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
- DavidF on March 31, 2005 11:48 AM
- Jack Krebs on March 31, 2005 11:14 AM
- Russell on March 31, 2005 10:53 AM
- DavidF on March 31, 2005 10:45 AM
- Henry J on March 30, 2005 09:32 PM
- jeff-perado on March 30, 2005 08:36 PM
- jeff-perado on March 30, 2005 07:45 PM
- jeff-perado on March 30, 2005 07:41 PM
- "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 30, 2005 06:24 PM
- Wesley R. Elsberry on March 30, 2005 02:23 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Jack Krebs on March 26, 2005 11:48 AM
The first, and most important, question that I asked Calvert was:
There are millions and millions of people who from a religious point of view do not buy your argument that science is antithetical to theism. I would hope that you would respond to that.
What do you think about these people who don’t believe that just because science seeks natural explanations it’s inherently materialistic and atheistic? They don’t believe the theory of evolution teaches their children they’re mere occurances. They believe that religious beliefs incorporate scientific beliefs about the physical world and other beliefs about meaning, purpose and values. To put it bluntly, do you think they’re wrong? How do you respond to this large silent majority of religious people who are being wedged out of the conversation?
Calvert’s answer, both in his emails to me and in his other writings, basically reiterates his position without addressing the issues:
1. He says that science is not “antithetical to theism when conducted
objectively,” but his definition of “objective” means to not use a “naturalistic bias in answering speculative historical questions.”
That is, Calvert’s position is that science is not antithetical to religion if we define science in a different way than science is commonly understood. In other places, Calvert makes it clear that his definition of “objective” science includes the possibility of supernatural as wall as natural causes. (See point 5 below.)
So really his point is that if we change what science is, it is not antithetical to religion, but as science is now practiced it is antithetical to religion.
2. He confirms this conclusion when he says that “the naturalistic bias just
happens to be the fundamental tenet of nontheistic religions like secular
humanism. At this point science ceases to be religiously neutral.”
This is a confused conclusion that precisely avoids the question that I am asking. It is a matter of simple logic that “All A are B” does not imply that “All B are A.” The fact that “All people who are secular humanists seek natural explanations for what happens in the physical world” is not the logical equivalent of “All people who seek natural explanations for what happens in the physical world are secular humanists.”
3. Calvert then makes another common point of his: that the “millions of people” I refer “do not even recognize that many in science use a naturalistic bias.” He says “the bias is not discussed in science textbooks,” and so the public gets the impression that science produces “objective evidence based explanation” when really it does not.
This is a bizarre claim. All science textbooks discuss the nature of science, and make it clear that science studies how the world works. There is no hidden rule here - the “naturalistic bias” of which Calvert speaks has been central to the scientific enterprise since people like Galileo and Newton first articulated the basic principles of empirical investigation.
4. Implicit in the above claim is that those theists who accept science don’t really understand this “naturalistic bias” of science, and therefore don’t understand that they are really supporting the secular humanists (or maybe are really secular humanists themselves despite thinking that they are theists.) Calvert does not understand, or does not accept, that people can accept the explanatory limitations of science and still be a theist - he believes they are at best “confused” about their theology when they do this.
Calvert concludes by saying that “analyzing the religious views of particular individuals is not helpful because most religious belief is based on many things other than a design inference or an inference of no-design.” This is again a back-handed way of saying that theists who accept science are wrong in some way.
But my point is that they have good theological reasons for their beliefs, and Calvert is not willing to discuss this. They are not confused, or secretly in league with the secular humanists, or sell-outs to naturalism, or anything other than orthodox Christians who have a different view of the relationship between God and the physical world.
5. In his recent editorial in the Wichita Eagle (http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/editorial/11044336.htm…), Calvert made similar points when he wrote,
Nontheistic religions such as secular humanism, atheism, agnosticism and scientism are quite happy with science that seeks to remove any “supernatural” influence from its explanations.
Here he again gets “A implies B” confused with “B implies A,” and he makes it quite clear that his idea of “objective” science is one that can contain supernatural causes. So what if secular humanists et al are “happy with” naturalistic explanations in science - millions of orthodox and unconfused Christians are also happy with this.
Calvert is avoiding saying what he really believes - that these Christians are wrong. This is a theological discussion that needs to take place, but Calvert is not willing to engage in it. That was my original point, and I continue to stand by it.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/905
Comment #21966
Posted by Jim Harrison on March 26, 2005 12:46 PM (e) (s)
Both the Theravada Buddhists and the Jains are religious without worshiping a deity. It’s also possible to believe there is in fact a god and yet not be religious. Religion is best understood sociologically and not in terms of its doctrines. Which is why, by the way, a normal scientific attitude is not a religion. It pertains to a different kind of institution than a religion.
Comment #21967
Posted by Stan Gosnell on March 26, 2005 01:09 PM (e) (s)
My definition of religion is a stubborn belief in something based on blind faith, which contrary data will not affect. No god or other theistic entity is necessary. Of course, this might not meet Calvert’s definition, but I suspect his definition is flexible, depending on the circumstances. That’s the problem with arguing with Christians - mere facts will never convince them that they could be wrong, because they’re operating on blind faith, and the Bible tells them that blind faith is the way to salvation.
Comment #21968
Posted by Mike Walker on March 26, 2005 01:12 PM (e) (s)
I think I understand why Calvert takes this position. Many Christians (but not all by any means) prefer to avoid difficult questions about their faith. It’s understandable because probing beneath the surface can be very uncomfortable.
For example…
Many liberal and moderate Christians believe that God does not intevene in the natural world very often. They believe that miracles are very rare at best - e.g. miraculous healings, being miraculously saved from the jaws of death, etc. But many of these same people believe that God speaks to them and guides them through their lives on a daily basis, often in response to prayer. But how is he supposed to do this? Our minds, our brains are natural constructs that, on the face of it, have no supernatural link or connection. Certainly neuroscience hasn’t found one and doesn’t assume it exists, and yet somehow this supernatural entity frequently “whispers in our ear”. If that is true then some form of miraculous brain manipulation - be it altering brain chemistry or simple firing of neurons - must be going on all the time. So millions, even billions of miraculous interventions are happening every day in our natural world.
That leads to all sorts of other questions about why God is happy to do “tiny” miracles but is reluctant to do bigger ones? There may be a quantative difference, but is there a qualititive one?
(I understand that some Christians would argue that they are merely inspired by events in the Bible and not through some form of communication from God, but I think most would find that an unsatisfying justification of their faith.)
Calvert believes that nature cannot be disentangled from the supernatural because to think otherwise cuts God off from our natural world, making things like faith and prayer pointless and ineffective. The only was to press this point home to the “wayward” theistic evolutionists is to argue for a bigger role for God in the natural world, but he appears to be afraid to approach this from either a scientific or theological direction. I think he realizes that his attempt to bridge the gap between his own faith and the generally accepted nature of science opens up too many tough theological and scientific questions he has no rational answers for.
Comment #21971
Posted by Jay Davies on March 26, 2005 01:50 PM (e) (s)
Secular humanism, atheism, agnosticism, etc. are not religions at all. There can be nontheistic religions—like Buddhism—but a religion implies the adherence to some sort of faith-based dogma. Religious people like to call atheism a religion just to make themselves feel that their beliefs are equal. Nope.
Given this definition of religion, I think that science is definitely anti-religion. Science is the antithesis of that which is faith-based. However, the existence of God and science is not inherently atheistic, because if at some point science pointed to the existence of God (how would it do this, I don’t know) we would acknowledge it. Science looks for the most reasonable explanations, and God is not a reasonable explanation for anything that we know of.
