automatically accept macro-evolution as well. It truly is a package deal. You can’t just cherry-pick among evidence-based scientific findings—agreeing with some, yet completely rejecting others just because they counter your faith-based Stone Age religious beliefs.
And yet this is the very core and essence of fundamentalism with respect to origins.
Also, the evidence for macro-evolution is extremely robust these days, not only in the fossil record (whales and horses, to cite but two examples), but also in more recent DNA studies, which I think as it progresses will eventually prove so completely overwhelming so as to be the final nail in the coffin of special creationism.
But here’s where the fundamentalists refuse to face the facts. You’ll rarely if ever find them willing to intelligently address these compelling evidences in any meaningful way. They instead prefer to pick away at the areas science does not have much information in, yet, the gaps of knowledge, hence the infamous “God of the gaps” strategy. But the further science progresses, and the more these gaps are filled in, the more these folks are forced to retreat into their ever-decreasing corner of denial. This has plainly been the historical trend, and will no doubt continue on such a trajectory.
And that’s where my serious concerns arise.
If fundamentalists were somehow ever able to take over control of political and legal institutions, then science would, eventually, as sure as the rising and setting of tomorrow’s sun, be one of the first enterprises to appear in their deadly crosshairs. Science’s empirical and provable findings offer up just too many body-blows, and trigger too many doubts, toward their “God-given” ideology, and will need to be restrained.
And if we are familiar with even just the most elementary lessons of history, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking this could never happen in modern times. The incredibly irrational secular ideologies of Nazism and Communism only occurred a very short time ago, historically-speaking.
Anonymous 5:29 wrote:
"i know you folks are hoping and praying (?) that evolution is true, otherwise you are in big trouble ;-)"
Uh oh, here they come! - the ever articulate and profound "preach and run" bloggers!
But not really, Anon, because I could definitely see how theism and evolution can go hand in hand - but not evolution and the biblical account of special creation. I’ve studied that one too deeply.
And why can’t you folks use proper capital letters? – as in “I know you folks are hoping…” Didn’t they teach you anything in the first grade down in Fundieville?
Questeruk said...
The problem with proving both evolution and creationism is that they are both faith based systems.
Except maybe for the fact that creationism is based on metaphysical revelations and visions of bronze age priests and the fact that evolution is based on thousands of known scientific facts.
Other than that they are pretty much the same ---- NOT.
There is so much difference between "faith" and "facts" that if you don't already know that, I don't know how anyone could explain it to you.
bear track said...
Not enough time and not enough of an effect.
Bear, I think you are not comprehending just how long a time billions of years are.
It has been 2,000 years since Jesus and people talk about that as if it was just yesterday. Well, it wasn't, it was a long, long, long time ago - about a hundred generations.
However, that 2,000 year length of time multipled a thousand times is only 2 million years. You have to multiply a million a thousand more times to get to a billion.
Instead of there not being enough time for evolution there has even been plenty of time for several mass extinctions along the way.
If the ground was littered in one dollar bills and you could pick up one every second, 24 hours a day, it would take you 31 years to pick up a billion dollars.
Now, let's talk about that trillion dollar bailout that our government has been so free with. (that would be a billion multiplied a thousand times). It would only take you 31,000 years to pick that amount up off the ground.
Anonymous said...
i know you folks are hoping and praying (?) that evolution is true, otherwise you are in big trouble.
No, we don't have to hope or pray or even want evolution to be true, it just is, and has been proved many different ways and confirmed a thousand different times over and over.
“Squirming” Jethro wrote:
“I can be a Christian and still accept evolution and the possiblity that parts of the Bible may be mythological, allegorical, or whatever.”
TRANSLATION: “I’m going to believe what I WANT to believe no matter what.” Jethro’s Cherry Picking translation (JCPT)!
Jethro, you know as well as we all do that this explanation is a total cop-out. In effect it just magically allows you to cherry-pick your way through both the Old and New Testaments and discard or believe whatever you want.
I could use the same identical reasoning for believing that Dr. Suess’ “Grinch Who Stole Christmas” is a story that a Deity used to communicate vital knowledge to me, even though I know it’s a complete fiction.
The rest of your comments aren’t even worth seriously responding to. In the rare event that you may indeed be interested in widening your perspectives, just read some of the more serious arguments against this rather laughable method of biblical exegesis.
Bear_track, the last time you wrote a lengthy comment, I seriously responded point by point in reply. But then you just dropped out of the discussion. So why should I, or any of us, take the time and thought to address your above rambling comment? Besides, it’s little more than creationist clap-trap that’s been refuted many times before. And your complete misreading of Dawkins is, well, to be expected.
In essence your comments are basically yet another version of the “God of the gaps” strategy. Yes, you’re absolutely right, scientists don’t have ALL the answers. They don’t claim to. There are many existing gaps in knowledge at this stage of history. That’s why there are so many active fields of investigation going on at present.
In the colloquial sense that humans normally use the word "proof" evolution remains one of the single most proven scientific concepts of all time. For about 150 years now it has withstood rigorous and serious attempts to refute it, both philosophically and scientifically.
A theory is tested both by how well it explains the evidence and how well it survives attempts to deconstruct it. Evolution is “unproven” only in the technical sense that theories are never “finally proven” - including such broadly accepted theories as atomic theory (still only a theory, even if we use it to build powerful bombs that can destroy cities), germ theory (even though we use it to fight disease) and even gravitational theory.
Evolution is a theory supported by far more than just looking at a fossil and saying, “Hey, this looks like a missing link! Where can we fit this into our scheme!”
It is supported not only by archaeology and anthropology, but by physics (atomic rates of decay are used to date fossils), geology (so far no fossils have been found outside the layers of strata that evolutionary theory predicts), genetics (both the commonalities and how things diverge match up to evolutionary theory).
Evolutionary theory explains things such as why chickens have genes for making teeth (normally inactive); why whales and dolphins have genes for making legs; and humans for making tails (yes, like all the others, mostly inactive, but on rare occasion they are activated, and have to be surgically removed.)
If you’ve noticed on this blog site, I don’t mind a bit taking the time to answer or reply to serious inquiries. But you’ve never shown the capacity, the desire nor the common courtesy to have a real "give and take" dialog. Instead, you only seem to want to make your assertions, and then retire off the field of debate without further discussion.
But this is not how minds are persuaded nor expanded.
Corky said...
Bamboo Bends, hmmmm. Wasn't it the gods who had the war in the Mahabharata?
And wasn't it the gods (Elohim is plural) who created men in their image in Genesis?
Ancient humans made gods out of anyone who was more advanced than they were.
It seems that whether that story or the Sumerian story or the Jewish story, humans are always the pawns to be sacrificed in these good god/bad god conflicts.
Joseph Campbell's writings go into great detail on these ever re-emerging archetypes in human tales.
I think we can really dispense with the idea that men gained knowledge of nuclear power and then lost it during our time on this planet.
If there are really radioactive bones and stones in that part of the world it's because men didn't know what uranium was while they were digging wells or gold mines.
Just one problem with that, they'd be long dead of cancer before they ever reached those levels of radioactivity. Some of the bones archeologists have found at what appears to be ground zero of a nuclear attack were flattened and fused into stone walkways. Trinitite glass only forms from nuclear explosions, and its found in several places in India and Pakistan.
In the last couple of years scientists have found rare isotopes on the islands of Java that only occur from atomic bombs. I believe the halflife was something 50,000 years. Indonesia means "Islands of India".
I think there's a reason we don't have records past 10,000 years. Some catastrophe hit this planet (natural or man-made) that killed off most humans.
I also think there's some odd genetic memory in humans that generates an obsession within people of "the world ending".
Our stone-age/bronze-age/iron-age/industrial age model of history is probably too convenient in that it strokes our egos of how advanced we think we are now. A civilization losing knowledge is not a hard thing to have happen, especially if it was an advanced civilization whose electronic infrastructure came crashing down. Electronic records are among some of the most fragile of information stores.
I still wonder why the library of Alexandria was destroyed. And why is it the Vatican doesn't open up their archive of books and manuscripts they have collected from all over the world?
Leonardo:
I apparently missed your point by point refutation. I would like to read your thoughts on this.
But please refrain from using such words as "clap trap". This is not necessary for meaningful debate. If you infuse this gratuitiously angry language into your "refutation", I will not respond to it. You choose.
The Bear
Jethro said...
"There is no conflict between evolution and the Bible. Genesis 1 is a poetic description of re-creation in one small corner of the Mideast where the Garden of Eden was located."
I'm relatively new to all of this, Jethro, and I've heard something similiar before. Namely, that the "Genesis account isn't meant to be a scientific explanation of what happened".
But here's the problem: The Bible makes certain claims about itself, such as; Scripture is inspired, or God-breathed, and that the Holy Men of Old didn't write their own words, but rather wrote the words that were inspired to them by the Holy Spirit. That is, God's words.
Another claim the Bible makes is that God cannot lie, that is, God will not say something that is untrue.
And yet the Bible says that God made the sun and moon, the "Two Great Lights", and "Set them in the firmament". And "the stars also" On the fourth day.
And that was AFTER the earth "brought forth the grass, and herb bearing seed, etc. etc., which was the third day.
And that "God created the great whales" and all that lives and moves in the sea, and all the fowls. On the fifth day.
Now these days of creation (or renewal) were AFTER the "gap", which means that they were six thousand years ago.
I have a hard time believing that the sun and moon were made, and set in their place, along with the other acts of renewal, just six thousand years ago.
No one can use the argument that "the Bible isn't intended to be a scientific explanation".
It doesn't matter, because the Bible says those are God's words, and that they are true, because God doesn't lie.
And yet we know that the sun, for example, has been "in its place" longer than six thousand years, gap theory or not.
Am I saying that God lies, or is untrue? Absolutely not.
I'm saying that MEN have written things that are untrue, claiming these things to be "The Word of God".
The only problem with that Doonesbury cartoon is that many fundamentalists will concede that MICRO-evolution takes place (such as in various strains of viruses and bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics). The everyday evidence for this is so obvious and part of the general knowledge base of culture that even they won’t argue against it.
But the standard creationist tack in this area is that there is a huge chasm between obviously observable MICRO-evolution (subtle changes over time WITHIN species) and MACRO-evolution (accumulated small changes over vast epochs of time which eventually change one species into other separate species such that they can no longer breed together, ultimately arriving through time at the many varieties of living organisms we see today). This is the basic finding they object to.
We now know beyond question that about 99.9% of all living things ever to exist on our planet—from one-celled microscopic organisms all the way to massive sea creatures and brontosauruses—have gone the way of total extinction. When this finding was just beginning to be discovered in the early 1800’s, even someone with such great a natural intelligence as Thomas Jefferson had a hard time accepting this fact.
Of course, it seems that only few realize that once you’re willing to accept micro-evolution, then given the massive geological time spans clearly apparent and demonstrable from radiometric dating methods (around 4.3 billion years for earth), then you’re forced to logically and automatically accept macro-evolution as well. It truly is a package deal. You can’t just cherry-pick among scientific findings—agreeing with some, yet completely rejecting others just because they counter your faith-based Stone Age religious beliefs.
And the evidence for macro-evolution is extremely robust these days, not only in the fossil record (whales and horses, to cite but two examples), but also in more recent DNA studies, which I think as it progresses will eventually prove so completely overwhelming so as to be the final nail in the coffin of special creationism.
But here’s where the fundamentalists refuse to face the facts. You’ll rarely if ever find them willing to intelligently address these compelling evidences in any meaningful way. They instead prefer to pick away at the areas science does not have much information in, yet, the gaps of knowledge, hence the infamous “God of the gaps” strategy. But the further science progresses, and the more these gaps are filled in, the more these folks are forced to retreat into their ever-decreasing corner of denial. This has plainly been the historical trend, and will no doubt continue on such a trajectory.
And that’s where my serious concerns arise.
If fundamentalists were somehow ever able to take over control of political and legal institutions, then science would, eventually, as sure as the rising and setting of tomorrow’s sun, be one of the first enterprises to appear in their deadly crosshairs. Science’s empirical and provable findings offer up just too many body-blows, and trigger too many doubts, toward their “God-given” ideology, and will need to be restrained.
And if we are familiar with even just the most elementary lessons of history, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking this could never happen in modern times. The incredibly irrational secular ideologies of Nazism and Communism only occurred a very short time ago, historically-speaking.
To Tom Mahon: I’m sure I speak for Gavin (and the rest of us) when I say that you’re more than welcome to make intelligent blogs here with respect to this particular subject matter.
But would it be possible this time around to at least make them with some thought-provoking substance to them, and with some tangible evidence backing them up?
The “preach and run” bloggers just take up time and space without contributing anything at all to the overall conversion. I’m sure we all find their misspelled, poorly punctuated, ungrammatical, first-grade level comments amusing from time to time, and an accurate display of the fundamentalist mindset and educational level in action, but on the whole, they really aren’t worth reading at all, and don’t take us even a whisker forward in our understanding.
Leonardo said:
“Squirming” Jethro wrote:
“I can be a Christian and still accept evolution and the possiblity that parts of the Bible may be mythological, allegorical, or whatever.”
TRANSLATION: “I’m going to believe what I WANT to believe no matter what.” Jethro’s Cherry Picking translation (JCPT)!
Jethro, you know as well as we all do that this explanation is a total cop-out. In effect it just magically allows you to cherry-pick your way through both the Old and New Testaments and discard or believe whatever you want."
No, it does not mean I am believing whatever I want or cherry-picking my way through the Bible. It means I am keeping an open mind regarding both science and the Bible, an attribute which seems to be in short supply among some contributers to this blog. There is a great deal in the Bible which has nothing to do with creation or evolution. The theory of evolution should not be a litmus test whereby we throw the entire Bible out just because we do not know how to resolve conflicts between its version of creation and the evolutionary version. The Biblical version may be mythological or it may be fact in some way we do not fully understand, but whichever it is doesn't really matter when it comes to issues of morality, and to throw all the Bible out just because of questions about evolution is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I am afraid that the usual assertions are being put out. I.e. – if you don’t believe in evolution, you are just plain ignorant. The intellectual superiority and smugness is quite painful.
Doesn’t it occur to anyone that it is possible to look at the evidence, and draw differing conclusions to what the ‘evolutionary sheep’ are required to conclude?
There are so many problems that evolutionists have to gloss over and ignore, with the bland hope that ‘the evidence is out there somewhere, and eventually we will find it’.
Just one ‘simple’ example – Marsupials.
Marsupials are found mainly, but not entirely, in Australia. They differ from ‘placental’ mammals, particularly in the way they reproduce. Nearly all have pouches, and give birth to very undeveloped young.
It’s not just kangaroos – there are marsupial moles that act like ‘conventional’ placental moles, marsupial flying squirrels, marsupial anteaters, mice, even (extinct) marsupial lions.
That is the situation at this time. How did we get to this situation? There are only really two evolutionary options.
The first option is that marsupial reproduction evolved multiple times – moles evolved pouches, anteaters evolved pouches, flying squirrels evolved pouches, all independently.
It’s not a simple process. Could maybe a section of humanity evolve to be marsupials? Conception would be unchanged, but the foetus would be born after maybe a three months pregnancy. The foetus would then crawl into a pouch in the mother’s abdomen, which the mother would have developed. The woman’s nipples would also have migrated down from her chest to this pouch. There would be many other detailed changes too.
Multiple species of marsupial mammals do exist. The option, that these changes happening multiple times in multiple species, is so incredible that even hardened evolutionists don’t have the temerity to suggest this explanation.
(But no doubt had someone like Richard Dawkins claimed that was the explanation, then I would be pilloried here for my profound ignorance or maybe that I ‘don’t read much at all, period.’)
This leaves the second explanation - that an ancient placental mammal evolved a marsupial reproductive system.
This unknown missing link between placental mammals and marsupial mammals then continued to evolve into marsupial mice, marsupial flying squirrels, and marsupial anteaters etc – all filling the same niche that placental mice, flying squirrels, and anteaters fill.
And how would this happen? The environment of course. Similar environments caused two different species of mammals to evolve into moles, anteaters etc, but independent of each other. Very similar species, occupying the same niche in the environment, except for the way they reproduce. Give it a name – ‘convergent evolution’, and it sounds nicely scientific. This is the explanation generally offered by evolutionists.
This is just one example of hundreds of potential problems.
Are you all happy with this explanation? Do you consider that this is the ‘proved scientific answer’?
Or is it a case of ‘one day we will find the evidence to understand how it occurred’.
Bear_track wrote:
"...please refrain from using such words as "clap trap". This is not necessary for meaningful debate. If you infuse this gratuitiously angry language into your "refutation", I will not respond to it. You choose."
Bear_track, you are nitpicking here because you have no other viable alternative - this is merely another excuse to evade directly dealing with the issue at hand, and thus meaningful debate.
Would you prefer that I use the term creationist "arguments" instead? OK, I will. I choose to retract my previous term "clap-trap" and substitute the term "argument" instead.
Now, please proceed to respond to my comments.
Questeruk wrote:
“This is just one example of hundreds of potential problems. Are you all happy with this explanation? Do you consider that this is the ‘proved scientific answer’? Or is it a case of ‘one day we will find the evidence to understand how it occurred’.
Interesting how those “hundreds of potential problems” exist in creationist rhetoric only, and are rarely articulated or fully explained. Perhaps this is because when they do, real scientists rebut such arguments with facts that just blow them out of the water. Michael Behe’s argument of irreducible complexity is one such example. Just read the existing literature.
But to address your primary point: your marsupial example is just another standard creationist response: get people to somehow avoid and completely overlook the massive boatload of clear, irrefutable evidence that HAS ALREADY accumulated which confirms that biological evolution has taken place, and zero them in on areas where knowledge in that overall theory is either missing or incomplete. And then hopefully this will cause them to simply discard all the confirming evidence.
This is virtually the same method used by JFK conspiracy buffs – point to currently existing flaws, which are real, and then hope this will cause folks to overlook all the hard forensic evidence pointing to the lone gunman theory.
But doing this doesn’t help your case at all. It’s just another example of the classic “God of the gaps” argument, which, when seen from a historical overview perspective, only works temporarily, until more and more evidence is eventually found that in time ultimately explains the gap.
And what do creationists do then?
They merely discard that particular gap, which has now been filled, and move onto other areas where knowledge is incomplete. And, like a puppy chasing its tail, on and on it goes.
Don’t you see that this is exactly what you are doing with your marsupial argument? But the corner of retreat, where the gaps truly do exist, and where science is currently lacking fully developed answers, is slowly, over time, getting smaller and smaller. Those who insist on employing this basic strategy don’t have much of a future to look forward to.
Just look back at the record of the special creation versus evolution debate for the past 150 years. This is the clear pattern that you’ll find. This is yet another example that demonstrates how historical thinking can provide clarity instead of confusion.
