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
- GCT on March 28, 2005 06:11 AM
- Glen Davidson on March 23, 2005 08:56 PM
- Glen Davidson on March 23, 2005 03:03 PM
- Glen Davidson on March 23, 2005 02:56 PM
- Jim Harrison on March 23, 2005 02:11 PM
- Henry J on March 23, 2005 01:51 PM
- Glen Davidson on March 23, 2005 01:16 PM
- mynym on March 22, 2005 09:16 PM
- mynym on March 22, 2005 08:59 PM
- Glen Davidson on March 22, 2005 05:40 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by PvM on March 17, 2005 05:11 PM
New Scientist reports on the findings of a study on the impact of genes on religious inclinations
Genes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time.
Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person’s socialisation - or “nurture”. But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person’s religiousness.
But it is not clear how that contribution changes with age. A few studies on children and teenagers - with biological or adoptive parents - show the children tend to mirror the religious beliefs and behaviours of the parents with whom they live. That suggests genes play a small role in religiousness at that age.
Now, researchers led by Laura Koenig, a psychology graduate student at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, US, have tried to tease apart how the effects of nature and nurture vary with time. Their study suggests that as adolescents grow into adults, genetic factors become more important in determining how religious a person is, while environmental factors wane.
The study can be found in Journal of Personality (vol 73, p 471)
The title of the paper is:
Genetic and Environmental Influences on Religiousness: Findings for Retrospective and Current Religiousness Ratings
by Laura B. Koenig, Matt McGue, Robert F. Krueger, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr
Abstract
Estimates of the degree of genetic and environmental influences on religiousness have varied widely. This variation may, in part, be due to age differences in the samples under study. To investigate the heritability of religiousness and possible age changes in this estimate, both current and retrospective religiousness were assessed by self-report in a sample of adult male twins (169 MZ pairs and 104 DZ pairs, mean age of 33 years). Retrospective reports of religiousness showed little correlation difference between MZ (r=.69) and DZ (r=.59) twins. Reports of current religiousness, however, did show larger MZ (r=.62) than DZ (r=.42) similarity. Biometric analysis of the two religiousness ratings revealed that genetic factors were significantly weaker (12% vs. 44%) and shared environmental factors were significantly stronger (56% vs. 18%) in adolescence compared to adulthood. Analysis of internal and external religiousness subscales of the total score revealed similar results. These findings support the hypothesis that the heritability of religiousness increases from adolescence to adulthood.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/881
Comment #20840
Posted by RPM on March 17, 2005 06:33 PM (e) (s)
If there is a gene for religiosity, then the implication is that it is an evolved trait.
First of all, the researchers found that a propensity for religous belief is heritable. They are far from finding a “god gene.” They don’t even have god QTLs yet. Heritability is not a metric I would put much weight in, especially in natural populations where environmental variation is so great.
Secondly, even if religiosity is heritable, and if there are certain alleles that lead to more religious behavior, they may or may not have evolved for that particular function. Their role in “godliness” could be a byproduct of some other physiological function under selection. Before we can start talking about genes for religiosity evolving under natural selection we should get some better evidence that there are such genes.
Comment #20843
Posted by Katarina on March 17, 2005 06:52 PM (e) (s)
RPM: I was merely throwing out a hypothetical. If you are not interested in talking about it, fine. But I agree with what you say, it is unlikely to find a gene for religion, there being so many religions first of all, and secondly, so many motives for becoming religious. No, it would be difficult to put a finger on the gene or set of genes for such a broadly defined behavior.
Comment #20844
Posted by David Heddle on March 17, 2005 07:06 PM (e) (s)
Makes sense to me. I have always had a suspicion that original sin was encoded in our genes. I bet if Augustine was around, he’d agree.
Comment #20845
Posted by PvM on March 17, 2005 07:13 PM (e) (s)
Imagine that David, a single mutation may make someone free of original sin.
Comment #20846
Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on March 17, 2005 07:21 PM (e) (s)
I’m going to make my standard point that “heritablility” is not the same as “heritable.” Heritability is a measure of the proportion of the variation of a trait that is due to genetic variation. Fitness traits, for example, can be completely determined by genetics, but still show zero heritability because they have zero genetic variation.
Comment #20847
Posted by Katarina on March 17, 2005 07:29 PM (e) (s)
Reed A. Cartwright,
Would you expand on your comment? I don’t understand why fitness traits have no genetic variation.
Comment #20848
Posted by steve on March 17, 2005 07:32 PM (e) (s)
Isn’t the Island of Dr. Moreau based on that idea? Cool movie.
Comment #20849
Posted by Katarina on March 17, 2005 07:32 PM (e) (s)
Reed A. cartwright,
Would you please explain why fitness traits have no genetic variation? I am not challanging this, I just don’t understand.
Comment #20850
Posted by Nic George on March 17, 2005 07:38 PM (e) (s)
I don’t see any problem with “religiousness” being heritable and favorable. Although “having a predisposition to being religious” would probably be a better term. Aspects of a person’s psychology (perhaps being more willing to uncritically accept things that make them feel better) could be under genetic control. These traits could be favorable for all sorts of reasons, however recall that over the past few thousand years, and probably longer, people have been persecuted and killed for not holding a particular set of religious beliefs. Surely that would have lead to selective pressure against people who were stubbornly anti-religious. In the end though why people are or aren’t religious is going to be exceedingly complicated.
Comment #20852
Posted by Katarina on March 17, 2005 07:44 PM (e) (s)
What about studies that have pointed to the overall better health and longevity of religious people? Surely that would be an evolutionary advantage.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/31/health/main327496.shtml
Comment #20854
Posted by steve on March 17, 2005 07:55 PM (e) (s)
Say there was found an atheist gene. Hypothetical thought experiment here. Say it was discovered that there was a single gene which, getting a homozygous pair of them made the person an atheist 99% of the time. My thought experiment question is, would fundamentalists support abortion when the fetus had that gene situation?
Comment #20855
Posted by PvM on March 17, 2005 07:57 PM (e) (s)
Could it be that people who have a better health are more likely to also be religious due to a third causal factor such as being conscientious, working hard, being punctual or controlling one’s impulses?
In other words, there need not be a direct causal link between religious faith and health and longevity.
About a dozen studies have shown that religious people tend to share other personality traits, although it is not clear whether these arise from genetic or environmental factors. These include the ability to get along well with others and being conscientious, working hard, being punctual, and controlling one’s impulses.
Comment #20859
Posted by John A. Davison on March 17, 2005 08:18 PM (e) (s)
Much of the earlier literature has been summarized in William Wright’s book “Born That Way.” I am particularly impressed with this area as it is in accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and a deterministic view of the universe which I feel the facts, especially those concerning organic evolution, strongly indicate.
Albert Einstein put it this way:
“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings, in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion.”
