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
- steve on May 27, 2005 12:56 PM
- Lurker on May 27, 2005 12:11 PM
- steve on May 27, 2005 12:08 PM
- Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on May 27, 2005 11:43 AM
- steve on May 27, 2005 11:28 AM
- Salvador T. Cordova on May 27, 2005 11:13 AM
- RBH on May 26, 2005 11:52 PM
- Nick (Matzke) on May 26, 2005 11:39 PM
- Henry J on May 23, 2005 12:15 PM
- Ed Darrell on May 23, 2005 04:19 AM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Nick Matzke on May 16, 2005 05:36 PM
In a recent post, I noted in passing that modern evolutionary theory is no more atheistic than other sciences that seek natural explanations for the natural world. Yet for some reason, Phillip Johnson and the rest of the ID camp think that it is evolution in particular that is inconsistent with Christianity. As Johnson stated in yesterday’s Washington Post article,
‘I realized…that if the pure Darwinist account was accurate and life is all about an undirected material process, then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy. Here was a chance to make a great contribution.’
Now, imagine how silly it would seem if Phillip Johnson had said this:
‘I realized…that if the pure scientific meteorologist account was accurate and weather is all about an undirected material process, then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy. Here was a chance to make a great contribution.’
According to a literal reading of the Bible, the evidence that God controls the weather is, if anything, much stronger than the Biblical evidence that God specially created organisms. PT poster Wesley Elsberry ran a search on an online Bible and found a slurry of quotes explicitly describing God’s influence on the weather. The Bible is shot through with such statements, from Old Testament to New. They are re-posted below for posterity.
A couple of minutes with BibleGateway shows that there are several references in the bible to God being a maker and controller of weather. Looking for ‘storm’ and ‘wind’, I found the following references:
Exodus 10:13
So Moses stretched out his staff over Egypt, and the LORD made an east wind blow across the land all that day and all that night. By morning the wind had brought the locusts;Numbers 11:31
Now a wind went out from the LORD and drove quail in from the sea. It brought them [ Or They flew ] down all around the camp to about three feet [ Hebrew two cubits (about 1 meter) ] above the ground, as far as a day’s walk in any direction.Isaiah 11:15
The LORD will dry up the gulf of the Egyptian sea; with a scorching wind he will sweep his hand over the Euphrates River. [ Hebrew the River ] He will break it up into seven streams so that men can cross over in sandals.Jeremiah 4:12
a wind too strong for that comes from me. [ Or comes at my command ] Now I pronounce my judgments against them.’Jeremiah 10:13
When he thunders, the waters in the heavens roar; he makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.Ezekiel 13:13
Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: In my wrath I will unleash a violent wind, and in my anger hailstones and torrents of rain will fall with destructive fury.Hosea 13:15
even though he thrives among his brothers. An east wind from the LORD will come, blowing in from the desert; his spring will fail and his well dry up. His storehouse will be plundered of all its treasures.Amos 4:13
He who forms the mountains, creates the wind, and reveals his thoughts to man, he who turns dawn to darkness, and treads the high places of the earth— the LORD God Almighty is his name.Jonah 1:4
Then the LORD sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up.Jonah 4:8
When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, ‘It would be better for me to die than to live.’Zechariah 10:1
[ The LORD Will Care for Judah ] Ask the LORD for rain in the springtime; it is the LORD who makes the storm clouds. He gives showers of rain to men, and plants of the field to everyone.Mark 4:39
He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, ‘Quiet! Be still!’ Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.Luke 8:25
He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. ‘Where is your faith?’ he asked his disciples. In fear and amazement they asked one another, ‘Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him.’
Now, of course, I don’t actually think for a second that naturalistic meteorology actually undermines Christianity. People still pray about the weather, even though they know that weather is caused by natural processes. Belief in natural processes, and belief in God’s action in the world, are simply not in conflict for these people. If God can act through natural processes, then a natural explanation of something is not a threat to the belief system.
I suspect that this belief — about meteorology — is almost universal among Christians, evangelical or otherwise. I also suspect that it is almost universal held among Christians of all stripes that theological beliefs about the weather belong in the church and home, and not the public schools. People still pray for rain, but there is no big movement to teach bogus “criticisms of naturalistic meteorology”, attempting to insert divine intervention into the fact that tornadoes are still fairly mysterious, or the fact that scientists are not omniscient predictors of the weather. There is no attempt to divide “micro-operational science”, which can be done in a lab, from “macro-operational science”, which cannot be done in a lab. There is no attempt to rule the latter hopelessly untestable, and therefore to consider macro-meteorology and miracles as equally scientifically valid.
What ID advocates have to explain is why evolution is different from meteorology with respect to theology. The fun thing about the Meteorology Argument is how rapidly ID advocates contort and twist themselves into knots as soon as they attempt to address the argument. David Heddle gave us an example:
I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic. So someone could, self-consistently, believe that evolution promotes atheism and meteorology does not.
What Heddle doesn’t provide, and couldn’t provide under questioning, was any reason why evolution and meteorology are logically any different with respect to the theism/atheism question. The best he did was bluster “it’s obvious.”
Another example from a few years back is Casey Luskin of the IDEA center:
Stormy weather
[Matzke] suggests that if the weather is undirected, then meteorologists should rightly employ the same materialist philosophy Wells criticizes. [Ignore this ad hom in the first sentence for the moment — N.M.] However, the difference between the weather and evolution is that the processes controlling weather are be observed in the present to be based upon chance and law. The origin of biological organisms took place in the past, where the processes involved cannot be accessed. By assuming that only naturalistic processes were at work in the past, evolutionists make stronger philosophical statements than meteorologists, who can directly observe that naturalistic processes are at work in the present. Given that many unknowns about causes of weather will always exist, for we cannot know what is always happening in the sky, it is possible that God “makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth; [and] sends lightning with the rain”58 after all! However, given that we observe weather in the present obeying natural laws, scientists are not unjustified in relegating explanations of present weather to the natural realm.
To summarize, Luskin says:
(1) Meteorologists observe natural processes operating today
(2) Evolutionists, although they can observe natural processes operating now, can’t observe natural processes operating in the past
(3) Meteorologists actually can’t directly observe all the natural processes operating today in controlling the weather (weather is a chaotic system, highly sensitive to initial micro-conditions that cannot be observed — this is the butterfly effect)
(4) So maybe God is miraculously intervening in the weather after all, like the literal reading of the Bible says
(5) But meteorologists are justified in using exclusively natural processes in their work, while evolutionary biologists are being dogmatic philosophical materialists for doing so.
It makes perfect sense!