But like I said before, pointing out an actual gap of knowledge (even in great detail, as you've done in your current example) in any scientific theory doesn’t necessarily promote or score points by automatic default for whatever alternative you are counter-proposing – it merely points to an area where knowledge is presently incomplete. Period.
Your basic argument consists merely of negations, nothing positive or affirmative.
You act as if I should be ashamed if evolutionary theorists and scientists can’t PRESENTLY explain every single phenomenon occurring in nature down to the finest detail. But this is the nature of science, to discover such areas of ignorance, and proceed to find answers that explain them.
You ridicule the idea of, in your own words, “one day we will find the evidence to understand how it occurred.”
But this is the clear and indisputable record of scientific discovery: that of beating back the frontiers of ignorance. What in the world is wrong or shameful about this?!
(That last comment is a literal question deserving of an answer, not a metaphorical one that can simply be evaded.)
Questeruk, you left out the opossum. I wonder what kin the kangaroo and the opossum are to each other?
It's probably a scientist conspiracy instigated by Satan to fool you. After all, Satan planted all those fossils in the rocks to fool us.
I think that maybe the monster we read about in the Jewish scriptures is really Satan pretending to be Yahweh. After all, he does sound more like a demon than a god.
Bamboo,
Actually, the glass you mention can be formed by a meteorite exploding just above the ground, like that in the Libyan desert.
However, anything is possible. It may not be probable but anything is possible. There may have been an Alantis for all I know.
When it comes to the library at Alexandria and RCC conspiracy - you're talking my language. I've thought for years that the origins of Christianity itself is a result of a conspiracy.
Marsupial reproduction is no more inherently difficult than placental reproduction, although, being placental beings ourselves, we may perceive it to be more difficult. Both are quite amazing, but they evolved simutaneously. They are just two different ways of accomplishing the same thing, and they predominate in Australia because of environmental factors. It is not logical to deny that evolution took place simply because those two different ways developed. Nature is full of such diversity: flight developed independently in a number of creatures, as did eyesight, with all sorts of different eyes perceiving light.
Evolution is true for those who see it is true or that "it just feels true" for.
Evolution is not true for those that need it not to be true because of where it does not seem to fit in the Biblical scheme of things.
If evolution is true, and to me, it is and obvious when one does the homework without the filter of the Bible, then the whole New Testament is at risk. From the first and second Adam to the fallacy of Original Sin for which we are all accountable.
No Adam and Eve...no Second Adam perhaps and no literal sin for which we must all undergo cleansing from. It's not a small issue. It is THE issue as to why Evolution must not be true.
No Adam and Eve also would permit women to speak in church, not be blamed for man's problems and not be put down because "the woman sinned and not the man."
I don't personally believe one can meld the two together with ideas such that "God created it all by evolution, days to God are not like human days, (How could they be...its a big universe)and days are only relative to this one small planet.
I think if we notice that NOT ONE of us has ever said here, "you know, I thought about that and you're right...evolution is true"(or vise versa)
We each need our present truth until we grow to see the plain and actual truth as can best be known at this time.
I find "it just seems true" to be helpful
Leonardo:
It is unfortunate that you are unable to abandon an approach of discourteous comments and ad homoneim attack.
If you ever want to have a reasonable and courteous debate, let me know.
The Bear
"The cog rag should have just stated that
"Satan put those bones there just to confuse us".
People would have more easily bought into the lie."
That's what the church always taught before. LOLOLOL maybe that's proof UCG fell away too? Hahaha bet their members won't be happy to learn that at the Third Resurrection!
"I could definitely see how theism and evolution can go hand in hand"
Um, hello, people?! I don't know how truly converted all these "preach and run" types ever were, but I certainly believed in evolution, when I was in the church! The church preached Intelligent Design, loooooooong before there was ever a word for it!
Not only can I see how evolution and theism can go hand in hand, I remember believing it, and hearing it preached!
Gap Theory, war in heaven, Satan created all the creatures on earth like the dinosaurs, that were destroyed by God to create humanity, and all the "missing link" fossils discovered after Herbie started preaching were "instruments of the Devil's deceptions". And, as stated previously, debunking of carbon-14 dating was preached in some areas, right up until the changes.
Now I see all these supposedly "converted" members of the splinters are here, fruitlessly trying to refute evolution, when we believed in evolution all along (much along the same line Bamboo Bends is trying to preach, I add).
Cognitive dissonance, Armstrongism is thy name.....
"Doesn’t it occur to anyone that it is possible to look at the evidence, and draw differing conclusions to what the ‘evolutionary sheep’ are required to conclude?"
So riddle me this, Q: What is the United Church of God's current theology on "pre-Adamic man"?
(I'm not the only one who remembers those Herman Hoeh sermons and articles on that very subject....am I?!?!)
"I think that maybe the monster we read about in the Jewish scriptures is really Satan pretending to be Yahweh. After all, he does sound more like a demon than a god."
Now you're cooking Corkster! I've been saying that for years!
"When it comes to the library at Alexandria and RCC conspiracy - you're talking my language. I've thought for years that the origins of Christianity itself is a result of a conspiracy."
Yeah I agree with this too.
*but*
This is also exactly what the church taught. So, is it "true", or just something we want to be true?
When we were in the church, this stance allowed us to reject professing Christianity as pagan. As atheists, we can retain this belief with no problems (except I've jettisoned the rest of the theology), but is that really a good thing? It's certainly not something Herbie got "right", not given his take on it, but still....
I dunno. I'm still thinking about that one.
Leonardo said...
“But this is the clear and indisputable record of scientific discovery: that of beating back the frontiers of ignorance. What in the world is wrong or shameful about this?!”
Hi Leonardo.
There is absolutely nothing wrong or shameful in ‘beating back the frontiers of ignorance’. I am 100% for that, and in many areas that is precisely what science has done. That’s great.
Now what did that have to do with the question I posed about Marsupials? You wrote a lot of rhetoric, but actually said nothing.
Let’s be honest now – if the Bible had a verse that said:-
“This unknown missing link between placental mammals and marsupial mammals then continued to evolve into marsupial mice, marsupial flying squirrels, and marsupial anteaters etc – all filling the same niche that placental mice, flying squirrels, and anteaters fill.” , and then added that the proof of this was that these animals exist with us today.
What would be your reaction? You would be ranting about “how any rational person could believe this fairytale rubbish”. You would be pointing out that it goes against all reason that it was possible for something like that had happened. If you are honest with yourself, you know that would be your reaction
But because its evolution and not the Bible that demands that it be true, you standpoint changes, it becomes – “the answer is there somewhere, and one day it will be found.”
OK – that’s fine – it’s great to have faith, and your answer does actually confirm my original point, which was:-
“The problem with proving both evolution and creationism is that they are both faith based systems.”
Thank you for your confirmation of this.
PurpleHymnal said...
“So riddle me this, Q: What is the United Church of God's current theology on "pre-Adamic man"?”
Hi Aggie,
Sorry, but I am not a spokesman for UCG.
I could give you my ideas about it – but it would be just that, my ideas. (But no doubt just as good ideas as any of the other correspondents on this blog!!!!)
Dennis, as always, I appreciated your insightful comments, this time about evolution.
But if I may, there's just a couple of them I would humbly take exception to.
You wrote:
" Evolution is true for those who see it is true or that "it just feels true" for. Evolution is not true for those that need it not to be true because of where it does not seem to fit in the Biblical scheme of things.”
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your meaning here, but this just sounds wrong to me when taking your words at face value.
Subjective feelings don’t change metaphysically-given objective realities one bit. It doesn’t matter what you “feel” about a scientific discovery. Just like it didn’t matter if a Catholic official in the 1600’s may not have quite FELT right about heliocentrism. The primary concerns are what EVIDENCE has been put forth in argument of it being true, is such information valid, and does it explain what it is intended to explain considerably better than any other alternative offered to date? Perhaps another factor too, how long has it withstood philosophical and scientific scrutiny?
This is not to say that constructive emotions are wrong or improper, as they play a rightful and legitimate role in human existence. I would consider myself a very passionate and emotional person, but I’ve learned to distinguish between feelings and facts - and the legitimate roles each play in my life.
Feelings, for the most part, and ignorance, lead me into devoting 30+ years of my life ardently supporting a fundamentalist belief system.
Your comment above certainly does NOT reflect how I came to understand evolutionary theory. I FELT it was false, but the evidence was so powerful and accumulating, such that I could no longer delude myself into believing (as I did for over 30 years within the context of the COG’s) that it was merely an unscientific Satanic falsehood, and that an extremely high percentage of the world’s scientists who study this stuff day in and day out could be THAT wrong on such a foundational scientific issue.
You also wrote:
“I think if we notice that NOT ONE of us has ever said here, "you know, I thought about that and you're right...evolution is true"
But I did!
Perhaps not in the immediate time frame of my association with the AW blogsite – but as a long-time church member I was eventually willing to confront a fact of science I did not WANT to be true. It would have been just SO much easier to have continued on believing the erroneous COG teachings on this subject instead. It takes no reading. It takes no deep thought. It requires no serious, deep and time-consuming study.
And perhaps above all, it does not require the painful step of admitting one has been WRONG for all those years!
If a whole-hearted and zealous former True Believer such as myself could do this, then anybody can, if they are willing. Believe me, I’m NOT all that naturally intelligent. But I use to the fullest extent possible what I DO have. And this has made all the difference in the world.
You concluded:
“I find "it just seems true" to be helpful.”
Well, I guess we just have a difference of opinion here, my friend.
Limited to my individual five senses, the earth SEEMS flat to me. And it doesn’t SEEM to be moving (spinning around 1,000 miles per hour at the equator, maybe 600 MPH in the area of the U.S.). A lot of things that just intuitively SEEM to us to be a certain way have been shown through time and experience to be different that what we FELT initially.
Anyway, a good, thought-provoking discussion. Thank you!
Bear_track wrote:
“It is unfortunate that you are unable to abandon an approach of discourteous comments and ad homoneim attack. If you ever want to have a reasonable and courteous debate, let me know.”
Bear_track, you know, for some reason, this time around, I was actually looking forward to an intelligent discussion upon this subject.
But then a part of me, the one well-experienced in discussing this very issue with COGer’s and other fundamentalists, said, “You just watch, Leonardo, Bear_track is going to do what virtually ALL of them do, he (or she) will just quibble over some extremely minor and irrelevant point and then use that as an excuse to slink away from a serious “give and take” discussion. Just like Larry. Just like Byker Bob. Just like the many anonymous “preach and run” bloggers.
And you know, it appears my gut instinct was proven correct.
Fellow AW bloggers, I ask you consider Bear_track’s obvious evasion here.
And one more thing Bear_track, you might want to actually look up the definition of the words ad hominem, reasonable and courteous - because it’s quite clear to me that you really don’t know the precise definitions of any of them.
This is actually disappointing to me. Oh well, another blogger shrinks back from real discussion of real issues.
I cannot help but notice that the methods of science in general tend to come into question here on AW quite a bit, that is, within the comment section – especially with respect to the origins issue we have been currently discussing in this particular blog.
Anyway, for what it would be worth, several years ago I read a wonderful little book entitled “Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud” – and would heartily recommend it to anyone here in order to gain a little bit better grasp of what science actually is.
I dislike the title, but the actual contents (broken into ten chapters each based upon a real-life case study) is quite thought-provoking and enlightening. It uses these case studies to help the reader clearly distinguish between science, pseudoscience and ideology.
And I cannot help but thinking that the ability to quickly and accurately make such distinctions is becoming more and more important as we move forward into the 21st century.
The lack of this valuable ability has proven to be ravaging to the various COG’s, because so much of their teaching and literature is based upon the circular reasoning of pseudoscience and pseudohistory.
Here’s a paragraph from near the end of the book to hopefully whet a few intellectual appetites:
“For millions of years, our species was confronted with a world we could not hope to understand. Now, almost within the span of a single human lifetime, the book of nature has been opened wide. On its pages we are finding, if not a simple world, at least an orderly world in which everything from the birth of stars to falling in love is governed by the same natural laws. Those laws cannot be circumvented by any amount of piety or cleverness, but they can be understood. Uncovering them should be the highest goal of a civilized society. Not, as we have seen, because scientists have any claim to intellect or virtue, but because the scientific method transcends the flaws of individual scientists. Science is the only way we have of separating the truth from ideology, or fraud, or mere foolishness.”
And here’s its Amazon link (hey, you can get a used hardcopy of it for only 99 cents!):
http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science
-Road-Foolishness-Fraud/dp/0195147103/
ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=
1255899769&sr=8-1
Dennis said...
If evolution is true, and to me, it is and obvious when one does the homework without the filter of the Bible, then the whole New Testament is at risk. From the first and second Adam to the fallacy of Original Sin for which we are all accountable.
No Adam and Eve...no Second Adam perhaps and no literal sin for which we must all undergo cleansing from. It's not a small issue. It is THE issue as to why Evolution must not be true.
No Adam and Eve also would permit women to speak in church, not be blamed for man's problems and not be put down because "the woman sinned and not the man."
BINGO!!! THE LUCKY MAN WINS A CIGAR!!!
It can't be true because then THEY are not true!
I am not sure all people who are against evolution are driven by those motives, many simply follow their leaders and do not trust their own reasoning and thinking. I think its on subconscious level. There's this queasy unease in Bible literalist Christians at the possibility that evolution does occur. They can't accept evolution as a creative process because it would mean God didn't create all there is in 7 days, and that creation continues to occur (thru evolution) every day.
Likewise the die-hard atheist feels a similar disquiet in the possibility of a larger intelligence at work in the Universe. The trouble with that view is it depends on a Newtonian Science where atoms are billiard balls and thoughts do not impact the physical world, and all that there is, is just what you can see, hear, feel or touch. Quantum physics believes the exact opposite of that.
Dennis said: "We each need our present truth until we grow to see the plain and actual truth as can best be known at this time.
I find "it just seems true" to be helpful"
Once again, in my opinion, Dennis hits the nail on the head!
"But evolutionary
gradualism would require that the record be replete with precursors to T. Rex and we generally do not
find this for any organism."
So? As opposed to the hundreds of other precursors found for hundreds of other species? Oh wait, you are aware that we do find precursors for many other of those "any organism?"
A fossil- any fossil- of a land dwelling animal is a rare find. Fossil formation in itself is a fortuitous occurrence. This is the reason why we do not have every single transition fossil for every organism that every lived- nor a fossil for every organism that lived, for that matter. But we do have enough transition fossils to establish evolution as having occurred. If you are ignorant on the subject of the fossil record, read Don Prothero's "Evolution: What The Fossils Say And Why It Matters." It is written for the non-paleonologist- and as a former Kreatard myself, I was amazed at the amount of transition fossils we have, having been told for years that there was either no fossil record, or that it "was in doubt."
But you won't read it. I know you won't. You aren't interested. The Bible states that evolution didn't occur, and that's good enough for you.
"I believe there was genetic manipulation of prehistoric species"
Genetic manipulation? What is that? Manipulation by whom? And how?
" but the engine of mutation and natural selection is not robust enough to explain the prolific speciation that has occurred on this planet during past epoch, based on observing present conditions."
Sure it is. Given enough time, mutation and natural selection can give you anything. Take a look at the evolution of short lived species that we have observed- and then apply this to millions of years.
What is the "past epoch?" How long was this "past epoch?"
Present conditions? So you are saying that organism X , which lived millions of years in the past, couldn't have evolved into organism X based on "present conditions?" Organism X didn't live under "present conditions," and even if it did, it still wouldn't prevent evolution.
"Not enough time and not enough of an effect. "
How much time is necessary for an effect?? I'll bet your answer is "never." Once again, this isn't a serious scientific issue, but a religious one. To you, there will never be any evidence because...the Bible states that evolution didn't occur, and that's good enough for you.
"There is no scientific evidence that other universes exist. At this
point atheism becomes a faith. The unverifiable belief in multiple universes is
the "substance of things hoped
for and the evidence ofthings not seen." Atheism, of course, is not a god centered religion but it is a
religion of some sort. "
Just for giggles, please explain what this Anthropic Thing-a-Ma-Jiggy has to do with evolution? Please?
This is what I was talking about. Would you please familiarize yourself with what evolution actually is? How would you like it if my criticism of belief in God was an essay on the social ramifications of the 80's cartoon the "Smurfs" and the rise of use of cough medication by teenagers in the Ukraine? You could just as well criticize evolution by citing the rate of accumulation of roach feces on your copy of "Evolution: A Whale of a Tale."
And please demonstrate how lack of belief in a god, any god, constitutes a religion. For the hundredth time, I ask.
The Apostate Paul
"So let us assume that Behe is wrong and Dawkins is right."
Behe is wrong, but not because of a debate with Dawkins. Behe has been proven wrong time and time again by peer reviewed research and even in court- Kitzmiller Vs Dover. In fact, a while back I posted links to articles explaining in detail why Behe is, and continues to be, wrong.
"Atheists have always wanted a test tube
verification of the existence of god. "
Oh no, not at all. All he/she has to do is to show her/himself. Not an extravagant demand.
"The sword cuts both directions and we might request a test tube verification of Dawkin's views."
You mean evolution? Oh, we have that. Had it for years. Scroll up to my earlier post and you'll find several books written for people just like you which lays out all the evidence for evolution. But you won't. Because you don't care about evidence. You are an intellectual coward. You'll cower behind your misconceptions, straw-men, falsehoods and Kreatard talking points. Instead of actually researching evolution and criticizing the actual evidence, you'll just let the equally intellectual lazy Kreatard websites do it for you. Why? Because you know evolution is a lie. All this is just a formality. A semblance of truth-seeking. You are judge on a kangaroo court- the verdict is set, evidence be damnned. And how do you know evolution is a lie? Because a book said so- a book with talking animals.
"If these are simply
natural process, nothing supernatural required, why
isn't life being routinely created in the laboratory. "
Here we go again. Explain what this has to do with evolution. This is the second time in your post where you criticize evolution by criticizing...things that have nothing to do with evolution.
But, I have addressed abiogenesis before (abiogenesis- you know, that thing that isn't evolution which you know isn't evolution that you Kreatards bring up because you can't criticize the actual evidence for evolution because you won't familiarize yourself with it) posting links to several papers recently published showing how science has built upon Stanley's original "test tube" experiments...simple chemical components forming over 20 amino acids...the formation of RNA from simple nucleotides....the formation of RNA polymerases from simple RNA chains....ect....and I'll have to post them again, and again, and again, because the same people who glanced over those papers will be asking for them again as if they never saw them because most of you are Liars For Jesus- "forgetting" the evidence provided to you in response to your own questions- the next day asking the same questions, arrogantly asserting that there is NO evidence, even though you have been provided the same evidence over and over and over and over.
The Apostate Paul
Paul said or asked...
>>isn't life being routinely created in the laboratory.<<
I think you mean being manipulated, for life was created God. But I am surprised that you didn't say it was routinely evolving in laboratories.