Statement to The Spinoza Society of America, September 22, 1932
and
” Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables or cosmic dust - we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by a mysterious piper.”
In the Saturday Evening Post, October 26, 1929.
Just thoughts, but thoughts that give me pleasure.
John A. Davison
Comment #20861
Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 08:27 PM (e) (s)
steve
My thought experiment question is, would fundamentalists support abortion when the fetus had that gene situation?
To paraphrase the great Bill Clinton: If they did, they wouldn’t tell you! ;)
But consider this: if atheists tried to pass a law prohibiting the abortion of fetuses carrying that gene, would fundamentalists argue that such a law is unconstitutional and try to prevent that law from being passed?
Comment #20863
Posted by RPM on March 17, 2005 08:42 PM (e) (s)
Check out here for a quick and dirty definition of heritability. Reed is saying that heritable means that a trait is “inherited,” but heritability is the measure of the proportion of phenotypic variation in a population attributable to genetic variation. In this example, religiousness is the phenotype. If there is no genetic variation in a population, then a trait has heritability=0, even though some aspect of the phenotype (or even the entire phenotype) is determined by genetics. That is why the heritability of a particular trait is only relevent within the population it was determined. I’ll repeat again, it is not a very useful metric (of course not as useless as mean fitness).
Comment #20864
Posted by Patrick Harris on March 17, 2005 08:45 PM (e) (s)
I would like to know what her defintion of religiousness was? From the “new Sceintist” article it was just checking how often children who were raised in religious families continued to follow those traditions.
From what I read…the amount of change in behavior was more or less the same in twins.
My question: Is this “heretiable train” limited only to religious behavior? Could it also apply to other behaviors taught in child hood?
We may not have found a “religious” gene but maybe a “listen to your mother” gene? :)
Comment #20867
Posted by Michael Finley on March 17, 2005 08:55 PM (e) (s)
Is this what its come to? Genes associated with thoughts and beliefs? Can we expect conservative and liberal genes? Classical and jazz genes? Impressionist and realist genes? This is absurd.
Comment #20868
Posted by steve on March 17, 2005 09:02 PM (e) (s)
Depression is linked to thoughts of suicide. Are you saying it’s absurd to think that a gene could be associated with depression?
Comment #20869
Posted by wbrameld4 on March 17, 2005 09:04 PM (e) (s)
This suggests a new strategy for defeating Creationism: Start a human breeding program.
Comment #20872
Posted by Jeff Low on March 17, 2005 09:12 PM (e) (s)
A gene could be associated with depression because it may cause a decrease in a certain hormone that would make the individual depressed. However, how could a gene be associated with religiousness? The idea seems rediculous. What’s next? Genes for determining whether a person believes that there is life in outer space?
Comment #20874
Posted by wbrameld4 on March 17, 2005 09:27 PM (e) (s)
Religiousness very well may be based on hormones or have some other chemical basis in the brain. We’re talking about feelings of conviction and the occasional state of bliss, not academic notions such as whether there’s life in space.
Comment #20875
Posted by Flint on March 17, 2005 09:31 PM (e) (s)
Hasn’t Dawkins suggested that, since humans are relatively slow to mature and require parental assistance for an extended period of time, the tendency to take arbitrary statements “on faith” in early childhood is a survival characteristic? Not being equipped with much in the line of instinct, it behooves infants and very young children to behave (as Patrick Harris said, “listen to your mother”) willy nilly and hope for the best.
Now, what if much of what is imparted at this age goes beyond health and safety directives, and includes, uh, highly speculative material presented as flat take-it-or-leave-it fact? What if this in a position to impart this information know this, and do so for that very reason?
Now, why would identical twins (all else being equal!) tend to diverge less from such early instruction than fraternal twins as they grew older? It seems possible that this tendency to stay alike is genetic, but alike “about religion” is a red herring, because they stay alike more across the board.
Comment #20876
Posted by steve on March 17, 2005 09:38 PM (e) (s)
My comment merely showed that associating genes with thoughts is not in principle absurd. Whether there’s a link between x gene and y belief is a different question.
Comment #20877
Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 09:38 PM (e) (s)
Jeff Low: don’t forget the closely related research on degree of handedness and affinity for creationism …
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000839.html#c17195
Title: Handedness and Religious Beliefs
Authors: Douglas Degelman, Denee Heinrichs, and Hisashi Ishitobi
Affiliation: Vanguard University of Southern CaliforniaIntroduction: Niebauer, Christman, Reid, & Garvey (in press) have found that strongly-handed individuals, whose two cerebral hemispheres may interact less than mixed-handed individuals, were more likely than mixed-handed individuals to believe in Biblical creationist accounts of human origins. Niebauer et al. argue that the two hemispheres are involved differently in how individuals maintain and update their beliefs, with the left hemisphere more involved in maintaining consistency of beliefs and the right hemisphere more involved in monitoring beliefs and registering inconsistencies. If interhemispheric communication underlies the updating of beliefs, and if strongly-handed individuals evidence less interhemispheric interaction than mixed-handed individuals, then strongly-handed individuals may be more likely than mixed-handed individuals to maintain religious beliefs that have been uncritically held.
Comment #20878
Posted by John A. Davison on March 17, 2005 09:39 PM (e) (s)
Conservative and liberal genes were anticipated by Gilbert and Sullivan before the dawn of the 20th century:
“Every boy and every girl that is born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal or a little conservative.”
Iolanthe
Liberal versus conservative biases have already been demonstrated to have a genetic basis. I recommend William Wright’s book “Born That Way.”
That is why I am so taken with Ann Coulter. We both see the world the same way. It is in general accord with the the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis that everything, and I mean everything, is genetic. Don’t blame me. That is the way it is. Get used to it, that is if your genes will allow it.
John A. Davison
Comment #20880
Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 17, 2005 09:41 PM (e) (s)
In my not even slightly humble opinion, religion is one of the primary reasons that we are the only remaining large primate species within our genus, and unquestionably the dominant organism in our size range.
One of the benefits religion conveys is the ability to transmit complex information intact across many generations. If an apparently irrational “don’t eat those — they are unclean” holy prohibition only prevents one massive red tide shellfish poisoning episode every five generations, it has proved its worth.
Another advantage is indirect: because of the nonlocal social cohesion that religion promotes, there is no practical upper limit to the size of a human war party. Such was apparently not the case with any of our late competitors.
Just ask anybody in the Balkans about the role of religion in establishing group identity.
Comment #20881
Posted by Jeff Low on March 17, 2005 09:41 PM (e) (s)
Ok. So, this is kind of like when I’m gambling and I don’t know what the next card, then the feeling I get of what it might be is encoded in my genes? How so?