The only way the IDists can escape the Meteorology Argument is (1) give up on their core claim, or (2) be self-consistent, and state that meteorologists are also nasty, society-undermining secular dogmatists promoting atheism, philosophical materialism, and moral decay under the guise of science. Option #1 doesn’t seem very likely, so I bet we’ll be seeing meteorology warning labels in public schools and on the public airwaves (your local news weatherman is actually promoting atheism over the air!) sooner or later.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1044
Comment #30452
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 06:02 PM (e) (s)
I hate to say it Nick, but:
“Now, imagine how silly it would seem if Phillip Johnson had said this:”
the fact that you have to point out that it seems sillier to say one over the other kinda defeats the point in a way, yes?
while it is absolutely correct to say (emphasis added):
“What Heddle doesn’t provide, and couldn’t provide under questioning, was any reason why evolution and meteorology are logically any different with respect to the theism/atheism question. The best he did was bluster “it’s obvious.”
the question then becomes:
Why does it “seem” silly to swap meteorology for evolutionary biology to begin with, since logically they are no different?
ID’s whole support structure is not based on logic, but rather “what seems apparent”.
“What ID advocates have to explain is why evolution is different from meteorology with respect to theology. “
but as you saw with Heddle, this won’t happen. They won’t ever compare things from a logical standpoint, but rather filter it through their perception.
I wonder about the value of pointing out that ID/creationists are illogical. That never ends up being something that affects folks decisions about religion/science issues, unless they typically have some science background themselves.
Can you see what i am getting at?
Comment #30453
Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 06:07 PM (e) (s)
Now before anyone starts criticising Nick, or saying that ID does not believe in inserting religion in every science, let’s hear from William Dembski:
“Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory.”1
1 http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/ArnhartDarwinDesign.s…
Comment #30454
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 16, 2005 06:09 PM (e) (s)
What ID advocates have to explain is why evolution is different from meteorology with respect to theology.
Or, as I have asked several of the IDers here;
What, precisely, about “evolution” is any more “materialistic” than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be as specific as possible.
I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or “divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic (oops, I mean, “materialistic” and “naturalistic” —- we don’t want any judges to think ID’s railing against “materialism” has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)?
I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accifdent investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, “We can’t explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit.” I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that “this crash has no materialistic causes — it must have been the Will of Allah”. Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic (oops, sorry, I meant to say “materialistic” and “naturalistic” — we don’t want any judges to know that it is “atheism” we are actually waging a religious crusade against, do we)?
How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his “materialistic biases” and to investigate possible “supernatural” or “non-materialistic” causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?
Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent “materialistic” as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren’t you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?
Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, “renewing our culture” … . . ?
Oddly enough, no one ever attemtped to answer that simple question.
Just like they never attempted to answer my question about the scientific theory of ID and how it can be tested using the scientific method.
I wonder why that would be … …
Comment #30455
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 16, 2005 06:13 PM (e) (s)
What Heddle doesn’t provide, and couldn’t provide under questioning, was any reason why evolution and meteorology are logically any different with respect to the theism/atheism question. The best he did was bluster “it’s obvious.”
As I have often pointed out, Davey has this rather annoying habit of assuming that he has some sort of religious authority to pronounce his Holy Judgement upon such matters. Hence, I must often pipe up and point out to everyone that David is, well, just a man. His religious opinions are just that, his 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 his religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.
Comment #30456
Posted by Michael Finley on May 16, 2005 06:16 PM (e) (s)
No valid argument moves from Darwinism or evolution to atheism, or from theism to creationism. Johnson’s comment - “…then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy” - is absurd. God could have chosen to create through a fully naturalistic, Darwinian process.
That said, it is not an either/or game here. The belief that, e.g., a divine being directed evolution does not commit one to the belief that angels push the planets around or that Poseiden’s wrath makes for bad sailing. One could consistently maintain that natural causes and miracles are operative.
Comment #30459
Posted by Mike Walker on May 16, 2005 06:17 PM (e) (s)
Not to mention all those hard working angels flying around and keeping our feet firmly planted on the ground, and the planets in orbit around the sun.
After all, it’s no less plausible than our current theories about gravity, no?
Comment #30460
Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 06:18 PM (e) (s)
“Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory.”
So maybe Dave Heddle can explain to us how ID is going to put christ in, hmm…Plate Tectonics? oh, wait, how about Maxwell’s Laws?
Comment #30462
Posted by Hiero5ant on May 16, 2005 06:21 PM (e) (s)
I think you forgot the most stunning example of biblical meteorology:
“[12] And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
[13] I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
[14] And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
[15] And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
[16] And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
[17] And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.”
Here you have an incredibly direct and unambiguous statement — not an interpretation — from the mouth of Yahweh himself, saying in no uncertain terms that he is causally responsible for a meteorological phenomenon, and even going a step further by explicitly telling us *why* he did it.
In my high school physics class, we actually spent an entire unit learning about refraction by studying the physics of rainbows. I literally have yet to meet a single creationist who could explain to me why simple refraction is less of a theological problem than evolution, or why unweaving the rainbow by showing how different wavelengths of light behave differently in prisms “impermissibly imports naturalistic metaphysical assumptions”.
Comment #30465
Posted by David Heddle on May 16, 2005 06:27 PM (e) (s)
PT has some informative posts, some mean-spirited posts, and some posts that are outright distortions, but this is the first one that I recall that is downright silly. Was it meant to be?
Sir-toejam, I not only pointed out (in several comments) on the other thread that it was obvious that evolution/meteorology were different with respect to the atheism question, I gave the reason: evolution, dealing with basic questions of life, is more likely to arouse tension with one’s theism.
Greg Peterson came along and demonstrated this nicely in this comment #30440 in which he wrote:
And let’s not pretend that the fact of evolution leaves it no less likely that there is a god. Now that we know there’s not the least spot of work for a god to do, let’s declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition.
Have you run across many comments of the form:
And let’s not pretend that the fact of meteorology leaves it no less likely that there is a god. Now that we know there’s not the least spot of work for a god to do, weather-wise, let’s declare our emancipation from this nasty, pathetic superstition.
Comment #30468
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 06:40 PM (e) (s)
yikes, hedley, the quotes you put in “support” of your argument, er, aren’t.
“Sir-toejam, I not only pointed out (in several comments) on the other thread that it was obvious that evolution/meteorology were different with respect to the atheism question, I gave the reason: evolution, dealing with basic questions of life, is more likely to arouse tension with one’s theism.”
you make my point for me more eloquently that i did in my response to nick.
you don’t get that there is, in fact, no logical difference between evolution/meterology. Nick’s post above demonstrates this quite nicely.
However, it is VERY clear that you are literally unable to grasp this.
THAT is the point I was trying to make. It makes no difference to folks like yourself that there is no logic to your argument. In your mind, it makes perfect sense.
Thanks for demonstrating that more clearly than i could describe it.
I hope Nick sees now why i thought that addressing the appearance of “silliness” is more important than addressing the logic behind the argument.
