Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- Gary Hurd on March 14, 2005 01:39 PM
- David Heddle on March 14, 2005 01:28 PM
- Ron Zeno on March 14, 2005 12:02 PM
- Grey Wolf on March 14, 2005 10:45 AM
- Emanuele Oriano on March 14, 2005 09:42 AM
- Buridan on March 14, 2005 09:36 AM
- steve on March 14, 2005 09:28 AM
- steve on March 14, 2005 09:23 AM
- David Heddle on March 14, 2005 09:22 AM
- Buridan on March 14, 2005 09:15 AM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Dr.GH on March 12, 2005 12:25 AM
Mike Dunford’s post the other day reminded me of an event a few years ago.
I am married to a 4th grade teacher in southern California. Each year I do two days of “career day” for a total of around 600 kids from Kindergarden through 5th grade. I bring stone tools, and deer bones to pass around, and it is great fun.
I don’t teach archaeology to the kids- I talk about what archaeologists do for a living. Career day is supposed to show kids about different careers- thats why it is called Career Day. I also show them gadgets like a GPS, maps, etc… I also carry around a 500 page thick CRM report that nobody ever bothered to read.
This school might be exceptional, I don’t know. Most of the presenters hang out together in the teacher lounge between sessions (actually that is where we have to stay). While we are there, we get to compare notes and just talk to folks in jobs we rarely get to meet. I have chatted with rock band guitar players, federal judges, M.D.s, chemists, cops, television camermen and “performance” artists all at the same table in the teachers lounge of an elementry school. I look forward to it every year. (One teacher’s family adds a lot to the mix- he brings in three of his brothers, a judge, and an MD, and a producer, plus he leans on them for referrals).
Once a few years ago, this fellow was invited to also present. His name tag said, “Mike *****, Preacher.” I first noticed him because he wouldn’t return a smile. Then I read his name tag, and I thought maybe this isn’t the argument I need today.
He didn’t come to tell kids about being a preacher, he came to preach. And because he had seen my name tag, “Dr. Gary Hurd, Archaeologist,” Preacher Mike (*Made Up Name* if you are out there) determined that he had to preach the evils of Satanist archaeology and ‘evilution’. Several teachers became very concerned, and some students among those that had liked the bones I had showed them and so on, became actually worried that they would go to Hell.
The Assistant Principal came and asked me if I was teaching about the “age of the Earth” or “the origin of life.” I pointed out that neither of these were questions relevant to archaeology which was totally focused on humans and their nearest relations. Plus, Career Day is about telling kids about what your job is (mine was learning about cultures from their material remains and teaching). The AP next asked if I had heard of “Teaching the controversy.” I was now a bit PO’ed, and I said, “Well, I don’t know about “teaching the freaking controversy,” but I do know how to teach the freaking State of California Department of Education curriculum guidelines, and if you want to talk about that I will.” Now, bear in mind that I had met this guy (the AP) several times at career days, at retirement parties, and such. He was a nice guy, but I was totally ready to jump on him. I had carefully avoiding anything not in the state curriculum for those grade levels. (As I was also Education Director of a natural history museum with several thousand school visits per year, I was very dang expert on exactly what the state curriculum guidelines ‘required,’ err ‘suggested’).
I found out weeks later (when the AP and I were out fishing- plus the even more signifigant executive- the head custodian) that “Preacher Mike” had insisted that if the “Evilutionist archaeologist” had been allowed to “preach Satanism” (ie evilution, and ancient (>6k years) Earth) this nitwit’s ‘obligation’ was to try and save the souls of these poor, poor children. End the end, he was tossed off campus because he refused to agree to just talk about his job, and to stop trying to counter the “Satanist message” that existed only in his twisted imagination.
But, let’s consider that twisted imagination. Mike the Preacher believes in a conspiracy against God, inspired by Satan, that has control of the American schools. This Satanist conspiracy has as its agents all scientists and teachers who are actively trying to corrupt innocent children through public education. The fact that Preacher Mike was tossed out of Career Day only reinforced his paranoid delusion.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/866
Comment #19707
Posted by DonkeyKong on March 12, 2005 02:52 AM (e) (s)
Irony
I have never been rabidly anti-evolution until I was exposed to evolutionists like the ones on this site.
I have run into rabid evolutionists before and chalked it up to a bad apple. However I have found the general public online has a much larger percent of rabid anti-creationism than I would have thought possible.
I was raised in a very christian family, my father is a scientist(microbiology) and I have never been taught that anything in the bible requires God to have not acted via evolution over 4 billion years. I believe that my father believes in evolution. I myself find myself talking as though evolution is correct but only in the scientific sense.
But when evolutionists start talking as though religion is the source of all evil, populated by ignorant boobs, and basically not acceptable in modern society. Which is pretty much what your example is about, creationists are bad because I had a bad parent teacher conference day….
That makes me white hot, smoke out the ears mad……
When I see that evolutionists have basically put their eggs into the basket of trying to brainwash my 5 year old neices and SETI sponsered grade 3-9 teaching materials…Calling them names if they believe in God etc….
Why?
Because evolution can’t stand on its own? If it really was this juggernaught of science as you have deluded yoursleves into thinking then you could explain it to adult children like you do with all higher science, like quantom mechanics, electromagnatism, relativity, etc etc etc.
Why is a large part of the anti-creation mindset attacking the individuals that believe in 7 day creation? Do you feel better when you bully them with superior arguments than you do when I bully you with superior arguments?
Its ironic really we have all become the mirror image of what we oppose…..
Comment #19711
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on March 12, 2005 05:06 AM (e) (s)
But when evolutionists start talking as though religion is the source of all evil, populated by ignorant boobs, and basically not acceptable in modern society. Which is pretty much what your example is about, creationists are bad because I had a bad parent teacher conference day….
That makes me white hot, smoke out the ears mad……
When I see that evolutionists have basically put their eggs into the basket of trying to brainwash my 5 year old neices and SETI sponsered grade 3-9 teaching materials…Calling them names if they believe in God etc….
Why?
Eh? I didn’t see anything in Hurd’s tale that extrapolated from the bad behavior of one individual to all Christians. And I certainly don’t see anything supporting the notion of calling kids names for believing in God. I’d be all for disciplining any teacher who would do such a thing.
But I don’t have to invent hypothetical bad behavior on the part of antievolutionists in schools… there are all-too-real examples.
Still, there are many smaller conflicts that are beyond her reach, many of which involve individual students. In the spring, a seventh-grader in Edmond, Okla., was branded “Monkey Girl” by her classmates because she wanted to learn about evolution.
NCSE wrote a letter on the girl’s behalf, asking the principal and the teacher to respect her request and to curb the peer harassment, but to no avail. The family eventually moved to another school district.
Students who are part of a small group known as the “fundies” — fundamentalist Christians — call her a lesbian, he said.
“The bullying has escalated to the point of tripping,” the father said, adding that other methods of harassment include “shoulder slams,” planting tacks on chairs and writing with pens on victims’ bodies.
[…]
She said her daughter was singled out for harassment because she is tall and openly rejected Creationism.
The girl endured shoulder checks, tripping in the hall and other physical abuse, the mother said.
Some students called her “ugly” and said she was a lesbian.
I don’t have a problem with anyone who wants to believe in 6-day, young-earth creation.
I do have a problem if someone who believes in 6-day, young-earth creation wants to take up part of a science class to pretend that their belief has scientific legitimacy. That’s wrong, quite plainly and simply, and that’s something that I will oppose vigorously and in the conviction that I am doing the right thing.
And the pretense that bullying of the sorts reported above is being done to honor Christ should fill Christians with a sense of wrongness. I know that’s the case for me. The kids aren’t likely to be inventing this sort of bad behavior out of nothing. This sort of thing follows quite naturally on the heels of adult disrespect and intolerance for other views.