So, I do think that religious people—of any degree—cannot maintain their beliefs while acknowledging the supremacy of science. (And scientific reasoning is supreme.)
Comment #21973
Posted by Jay Davies on March 26, 2005 01:53 PM (e) (s)
Error, second paragraph: I meant to say “The existence of God and the supremacy of science is not inherently antithetical.”
Comment #21975
Posted by Matt Young on March 26, 2005 02:32 PM (e) (s)
It is hard to define religion, but it need not involve either a deity or a literal belief based on faith. Mr. Harrison may be closest to the truth saying it has to be understood sociologically or, as I might say, culturally. If anyone is interested, see my Free Inquiry essay, “How to find meaning in religion without believing in God,” http://www.mines.edu/~mmyoung/FIarticle.htm…, or my IRAS conference presentation, “How to be religious without believing in God - and why,” http://www.mines.edu/~mmyoung/IRASconf.pdf…. The secular humanists took issue with the first paper, but the Reform Jews and Unitarians at the conference seemed to enjoy the second.
Comment #21977
Posted by Jeremy Mohn on March 26, 2005 02:37 PM (e) (s)
So millions, even billions of miraculous interventions are happening every day in our natural world.
That leads to all sorts of other questions about why God is happy to do “tiny” miracles but is reluctant to do bigger ones? There may be a quantative difference, but is there a qualititive one?
Some theistic evolutionists believe that if God truly does perform miracles, it happens in an empirically undetectable way. This may seem like a strange viewpoint for a believer to propose, but please bear with me as I explain further.
One of my personal objections to ID is that it implies that God must frequently intervene to redirect or “fix” a flawed creation. In contrast, I prefer Howard van Till’s idea of a perfectly sufficient creation in which the Universe has been invested by God with all it needs to flourish and evolve.
In addition, some theistic evolutionists have suggested that quantum indeterminancy provides a means for God to influence the Universe in a way that would be completely undetectable to our methods of scientific observation. Even more importantly, such a means of interaction would be entirely consistent with the “laws of nature” as humans have come to understand them. Therefore, this view of God’s interaction with the Universe would not necessarily be considered “miraculous.”
I’m not sure whether this point of view resolves the issue Mike brought up, but I thought it might be helpful to recognize that not every believer envisions a world where “billions of miracles” happen every day. Some of us believe that God’s interaction with creation takes place in ways that are entirely consistent with the laws of nature.
Comment #21980
Posted by Jim Harrison on March 26, 2005 03:14 PM (e) (s)
One sign of whether or not a particular point of view is religious is whether its adherents conduct rituals such as weddings or funerals. So far as I know, biologists haven’t developed an Office of the Dead yet. Note, however, that the Soviets did develop liturgies. Their version of atheism really did have a religious dimension.
Comment #21981
Posted by Russell on March 26, 2005 03:21 PM (e) (s)
Matt Inlay:
It is hard to define religion.
Not at all! It’s easy to define religion; maybe too easy. The difficult - in fact impossible - problem is to arrive at a definition that everyone agrees to. What I might call “superstition”, some people might call “religion” - and, of course, they would be entitled to all the rights and privileges attached thereto.
Comment #21982
Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 26, 2005 03:22 PM (e) (s)
Note, however, that the Soviets did develop liturgies. Their version of atheism really did have a religious dimension.
Technically, the State Religion of the USSR was Marxism-Leninism(-Stalinism). Functionally, the CPSU replaced the Orthodox Church in the post-revolution social structure.
Comment #21984
Posted by Henry J on March 26, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)
Well, if he wants science to “contain” supernatural causes, seems like (imo) all he’d have to do is find a way of producing repeatable verifiable observations of some of those causes. Or does “supernatural” just mean anything that’s either unrepeatable or unverifiable?
Henry
Comment #21985
Posted by BC on March 26, 2005 03:40 PM (e) (s)
I have been thinking that a personal God conjured by the evangelical Christians - one who wants to be involved with humans in a personal way - is likely to be more interested in the humans who are capable of thinking in rational or scientific ways. After all, the creator is more likely to be delighted in seeing problem solving and discovering than in predictable mouthing of “praise.” Another analogy: those of us who are parents enjoy when our children are discovering the world around them. Who needs a child who is constantly asking us for things and telling us how great we are? I imagine that the God that Calvert worships gets a little weary of the narrow-minded creature that Calvert represents.
Comment #21986
Posted by Jim Harrison on March 26, 2005 03:54 PM (e) (s)
The notion of the supernatural is always going to be problematic. If it suddently turned out that God was a real being with an effective role in nature, faith, at least in its evangelical form, would be in crisis because the pathos of such religion requires belief in something which is false or at least exceedingly unlikely. The believer is like the cuckolded husband whose expressions of trust in his wife become all the more virtuous the more obvious his spouse’s infidelities. Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine Aristotle belting out gospel tunes and falling to his knees to adore the Prime Mover precisely because he actually thought there was a Prime Mover. No need to worry yourself into anemia about it.
Parallel Case: The Amazing Randi made a standing offer of a substantial prize to anybody who could demonstrate supernatural abilities such as ESP or telekinesis. A guy showed up who claimed he could identify the music on vinyl LPs by feeling the grooves with his fingers; and, sure enough, he demonstrated that he could indeed pull the feat off. Which impressed exactly nobody because the whole glammor of supernatural abilities lies in dubiousness. By the way, as I recall, the man who could read the music from the records didn’t feel entitled to the prize because he knew he hadn’t done anything magical.
Comment #21987
Posted by mark on March 26, 2005 04:07 PM (e) (s)
That leads to all sorts of other questions about why God is happy to do “tiny” miracles but is reluctant to do bigger ones? There may be a quantative difference, but is there a qualititive one?
My hypothesis: Those tiny miracles are performed by numerous demigods; the bigger ones are those of Zeus and his family. As a reference, see “Clash of the Titans.”
Years ago, I got the impression that atheism was of a religious nature, because the (few) atheists I was familiar with seemed to be proselytizing activists. I never got the impression that scientists were all atheists. Now that I’m older and wiser, I better appreciate the diversity of religious and non-religious tendencies; but I’m still convinced that not all scientists are atheists.
I think China was just as officially athesistic as the Soviet Union. But when I visited China, my impression was that religion and politics had been conflated. Hmmm…
Comment #21988
Posted by Jay Davies on March 26, 2005 04:09 PM (e) (s)
Jeremy,
What does the God that you believe in actually do? If you give credence to the scientific explanation of things then the only thing God could have effected would have been the initial creation of whatever bundle of cosmic stuff that existed prior to the Big Bang (which I don’t think has a substantial scientific theory explaining it yet. Of course, I’m sure that we one day will find one).
Even the most ardent atheist must say that God MAY exist, ‘cause there’s no proof otherwise, but why make the jump to have faith that there is one?
Comment #21991
Posted by Great White Wonder on March 26, 2005 06:12 PM (e) (s)
We are all naturalists. Fundamentalists like Calvert have been taught not to admit that. But have you ever watched Calvert very closely for a month or two, 24 hours a day?
Unsurprisingly, he behaves a lot like I do except he tells more lies — and he lies because he understands the principle of cause and effect and he has seen the success such a strategy has had in energizing his less rhetorically skilled followers and encouraging those followers to open up their mouths to recite scripts, and open up their wallets to donate money.
Maybe when Calvert demonstrates his abilities to levitate or communicate with dead people like Fox News expert John Edward, I’ll think about joining Calvert’s religion with its strange anti-gay anti-science propoganda at its core.
Comment #21993
Posted by Matt Young on March 26, 2005 06:44 PM (e) (s)
One of my personal objections to ID is that it implies that God must frequently intervene to redirect or “fix” a flawed creation. In contrast, I prefer Howard van Till’s idea of a perfectly sufficient creation in which the Universe has been invested by God with all it needs to flourish and evolve.