Comment #30472
Posted by Just Bob on May 16, 2005 06:46 PM (e) (s)
Since you brought up rainbows:
Then there’s the rainbow. If you want to hear some really creative additions to Genesis, ask a young-Earther how there could be no rainbows for a couple thousand years, until after the Flood. You may get some truly bizarre planetary climate models, involving such things as water soaking up through the ground to keep plants alive (let’s see—if there is so much water underground that it soaks UP to the surface, isn’t that what we call a bog? Some paradise!), or a “vapor canopy” that watered the Earth with a kind of fog, then fell as the Flood rains. If you think conditions on Venus are hellish, try modeling the atmospheric conditions on an Earth with all the gigatons of ocean water added to the atmosphere! If Adam’s descendants were protected from such incredible temperatures and pressures (the natural physical result of such super-greenhouse conditions) by some sort of miraculous intervention, then again this is not creation science, just creation magic. (I’ve heard creationists attribute the mythical long life spans of Old Testament notables to such atmospheric conditions. I invite them to try it for themselves to see if it promotes longevity.) But the purpose of the rainbow is what really puzzles me. God states (and repeats—Noah must have been a slow learner [or chronically drunk?]) that the rainbow signifies a promise by God that He will never flood out the whole Earth again. Most creationists I know are dead certain that God WILL destroy the Earth (and soon!), but just not with water next time (most seem to favor fire, but personally I expect it to be peanut butter [extra chunky]). But wait—if God reserves the right to destroy all mankind, then what’s the point of promising not to use water again? We won’t be drowned again, but burnt to cinders? Thanks a lot.
And yet more rainbow nonsense: God states multiple times that it will be in a cloud, He will “set [His] bow in the cloud.” Rainbows aren’t formed or seen “in clouds.” They appear when the sun shines on raindrops and is refracted back at the proper angle to the viewer. They are often seen against a backdrop of clouds, but they are not in the clouds. As a matter of fact, the rainbow doesn’t even exist where it appears to be! It’s an optical illusion that’s “in” the light reaching viewers at the proper angle from sun and rain. You can fly a plane through the exact spot where a ground viewer reports seeing a rainbow. You won’t see anything around you but air and water. You can also make your own rainbows with a garden hose in full sunlight—no clouds required at all. One more: God states unequivocally that the rainbow is to remind Him of the no-Flood clause. If God has such a faulty memory that He needs such cosmic Post-it Notes, we’re in BIG trouble.
Comment #30474
Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 06:51 PM (e) (s)
Well Bob, “Christ is indispensable to any scientific theory.” and that would include Optics.
Comment #30475
Posted by Evan Lee on May 16, 2005 06:53 PM (e) (s)
I Just wanted to tell all of you that Jesus (the loving God that created you)loves all of you and He’ll always be waiting for you to turn to Him. And when you do you’ll be stoked cuz He loves you more then you can possibly imagine. God bless all of you
Comment #30477
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 06:59 PM (e) (s)
cosmic post it notes…
*snicker*
I don’t know if there are any South Park fans here, but I remember an episode from the first season where cartman talks about rainbows:
KYLE
Hey Stan, did you see that rainbow this morning?
STAN
Yeah, it was huge!
CARTMAN
Eeh, I hate those things.
KYLE
Nobody hates rainbows!
STAN
Yeah, what’s there to hate about rainbows?
CARTMAN
Eeh, you know, you’ll just be sitting there, minding your own business, and they’ll come marching in and crawling up your leg and start biting the inside of your ass, and you’ll be all like “Ay! Get out of my ass, you stupid rainbows!”
STAN
Cartman, what the hell are you talking about?
CARTMAN
I’m talking about rainbows. I hate those frigging things.
KYLE
Rainbows are those little arches of color that show up during a rainstorm.
CARTMAN
Oh, rainbows! Oh yeah; I like those; those are cool.
STAN
What were you talking about?
CARTMAN
Huh? Oh, nothing. Forget it.
Comment #30478
Posted by Hiero5ant on May 16, 2005 07:00 PM (e) (s)
d000d you’ve been in touch with Yahweh?
Did he also have any messages for me about why he designed all this unsightly body hair, or why he designed my irreducibly complex immune system to protect me from all the irreucibly complex bacteria he designed?
Comment #30481
Posted by 386sx on May 16, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s)
[Y]ou don’t get that there is, in fact, no logical difference between evolution/meteorology. Nick’s post above demonstrates this quite nicely.
So in other words, if the entire universe were created by the Creator, then logically it doesn’t make much difference which feature of the universe we’re talking about - whether it be life or meteorology, or whatever. (Very well stated, I might add.) The only difference I can think of would be that Mr. Heddle is a “life”, but he isn’t a “meteorology”. Maybe it’s all about the Mr. Heddle and the Mr. Johnson. Maybe it’s all about the IDer, not the IDee.
Comment #30482
Posted by Man with No Personality on May 16, 2005 07:08 PM (e) (s)
Having been on the recieving end of Mr. Heddle’s debating “skills” on Orac’s blog, I am now waiting for the inevitable rebuttal, wherein he launches into another dense patch of Heddlespeak that states when it is finally deciphered, that we are all failing to understand him, followed by a different wording of his initial argument that states the exact same thing, only in more obscure terms, and in a more patronizing, insulting manner. And then he will tell us that we are using the same tired arguments against him, the ones he keeps getting accused of using, time after time…
Comment #30484
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 07:13 PM (e) (s)
in other words, the ID movement, in a nutshell labeled “heddle”.
Comment #30485
Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 07:15 PM (e) (s)
…Then Charlie Wagner will show up and say that such a complex system as the Hydrological Cycle, composed of several interlocked parts, with the function of watering plants, could not have arisen without a Designer, according to Nelson’s Flaw.
Comment #30494
Posted by Steve U. on May 16, 2005 07:32 PM (e) (s)
Michael F
The belief that, e.g., a divine being directed evolution does not commit one to the belief that angels push the planets around or that Poseiden’s wrath makes for bad sailing.
Gee, the hardline religious folks sure are blessed that they get to pick and choose what to believe without fear of being “inconsistent.”
Isn’t that always the rub? Anyone who doesn’t believe in miracles, according to the hardliners, is “committed” to believing that life is meaningless and that the only basis for morals is power.
But somehow it’s permitted and “consistent” with religious beliefs to specifically target evolutionary biologists in a quest to redefine (and dilute) science across the board.
Comment #30497
Posted by Brian Andrews on May 16, 2005 07:37 PM (e) (s)
Science does in fact lead to atheism. I became an atheist in collage while studying science. Science is an effort to understand the world/universe by accumulating facts and putting them together into theories that best explain how something works. Unlike religion these theories come and go based on facts. And this is the key: if it can’t be repeated or demonstrated it isn’t science. All anecdotal evidence is rejected.
To me religion (belief in supernatural beings) is fundamentally incompatible with this way of looking at the world. There’s nothing but anecdotal evidence for god and all of that is contradictory. There’s no there there. Nothing to hang your hat on but a just because argument.
Comment #30499
Posted by Harq al-Ada on May 16, 2005 07:47 PM (e) (s)
Just because science led YOU to atheism, doesn’t mean that atheism flows naturally from it. Have you read this thread at all?