Comment #19719
Posted by Bill Ware on March 12, 2005 06:58 AM (e) (s)
DonkeyKong,
We show our love for God by increasing our knowledge of His creation through the study of science which includes biology and the theory of evolution. To deny the reality of what we discover about the world and the universe through science is to show disrespect for the very God Who brought these realities into existence.
Evil is the lack of the knowledge of God. We are all imperfect and fall far short of knowing God fully. Increasing our knowledge of God and His creation does Him great service. Promoting ignorance does just the opposite.
You can revel in the knowledge of God’s creation or wallow in the evil of ignorance as you wish. Just don’t complain about those of us who prefer the former to the latter.
Comment #19725
Posted by NelC on March 12, 2005 08:07 AM (e) (s)
DK, those accusations are completely without base. Scientists, including evolutionists, post interesting stuff from their work and life on this site, and then people like you with their axe ground on the wrong end attempt to derail any discussion about the posts with your bag of evil debate tricks.
The good folks here don’t like paranoids spouting their bile all over these threads, they don’t like being accused of being liars and conspirators, they don’t like wilful ignorance, they don’t like being accused of being the aggressors in this war of ideas — in short they don’t like you. Please go away.
Comment #19737
Posted by The Messenger on March 12, 2005 09:32 AM (e) (s)
[End the end, he was tossed off campus because he refused to agree to just talk about his job, and to stop trying to counter the “Satanist message” that existed only in his twisted imagination.] And once again the evil Christian is maligned without a voice. Too often on this web-site.
Comment #19738
Posted by Buridan on March 12, 2005 09:35 AM (e) (s)
I’m starting to change my mind on the whole school voucher thing. Instead of offering them across the board, however, they should be available only to those who have religious objections to public education and only “redeemable” at religious schools. That’s where the voucher movement began and why not give them what they want?
Ah, but that wouldn’t stop the religious nuts now would it. Their agenda has never been about what’s being taught to their kids and vouchers have never been about getting a better education. Here’s a quote from fundamentalist Robert Thoburn that says it all:
“Christians should run for the school board. This may sound like strange advice. After all, I have said that Christians should have nothing to do with the public schools. What I meant was that Christians should not allow their children to have anything to do with public schools. This does not mean that we should have nothing to do with them. As I have already said, we should have lots to do with them during school bond elections. Our goal is not to make the schools better…. The goal is to hamper them, so they cannot grow – grow in evil (drugs, promiscuity, abortion advice, etc.), grow in expense, and (if possible) grow in enrollment. Never lose sight of this long-range goal. Our goal as God fearing, uncompromised… Christians is to shut down the public schools, not in some revolutionary way, but step by step, school by school, district by district.”
Comment #19739
Posted by Buridan on March 12, 2005 09:48 AM (e) (s)
Hey Messenger, why the hell do you think “the Christian” is entitled to a voice on the Panda’s Thumb? The fact that you people are even tolerated here is a gift. The folks running this site are under no obligation to allow you a voice. Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised they tolerate as much as they do.
Can’t you get it through your thick scull that you’re a guest here! It’s like marching into to someone else’s home (uninvited) and bitching about their curtains. If you don’t like it just leave!
Comment #19741
Posted by Ed Darrell on March 12, 2005 11:00 AM (e) (s)
Gary,
It’s a sad story, really. Here you are doing a great job, giving kids good information and getting them excited about a great career spreading knowledge, and a guy who doesn’t know you, doesn’t know much about your job, but knows you’re a scientist assumes without justification that you’re teaching evil stuff.
And then, after that spectacular show of bias, DK makes the same assumptions!
DK: The issue is probably the most important one in this discussion about what should be taught to kids. It’s made more difficult because the issue is really about what people assume that isn’t true, and how they act on those self-made modern myths.
That’s where we need to fight the battle. My “evolution” news search today turned up a couple of letters in the Williamsport (PA) Sun-Gazette. The letter today was from a guy who argued that evolution is pure evil — he called evolution the “excuse” for Nazi atrocities, and even of genocides committed before Darwin was born. The author didn’t hesitate to call evolution a creation of Satan.
(See it here: http://www.sungazette.com/letters/letter_details.asp?letterID=3905&postdate=3/14/2005)
Cool reason won’t sway that man from his views — he didn’t get there through the door of education and reason.
DK, your father may be a rational Christian. Good on him for that. He’s in the majority among Christians. Thank God.
But the vocal minority of unreasoning and unreasoned creationists is very loud, very demanding, and they won’t stop at simple falsehoods to enforce their view that science is evil.
Are you Christian, DK? If so, do you not agree with me that, as Christians, we have a duty to stop such unreasoned, unrighteous actions by Christians?
Comment #19742
Posted by Cody on March 12, 2005 11:17 AM (e) (s)
Irony
I have never been rabidly anti-Christian until I was exposed to Christians like the ones on this site.
I have run into rabid evangelicals before and chalked it up to a bad apple. However I have found the general public online has a much larger percent of rabid anti-evolutionist and anti-science than I would have thought possible.
I was raised in a very Christian family, my father is a Christian and I have never been taught that anything in the Bible requires God to have not acted via evolution over 4 billion years. I believe that my father believes in evolution. I myself find myself talking as though Christianity is correct but only in the Biblical sense.
But when Christians start talking as though evolution is the source of all evil, populated by ignorant boobs condemned to hell, and basically not acceptable in modern, Christian society. Which is pretty much what Donkey’s example is about, evolutionists are bad because Donkey had a bad experience on the web.
That makes me white hot, smoke out the ears mad……
When I see that Christians have basically put their eggs into the basket of trying to brainwash my relatives and students with pseudo-science…Calling them names if they believe in Darwin etc….
Why?
Because creationism and ID can’t stand on their own? If it really was this juggernaught of science as you have deluded yoursleves (my sleeves?) into thinking then you could explain it to adult children like you do with all higher science, like quantom mechanics, electromagnatism, relativity, etc etc etc. (there are apparently some really intense elementary schools out there teaching “quantom mechanics”)
Why is a large part of the anti-evolution mindset attacking the individuals that believe in natural selection? Do you feel better when you bully them with threats of hell than you do when I bully you with superior arguments?
Its ironic really we have all become the mirror image of what we oppose…..It’s funny, because I was never rabidly anti-Christian until I was exposed to the Christians on this site. Like Donkeykong.
Comment #19744
Posted by Great White Wonder on March 12, 2005 11:18 AM (e) (s)
DonkeyKong, a well-known liar, launches another
When I see that evolutionists have basically put their eggs into the basket of trying to brainwash my 5 year old neices and SETI sponsered grade 3-9 teaching materials…Calling them names if they believe in God etc….
A fabrication on DK’s part. Again. What is the point of granting this immoral creationist liar access to every thread on this blog?
It would be refreshing for a change to hear a fundamentalist apologist speak out against nutjobs like Mike the Preacher instead of essentially echoing Mike the P.’s sentiments. Refreshing … but not expected any time soon.
[note: this post self-edited to reduce vitriol to perceived comfortable levels]
Comment #19755
Posted by DonkeyKong on March 12, 2005 01:57 PM (e) (s)
Great White Wonder
“DonkeyKong, a well-known liar, launches another”
See its the HS teachers that use McCarthy talk like this that scare rational people.
I am sorry but the evolution/ anti-creationism movement has moven into the realm of the McCarth/Hoover/Stalin etc etc etc. You are literally planning how to brainwash other people’s kids at as young an age as possible. If you had the power I believe you would start to put the non-kool aid drinkers in camps, those who can go to college and those who cannot etc etc etc.