Van Till’s conception, like Kenneth Miller’s, is a variant of intelligent-design creationism. Instead of intervening an indeterminate number of times after the supposed creation, this god has front-loaded his or her (or its) universe with everything needed to make the universe come out “right.” How?
Comment #21995
Posted by Steve on March 26, 2005 06:54 PM (e) (s)
I thought the administration of PT was a little wacky, but suspending the Bathroom Wall just takes the cake.
Comment #21996
Posted by 386sx on March 26, 2005 07:17 PM (e) (s)
Van Till’s conception, like Kenneth Miller’s, is a variant of intelligent-design creationism. Instead of intervening an indeterminate number of times after the supposed creation, this god has front-loaded his or her (or its) universe with everything needed to make the universe come out “right.” How?
He does it by “moving the goalposts” - just as the creationists are inclined to do so often. The difference between Van Till and your average YEC creationist is that Van Till wisely goes straight to the farthest point on the other end of the playing field, namely, the beginning of freakin’ time itself - the greatest no man’s land of them all. The ID creationists are forever tripping over their own goalposts, but Van Till cleverly removes all the intermediate goalposts and goes straight to the Big Daddy of them all, where nobody can touch it, and where nobody can see him sticking his tongue out at the people who like to see some solid facts, “nya nya nya, you can’t get me now!”
Comment #21999
Posted by Matt Young on March 26, 2005 08:12 PM (e) (s)
He does it by “moving the goalposts” ….
Sorry - I agree that’s what van Till does, and probably Miller too, but I meant how did the god do it? How did he front-load the universe? Or did he just throw a bunch of stuff together and was pleasantly surprised when he got something other than a uniform mixture? If he front-loaded the universe, then it’s intelligent-design creationism. How did he do it? For example, did the first bacteria have all the genes for eyes (a favorite creationist organ) zipped up in their genome somewhere?
Comment #22000
Posted by Buridan on March 26, 2005 08:27 PM (e) (s)
There are millions and millions of people who from a religious point of view do not buy your argument that science is antithetical to theism. I would hope that you would respond to that.
Who the f*** cares if there are millions and millions of people who believe or who do not believe that science is antithetical to theism, religion, Porky Pig, the Kingston Trio or whatever. It doesn’t matter what people think about this issue.
Science is not in the business of generating popular support. It doesn’t check the polls to see which way the wind is blowing. It doesn’t care whether anyone buys into its propositions about the world. Scientific truths are not up for popular vote!
If the scientific community deems your (pl.) silly beliefs as irrelevant, stupid, primitive, irrational, or whatever, that’s your problem not ours. Go pontificate your superstitions to someone who gives a shit. In the mean time, you religious nuts are wasting our time.
Comment #22002
Posted by krusty on March 26, 2005 08:58 PM (e) (s)
OT, but anyone who wants to get into fantasy baseball, I’ve set up the Darwin League. Yahoo fantasy baseball. fantasysports.yahoo.com
ID# is 273292
Password is darwin
Comment #22004
Posted by Dan S. on March 26, 2005 09:51 PM (e) (s)
“Scientific truths are not up for popular vote!”
True. But the ability to broadcast these views -whether in biology classes or Imax movies - can be, along with funding, etc.
Comment #22005
Posted by Jeremy Mohn on March 26, 2005 09:52 PM (e) (s)
What does the God that you believe in actually do?
From an empirical perspective, I agree that it might seem that God is entirely inactive. Suffice it to say that I believe there is more to this Universe than that which can be measured and described empirically. I have no verifiable scientific evidence to offer you. I believe that faith in God is a choice, not a scientific conclusion. Unlike most ID proponents, I don’t depend on empirical evidence to believe.
Even the most ardent atheist must say that God MAY exist, ‘cause there’s no proof otherwise, but why make the jump to have faith that there is one?
To get too deep into this would be inappropriate for discussion at Panda’s Thumb, since it is a blog about science (and folks like Buridan might get even more incensed and indignant). I’m not here to proselytize. You can click on my name above and visit my website if you really want to know what I believe.
Comment #22006
Posted by Dan S. on March 26, 2005 09:57 PM (e) (s)
Why attack the “God made science” concept? There’s no way to really touch it - it’s entirely outside of science and logical thinking in general - and it’s not dogmatically anti-science. I personally have no particular, pressing reason to believe it’s true, but why smack it down?
Comment #22007
Posted by Jack Krebs on March 26, 2005 09:59 PM (e) (s)
The question of how different metaphysical systems see the realtionship between the metaphysical and the physical is quite appropriate here at PT, although other aspects of theology may not be. I encourage people who are interested to visit Jeremy’s website, and hope he is not discouraged from posting here.
By the way, Buridan’s remarks are excessive - he could have made his points in a less inflammatory way. If he retirns to this thread, I hope he considers this.
Comment #22008
Posted by Longhorm on March 26, 2005 10:22 PM (e) (s)
John Calvert probably does not believe “science is antithetical to theism.” And it is not important whether Calvert believes “science is antithetical to theism.” I don’t like approaching issues through definitions like “science.” People use words in different ways. And I don’t care if someone classifies “intelligent design” or creationism as “science” or “non-science.”
We should teach critical thinking skills and inductive logic. Is that “science?” I don’t care. But whether we call it “science” or “non-science,” we should teach it.
But I’m not clear what the proponents of “intelligent design” want taught in the public schools. Do they want it taught that a deity turned inert matter (or “nothingness”) — poof — directly into two human beings? That shouldn’t be taught. Whether we call it “science” or “non-science,” it shoudn’t be taught. Why not? Because it didn’t happen. The first organism that we would identify as human was born in the same way I was born.
Some believe that they have been abducted by aliens. But we shouldn’t teach in the public schools that some people have been abducted by aliens. Because it didn’t happen.
We shouldn’t teach kids that the universe may be about 6,000 years old, because it’s not. We shouldn’t teach kids that some people lived to be 969 years old, because they didn’t.
However, we should teach that a self-replicating molecule evolved into all the multicellular organisms to live on earth. It did happen. And it is important and fascinating. Teaching it helps people understand some of the proximate causes of the existence of animals and of humans. Teaching it also advances understanding of the universe and promotes scientific progress. The latter can result in life-saving cures for disease.
Moreover, public schools should not teach the so-called “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. That would be like teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of continental drift or of atomic theory and would give students the idea that common descent is questionable or reasonably doubted, which it is not. It would be like teaching students the strengths and weaknesses of the idea that Lincoln was shot.
It would be fine for teachers to teach that we have a lot to learn about the series of events that caused the first self-replicating molecules on earth. Nevertheless, whether we all evolved from single-celled microorganisms is not an issue.
I’ve yet to see someone who refers to him or herself as a “proponent of intelligent design” present a clear hypothesis on which event(s) the designer caused. The closest thing I have seen to such a hypothesis is something like the following: In the last 3.8 billion years, a deity or extraterrestrial discretely intervened and caused one or more events that caused some organisms on planet earth to live and/or reproduce, but we have no idea which event(s) the deity or extraterrestrial caused and I’m not going to speculate.
Perhaps I don’t know for certain that the above claim is false. The claim may be too vague for me to know for certain that it is false. However, there are some events that clearly did not occur. For instance, a deity did not turn inert matter – poof! – directly into the first two humans (one male and one female). The first organism that we would identify as “human” was born in the same way that I was born. The same goes for the first T-rex, the first elephant, the first aardvark, the first ferret, the first pig, etc.
Moreover, I’m justified in believing that the claim as a whole is false, though I don’t want to get into that right now.