Comment #30500
Posted by Harq al-Ada on May 16, 2005 07:53 PM (e) (s)
Just because science led YOU to atheism doesn’t mean that atheism flows naturally from it. Did you read any of the many posts on this thread that explain why this is so?
Comment #30501
Posted by Randall Wald on May 16, 2005 07:54 PM (e) (s)
Science does in fact lead to atheism. I became an atheist in collage while studying science.
Looks like someone forgot about the lack of value of anecdotes:
There’s nothing but anecdotal evidence for god and all of that is contradictory.
Remember, anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron even when the anecdote happened to you.
Comment #30503
Posted by Flint on May 16, 2005 07:54 PM (e) (s)
Somehow us atheists can’t seem to grasp that Heddle’s god is a god of *biology*, and not a weather god. Once one realizes that Heddle’s is the REAL god, his arguments make perfect sense.
Comment #30504
Posted by Harq al-Ada on May 16, 2005 07:55 PM (e) (s)
Sorry. I didn’t think my first post went through.
Comment #30506
Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 08:02 PM (e) (s)
Comment #30499
Posted by Harq al-Ada on May 16, 2005 07:47 PM (e) (s)
Just because science led YOU to atheism, doesn’t mean that atheism flows naturally from it. Have you read this thread at all?
I would say science inclines people toward atheism, and this explains why atheists are overrepresented in science by a large factor. I would not say that it’s scientific data per se, I would say that people become exposed to the very rigorous and difficult process of generating reliable knowledge about the world, and they compare that to religious ‘knowledge’, and find the latter to be untrustworthy.
Comment #30508
Posted by David Heddle on May 16, 2005 08:08 PM (e) (s)
Nick wrote:
According to a literal reading of the Bible, the evidence that God controls the weather is, if anything, much stronger than the Biblical evidence that God specially created organisms.
Au contraire, oh illogical one.
There is zero biblical evidence, in spite of Nick’s assertion and Wesley’s biblical quote mining, that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather. Big difference. Just like there is no biblical evidence that God controls the planets motion, micron by micron, but only a passage (the famous one from Joshua) that suggests God can intervene and control the orbits when he chooses.
This is far different from Genesis, which makes the claim that God created life supernaturally.
So once again, the patently obvious, (and as Greg Patterson’s comment supported), the relationship between evolution and atheism is not the same as between meteorology and atheism. You can demonstrate that they are both sciences, but you can only cover your eyes and keep chanting that evolution and atheism have exactly the same relationship as meteorology and atheism—as Greg Patterson’s comment…
I love how you guys suffer paroxysms of agony over the fact that IDers won’t admit that their movement has a theism bias, while denying what goes hand-in-hand, that evolution has a bias toward atheism. You guys never fail to amuse!
MWNP: You comments are as dumb here as they were on Orac’s blog. I wouldn’t of thunk it possible.
Comment #30510
Posted by Steve Harrynuk on May 16, 2005 08:09 PM (e) (s)
During the Taliban’s reign in Afghanistan, weather forecasting was forbidden. They believed that predicting the future was sorcery, and smashed meteorological offices in 1996, for intruding on the province of God.
The ban on this critical information contributed to crop failures and a plane crash in ‘98.
“They were allergic to the word ‘prediction,’” Abdul Qadeer [head of the country’s weather forecasting agency] said of the Taliban’s extreme interpretation of Islam.
“They said God only knows prediction, only God knows these things. We
tried to explain that meteorology is not prediction, that it is forecast based on science. It didn’t work.”
There’s a much longer newspaper article about this, but unfortunately it isn’t online anymore. I have my own digital copy, but I don’t want to break the copyright.
Comment #30512
Posted by Jim Harrison on May 16, 2005 08:19 PM (e) (s)
Evolution certainly doesn’t imply atheism, but the fact that nature shows no evidence of a God made atheism more plausible. I doubt if many early 19th Century biologists took Genesis literally, but they expected their researches to support some sort of mind operating in the world. When nothing of the kind turned up, it was one of those “dog that didn’t bark” things.
Comment #30514
Posted by Brian Andrews on May 16, 2005 08:22 PM (e) (s)
I don’t see how a naturalistic view of the world can in any way be reconciled with belief in supernatural beings where no evidence is forthcoming. I just don’t how they’re compatible.
Science may not say anything specifically about god but it does lay out a methodology for discerning how the world works. It does this by insisting on demonstrable evidence and rejecting anecdotal evidence. So while science can’t disprove the existence of supernatural beings it does make them seem pretty unlikely.
Comment #30517
Posted by WCD on May 16, 2005 08:29 PM (e) (s)
Heddle: “There is zero biblical evidence, … , that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather”
Heddle tells us there’s no biblical evidence that God controls the weather, God only controls the weather at certain times.
HEDDLE! - STOP BEIN’ A IDIOT!
Comment #30518
Posted by RBH on May 16, 2005 08:31 PM (e) (s)
Weather forecasting under the Taliban. Google is your friend. :)
RBH
Comment #30519
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 08:34 PM (e) (s)
Heddley pooted:
“There is zero biblical evidence, in spite of Nick’s assertion and Wesley’s biblical quote mining, that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather”
I think i just busted a gasket on that one.
thanks, Heddley, for continuing to prove that you have your own special “logic”, that is unique to IDers.
Comment #30520
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 08:37 PM (e) (s)
“Weather forecasting under the Taliban. Google is your friend. :)”
LOL. perfect.
Comment #30521
Posted by Brian Andrews on May 16, 2005 08:41 PM (e) (s)
biblical quote mining. You could grow a lot of turnips with that.
Comment #30522
Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 08:45 PM (e) (s)
Behe says that go-oops, I mean, The Designer, merely intervened at certain times to build IC structures. Therefore, the analogy is a good one. Trying to argue otherwise would be like, i don’t know, trying to argue that something is unlikely, with zero knowledge about its probability distribution. Oh wait…
Comment #30525
Posted by jeffw on May 16, 2005 09:07 PM (e) (s)
Behe says that go-oops, I mean, The Designer, merely intervened at certain times to build IC structures. Therefore, the analogy is a good one. Trying to argue otherwise would be like, i don’t know, trying to argue that something is unlikely, with zero knowledge about its probability distribution. Oh wait…
Why would an omniscient God who supposedly created a clockwork universe with laws fine-tuned for life, feel the need to break his own laws and perform miracles? Guess there were some things he didn’t foresee.
Comment #30527
Posted by Rilke's Granddaughter on May 16, 2005 09:15 PM (e) (s)
Mr. Heddle continues in confusion,
There is zero biblical evidence, in spite of Nick’s assertion and Wesley’s biblical quote mining, that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather. Big difference. Just like there is no biblical evidence that God controls the planets motion, micron by micron, but only a passage (the famous one from Joshua) that suggests God can intervene and control the orbits when he chooses.