Comment #20883
Posted by Jeff Low on March 17, 2005 09:48 PM (e) (s)
Title: Handedness and Religious Beliefs
Authors: Douglas Degelman, Denee Heinrichs, and Hisashi Ishitobi
Affiliation: Vanguard University of Southern CaliforniaIntroduction: Niebauer, Christman, Reid, & Garvey (in press) have found that strongly-handed individuals, whose two cerebral hemispheres may interact less than mixed-handed individuals, were more likely than mixed-handed individuals to believe in Biblical creationist accounts of human origins. Niebauer et al. argue that the two hemispheres are involved differently in how individuals maintain and update their beliefs, with the left hemisphere more involved in maintaining consistency of beliefs and the right hemisphere more involved in monitoring beliefs and registering inconsistencies. If interhemispheric communication underlies the updating of beliefs, and if strongly-handed individuals evidence less interhemispheric interaction than mixed-handed individuals, then strongly-handed individuals may be more likely than mixed-handed individuals to maintain religious beliefs that have been uncritically held.
So, in other words, we can’t think on our own. I’m 100% certain that living organisms were designed. Anybody care to show the genes that caused me to come to that conclusion?
Comment #20886
Posted by Great White Wonder on March 17, 2005 09:59 PM (e) (s)
Jeff
I’m 100% certain that living organisms were designed. Anybody care to show the genes that caused me to come to that conclusion?
No, but perhaps some LSD might cure that problem.
Comment #20887
Posted by Ken Willis on March 17, 2005 10:04 PM (e) (s)
I’m going to make my standard point that “heritablility” is not the same as “heritable.” Heritability is a measure of the proportion of the variation of a trait that is due to genetic variation. Fitness traits, for example, can be completely determined by genetics, but still show zero heritability because they have zero genetic variation.
Does this mean that every member of that population will have identical fitness, or does it mean that some will and some won’t but those that do will have the identical fitness? Fitness is heritable, i.e., it is inherited but since their is no gentic variance and therefore heritablility=0, so those who do inherit fitness will be the same but not everyone will inherit fitness. Do I have that right? Please correct me if I don’t, thanks.
Comment #20893
Posted by Ken Willis on March 17, 2005 10:26 PM (e) (s)
Jeff
I’m 100% certain that living organisms were designed.
I assume you don’t mean simply that they were designed by evolution. I assume you are implying some supernatural designer. Correct me if I am wrong.
But more important, are you saying you believe this to be true or are you saying you know it is true? If the former, that will be the end of the inquiry. Beliefs are personal.
But if you are saying you know this to be true I think it permissible of me, and not in the least impertinent, to ask you for the evidence you have found to support this hypothesis.
Since Darwin’s case for evolution was largely circumstantial at the time The Origin was published in 1859, although I believe direct evidence now exists, I would have to admit that your evidence may also be circumstantial, at least for an initial theory.
Comment #20895
Posted by Jeff Low on March 17, 2005 10:44 PM (e) (s)
Attending religious services, and praying are based upon beliefs just like believing whether or not life exists in outer space, so my comment earlier is totally relevent. But, however, you may believe that such behaviours are totally useless and a waste of time and therefore don’t engage in such behaviours. From the study, they appear to be showing that there is an ‘attend church’ gene or a ‘pray’ gene or a ‘I will carry around Jack Chick tracts in my pocket’ gene. It is so absurd it is laughable.
Comment #20896
Posted by Mike Hopkins on March 17, 2005 11:01 PM (e) (s)
I would have been really surprised if there was no genetic component. Nature/nurture is simply a false dichotomy and IMHO a rather silly dichotomy at that.
—
Anti-spam: Replace “user” with “harlequin2”
Comment #20898
Posted by Scott Davidson on March 17, 2005 11:25 PM (e) (s)
Jeff Low wrote:
But, however, you may believe that such behaviours are totally useless and a waste of time and therefore don’t engage in such behaviours.
I think that the authors are suggesting that the likelihood to believe stuff has some element of genetic determination, then what is actually believed will depend upon the environment that the persons grows up in.
Comment #20905
Posted by sir_toejam on March 18, 2005 01:31 AM (e) (s)
“This suggests a new strategy for defeating Creationism: Start a human breeding program.”
Great idea; and I’m just the mad scientist to pull this off! who’s with me?
It’s time for a new sexual revolution! Scientists! free yourself and breed! for the sake of all of us!
We could turn the next noble prize meeting into a scientific woodstock!
seriously tho, the longer you think about, the more it makes sense…
cheers
Comment #20906
Posted by Staffan S on March 18, 2005 01:31 AM (e) (s)
Speculating on evolutionary advantage:
Couldn’t (the tendency for) religiousness be a byproduct of our ability to recognize patterns? There is a great advantage to that ability, even though it sometimes makes us see patterns that aren’t really there.
It would be interesting to see how well religiousness correlates with that and other traits.
Comment #20907
Posted by jonas on March 18, 2005 02:44 AM (e) (s)
An interesting methological question would be what the null value for religiousness is: religious disinterest or a strong anti-religious conviction? Or is the latter covered as a belief system all its own?
Another exciting analysis would be whether high rationality and strong religiousness are in some way exclusive or independent. The latter outcome would give prime evidence against a favoured creationist lie.
Comment #20917
Posted by Katarina on March 18, 2005 07:29 AM (e) (s)
Religiousness very well may be based on hormones or have some other chemical basis in the brain. We’re talking about feelings of conviction and the occasional state of bliss, not academic notions such as whether there’s life in space.
and
Another exciting analysis would be whether high rationality and strong religiousness are in some way exclusive or independent.
This comment is going to be long and personal, but
I think I would be an interesting person to study if someone wanted to know why people are religious. I was raised by an atheist, and was told that God is like Santa Claus, or any other superstition that the weak-minded came up with for comfort. That being an atheist is the more difficult path, but the more mature one. This view was popular in Yugoslavia in the 1980s, when the communists were in power, and my grandfather being a communist pioneer, my dad followed in his footsteps and joined the party and became part of the government. So for him, atheism was not only a choice to disbelieve in myths, but part of his patriotism to his country. Almost, his patriotism became like a religion, so you could argue that it is part of my genetic make-up, after all. Notice the streak of irrational patriotism that runs to conservative Christians nowadays in America.
However, my grandmother taught me about Christ and she still held her Orthodox Christian belief stubbornly. So one day (still living in Yugo at the time), when I was on my way to school and I hadn’t prepared for a test, I said to God, “If you are real, prove it to me now. Let this test be cancelled.” And it was. So I remembered that day, and said, though I asked such a silly thing, it happened, so there is a possibility, but it is not proof yet. But I remained a rational atheist.
Later on in my life, these little quirks kept happening, but for much more important situations, and they led me to believe. I won’t relate them, as it would take too long. However, though I was sure God must exist, I did not know about Christ. When I tried to begin going to church, the way others interpreted God bothered me, and I did not see that believers were any better than non-believers. The church atmosphere just didn’t appeal to me, so I also (unfairly) rejected God again.