But the claim shouldn’t be taught in public schools. First, it is so vague. Second, it might give students the impression that common descent didn’t happen, which it did. Third, I’m justified in believing that the claim as a whole is false.
I am sympathetic with the intelligent design people on one issue. They want their claims assessed in terms of whether the events they referred to actually occurred. I’m willing to do that. I’m not going to dismiss their claims as “non-science.” I would something like the following: “No, you are mistaken. The universe is not about 6,000 years old.” Or: “No, a deity did not turn dust directly into the first elephant. The first organism that we would identify as an elephant was born.”
Some of the events they suggest occurred did not occur. But I’m not going to dismiss their claims as “non-science.” But I might say, “Well, that didn’t happen. Or at least I am overwhelmingly justified in believing that it didn’t happen.”
Comment #22009
Posted by Paula Helm Murray on March 26, 2005 10:30 PM (e) (s)
i’m, probably going to get whacked for this, but I spent over 30 years fencing with my father over the theory of evolution. After about five of those years, I let it go and just let him spout off why it couldn’t have possibly happened because the bible literally says everything happened in 7 days, etc. at nauseum. By the time he was at the end of his life, until he became demented because of the cancer, he would bring it up and I would just repeat, “We don’t need to be discussing this.”
You can’t argue with stupid/overly faithful people who will not see that there is evidence that evolution happens. The evidence is in the geological and paleontological records, plus the DNA evidence is blatant. Otherwise, is what everyone who studies such things just pulling it out of their ass? (ground, whatever, it’s almost all very physical evidence that sensible people cannot refute exists.)
One of my favorite high school teachers spoke of the theories of Father Teilhard de Chardin (spelling may be off). That a divine spark was the mover of evolution. But it happened in the due time that it took.
I really don’t care what motivated evolution, I just know it happened because the f-ing PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of fossils DNA, etc. says it happend. Science is not religion, religion is not science.
and once again, I say you can’t argue intelligently with people that believe something on faith because some butthead preacher told them to believe and ignore the physcial evidence. it’s a fallacious argument because you are arguing from two different starting points.
Comment #22010
Posted by Longhorm on March 26, 2005 10:32 PM (e) (s)
I posted:
“We shouldn’t teach kids that the universe may be about 6,000 years old, because it’s not. We shouldn’t teach kids that some people lived to be 969 years old, because they didn’t.”
Someone might ask: “Do you know for certain that the universe is not about 6,000 years old and that no person lived to be 969 years old?” If I don’t, I am least really really justified in believing it.
Comment #22011
Posted by Longhorm on March 26, 2005 10:46 PM (e) (s)
I posted: “John Calvert probably does not believe ‘science is antithetical to theism.’”
Why is the issue of whether “science is antithetical to theism” important? Why is it something we should focus on? What does it even mean? It’s so vague. Is the answer to that question important to what whould be taught in the public schools? I don’t think so. But I can’t say more about that now.
But I know that a lot of people who are devoutly religious who realize that evolution happened. Including the Pope. But so what?
Evolution happened. Whether that jibes with your religious beliefs or not should not matter in terms of whether it is taught in the public schools. Because evolution did happen. And it’s important.
Maybe the claim that the universe is more than 10,000 years old is at odds with your religious beliefs. Well, we should still teach in the public schools that the universe is more than 10,000 years old. It is more than 10,000 years old. And understanding the age of the universe is important.
Comment #22012
Posted by Jeremy Mohn on March 26, 2005 10:50 PM (e) (s)
Van Till’s conception, like Kenneth Miller’s, is a variant of intelligent-design creationism.
I would like to point out that there is a major difference between Miller’s view and the views espoused by members of the ID movement. AFAIK, Miller does not expect that science will ever find direct empirical evidence of God. The ID movement depends on this expectation. Indeed, most ID supporters claim that we already have such evidence.
The difference between Van Till and your average YEC creationist is that Van Till wisely goes straight to the farthest point on the other end of the playing field, namely, the beginning of freakin’ time itself - the greatest no man’s land of them all.
As far as this being a case of “moving the goalposts,” I agree. Van Till’s “fully gifted creation” concept can be interpreted as the ultimate goalpost transfer. That doesn’t really bother me, though. It freely allows science to investigate natural causes and develop natural explanations. It also leaves the possibility open of a God who imperceptibly influences and continually sustains the evolutionary process. In other words, it’s all good. It satisfies all the folks I like to hang out with.
Comment #22014
Posted by Jack Krebs on March 26, 2005 11:10 PM (e) (s)
Two points. The reason all this is important is because Calvert and others are trying to get their ideas inserted into the Kansas science standards. This is not simply a matter of what someone believes, it is a matter of a political attempt to insert a particular religious perspective disguised as “science” into the public education system.
Secondly, my understanding of TE is not that God’s influence is moved to the very beginning - some version of deistic front-loading. Rather it is that God is creatively present at all moments, but this presence is manifested through what we perceive as natural processes. The key idea (and I don’t mean to be flippant here) is that we are not God, so it is fruitless (spiritually arrogant, in fact) to think that we can understand how his presence is manifested. We are embedded in time, necessarily seeing cause-and-effect relationships that include elements of unpredictability (chance, contingency, etc.). God, however, is conceived to be omnipotent, omniscient, and perhaps most importantly, omnipresent. God “sees” the world as a whole, throughout all of time. What ever we see as we flow through time is not what God sees. Trying to explain how he interacts with the world is pointless.
This is ID’s fatal theological flaw in the eyes of many Christians. ID reduces God to a tinkering mechanic, manipulating the otherwise independent physical world on occasional times to help nature do what it can’t do by itself, and then stepping back out of the picture. ID is a theology of “punctuated deism.”
Comment #22019
Posted by Henry J on March 26, 2005 11:54 PM (e) (s)
Methinks phrases like “the first organism we would identify as (whatever)” are misleading. It’d be an arbitrary decision which generation was just barely that type but its parent generation just barely not that type; that “first” one and its parent would both be right on the borderline of qualifying as the named type, as would several generations on either side of them.
Henry
Comment #22020
Posted by RBH on March 27, 2005 12:07 AM (e) (s)
Longhorm asked
But I’m not clear what the proponents of “intelligent design” want taught in the public schools.
In Ohio, both at the state level and in my local district the ID side hauled out Wells’s crap — Icons of Evolution, embedded in a model lesson plan, in the form of his “10 Questions to ask your biology teacher”, and as a ‘scientific’ resource for teaching biology in high school.
RBH
Comment #22021
Posted by Air Bear on March 27, 2005 12:08 AM (e) (s)
Henry J wrote:
Well, if he wants science to “contain” supernatural causes, seems like (imo) all he’d have to do is find a way of producing repeatable verifiable observations of some of those causes. Or does “supernatural” just mean anything that’s either unrepeatable or unverifiable?
A scientific experiment on the healing power of prayer would be an excellent test. Of course, it would have to be set up very carefully: seriously-ill patients who could either be cured or not (unless we want to make it really hard, with terminally-ill patients), varying “dosages” of prayer, a control group, and especially the assurance that the ill patients do not know they are being prayed for.
I’ve heard vague rumors that such an experiment took place, but nothing definite. Anybody know any details?
Comment #22023
Posted by Jack Krebs on March 27, 2005 12:20 AM (e) (s)
Interestingly enough, Bill Harris, the second main ID guy in Kansas, did exactly such a study. Do a google search on William Harris, prayer study and you can read about it.
Comment #22024
Posted by Michael Rathbun on March 27, 2005 12:25 AM (e) (s)
I’ve heard vague rumors that such an experiment took place, but nothing definite. Anybody know any details?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gary_posner/godccu.ht…
Comment #22030
Posted by Air Bear on March 27, 2005 01:13 AM (e) (s)
Thanks much.