There is no conflict between scientific discovery and the Hebrew creation account. In fact, the great scholar, Maimonides, went so far as to say that science is the only pathway to understanding God and that the Bible starts with the creation account for that reason. Of course, there's so little of science in our translations that students of King James's and related versions haven't a ghost of a chance at uncovering those old mysteries. There is therefore no question that, in terms of literary, or even "literal" Bible translations, what we know of cosmology and the earth's fossil record is far more accurate than theories deriving from English Bibles.
The Apostate Paul said….
“I was amazed at the amount of transition fossils we have, having been told for years that there was either no fossil record, or that it "was in doubt."”
Depends what you mean by a ‘transition fossil’ doesn’t it Paul.
A quote from palaeontologist Henry Gee’s book ‘In Search of Deep Time’. (I should point out that Gee is an ardent evolutionist – sounds like he is an honest one too!)
“New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps.”
Another quote from the same book that I found interesting:-
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Shall I repeat my original statement again? Well, I will anyway!
The problem with proving both evolution and creationism is that they are both faith based systems.
UCG leaders having the last laugh here:
They know the booklet's bunk but there's more money in superstition than science (always has been, always will be).
By manipulating their poorly educated followers, these leaders can pay themselves over $100k per year (up to $150k when "Cadilac" health plans & pensions are included). And their field Reps make $80k w/ same golden benefits).
This is better money than one can earn in the hard sciences. Do the math.
Having been raised in the WCG during the 70's and early 80's you were told certain things were fact; by your parents, your church, the brief existence of 'Sabbath School', and then those stupid YES lessons. Among these 'facts' that you were expected to belive at face value (Your parent's were converted so outside and independent verification was not required and definitely not encouraged) were the the earth was 6000 years old, Eden, Adam & Eve, flaming swords, Noah's flood, and flying chariots were all literally true just as you could read it in the bible.
To my own dismay, I believed these things whole-heartedly for about the first 18 years of my life. Shortly after injecting myself into the realm of reality I realized that these things were not and could not be true.
Although it would be great to know exactly how everything came into being and what, when, how long long, etc...I don't need it to have a happy and fulfilling life.
To me, it is enough to know that I am here and I hope me and mine live long and well.
I read books, articles, journals, TV specials on the universe, origins, etc and find them fascinating. Pre-history is one of my hobbies, however: having learned a powerful lesson from my youth about 'believeing' in things, I only accept as fact those things which are 100% proven without any gaps, theories, conjecture, assumptions, etc.
My safety mechanism. I think it is a good one.
I don't feel sorry for folks like (TM) that believe the bible is literally true, I feel sorry for those around them.
Same thing goes for other extreme.
My $0.02
Questeruk wrote:
“Now what did that have to do with the question I posed about Marsupials? You wrote a lot of rhetoric, but actually said nothing.”
Actually Quest, to a perceptive reader, I said a great deal. May I humbly ask that you go back and CAREFULLY read what I wrote again? I was simply pointing out that your overall strategy was a fundamentally flawed one: that of zeroing in on areas where science doesn’t currently have well-developed answers, while blissfully overlooking the massive amounts of evidence that is powerfully affirming of evolutionary theory.
I invited you to step back and look at the overall special creation versus evolution controversy from an historic overview perspective. If you do, you’ll find that this particular style of strategy has proved a devastating one for creationism. Why? Because the knowledge gaps of "current ignorance" creationists depend upon to sustain their ideological denial of biological evolution is slowly getting smaller and smaller as the years progress. And it’s quite clear that your issue pertaining to marsupials falls into this category.
To be perfectly frank with you, I’ve never heard this exact argument with respect to marsupials. I'm not even sure it's a valid one. I am not a professional biologist or zoologist. I don’t even know how a biologist would answer the question you raise. Perhaps they couldn’t – or maybe they do indeed have explanations. I don’t know. It’s a specific area of evolutionary science I’ve done no reading in whatsoever. I don’t attempt to directly address questions that I have no immediate knowledge of, and this was one of them.
Questeruk further wrote:
"What would be your reaction? You would be ranting about “how any rational person could believe this fairytale rubbish”. You would be pointing out that it goes against all reason that it was possible for something like that had happened. If you are honest with yourself, you know that would be your reaction."
First, the Bible DOESN'T contain that completely hypothetical verse of YOUR creation, so therefore it's a complete non-issue. Ancient Hebrew, the language the Old Testament was primarily written in, contains only about 5,000 words, so the advanced wording and conceptual ideas your magic verse contains wouldn’t have even been possible in that particular language.
And second, it’s amazing how in the fantasy of your own imagine you can somehow magically predict how other people will respond to such mythical "facts" or hypothetical lines of reasoning. But I would suggest the much better strategy of carefully LISTENING to what they actually DO say instead. That way you can attempt to knock down their actual responses, and not straw man arguments of your own devising. This deceptive style of argumentation, a darling of the fundamentalist community, goes over quite well with an audience consisting primarily of creationists, but clear-thinking folks can see right through it.
Questeruk also wrote:
"OK – that’s fine – it’s great to have faith, and your answer does actually confirm my original point."
Ah, no it doesn't confirm your point at all, Quest. You have just carelessly ASSUMED what my answer would be, put the words in my mouth and then simply assumed once again that it somehow “proves” your point. Circular reasoning at it’s finest though, I must admit.
I have no “faith” whatsoever that scientists will eventually find answers to questions such as yours. All I have to do is look back at the actual historical record and see that this is precisely what they have been doing now the past 150 years. But this isn't faith – it’s simply projecting out objectively occurring past trends into the future. This is pure evidence-based logical reasoning and extrapolation, requiring no faith whatsoever.
Leonardo:
What you want to do is engage in gratuitous sarcasm and discourtesy (for whatever personal reasons)and try to lure me into this unfortunate quagmire with you.
I am not taking the bait.
Thanks anyway.
The Bear
Bamboo_bends wrote:
"There's this queasy unease in Bible literalist Christians at the possibility that evolution does occur."
BINGO to YOU, and TEN cigars, Bamboo!
Yes, your comment quite accurately described me, especially in my later COG years. I was a passionate biblical literalist in the great WCG tradition. But in order to maintain this comfortable view, I had to keep repeatedly throwing a wet blanket over the glowing ambers of reason flickering within my mind, and resisting factual evidences that continued to pile up in support of evolutionary theory. I had to keep pushing such mounting tangible proofs to the “back burner” of my mind.
However, the back burner was quickly running out of room!
An irritating, nagging little voice called INTELLECTUAL HONESTY kept hammering away at me, and so finally I decided that I just had to face this issue fairly and open mindedly, really for the first time in my life – because my past knowledge of evolution was pretty much based solely upon creationist literature I had read, mainly the slick WCG anti-evolution magazine-style lit similar to UCG’s latest nonsense that began this entire blog.
Objective reality does not care about OUR comforting supernatural ideologies. It does not care about what we WANT to believe. It does not care about what we HAVE believed for the past 30, 40 or 50 years. Instead, reality IS what it IS – and it’s our task to discover it.
Bamboo also wrote:
“Likewise the die-hard atheist feels a similar disquiet in the possibility of a larger intelligence at work in the Universe.”
Exactly, right on again!
That’s why I don’t philosophically label myself in this way. But True Believers in the biblical Deity sure do! That way they don’t have to discuss the issues with you. Note how quickly and for the most irrelevant of reasons such folks look for any excuse imaginable to avoid the rough and tumble task of open discussion.
An ultimate Power or Force or Being may truly exist—an incredibly powerful organizing Cosmic Intelligence responsible for it all— but such would be FAR BEYOND man’s typical conception of God or gods. Many of America’s Founding Father’s used the term Providence as a title for such a Being (which the Christians carelessly assume is simply another synonym for their Deity, Yahweh) —but if or when such a discovery is made, I suspect such a One (or Ones) will be light-years beyond the infantile concepts of ancient men, and truly worthy of our respect.
In this connection I’m reminded of an interesting discussion that took place several years ago now between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins, originally published in Time Magazine (11/5/2006) under the heading “God vs. Science.” It reflects much of where I’m currently at with respect to things metaphysical.
The very final paragraph of the article ends with a comment by Dawkins to Collins…
“DAWKINS: My mind is not closed, as you have occasionally suggested, Francis. My mind is open to the most wonderful range of future possibilities, which I cannot even dream about, nor can you, nor can anybody else. What I am skeptical about is the idea that whatever wonderful revelation does come in the science of the future, it will turn out to be one of the particular historical religions that people happen to have dreamed up. When we started out and we were talking about the origins of the universe and the physical constants, I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea. Refutable--but nevertheless grand and big enough to be worthy of respect. I don't see the Olympian gods or Jesus coming down and dying on the Cross as worthy of that grandeur. They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”
That final sentence represents, in very broad strokes, my present state of thought on the subject.
"There is no conflict between scientific discovery and the Hebrew creation account."
In that case, there is no conflict between scientific discovery and Alice In Wonderland, or The Lord of the Rings.
The Apostate Paul
In response to some of Bear_tracks more subjective assertions (provided with no evidence or coherent logic whatsoever, I might add), The Apostate Paul brings up some briefly-stated yet SUPERB points for future discussion.
As a preeminent biologist once told me with respect to transitional fossils, the geological fossil column we currently have is now "swimming in them" – and slowly growing by the week.
The fact that these finds do irreparable and irreversible damage to yet another major line of creationist “reasoning” is not our fault.
Such fossils can’t be realistically denied by a creationist without simultaneously denying many of the other findings of science that do not happen to be perceived as damaging to their cherish supernatural ideology.
So, again, we’re talking about another package deal – either be intellectually honest and CONSISTENT here, or admit your many “powerful evidences against evolutionally theory” are simply being argued out of existence by the tangible findings modern science.
This is what I tried to tell Questeruk as well.
Tom Mahon predictably opined:
"I think you mean being manipulated, for life was created God. But I am surprised that you didn't say it was routinely evolving in laboratories."
Tom, the first part of your “preach and run” comment is merely yet another undocumented assertion based upon your belief in supernatural religion - but your second one actually brings up a good point.
In fact, a number of species (such as drosophilidae, the common fruit fly) have indeed been observed to have evolved, both in natural and laboratory settings.
Fruit flies, for instance, now exist in over 3,000 different species – i.e., which cannot genetically reproduce between themselves because the changes among them are so different.
And quite large changes (gradual evolution) in shape of wings and eye capacity due to mutations have been plainly observed within the laboratory because the life spans of such flies are so short, and so many generations can be observed evolving.
And please don’t respond with the usual, “But fruit flies are still fruit flies, and not kangaroos.” There is a simple answer to this, which can be provided if you’d be interested. But it takes a little explaining.
Tkach's Swiss Banker said:
"By manipulating their poorly educated followers, these leaders can pay themselves over $100k per year (up to $150k when "Cadilac" health plans & pensions are included). And their field Reps make $80k w/ same golden benefits)."
I doubt those figures are even in the ball park, especially for field ministers. The "pigs in clover" days are long gone, from what I hear. Anyone able to provide some verified salary figures for UCG?
The Theory of Evolution = The Theory of Gravity.
We know they both exist, we just don't know all the details.
Anonynmous 9:49 wrote:
"There is no conflict between scientific discovery and the Hebrew creation account."
JumpingJackSpraaaaat, is that you?
I'll bet it is, you little rascal!
The assertions of Gerald Schroeder are simply not going to be able to come to the aid of the creationists this time.
We’ve already had this discussion some months ago now, back at the beginning of the year if memory serves, where we described and analyzed them briefly, yet in some detail? Remember?
Your line of reasoning is similar to the Islamist’s claim that the Quran is the inspired word of Allah, and in complete harmony with modern scientific findings - except that since Allah only thinks and speaks in the superior language of Arabic, translations just can’t do it justice.
Yes, I know, Jumping Jack, it would take us an entire lifetime, in fact, several lifetimes, to plumb the depths of the ancient Hebrew scriptures as revealed and interpreted by medieval Jewish philosophers, Kabbalists, etc., and that they foretold and therefore trumped modern scientific discoveries by many centuries, etc., etc.
We’ve heard it all before.
But since very few people nowadays are completely fluent in ancient biblical Hebrew, and since even fewer still subscribe to Kabbalistic ideology, that means that only those folks can REALLY and FULLY understand the depths of the Old Testament, and so only they can explain to us what the universe is all about, right?
Thanks anyway, Spratster, but I think I’ll pass on this, and stick with science instead, which easily translates across many different language and cultural barriers, has a proven historical track record of success, and actually improves the lives and life spans of those influenced by its findings, rather than keeping them in the stale stranglehold of ancient mystical superstitions.
You could answer one question for me though: the talking serpent of Genesis 3, exactly what role would it play in your scientific worldview, and what language did it speak in since ancient Hebrew had not yet been invented?
I’m Sorry, Questeruk, but I’ll have to point out that you've blown it once again.
I'm familiar with Gee's book "In Search of Deep Time" – as deep time is an area I’m particularly interested in, along with it’s corollary subject, deep history (see the book “Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History” by David Christian, for example). I’ve even taken Christian’s excellent course simply called “Big History.”
But I'm also familiar with the fact that Dr. Gee has gotten upset at creationists and IDer’s for misquoting from his work in order to “support” their ideologies.
This happens all the time in the general field of creation/evolution. It illustrates yet another failed tactic of creationists desperate to somehow prove how wrong evolutionary theory is. More accurately stated, it’s just another version of their (and yours) overall “God of the gaps” strategy to discredit evolutionary theory. So they commit the “Appeal to Authority” fallacy, and typically compound their error by taking such professional writings of scientists way out of the overall context such scientist intended them to be understood within.
For a general introduction to this topic, see:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/
quotes/mine/part4.html
Questeruk, I realize you probably don’t realize it, but I’m actually trying to help you out here. So is The Apostate Paul when he recommends you do some further reading in the subject, and thus he provides specific books and authors written for non-scientist layman. And unlike Bear_track, you don’t appear to be easily intimidated in the attempt to defend your views. And I congratulate you for this.
It’s just that your rebuttals are little more than standard garden-variety arguments creationists just can’t seem to give up, even after such lines of reasoning have been refuted repeatedly by serious researchers and scientists in the field.
Hence our appeal that you be willing to read more widely on the subject in general, that way you would understand that much of what creationists assert simply has no legitimate support or backing in the real world of factual reality or science.
I honestly can’t quite bring myself to assert that creationists just make this stuff up out of thin air in order to throw out verbal smokescreens to the uninitiated (i.e., fundamentalist audiences), but they might as well do so for all the “good” it ultimately does for their overall case. In actual fact, through the years it’s done a great deal of harm to it, and made them laughing stocks.
But please Quest, argue with up-to-date knowledge relevant to the specific discussion. Merely repeating your mistaken views in intellectual temper tantrum (“Shall I repeat my original statement again? Well, I will anyway! The problem with proving both evolution and creationism is that they are both faith based systems”) will get you nowhere when arguing with those who have done their homework, and are familiar with the concepts and evidences involved.
You can ASSERT that “evolution and creationism…are both faith-based systems” all you want!
You can BELIEVE it with all your might!
You can SCREAM it from the housetops!
You can PROCLAIM it until your face turns red and your neck veins bulge in self-righteous anger!
But it still doesn’t make it TRUE in objective reality merely because YOU insist upon it, no matter how many times you repeat it!
Realize this, Quest!
Facts are facts. Evidence is evidence. And they don’t change one iota because YOU don’t happen to like them, or the damage they may inflict upon your cherished religious ideologies.
Really, I just don't know how much plainer I can make this!
"Depends what you mean by a ‘transition fossil’ doesn’t it Paul.
A quote from palaeontologist Henry Gee’s book ‘In Search of Deep Time’. (I should point out that Gee is an ardent evolutionist – sounds like he is an honest one too!)..."
Ahh! Welcome all to the wonderful technique of "quote mining," a favorite tactic of intellectually lazy Kreatards. Take a quote, out of context, from an evolutionist, which appears to criticize some part of the theory of evolution and present it as a refutation of evolution by an evolutionist! Which is the only time Kretards actually read the words of evolutionary scientists...
Questeruk (an ironic misnomer) then launches his quote mine bomb:
“New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps.”
Another quote from the same book that I found interesting:-
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific..."
Wow. You're well read, aren't you? You did read this book, right? In the course of your studies into evolution, right? Or did you find this on a Kreatard website- fresh cherry-picked quotes? Do you even know what Gee was talking about? What was the context? Do you even know??
The Apostate Paul
If we took bones from 4 foot pygmy from Southern Africa, a 6 and a half foot Sudanese tribesman, and maybe a couple of miscellaneous race people somewhere in between – lay them out shortest to tallest, we could show how the human race has grown in stature.
Alternatively, the other way round, we could show how the human race slowly got smaller.
A rather stupid idea is it not, because we know that didn’t happen.
However this is similar to reality. Various odd pieces of ancient teeth, parts of leg bones, parts of skulls, which have been found in various differing parts of the world, have then been used to build up a picture of human descent.
But unlike my stupid suggestion, that is a sensible idea, is it not?
Can I quote Henry Gee again? Thanks
“All the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted indo a small box”.
Of course Mr Gee’s book was written eight years ago – maybe there has been a large rush of findings since?
What was the context of Questeruk's cherry-picked Gee quote? Well, Q certainly isn't going to provide it. Thankfully, many evolutionists have tirelessly taken the many quotes and researched their origin, and actually read the context to understand what the actual intention of the author was.
From:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.14
"Earlier on the same page, Gee notes that:
'The conventional portrait of . . . the history of life . . . tends to be one of lines of ancestors and descendants. We concentrate on the events leading to modern humanity, ignoring or playing down the evolution of other animals; we prune away all branches in the tree of life except the one leading to ourselves. ...
Because we see evolution in terms of a linear chain of ancestry and descent, we tend to ignore the possibility that some of these ancestors might instead have been side-branches; collateral cousins rather than direct ancestors. The conventional linear view easily becomes a story in which features of humanity are acquired in a sequence that can be discerned retrospectively; first an upright stance, then a bigger brain, then the invention of toolmaking and so on, with ourselves as the inevitable consequence."
The quoted text follows immediate from this. Clearly Gee is not saying that evolution is a pre-existing story, but the popular and non-paleontological views of human evolution is. And he is right - these ideas took a long time to overcome. Stephen Jay Gould discusses this nicely in his essay "Evolution by Walking" in Dinosaur in a Haystack, 1995 (New York: Harmony Books). (See also the essay in that book "Lucy on the earth in stasis").
Gee is able to distinguish between that which is fact, such as evolution, and the various stories we tell, for all kinds of social or religious reasons, about those facts. He then goes on to discuss how we can infer, without doubt, based on shared properties, that he and his cat Fred have a common ancestor, but that "we cannot hope to find her [the common ancestor] as a fossil; or if we were to find her, we could never know for certain that we had done so [found the common ancestor - of course we know we have found a fossil]", p37."