But whenever I get really emotional, when going through tough times, or just whenever I get pregnant (I am on my third pregnancy now), my religious feelings blossom once again and I try to get back into communicaton with God.
I always have doubts about the existance of God, but I try to be religious nevertheless, because I am more emotionally stable when I am.
Comment #20918
Posted by Katarina on March 18, 2005 07:41 AM (e) (s)
Religiousness very well may be based on hormones or have some other chemical basis in the brain. We’re talking about feelings of conviction and the occasional state of bliss, not academic notions such as whether there’s life in space.
and
Another exciting analysis would be whether high rationality and strong religiousness are in some way exclusive or independent.
This comment is going to be long and personal, but
I think I would be an interesting person to study if someone wanted to know why people are religious. I was raised by an atheist, and was told that God is like Santa Claus, or any other superstition that the weak-minded came up with for comfort. That being an atheist is the more difficult path, but the more mature one. This view was popular in Yugoslavia in the 1980s, when the communists were in power, and my grandfather being a communist pioneer, my dad followed in his footsteps and joined the party and became part of the government. So for him, atheism was not only a choice to disbelieve in myths, but part of his patriotism to his country. Almost, his patriotism became like a religion, so you could argue that it is part of my genetic make-up, after all. Notice the streak of irrational patriotism that runs to conservative Christians nowadays in America.
However, my grandmother taught me about Christ and she still held her Orthodox Christian belief stubbornly. So one day (still living in Yugo at the time), when I was on my way to school and I hadn’t prepared for a test, I said to God, “If you are real, prove it to me now. Let this test be cancelled.” And it was. So I remembered that day, and said, though I asked such a silly thing, it happened, so there is a possibility, but it is not proof yet. But I remained a rational atheist.
Later on in my life, these little quirks kept happening, but for much more important situations, and they led me to believe. I won’t relate them, as it would take too long. However, though I was sure God must exist, I did not know about Christ. When I tried to begin going to church, the way others interpreted God bothered me, and I did not see that believers were any better than non-believers. The church atmosphere just didn’t appeal to me, so I also (unfairly) rejected God again.
But whenever I get really emotional, when going through tough times, or just whenever I get pregnant (I am on my third pregnancy now), which makes my emotions run high and my thoughts more irrational, my religious feelings blossom once again and I try to get back into communicaton with God.
For me, religiousness serves to stabilize my emotions when I need that. Which is not to say I am merely inventing God to make me feel better, but perhaps that is when I am most receptive. After all, Jesus thanked His Father for revealing Himself not to learned men, but “to babes.” It is not intellect or reason that lead to communication with God, but intuitive feelings. Whether He is real or not. And maybe when we are too rational, we ignore our feelings and this makes us less likely to be religious.
Comment #20919
Posted by Katarina on March 18, 2005 07:44 AM (e) (s)
Darn it, I double posted again. But the second post has a better ending, so may I ask that the first one be deleted?
Comment #20920
Posted by Engineer-Poet on March 18, 2005 07:49 AM (e) (s)
sir_toejam: your suggestion has already been implemented, IIRC, by a certain solid-state physicist named Shockley. His, er, political views may have contaminated the concept in the public mind.
However, I’ve got a Cuckoo’s Egg concept that might work. Most people doing science are devoted to their work, and aren’t willing to take the time (or don’t have the money, in their expensive parts of the world) to raise a large brood. But that doesn’t mean they can’t leave a bunch of offspring.
Consider the public furor over “frozen babies”, the leftover embryos from fertility clinics. There is no reason why these cannot be donated to couples who don’t have the money for their own IVF procedures… or to people with a religious motivation to “save” them. Why not find very bright, a-religious people in good health, get donated or purchased gametes, and then make the embryos available for donation?
Comment #20922
Posted by Jeff Keezel on March 18, 2005 08:22 AM (e) (s)
One of the benefits religion conveys is the ability to transmit complex information intact across many generations. If an apparently irrational “don’t eat those — they are unclean” holy prohibition only prevents one massive red tide shellfish poisoning episode every five generations, it has proved its worth.
If you’re trying to say the holiness kosher laws in the Hebrew scriptures are covert health and fitness primers, you’re on real shaky ground. Most serious Biblical scholars would probably agree that the point of the kosher laws was to contribute to the Israelis maintaining their cultural identity - apart from the other peoples in the region.
If you want to set yourself apart from other folks, you mandate behavior that is different from the other folks - and diet is a great way to do that.
Is this what its come to? Genes associated with thoughts and beliefs? Can we expect conservative and liberal genes?
Actually yes. Twin studies have shown genetic predispositions toward conservative and/or liberal POVs. And they are inheritable. And people tend to hookup and mate with folks of like-minded POVs. And thus produce children with like-minded POVs. (This roughly according to Lindon Eaves…)
This suggests a new strategy for defeating Creationism: Start a human breeding program.
It’s already underway - informally. The problem is that the conservative creationists out-breed liberals like crazy…thekeez
Comment #20924
Posted by David Heddle on March 18, 2005 08:41 AM (e) (s)
Jeff Keezel,
And they are inheritable. And people tend to hookup and mate with folks of like-minded POVs. And thus produce children with like-minded POVs.
So do you agree that the Democrats might have lost the recent election because of Roe v. Wade? The theory being that there is enough pro-Democrat bias in those who obtain abortions, and that through the residual bias that would have been present (according to your comment) in their offspring, millions of which would now be of voting age had they not been killed, that they might have changed the outcome, say, in Ohio?
Comment #20925
Posted by Bayesian Bouffant on March 18, 2005 08:57 AM (e) (s)
Another advantage is indirect: because of the nonlocal social cohesion that religion promotes, there is no practical upper limit to the size of a human war party.
This might lead one to ask, if religion really promotes “nonlocal social cohesion”, how is it that these war parties are forming? Perhaps you consider warfare an implementation of cohesion?
Comment #20927
Posted by sliver on March 18, 2005 09:30 AM (e) (s)
“Anybody care to show the genes that caused me to come to that conclusion [that all organisms were designed]?”
Genes didn’t do that, silly.
God TOLD you to think that!
Comment #20928
Posted by Katarina on March 18, 2005 09:32 AM (e) (s)
It is to the advantage of people who would like to create a war in a certain region, if the region is home to people of different ethnicities or religious backgrounds. In times of war, the feeling of patriotism get heightened, and the religion that is identified with the group becomes part of the patriotism. This happened in the Balkans, for before the wars people did not put as much emphasis on their religions.
Religion can serve on a personal basis, as it does for me, to stabilize emotions, or it can serve on a much different level, as it does for leaders who wish to use religion in order to mobilize people into war. People who have a desire to protect their group’s religion, if they feel that is under attack, have a much better motive to fight than people who are paid soldiers, or who do not really know what the final aims of the war are, except to gain new territory and resources.