Apparently Drs. Byrd and Harris read their results through the eyes of faith.
I like the comment in the BBC article:
Many theologians say that, even if you believe in the power of intercessory prayer, such a trial is doomed to failure because it “puts God to the test” - and there are clear instructions in the Bible not to do this.
Maybe this is why IDers can’t produce any falsifiable hypotheses!
It also mirrors the position of religious people on this forum - believing in a power that can’t be observed.
Comment #22041
Posted by Jon Fleming on March 27, 2005 07:32 AM (e) (s)
Air Bear: see also http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html…
Comment #22047
Posted by Buridan on March 27, 2005 09:28 AM (e) (s)
Jack, inflammatory?! Here on PT?! We tolerate the trolling of people like DaveScot et al and I’m excessive? I probably shouldn’t have used the two expletives but they’re relatively common around here. I think the more common imputation of “lying” on this website smacks of excess, but then that’s my personal bias. To each his own I guess. If the use of “f***” and “S***” offends your sensibilities, then I offer my apologies.
In any event, I think the premise underlying your statement about millions and millions of people believing science and theism are compatible is a red herring, certainly from a scientific perspective. The threads on PT too often launch into theological tangents even when topics speak to nothing theological. I’m certainly prepared to engage in theological discussions, I have formal training in this area, but it would be nice to have a place where evolution and its discontents (science and religion if you like) can be discussed without getting into theological hair splitting. Having a discussion about religion in whatever context is not the same as having a theological discussion – judging from content, most people on this site seem to miss this basic distinction – they’re completely different animals. There are many sites that discuss theology in the context of science but I was under the impression that PT did not bill itself as one of those sites. If I’m mistaken please let me know.
Comment #22050
Posted by Buridan on March 27, 2005 10:01 AM (e) (s)
“Scientific truths are not up for popular vote!”
True. But the ability to broadcast these views -whether in biology classes or Imax movies - can be, along with funding, etc.
If the time comes when science is censored or restricted due to what science claims, then begins the road of replacing scientific rationality with superstition, occultism, and religious zealotry. The religious right in this country are attempting to build that road and they’ve been marginally successful in small pockets. The solution is not to sway public opinion so this road never gets built, but to keep possibility of those conditions from ever arising. There are very good reasons for maintaining academic freedom in this country.
Comment #22051
Posted by DaveScot on March 27, 2005 10:04 AM (e) (s)
Intelligent design is not necessarily supernatural. If intelligence evolved naturally, as Darwinists insist, then intelligent design can also be a natural process.
QED
You can’t have your cake and eat it too, boys and girls.
Comment #22052
Posted by Bayesian Bouffant on March 27, 2005 10:12 AM (e) (s)
A scientific experiment on the healing power of prayer would be an excellent test. Of course, it would have to be set up very carefully: seriously-ill patients who could either be cured or not (unless we want to make it really hard, with terminally-ill patients), varying “dosages” of prayer, a control group, and especially the assurance that the ill patients do not know they are being prayed for.
I’ve heard vague rumors that such an experiment took place, but nothing definite. Anybody know any details?
Numerous such experiments have been run. One of the better-designed, better-run experiments was carried out by the Mayo clinic. Result: no effect.
Two studies in the last decade have reported an effect: a study carried out by Elisabeth Targ is known to be fraudulent and a study carried out at Columbia University and published in the Journal of Reproductive Health is strongly suspected of fraud.
So, while we do not have solid evidence of the effectiveness of intercessory prayer, we do have solid evidence of investigator fraud on the subject. That means establishing credibility should be the top priority of any future studies.
Comment #22057
Posted by PvM on March 27, 2005 10:45 AM (e) (s)
Intelligent design is not necessarily supernatural. If intelligence evolved naturally, as Darwinists insist, then intelligent design can also be a natural process.
QED
Seems DaveScot has shown the major problem of the ID inference, namely that intelligent design can still have a natural designer. Of course, this also means that whenever ID is whining that science apriori excludes intelligent design, they are really talking about the supernatural form of it: Intelligent Design.
Comment #22068
Posted by Jack Krebs on March 27, 2005 11:41 AM (e) (s)
To Buridan:
Each person here at PT moderates their own thread, and I may be touchier about some things than others.
On more substantial matters, you write,
The threads on PT too often launch into theological tangents even when topics speak to nothing theological. … it would be nice to have a place where evolution and its discontents (science and religion if you like) can be discussed without getting into theological hair splitting. … There are many sites that discuss theology in the context of science but I was under the impression that PT did not bill itself as one of those sites. If I’m mistaken please let me know.
As I would like to once again emphasize, irrespective of what we might think about the relevance of these theological considerations to science, they are playing a major role in a very real political attack on science and science education in Kansas. We have to address them.
Furthermore, it won’t do any good to address them by just dismissing all religious/theological belief as silly superstition. This is a political campaign, and if science is pitted against God, science will lose.
The purposes of the Panda’s Thumb are to “discuss evolutionary theory, critique the claims of the antievolution movement, defend the integrity of both science and science education, and share good conversation.” The Intelligent Design movement makes religiously-based anti-evolutionary claims, and we have to respond to them.
That’s my 2¢. I hope his helps explain my position on this.
To DaveScot:
You write,
Intelligent design is not necessarily supernatural. If intelligence evolved naturally, as Darwinists insist, then intelligent design can also be a natural process.
Yep. The natural world contains within it the wherewithal to create things which exhibit the properties of “intelligent design,” including the creation, through evolution, of intelligent agents (namely us, and to a lesser extent other life forms.) This does not mean that some external, pre-existing intelligence must therefore be behind all this.
Nature designs.
Comment #22070
Posted by GT(N)T on March 27, 2005 11:58 AM (e) (s)
“Intelligent design is not necessarily supernatural.”
By definition, no; in practice, yes. The intelligent designer invoked by the Discovery Institute and it’s fellows is nothing if not God.
Comment #22073
Posted by Joe Shelby on March 27, 2005 12:19 PM (e) (s)
A fuller version of this comment is available on my blog.
I’m starting to see in this thread some serious generalization problems and over-application of words to mean far more than they really do mean.
Jon Davies: Science looks for the most reasonable explanations, and God is not a reasonable explanation for anything that we know of.
I fully disagree with this sentiment. It is fully possible to be “reasonable”, to use the skills of reason, to conclude that God may have been responsible for something objectively deemed coincidental. That application of reason starts with an axiom that is faith-based (that God exists and intervenes in subtle ways in people’s lives), but it is still reasonable. It is not scientific because the axiom it is built upon is not scientifically supported by non-anectdotal evidence, but it is still reasonable. Science and Reason are not mutually bound. Reason is a tool used by scientists. It is also a tool used in matters of faith.
continues: So, I do think that religious people—of any degree—cannot maintain their beliefs while acknowledging the supremacy of science. (And scientific reasoning is supreme.)
I handle that fine, thank you very much. I accept that much of what happens in my life is coincidental, and that it is *my choice* to credit God to these miracles when they happen. I accept God in my life because I see no reason NOT to. I could just as easily be an athiest, but there have been events in my life that are “too coincidental”, and rather than live in uncertainty, I accept *on faith* a certain degree of certainty by letting God take the credit.
But in matters of science and specifically evolution, as much as I would *like* to apply that on a massive scale, I can and will not. I can *believe* in a “God of the Gaps” when it comes to the mutation process and “positive” mutations (as opposed to the negative ones which are the only kind according to anti-evolutionists), but I accept it is not scientific in the slightest and surely does not belong in a science classroom. Coincidence and (naturalistic) causaility are all that matters in science because science is based on what is observable. If “designing at the mutation event” is indistinguishable from “random mutation resulting in a positive effect”, then Occam’s Razor demands the latter. (note, some would believe the “simpler” case is to accept that God did it, rather than “it just happened”. I disagree with this interpretation.)