Real science can defend itself with real science. Real science can wait till college. Real science is immensly powerful and can be dis-believed only by those who question reality. Your problem is that many very educated people who are very smart also don’t buy into evolution at the level you seek.
If you were talking to the HS kids with facts and only facts I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but you editorilize.
You don’t teach quantom in Gradeschool things like schrodinger’s cat and the vast philosophical and moral delima’s of quantom physics. Are you anti-science zelots with a beef against quantom physics? Or are kids not ready for certain types of adult delimas?
Likewise trying to brainwash kids at a very young age with a theory that doesn’t stand up to critism in the same way that the vast majority of other science does is wrong.
When someone specifically targets kids in their attempt to sway public opinion and uses McCarthy tactics like the above gem, or the evolution is SCIENCE don’t question it. Or all the PHds believe in evolution don’t question it etc etc etc. These are anti-science teachings you are supporting real science can simply state the facts and let real scientists make up their own mind.
I am not against evolution’s supporting data being taught in school because those finds are facts. I am not against explaination that one theory that explains most of that data is evolution. But what most of you want, crave and seem to NEED on some sick moral level is to teach that there is no other alternative. That is simply not science, nor is the lack of exposing the weaknesses in evolution science.
It appears to me that the reason that science has on this issue chosen to endorse evolution so strongly is because if you accept that there is no other higher being in the universe then you eliminate most of the alternatives to evolution. Most of the strongest supporters of the anti-creationism movement have made that religious choice to be athiest as opposed to agnostic or a believer. An athiest is an active disbeliever which is a religious choice and should not be given preferrence in school now matter who it is that expresses it.
There seems to be a deluded notion that science which has not been supported by Jewdaism/Christianity for centuries and owes a large amount of its current success to being defended by christians who would not tolerate ignoring Gods science laws for the current dogma of the time. It is not an accident that science has been thriving longer under Christianity than under any other system, Christianity is the most pro-science enviornment in the world.
Evidence the athiest enviornment where questioning is critised, dogma is raised to the level of sacrosanct and dissent is opposed by trying to brainwash little kids.
Comment #19756
Posted by Gary Hurd on March 12, 2005 01:59 PM (e) (s)
Following the link Ed provided, I noticed this lovely “christian” message, One nation under God! which advocates physical violence aginst non-Christians.
Comment #19758
Posted by DaveScot on March 12, 2005 02:08 PM (e) (s)
“openly rejected Creationism”
She learned a valuable lesson. Do not be a lone voice openly attacking the beliefs of a large group, in their physical presence, without an exit strategy.
Comment #19760
Posted by DonkeyKong on March 12, 2005 02:13 PM (e) (s)
Great White…
When you tell a story about an individual and attach him to a group you are really telling two stories.
One about the individual which I don’t defend one bit, unless the author was less than honest about his presentation which I do not have sufficient support for or against. I can imagine an evolution presentation that would be unsuitable for school due to anti-religious insingations that are not scientific, again I have no evidence for or against the author giving that presentation except his word that he didn’t and the pastors reaction as though he did. Given enough examples using different people for both roles I am sure a rational person will see that sometimes the story teller is the villian and sometimes the pastor reacting is the villian. Again I make no judgements regarding who is right as I simply do not know one way or the other.
Second about the group. The above story wasn’t about Mike the jerk in my town. It was about “Pator” Mike. When you paint an individual portrait thats between you and Mike but when some of the ink ends up on me then its my business too. As such I expressed why a rational person such as myself who is basically not opposed to evolution becomes as anti-evolution as I have and how my anti-evolution stance is very similiar to the anti-creation stance in that both have a foundation outside of science.
Science makes no judgements, it predicts future information. Once science has been shown to consistently in every permutaion predict a set of future information flawlessly then it is often applied backwards but for that we should use a different word because forward looking science and backward looking science have dramatically dramatically different batting averages….
Comment #19762
Posted by DaveScot on March 12, 2005 02:19 PM (e) (s)
NelC
Read the welcome message. Panda’s Thumb’s primary mission is to be critical of the so-called antievolution movement. The fact that antievolution comments are allowed, near as I can tell, is so that it doesn’t become an incestuous mutual admiration society. That’s a good thing. It shows, contrary to popular belief, that evolutionists aren’t ALL about censoring opposing views wherever they find voice. Evidently they only want it censored in 9th grade biology classes and peer reviewed science journals…
Comment #19764
Posted by Buridan on March 12, 2005 02:27 PM (e) (s)
Dave, your attempt at playing the martyr is really pathetic. You must enjoy it because you keep coming back for more.
In any event, I would really like to see your exit strategy in action. And don’t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out.
Comment #19767
Posted by Dan S. on March 12, 2005 03:00 PM (e) (s)
“Real science can wait till college. ”
Are you KIDDING? What next - real math can wait ‘til college? real history can wait ‘til college? real reading can wait ‘til college?? That’s absurd! And why should science education be the exclusive preserve of the college educated?? Yes, you’re a troll, but even trolls have standards …
…well, they don’t, I guess is the point, but still …
If anything, we need better science education earlier, at the point when kids are more naturally scientists in a way …
“If you were talking to the HS kids with facts and only facts I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but you editorilize.”
Kinda like that O’Reilly nonsense a little bit ago (though that was much worse) - science education isn’t facts and only facts. Can you imagine any class that was facts and only facts, without any “editorializing”? Feh.
“You don’t teach quantom in Gradeschool things like schrodinger’s cat”
Nice kitty . . well, evolution is really a high school topic. It’s also the fundamental idea behind all of modern biology. Plus, it’s not as conceptually screwy. Also less likely to lead to the needless tragedy of pet cat deaths . .
” But what most of you want, crave and seem to NEED on some sick moral level is to teach that there is no other alternative.”
At this point, there doesn’t appear to be any real scientific alternative. If one pops up, it’ll get taught at the hs level, though probably with the inevitable lag time, once it convinces the scientific community. Read up on the history of plate tectonics. Why don’t you folks understand this??? Why do you seem to want, crave, and NEED on some sick moral level to believe that your view is being unjustly oppressed by an evil conspiracy? Seriously.
“It appears to me that the reason that science has on this issue chosen to endorse evolution so strongly is because if you accept that there is no other higher being in the universe then you eliminate most of the alternatives to evolution”
Well, there’s still the ‘Powerful Aliens Did It!!” theory …
Your formulation doesn’t make sense. You seem to want to say that science is endorsing *atheism* so strongly because then you eliminate most of the alternatives to evolution (which doesn’t even describe Dawkins, I think). Or possibly that science has a vested interest in atheism therefore it endorses evolution which . . etc. Huh? Conspiracy theories again. Face it, science is endorses evolution so strongly because as far as anyone can tell, it’s the best scientific explanation. Science is an integral part of America’s rise as a world power. Why do you hate America?
(Look, I’m sick right now. It messes up my sense of humor)
You have heard that evolution and belief in god/gods is not mutually exclusive, right?
“An athiest is an active disbeliever which is a religious choice and should not be given preferrence in school now matter who it is that expresses it. ”
As an athiest - crap, now I’m misspelling it! - atheist, I’m very, very careful about this. If I were to attack students’ religious beliefs or try to promote atheism as a belief system, I *hope* I would at best be placed in notice, and, if I made a habit of it, certainly dismissed.
I think this is a case of projection. Some kinds of religious people, like Messenger on the other thread, would like nothing better than to spend lots of time in the public schools preaching the Gospels constantly (with words), in any subject where it could be possibly invoked, so they assume that all atheists would do the same thing. Silly people! -Although now that I think about it, I find it rather insulting in a way.