This is far different from Genesis, which makes the claim that God created life supernaturally.
In other words, what you have established is that, according to the Bible, God intervened in the whole question of life once as opposed to the multiple times She dealt with the weather. Since this clearly according to the Bible makes God responsible solely for abiogenesis, then nothing in the Bible contradicts evolution. In which case, evolution is ‘theism-neutral’.
Good of you to establish that. I appreciate that it took courage to completely reverse your position, but we applaud that.
Comment #30528
Posted by Virge on May 16, 2005 09:23 PM (e) (s)
David Heddle wrote: “There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather.”
Strange, David, but I thought you knew your Bible. These quotes don’t look like announcements of special interventions to me:
Job 5
8I would seek unto God, and unto God would I commit my cause:
9Which doeth great things and unsearchable; marvellous things without number:
10Who giveth rain upon the earth, and sendeth waters upon the fields:
Psalm 147
8Who covereth the heaven with clouds, who prepareth rain for the earth, who maketh grass to grow upon the mountains.
9He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry.
Matthew 5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Read them in context. Understand the views of the people writing them. The “eternal truths” being presented in the Bible were the opinions of people who really thought that a god was the source of their weather.
Comment #30530
Posted by WCD on May 16, 2005 09:51 PM (e) (s)
It looks like some people think that God will intervene at certain times - on demand. That’s better service than my cable company.
http://www.sptimes.com/News/051900/Citrus/Drought_weary_pray…
Comment #30531
Posted by Air Bear on May 16, 2005 10:08 PM (e) (s)
I’m having a disconnect here.
I seem to recall that a few weeks or months ago, the wise Prof. Heddle argued that ID did not apply to life, but only to the origin of the Universe as a whole. Does anybody remember this? Is there a good efficient way to go back and check? Or am I wrong about this?
Comment #30533
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 16, 2005 10:15 PM (e) (s)
while denying what goes hand-in-hand, that evolution has a bias toward atheism.
Reeeaaalllyyyyyyyy.
Why, then, are so many evolutionary biologists, Christians.
Oh, and why do the majority of Christians, worldwide, accept evolution, common descent and the evolution of humans from apelike primates, and have no gripe at all with it.
Including Behe.
Comment #30534
Posted by not buyin it on May 16, 2005 10:16 PM (e) (s)
Must I explain everything?
Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they’re descended from filthy animals.
Like duh!
Comment #30535
Posted by Air Bear on May 16, 2005 10:18 PM (e) (s)
Vifge quoted the Bible:
Matthew 5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
et al.
Excellent quotes. They exactly refute Prof. Heddle’s assertions about the weather.
However, you’ll find that Prof. Heddle will do one or more of the following:
a) run and hide
b) argue that the Bible is inerrant but not literally true
c) start talking about physics
d) argue some tortured screwball interpretation of your quotes from the Bible
He’s done all of these before, separately or in combination, when confronted with passages from the Bible that directly contradict his Biblical assertions.
Comment #30537
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 10:23 PM (e) (s)
“filthy animals.”
who’s definition NBI (AKA Dave Scott)?
It’s your own definition of animals as something “dirty” that makes it a bad thing to have evolved from them.
just your perspective. Science makes no claim as to whether animals are better or worse; another fallacy of yours.
I’m sure you are the type to describe evolution as “leading to a higher form”.
Idiot.
Comment #30538
Posted by Mike Walker on May 16, 2005 10:25 PM (e) (s)
Actually it doesn’t matter whether or not God controls the weather or simply intervenes from time to time. If either was true it would make meteorology all but impossible to conduct as science.
Sure, you could probably still assume that most of the time a cold front will arrive at a certain place at a certain time, but what about the big stuff, like hurricanes?
Is it as Pat Robertson once declared? That the power of prayer diverted a hurricane from the shores of his beloved Virgina Beach? Should we install a Neilsen-like monitoring system in people’s homes to find out how many people are praying for a storm, hurricane, or tornado bearing down on them to go the other way, so that the meteorologists can factor that into their forcasts?
I suppose one could argue that such miracles are rare—but how do we know? Isn’t it time we find out? After all, until we do we may never be able to accurately forecast deadly twisters or hurricanes.
And if the scientists object, let’s take it to the public. I’d be willing to bet that, within a few percentages points, as many parents would favor inserting “DI” (divine intervention) into the “atheistic” teaching of meteorology in school science books as favor the introduction of ID into schools.
All joking aside, I suspect that getting ID into schools is just the thin end of Phillip Johnson’s “wedge” in more ways than one.
Comment #30539
Posted by not buyin it on May 16, 2005 10:28 PM (e) (s)
Heddle said that his ID belief is based upon the fine tuning argument. As I recall he indicated that if he could be convinced that fine tuning didn’t necessarily require design he’d not argue with RM+NS being responsible for the origin and diversity of life.
Comment #30542
Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 16, 2005 10:35 PM (e) (s)
I seem to recall that a few weeks or months ago, the wise Prof. Heddle argued that ID did not apply to life, but only to the origin of the Universe as a whole. Does anybody remember this? Is there a good efficient way to go back and check? Or am I wrong about this?
Check here.
Comment #30543
Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 16, 2005 10:43 PM (e) (s)
Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they’re descended from filthy animals.
Like duh!
I see —- so it’s OK with you if God does absolutely nothing at all whatsoever anywhere in our world today, as long as we didn’t evolve from, uh, “filthy animals” … … . . ?
Interesting, uh, theology you have there … . .
Comment #30544
Posted by Air Bear on May 16, 2005 10:43 PM (e) (s)
not buyin it writes:
Must I explain everything?
Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they’re descended from filthy animals.
Assuming you’re serious and not a parody -
We have here the basic reason why many (non-scientist) laypeople are so much more sensitive about the idea of biological evolution than about naturalistic theories of the rest of nature — they’re sensitive about their ancestry. People love to think that they’re descended from great characters — kings, chiefs, war heroes, personages in the Bible — or even great villains like pirates. The vast majority of ancestors who were farmers or day laborers or petty bureaucrats are no source of pride. And, worse, the thought of being descended from animals — filthy or otherwise — is more than many people can bear.
This is an odd physchological phenomenon, since one would naively think that people would take pride in surpassing their ancestors. But the desire to have ancestors more worthy than oneself seems to be prevalent. I know nothing about ancestor-worship in Eastern religions, but I suspect that the worshipped ancestors were no more imposing than the living people doing the worshipping.
We also have here the gross sentimentality of appealing to supposed harmful effects on children. How can we do such awful things to THE CHILDREN?
Actually, I don’t think that children need be shocked or psychologically injured by the thought that their distant ancestors were animals. Children LOVE stories about animals acting like people. The majority of children’s books have characters that are animals that act like humans. Think Peter Rabbit, The Three Little Pigs and countless other children’s classics.
not buyin it may have some personal issues about animals, as well. I’ve never seen animals collectively referred to as “filthy”.