Comment #20929
Posted by Evolving Apeman on March 18, 2005 09:36 AM (e) (s)
“The problem is that the conservative creationists out-breed liberals like crazy…thekeez”
That is why educating us genetically inferior folk won’t work. Are genes program us to breed and believe in the supernatural. Thus, any comprehensive social engineering program to try and sell evolution to the public is going to have problems.
How can you blame an IDer or creationist for being ignorant. Ignorance implies an ability to comprehend that may not be there. No we inferior masses are able to become scientists, engineers, physicians, authors, but unfortunately have genes that promote supernatural beliefs and make us question evolution.
Honestly, if you really believe genetics is plays a role in religiousity and rejection of evolution, what is your solution? Can environmental factors overcome this genetic flaw? Are breeding control mechanisms needed?
Comment #20932
Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 18, 2005 10:29 AM (e) (s)
If you’re trying to say the holiness kosher laws in the Hebrew scriptures are covert health and fitness primers, you’re on real shaky ground. Most serious Biblical scholars would probably agree that the point of the kosher laws was to contribute to the Israelis maintaining their cultural identity - apart from the other peoples in the region.
No, I merely state that religious behavior causes fairly reliable information transmission between generations. Some of it is practical, some of it may be nonsense, some of it tends to cause the group to cohere.
This might lead one to ask, if religion really promotes “nonlocal social cohesion”, how is it that these war parties are forming? Perhaps you consider warfare an implementation of cohesion?
By “non-local” I mean mediated by means that are not as limited in range as calls, scents, frequent association, etc. as is the case with social cohesion mechanisms in other large primates.
As to why the war parties form, that’s just something that some varieties of large primate tend to do a lot. Chimps are also observed in the practice of genocidal total warfare, but they are prevented from forming cohesive groups that are as large as the ones we can put in the field. And having spent a year in a combat zone, I note that warfare can indeed promote group cohesion.
Some may argue that I am conflating religion with culture; however, this distinction is a modern Western concept.
Comment #20937
Posted by Andrew on March 18, 2005 11:42 AM (e) (s)
Makes sense to me. I have always had a suspicion that original sin was encoded in our genes. I bet if Augustine was around, he’d agree.
Imagine that David, a single mutation may make someone free of original sin.
Oh, my sides hurt. In addition to being hilarious, Pim’s comment illustrates nicely how vacuous the pseudoscientific method really is. Maybe it’s because I just finished reading Kevin Henke’s outstanding new article on Talk.Origins about YEC’s and helium diffusion, but it seems to me that Mr. Heddle inadvertently illustrated precisely what’s wrong with ID in specific and pseudoscience in general. When you set out to bolster support for your preconceived notions (here, that we are all suffering from “original sin”) through superficial misinterpretations of actual scientific data, you’re bound to say things that are just plain ridiculous.
In that sense, Mr. Heddle is the ID movement writ small, right down to ignoring how ridiculous his initial “theory” was in his subsequent post and hoping nobody will notice.
THIS is why ID doesn’t belong in public schools (or really, anywhere): because “making stuff up that seems to parallel my religious beliefs” is an unbounded license to, well, make stuff up. And when you’re truly hip deep in it, you don’t even realize how ridiculous your claims are.
Comment #20938
Posted by David Heddle on March 18, 2005 12:23 PM (e) (s)
Andrew,
PvM recognized (I think) my comment as tongue-in-cheek, as it was intended, to match the whole tone of the thread, which, at least at the start, had an undercurrent of amusement. (Which is not to say I haven’t speculated on the possibility, but nowhere do I claim it has any scientific basis.) So, sir, it was not I but you who said something ridiculous. I am reminded of China, when a couple years ago the China Daily News ridiculed America in an editorial based on information obtained in an article published in the Onion, which they took seriously. They at least have a cultural excuse.
I didn’t respond to PvM because I took it as a continuation of the joke.
As for “pseudo-science”, I have more than fifty peer-reviewed publications. I’m assuming your productivity is far greater—which permits you to make such lofty pronouncements.
You might also have taken the trouble to discover that I am not an ID proponent it the sense (Irreducible Complexity vs evolution) that it is used here, nor am I a YEC.
Comment #20940
Posted by Cody on March 18, 2005 12:44 PM (e) (s)
I’m totally out to sea here.
If religion is genetic, then why do genes matter more later in life?
Does “heritable” mean the same thing as genetic?
I plan to adopt some day and raise my child in a church (go UU!). Since I will adopt the child, does that mean there will be zero correlation between my child’s religiosity and my own?
How would a gene for religiosity even work?
Am I correct in thinking that “heritability” is only the correlation between parents and offspring? We then infer that the correlation is due to genes and not upbringing (or SES or community)?
I am going into a similar line of work as my father. In my teen years, I would have hated doing so, but as I round out my twenties it seems much more important. Is my career choice also genetic?
Help!
Love the site!
Comment #20941
Posted by John A. Davison on March 18, 2005 12:46 PM (e) (s)
We are all victims of our prescribed, front-loaded genetic heritage and none of it has anything to do with any formal religion. Evolution is finished and we are its final products. Get used to it. I have.
John A. Davison
Comment #20946
Posted by Cody on March 18, 2005 01:04 PM (e) (s)
Oh sorry, I linked over to the New Scientist article and now I think I understand the argument. Sorry to take up your bandwith! :)
Comment #20949
Posted by Uber on March 18, 2005 01:24 PM (e) (s)
As for “pseudo-science”, I have more than fifty peer-reviewed publications. I’m assuming your productivity is far greater—which permits you to make such lofty pronouncements.
David that doesn’t mean diddly in this discussion, only a discussion of those articles. Thats a weak argument from authority that assumes just because you have success in your field your statements have veracity on all issues.
Many peer reviewed scientists have done good work only to at some point fall of the ladder and descend into pseudoscience. It happens, unfortunately to some of the best.
The same rules apply. He who has the evidence.:-)
oh and John, Evolution is by no means finished, and we may not be the final product.
Comment #20950
Posted by Uber on March 18, 2005 01:27 PM (e) (s)
What may be interesting if that for the first time in evolutionary history ‘religious’ binding may be unnecessary and given the current state of upheaval with this subject a ‘shift’ is occurring that makes a rational person more likely to prosper.
Just a thought.
Comment #20952
Posted by David Heddle on March 18, 2005 01:34 PM (e) (s)
Uber,
Fair point. After my BP dropped I wished I could have deleted that part.
Comment #20953
Posted by PvM on March 18, 2005 01:37 PM (e) (s)
PvM recognized (I think) my comment as tongue-in-cheek, as it was intended, to match the whole tone of the thread, which, at least at the start, had an undercurrent of amusement.