“Most of the strongest supporters of the anti-creationism movement have made that religious choice to be athiest as opposed to agnostic or a believer. ”
Hmm. Is that actually true? It seems vaguely logical - that people who have both scientific and ‘religious’ objections to this nonsense would be most vocal in attacking it - but you might get a lot of folks who are apalled at what damage the uninformed are doing to their beliefs, and concerned about people rejecting religion because it becomes even more closely associated with this sort of medieval anti-modern knownothingness.
“There seems to be a deluded notion that science which has not been supported by Jewdaism/Christianity for centuries and owes a large amount of its current success to being defended by christians who would not tolerate ignoring Gods science laws for the current dogma of the time. “
Grammar-checker, DonkeyKong, grammar checker. It may save your soul (especially if God is really picky about these sorts of things - although given that He apparently <a href = “http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/sgtheirl.html#kjvph23…“>used singular “their”</a>, I guess not.
And it’s Judaism. If you have to get it wrong, Judyism is at least cute. Jewdaism sounds like something you’d find in a badly spelled anti-semitic rant …
You are expressing, however poorly, a really interesting question - how much was the development of modern science influenced by the concept of a comprehensible, predictable universe organized by God’s laws. However, now that you’ve touched it, it’s mother won’t take it back, so that intriguing bit of historical speculation will now wither and die from lack of attention. Good going, DK!
“Christianity is the most pro-science enviornment in the world.”
Sometimes, Donkey. Sometimes. Now where did I put that Indigo Girls tape … ?
“Evidence the athiest enviornment where questioning is critised, dogma is raised to the level of sacrosanct and dissent is opposed by trying to brainwash little kids.”
I don’t know about brainwashing, but somebody needs a good cerebral scrubbing, preferably with soup and warm water - maybe it will help loosen some of the gunk. Or at least help with the spelling and grammar?
DonkeyKong is a very appropriate name for the whole anti-evolution effort, bringing to mind the oldy-but goody of a game where poor Mario just trying to climb a little higher constantly has to dodge barrels being tossed at him for no apparent reason. You could read the whole thing as an allegory - but I’ll spare everyone from that horrible fate and just post this …
Comment #19769
Posted by Messenger on March 12, 2005 03:09 PM (e) (s)
Buridan, Thank you for the gift of your tolerance. I have learned a lot from all of you here, not about evolution, but about evolutionist. I will go away quietly. The Messenger
Comment #19770
Posted by Buridan on March 12, 2005 03:12 PM (e) (s)
Thank you. Dave, it’s your turn…
Comment #19771
Posted by Greenman on March 12, 2005 03:13 PM (e) (s)
DaveScot wrote: “She learned a valuable lesson. Do not be a lone voice openly attacking the beliefs of a large group, in their physical presence, without an exit strategy.”
Yeah, let’s not forget what happened to the thousands of folks throughout history who made the mistake of rejecting Christian dogma. Burning, hanging, stoning, torture, maiming, excommunication, etc, etc. I suppose this young lady got off fairly easy. And I didn’t see anything in the post suggesting she was “attacking the beliefs” of anyone. Rejecting something doesn’t necessarily constitute “attacking” it.
It seems that DaveScot thinks the type of treatment this girl received was perfectly acceptable and reasonable. I can just picture the sneer on his face as he made that post. I pray that DaveScot doesn’t someday find himself in the minority of a group displaying a tenth the intolerance of Christianity throughout history.
Incidentally, I proudly display a Darwin Fish on my vehicle right in the heart of Jesus Fish country and I have had my views (understanding and acceptance of evolution theory) thoughtlessly and visciously attacked. Without exception it has been painfully obvious that those doing the attacking hadn’t the slightest understanding of the theory nor any intention of trying to understand it. Their unquestionong minds were simply locked by their dogma.
I can’t remember who said it but they said it well, “God, protect me from your followers.”
Comment #19776
Posted by Ken Willis on March 12, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)
I recently listened to a 6-hour lecture titled The Theory of Evolution—A History of Controversy by Edward J. Larson of the University of Georgia. It was on CD’s produced by The Teaching Company. Professor Larson is a lawyer not a scientist, and the subject is history not science. Nevertheless, for a layman such as myself I thought it was great. He covered the history of all the various anti-evolution movements and has a good command of the science involved. I found out that I was lucky to have been in High School during the years 1959-1963 because those years were a brief hiatus from anti-evolution forces and evolution was taught openly during those years.
What was most enlightening for me was that the current anti-evolution arguments are not new. So-called “Intelligent Design” is really just a bit of old-time religious creationism presented in the language of modern bio-chemistry.
I’m a proud member of the vast right wing conspiracy myself but I am saddened when my fellow right wingers fall for the dishonest pandering made to them by the likes of Demski, Behe, Johnson and Wells.
Comment #19779
Posted by darwinfinch on March 12, 2005 03:44 PM (e) (s)
The self-declared Xians who attack the information on this site have never been less honest or persuasive than on this thread.
How DO these trolls live with such hypocrisy? I can only believe they enjoy it, since their tone rings drips with an almost evil insincerity.
We’re into a space here similar to Twain’s in describing the (no doubt sincere, if completely hypocritical) attitude of the leaders of Hannibal when he was a child in defense of slavery, “How could they lie so? The result of practice, no doubt.
These Xians are the ones who abuse Christ’s teachings to a degree impossible for a non-believer. They can, with a smirk, cast the first stone, and many, many others (from a safe and anonymous place, counting on the “sense of fair play” and “respect” of their opponents) while always claiming suffering on a scale Jesus himself perhaps never approached due to the mildest response, or the most minor burst of anger.
Have these sad, grinningly vicious masks of people nothing in life to cherish and enjoy? Do they take no pleasure in discovering exactly how fascinating the Universe and their own minds are? Are they so proud, or so afraid, to see Humanity as a small, if interesting to itself, part of what exists?
None of these are rhetorical questions. The three self-declared critics of “evil Evolution” on this thread cannot understand them. In their pride.
Comment #19792
Posted by Your Conscience on March 12, 2005 05:11 PM (e) (s)
These posts are all the same:
1. Science is good and honest
2. Evolution (the all encompassing metaphysical theory)is science.
3. Therefore people who question evolution are bad and dishonest.
The Comments:
1. The open-minded sceptic - “Hey guys, maybe evolution has some scientific validity issues? Maybe we should recognize its limitations as a theory?”
2. The Darwinian Fundies - “How dare you question science. You must be a troll. It’s too late for you, but give us your kids and we will ‘educate’ them”
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (somewhere in the bible)
Comment #19793
Posted by Darwinian Fundie on March 12, 2005 05:20 PM (e) (s)
Hey, Your Conscience -
How dare you question science. You must be a troll. It’s too late for you, but give us your kids and we will ‘educate’ them.
Comment #19794
Posted by Grey Wolf on March 12, 2005 05:22 PM (e) (s)
Weird. My consciense usually doesn’t try to lie to me. Not to mention that normally uses my native language. I wonder if this is, in fact, yet another fundamentalist hoping against all reason that if he claims often enough that evolution is not the closest theory to what is really going on, it will eventually be true? But the Powers That Be In This Forum have asked to try a simple test, which I have liked. Go read TalkOrigins ( http://www.talkorigins.org… ). Once you’ve been there and read everything (I managed in under two months, but I admit I didn’t read through much of the fine detail of the longest articles), and still feel that you have a point, be back and explain it.
Until you do, your straw man is only laughable. There are scientific sissues with evolution, and everyone here (that aren’t trolls) admits it. Just not the ones you’d like. Just because scientists aren’t sure just how important geographical separation is to evolution compared to other mechanisms, it doesn’t make facts like speciation or common ancestors any less proven beyond all but the tinniest sliver of doubt (which remain in all sciences).