I liked’s BC’s take in comment #21985.
Jon Davies [#21988]: What does the God that you believe in actually do?
God is present in my mind when I have a (moral) choice. His teachings present themselves in an emotional way that allow me to make the right choice without going through the entire logical process of consequence and causality [good of the many over the one, enlightened self-interest, thou shalt not bear false witness (“lie”)] to determine what I should do. The choice is clear at a more pure level.
Yes again, that is *my interpretation* of how my consciousness works and I choose to credit God rather than leave it random. It is an act of faith that has been repeatedly confirmed by *my interpretation* of the events in my life. And yes that is slightly circular logic and again is not valid for scientifically justifying the existence of God (I see no reason that I should have to, btw, which already separate’s me from the Dembskis’ and Wells’ of the world).
continued: but why make the jump to have faith that there is one?
Quite the opposite. I was raised with faith and saw no reason to discard it, no reason to “jump” to athiesm. I certainly modified it as I grew older (“I discarded childish things” — 1 Corinthians 13), and it is hardly blind faith by any means. It is not difficult for me to maintain my faith because of science.
It *IS* more difficult for me to maintain the identity of my faith as a form of Christianity in the face of the lies, deceits, and political motivations and actions of those who (falsely) claim to act as Christians. “Too many people have lied in the name of Christ for anyone to heed the call.” — Graham Nash, 1977.
I wish Stan Gosnell could find another term to use instead of lumping biblical literalists and fundementalists together with those of us who are far more reasonable as “Christians” [#21967]. The bible in no way EVER stated that Blind Faith is the way into salvation. That is a dogma that was established long after the Bible was written and a dogma discarded by most Christian sects over the centuries including the Catholics. The Bible *repeatedly* states (in both testaments) that “Agape”, Love, is the most important means to peace with the Father.
Comment #22074
Posted by Buridan on March 27, 2005 12:39 PM (e) (s)
Fair enough Jack. It was a moment of frustration on my part regarding a more general trend here on PT and not necessarily directed toward you. Please accept my apologies.
Comment #22076
Posted by Jack Krebs on March 27, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)
This is an excellent post, in my opinion, not because I necessarily agree (or disagree) about the particular religious beliefs you describe, but because of the way you differentiate science from religion, with an emphasis on choice, in a way that doesn’t set scientific belief against religous belief.
Long ago, when I was an anthropology student, I wrote a paper where I made a distinction that has stayed with me for many years: scientific belief is confirmed and religious belief is affirmed. We make choices about how to live and how to see the world that go beyond anything that can be empirically confirmed. The existential dilemma is that we have to make such choices - not choosing is not a choice. Therefore, we must do our best to choose beliefs that we can live with - a circular task (as you note), because we also have to choose what we can live with.
This is the real topic we (as a society and a world) should be discussing, in my opinion, ID is a terribly time-wasting effort which not only distracts us from real science, it more importantly distracts us from discussing genuine issues about how we should live. Setting religion against science harms both.
Comment #22085
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on March 27, 2005 02:08 PM (e) (s)
Furthermore, it won’t do any good to address them by just dismissing all religious/theological belief as silly superstition. This is a political campaign, and if science is pitted against God, science will lose.
Exactly. I have always considered it a major weakness in the anti-creationist/ID movement that it is dominated, verbally at least, by atheists, who attack not just creationist attempts to paint their religious beliefs as science, but attack ALL religious beliefs. By turning this into a “science vs god” debate, such atheists are only agreeing with the fundies and allowing the fundies to set the agenda. Quite apart from the obvious fact that this is NOT a “science vs god” debate (many evolutionary biologists are religious, and the vast majority of Christians and other religions accept all of modern science and think creationists are just as nutty as everyone else does), this false dichotomy plays to the creationists’ strengths and avoids their weaknesses. The majority of the IDer’s funding, new recruits and political support come from those who may not be Biblical literalists and may even reject YEC, but who want to affirm a faith in the existence of god. By forcing them to choose (when in reality there is no such choice that must be made), we can only push them into the IDer’s camp and out of ours. Fewer than 10 percent of people in the US identify themselves as “atheists”; leaving 90 percent who hold religious beleifs of one form or another. If *anyone* seriously thinks they can win a political fight by immediately alienating 90 percent of the population, well, then that person is either masochistic or deluded.
This is not a “science vs god” debate. It is a “religious kooks who want to force their religious opinions onto everyone else vs, well, everyone else”. Theistic evolutionists (the vast majority of religions) are our natural allies in this fight. They help to destroy the whole fundie “god vs science” argument by pointing out and exemplifying that the two are NOT incompatible, despite ID rhetoric to the contrary. Indeed, the majority of Christians accept both, and see no conflict at all in doing so. By senselessly driving them away, however, with constant blither about “Bronze Age goatherder mythology” and such, we do ourselves no favors, and do nothing but help the fundies.
And in any case, those who want to declare “science proves there is no god” are, in my opinion, mis-using and abusing science every bit as much as the fundies. Science isn’t any more “atheistic” than is weather forecasting or accident investigation or the rules of baseball. Science doesn’t (and can’t) conclude that there IS a god. Science doesn’t (and can’t) conclude that there ISN’T a god. It is simply not a matter that science can investigate. Science simply doesn’t give a flying fig one way or the other.
Some atheists need to decide which fight they are fighting. If their aim is to prevent the creationists from using political power to force their religious opinions onto others, well, that is my aim too, and you need to start thinking seriously about the tactics you are using and whether they are helping or hurting that fight (and I can tell you from firsthand experience that simplemindedly attacking religion HURTS the fight). If, on the other hand, your aim is merely a holy war of your own to remove religion from the earth, then I have no interest in it. It’s an unwinnable fool’s task. Waste your life on it if you like. Me, I have better things to do. <shrug>
.
Comment #22087
Posted by Air Bear on March 27, 2005 02:49 PM (e) (s)
Jon Fleming — thanks for the Columbia “study”
If this is how the mainstream media report on the healing power of prayer:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293237/…
then science education has a real uphill battle.
Comment #22107
Posted by Air Bear on March 27, 2005 05:59 PM (e) (s)
Jon Fleming — thanks for the Columbia “study”
If this is how the mainstream media report on the healing power of prayer:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7293237/…
then science education has a real uphill battle.
Comment #22112
Posted by Stan Gosnell on March 27, 2005 07:18 PM (e) (s)
I wish Stan Gosnell could find another term to use instead of lumping biblical literalists and fundementalists together with those of us who are far more reasonable as “Christians”
So do I. But as long as those of you ‘who are far more reasonable’ allow the fundamentalists and literalists to be the only voice heard, how can I know you even exist? Until you speak out against those idiots you have no choice but to be lumped together with them, if you call yourself a Christian. They are the only voice being heard, and it’s your fault. (You in the plural figurative sense)
Comment #22118
Posted by Joe Shelby on March 27, 2005 08:02 PM (e) (s)
Re: 22112.
Well, within the confines of being Christians, we have the same problem that evolutionary biologists have. Should we spend all of our time countering the voices of those who misrepresent us and our positions, or do we just get on with our work because the alternative ceases to be interesting, productive, or even noticed? Moderates in Christianity in America suffer the same problems as Moderates in politics (I’m one of them, too) — its hard to even seem to have any voice at all when all that surrounds you is loud extremism in all directions.