Hey Questeruk, why don't you get off your arse and read one of the user-friendly books recently published which clearly lays out all the evidence for evolution? If evolution is a lie, then surely you will find glaring errors in the actual evidence.
But you won't. I'll bet you will use this quote again, on this very blog, given time. Pathetic.
The Apostate Paul
"I only accept as fact those things which are 100% proven without any gaps, theories, conjecture, assumptions, etc."
You don't accept biology? Geology? Chemistry? Physics? There is no area of science that does not have some, however minor, unanswered questions. Some areas have more "gaps" than others- but this in no way negates the validity of the original tenant- which is supported by mountains of evidence.
The Apostate Paul
"They strike me as parochial. If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.”"
The problem is that we have the same amount of evidence for the existence of the "god/being/power" of non-fundamentalist believers as we do for the Jehovah of the fundamentalists...zilch. Zero.
A co-worker of mine- much smarter- a much better scientist- has come out of "fundamentalism" but can't let go of the idea of some "higher power." Of course his arguments are all from personal incredulity and to me it is clear how he arrives at this position- it's just leftover belief. That's all. Oh, he hides behind the insistence that he is just being open-minded and somehow more intellectually moral than I, but it's just a life time of belief. He's slowly letting go- applying the same use of rationale to his "higher power" that he used on Jesus. For some, it's hard letting go. For others, such as myself, it was freedom and I dropped not only Jesus and Jehovah like a hot rock, but all other amorphous ideas of some Noble Thing Out There.
But, as I have said before, if the evidence presents itself, I will have to accept it. That is the difference between me and the believer. I will change my worldview based on new data- they won't.
The Apostate Paul
The Apostate Paul
From the introduction of "The Greatest Show On Earth" by Dawkins:
"Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world — for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory."
and
f my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here’s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers. Unlike my hypothetical Rome-deniers, Holocaust deniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to "teach the controversy", and to give "equal time" to the "alternative theory" that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators. Fashionably relativist intellectuals chime in to insist that there is no absolute truth: whether the Holocaust happened is a matter of personal belief; all points of view are equally valid and should be equally "respected".
The Apostate Paul
Questeruk:
"Sorry, but I am not a spokesman for UCG."
That wasn't what I asked you, Q. What I asked you was, "What is the United Church of God's current theology on pre-Adamic man?"
Is it because you're not paid ministry that you don't want to answer this question? Or because you don't know the current theology of your own church? And why don't you know the current theology of your own church? That's a far cry from how things used to be. In my opinion.
Bamboo_Bends:
"Likewise the die-hard atheist feels a similar disquiet in the possibility of a larger intelligence at work in the Universe."
Gotta disagree with this, BB2; I feel neither disquiet nor unease, I am simply neutral. Should "a larger intelligence" ever be scientifically proven, I will simply accept it as ongoing progressive understanding of the vast universe around us, that we are capable of speculating about.
As there is no scientific proof of "a larger intelligence", nor "life after death", I operate under the assumption that this life is the only one I'm going to get, and that the ethic of reciprocity is paramount.
Apostate Paul:
"'I believe there was genetic manipulation of prehistoric species'
Genetic manipulation? What is that? Manipulation by whom? And how?"
This is the "13th Planet/Marduk" hypothesis, somewhat popular amongst the UFO nuts in the church, back in the day. The "aliens" however, were instead translated to be the Nephilim (yes those Nephilim), who lived on the planet that is now the Kuiper Asteroid Belt, and the race who messed around with "pre-Adamic man".
Not that the above was ever preached from the pulpit, but it was a popular theory, on the ground, in my congregation at least. Nearly every home had a copy of "Chariots of the Gods".
"There is no conflict between scientific discovery and the Hebrew creation account."
Couldn't be bothered to log in, SmilinJackSprat? You trot out the same old chestnut every time this discussion comes round again.
"An ultimate Power or Force or Being may truly exist—an incredibly powerful organizing Cosmic Intelligence responsible for it all— but such would be FAR BEYOND man’s typical conception of God or gods. Many of America’s Founding Father’s used the term Providence as a title for such a Being (which the Christians carelessly assume is simply another synonym for their Deity, Yahweh) —but if or when such a discovery is made, I suspect such a One (or Ones) will be light-years beyond the infantile concepts of ancient men, and truly worthy of our respect."
Deism? From you Leonardo? I expected better from you....
"Anyone able to provide some verified salary figures for UCG?"
Last time this discussion came up, didn't Leonardo mention when he was in UCG, the hirelings were making 80K a year? Or was that another commenter? The 80K P.A. stuck with me though.
Leonardo:
"JumpingJackSpraaaaat, is that you?"
LOL it's SMILIN' Jack Sprat, and I see I'm not the only one to think the same thing. :-)
Oh Questeruk, I almost forgot, just in case you might accuse me of sliding away from providing a detailed explanation with respect to Dr. Henry Gee’s grossly misunderstood quote from page 32 of his 1999 book “The Search For Deep Time” (no, you’re not the first one to misconstrue this phrase of Gee’s) it's already been done years ago.
Just scroll down to Quote # 4.14 on the link I sent you in my above response:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/
quotes/mine/part4.html
God could have just said, "In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth, and all that is in them".
And that's it.
And so much of this argument and confusion and division that has gone on for so long could have been avoided.
Didn't God understand that?
Questeruk:
"Doesn’t it occur to anyone that it is possible to look at the evidence, and draw differing conclusions to what the ‘evolutionary sheep’ are required to conclude? "
Yes, it is very possible- but the problem here is that the overwhelming majority of those who deny that evolution occurred have never examined the evidence. They ignore the evidence in favor of the criticisms of others who have claimed to have examined the evidence. These criticisms- when they actually confront the actual evidence- are grounded on an ignorance of basic biology and incredibly distorted views of what evolution is and what the data states. The rest of the criticisms are mostly fallacious arguments that ignore the evidence...at best. Most Kreatards resort to quote mining and arguments from personal incredulity.
What was the last book-by an evolutionist- which explained evolution and presented the evidence for it that you read?
Some pretend to earnestly desire serious debate on this subject, yet refuse to educate themselves on evolution. Strange. If I were to take an interest in refuting a scientific theory, I would first familiarize myself with the theory before making the claim that it wasn't true. But most Kreatards don't. Why is that?
Because they have no desire to learn about evolution. In their minds, evolution is a lie and any "evidence" is a lie, too. There is no evidence. Their real job is to expose evolution for the lie it is. Why study a lie? There can be no profit in it.
A Kreatard approaches evolution in the same way Holocaust deniers approach the Holocaust. Ignore the lies and try to find something- anything- that will cast doubt in the minds of the uninformed. Ignore the evidence by pretending it doesn't exist, distort and belittle what you can't ignore, and lie when necessary. It's okay to lie for Jesus.
The Apostate Paul
Baywolfe said...
The Theory of Evolution = The Theory of Gravity.
We know they both exist, we just don't know all the details.
Good comparison. We sure don't know squat about gravity other than it keeps things from floating around.
Leonardo, you caught me, but I wasn't really hiding. It was late, my comment was a rehash, I was tired, so Anon was the quickest way to write and get to bed.
Here's from Maimonides, 1190 C.E., on science as a path to God, from "Guide to the Perplexed," Part 3, Chapter 51. Of course this is an opinion, but the opinion of one long immersed in Torah and medical science, a towering intellect working, in the case of Torah, with timeless material. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp187.htm
"My son, so long as you are engaged in studying the Mathematical Sciences and Logic, you belong to those who go round about the palace in search of the gate. Thus our Sages figuratively use the phrase: "Ben-zoma is still outside." When you understand Physics, you have entered the hall; and when, after completing the study of Natural Philosophy, you master Metaphysics, you have entered the innermost court, and are with the king in the same palace. You have attained the degree of the wise men, who include men of different grades of perfection. There are some who direct all their mind toward the attainment of perfection in Metaphysics, devote themselves entirely to God, exclude from their thought every other thing, and employ all their intellectual faculties in the study of the Universe, in order to derive therefrom a proof for the existence of God, and to learn in every possible way how God rules all things; they form the class of those who have entered the palace, namely, the class of prophets."
Having only one lifetime, and being in those years that some call "golden," I feel that the genius of Torah is far more than challenging and worthy enough of my focused attentions. That too is an opinion. One plays with the hand one holds, and it's too late to dilute my gaze with other delectables, such as the Quran -- or even Alice in Wonderland, as the Apostate Paul suggested. And I must confess that Torah is proving herself altogether satisfying -- that is, for me at this extraordinary time in my own life. Obviously, others will ply their own paths and find them equally fascinating and worthwhile. BH
Leonardo, you wrote, "You could answer one question for me though: the talking serpent of Genesis 3, exactly what role would it play in your scientific worldview, and what language did it speak in since ancient Hebrew had not yet been invented?"
The Sages say God used Hebrew to create the universe. A linguist friend of mine says he could not accept that on the basis of his studies. I tend to side with the Sages, but with eyes and ears open.
As for the serpent, the nachash in the Garden of Eden, the Gan Eden, I don't know. We know that DNA allows for its almost infinitely varied potentials to be "turned on and off;" so a formerly shrewd, talking and legged serpent could be genetically reduced in terms of the Genesis story.
Philosophically I see the serpent as a foil to the relationship humanity should have with God, that nothing or no one should be allowed between man and his Maker, no matter how attractive. To many, if not most, students of the Bible, that would probably seem unthinkable, even blasphemous -- but you asked.
Questeruk said...
A quote from palaeontologist Henry Gee’s book ‘In Search of Deep Time’.
Interesting quotes, Q, on which pages are they found? Have you not read past the introduction?
Gee's book on cladistics is truly interesting and it changes the evolutionary tree into a big bush with intertwining branches.
You should actually read it sometime.
Guys, a reminder about civility - "Kreatard" conveys nothing but an insult - and the posting guidelines. There's nothing worse than having to trash a comment that makes some good points but then descends into playground taunting.
Leonardo said...
Tom Mahon predictably opined:
"I think you mean being manipulated, for life was created by God. But I am surprised that you didn't say it was routinely evolving in laboratories."
>>Tom, the first part of your “preach and run” comment is merely yet another undocumented assertion based upon your belief in supernatural religion<<
I am not sure what you mean by "preach and run," but it is documented in the bible that God created all life on earth, and he has reveled that truth to very few people. From your illogical comments and fascination with the suppositions of Dawkins, it is obvious that you are not one of them.
>>- but your second one actually brings up a good point.<<
I just wanted to point out to Paul, who has also been excluded from the divine revelation, the difference between creation and manipulation of life. My comment about life evolving in laboratories was poking fun at a nonsensical idea of evolution. But if you think it was a profound observation, then it supports the teaching that "the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of man."
>>In fact, a number of species (such as drosophilidae, the common fruit fly) have indeed been observed to have evolved, both in natural and laboratory settings.<<
On your part, this reported observation is an act of blind faith! For I am sure you have never been invited into a lab to witness this sublime event!
>>Fruit flies, for instance, now exist in over 3,000 different species – i.e., which cannot genetically reproduce between themselves because the changes among them are so different.<<
Over 3,000 different species? Wow! I suppose that Dawkins or someone else will let us know when there are 4,143 species. O sorry, I forgot that evolution only operates in thousands or millions of species or years.
Thanks for the Gee reference Leonardo, although Paul has quoted it here on this blog as well.
Of course I know that Gee doesn’t support Creationism. That is very obvious. I can’t imagine that you even began to think that’s what I believed – especially as when I gave the quote I pointed out that he was an evolutionist!
Isn’t it obvious why I quoted him? If I quoted someone with creationist views, that is going to be rejected without any thought, because that’s a creationist, and ‘he would say that, wouldn’t he’.
The reason I am quoted Gee is that he quite rightly is pointing out the weakness in certain areas of evolutionary practise, for example fitting in fossils in charts where there are no real grounds to do so.
Of course he has his own agenda for saying this, he is pushing his own particular idea – I know that – but the point is he is pointing out particular weaknesses in the evidence, which many people, (including many people on this blog), have been treating virtually as fact.
That is the reason I quoted him.
I have quoted Fred Hoyle in the past. Fred was an atheist most of his life, but he had severe criticism of much of evolution. Now his motive was partly to push his own differing view, but he was nevertheless pointing out flaws in evolutionist thinking. That is the reason I have used his quotes.
You don’t have to agree with someone 100% to quote them, you know. Who better than an evolutionist to highlight a weakness in a particular area of evolution?
The amount of flack flying around kind of reminds me of a certain W Shakespeare, who wrote ‘The lady doth protest too much, methinks’.
Now I can quote that, but in doing so I do actually realise that:- 1. Most of the bloggers here are men, and 2. Shakespeare was not talking about evolution.
But do those two points invalidate the quote?
Methinks not.
"I only accept as fact those things which are 100% proven without any gaps, theories, conjecture, assumptions, etc."
You don't accept biology? Geology? Chemistry? Physics?...
so, can anyone show any instance where live does not come from pre-existing life?
Hi Aggie,
Re UCG & Pre-Adamic man.
My reply wasn’t intended as some sort of brush-off, but perhaps it does read that way. In that case, I apologise for that.
I don’t know what the current theology is, or in fact if there is an official position.
If you are interested, I will try and find out, but it may take days rather than hours. Unlike the old WCG, UCG does tend to expect its members to think a bit for themselves.
Incidentally, I don’t think a lot of Herman Hoeh’s pronouncements on pre-adamic man filtered through to the British Isles.
I remember hearing something about it, asking a local minister, to be told that he had heard it, but didn’t actually understand what Hoeh was on about. Now maybe that was a brush-off!!
If you can briefly enlighten me on what Herman Hoeh did say in this area, I would be interested, after all these years.
Leonardo:
Just so you understand, I am not in the least concerned about the traditional arguments that support evolution.
The content of what you say is not an issue. It is, rather, the methodology you use.
I do not know your personal issues but I do know that there are many Armstrongists that parrot the techniques of GTA when they try to communicate. They lace their communication with needless sarcasm, personal attack and hyperbole.
I have no desire to communicate with you at that level any more than I would have a desire to communicate with GTA, were he living.
Sorry.
The Bear
The Apostate Paul wrote:
"But, as I have said before, if the evidence presents itself, I will have to accept it. That is the difference between me and the believer. I will change my worldview based on new data- they won't."
Yes, and that is what I mean't by my previous comments, Paul.
The evidence, REAL evidence, will have to become tangible, and not based on blind faith and wishful thinking, which is all True Believers have nowadays to go on.
"Alternatively, the other way round, we could show how the human race slowly got smaller. "
No you couldn't- all you would be demonstrating is that there is size variation between human races because you are using the bones of modern human beings.
"A rather stupid idea is it not, because we know that didn’t happen."
That what didn't happen? That humans did not evolve? Or that humans did not evolve in a step-wise, linear fashion? Or both?
"However this is similar to reality. Various odd pieces of ancient teeth, parts of leg bones, parts of skulls, which have been found in various differing parts of the world, have then been used to build up a picture of human descent."
No- there is no similarity between the fact of human evolution (which is based not only on teeth, parts of leg bones, and parts of skulls, but of whole skulls, whole leg bones and nearly complete skeletons) and the creationist straw man picture of "the descent of man."
"Can I quote Henry Gee again? Thanks..."
By all means, please do....dig that hole deeper.
“All the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted indo a small box”.
Of course Mr Gee’s book was written eight years ago – maybe there has been a large rush of findings since?"
If in fact Gee said this, without context (I am sure you didn't see the context either since you quote-mined this from a Kreationist site) we can never be sure, then he is wrong.
But let us get to your main point (at least what I think your point is since you really don't clarify what it is):
Evolution states that man evolved in a linear, stepwise fashion from point A to point Z. Gee refutes this, therefore, human evolution is a big lie.
This is a very impressive straw-man, but not as impressive as the irony in your quote mining of Gee.
From Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters:"
"Likewise, the tendency to put things into simple linear order is a common metaphor for evolution- and also one of its greatest misperceptions. The iconic image is the classic "ape-to-man" sequence of organisms marching up the evolutionary ladder...Most people think this is an accurate representation of evolution. WRONG! Evolution is a bush, not a ladder...with numerous human species living side by side at certain times in the past 5 million years." (pg. 125)
"A quick look at some of the creationist pamphlets and books shows just how misleading and dishonest their presentations are...the garish yellow centerfold features a "march of hominids" that we discussed in chapter 5, perpetuating the misconception that human evolution is a single linear sequence, not a branching bush of many species." (pg 334).
Do you finally understand what Gee was criticizing? He was criticizing YOUR misconception (which you most likely learned from Kreationist literature) of the evolution of humans, not the fact that humans clearly evolved. Do you see the problem here? You still haven't gotten to the point where you are criticizing evolution. You are criticizing a false picture of evolution!
From your comments, I take it that you are quite unfamiliar with the evidence for human evolution. Here is a good start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
But, why kid myself. I can't help but imagine that you have made this very argument before, and have been refuted just as many times before. You have also probably been directed towards the evidence many times before. But you'll continue to ignore the actual evidence, and instead ponderously throw out the same old straw-men arguments based on misconceptions of evolution. Don't you feel the least bit ashamed?
The Apostate Paul
"On your part, this reported observation is an act of blind faith! For I am sure you have never been invited into a lab to witness this sublime event!"
Um, what are saying here, Tom? That peer-reviewed science is not to be believed unless you witness it?
The Apostate Paul
Questeruk, if I had any previous doubt about your regurgitation of creation arguments, your further comments have removed them completely.
Please, I beg you, do some more reading on the subject other than from creationist sources. You're current (mis)understanding of evolution is nothing but the cartoon version presented by the anti-evolutionist crowd.
And all your assertions to the contrary won't change that fact. Serious study with a genuinely open mind will.
Your qoutes from Gee tells me, with about 99% probability, that you haven't actually read his book.
And you don't have to read his particular book, but please, at least be willing to read one or two that Apostate Paul has recommended.
This is becoming very embarrasing. I mean, it's like trying to have a serious discussion with someone who literally believes the earth is a flat disc.
For those interested, Science is offering free access for the series of articles on Ardipithecus ramidus....4.4 million years old and an incredibly important find in human evolution:
http://www.sciencemag.org/ardipithecus/
The Apostate Paul
SmilingJackSprat wrote:
"The Sages say God used Hebrew to create the universe."
But what empirical, tangible EVIDENCE do the so-called "Sages" actually present for this statement?
If there is none, then this is simply the blind quoting the blind - the appeal to authority fallacy. You might as well quote medieval alchemists as authorities.
You also wrote:
"Philosophically I see the serpent as a foil to the relationship humanity should have with God"
But this is only your subjective opinion, with not a single FACT or shred of real PROOF to back it up. So why should anyone take your word for it?
I can say, "Philosophically I believe that the sources of all the known laws operating in the universe is a rainbow-colored invisible unicorn that talks to me every night before I go to bed."