The problem with David is that is is often hard to distinguish between his comments being ‘tongue in cheek’ or being serious.
I took his comment quite seriously and showed how it would present some real problems. If David wants to revise his comments as ‘tongue in cheek’ he may want to add smiley faces next time he contributes something
David’s, now labeled ‘tongue in cheek’ comment was
Makes sense to me. I have always had a suspicion that original sin was encoded in our genes. I bet if Augustine was around, he’d agree.
To me this seems hardly tongue in cheek, but when rebutted, what other choice was there for David?
Especially since Augustine’s viewpoint was that
Saint Augustine appealed to the Pauline-apocalyptic understanding of the forgiveness of sin, but he also included the notion that sin is transmitted from generation to generation by the act of procreation.
Comment #20954
Posted by David Heddle on March 18, 2005 01:42 PM (e) (s)
PvM,
I apologize for misrepresenting you.
Comment #20956
Posted by PvM on March 18, 2005 01:47 PM (e) (s)
David Heddle, an ex CMU professor in Physics seems to be helpful
A big thank you to David Heddle (He Lives), for providing me with a copy of a presentation he gave on Intelligent Design. His material complements Lee Strobel’s book rather well.
Since David also stated that
You might also have taken the trouble to discover that I am not an ID proponent it the sense (Irreducible Complexity vs evolution) that it is used here, nor am I a YEC.
Some clarification may be helpful. What was the powerpoint presentation presented at the Rotary club all about?
David also claims that
I teach Sunday Schools on ID, give ID lectures at the Rotary, and have snuck ID lectures into university physics courses. I always start with an aphorism that I think is relevant.
and
When science and the bible disagree, the bible is always right. When science and Christians disagree, Christians are sometimes wrong.
David also remarks that
How would you say that evolution deals with the irreducible complexity argument? Personally I find it very weak on that topic. That is an example of a place where ID, in my opinion, does substantively better than evolution.
Comment #20957
Posted by Uber on March 18, 2005 01:57 PM (e) (s)
This is disappointing to me. I am a Christian but I do not accept the bible as infallable. I see the book more as a metaphor with alot of primitive myth abounding. My faith is my faith, period.
To say the bible is always correct is quite scary and it smacks of arrogance. The fact that he ‘sneaks’ ID in is simply dishonest intellectually and personally.
Comment #20958
Posted by David Heddle on March 18, 2005 02:06 PM (e) (s)
PvM
Geez!
(I am not an ex CMU professor; my Ph.D. is from CMU.)
The PowerPoint presentation at the Rotary club (which I also have presented in schools) has to do with cosmological ID. It deals with the fine tuning of the universe. I am, as I think most know, a huge proponent of that flavor of ID.
Can you point to someplace on here where I argue that IC is true and evolution is false? My position has always been that Behe does a much better job at making his IC case for the general public than evolution does, and that the simple responses to Behe are not as compelling. That is still my position. But as to my ultimate view on evolution I am ambivalent. In truth—evolution is too soft of a science for my tastes.
As for:
When science and the bible disagree, the bible is always right. When science and Christians disagree, Christians are sometimes wrong.
Is really a jab at YEC. I stand by this statement, and (again) my position is that science and Christianity are not at odds, and so the first sentence in the statement doesn’t ever come into play.
Uber:
I am a Christian but I do not accept the bible as infallable.
That’s nice for you. How do you know which parts are true and which aren’t? Maybe all the promises for salvation are fiction and the only true part is God commanding Joshua to slaughter entire nations.
Comment #20959
Posted by Monty on March 18, 2005 02:17 PM (e) (s)
Well, I just had <a href=”http://heliopause.blogspot.com/2005_03_13_heliopause_archive…“>a whole lot to say about this</a> over on my blog (if anyone cares). I think the “religion vs. science” debate is mostly bullhockey; this is more a “liberal vs. conservative” debate. A blinding glimpse of the obvious, maybe, but it bears repeating.
Many working scientists are also committed Christians (Kenneth R. Miller), while many atheists are scientific illiterates.
Comment #20961
Posted by luminous beauty on March 18, 2005 02:30 PM (e) (s)
Micheal Rathbun writes:
Some may argue that I am conflating religion with culture; however, this distinction is a modern Western concept
I’d argue that religion is a subset of culture in the western conceptual frame, however, in eastern or indigenous cultures where different religious beliefs co-exist as distinct traditions and/or in synthetic relations the idea is more subtly understood. One of the problems of the western tradition is its cultural narcisism. Religion is generally understood relative to its exclusivist mono-theistic, distinctively western forms. It is difficult to get folks who are wedded to western prejudice, whether of religious or scientific inclination, to consider religion as an evolving set of empirically verifiable spiritual practices legitimized by a lineage of personal instruction rather than an institutionalized set of doctrinal beliefs based on textual interpretation.
Comment #20963
Posted by Monty on March 18, 2005 02:39 PM (e) (s)
Luminous Beauty:
That was amazing: over 100 words and you didn’t actually say a damned thing. Are you sure you’re not just taking stuff from the postmodern generator?
Comment #20964
Posted by Monty on March 18, 2005 02:42 PM (e) (s)
Luminous Beauty:
That was amazing: over 100 words and you didn’t actually say a damned thing. Are you sure you’re not just taking stuff from the postmodern generator?
Comment #20965
Posted by Uber on March 18, 2005 02:47 PM (e) (s)
That’s nice for you. How do you know which parts are true and which aren’t? Maybe all the promises for salvation are fiction and the only true part is God commanding Joshua to slaughter entire nations.
Just like you do, faith. But your correct in what you say. I have no more evidence for my BELIEF than you do, the difference is I admit it. Just because you believe the entire this is literal doesn’t make your belief any more correct than any other view.
BUT the likelyhood of my view being correct is in all probability greater,as the events in the bible are a composite of mythology, the times they where written, and various midrash a notion that is well supported by scholarship. As such I accept the bible for the message, not the details.
I simply can’t imagine a God who wouldn’t approve of reason, logic, and evidence. I find those with your view of the bible to simply practice a form of idolatry.
And to answer your condescending viewpoint, yes it is nice for me.
:-)
Comment #20967
Posted by Chance on March 18, 2005 02:55 PM (e) (s)
I think the “religion vs. science” debate is mostly bullhockey; this is more a “liberal vs. conservative” debate. A blinding glimpse of the obvious, maybe, but it bears repeating.
BULLSHIT! This is not a liberal vs. conservative debate. Science is neither liber or conservative. You can be conservative and accept evidence that religion is gene based. What the hell does political persuasion have to do with facts? Your statement says more about your mindset than anything else.