I say what I can, when I can (I am here, aren’t I?) when the moment is right, when (as my faith puts it) I am called to speak. However, I can’t be the voice of reason against Christian extremism 24/7. I have a job, a family, and like others on here more directly addressing the biological issues, I eventually tire of repeating the same arguments to every new (Moore’s Law 18 months) generation of the misinformed.
Not every moderate or mainstream Christian *wants* to get involved. To do so, without some discipline and awareness of what one is getting into, could lead to anger and hate and such things are to be avoided if possible. There are times to be angry and to express that anger (Christ was not exactly whistling dixie when he overturned the money lenders’ tables), but without discipline and some experience at rhetoric and maintaining objectivity, it can grow into hate speech as bad as that coming from the religious-right. As a Christian, I would not wish such a fate on any. I know many who don’t like the way things are, but can not express it without an anger that eats at them and destroys them from within or an immaturity that leaves them looking even more the fools. I accept that they, and we, are better off ignoring it as best they can.
Comment #22121
Posted by Tim Tesar on March 27, 2005 08:25 PM (e) (s)
I share the concerns of Joe Shelby and “Rev Dr” Lenny Flank. Other than their beliefs regarding deity, theists and non-theists can have many common interests. Atheists (such as myself) need to recognize that, in situations such as the creation/evolution debate, we need all the allies we can get. Divisive, derogatory comments about theism in general (as opposed to particular brands of theism) only make the battle against the formidable enemy we face more difficult. I hope Joe and Lenny will repeat their comments whenever they see anyone cross the line. PT is NOT the place to debate theism/atheism.
The National Center for Science Education presents a very good model for the way theists and atheists can work together for common goals. For example, see the May-Aug. 2004 issue of the “Reports of the National Center for Science Education” (unfortuantely not available online, if you don’t have it, you should join and order a copy) which is almost entirely devoted to discussing science-religion issues. It includes reviews of a number of books by Christains explaining how they are able to reconcile evolution with their faith.
And of course the contributors to PT includes both theists and atheists.
Comment #22122
Posted by Longhorn on March 27, 2005 08:35 PM (e) (s)
According to Jack Krebs:
The reason all this is important is because Calvert and others are trying to get their ideas inserted into the Kansas science standards. This is not simply a matter of what someone believes, it is a matter of a political attempt to insert a particular religious perspective disguised as “science” into the public education system.
Jack, I don’t know if I see your point.
My point is this. Whether or not evolution is inconsistent with beliefs of some people is irrelevant to whether it should be taught in the public schools. If that would be our test as to what should be taught in public schools, then all sorts of important things wouldn’t get taught.
In this context, we should not feel obligated to try to help people reconcile evolution with their other beliefs. That is too hard and too personal.
But I do feel obligated to do what I can to make sure that evolution is taught and taught well in the public schoos. Evolution happened. And it is important and interesting.
So, my question for John Calvert is not why he sees evolution as incompatible with some of his other beliefs that are important to him. My question for him is: What do you want taught? And why?
Comment #22126
Posted by Air Bear on March 27, 2005 09:18 PM (e) (s)
re Joe Shelby in 22073
This is a wise description of the place and role of science and religion in human life. Contrary to what some people here may believe, science is not supreme in human life; art, religion, social relations, technology, and other aspects of human existence have their own sets of knowledge, meaning, and use. But within the realm of science, the rules of science apply, whatever anyone thinks. These rules include observation, conclusions based on observation, and operational naturalism. Whatever one may feel or believe about God’s actions in the world, a scientist must deal only with observable, repeatable, “natural” or “natural-like” effects. If such effects were to include the healing power of intercessory prayer, well so be it, though such effects have not been reliably observed.
The big problem these days, the big threat to science, is that some religiously-motivated people are trying to force religious ideas into the scientific realm, specifically in the areas of the origins and develoment of living things. They have chosen to get their foot in the door at the point of biology classes in public schools, because non-scientists have influence over public education in the form of school boards.
If pro-evolution posters at PT are strident, it is partly because there are so many intellectually dishonest attacks on evolutionary science these days. The distortions, misrepresentations, and intellectual dishonesty of the critics of evolution are outrageous and offensive at a gut level to anyone who loves science. And there are some pro-evolution people who are strident and rude beause, well, they’re just strident and rude. But such people are everywhere; check out any bulletin board for examples of at least a few such people. My own neighborhood forum his GWWs and JASs. And scientific atheists have as much right to their beliefs as anyone else, even if most people don’t agree.
As long as the attacks on evolution and science in general from DI and others continue at this level, those who love science will need to continue to fight back. Persistence pays off, and repetitiveness is its tool. Just look at any special-interest magazine over the period of a year or so, and you’ll start to find the same articles over and over again.
Comment #22140
Posted by Buridan on March 28, 2005 01:35 AM (e) (s)
Longhorn’s points are very good. The assumption that scientists ought to be concerned about the religious sensibilities of those who may have trouble with evolution in particular or science in general, and then to suggest they do their best to convince them that science is compatible with religion, is a bit much. I don’t see that happening any time soon.
Negative comments toward religion here on PT are almost always, if not always, directed toward the extreme fringes of Christianity because that’s where the anti-evolution movement is located. To suggest that such comments impugn religious beliefs more generally simply misconstrues the context of those remarks. I will not pull any punches when it comes to these religious nuts, a description that is rather mild in my book.
They certainly have no qualms with attacking me on all sorts of levels. I’m now receiving emails from these people with viruses attached. It’s a rather silly form of expressing their opposition but I take it as a badge on honor. It does, however, demonstrate the measures they’ll employ in their fascist attempts to have their way. So, if you deem that my or anyone else’s remarks toward these nutcases in some way reflects negatively on religious belief as a whole, then there’s not much I can or will do to temper that impression.
Quite frankly, I don’t have any obligation to worry about anyone’s religious beliefs, left, right, center or wherever they fall along the religious continuum. That’s their business not mine. That may not be the best strategic approach to this public debacle given the present mood in this country, but I will not be backed into a corner and forced to play nice with these people because it’s the Christian thing to do or because conservatives reign supreme in the land. I’ll choose my ethic and my level of civility of my own accord and if that doesn’t sit well with folks – too bad.
Comment #22197
Posted by Mike S. on March 28, 2005 11:58 AM (e) (s)
It’s a truism that scientists, as a group, are clueless about politics. It’s interesting to put these two quotes next to each other:
This is a political campaign, and if science is pitted against God, science will lose.
If the time comes when science is censored or restricted due to what science claims, then begins the road of replacing scientific rationality with superstition, occultism, and religious zealotry. The religious right in this country are attempting to build that road and they’ve been marginally successful in small pockets. The solution is not to sway public opinion so this road never gets built, but to keep possibility of those conditions from ever arising. There are very good reasons for maintaining academic freedom in this country.
Jack’s statement is quite right - like it or not, America has always been, and continues to be, highly religious. You simply cannot win political battles if you a) engage in gratuitious religion-bashing, or b) fail to understand the views and motivations of religious believers. a) is rather easily avoided just by deploying common courtesy, or if you have a modicum of political savvy. b) is rather more complex, as there are a wide variety of religious beliefs and motivations in this country, but the stereotypical dismissal that “it’s all just ignorant superstitious bunk” simply won’t cut it. There are numerous highly intelligent believers of a variety of religious faiths, including many who are quite knowledgeable about science. They might be wrong about their beliefs, or you might disagree about the reasonableness of such beliefs, but it’s simply counterfactual to argue that religious believers=dumb.
The question for those of Buridan’s persuasion is how do we “…not to sway public opinion so this road never gets built, but to keep possibility of those conditions from ever arising” in a democratic republic? I’d suggest that the only way to do that is precisely by engaging in argument, persuasion, and education, which you simply cannot do if you call those you are addressing ignorant rubes.