Please prove that you’re not going to be yet another troll.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Comment #19795
Posted by Your Conscience, ca 1632 on March 12, 2005 05:24 PM (e) (s)
These posts are all the same:
1. Science is good and honest
2. Heliocentrism (the all encompassing metaphysical theory)is science.
3. Therefore people who question heliocentrism are bad and dishonest.
The Comments:
1. The open-minded sceptic - “Hey guys, maybe heliocentrism has some scientific validity issues? Maybe we should recognize its limitations as a theory?”
2. The Galilean Fundies - “How dare you question science. You must be a troll. It’s too late for you, but give us your kids and we will ‘educate’ them”
Comment #19796
Posted by Great White Wonder on March 12, 2005 05:25 PM (e) (s)
Donkey Troll
As such I expressed why a rational person such as myself
That’s pretty funny.
who is basically not opposed to evolution becomes as anti-evolution as I have
Not much rationality there …
and how my anti-evolution stance is very similiar to the anti-creation stance in that both have a foundation outside of science.
Ah, the 100% bogus assertion to top it off. A classic troll sundae.
I’m not a fan of organized religion, Donkster, but creation mythologies are actually sort of interesting and their existence is probably the most benign aspect of most religions. I prefer the Popol Vuh, personally.
Of course, when fundamentalist Guatemalan natives start showing up at the highest levels of political office in our country and start invoking the Popol Vuh to justify gay discrimination and argue that scientists are deluded morons, I may change my tune. I don’t anticipate that happening in the near future and, yes, that is intended as a critique of the Johnsonite Christians who colonize the so-called Discovery Institute.
Comment #19799
Posted by David Heddle on March 12, 2005 06:51 PM (e) (s)
If the story of Pastor Mike is true, then as a conservative Christian I for one would without reservation condemn his actions. His manners are bad and his theology is seriously flawed (A preacher cannot save anyone’s soul. Besides, Satan is not after anyone’s soul—what would he do with it? There is no such concept as Satan battling for human souls in the bible. In fact, Satan has to ask permission to mess with Job or Peter.)
That said, I have to say I view the entire account with skepticism. It’s just too darn convenient, and I have read too many convenient anecdotes of encounters with fundamentalist preachers on this site. Too many descriptions of “I walked away from Christianity when I heard a preacher preach that {interracial marriage is a sin, the bible teaches of Caucasian racial supremacy, etc.}
Comment #19802
Posted by Gary Hurd on March 12, 2005 07:23 PM (e) (s)
Well, David your skepticism seems to be a faulty faculty. You “swallow a camel and strain at a gnat.” I got most of the story second hand, as I said, but I can attest to everything I personally experienced.
And it was Preacher “Mike” not Rev., not Fra., “Preacher.” I thought that was interesting too, and one of the reasons other than his apparent hostility, that I didn’t make any further effort to talk with the man beyond saying “Hello.”
Creationists’ facility at denial, and ability to cast personal aspersions with an air of wounded innocence is legendary. Thanks for providing such a fine demonstration.
Comment #19804
Posted by Your Conscience on March 12, 2005 07:43 PM (e) (s)
Criticising Evolution (common desecent and speciation) is like criticizing heliocentrism. Hmmm…. Did someone mention a STRAW DUMMY. People don’t question heliocentrism because it can be tested and verified in many ways. Now common descent and speciation. Nope, never seen anything close to testing and verifying that theory. Have seen some pretty cool drawings of ape-like creatures turning into humans based on fossilized bone and tooth fragmants. Creative imagination does not equal good science.
Why do Darwinian fundamentalists believe that people who don’t worship naturalism simply need more education. I was exposed to your religion all through school and college and never bought into. Perhaps people like me have an evolved genetic allele that rejects overly rational thinking regarding human origins. This protective mechanism allows us to buy into religious myths that create stable families, promote reproduction, and thus pass on this genetic ‘defect’. If you want to convert me to Darwinism, I may need gene therapy, cause your educatin didn’t work.
Comment #19810
Posted by Joe McFaul on March 12, 2005 08:09 PM (e) (s)
Your Conscience:
Take a zero.
Fundamentalists *also* challenge heliocentrism.
Please come back and report to us when you’ve won the $1000 by demostrating that heliocentrism can be “tested and proved in many ways.”
Comment #19812
Posted by Ron Zeno on March 12, 2005 08:16 PM (e) (s)
Where’s that “Troll Begone” when you need it? ;)
First, if the “Preacher” cannot hold himself to the same standards of “Career Day” as the other presenters, he should be asked to leave. No need to let someone undermine the educational experience.
Second, at some point, these “Career Day” experiences have to differentiate between professions (careers requiring a minimal competency and that hold their membership to a defined and enforced code of conduct and ethics) vs other career choices. Perhaps not at fourth grade, but certainly by high school. At the early ages, I’d assume most of the focus is just in getting the children excited about the possibilities. Eventually, they need to be exposed to what it takes to obtain and continue a career of choice.
Comment #19813
Posted by Russell on March 12, 2005 08:23 PM (e) (s)
I have to say I view the entire account with skepticism. It’s just too darn convenient, and I have read too many convenient anecdotes of encounters with fundamentalist preachers on this site
Yeah. And this is probably a malicious fabrication, too.
Comment #19814
Posted by edge on March 12, 2005 08:25 PM (e) (s)
…People don’t question heliocentrism because it can be tested and verified in many ways. Now common descent and speciation. Nope, never seen anything close to testing and verifying that theory.
In reality, evolution is tested every day in hundreds of fossil digs, oil wells, and geological mapping projects, not to mention numerous research projects in academia and government.
Have seen some pretty cool drawings of ape-like creatures turning into humans based on fossilized bone and tooth fragmants. Creative imagination does not equal good science.
True. Maybe you should read some real science journals rather than the popular version that the professional YECs like to parody.
Why do Darwinian fundamentalists believe that people who don’t worship naturalism simply need more education.
Who ‘worships naturalism’? I have seen nothing on this board or any others to indicate any degree of worship. And no, we do not really care about your education. You may believe as you want as far as we are concerned.
I was exposed to your religion all through school and college and never bought into.
Perhaps you could give us a definition of religion to support your statement.
Perhaps people like me have an evolved genetic allele that rejects overly rational thinking regarding human origins. This protective mechanism allows us to buy into religious myths that create stable families, promote reproduction, and thus pass on this genetic ‘defect’. If you want to convert me to Darwinism, I may need gene therapy, cause your educatin didn’t work.
I, for one, do not expect it to ‘work’ on you. In fact, I’m not trying to educate you, though some here may think that is possible.
Comment #19815
Posted by steve on March 12, 2005 08:40 PM (e) (s)
Joe, if you liked that Catholic Apologetics website, you might like one I posted recently to the Bathroom Wall.
Comment #19817
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 12, 2005 09:11 PM (e) (s)
People don’t question heliocentrism because it can be tested and verified in many ways
Hmm. Maybe you should let your fellow fundies in on this:
http://www.geocentricity.com/…
Make sure you pay attention to the parts where these “people who question heliocentrism” also criticize CREATIONISM for compromising with Satan by accepting the anti-god and anti-bible heresy of heliocentrism:
http://www.fixedearth.com/links/symb_rela.htm…
http://www.fixedearth.com/Machian%20Model%20Obstacle.htm…
Comment #19819
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 12, 2005 09:17 PM (e) (s)
his theology is seriously flawed
Reeeaaalllyyyyyy. How can we tell whether or not any particular religious opinion is “flawed” or “true”.
What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly
makes your (or ANY person’s) religious opinions more (or less) valid
than anyone else’s. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my
religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions
of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my
pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn’t seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn’t equally
available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I
read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to
church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes
your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s.
(I should perhaps note that I am not referring to “you” as in any
particular individual; I mean “anybody, anybody at all”. I should
also perhaps point out that I am NOT, repeat NOT, N-O-T, an atheist,
nor am I “attacking religion” in any way shape or form.)