Many working scientists are also committed Christians (Kenneth R. Miller), while many atheists are scientific illiterates
And by what do you base your claim? You are correct in that Miller is a Catholic, judged by many protestants to be apostate. But also in a poll 90+% of the most prestigous science organizations refuted the concept of a personal God.
So how do you know many atheists are scientifically illiterate? And it must be mentioned, being an atheist has little to do with science. It has more to do with critical thinking skills than anything else.
You could be an atheist and know little science or alot. Or a Christian, muslim, hindu whatever and say the same.
Comment #20969
Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 18, 2005 03:03 PM (e) (s)
Luminous Beauty:
That was amazing: over 100 words and you didn’t actually say a damned thing. Are you sure you’re not just taking stuff from the postmodern generator?
Strange; it made sense to me. And I largely agreed with it. But then I’m used to reading Mircea Eliade and other denizens of the squishier domains of enquiry.
Comment #20970
Posted by luminous beauty on March 18, 2005 03:11 PM (e) (s)
Luminous Beauty:
That was amazing: over 100 words and you didn’t actually say a damned thing.
Thank you. It’s not often one gets such prompt verification of one’s ideas.
Comment #20971
Posted by Uber on March 18, 2005 03:11 PM (e) (s)
It is difficult to get folks who are wedded to western prejudice, whether of religious or scientific inclination, to consider religion as an evolving set of empirically verifiable spiritual practices legitimized by a lineage of personal instruction rather than an institutionalized set of doctrinal beliefs based on textual interpretation
makes sense to me.
Comment #20972
Posted by Russell on March 18, 2005 03:18 PM (e) (s)
RE: encoding original sin in DNA.
Just for the record, I assumed David was making a joke. I got a chuckle out of it. Thanks David.
Comment #20973
Posted by Keanus on March 18, 2005 03:19 PM (e) (s)
All the blather on this topic assumes we’ve got a good scientific definition of what religiosity is. That’s a questionable assumption, given the range of behavior that masquerades as religious. From my limited experience, some of the most “religious” people—religious in the sense that they hold themselves to much higher ethical standards and sense of duty to their surroundings than the self identified religious—I know are atheists.
Comment #20974
Posted by Uber on March 18, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)
I think your experience is not the exception Keanus but the norm.
What one believes doesn’t necessarily change who one is. A tyrant would likely be a tyrant with or without religion. Likewise a kind person will be the same with or without religion.
Comment #20976
Posted by Evolving Apeman on March 18, 2005 03:47 PM (e) (s)
I await an answer from any Social Engineers on this forum.
Creationism/ID keep coming back despite 150 years worth of scientific evidence in support of evolution. I have heard all sorts of arguments as to how society suffers from the persistant refusal of a large segment to accept evolution.
If you really believe genetics is plays a role in religiousity and rejection of evolution, what is your solution? Can environmental factors overcome this genetic flaw by perhaps imposing governmental restrictions on religious expression? Are breeding control mechanisms needed?
Comment #20978
Posted by luminous beauty on March 18, 2005 04:00 PM (e) (s)
Anti-evolution is the doctrine of a very small set of all religious beliefs. No intrinsic incompatability. Shall we, as Jesus advised, separate the wheat from the chaff?
Comment #20979
Posted by Andrew on March 18, 2005 04:07 PM (e) (s)
You might also have taken the trouble to discover that I am not an ID proponent it the sense (Irreducible Complexity vs evolution) that it is used here, nor am I a YEC.
Forgive me. Apparently, I am also incapable of discerning that an author who describes his own novel as “A novel that shows the power of Intelligent Design” and who links to the Discovery Institute and Reasons to Believe as “Science Sites” is somehow not an ID proponent. Maybe it’s more of that clever lets-laugh-at-Augustine humor that just went over my head.
Can you point to someplace on here where I argue that IC is true and evolution is false? My position has always been that Behe does a much better job at making his IC case for the general public than evolution does, and that the simple responses to Behe are not as compelling. That is still my position. But as to my ultimate view on evolution I am ambivalent. In truth—evolution is too soft of a science for my tastes.
That, however, is as fine a piece of satire as I’ve ever seen. Clearly it was meant as an homage to Michael Behe’s statements about common descent, no?
Comment #20983
Posted by Jan on March 18, 2005 05:28 PM (e) (s)
I wish to address three thoughts expressed on this thread.
So do you agree that the Democrats might have lost the recent election because of Roe v. Wade? The theory being that there is enough pro-Democrat bias in those who obtain abortions, and that through the residual bias that would have been present (according to your comment) in their offspring, millions of which would now be of voting age had they not been killed, that they might have changed the outcome, say, in Ohio?
First I notice that everyone ignored David Heddle’s comment. Why, I ask with feigned innocence?
Second, I must ask after reading Ken’s question…
I assume you don’t mean simply that they were designed by evolution.
does this mean that some or all of you believe in design, you just think it lacks intelligence?
And as for Chance’s comment on this site having nothing to do with conservative or liberal thought, I would suggest a simple test when answered honestly would prove otherwise. I suspect that there is not even one single political issue that I could not predict with 90% accuracy every person’s position.
Hopefully none of you want to go so far as to endorse the following suggestions:
I have heard all sorts of arguments as to how society suffers from the persistant refusal of a large segment to accept evolution.
If you really believe genetics is plays a role in religiousity and rejection of evolution, what is your solution? Can environmental factors overcome this genetic flaw by perhaps imposing governmental restrictions on religious expression? Are breeding control mechanisms needed?
Comment #20984
Posted by evilgeniusabroad on March 18, 2005 05:33 PM (e) (s)
I am surprised this is considered news, I have known of it for years.
The sad thing is that if there really is a link then mutations may introduce this irrational and damaging superstition back into a nicely secular society.
And what if, heaven forbid, gene duplication multiplies the trait in to wild eyed fanatacism?
We would have to go through the reformation and enlightenment all over again.
Hmmm, another thought. Do you think it is coincidence I come from an ancient line of atheists?
Comment #20985
Posted by Enough on March 18, 2005 05:45 PM (e) (s)
Jan: you have a severe reading comprehension problem. I suggest you get that looked at.
Comment #20990
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 18, 2005 06:33 PM (e) (s)
As for “pseudo-science”, I have more than fifty peer-reviewed publications.
Congratulations.
Do any of them tell us what the scientific ID theory of cosmology is?
Why not?
Do any of them tell us why your religious opinions or Biblical interpretations are any more authoritative or infallible than mine or my next door neighbor’s or my car mechanic’s or the kid who delivers my pizzas? Other than your say-so?
Why not?
David, I am STILL waiting to hear you tell us that your religious opinions are just that, your 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 your religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.
Or are you just too holy and prideful to choke those words past your lips, David?
<sound of crickets chipring>
Hmm, that’s what I *thought* … . .