“There are very good reasons for maintaining academic freedom in this country.”
Well, those reasons apply in any country, and yes, there are such reasons, but your statment begs the question: what does academic freedom consist of? Right now, to the extent that the general public pays any attention to the academy, they associate calls for academic freedom with either protecting charlatans like Ward Churchill or gross hypocrisy in the light of the show trial given Larry Summers. Right now scientists are generally held in high esteem by the public, but that status is hardly guaranteed. Scientists, and the academy as a whole, need to do a better job focusing on the <i>responsibilities</i> that are part of academic freedom, and not just the <i>rights</i>.
Comment #22199
Posted by Mike S. on March 28, 2005 12:15 PM (e) (s)
“The big problem these days, the big threat to science, is that some religiously-motivated people are trying to force religious ideas into the scientific realm, specifically in the areas of the origins and develoment of living things.”
Science is a big and complex endeavor, so it’s easy to over-generalize, but I’m not sure that religious fundamentalism is the biggest threat to science. It is a threat, to be sure, but it’s not nearly as serious (at least in this country) as people make it out to be. I think the bigger threats facing science are internal: it’s arrogance and insularity. I see too much of the “we’re scientists, let us do what we want with your (taxpayer) money, and leave us alone” attitude, combined with what seems to be an ever-widening knowledge gap. As science gets more complex, the gap between the understanding of scientists and the general public gets larger. This means that it’s harder for scientists to explain what they are doing, so they don’t try as hard to explain & teach, which causes their rhetorical skills to diminish, which widens the knowledge gap. Like I said, it’s easy to overgeneralize, but I see these trendlines as possibly heading for a nasty collision at some point.
Obviously, PT is dedicated to closing this gap, but it often seems like a drop in the ocean.
Comment #22225
Posted by Shaggy Maniac on March 28, 2005 01:50 PM (e) (s)
Just having finished reading through this entire thread, I am moved to express a word of thanks to those participating and moderating. With only a couple of minor hiccups of smoldering rhetoric, this is perhaps the most reasonable discussion of the relevence of the religious issue that I have read on a site of this type. Thanks all!
Comment #22232
Posted by neo-anti-luddite on March 28, 2005 02:09 PM (e) (s)
This is a political campaign, and if science is pitted against God, science will lose.
In America, sure. But when “science loses” here, it will flourish elsewhere, to America’s eventual detriment.
Science can get away with a lot because on the whole, science delivers on its miracles. If the religious right in America doesn’t want access to those miracles, there are many other contires that do. The end result will be the USA as a thrid-world theocracy dreaming of its glory days.
But remember, those religious righties are PATRIOTS!
Comment #22233
Posted by David Heddle on March 28, 2005 02:15 PM (e) (s)
Interesting discussion, for the most part.
To me, the evidence is overwhelming that science and theism are compatible.
I find myself in rare agreement with the “Rev” when he writes:
By forcing them to choose (when in reality there is no such choice that must be made), we can only push them into the IDer’s camp and out of ours.
Stan Gosnell
But as long as those of you ‘who are far more reasonable’ allow the fundamentalists and literalists to be the only voice heard, how can I know you even exist? Until you speak out against those idiots you have no choice but to be lumped together with them, if you call yourself a Christian. They are the only voice being heard, and it’s your fault. (You in the plural figurative sense)
Now this, of course, is utter crap because there are many, many of us scientist/Christians who have done battle with YECs. You must be wearing blinders.
Comment #22239
Posted by Great White Wonder on March 28, 2005 02:55 PM (e) (s)
this, of course, is utter crap because there are many, many of us scientist/Christians who have done battle with YECs. You must be wearing blinders.
Is there an evangelical or fundamentalist Christian web site dedicated to debunking YEC claims and pointing out how liars like Hovind make a joke out of Christianity, sort of like how this site debunks ID creationist claims and charlatan proponents therof? Share the links, man.
I’d guess that this blog has more outspoken clearly anti-YEC Christians posting on it than any other in the blogosphere. But I’m no expert on Christian blogs, particularly evangelical Christian blogs. Share the links.
Comment #22241
Posted by David Heddle on March 28, 2005 03:04 PM (e) (s)
GWW,
You might start with Hugh Ross’s site. Hovind has called him a heretic for his old-earth cosmological ID beliefs, and Ross has debated him on national tv. (Hovind and most PTers are united in their opposition to Hugh Ross.)
Comment #22245
Posted by jeff-perado on March 28, 2005 03:18 PM (e) (s)
When it comes to discussing science and religion, there is one thing that is indisputable, and causes the greatest strife for science, and makes religion seem more powerful than it is. That is the simple fact that science has limits, religion has none, and never will. Science, when discussing, for example, nuclear power, can never fully answer a questioner, if they continue asking questions. They can bring down the conversation of how a nuclear power plant operates, down to the level of how science fails to be able to explain how a single radioactive isotope decays precisely when it does. It is a statistical process and science cannot answer that. That is our current limitation.
Religion tends to utilize that “Achilles heel” to claim that since science has not provided all the answers, that it, therefore, cannot provide those answers.
Since I come across that type of argument frequently, I have begun to pay more attention to the limits and problems with religion, specifically Christianity.
I disagree with many posters here, that one should not attack religious beliefs, for fear of putting off its adherants; for this one and simple reason: Science does indeed have limitations, but those will be answered tomorrow. Religion, too, has limitations. If religion can attack the unknowns of science, then science should be able to attack the limitations of religion as well, (Let’s call it the Fox “Fair and Balanced” option.)
With that in mind, I offer this response:
Joe Shelby wrote:
The bible in no way EVER stated that Blind Faith is the way into salvation
Actually the Bible is rife with proclamations that anything but blind belief will end in damnation. Any Christian who reads the Bible will quote to you these passages:
1 Timothy 6:3,4
“3If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness,
4he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions” [NASB]
1 Timothy 6:20
“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge” [NIV]
2 Timothy 2:16
“But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness” [NASB]
Matthew 18:3,4
“3and said, ‘Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
4Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.’”
The bible warns against human knowledge, and states that only by taking the “faith of a child” alone will get one into heaven. So that is “blind faith” type of faith that is “pure” and not “polluted” by human knowledge. It is a plain and simple fact, stated very clearly by Paul in his epistles in the bible, and by Jesus in the Gospels. They both warn that one cannot be a Christian and ask questions that may contradict the “Truths” (capital ‘T’, not lower case ‘t’) found in the bible.
Now I want to make clear that I am not selling your beliefs/faith short; rather I just want to show you what the Bible actually did say about these matters, and that the Bible does not agree with your position. The Bible speaks of faith holding true in the face of human knowledge (the facts we, as humans, have found). This is, of course, the very definition of “blind faith.”
For the record, I have no problem with scientists (or non-scientists) having “religion” or believing in God. I think a clear boundary can be drawn there. Its just that invoking religion/god in science is unfounded at best, and misleading in reality. Believe in God if you must, but don’t try to justify that belief via a book that so plainly is anti-knowledge and anti-human knowledge. Science cannot make any claims about the existence of God, but science can make a large number of claims about the falsehoods of the bible. That is a distinction that is not just crucial to the debate on evolution, but is the very nexxus of the debate; facts versus literature is a clear win, facts versus some belief in a deity is immaterial.
I apologize for getting so far off topic, but this point is very important to me, and what I fight for: facts, truth, and passing this knowledge on to our children.
Comment #21962
Posted by Jones Alley on March 26, 2005 12:20 PM (e) (s)
Can somebody help me? WTF is a “non-theistic religion?” Isn’t that like “promiscuous celibacy?”