But if I have no evidence or reason to justify such an assertion, then of what possible good is it?
Coco Joe, please define and explain what the term "God" actually means? And what reasons you have to believe in such?
And then which Deity would you be referring to? Zeus, Allah, Yahweh, Marduk, Ahura Mazda? Also, provide specific reasons.
Further, which set of scriptures should we refer to for the ultimate truth about origins, how we should live and what we should believe? The Quran, the Bible, or the many others that have occurred down through history? And again I ask for specific reasons, not mere dogmatic assertions.
If you can intelligibly answer these basic questions, then we will have a basis for an intelligent discussion together.
If not, then why should I waste my time if you haven’t even thought these things through?
SmilingJackSprat, I must say that of all the bloggers who grace this site, you use the highest number of words to convey the least amount of substantial thought.
All you provide is subjective, unsubstantiated OPINION. But where does that get us? How does it expend minds? How does it persuade and provoke thought?
I would love to dialog with you, but there’s nothing of substance to dialog about.
Seriously, think about this, Jack. I truly don’t mean this as an insult – but as a well-intended spur to more enlightening and substantive comments in the future.
PurpleHymnal wrote:
"Deism? From you Leonardo? I expected better from you...."
Well, on YOUR part if you would go back and re-read my comment carefully, that's not exactly the philosophical position I expressed.
And on MY part perhaps my comment could have done without the reference to the Providence of the Founding Fathers.
But I truly do appreciate many of your other insightful comments.
Tom Mahon, since you obviously occupy the superior intellectual ground here, as is plain for all to see, then I guess there is no real reason to continue any discussion.
Further, there is no real reason to conduct scientific inquiry, because ultimately all the discoveries of the past 400 years or so have all been a huge waste of time and resources.
And then folks like you wonder why your views are the laughing stock of serious seekers and thinkers.
Gavin, I have a genuine question to ask: why is it that you censure a number of my comments, which I try to articulate as best I can, and in conformity with the overall spirit and intent of your guidelines, and yet you allow the absolutely meaningless comments of folks like Tom to just pass on by?
I ask this in a spirit of good will and am honestly not trying to cause a stir, but I'm sincerely curious about this.
Bear_ track wrote:
"What you want to do is engage in gratuitous sarcasm and discourtesy (for whatever personal reasons)and try to lure me into this unfortunate quagmire with you. I am not taking the bait."
Hey, no fair, Bear!
Numerous other bloggers in the past have already used that lame excuse before in order to gracefully remove themselves off the field of debate. And besides, you've ALREADY fallen into this unfortunate quagmire by making your above assertions in the company of well-read folks, so it's a little too late for that now, don’t you think?
Your subjective assertions have hit up against a hard wall of factual EVIDENCE, and perhaps more importantly, those who know how to effectively USE it. And so you’re now scrambling for any reason you can to evade the responsibility of actually debating such folks and defending the views you’ve so carelessly made with respect to evolutionary theory.
Face it, Bear – you’ve made comments that you simply not able to adequately defend or justify. Oh, I know, my occasional rambunctious comments hurt your feelings every now and again. But now you know what scientists face all the time in a culture mad with supernaturalistic ideology.
Apostate Paul responded: "You don't accept biology? Geology? Chemistry? Physics? There is no area of science that does not have some, however minor, unanswered questions. Some areas have more "gaps" than others- but this in no way negates the validity of the original tenant- which is supported by mountains of evidence."
Paul, Your response to my post was a little rediculous. Biology, Geology, Chemistry, and Physics are all areas of scientific studies, not specific areas of each that may have unanswered questions or gaps.
I accept that each of the above exist of course, and in fact I am greatly interested in each area. My point was that I do not accept as fact any single idea or hypothesis until proven from A-Z. It should be enough that I accept them as theories or hypotheses.
This is a good way to avoid looking like a fool.
For example: A certain blogger on this thread is fully convinced that not only is the bible literally true but that he is among a very few that have been divinely gifted the ability to know things within it that the rest of the planet cannot. He is able to accomplish this amazing feat without any proof that he is right or has a divine gift whatsoever.
I would prefer to avoid being that way most of all.
I think it is also likely that in the few short years of the existence of this blog you have posted with emphasis, certain theories on various facets of evolutionary science, as fact, that have since been falsified.
You would probably not have a problem admitting that you were wrong to post the item as if it were fact and then go on to link or comment on the newest discovery or theory regarding the aforementioned item.
This would be my second choice but I would prefer to avoid this as well.
For me; I do not have the education or resources to find the answers of the universe so I will hold off on committment to individual unknown facets of science as well as history (My favorite area of study) until they are known to be fact and not simply theories accepted as fact.
I am not an anti-science idiot so don't treat me like an idiot in your posts.
As many other insightful authors have pointed out in the past, it’s clear that drama, emotionalism, ignorance and irrationality play huge roles in the promulgation and acceptance of the fundamentalist worldview. Facts, evidence, logic and realism, however, play an extremely distant second or even tertiary fiddle to the above mentioned elements.
And as this current blog discussion relative to the creation/evolution controversy has clearly shown, this is one of my biggest beefs against the epistemological “methods” and wacky worldview of fundamentalist religion.
And though the many bloggers here representing the supernaturalist camp may not realize it, the obsolete arguments they attempt to employ here are actually one of the best “recruiting tools” for the agnostic/atheist camp. Their citing of stale, previously-refuted arguments, circular reasoning, unreserved use of out-and-out irrationality and unfounded subjective assertions that they can neither clearly demonstrate nor adequately explain have the practical effect of driving most people in the opposite philosophical direction.
Please allow me to cite the following incident, drawn from real life, in order to illustrate my above assertion.
Back in April of 2004 I flew out to southern California to attend a three-day seminar on the subject of Intelligent Design (ID). All the major players in the ID movement where there to speak – as well as some detractors, including Dr. William Provine, Professor of Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University, who was invited to speak as well.
During the seminar I had the wonderful opportunity to talk one-on-one at some length with Dr. Provine about ID. He told me much the same as I just relayed to you all above.
He mentioned to me that whenever it could be arranged, he would always allow his good friend yet philosophical opponent, Dr. Phillip Johnson (the primary Founding Father of the modern ID movement), teach in all of his (Provine's) freshman biology classes at least once sometime during the semester at Cornell.
Provine told me that Johnson’s arguments spoke much more eloquently than he (Provine) ever could as to why the teachings and tenets of the ID movement make no real sense once one has possession of the essential facts of biology. He told me that many students who previously had been “sitting on the fence” with regard to the entire special supernatural creation versus evolution controversy are nudged over to the evolutionary side just by listening to Dr. Johnson formally present his explanations as to why he is a believer and proponent of ID!
Johnson’s arguments appear at first glance to make sense; they appeal to our natural intuitions, and are indeed persuasive – IF one is essentially ignorant or not well-informed of what evolutionary theory actually teaches. And most aren’t, nor are most willing to take the steps necessary to remedy their ignorance. But once someone is willing to understand with an open mind the objective evidences that have accumulated in support of the theory the past 150 years, especially the past decade, and why creationist/ID arguments fall to the ground upon closer scrutiny in the light of such compelling factual evidence, then things become considerably more clearer.
And clarity is power.
But I realize the vast majority of people will always prefer superstitious FAITH over scientific FACTS, the warm and fuzzy over the real, and thus will be ever content to continue on in blissful ignorance of evolutionary theory.
Oh, the frustrations that occur to those obsessed with facts, evidence and sound-minded logic! It’s almost more than a person can tolerate!
Gee has been quoted as saying,
“All the evidence for the hominid lineage between about 10 and 5 million years ago -- several thousand generations of living creatures -- can be fitted indo a small box”.
I don't know who Gee is or how credible he is, but I believe that statement is pretty close to being true. The number of hominid fossils discovered so far is not large. It's been one here and one there, of varying dates and species.
It's not surprising this should be the case. Most dead people decay away. It takes a very special set of circumstances for a fossil to be preserved. And to actually discover that fossil, hundreds of thousands of years later, takes another very special set of circumstances.
However, my main point: a paucity of hominid fossils does not disprove evolution. Scientists have LOADS of other fossils, especially species like shellfish whose fossils are much more likely to be preserved. These other fossils clearly show evolution from simpler life forms to more complex.
After all, mankind is only one small piece of the evolutionary puzzle.
The Skeptic
We must not ease up on the pressure being applied to the UCG Cult. Their views are unscientific and at least 200 years out of date.
Daily, more and more poor fearful followers of these millionaire cultmasters are taking the brave walk to freedom. The key is access to information - as close as their computers these days.
And just one more thought before I bow out of this repetitive, tail-chasing discussion wherein medieval authorities, blind faith, dogmatic assertions and subjective beliefs are apparently equated the same philosophical weight as science, facts, evidence and logic.
I do not for one second subscribe to the post-modern, politically-correct view that obviously many do here, that “all arguments and opinions are equal, and therefore to be equally respected.”
This is a bunch of bunk – as anyone with only half a brain could perceive.
I’ve spent many hours of my life trying to intelligently discuss this crucial subject with those of fundamentalist orientations, and now I know from my own actual experience why men like Richard Dawkins simply refuse to publically debate this issue with representatives of the supernaturalist camp. It’s a total waste of time for the reasons the Apostate Paul spelled out in one of his blog comments:
“Because you don't care about evidence. You are an intellectual coward. You'll cower behind your misconceptions, straw-men, falsehoods and [creationist] talking points. Instead of actually researching evolution and criticizing the actual evidence, you'll just let the equally intellectual lazy [creationist] websites do it for you. Why? Because you know evolution is a lie. All this is just a formality. A semblance of truth-seeking. You are judge on a kangaroo court- the verdict is set, evidence be dammed. And how do you know evolution is a lie? Because a book said so - a book with talking animals.”
To which I can only respond with a hearty "AMEN!"
A person’s arguments can only be as good as the well of knowledge they are ultimately founded upon. And the deeper your well of knowledge is, the more you will have to draw from in discussion. And when you think about it this is nothing more than plain common sense.
But it’s far from the common practice of the creationists—for they are constantly falling prey to that negative drive of human nature: the desire to get something for nothing. Their hatred of mental effort is plain when they try to evade the labor required in the procurement of true knowledge. They appeal to faith in revelatory religion instead, which is little more than a cheap substitute for real knowledge, an attempted shortcut to knowledge, which as philosopher Ayn Rand reminded us time and again, only ends up short-circuiting the mind of man. As immediate evidence of this fact, just observe the various comments put forth by those commenters attempting to argue against evolutionary theory just here in this one blog topic.
This is an important issue of extremely serious import, so I encourage those who are willing to gain clarity to take the time to go back and re-read, from the beginning, all the comments made the past several days since Gavin posted this topic on UCG’s new anti-evolution booklet. Then judge for yourself where the real weight and seriousness of discussion lay—with those defending the findings of science, or with those fighting against such remarkable discoveries based on religious grounds. Who articulately argues primarily with facts, evidence and fairly consistent logic—and who avoids such concepts altogether by merely asserting subjective beliefs and opinions based on underlying and unprovable religious ideologies?
I rest my case, and will see you all in the next topic.
Wow, 98 replies to this topic, it must hit alot of people in their emotional pockets! Funny how man absolutely MUST know everything, even the biggest mystery of all time. What do we win if our opinion is actually right? Is there an answer? Does it matter? Methinks winter is coming, and a good debate always warms the blood.
Leonardo:
I enjoy your comments and agree with many of them. Your postings are pretty prolific, and that can be a bit overwhelming. (Of the last twenty five comments submitted, ten have been yours.) Tom only contributes once in a while these days, so I cut him a bit more slack. But still, nobody but nobody has had more comments rejected here than Tom.
The creationists here can poke fun at evolution all they want but that still won't make the Bible true. It only shows that the creationists choose to ignore the facts.
Books on evolution can be quote mined and evolutionists can be misquoted but it still won't make the Bible true. It only makes the creationists dishonest.
It's a sad thing when so many people find that a rib woman made from a clay man gets convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a tree that gives instant knowledge is more reasonable than actual history.
The willingness to believe that mankind was created just a couple of generations before the late bronze age (Gen. 4:22) while the first generation is still alive, is truly amazing.
It is laughable when a peer reviewed scientific book is unbelievable but a book written by a poorly educated creationist with little or no knowledge of biological evolution is considered to be gospel truth.
It is scary, if not downright horrifying, that creationists want to force this nonsense on our children in schools.
Is unbelief in unbelievable things a sin? No, says the creationist, but lack of faith is a sin.
What's the difference? I don't see any, because "lack of faith" is the same thing as "unbelief in unbelievable things".
I confess that I have a lot of unbelief in unbelievable things and I don't intend to start believing in nonsense just because it isn't popular to not believe things that have no evidence.
Just because a bunch of goat herder priests in a tiny, dried up, worthless country made a lot of assertions about a god 2600 years ago does not make their Bible true.
"I think it is also likely that in the few short years of the existence of this blog you have posted with emphasis, certain theories on various facets of evolutionary science, as fact, that have since been falsified."
No. Not that I am aware of. I always try to make a distinction between what is "fact" and what is not. For example, it is a fact that evolution occurred. It is not a fact, as theorized, that abiogenesis occurred.
"For me; I do not have the education or resources to find the answers of the universe so I will hold off on committment to individual unknown facets of science as well as history (My favorite area of study) until they are known to be fact and not simply theories accepted as fact."
No one has the education or the resources to find the "answers of the universe." But everyone has the capability to weigh the incoming evidence, piecemeal, in those "unknown facets." As time goes by, more and more evidence is added. One day, the unknown may become a "fact," but more than not, it will remain a well supported theory. (By the way, my use of fact and theory aren't really correct). Many areas of science consist of the latter. Are they "real?" Sure. But do we have an "A to Z" picture? No, of course not. And we may never. For example, I research gene regulation of a specific promoter element. I try to find how this promoter is regulated by proteins. We only have a few pieces of the puzzle. Does this mean that this promoter isn't regulated by proteins? Should I just throw my hands up and wait until the picture is complete? Declare gene regulation as a myth until others prove it a "fact?"
"I am not an anti-science idiot so don't treat me like an idiot in your posts"
I don't think you are an anti-science idiot, and my questions weren't forwarded to make you feel like an idiot- just to get you to think about your standard of acceptance. By your standard, you really shouldn't accept many areas of science at all, because we don't have this "A to Z" picture.
Have you read Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters?"
The Apostate Paul
"Funny how man absolutely MUST know everything, even the biggest mystery of all time. What do we win if our opinion is actually right? Is there an answer? Does it matter? "
*Slaps forehead* You're right! Shucks, I never thought about science that way. More of man's arrogance, huh? Well, that's it for me. I'm dropping out of my grad program and headed home to pick my navel.
Hear ye Hear ye!
All scientists! Go home! Put down those cancer cells! Put down those vaccines! Away with your synthetic organs and drugs! Engineers, do we really need...well, what ever it is you engineers do? Computer programmers...get a life! Do we really have to know everything? Will it make our lives any better? Of course not!
Thanks for your insight, Anon!
The APostate Paul
Corky posted:"It's a sad thing when so many people find that a rib woman made from a clay man gets convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a tree that gives instant knowledge is more reasonable than actual history."
This was funny but also sad and true.
To the atheists here: I briefly entertained the idea that this blog was a place where the correct interpretation of God’s word could be discussed, hopefully without rancor, by people with a common background and innate understanding of how we have all been manipulated in the past. If that were the case, then the particular discussion in question here would centre on whether the Creation account should be taken literally or not and if so, why, and if not, why not.
Increasingly however those who actually believe in God at all, and that he has a “Word” at all, find that their intelligence is questioned on those factors alone, not merely on their interpretation of the word. In such an environment any debate on evolution “versus” creation is fruitless because the victory sought by the atheist is not to persuade the believer to accept evolution but rather to undermine faith altogether.
Leonardo said...
“This is an important issue of extremely serious import, so I encourage those who are willing to gain clarity to take the time to go back and re-read, from the beginning, all the comments made the past several days since Gavin posted this topic…..Then judge for yourself where the real weight and seriousness of discussion lay—with those defending the findings of science, or with those fighting against such remarkable discoveries based on religious grounds. Who articulately argues primarily with facts, evidence and fairly consistent logic—and who avoids such concepts altogether by merely asserting subjective beliefs and opinions based on underlying and unprovable religious ideologies?”
I agree Leonardo – I hope people will do just that.
I note too that, to date, Leonardo has posted 34 times in the 120 postings, over 25% of the postings, (a somewhat higher percentage if you were to do a word count the postings). I have posted 9 times.
In none of my 9 postings have I called on ‘unprovable religious ideologies’, because that was not the subject under discussion. Neither have I implied any mental retardation on anyone else’s part - but my honesty, integrity and mentality were called to question several times by more than one correspondent.
The sole point I am trying to get across is that while many on this board are claiming evolution is completely proved, the reality is that there is quite some room for doubt.
I am asking people not to just believe the claims of these commentators, but to check up on things themselves. Creation may be a faith, but also be aware of the many cracks in evolution.
To read widely, and to also remember that if evolution is the ‘status quo’, then any of the professionals in the relevant scientific fields, while they can maybe dispute the detail quite freely, if they dispute the whole basis of the idea of evolution, then they kiss goodbye to any hopes of reaching the heights in their profession, and also risk that their funding will dry up.
In this respect, the professionals in that area of life are no different to the professionals in other areas of life (and I certainly include religion in this statement). In general people do not want to talk themselves out of a job.
"If you can briefly enlighten me on what Herman Hoeh did say in this area, I would be interested, after all these years."
Hi, Quest, no offense taken I hope. I also hope that none was given: If I came across somewhat smart-alecky, please know that wasn't my intent.
Digging up exact quotes and articles with Hoeh's contentions would require research and investigation on my part as well. Briefly, what I can recall, is that pre-Adamic man was either God's experimental laboratory, or Satan trying to reverse-engineer the fully-created human. IIRC, Hoeh's stance swung between the two, in the course of any given sermon.
From what I recall, the church did seem to swing between two poles; preaching ID and created evolution in some areas, and Young Earth nonsense in others. (I'm particularly put in mind of some of Keith Stump's articles, which were publicly reviled from the pulpit, in my congregation.)
Needless to say, my interest in nature and science, predisposed me towards choosing "God of the Gaps" in my belief. Ultimately, "God of the Gaps" is what saw me through the other side, and into rationalism.
I know you have personally been reflecting upon your own faith over the past couple of years, on these blogs, and I wish you the best, and encourage you to keep investigating everything that inspires you to study and use your (although we can peaceably disagree on this term I trust)"god-given" intelligence.
If I come across those Hoeh cites, I will let you know, but it will likely be when this discussion comes round again next year on AW! :-)
Leonardo,
You missed my sarcasm.
Actually, I'm pretty much on your side in a lot of ways.