I’m particularly interested in your view on this, since you seem to have taken it upon yourself to Judge which religious opinnions are or are not “flawed”. Show me the authority and basis upon whcih you make those Judgements, please … .
Comment #19822
Posted by Henry J on March 12, 2005 10:05 PM (e) (s)
To put in my two cents here, I think there’s a big difference between criticizing, and accusing most of those in the relevant fields of routinely missing obvious factors that would change their basic conclusions if they’d only pay attention.
Henry
Comment #19823
Posted by David Heddle on March 12, 2005 10:06 PM (e) (s)
Rev,
The bible. His theology is flawed by testing it against the bible. After all, he, (or rather this stereotype mythical fundamentalist preacher out of central casting,) having claimed the mantle of Christian, would be judged according to the book he would hold up as authoritative. I should think that was obvious.
Comment #19825
Posted by Russell on March 12, 2005 10:36 PM (e) (s)
The bible. His theology is flawed by testing it against the bible. After all, he, (or rather this stereotype mythical fundamentalist preacher out of central casting,) having claimed the mantle of Christian, would be judged according to the book he would hold up as authoritative. I should think that was obvious.
Sorry for the broken link above, but here’s another guy who thinks the Bible is the foundation of his position. Flawed theology? Different theology? Just plain evil masquerading as Christianity? Who’s to say?
Comment #19828
Posted by Jelly on March 13, 2005 02:29 AM (e) (s)
Steve,
I disagree. Teach science in public school and discuss the controversy at home. I don’t want my children learning about God in public school. It’s my responsibility to teach my children about God.
Respectfully,
Jelly
Comment #19829
Posted by David Heddle on March 13, 2005 05:14 AM (e) (s)
Russell (parroting the Rev) is presenting the argument that if two people claim the bible as the basis of their theology, then no value judgment can be made as to whether either (or both) theology is flawed. But that is simply not true. The bible becomes “the body of evidence”, and and third party can systematically test claims of a given theology against it.
Showing great originality, he uses the god-hates-fags example:
but here’s another guy [godhatesfags] who thinks the Bible is the foundation of his position. Flawed theology? Different theology? Just plain evil masquerading as Christianity? Who’s to say?
A point that has the same validity and relevance as this one:
but here’s another guy who thinks experimental data are the foundation of his position. Flawed science? Different science? Just plain evil masquerading as science? Who’s to say?
Comment #19833
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 13, 2005 07:54 AM (e) (s)
Rev,
The bible. His theology is flawed by testing it against the bible.
But alas, EVERY Christian says he tests his religious opinion against the Bible,a dn EVERY Christiand eclares that his opinion passes the test while everyone ELSE’s does not.
You say his theology is flawed by testing it against the Bible. He says YOUR theology is flawed by testing it against the Bible.
How do we tell whose testing is right, and whose isn’t.
Other than someone’s say-so.
Comment #19834
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 13, 2005 07:56 AM (e) (s)
I disagree. Teach science in public school and discuss the controversy at home. I don’t want my children learning about God in public school. It’s my responsibility to teach my children about God.
Indeed. Unlike the fundies, I am not one of those pinko commies who thinks reposnibility for religious education should be taken OUT of the hands of the parents and churches, and placed INTO the hands of state-run schools.
Sounds pretty Leninist to me.
Comment #19835
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 13, 2005 08:05 AM (e) (s)
Russell (parroting the Rev) is presenting the argument that if two people claim the bible as the basis of their theology, then no value judgment can be made as to whether either (or both) theology is flawed. But that is simply not true. The bible becomes “the body of evidence”, and and third party can systematically test claims of a given theology against it.
How does one objectively test a “value judgement”.
Please be specific.
Are you claiming that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but that YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible? Sorry, David, but I dont’ beleive that youa re infallible. <shrug>
So,if Biblical opinions can be rigorously “tested”, why are there so many different Christian denominations, groups, sects and groupuscules, each with a different opinion, and each convinced that everyone else’s opinion is wrong. And why is YOUR assumption that YOUR opinion is the right one, any better than THEIR assumption that THEIR opinion is the right one.
Other than your say-so.
If the matter is as simple as you seem to think it is, one wodners why oh why Christians have been fighting over it for 2,000 years now. Apparently they should just listen to YOU — YOU’LL straighten them all out, huh David …
And before you go off on a tangent by waving your arms and asking ME why MY religious opinions are better, I will give my standard disclaimer that I give whenever I talk about my religious opinions:
My religious opinions are just that, my opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow my religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them. My religious opinions are right for *me*. Whether they are right for *you*, I neither know nor care.”
Can you say the same thing about YOUR religious opinions, David? Or are you too prideful and self-righteous to do that … . . ?
Comment #19836
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 13, 2005 08:09 AM (e) (s)
Showing great originality, he uses the god-hates-fags example:
but here’s another guy [godhatesfags] who thinks the Bible is the foundation of his position. Flawed theology? Different theology? Just plain evil masquerading as Christianity? Who’s to say?
A point that has the same validity and relevance as this one:
but here’s another guy who thinks experimental data are the foundation of his position. Flawed science? Different science? Just plain evil masquerading as science? Who’s to say?
Ahhhh, but there IS a difference … . .
When one makes SCIENCE claims, there is a method we can use to determine whether that claim is correct. We call that method, conveniently enough, the scientific method. With it, we can determine whether or not this or that scientific claim is valid or not. And the best part — the scientific method is the same for everyone, whether they are Christian or Buddhist or atheist or Zoroastrian or worshippers of Kali or Cthulthu or Amaterasu Omikami.
So please show me the method we can use to decide whose RELIGIOUS claims are or are not valid. One that doesn’t just boil down to “because I say so”.
<sound of crickets chirping>
Yep, that’s what I thought … .
Comment #19837
Posted by Your Conscience on March 13, 2005 08:57 AM (e) (s)
Gee rev, who get to decide what is a valid scientific method? Especially when it comes to common origin and speciation.
Please be specific
As far as heliocentrism goes:
1. A few fringe groups question it.
2. These fringe groups also question evolution.
3. Thus people who question evolution must also question heliocentrism.
Gee your logic is stunning.
The truth is that scientist and other educated people have been questing the claims put forth by evolution biologists ever since the time of Darwin.
What the old “rev” fails to understand is that the claims made by him and other Darwinian fundamentalists are not science but religion. His self-defeating arguments are quite humorous.
Your Conscience speaking
Comment #19840
Posted by Grey Wolf on March 13, 2005 09:43 AM (e) (s)
YC, please explain how heliocentrics (I’m assuming heliocentrics are people who think the sun is the centre of the universe. Never heard of them. Links, anyone, please?) and creationists are different. I’ll get you started:
- They both object to a well studied, very solid scientific theory on religious reasons
- They both are convinced that they hold the Truth
- Neither have even the smallest bit of evidence in their favour
- Both have been thoroughly demonstrated false again and again
Since you find them so very different, there must be some subtle difference outside all those similarities. please be a good chap and tell us, will you?
The only difference I can think of is that thanks to Einstein’s relativity theory, heliocentrism is actually “true” in the sense that it fits the data. Of course, it is more complicated than our current explanaition, so by using the Razor it should be discarded except for specific applications - but at least they do fit the data and were in fact a proper scientific hypothesis. Creationists don’t even get that far.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
Comment #19844
Posted by Russell on March 13, 2005 10:44 AM (e) (s)
Summing up:
The Rev:
So what is it, exactly, that makes your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s…. I’m particularly interested in your view on this, since you seem to have taken it upon yourself to Judge which religious opinnions are or are not “flawed”. Show me the authority and basis upon whcih you make those Judgements…
Heddle:
The bible. … I should think that was obvious.