Comment #20991
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 18, 2005 06:35 PM (e) (s)
We are all victims of our prescribed, front-loaded genetic heritage and none of it has anything to do with any formal religion. Evolution is finished and we are its final products. Get used to it. I have.
The Great Oz has spoken.
<yawn>
Comment #20992
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 18, 2005 06:44 PM (e) (s)
This is disappointing to me. I am a Christian but I do not accept the bible as infallable. I see the book more as a metaphor with alot of primitive myth abounding. My faith is my faith, period.
Ah, but you see, David is more Holy than you are, so his religious opinions are better than yours. Just ask him.
Me, I can say, without any prevarication, hesitation or hedging whatsoever, that 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.
Just ask David if HE can say that … … .
G’head, ask him.
To say the bible is always correct is quite scary and it smacks of arrogance.
It’s worse than that—— not only does David think that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, but he also thinks that HIS INTERPRETATIONS OF IT are *also* inerrant and infallible.
David doesn’t worship a God — he worships a Book About God. Just ask him. Ask him this simple question —- if the Bible is wrong about anything, does that lessen your faith in God?
Just ask him.
Idol-worshipper. <shrug>
The fact that he ‘sneaks’ ID in is simply dishonest intellectually and personally.
As is the fact that there IS NO scientific theory of ID to “sneak in”. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Not a one.
David, if you disgree, please by all means show us this scientific theory of ID. What, according to this scientific theory of ID, does the designer do, specifically. What mechanisms, according to this scientific theory of ID, does the designer use to do whatever the heck you think it does. Where, according to the scientific theory of ID, can we see any of these mechanisms in action.
Or is “POOF!!! God —- er, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer — dunnit!!!!!” the extent of your, uh, “scientific theory of ID” … ?
Comment #20993
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 18, 2005 06:47 PM (e) (s)
How do you know which parts are true and which aren’t?
How do YOU know which interpretations are correct and which aren’t?
Wait, let me guess —- YOURS are right.
Right?
Any time you are ready to explain to me why your religious opinions and interpretations are any more authoritative than mine, my nexct door neighbor’s, or the kid’s who served me a Big Mac and fries this afternoon, please go right ahead, David. Show us all the source of your divine authority.
Or is your say-so the best you can come up with … …
Comment #20994
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 18, 2005 06:58 PM (e) (s)
I think the “religion vs. science” debate is mostly bullhockey; this is more a “liberal vs. conservative” debate. A blinding glimpse of the obvious, maybe, but it bears repeating.
It is neither obvious nor correct. Fundies are not “conservatives”. “Conservatives” want to . . well, “conserve”, to preserve political and social structures that have been around for along time. Things like separation of church and state, less government intrusion into our lives, local autonomy and decentralization of political power, etc etc etc. The fundies don’t want ANY of those things. They don’t want to get government off our backs — they want to get government into our bedrooms. They don’t want separation of church and state — they want the church (THEIR church) to BE the state. They don’t want local control of schools — they want to use the power of the law to force THEIR views into schools no matter WHO controls them.
The fundies are not “conservatives”. They are REVOLUTIONARIES. In the truest sense of the word.
This is not a “liberal v conservative” debate. It is a “ayatollah-wanna-be’s v everyone else” debate.
Comment #20995
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 18, 2005 07:02 PM (e) (s)
I have no more evidence for my BELIEF than you do, the difference is I admit it. Just because you believe the entire this is literal doesn’t make your belief any more correct than any other view.
DING DING DING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now you’ve just hit David right where it hurts the most. Right in his self-righteous arrogant holier-than-thou (literally) pride.
In the words of the song, “hey man, nice shot”. :>
Comment #20996
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 18, 2005 07:07 PM (e) (s)
I have no more evidence for my BELIEF than you do, the difference is I admit it. Just because you believe the entire this is literal doesn’t make your belief any more correct than any other view.
DING DING DING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now you’ve just hit David right where it hurts the most. Right in his self-righteous arrogant holier-than-thou (literally) pride.
In the words of the song, “hey man, nice shot”. :>
Comment #21002
Posted by Air Bear on March 18, 2005 08:18 PM (e) (s)
Dr Lenny isn’t giving Prof. Heddle enough credit for his subtle positions:
He wrote a novel “that shows the power of Intelligent Design” but never used ID in his any of his scientific work.
He sees ID in the structure of the whole universe but not in the living part of it.
He is not an opponent of evolution but lists Pandasthumb and pharyngula under “Pseudo-cience” on his web site.
He believes that the Bible contains no errors but is not literally true.
He teaches Sunday School in a Baptist Church but is not a Baptist.
He is the head of his household but has never actually overriden his wife in making a decision (you gotta dig for this one).
Comment #21004
Posted by Air Bear on March 18, 2005 08:59 PM (e) (s)
Sorry to jump on the David-Heddle-is-flexible bandwagon, but here goes:
Prof. Heddle writes here:
You might also have taken the trouble to discover that I am not an ID proponent it the sense (Irreducible Complexity vs evolution) that it is used here, nor am I a YEC.
and
Can you point to someplace on here where I argue that IC is true and evolution is false? My position has always been that Behe does a much better job at making his IC case for the general public than evolution does, and that the simple responses to Behe are not as compelling. That is still my position. But as to my ultimate view on evolution I am ambivalent. In truth—evolution is too soft of a science for my tastes.
But over on
http://www.worldmagblog.com/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id…
he writes:
How would you say that evolution deals with the irreducible complexity argument? Personally I find it very weak on that topic. That is an example of a place where ID, in my opinion, does substantively better than evolution. Posted by David Heddle at January 28, 2004 03:04 PM
and
ID is testable, in spite of your claims. There are cosmological tests, which have nothing to do with evolution. Sticking to biology, ID states that God created (sometimes reintroduced) and then made extinct many species to create the bio resources that man would need. Though it does not take a literal view of the genesis account, it does takes a chronological view. So one trivial test is that the fossil record should match the biblical order. It does. If the bible had said mammals predated life in the seas, there would be a serious problem. Posted by David Heddle at January 29, 2004 11:32 AM
Guess he’s on his best behavior when he’s on this site. When he’s “on here” he doesn’t make the claims he makes elsewhere. Maybe on this site he makes a distinction between IC and biological ID (no one else does), but elsewhere he doesn’t.
BTW, Genesis also has plants before animals and birds before reptiles; or is this a part that’s infallible but not literally true? Same for the Adam story that has Adam before animals and birds. What does the fossil record say?
And also BTW, I’ve NEVER seen any proper IDer claim that “ID states that God created (sometimes reint
Comment #20838
Posted by Katarina on March 17, 2005 05:53 PM (e) (s)
Interesting post. Helps explain why I have become religious.
If there is a gene for religiosity, then the implication is that it is an evolved trait. I can see the evolutionary advantage of religion in a species that survives best in complex social groups. That is why I don’t think religion is useless.