Thanks for your response, Gavin - it put things into perspective for me. You're right, of the 120 current posts, 34 of them are from me!
For all the talk here the fact remains that although the moon is only one fourth the size of the earth...it is a lot further away.....
:)
I don't believe in the theory of relativity. What did Einstein know? We need to be very careful. Many years of careful research and peer review by highly intelligent experts does not necessarily mean they know anything. We must not jump to conclusions.
SmilingJackSprat wrote:
"The Sages say God used Hebrew to create the universe."
ROTFL!!! That is indeed a small toolbox!
Well I guess that leaves out the Aramaic Jesus spoke.
Does God dislike vowels?
Leonardo, I've decided to immerse myself in Torah for the rest of my life, because it has already revealed enough of its wonders to convince me of its awesome genius. I can't imagine anyone developing a similar opinion without becoming similarly involved.
I can't convince you of anything -- but men I've quoted over the last year or two knew the Hebrew Torah by heart before reaching double digit age. Some knew the Talmud and the Torah before their 20s, also by heart. These were men of towering intellect, whose learning was universally acknowledged in several other disciplines as well.
Some of them wrote, before the 1300s, of the immense age of the universe, that man had been fully developed long before Adam and Eve were imbued with souls. These Torah scholars described the Big Bang in detail centuries before NASA was able to describe it on scientific evidence.
Aryeh Kaplan's commentary on the centuries old Sepher Yetsirah, shows how kabbalists had calculated the age of the universe and the nature of God's only periodic involvement in Creation's gradual and natural development. Their calculations neatly parallel those of science.
All of this material was in print centuries before Darwin's observations -- but there is neither time nor space to adequately argue these things here. If anyone is interested, they may study Aryeh Kaplan, Gerald Schroeder, the Ramban and others like them. Yet the atmosphere here more than occasionally tends to lean toward hostility, possibly founded on heretical religious experience, toward God, godliness and scientific evidence of both. And there is always that gigantic bugaboo of accountability hovering behind acceptance of Creation (which has little congruence with Creationism). Heresy can do that to you. Who wants to answer to a nasty deity?
Yet if we are created -- and loved -- by a generous and wise Creator (I mean wise far beyond trite interpretations of Scripture) then chances are that accountability might actually be a good thing, and knowledge of God an immense boon to our most cherished dreams.
Bear_Track wrote of the method that GTA used to communicate, and mentioned the "needless sarcasm, personal attack and hyperbole" that he used.
I couldn't agree more.
I have(and I believe for good reason)a distaste for Ted's approach and messages. When I hear audio of him speaking, and to a slightly lesser extent in his written word, his juvenile approach to meaty subjects raises red flags very often.
Perhaps he never grew beyond an adolescent mentality of trying to have his father clap for him.
Paul,
I have not yet read Prothero's book. It will go in my Amazon wish list today though.
Further note on your response to my last post. No, I don't think you should throw your hands up and wait. It is through research and experimentation that learning takes place and knowledge is generated. I have no problems with theories or hypotheses, just as long as that is what they are referred to as. Consensus does not a fact make.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Questeruk sez:
"I am asking people not to just believe the claims of these commentators, but to check up on things themselves."
Oh so do I! Several times I have listed several easy to understand books laying out the evidence for evolution, and encouraged all to read them (including you):
Donald Prothero's "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters"
Jerry Coyne's "Why Evolution is True"
Richard Dawkins's "The Greatest Show On Earth"
As HWA might have said in an alternate universe, "Don't believe me, believe the evidence!"
"Creation may be a faith, but also be aware of the many cracks in evolution. "
What cracks? So far your "cracks" have been refuted- a mischaracterization of what evolution really is lumped together with a quote taken entirely out of context. Though it really isn't your fault. You didn't actually cobble this together, some other Kreationist did the "work" for you. Care to comment? Pathetic.
And if there are cracks in evolution, what are the implications? Does this mean that evolution did not occur? Absolutely not. That evolution occurred is a fact, supported by an amount of evidence grown so large as to be indisputable, evidence that comes from several different areas of science, molecular biology, geology, paleontology, ect.
Do we know all the details? Do we have a fossil for every creature that lived? Do we have an "A to Z" picture? No, we don't. And that is what science does, to continue to fill in the puzzle (in this case a puzzle in which we clearly see the picture but are missing random pieces) as it does in other areas- physics, molecuar biology, ect.
"To read widely..."
I wish you would take your own advice.
"...and to also remember that if evolution is the ‘status quo’, then any of the professionals in the relevant scientific fields, while they can maybe dispute the detail quite freely, if they dispute the whole basis of the idea of evolution, then they kiss goodbye to any hopes of reaching the heights in their profession, and also risk that their funding will dry up."
This is the second time that I can remember that you have resorted to the "science conspiracy," and it's very sad. As a scientist funded by the NIH, and who is involved in the grant writing process, I can tell you that your funding comes from your ability to present a hypothesis worthy of funding. You have to present preliminary data supporting your hypothesis, and you have to convince the reviewer that you have the tools and ability to test the hypothesis. It has nothing to do with your view on evolution. Of course, if you reject evolution you may have a slight problem with actually doing science. Especially when it comes to the biological sciences.
You may not kiss your job goodbye, and you may reach the heights of your profession, but you will be considered a fruitcake- not necessarily because you reject evolution per se, but why you reject evolution, which is in my opinion is usually always a rejection on religious grounds.
When a spiritual/religious person says that they reject evolution because the evidence does not support the theory, they are lying. Maybe lying to themselves in some cases, but lying. They rejected evolution when they read the Bible.
The Apostate Paul
"I have(and I believe for good reason)a distaste for Ted's approach and messages."
For all the money he sucked out of me, I liked listening to him. He was an entertainer, first and foremost.
The Apostate Paul
kiwi @ 9:15 mentioned "the correct interpretation of God’s word."
It has bothered me for a long time, the constant need for scriptural interpretation.
If god is really all-powerful, and sincerely wants us to understand his message, he should have been able to compose text that was free of ambiguity and to create beings who could all understand it without disagreeing.
Instead, scripture is enigmatic, and we humans argue about it endlessly. On top of that, as a species we archive not one, but many scriptures, and we argue about which one is the correct one to argue about.
I have been vastly entertained, lurking on this thread. Makes me think if there is a supreme being, it may be just messing with us for the sake of entertainment, the way I tease my cat with a tuft of rags dangled on a string.
Jethro said:
"I don't believe in the theory of relativity. What did Einstein know? We need to be very careful. Many years of careful research and peer review by highly intelligent experts does not necessarily mean they know anything. We must not jump to conclusions."
Right on, Jethro! We should review the evidence ourselves and draw our own conclusions!
The Skeptic
LOL
Jethro said...
I don't believe in the theory of relativity. What did Einstein know? We need to be very careful. Many years of careful research and peer review by highly intelligent experts does not necessarily mean they know anything. We must not jump to conclusions.
As (well known Athiest) Isaac Asamov once said, "Suppose that we are wise enough to learn and know - and yet not wise enough to control our learning and knowledge, so that we use it to destroy ourselves? Even if that is so, knowledge remains better than ignorance."
In a letter written in 1822 American President James Madison said:
”Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
If the creationists who blog here had their way, we would all still be subsisting at the level of Medieval Europe, or that of many Islamic nations today - enraptured with God, angels and the spiritual, yet broken by poverty, sickness, superstition and rank ignorance.
The Apostate Paul said….
“When a spiritual/religious person says that they reject evolution because the evidence does not support the theory, they are lying. Maybe lying to themselves in some cases, but lying.”
I thought this thread was about finishing, but really Paul, do you really think evolution is that watertight? Do you even think it’s just an either/or case of evolution or creation.
There are bodies of atheist/agnostics around who subscribe to alternatives to evolution, alternatives that don’t include a ‘higher power’, for the simple reason that they can see many flaws in evolution. That while evolution may seem attractive, in reality it is not viable.
I find that quite interesting, also the fact that they too often have taken quite a bit of flack for speaking out against the ‘holy grail’ of evolution.
Content Former Member said...
Leonardo, I've decided to immerse myself in Torah for the rest of my life, because it has already revealed enough of its wonders to convince me of its awesome genius. I can't imagine anyone developing a similar opinion without becoming similarly involved.
I'd say you have a vested interest in all the time you spent.
....These were men of towering intellect, whose learning was universally acknowledged in several other disciplines as well.
Some of them wrote, before the 1300s, of the immense age of the universe, that man had been fully developed long before Adam and Eve were imbued with souls. These Torah scholars described the Big Bang in detail centuries before NASA was able to describe it on scientific evidence.
Many ancient people's had some amazing knowledge. It doesn't make the Jews any more or less special to God.
Aryeh Kaplan's commentary on the centuries old Sepher Yetsirah, shows how kabbalists had calculated the age of the universe and the nature of God's only periodic involvement in Creation's gradual and natural development. Their calculations neatly parallel those of science.
If you can make heads or tails of the kabballah your a better man than me. And people say Trinity is mind numbingly confusing!
I have a sense that all humans are in touch with the "universal mind" (I think its shared in humanity - and perhaps all sentient life).
Many people come to amazing insights quite apart from their avocations. Inventors often simultaneously invent. Scientists often discover things at the same time. Programmers invent algorithms separately without having seen others algorithms, and then get sued for patent infringements or copyright violations. Reality is doesn't quite work as we think it does.
But in all these situations I would not attribute their discoveries to their religious leanings nor their choices in literature. It just happens.
To Kiwi-
I can't help your assumptions. And, yes, I would that all would give up faith. I did and I am a helluva lot more mentally healthier for that choice.
To Content Former Member-
All those wise men you've read and you still cannot tell me what your "God" is.
Jethro said that "I don't believe in the theory of relativity. What did Einstein know? We need to be very careful. Many years of careful research and peer review by highly intelligent experts does not necessarily mean they know anything. We must not jump to conclusions."
Have you ever considered that the exact same things can be said of religion? Centuries of faith and belief in arbitrarily “revealed truths” by trained priests, preachers and ministers doesn’t mean that they know anything either.
The difference is that scientists have many tangible results that more than justify their claims. Religionists have very few, and the vast majority of them not worth bragging about. So tell the creationists to stop jumping to conclusions about their unproven claims.
The flattest pancake in the world still has two sides – as does the application of your statement.
#140! Is this a record or what?!
Retired Prof,
God has hidden the meaning of many things in the Bible. Most people can understand only the easy stuff. If you want to know the rest you have to go to Gerald Flurry or someone like that.
Jethro said...
#140! Is this a record or what?!
Retired Prof,
God has hidden the meaning of many things in the Bible. Most people can understand only the easy stuff. If you want to know the rest you have to go to Gerald Flurry or someone like that.
Oh, absolutely, I mean - who else would God communicate with but folks collecting tithes from their sheep?
How foolish would idolaters like Abraham be to think that God would even think to commune with them?
Oh yeah, I forgot, Abraham was a direct descendant of Shem (the good son of Noah). Kinship is everything, isn't it?
Oh yeah, I know, God is not a respecter of persons, so that had nothing to do with it, right?
So, why is apostolic succession so important?
It all boils down to one thing. If you believe that a rib woman made from a clay man was enticed by a talking snake to eat fruit from a tree that imparts instant knowledge, then you will believe any damn thing.
Bamboo Bends wrote, "I have a sense that all humans are in touch with the "universal mind" (I think its shared in humanity - and perhaps all sentient life)."
A remarkable insight.
Corky said...
“It all boils down to one thing. If you believe that a rib woman made from a clay man was enticed by a talking snake to eat fruit from a tree that imparts instant knowledge, then you will believe any damn thing.”
A woman made from a rib – a talking snake – Wow!!!
Have you heard the one about the one-celled creature that turned into a fish that turned into a reptile that turned into a mammal that turned into a person that talked?
But maybe that IS stretching credulity just a bit too far!
It's become very apparent from the blogs of the past few days (with only several refreshing exceptions), that the creationists once again have taken yet another trouncing, their arsenals intended to “make the world safe from evolution” have been depleted and now all that is left for them to do is their usual spewing forth of ridicule, sarcasm and childish comments not deserving of a reply.
When will you folks ever learn?
"Have you heard the one about the one-celled creature that turned into a fish that turned into a reptile that turned into a mammal that turned into a person that talked?"
Behold this comment, made by a guy who fights against evolution on the grounds of his faith in an ancient book that includes at least two accounts of talking animals!
This foolish drivel only serves to highlight Apostate Paul's and Leonardo's constant claims that these creationists don't actually attack the evolutionary theories of the scientists, but the straw man ones of their own devising instead.
I don’t know who this Questerik character is, but his ignorance of science is appalling, yet so characteristic of the creationists.
Why do educated and intelligent bloggers, as at least several of you are, even waste time with people like this? They're obviously not interested in the discovery of truth, they're main goal is just the propagation of their religious beliefs in the guise of science, and a very shabby guise at that.
"I thought this thread was about finishing, but really Paul, do you really think evolution is that watertight?"
Once again- for the believer, evidence is completely irrelevant. Evolution is a lie, and that's that. In pointing out the "cracks" and "problems" in evolution (though you have yet to describe what these problems are) you, like most Kreationists, give the impression that you are weighing the evidence and have found it wanting. This is a sham, for you have never looked at the evidence (outside of Kreationist literature). You reject evolution on religious grounds. How can you make such a completely uniformed decision?
Once again, that evolution occurred is a fact.
"Do you even think it’s just an either/or case of evolution or creation. "
If we had no evidence of evolution, then Kreationism would be one of the many alternatives I would have to consider. But since we have evidence that evolution occurred, Kreationism as an alternative becomes moot.
"There are bodies of atheist/agnostics around who subscribe to alternatives to evolution, alternatives that don’t include a ‘higher power’, "
Atheists? Like who? And what alternatives do they hold?
Agnostics? Sure. They believe in imaginary beings. They reject evolution for the same reason you do, but aren't so bold in giving a name to the Kreator.
The majority of these people reject evolution because they believe- in a "higher power" or in New Age philosophy or whatever- a belief that they have a vested interest in. Evolution refutes those beloved ideas and so evolution must go.
I have no doubt that there are some- a very small minority- who honestly reject evolution based purely on a rejection of the evidence. And for those I have the utmost respect for and would look forward to a discussion of the topic with them. But it would be very hard to find them, for most Kreationists/spiritualists would put themselves in the same category.
Also, I think that small minority simply do not understand how science works, or have not looked at all the evidence. But again, I admire them because they at least have tried to understand evolution- unlike the majority who reject it out of hand based on belief but saunter around pretending to have "researched" evolution and discovered that it was a big fat lie.
If you were to get a copy of Donald Prothero's "Evolution, What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters" from your bookstore or local library (because this book out of the others is exhaustive in showing the fossil record) and read the whole thing with an open mind (Prothero is a believer himself) then, and only then, would I take you seriously. Then you and I could have a healthy honest debate because you then you will (unlike the majority of your Kreationist brethren) understand what evolution is and have the evidence at your disposal to criticize.
"That while evolution may seem attractive, in reality it is not viable."
Attractive? That has nothing to do with. It happened, that is why it is accepted.
The Apostate Paul
(Who was only allowed into graduate school after he signed the Secret Evolution Loyalty Pledge.)
"A woman made from a rib – a talking snake – Wow!!!
Have you heard the one about the one-celled creature that turned into a fish that turned into a reptile that turned into a mammal that turned into a person that talked? "
The former is a fairy tale while the latter (evolution) happened- though not according to your mangled, bleeding description.
Why don't you read Prothero's book, Q???
The Apostate Paul
Questeruk said...
Have you heard the one about the one-celled creature that turned into a fish that turned into a reptile that turned into a mammal that turned into a person that talked?
You skipped a few thousand steps there, didn't you? So, no, I've never heard that one.
The question is, why do you insist in just making stuff up about evolution instead of finding out what evolution really says?
This is what goes on in the Kreationist mind when confronted by evolution:
Joe: Evolution is true.
Kreationist: Hmmm. Well, I know that isn't true. I know God created everything. But, I should try to refute this obvious lie like my pastor suggests. Let's see here...Google...."Evolution is a lie".... and there we go, several hits. Oh, here's a good website, "The Creation Science Foundation." Hmmm. Ah, there we are, "Ten Things to Ask an Evolutionist." Let's see, copy, and...cut and paste...voila! Let's see how they stand up to that.
"Joe, evolution is a lie. Why else did Shroederberger in his book "Evolution is Really, Really True," have this to say:
'I doubt whether the Hershelstein Theory of Genetic Clad-Drift can account for the variety of transitional forms'
See, Joe? An evolutionist admits it! Also, did you know that there are no real transition fossils? Ha! Looks like evolution is on the run!"
Joe: sigh Kreationist, do you even know what evolution is??
Kreationist: Yep, evolution is on the way out the door! This is too easy!
The APostate Paul
Paul said...
Why don't you read Prothero's book, Q???
For a very good reason, Paul. Fear. Q's afraid of the real truth, because I think Q is an honest enough person who would have to make a change if the truth about evolution became clear.
Of course, I could be wrong but I don't think so, because he does recognize the absurdity of the talking snake story - even if he won't admit it.
The chance that mankind evolved by a series of random reproductive processes is pretty remote.
That is my firm opinion, but I COULD NEVER CONVINCE the opposition.No sirree.Everyone has their own comfortable refuse heap on which they recline, and from which they will seldom rise.
The Greek "kosmos" tells it all.
There are physical laws out there that enable man to go to the moon and send rocketry far out into our solar system.And evolution does not satisfactorily explain this.
Yip, I'm one for creation.It is,after all, a system of belief and Paul,if you believe what he says,asserts that the visible and physical world around us demonstrates,dare I say it, the existence of a creative power we will call God,for the sake of this missive.
But every person to his/her own belief system.It is,after all, a free world.
Cheers,
Jorgheinz
Hi Paul,
Took a look at the reviews of Donald Prothero’s book ‘Evolution, What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters”.
It sounds quite interesting, although it seems he spends quite a large chunk of the book talking about the “ever-present danger posed by Intelligent Design advocates and other creationists.”
If that’s the case, hopefully the quality of his arguments will be somewhat higher than personal insults, which tended to be the main thrust of comments from the evolution side on this blog, for this topic.
However I hope for better things from Donald Prothero, and on your recommendation Paul, I have just ordered the book from Amazon – so it had better be good!
I don’t understand the apparent consensus here that someone who believes in creation would not want to read any books by evolutionists. That erroneous idea continually amazes me. The truth should be able to stand on its own feet – wherever that truth may lead.
Anyway we will see what we will see.
My comment on Athiest/Agnostics with other views against evolution. You could try www.panspermia.org. From an early age I read a lot of Fred Hoyle’s work – he was originally an advocate of the ’steady state’ universe, but this developed on.
Some of his work is quoted on this site. I find it interesting that serious doubts are cast on evolution, but the reasoning on this site is not because they are following a ‘holy book’, but they have serious misgivings on the viability of the concept.