Russell:
but here’s another guy [a hateful lunatic with theological credentials] who thinks the Bible is the foundation of his position. Flawed theology? Different theology? Just plain evil masquerading as Christianity? Who’s to say?
And here’s Heddle’s hilarious punchline, (after a snide but puzzlingly irrelevant swipe at the “originality” of my example):
The bible becomes “the body of evidence”, and and third party can systematically test claims of a given theology against it.
So in other words, The Bible doesn’t get us anywhere; it’s all in the judgment of some “and and third party”. [note puzzlingly irrelevant swipe at Heddle’s attention to detail]. But the really amusing part of the punchline is that word “systematically”. And his comparison with Creation Research seems to confirm that Heddle actually credits the bizarre notion that Biblical Analysis can be done just as “systematically” as scientific analysis.
Wow.
Comment #19845
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 13, 2005 10:45 AM (e) (s)
Gee rev, who get to decide what is a valid scientific method?
Nice evasion.
Now answer my question. I’ll ask again:
*ahem*
What exactly is the source of your religious authority. What exactly
makes your (or ANY person’s) religious opinions more (or less) valid
than anyone else’s. Why should anyone pay any more attention to my
religious opinions, or yours, than we pay to the religious opinions
of my next door neighbor or my gardener or the guy who delivered my
pizza last night. It seems to me that no one alive would or could know any more about God than anyone else alive does, since there doesn’t seem to be any potential source of such knowledge that isn’t equally
available to everyone else. You pray; I pray. You read the Bible; I
read the Bible. You go to church and listen to the pastor; I go to
church and listen to the pastor. So what is it, exactly, that makes
your religious opinion any more (or less) valid than anyone else’s.
(I should perhaps note that I am not referring to “you” as in any
particular individual; I mean “anybody, anybody at all”. I should
also perhaps point out that I am NOT, repeat NOT, N-O-T, an atheist,
nor am I “attacking religion” in any way shape or form.)
I’m particularly interested in your view on this, since you seem to have taken it upon yourself to Judge which religious opinnions are or are not “flawed”. Show me the authority and basis upon whcih you make those Judgements, please … .
Comment #19848
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 13, 2005 10:52 AM (e) (s)
The truth is that scientist and other educated people have been questing the claims put forth by evolution biologists ever since the time of Darwin.
How dreadful. People have also, of course, been questioning the Bible and its various interpretations, for a *much much much longer* period of time. <shrug>
In any case, my question had nothing to do with “evolution biologists” or “Darwin”. Here, let me repeat my question for you once more:
*ahem*
How does one objectively test a “value judgement”.
Please be specific.
Are you claiming that not only is the Bible inerrant and infallible, but that YOUR INTERPRETATIONS of it are also inerrant and infallible? Sorry, David, but I dont’ beleive that youa re infallible. <shrug>
So,if Biblical opinions can be rigorously “tested”, why are there so many different Christian denominations, groups, sects and groupuscules, each with a different opinion, and each convinced that everyone else’s opinion is wrong. And why is YOUR assumption that YOUR opinion is the right one, any better than THEIR assumption that THEIR opinion is the right one.
Other than your say-so.
Feel free to answer any time you like. Or is “because I say so” indeed the best answer you can come up with … ?
What the old “rev” fails to understand is that the claims made by him and other Darwinian fundamentalists are not science but religion. His self-defeating arguments are quite humorous.
How dreadful. <yawn>
I didn’t *make* any argument. I simply asked why your religious opinions are any more authoritative than anyone else’s, other than your say-so.
And I notice that I am not getting any answer … .
Comment #19853
Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 13, 2005 11:28 AM (e) (s)
The questions indeed do boil down to “authoritative” versus “experimental” methodologies for getting an accurate picture of the world.
Who can forget that sad moment in history when the hierarchy of the French Academy appealed to the King to defend sacred Phlogistonist Orthodoxy against the perverse and heretical novelties of Oxidationism?
The Army was deployed to quell the riots, the Oxidationists uproared the unwashed common people, who long had been chafing under the yoke of academic oppression. The conflict spread rapidly, and soon the entire continent was engulfed in the Wars Of Dire Combustion, raged for decades.
Compare this raw appeal to authority with the thougtful, experimental method pioneered by the great (some might even say immortal) Elijah, recounted in the peer-reviewed literature at 1 Kings 18:22 - 40. Or the elegant and peaceful way in which the various trinitarian issues were settled finally long, long ago.
Comment #19854
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 13, 2005 11:42 AM (e) (s)
And his comparison with Creation Research seems to confirm that Heddle actually credits the bizarre notion that Biblical Analysis can be done just as “systematically” as scientific analysis.
Wow.
Indeed, he does indeed seem to think that not only are his interpretations of the Bible infallible, but they are not really “interpretations” at all —- he is just so much more holy and brilliant and closer to God than the rest of us mere mortals that he, and he alone, has the divine ability to correctly determine, “systematically”, “what the Bible really says”. All the rest of us are just blind gropers, who don’t have David’s divine wisdom. How humanitarian of him to offer his divine guidance to the rest of us.
<sigh>
But I do indeed find it interesting (and illuminating) that David’s claimed source of authority is “the Bible”, not “God”. It only reinforces my suspicion that fundies are indeed idol-worshippers. They worship a Book about God, instead of a God. And are too dumb to tell the difference.
One can always test that hypothesis, by asking fundies “If something in the Bible were shown to be wrong, would that mean God doesn’t exist?”
Oddly, they never want to ANSWER that question. They simply give me some drivel about how the Bible simply CAN’T be wrong — thus demonstrating clearly where their much-vaunted “faith” really lies.
Like I said, idol-worshippers.
Sad, isn’t it. I’d actually feel sorry for them if they weren’t such self-righteous arrogant holier-than-thou (literally) pricks about it.
Comment #19855
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 13, 2005 11:49 AM (e) (s)
Gee rev, who get to decide what is a valid scientific method? Especially when it comes to common origin and speciation.
Got a better method? Please, by all means, do tell. Show it to us. Explain to us how it works. Illustrate it with a few examples.
Or are you just rhetorically waving your arms. Again.
Comment #19858
Posted by Ken Shackleton on March 13, 2005 12:00 PM (e) (s)
I am not against evolution’s supporting data being taught in school because those finds are facts. I am not against explaination that one theory that explains most of that data is evolution. But what most of you want, crave and seem to NEED on some sick moral level is to teach that there is no other alternative. That is simply not science, nor is the lack of exposing the weaknesses in evolution science.
It was nice of you to admit that the facts and evidence do support evolutionary theory, and that it is a suitable explanation for those facts. However, there does not exist any scientific theory that can even come close to competing with evolutionary theory as an explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
Any “alternative” thus far presented has been based on religion and faith….and that is simply not science. None of the “weaknesses in evolution science” that have ever been presented by the Creationists/ID movement have held up to scrutiny [in those cases where they have been testable].
To subject our children to the rubbish AKA Creationism/ID is a moral crime; and should never be tolerated until such time as the Creationist/ID movement actually presents testable, verifiable, science that does a better job of supporting their hypothesis than that of evolution. To date….this has never happened, and I doubt that it ever will.
Comment #19860
Posted by steve on March 13, 2005 12:02 PM (e) (s)
Jelly said:
Comment #19828
Posted by Jelly on March 13, 2005 02:29 AM
Steve,
I disagree. Teach science in public school and discuss the controversy at home. I don’t want my children learning about God in public school. It’s my responsibility to teach my children about God.