Comment #30545
Posted by JRQ on May 16, 2005 10:45 PM (e) (s)
NBI: Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they’re descended from filthy animals.
STJ: Science makes no claim as to whether animals are better or worse; another fallacy of yours.
Well, you’re both right (semantic nit-picking aside at least…”biology” doesn’t “attempt” to do anything to children).
Evolution DOES gets singled by those who object to the idea that they are decended from animals, filthy, immoral, beastly things that they are. The salient point to be made though, is that this objection is fundamentally a visceral one…it only gets dressed up in rational-sounding language when people mis-attibute the cause of the attitude, in hindsight, to a freely-made decision.
That’s why Phil Johnson objects to evolutionary biology and not metorology — he has no visceral reaction to materialist weather science. The inconsistency fundamentally irrational.
Comment #30548
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 10:49 PM (e) (s)
“That’s why Phil Johnson objects to evolutionary biology and not metorology — he has no visceral reaction to materialist weather science. The inconsistency fundamentally irrational.”
thanks JRQ; this is the same point i made in my first post to Nick. The question becomes; how to deal with that kind of fundamentally irrational mindset?
Comment #30550
Posted by not buyin it on May 16, 2005 10:54 PM (e) (s)
toejam - the vast majority of American people understandably believe that monkeys are filthy - ask around if you don’t believe me
heck the vast majority of Americans believe the French are filthy - I’ve smelt a few of them and I must say I have to agree - they think Americans have a bathing fetish and weird aversion to body odor
gee - come to think of it, maybe that explains why old Europe doesn’t have any problem believing they’re descended from monkeys - they’re just following what their nose
LOL!
and please, spare me the technical correction that people aren’t descended from monkeys but rather share a common ancestor
Comment #30551
Posted by Virge on May 16, 2005 10:54 PM (e) (s)
The real reason for the ID movement to draw a distinction between evolution and meteorology is that “complexity of life” is their current line in the sand. As Sir_Toejam notes, it’s not based on logic.
Meteorology is a battle that the church lost in the distant past. That loss has already been rationalized and the scriptures have been reinterpreted to maintain the illusion of eternal truth. The way David Heddle could ignore the Zechariah 10:1 quote in the original post shows just how well the re-harmonized biblical interpretation has been accepted by those who think they are pulling evidence out of the Bible.
Throughout the twentieth century, most of the church moved their boundaries to make room for nineteenth and early twentieth century science. The battles were drawn out, but more and more evidence favored evolution over creationism. Those with some founding in reality-based thinking reinterpreted biblical creation accounts as poetic descriptions, or metaphors, or spiritual truths. For most, abiogenesis seemed like a good place to draw the next line. The staunch creationists, however, still think they have a hope of reclaiming lost ground. Their main hopes are:
1. camouflage (dressing up like scientists and pretending to do science),
2. propaganda (providing packaged simplistic answers and relying on the fact that when their errors are exposed, most people won’t understand the debunking),
3. targeting children.
As elegant as it is, I think the evolution-meteorology argument will have a limited audience. Countering creationist attacks with analogies between meteorology and evolution will only work for people who are smart enough to understand the comparison. For a lot of folks it’s telling them that weather (to them obviously natural because even the church agrees) and their own lives (to them obviously miraculous/magical/supernatural) share a common naturalistic explanation. The logic may be impeccable but it doesn’t get past their input filters.
Comment #30554
Posted by Air Bear on May 16, 2005 11:11 PM (e) (s)
Wesley -
Thanks for the link. I take it that this is the collected wit and wisdom of Prof. Heddle from past PT posts.
Unfortunately, skimming through much of this stuff, all I could see was a lot of weasly “I never said that ID was ..” stuff. I’ll have to take some time to search it more diligently.
I can’t resist pulling out one of the more pithy aphorisms from
Date: 2004-09-03 14:22:59,
Then there are many IDers who are not young earth creationists. In fact, on the physics side, ID is antithetical to young earth creationism
A curious statment, indeed, that an intelligently designed universise could not have been created as described in the Bible.
Maybe I’m on a fool’s errand, looking for a definite statement in Prof. Heddles pronouncements.
Comment #30555
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 11:17 PM (e) (s)
“and please, spare me the technical correction that people aren’t descended from monkeys but rather share a common ancestor”
actually, that wasn’t what caught my eye about your rather racially bigoted and ignorant post.
why did you bother to post that? to show us what an idiot you are? or to try to claim that the “vast majority” of americans share the same idiotic views as yourself?
I think you would be hard pressed to prove that point, but I’m sure in your mind, everyone thinks just like you do, and those that don’t must be just plain wrong, eh?
I notice you didn’t deny you were Dave Scott, either. You sure sound a lot like him with every post, each more idiotic than the last.
didn’t Dave Scott get banned from here for making comments like the one you just posted?
Comment #30558
Posted by Air Bear on May 16, 2005 11:27 PM (e) (s)
Sir Toejam -
It’s best not to feed the trolls when they open their mouths so wide. Sorry I threw in the first morsel.
But check out not buyin it’s website for any hints of DaveScot-ism
Elegant graphics, BTW. Lots of anime, no science or religion or animals except a link to a pet-sitting service and a Unitarian Church(!). No sign of anything to indicate he’s anything but a drive-by troll.
Comment #30559
Posted by Michael Finley on May 16, 2005 11:28 PM (e) (s)
Meteorology is a battle that the church lost in the distant past.
That’s hilarious. I suggest you read more books.
Comment #30560
Posted by Ed Darrell on May 16, 2005 11:28 PM (e) (s)
Heddle said:
There is zero biblical evidence, in spite of Nick’s assertion and Wesley’s biblical quote mining, that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather. Big difference. Just like there is no biblical evidence that God controls the planets motion, micron by micron, but only a passage (the famous one from Joshua) that suggests God can intervene and control the orbits when he chooses.
This is far different from Genesis, which makes the claim that God created life supernaturally.
Geeze. Genesis 2.5 also makes the claim God acted supernaturally with the rain.
David, give it up. It’s instructional when the scientists (“Darwinists”) have to instruct you on science. But it’s just embarrassing when they have to instruct you on the Bible.
Of course, Darwin knew the Bible forward and backward. He knew theology and scripture much better than his critics knew science and biology.
It’s still the case that those who love and pursue the truth tend to know more than those who try to cover it up.
Comment #30561
Posted by not buyin it on May 16, 2005 11:30 PM (e) (s)
The French are a racial group now?
Guldurn! I always thought French was a nationality.
‘Scuse me, toe jelly.
I’ll have to plead guilty to being offended by the smell of unwashed human bodies though. Feel free to call me a typical American with a cleanliness fetish if you want. Or even a bigot. Coming from a toejam I consider it a compliment anyhow.
And excuse me for trying to explain to you why Americans single out evolutionary biology to complain about. Feel free to keep blundering about in ignorance wondering why they only pick on evolution.