They have some interesting points, but of course by suggesting life is all around in the universe, they also dodge a number of questions of origins as well. But it makes a change from evolution/creation squabbles.
Corky said...
‘Of course, I could be wrong but I don't think so, because he does recognize the absurdity of the talking snake story - even if he won't admit it.’
Just for the record Corky, maybe I would have a problem with talking animals in the Bible, except the two instances that the Bible mentions it is not talking about the animals themselves talking.
With Eve clearly this is Satan, either talking through the animal, or being manifested as an animal.
Balaam’s ass - again it is clear that this was not the ass itself speaking, but an angel speaking through it.
Of course this does require the belief of a different level of life, a different dimension if you like. So for you, Corky, that might seem as difficult to believe as an animal speaking.
AW Reader says, "All those wise men you've read and you still cannot tell me what your "God" is."
Can anyone?
He seems to keep Himself shrouded in mystery; yet one can learn some of what He does, and this gradually unveils Him in terms of Creation and our role in the process. He says, "I will be what I will be," and gives his name as YHVH. He describes Himself as merciful and compassionate, yet also just and righteous. He can be gentle or severe.
According to Jeremiah God describes Himself as Israel's husband, and Hosea has Him speaking in marital terms: "And I will betroth thee unto me forever ... and thou shalt know the LORD." There isn't even a hint of dictatorship in this relationship. Israel freely accepted the proposal.
Yet you're right. Who can say what God is? Exodus 34 preserves His self-description. To Elijah He was neither in earthquake nor fire, but He did manifest in a "still small voice." He describes Himself as a King and a Father. David saw Him as a Shepherd. At the Red Sea Moses and all Israel sang of Him as a Man of war. Angels sing of Him as holy, the LORD of armies.
I'm sure you know all this, but your assertion got me going, and now it's time to see if Gavin will add yet another post to the still growing mega-response.
"The chance that mankind evolved by a series of random reproductive processes is pretty remote."
What are "random reproductive processes?"
"That is my firm opinion, but I COULD NEVER CONVINCE the opposition."
That's because your opinion is an argument from personal incredulity. That's very weak, especially when laid next to the evidence for evolution. Here's a tip:
Research evolution. Look at all the evidence. You can do this by reading one of the user-friendly books that I have mentioned several times in this thread. A good one is Donald Prothero's "Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters." Then you will be in a position to explain why evolution didn't occur, by criticizing the evidence- instead of just stating that you find the notion improbable.
"No sirree.Everyone has their own comfortable refuse heap on which they recline, and from which they will seldom rise."
It's sad that many see scientific data as a refuse heap.
The Apostate Paul
"However I hope for better things from Donald Prothero, and on your recommendation Paul, I have just ordered the book from Amazon – so it had better be good!"
Who-hoo! thunderous applause
That's great, Q! I now have much more respect for you. I hope you enjoy the book, regardless of whether you accept evolution after reading it. A whole chapter explains what science is- what is a theory, what is a fact, how science works. The book covers how paleontology works- something I was ignorant of. And that is what makes this book so good- he goes through the fossil record.
Yes, he does talk about Kreationism- but this is why all of these books have been written lately. To present the evidence for the theory of evolution to the public in a concise, easy to read manner.
After reading this book through, if you remain a Kreationist, you'll be a minority in that you'll know what evolution really is, and the evidence that supports it. You'll be in a much better position to enter into informed debates.
Great news!
The Apostate Paul
Questeruk said...
With Eve clearly this is Satan, either talking through the animal, or being manifested as an animal.
It is not clearly Satan, because Satan is not mentioned and it is the snake that is punished by making him crawl on his belly and not the devil. It is actually an explanation of why a snake doesn't have legs.
Balaam’s ass - again it is clear that this was not the ass itself speaking, but an angel speaking through it.
Again, it is not clear. The text says that the Lord opened the donkey's mouth, not the angel speaking through the donkey. It was the donkey that could see the angel standing in the way, not Balaam. Further, Balaam didn't think that it was unusual for his donkey to talk and actually began a conversation with the animal.
"Balaam’s ass - again it is clear that this was not the ass itself speaking, but an angel speaking through it."
What's the diff?
Also:
I realize this topic has run its course, and I've made my comment, using sarcasm to make my point, and I've learned that doesn't work too well. So I want to offer my two cents, in plain language, because I can't leave it alone without doing so.
I'm not one of those denying evolution. But here's what I see, looking from earth's beginnings until now.
At this present time in our history, when we look back, we can truthfully say that, at some point in time, intelligence entered the picture. Because look at us, with our advances in science and technology, and our inquisitive nature as to our origins. We are creatures of intelligence. I don't think anyone would deny that.
And for me, when I step back and look at the big picture, this is what I see: That this existence that we live in, has somehow brought the ingredients together for the primordial soup, and from that, over time, has produced, or brought forth, intelligence; that is, us.
I don't think anyone would deny that either, because here we are.
I also think that it would be fair to say; That this existence that we live in, has a very amazing and peculiar nature to it, to have brought forth intelligent creatures like us, who have a desire to understand the truth and reality of the matter.
Am I saying that this existence is aware of what it's doing, from the beginning? Or that there is a Mind behind it? I can't say that I know.
On the other hand, I think it's a pretty neat trick for mindless, unconscious, and unaware matter, being driven by mindless, unconscious, and unaware forces, to have done all that has been done on this earth, including bringing us(intelligence) into existence with it.
I understand that the Bible is a lot of myth and speculation of men trying to explain how and why we are here, but there's a good deal of wisdom and truth in the Bible as well.
The apostle Paul said something interesting: "For in Him, we live, and move, and have our being". Wasn't he referring to this existence that we all live in, which has brought us forth?
Creationists say that the creation proves God's existence, and evolutionists say that we are not a creation, but the product of an evolution. And evolutionists(not all of them) also say, that shows there is no God.
I wouldn't be surprised, that as it turns out, like with so many things, the truth and reality of the matter will be somewhere in the middle.
To the Apostate Paul,
Even my great-great-grandfather,an ardent evolutionist and scientist,were he alive, could not convince me that his Darwinian leanings were correct.
(In fact,one of his own sons disagreed with him so much he emigrated to the Antipodean regions of the world as a Baptist preacher,to be far removed from his father's pontifications).
His(that is g-g-g'father) descendants include two "current" professors of theology who do not hold to his views,either.Neither do any of the other four doctorates in the family aspire to evolutionary concepts.And two of these doctorates are scientific,in the field of chemistry.
Both evolution and creationism are personal beliefs,as I have stated before.
I believe evolution is a crock, with nothing to support it but a lot of hot air and waffling text.
As I have stated before,quoting from Hamlet,there is more in heaven and earth than any of us has considered in our own personal philosophies.Herr Shakespeare knew something.
Thanks,for the tips though,as to choice of reading matter.I may follow up on this, though it will not change my stance.
I guess we must agree to disagree.
Cheers,
Jorgheinz
Paul says, "Research evolution. Look at all the evidence. You can do this by reading one of the user-friendly books that I have mentioned several times in this thread. A good one is Donald Prothero's "Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters." Then you will be in a position to explain why evolution didn't occur, by criticizing the evidence- instead of just stating that you find the notion improbable."
And what if the Creator imbued the singularity that became our universe, with wisdom and capacity to produce and develop life over billions of years?
Creationism is out of step with Science, and that is mainly the fault of Creationists. That much goes without saying. The fossil record lies under foot every day of our lives. But the true story of "Creation" is one of development over billions of earth years and involves the earth bringing forth, once it cools down enough to cradle it.
So other questions are appropriate too. What caused the Big Bang? Why did it lead to a universe made of atoms that behave predictably? Why is it beautiful? Isn't it a stretch to accept DNA as a normal consequence of a singularity's monstrous explosion around 14 billion years ago?
Why does Hebrew Genesis require Relativity to be understood? Why does Genesis Creation begin with the Big Bang? How does a primordial surge of light ultimately congeal into human beings with sentient intellect capable of love, hate, choice? If we choose to call these phenomena evolution or development, it should also be known that all of this was known or implied in Hebrew Genesis 3300 years before our modern scientific discoveries.
My point is that Science and Revelation (not the book of) both reflect the same series of historical events that led to you and me, today, typing on computer keyboards and sharing awesome observations across vast distances of space and time, all at the speed of light. Not Creationism but Creation, a lengthy process of slow development in which we ourselves are now sharing an ongoing creative responsibility with the Creator.
Personally, I fail to see a conflict.
OK, I know I said I was not going to comment anymore on this blog, but I must!
Questeruk wrote:
"on your recommendation Paul, I have just ordered the book from Amazon – so it had better be good!"
I am stunned, yet delighted to hear this, Quest! May I say that I am sincerely impressed - a creationist willing to actually read a book about evolution written by a practicing geologist from cover to cover!!
You might also find “Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul” by Dr. Kenneth Miller, a practicing mainstream (Catholic) Christian, helpful as well.
And the important thing is not that you end up agreeing "hook, line and sinker" with evolutionary theory, but that you begin to understand what is actually is, and isn’t, as understood by real scientists rather than mostly scientifically-illiterate fundamentalists like Hovind or Ham.
Also, I looked into Hoyle’s idea of panspermia, but to me it only moves the whole discussion a step back, “Where did the seeding alien civilizations come from?” being the foundational question.
Coco Joe wrote:
“I can't say that I know.”
So who does? I certainty don’t either, at least not with 100% philosophical certainty. But I DO think intellectually curious and open-minded folks who are willing to read widely are much closer to the answers than those who just accept the biblical account of creation on faith alone.
We are talking about the single most important subject our minds could ever attend to, what Bertrand Russell called “the inexhaustible mystery of existence.”
Coco Joe also wrote:
“I understand that the Bible is a lot of myth and speculation of men trying to explain how and why we are here, but there's a good deal of wisdom and truth in the Bible as well.”
I absolutely agree with you here as well, Joe. Just because I no longer view the Bible as “God’s inerrant Word of revealed knowledge” doesn’t mean I don’t respect the wisdom and insights it contains. Just like Shakespeare or other good literature that has stood the test of time. Of course the fundamentalists, with their unbalanced “all or nothing” mindset, just cannot understand this approach. But I’ve found it to be of great practical value, and it has brought an enormous amount of tranquility into my post-COG life.
Coco Joe further wrote:
“I wouldn't be surprised, that as it turns out, like with so many things, the truth and reality of the matter will be somewhere in the middle.”
Amen to that as well.
Joe, you make a great deal of sense. Please stick to the serious expression of your thoughts rather than sarcasm – it’s so much more enlightening to read and contemplate.
Jorgheinz wrote:
“Even my great-great-grandfather, an ardent evolutionist and scientist, were he alive, could not convince me that his Darwinian leanings were correct. (In fact, one of his own sons disagreed with him so much he emigrated to the Antipodean regions of the world as a Baptist preacher, to be far removed from his father's pontifications).”
When I had that conversation with Dr. William Provine that I relayed earlier in this blog, I asked him how he became interested in evolutionary science, and he told me that he came from a long line of Presbyterian ministers! Interesting how that tends to work out!
Jorgheinz also wrote:
“I may follow up on this, though it will not change my stance.”
But is this really being fair, Jorgheinz? Does it reflect an inquisitive mind truly open to objective truths of reality.
“He who answers a matter before he hears it, it is folly and shame to him.” Proverbs 18:13
“The heart of the prudent acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.” Proverbs 18:15
Jorgheinz further wrote:
“Both evolution and creationism are personal beliefs, as I have stated before. I believe evolution is a crock, with nothing to support it but a lot of hot air and waffling text.”
True to a certain extent, except that evolutionary theory is profoundly EVIDENCE-based, and creationism is FAITH-based. How can you fail to see this powerful distinction between the two?
And to say that nothing but “hot air and waffling” supports evolutionary science, well, this is just utter nonsense and rank ignorance on your part. You might as well proclaim that nothing but hot air and waffling supports heliocentrism.
Content Former Member wrote:
“And what if the Creator imbued the singularity that became our universe, with wisdom and capacity to produce and develop life over billions of years?”
I appreciate much of your comment, Content. However, your statement above just smuggles in “the Creator” without any substantial proof whatsoever.
Why can’t I smuggle into my comments my “rainbow-colored invisible talking unicorn” just as well – for your “Creator” has just as little evidence to substantiate his existence as my unicorn does.
Both must be taken on subjective faith.
Leonardo, why must subjective faith be so lightly esteemed? It obviously cannot be shared, or consistently duplicated in a lab, but there is an intuitive capacity in us that can acquire a subjective faith that, at least for me, rises to the level of evidence. I wish I could share it with you, but each of us is so completely unique, and who is to say one person's experience should work for another?
Are you sure you're as bone-deep certain of your “rainbow-colored invisible talking unicorn” as I am of the Rock of Israel?
Content Former Member, the imaginary self-delusion that is religious faith can work wonders. I don't deny this at all. It can allow people to endure through great trial. So it has a certain utility. This is often referred to as the argument from pragmatism.
However, what you refer to as the “intuitive capacity” is often wrong. As I mentioned to Dennis earlier in the week, my intuition unaided by the hard findings of science is that the earth is flat, and that it’s perfectly still. But we know these such “intuitions” are false.
And please remember that I had such faith for over 30 years. So it’s not like I’ve been an unbeliever since childhood with no Christian experience. I know, I know, I was never truly converted, was never really called by God, never had my mind open to the truth, never actually received the Holy Spirit, wasn’t a true Christian, etc.
All I can say is I lived the life sincerely and with all my heart for three decades – as virtually anybody who knew me well could testify to.
But let us not forget that the religious faith of which you speak comes in various flavors — and ancient Persians, Muslims and Hindus, for example, all can point to how their faith in Ahura Mazda, Allah or the many gods of Hinduism have helped them in life, gave them great victories, etc.
One of the most fascinating autobiographies I’ve ever read in my life was called “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” the Black Muslim civil rights leader who was killed in 1965. His rise from street con and drug pusher to respectable and articulate Black Muslim spokesman, a true story, is truly an inspiring one. His faith in Allah gave him the strength to get off drugs and completely turn his life around. This is a true story, and an uplifting one, but I would hardly consider this as irrefutable evidence that Allah the ancient moon god literally exists.
The same thing can be said of the Judeo/Christian God or any other deity man has invented in the subjective realm of his imagination. Self-delusion can cause people to do things they otherwise couldn’t do. The early Christians were exemplary role-models of determination under trial of torture and death, as documented in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, which was standard reading when I first came into the WCG. So are many Christians in modern times, for example, in China, where they are being terribly persecuted by the government. Or Africa.
I don’t ridicule people of supernatural belief when they quietly live out their faith in daily life. I honestly respect it, though I may not subscribe to it myself. But when they attempt to seriously argue that theirs is the one true faith, and everyone one else’s faith or belief system that is different from theirs is wrong and worthy of condemnation, and they can prove it scientifically (which some try to do, creation science, Intelligent Design, etc.) that’s where I draw the line and don’t hesitate to leap into action.
That’s why I have such respect for the practice and many of the teachings of Buddhism. I’ve known several Buddhist priests who I’ve had long spiritual conversations with regarding the deep metaphysical truths of existence, and they’ve never once self-righteously condemned me for my views. The same cannot be said of Christians or Muslims I’ve had basically the same conversations with. It’s simply in the very nature of monotheistic religions to condemn.
You said that religious faith “obviously cannot be shared” but I would disagree. That’s how the meme of faith spreads, it is shared, or mostly enforced on others, depending upon the cultural environment it is being spread within. Islamic faith pretty much depends on the threat of physical violence to enforce it where militant Islam is dominant. Christian faith was enforced legally, politically and physically during the Middle Ages and the times of the Inquisition. Christian faith is very much influenced by very powerful peer pressures within fundamentalism, the COG’s being no exception to this.
So really, Content, I can respect your faith as far as you hold it, try to live by it and claim that it helps you by providing utilitarian value in your life. And that’s fine. But don’t try to tell me you have hard, irrefutable evidence that it’s the one true faith (which I realize you aren't sayng, but many others of your fellow religionists do), such that everyone ought to adopt it as their own or be condemned to the fires of hell or the lake of fire or whatever.
That’s what I object to, and what many others find so offensive about fundamentalist faith.
Oh, and one more thing, Content, I find many religious believers to be extremely deceptive.
Do we need to mention Bob Thiel's obvious little games with respect to his academic credentials?
I think deception is so much a component of the fundamentalist lifestyle because it's so much part and parcel of their ideology of faith, which requires great self-deception. And if you're in the habit of deceiving yourself, then it's very easy to take it to the next step and deceive others. Perhaps folks don’t do this consciously, but I see it as simply a natural outgrowth of the religion.
Intellectual HONESTY is something I’ve discovered after leaving the COG’s, and it’s a trait of inestimable value which I greatly respect.
"Of course this does require the belief of a different level of life, a different dimension if you like."
On this we are absolutely agreed, Q; it is 100% an alternate reality that you are living in right now.
But then we've all, all of us here, lived in that same alternate reality. Some of us no longer do. That's not to say we're better than you, or that we are better than others still in the church; we are just in a different place.
Let's give Q and the other UCG members a break, guys (I need to do this myself); if he wants to swallow whole-cloth UCG's vaguely mainstream Creationist beliefs, as long as Questeruk isn't harming others, beating or starving his kids, preaching from a UCG pulpit, and he doesn't care how his money's being spent by the UCG Council of Elders (What a fancy retreat they held last year hmmm?), then really what's the point of all this back-and-forth arguing?
Quest, when (or if) you're ready to step into a different version of reality (I know it's scary, but we've all been through it), we'll be here for you. In a strange sort of way (whether it looks like it or not) we're here for you now.
Anybody here ever see the movie Pleasantville?
Content Former Member.
That is quite an appropriate name.
You are content in that you have no proof of any gods.
Then, secondly, you are content to quote from writings allegedly inspired by one of the unproved gods.
(Ever hear of circular reasoning?)
Thirdly, you are content to throw these arguments in the faces of some folks who have a respect for logical discussion.
Perhaps a little discontent with the standard theist stance might be in order.
PurpleHymnal wrote:
"Let's give Q and the other UCG members a break, guys (I need to do this myself); if he wants to swallow whole-cloth UCG's vaguely mainstream Creationist beliefs, as long as Questeruk isn't harming others, beating or starving his kids, preaching from a UCG pulpit, and he doesn't care how his money's being spent by the UCG Council of Elders (What a fancy retreat they held last year hmmm?), then really what's the point of all this back-and-forth arguing?"
Again, since so many bloggers here attempt humorous sarcasm, I’m not sure to take what you’ve said seriously, or not. But just to be on the safe side, I’m taking what you've written above at face value.
Perhaps I misunderstand your point, though I think I understand the overall spirit of what you're saying here, Purple. Questeruk has made the choice to buy into supernaturalistic religion. OK, fine. We can believe whatever we want to. We live in a free society.