Respectfully,
Jelly
Jelly, my post was a joke. What happened was, some creationist tried to equate evolution-denial with good skeptical scientific behavior. Someone responded that denying heliocentrism isn’t good behavior, so why is denying evolution. A creationist said No, nobody challenges heliocentrism because that’s proven, unlike yer dang evilution. So RDLF posted links to the christian fringe which denies heliocentrism (most of whom also deny evolution, of course). That’s when I said Teach the Controversy! the point being that giving any moron who denies basic science equal time in science classes is a stupid thing to do. You can find all types of nuts. I can find you people who think that the moon landings never happened, flouridated water is a conspiracy to get rid of toxic waste, you should only eat what the bible specifies, ingesting colloidal silver is beneficial, the UN has built concentration camps here for US dissidents, etc etc etc. Teaching the Controversy is a stupid slogan. I hope my post makes sense now.
Comment #19861
Posted by Gary Hurd on March 13, 2005 12:11 PM (e) (s)
So far not one person has pointed out what I thought was the most interesting point: Preacher Mike’s notion (at least one that I think he had based on experience) was that there is a public school conspiracy aginst him and his ilk was reinforced.
I am sure that he went home even more certain that there is a big evil Darwinist/Satanist conspiracy, and that was what prevented him from delivering his message.
Comment #19874
Posted by DonkeyKong on March 13, 2005 02:17 PM (e) (s)
Gary
Picking the wackiest person in a group and then trying to tie the feelings of the group to that person is invalid.
Evolutionists as defined by those who get EXCITED about evolution tend to be anti-creation 7 day or 4 billion years. This view leaks through into their writings.
The following are phrases you will have heard although not word for word.
1) Evolution is proven. Science doesn’t prove things as any SCIENTIST can tell you.
2) Evolution is a fact. By even the most liberal definition of fact you would have to greatly reduce the scope to find a fact in the evolution theory, the dropping of biogenesis is a tacit admission by your side to this effect.
3) Evolution from dust to man is plausible and the majority of scientists believe it. This one is only brought up in the classroom or in private and not so much in writting because biogenesis is basically impossible based on all current mechanisms of science.
4) Evolution’s supporting data precludes a 7 day creation. This is a religious belief wether you believe science is against it or not. As an American I have a right for you not to be telling my kids that their religious beliefs are wrong while they are too young to be able to fight a fair fight regarding the merits of your evidence.
5) Evolutions reliance on a unexplained LUCA and an unexplained Natural Selection function both of which are needed to over come the staggering complexity of even the simpliest life are nothing to worry about…nothing to see here. You guys really don’t want to talk about what you are saying happened because the scale of what you propose is obviously more unlikely that your data to support at this juncture.
6) ID is not science and is silly in a way that evolution is not silly.
The MAJORITY of the people who choose to discuss evolution from the pro evolution stand point are anti-God. Those who don’t have a beef with the God concept talk about the data and the small effect not the large and vaguely hocus pocus evolution from LUCA who evolved from dirt but we don’t want to go there cause even we know it looks silly from a science perspective.
The legit scientists don’t have a moral problem with teaching Evolution along with teaching that evolution is a weaker than normal scientific theory for the following reasons
1) Evolution has changed the details of the Natural selection function over time. The actual concept of Natural selection cannot be disproven based on how it is phrased, the current massive lack of evidence to support is explained as give it more time etc. Only the details can be disputed because the detailed variants make predictions. the existance of gene competition, disease resistance, food competition, mate competition all show that there is substiantial change over time in this aspect of evolution.
2) Evolution deals only with data and tests from the past. As such if the theory keeps changing with new input there will come a time that no new input is possible and the theory will be believed true even though it is untestable. That isn’t what science is about.
3) The inability to evolve anything of any complexity is at odds with how frequent evolution should occur. Or even simple lab experiments showing a mutation rate consistent with predictions etc etc etc.
4) Evolution relies at its core on we are here there is no God the only way we could get here is a random process therefore we have overcome whatever unlikelyness is needed to create us no matter how how massively unlikely that is.
5) A lack of a detailed theory of evolution other than a collection of fossils. The old church theory that the planets rotate around the earth fit the existing data very well yet was completely false. Meeting the data is not what science is about. Science is about PREDICTING FUTURE data, evolution fails at this and curiously tries to forget the many predictions that are false. If you have 10 theories on how big the human genome should be relative to bacteria having one of them be more or less correct is basically a function of guessing, the next detail will be guessed by the next 10 people etc etc etc.
6) Real mature science uses numbers because numbers force a specificness that mature science can accomadate. Evolution avoids numbers because using a single number increases the number of guesses you need to make by a factor of 10 and that would be too noticable even to kids.
In closing, Nobody noticed because at its core Evolution really is TRYING to discredit creation. The science may one day be there to back your assertions but before that time the athiest slant of evolution is visible and real.
Again wether you were the cause of your clash with the pastor or not is something I cannot tell from a distance, I can however say that in my experience the evolution side is currently pushing more than the creation side on this one.
Comment #19885
Posted by edge on March 13, 2005 03:09 PM (e) (s)
5) A lack of a detailed theory of evolution other than a collection of fossils. The old church theory that the planets rotate around the earth fit the existing data very well yet was completely false. Meeting the data is not what science is about.
What do you mean by ‘meeting the data’?
Science is about PREDICTING FUTURE data, evolution fails at this and curiously tries to forget the many predictions that are false.
Funny, but I see nothing about predicting the future in any definition of science that I can find. Please explain.
6) Real mature science uses numbers because numbers force a specificness that mature science can accomadate. Evolution avoids numbers because using a single number increases the number of guesses you need to make by a factor of 10 and that would be too noticable even to kids.
Actually, I don’t see anything about numbers being necessary in any definition of science. Where do you get this line of reasoning? How about the numbers generated by radiometric dating? Are those okay?
Comment #19886
Posted by freelunch on March 13, 2005 03:10 PM (e) (s)
DonkeyKong,
It is apparent that you are far too ignorant of science for anyone here to have reasonable discussion about the history of life on earth with you. Your statements about what science says and does and your criticisms of evolution betray a profound misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection tells us, what evidence exists for this theory, and why religious doctrines have nothing to do with science. While you claimed to be moderate on this, your behavior shows that you are not. People started to make a reasonable effort to inform you, but you have chosen to remain ignorant, repeating erroneous statements that Creationists repeat for themselves so they don’t have to admit that their doctrines are false.
If you can only take one concept away from this discussion today, recognize this:
You are not talking about science, you are talking about your religious beliefs.
Comment #19890
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 13, 2005 03:23 PM (e) (s)
Picking the wackiest person in a group and then trying to tie the feelings of the group to that person is invalid.
Is that why all the fundies keep equating “evolutionists” with Hitler and Stalin?
Oh no, wait … . neither Stalin nor Hitler were “darwinists”. The fundies are just too dumb to know that.
Comment #19892
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 13, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)
So far not one person has pointed out what I thought was the most interesting point: Preacher Mike’s notion (at least one that I think he had based on experience) was that there is a public school conspiracy aginst him and his ilk was reinforced.
I am sure that he went home even more certain that there is a big evil Darwinist/Satanist conspiracy, and that was what prevented him from delivering his message.
Alas, the thing with paranoid delusions is that they are entirely evidence-free, and get reinforced no matter WHAT happens.
That is why they are “delusions”.
<shrug>
Comment #19700
Posted by Gary Hurd on March 12, 2005 01:11 AM (e) (s)
Let me add as a comment that using “dirty words” does not help your argument, and can easily be avoided. I don’t feel like editing comments, so I will merely delete any that use the typical obscenity, profanity, or blasphemy.
You might be more creative. For example, at career days I get to point out to hundreds of little children that I am an expert on the study of ancient frass. In fact, (I think) I am the only expert on the study of ancient frass. So if I called someone a “fossil frass head,” I could be the only expert in the world qualified to disagree with myself.
So you all play nice with the other kiddies- hear?