Comment #30562
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 11:35 PM (e) (s)
“Feel free to keep blundering about in ignorance wondering why they only pick on evolution.”
gee, thanks for letting us go, NBI. I’m sure we can manage without your wisdom.
Comment #30563
Posted by Ed Darrell on May 16, 2005 11:36 PM (e) (s)
nbi said:
toejam - the vast majority of American people understandably believe that monkeys are filthy - ask around if you don’t believe me
We Christians don’t adhere to that, however. It’s contrary to the theology, that God is the creator of the monkeys, and they are, by that cause, good.
Second, one of the chief themes of the Bible is that good is found often from humble origins. C. S. Lewis expounded on this with great fun and profound insight in The Screwtape Letters, when Uncle Screwtape pointed out to Wormwood that Wormwood’s error (that cost Wormwood his soul) was to presume that a human, conceived in a fit of lust in a bed of carnal desire, could not act nobly. Jesus was born in a manger, not because that was the fancy mansion of the day, but because it was the most humble, dirty place available. Good things from humble origins.
Yeah, monkeys are dirty. And if you hold that against them, you’d be hypocritical not to hold Jesus’ humble origins against Him, too.
Or if you choose inconsistency, and don’t hold it against Jesus, then you deny His message.
Is there any creationist who knows what the Bible is about?
Comment #30564
Posted by Air Bear on May 16, 2005 11:37 PM (e) (s)
Virge wrote:
The real reason for the ID movement to draw a distinction between evolution and meteorology is that “complexity of life” is their current line in the sand. As Sir_Toejam notes, it’s not based on logic.
Meteorology is a battle that the church lost in the distant past. That loss has already been rationalized and the scriptures have been reinterpreted to maintain the illusion of eternal truth.
They’ve moved the goalposts around, but are taking a stand at their “current line in the sand” (to stretch a metaphor). At this point the argument is viscerally personal — it’s not just God we’re talking about but our own ancestry.
There’s some entertaining history about the early religious opposition to Benjamin Franklin’s lightning rod as thwarting the Divine will to destroy buildings by lightning:
Comment #30565
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 16, 2005 11:39 PM (e) (s)
“Coming from a toejam I consider it a compliment anyhow.”
hey, that’s SIR toejam to you.
Comment #30566
Posted by bill on May 17, 2005 12:03 AM (e) (s)
Is it only me who has the fantasy about a French monkey dressed as a maid?
It’s the je ne sais quois combination of naughty-furry-banana that drives me to want to be another species. Yes, I want to punctuate and punctuate and punctuate. Oh, baby!
Do you think that Lucy and her kin tamed fire so they could light up a piece of grapevine after a few hours of Monkey Love? That could be an evolutionary driver.
Meanwhile, me and Bongette have some “survival of the fittest” of our own to discuss.
Bon soir!
Comment #30567
Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 17, 2005 12:10 AM (e) (s)
Evan Lee writes: “I Just wanted to tell all of you that Jesus (the loving God that created you)loves all of you and He’ll always be waiting for you to turn to Him. And when you do you’ll be stoked cuz He loves you more then you can possibly imagine. God bless all of you”
And now back to our regularly scheduled program….
Comment #30568
Posted by Stuart Weinstein on May 17, 2005 12:17 AM (e) (s)
NBI writes:
“toejam - the vast majority of American people understandably believe that monkeys are filthy - ask around if you don’t believe me
heck the vast majority of Americans believe the French are filthy - I’ve smelt a few of them and I must say I have to agree - they think Americans have a bathing fetish and weird aversion to body odor
gee - come to think of it, maybe that explains why old Europe doesn’t have any problem believing they’re descended from monkeys - they’re just following what their nose
LOL!
and please, spare me the technical correction that people aren’t descended from monkeys but rather share a common ancestor”
Translation: “Don’t confuse me with the actual science”
Comment #30569
Posted by Air Bear on May 17, 2005 12:34 AM (e) (s)
I can’t resist piling on.
Stuart Weinsteing quotes Even Lee:
I Just wanted to tell all of you that Jesus (the loving God that created you)loves all of you and He’ll always be waiting for you to turn to Him. And when you do you’ll be stoked cuz He loves you more then you can possibly imagine. God bless all of you
But beware. If you let Jesus too far into your life, you may end up like the folks at piney.com. Check out the endless tirades against instrumental music in church (or is it a meta-tirade against the anti-instrumental tirade?).
(N.B. - I think not buyin it was a true troll. He’s already gone, and we’re all still acting silly because of his drive-by!)
Comment #30570
Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 17, 2005 12:38 AM (e) (s)
“But beware. If you let Jesus too far into your life, you may end up like the folks at piney.com. Check out the endless tirades against instrumental music in church (or is it a meta-tirade against the anti-instrumental tirade?). “
or you might decide to take… the exodus:
Comment #30571
Posted by Pastor Bentonit on May 17, 2005 12:44 AM (e) (s)
Must I explain everything?
Evolutionary biology gets singled out because it alone attempts to convince children that they’re descended from filthy animals.
Like duh!
I call “bored to death by supernatural causes - or alien of vast IQ”. Wanna bet?
Comment #30573
Posted by Don Sheffler on May 17, 2005 01:09 AM (e) (s)
I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention “god” or “divine will” or any “supernatural” anything, at all. Ever.
BUT the insurance adjuster will nullify your claim for weather events they call “Acts of God”. This is why your insurance company is always “right” and the weatherman is always “wrong”. :-)
…dense patch of Heddlespeak…
I prefer to call it Heddle-Rattle. As in, when he speaks, your Head’ll Rattle.
Comment #30574
Posted by Don Sheffler on May 17, 2005 01:16 AM (e) (s)
Science does in fact lead to atheism. I became an atheist in collage while studying science.
That’s on par with Heavy Metal leading to suicide. Some guys killed themselves after listening to it.
I understand this is your personal anecdotal opinion but that’s the downfall of anecdote. It isn’t science any more than ID is.
There are huge vast numbers of scientists in the “evolution” fields who have some level of religious faith, even grudging agnosticism. And huge vast numbers of faithful, i.e. nearly the entire Catholic church, that accept Evolution like other sciences, as acceptible explanations based on what we observe in nature.
Comment #30577
Posted by Steve on May 17, 2005 01:44 AM (e) (s)
There is zero biblical evidence, in spite of Nick’s assertion and Wesley’s biblical quote mining, that God controls the weather. There is only evidence that God intervenes at certain times to control the weather.
Stop yore killing me with the irony here. So we are to infer from your statements that God is continually intervening in the evolution of life forms? Is that it? When there is a mutation that is actually God at work?
This is far different from Genesis, which makes the claim that God created life supernaturally.
Uhhh, call me a party pooper, but this strikes me as a one time intervention here….much like your interventions in the weather or the planetary orbits. So which is it? Continual involvement by God in regards to life forms, or periodic interventions? Or are you just making stuff up on the fly to try and cover up for a serious flaw in your argument/position?