However, Q (and many other fundamentalists who blog here on AW) also have the choice to keep such beliefs to themselves. But Q has chosen not to. Q made the decision to venture out onto the field of open discussion and debate by commenting on this blog site—ridiculing modern scientific theories and discoveries when he clearly didn’t even understand them, pushing for an ancient belief system that he has absolutely not one shred of empirical evidence to back it up with other than raw faith.
You ask: what is the point of all this back and forth arguing?
I answer: it’s about the crucial matter of TRUTH versus fiction; FACTUAL REALITY versus subjective feelings; RATIONALITY versus irrationality. SCIENCE versus pseudoscience; FREEDOM versus religious enslavement.
So stop giving Q and others intellectual breaks they don’t deserve. They’ve chosen to put their beliefs up for scrutiny by coming here and discussing them openly and publically. Many of the more politically active ones (far right evangelical Christians) have become extremely aggressive in asserting their nutty truth propositions (invisible gods, America was founded as a Christian nation myths, evolutionary understanding is “a theory in crisis” about ready to collapse, etc.) and thus have become an all too powerful a force in American politics.
And you ask that we continue this nonsense?
Well, the time of philosophical “free lunches” has come to an end—and many of them know it.
Too many people are all too sympathetic when it comes to the irrationality and arrogance of supernaturalistic faith. For the plain fact is that fundamentalists DON’T keep their loony beliefs to themselves and in so doing, they DO harm others.
They harm their children, because often times they are the unfortunate victims of the lies their parents believe to be true. A plague upon the ignorance which keeps such youth from the factual truths they deserve and desperately need as they grow up to become tomorrow’s leaders as we head into the 21st century.
They are threatening to disrupt true science education in this nation by constantly appealing to public sympathy, mass media, and the court systems (where thankfully they’ve lost many times) rather than appealing to the court of demonstrable facts.
They try to insert their completely unsubstantiated views into the public school systems, as if creation “science” and the real enterprise of evidence-based hard sciences were equally valid systems of knowledge. Well, anyone with an IQ no higher than room temperature can see that they aren’t. The practical results prove this beyond all question.
The list could go on and on, but I think you get my point.
And you, PurpleHymnal, would give the purveyors of such misinformation a break?
Please do let me know if I’ve completely missed your point, and we can clarify the issue, because I must admit, it seems rather uncharacteristic of you to try to defend the gurus of faith.
Leonardo, my statements in support of intuition were culled, abstracted, from a larger concept of intellectual honesty. I meant to emphasize intuition, not to isolate it as a complete formula. It is often the first part of a quest for knowledge. I'll quote an interview with Albert Einstein, one of the most famous intuitive geniuses, to illustrate. I think you'll agree.
Alisa Voll: "Isn't truth inherent in man?" I interjected. "You once told me that progress is made only by intuition, and not by the accumulation of knowledge."
"It's not as simple as that," replied Einstein. "Knowledge is necessary, too. An intuitive child couldn't accomplish anything without some knowledge. There will come a point in everyone's life, however where only intuition can make the leap ahead, without ever knowing precisely how. One can never know why but one must accept intuition as a fact." (http://intuition-indepth.blogspot.com/2007/11/einsteins-intuition.html)
Mathematicians I've known, brilliant men, don't advance their discipline from cold hard numbers and symbols alone. Intuition often leads, not always but often. So I will continue to recommend the allowance of intuition in the quest for God and the metaphysical. It would make little sense to ignore it in matters of true intellectual honesty, but apart from knowledge, as you so clearly argued, it obviously is not enough.
Leonardo said...
“it’s about the crucial matter of TRUTH versus fiction; FACTUAL REALITY versus subjective feelings; RATIONALITY versus irrationality. SCIENCE versus pseudoscience; FREEDOM versus religious enslavement.”
Seeing I was the one being discussed, I’ll stick my two pence (or two cents) worth in.
Leonardo, you do seem to be taking a completely rigid view of things. ‘Facts are facts’, and you seem to feel that there can only be one way to look at facts (your way).
Yet this isn’t reality. Even the simplest event in life, if you have several people that were there, and you ask them later what happened, then you will get several versions about the exact details.
Read several different newspapers reports on a specific event, and the details all differ.
It’s not just memories of events. Evidence on factual things can often have many interpretations. We wouldn’t have so many long drawn out trials if facts and evidence was completely cut and dried.
There is plenty of material from the earth’s past. It’s the interpretation of that material that leads to differing ideas of what the evidence represents.
Even with the best of intentions, different experts will have different views of the same evidence. It’s rarely a case that the evidence can only be interpreted one way.
A recent example. In May this year, a primate ‘Ida’ was unveiled to the world. In the UK, with great publicity, a documentary was brought out, narrated by no less a person than Sir David Attenborough, who, in the UK at least, has probably even greater status that Dawkins.
This was presented as ‘one of the most important fossil finds in history, a missing link that would challenge everything we knew about human evolution’. Fine – together with millions of other people, I watched the documentary.
Just last Thursday, five months after the documentary and the other hype, the papers now announce that actually the fossil was no way an ancestor of mankind, instead it belonged to an extinct group of mammals, closely related to lemurs.
The evidence last May and on Thursday was the same – what had changed was the opinion on the evidence.
This is so often the case in life, even with ‘hard evidence’.
So very often it is not a case of ‘TRUTH versus fiction; FACTUAL REALITY versus subjective feelings; SCIENCE versus pseudoscience’ etc, but rather one ‘experts’ opinion verses another ‘experts’ opinion, and sometimes, more simply, just a change of mind.
"176 comments"
Think we'll crack 200 before it falls off the front page?
"Again, since so many bloggers here attempt humorous sarcasm, I’m not sure to take what you’ve said seriously, or not. But just to be on the safe side, I’m taking what you've written above at face value."
WOW your worldview is jaded and warped, Leo. I was being serious. If you couldn't tell that, or somehow thought I was being sarcastic, you really really need to take a step back and re-evaluate how you look at people, IMO.
The cynicism, and callous nihilism of fundie atheism is what always turned me off. You don't believe in the FSM? Good for you! Don't poke sticks at those who do (bless His Noodly Appendages), unless and until they are directly harming either themselves or others with their beliefs.
That's it, this thread just reached the limit, for me. I'm out.
Content former member wrote:
"So I will continue to recommend the allowance of intuition in the quest for God and the metaphysical. It would make little sense to ignore it in matters of true intellectual honesty, but apart from knowledge, as you so clearly argued, it obviously is not enough."
OK, that's fine, now that you've explained it a bit more. I get so much more clarity when bloggers write with a degree of comprehensible specificity instead of quick little comments that just can’t convey much real understand.
But this kind of intuition is based upon some actual knowledge. My concern is when folks try to equate subjective feeling with objective knowledge. I don’t deny that intuitive feelings can sometimes lead to knowledge, but they can also lead one astray more often than not (like many New Age adherents, for instance) especially when operating under ideological blindness. Much study has been done in this area, and this kind of useful intuition is a form of subconscious reasoning going on based upon much past knowledge and research stored in the mind.
Einstein himself talked about the importance of imagination as well, but imagination that eventually leads to objective, testable, empirical knowledge that is of practical application in the real world.
This entire subject — various subdivisions of epistemology — is probably THE most important single subject for human minds to study, for it’s the foundation of every other pursuit.
Questeruk wrote:
“Leonardo, you do seem to be taking a completely rigid view of things.”
You essentially hold a fundamentalist view of origins, and you are accusing ME of taking a “rigid view of things.” Think about this one, Quest.
Q also wrote:
"Evidence on factual things can often have many interpretations. We wouldn’t have so many long drawn out trials if facts and evidence was completely cut and dried."
Yes, I very much agree. But my view is not as simplistic as you present it as being. That’s where the scientific method comes into play: experimental replication, peer-reviewed journalism, provisional conclusions always open to either further support or total rejection in the light of future evidence, etc. One scientist can indeed be way off the mark, and is eventually corrected by the work of many other minds investigating the same claims and theories.
I don’t at all mean to imply that just because I see something one way, and you see it another, means that by default I always am the one with the correct interpretation. I’ve never said that, but that seems to be your spin on my view.
In the legal field, for instance, eyewitness testimony is well-known to be among the most flimsiest and unreliable forms of evidence. The JFK assassination (a historical event I’ve studied in some detail because it can teach us so many vital epistemological lessons we can apply to other real-life pursuits) highlights this truism quite well. That’s why so many other technologically sophisticated techniques have had to have been devised, fingerprinting, DNA testing, etc. (I might add, by the way, eyewitness testimony is virtually the only evidence the gospels present, for example, that Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead and ascended up to heaven. And eyewitness testimony of folks raised in an extremely gullible, supernaturalist-oriented culture at that.)
Q further said:
“There is plenty of material from the earth’s past. It’s the interpretation of that material that leads to differing ideas of what the evidence represents. Even with the best of intentions, different experts will have different views of the same evidence. It’s rarely a case that the evidence can only be interpreted one way.”
I agree with everything you’ve said above, Q.
But don’t forget the vital element of the passage of time here. Relatively new theories and forms of knowledge must pass through extremely rigorous testing and be subject to many attempts at deconstruction. Some theoretical claims (cold fusion, for example) just can’t stand up to such testing, and fall by the wayside.
Whereas heliocentrism, cell theory, germ theory, atomic theory — just to cite a few — have withstood much testing, and thus stand on much firmer ground.
Your basic comparison between legal evidence and scientific evidence is a false one, like comparing apples and oranges. Legal evidence used in trials in general is not subject to such lengthy testing (often over many decades, and in some cases centuries, 150 years for evolutionary theory, for example), except in relatively few cases, such as convicted felons being exonerated based on DNA evidence, etc.
Your example of Ida is an extremely poor one for the point you are trying to make, and only serves to verify what I’ve said above. Within five months, science corrected ITSELF.
And why? Because it’s evidence-based and therefore subject to rigorous self-correction — unlike the faith-based and ideologically-driven Catholic Church, which took many centuries before formally apologizing for the entire Galileo affair (geocentrism versus heliocentrism).
Quest, please, I beg you Sir, do more reading. You would not make many of the comments you do if you would just have a little bit larger base of general knowledge with which to work and argue with. I was greatly heartened by your stated willingness to read a book recommended by The Apostate Paul. But please read with a genuinely open mind, and not like Jorgheinz, who openly stated above that no matter what he reads, “it will not change my stance [in regard to evolution].”
I heartily encourage you to please keep up your reading program, but not with the narrow-minded and obviously self-defeating approach of Jorgheinz.
You might even include a book in your program called “50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God” by Guy Harrison. It’s a very believer-friendly yet extremely thought-provoking book, and I think would address many of the thoughts you seem to have.
Yes, we live in a free society, and you can believe whatever you want, but just because you believe something doesn’t make it true. We should want to believe what is actually, objectively and ultimately true, don’t you think? That’s why I read and reflect deeply, rather than just passively lean upon the slowly cracking reed of religious faith.
"The evidence last May and on Thursday was the same – what had changed was the opinion on the evidence."
An opinion held by the authors of the paper and the journalistic community. The conclusions of that paper, and the hullabaloo over the paper, were criticized by other scientists since it was released.
But what are the implications here?
That scientists take differing views of data? Sure. That happens in every area of science. I view my data differently than my boss (though his view usually turns out to be right). But this "opinion" usually revolves around the twigs, not the trunk of the tree. The controversy surrounding this fossil doesn't change the fact of human evolution or even cast doubt on it, though many Kreationists are saying "Aha! Science said this and now science is saying that and therefore this again disproves evolution!!!"
The Apostate Paul
The Apostate Paul wrote:
"An opinion held by the authors of the paper and the journalistic community. The conclusions of that paper, and the hullabaloo over the paper, were criticized by other scientists since it was released."
Absolutely right on, Paul.
Questeruk (and many others) fails to distinguish between what the actual scientists are saying as opposed to the media frenzy (exaggerated articles, documentary films aimed at the mass public, etc.) made in an attempt to sell their product and thus boost their ratings.
In fact, the book I previously recommended called "Voodoo Science" highlights this very mistake so commonly made in the world of pseudoscience.
For example, supporters of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement don’t do any of their own legitimate research in order to promote their claims. Instead, they make their appeal to public prejudices (which in America, is very oriented toward theism), mass media (with it’s tendency toward stories that will get people excited) and the public court systems.
This frequent yet misleading strategy has been the primary method used by IDer’s so they can thus avoid the rigorous scientific examination of their blatantly religious ideology. The outcome of the fairly recent court case in Dover, Pennsylvania was a superb textbook example of how this strategy impressively rises to the sky like fireworks, only to quickly burn out and wither away under serious cross-examination by professional scientists (many of whom were called to testify in that particular case).
The legitimate findings of real science go through, as a standard matter of course, the meticulously rigorous filters of replication, peer-review and often extremely brutal attempts at deconstruction. And this process can often last for years, decades, and in some cases, centuries in order for a scientific truth claim to be soundly established.
In contrast, pseudoscience (Creationism, ID, many forms of alternative medicine, etc.) evades all these filters in order to take their case DIRECTLY to the ratings-driven media and the often scientifically-illiterate public. And it works spectacularly well — at least for awhile, until the actual EVIDENCE is more thoroughly examined, and then such pseudoscience is seen for what it truly is: faith-based supernaturalistic religious ideologies wrapped up and disguised in the terminology of science.
Deception is very much part and parcel of this overall strategy aimed ultimately at getting people to accept the literal existence of the Judeo/Christian Deity and make their “decision for Christ.”
IDer's have made this very plain to one another - as such documents have accidently slipped out to the public.
Understand the difference between these two basic strategies of trying to make a case for whatever scientific claim one is trying to establish, and we then possess a virtually fool-proof way of very quickly discerning the difference between legitimate science and pseudoscience, between a claim likely to stand up under lengthy scrutiny, and one that will be abandoned because it was specious to begin with.
Leonardo, I'm not sure where you're coming from. What's this mean? "Deception is very much part and parcel of this overall strategy aimed ultimately at getting people to accept the literal existence of the Judeo/Christian Deity and make their “decision for Christ.”
"Getting people to accept literal existence of God" might be a futile quest with or without deception. The Bible doesn't waste time or words trying to do that, although its third word is elohim, God. No arguments about elohim's existence. But it's not just "take it or leave it" either.
The genius of the text itself should be evidence of something extraordinary behind it; that is, the unparalleled genius of Moses' texts, and to a lesser degree that of Joshua, whose military genius is still studied at West Point.
As for IDers moving anyone toward a decision for Christ, I find that condescending and bizarre. If the Bible does nothing to cajole, persuade or force God or Christ on people, why should anyone? But making information available to scrutiny should be praiseworthy, IMO.
ID, whose prescriptions one of my dearest friends highly esteems, would probably do best to make their findings available and leave it there. If they have something wonderful, its excellence should be self-evident to anyone in an honest search for God.
I am puzzled, however, by anyone so disgusted with the God concept that they treat with disdain or contempt those who are convinced, intelligently so, of a benign Deity. For example, I am reasonably intelligent, have looked into these things both intellectually and prayerfully, and have emerged with profound belief in a benign, caring, practical, unfathomably brilliant Creator in whom I trust -- but not as a Lacky for Christians. I don't expect him to make it stop raining for me when I can't find an umbrella.
I think those who haven't found similar evidence are denied an Object for their gratitude, which is a situation that I would find uncomfortable. On the other hand, it seems equally certain to me that if God felt it necessary for everyone to believe, or to make what you term a "decision for Christ," then He/She/It has failed miserably, and so has Intelligent Design.
For me, the Biblical psychology is best. The presentation is made and preserved on parchment or paper without apology; its readers or students can accept or reject, without fear, as they see fit. There is little evidence that God is on a search and destroy mission against unbelievers.
Content, I carefully read through your comment above, and to be quite honest, I'm still scratching my head trying to understand exactly what it is you are attempting to say.
You've made many assertions. OK, you have the perfect right to do that.
But the original topic of discussion was the recent UCG anti-evolution booklet, and the blog took off from there in terms of evidence for or against evolutionary theory, the scientific method contrasted with religious faith, etc. This happens because the general topic of origins is vitally important and of infinite interest – and not, as Bear_track asserted, a “dry and unresolvable (sic) topic.”
On balance, the True Believers were shown, as usual, to be quite ignorant of what scientists and evolutionary theory actually say. Instead they insist upon attacking their straw man characterization of evolution, which of course is absurd to the extreme, and totally based on nothing but pure ignorance, willing or not.
You've made your statement of faith – solely without any attempt at providing evidence. Your statement “For me, the Biblical psychology is best” perhaps most succinctly sums up your entire argument. But this is nothing more than a subjective assertion on your part.
I've attempted to touch upon the various forms of evidence both for and against evolutionary theory, and tried to demonstrate within the limited restraints of a blog site the later to be greatly wanting.
So, perhaps it’s best to leave it there. The blog record is available.
I could counter virtually everything you've written above, but of what ultimate benefit will it be? True Believers just cannot seem to break the habit of putting words in their opponent's mouths that they have never argued or implied.
Again, I encourage those so inclined to carefully re-read the entire blog from the beginning, as I have, and see what side the balancing scale of empirical evidence is clearly tipping toward.
And notice I said the “empirical EVIDENCE” – not mere blind FAITH or arbitrary religious ASSERTIONS.
The point, Leonardo, and please forgive my bluntness, is that the Divine inspiration of Genesis should be self-evident to anyone able and willing to probe its depths. I don't mean to offend, but not even God bothers to prove His existence. Genesis has always been open to scrutiny, and the more thorough the scrutiny, the more congruence with Science. The geologic and fossil evidence behind evolution is all presaged in Genesis -- but one cannot discover that with a casual read.
Learning of God is challenging for the best of us and requires study and application of all the intelligence one can muster; there's no other route. God is not less challenging than math or quantum physics. We're talking total effort here. You're not a person to be fobbed off by sweet talk about God. Nor am I.
You and I have both lived through the Armstrong experience, and have grown beyond it. To the careful observer, it should be clear that Armstrong did too, changing throughout his life.
Certain zealots could be a major obstacle to obtaining this knowledge, including Herbert Armstrong, what with their severely inept grasp of important Scriptural teachings. Dare I quote Solomon?
"If YOU call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if YOU look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then YOU will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God."
I'm sure you know that quote as well as I. It was penned two millennia before Herbert Armstrong was born. It works, but it's your your fight for understanding the true provenance of man that we're discussing. If you really care to uncover the scientific reality that lies hidden under the camoflage that translations inevitably bring to Hebrew Scriptures, then you have a lot of hard work ahead of you.
I speak from well into my seventh decade, and from fifty-two years of serious dedication to the teachings of Scripture. Only now am I beginning, just beginning, to grasp what these wonderful old books have had within them all these many long years. I wonder why it has taken so long.
Post a Comment