Sir Toejam,
However, it is VERY clear that you are literally unable to grasp this.
There is another way of looking at this, but it is less charitable to Mr. Heddle. Perhaps he grasps quite clearly the logical problems of his position, but he is unwilling to face the implications in regards to his world view. So instead he has been working rather hard to come up with some sort of way out of this problem.
On a broader note, I’d also point out that while this post by Nick is not going to change the minds of guys like Heddle or other IDists, that wasn’t the point. They are beyond reason, IMO. After all we are talking religion here and religion inevitably means dogma and faith (i.e., you believe something irrespective of empirical evidence or without any empirical evidence). I see Nick’s post has being aimed at those who are on the fence so to speak. In that regard, it is not a bad post.
Why would an omniscient God who supposedly created a clockwork universe with laws fine-tuned for life, feel the need to break his own laws and perform miracles? Guess there were some things he didn’t foresee.
I like Perakh’s version better: Stupid, therefore designed.
Comment #30585
Posted by extreme_mod on May 17, 2005 04:01 AM (e) (s)
There’s something to be said about this notion of design by any deity, as I mentioned on another PT thread and can bear repeat here:
“While I concur with the logical undercurrent below squabbles about whether evolution confirms atheism or is not inconsistent with a belief in a deity—that a deity is not proved or disproven with the science of biological evolution, eg. God architecting DNA mutation or not, this would in fact would place any diety’s performance level to that capable of a human. ID’ers all—Cordova, Heddle, Dembski—should take note of this. Considering such biological atavisms as the buried eyes of the Mexican Tetra(fish), whale feet, and nearer to home the human tail, any semblance of “design” in these processes of generation bears all the earmarks of trial-and-error algorithmic design, ie. design without foresight. This is science, strident with the theory of evolution, and also has serious implications for traditional religionist who have concepts of a grand “external agent” intimately involved in ongoing changes.”
Comment #30587
Posted by Sandor on May 17, 2005 04:27 AM (e) (s)
Fantastic topic!
Contrary to what Heddle wants us to believe, I would argue that there is a stronger connection between religion and the weather than between religion and special creation. With all those droughts and floodings causing famine and mass death, there’re much at stake pleasing the gods with offerings in order to assure crop growth and to keep those pesky flash-floods away. In this light, it seems reasonable to me that the ID/creationist crowd set their sights on the meteorologists as their primary target!
Comment #30588
Posted by SR on May 17, 2005 04:27 AM (e) (s)
1) Heddle wrote:
“Sir-toejam, I not only pointed out (in several comments) on the other thread that it was obvious that evolution/meteorology were different with respect to the atheism question, I gave the reason: evolution, dealing with basic questions of life, is more likely to arouse tension with one’s theism.”
BS, BS, BS.
Evolution may be different from meteorology in historical or social ways, but NOT in a scientific way.
Heddle should be ashamed of making such an IDiotic argument and trying to muddy the waters.
2) Heddle wrote:
“… more likely to arouse tension with one’s theism.”
BS, BS, BS.
With Heddle’s brand of theism - maybe. But there are many brands of beliefs in the world, some of which have “god(s)” controlling all weather, others have “god” controlling EVERYTHING. Indeed, many Chistians actually support such a view (BTW, cf. Prov. 16:33). So “undirected” meteorology processes are likely to arouse tension with such kind of theism.
Heddle should be ashamed of the narrowness of his thinking.
Comment #30589
Posted by Hmm on May 17, 2005 04:34 AM (e) (s)
> heck the vast majority of Americans believe the French are filthy
What? Most Americans are still filthy racists?
Comment #30592
Posted by David Heddle on May 17, 2005 04:52 AM (e) (s)
Mile Walker:
Actually it doesn’t matter whether or not God controls the weather or simply intervenes from time to time. If either was true it would make meteorology all but impossible to conduct as science.
Yeah right, that follows, sure. Just like the fact that since God appears to have stopped the earth’s rotation once, if you believe the account in Joshua, then there is no point in predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow. Sure, isolated supernatural intervention means that that all science is meaningless. It certainly follows. That “getting to the moon” was just pure luck.
Virge, and all others quoting the bible
And all others quoting the bible—Theologians have always recognized the idea of secondary causes, which include the natural laws. For example, why do the planets move around the sun? Gravity, a secondary cause. Why is there gravity (an inverse square law)? Because the universe has the correct number of expanding dimensions. That, I would say was a first cause. The same with weather. The first cause includes things like: a planet with the right kind of atmosphere, the right rotation rate, the right amount of water, the right particulates in the atmosphere, the right length of a day, water having the correct (and unusual) properties, the earth having the correct tilt, the earth having a strong magnetic field, the earth having a large moon to stabilize its rotation, etc. These are primary causes, or at least arguably so. In other words, the rain does come from God, in the sense that he prepared the planet to have sustaining weather. It does not come from God in the sense that he decides, “today I’m going to rain-out the Pirates-Cardinals game.” That is a secondary cause, fully accessible by the study of meteorology. And fully compatible with the theological notions of God’s decretive and permissive wills.
You dudes, to support your claim, are taking bible verses more literally than fundamentalists do!
RGD
In other words, what you have established is that, according to the Bible, God intervened in the whole question of life once as opposed to the multiple times She dealt with the weather. Since this clearly according to the Bible makes God responsible solely for abiogenesis, then nothing in the Bible contradicts evolution. In which case, evolution is ‘theism-neutral’.
Recall that, in principle, we are discussing whether one could make a claim that evolution, alone among the science, promotes atheism. Someone could logically conclude that the Genesis account not only makes God responsible for abiogenesis but also for special creation of the species, and yet have no problem with meteorology. Although yes, others might find the bible to be compatible with evolution. That’s not the point. The point was Nick’s incorrect assertion that what applies to evolution necessarily applies to meteorology.
Lenny,
“disproving” my claim that “while denying what goes hand-in-hand, that evolution has a bias toward atheism.”
Why, then, are so many evolutionary biologists, Christians.
Sound argument! Exceptions violate the charge of a bias—I forgot that bias implied unanimity.
Air Bear:
seem to recall that a few weeks or months ago, the wise Prof. Heddle argued that ID did not apply to life, but only to the origin of the Universe as a whole.
I said I only support cosmological ID, which deals with the origins of the universe, and whose main opponents are YECs and their bedfellows, evolutionists.
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Excellent quotes. They exactly refute Prof. Heddle’s assertions about the weather.
Sure they are. And all along, biblical scholars have asserted that this was a general statement meaning that God bestows general providential blessings upon the wicked as well as the righteous. Thank you for pointing out that it really is only about rain. (See also my reply to Virge, above.)
Air Bear, digging this quote of mine:
Then there are many IDers who are not young earth creationists. In fact, on
Comment #30449
Posted by steve on May 16, 2005 05:46 PM (e) (s)
Then perhaps astronomers: