I suppose it’s good that I have an opportunity to take a chop at the third big branch of the Abrahamic tree, but I really take no joy in being so thorough. Enjoy the spectacle of a delusion Jewish ‘teacher’ misleading his students and lying out of ignorance.
What is it with creationists and fruit? I really don’t get it. This guy is just rehashing Paley, though, claiming that finding a seed in an apple is a more miraculous event than finding a silver dollar in one. Guess what, guy: we can describe the developmental events that produce seeds in fruit, and they don’t involve angels flying in and inserting them. We have entirely natural mechanisms, making the supernatural superfluous.
(via Atheist Media Blog)
Enjoy the spectacle of a delusion Jewish ‘teacher’ misleading his students and lying out of ignorance.
You meant “delusional teacher”???
Once Ray Comfort had found design in fruit,
Lots of other creationists followed suit.
An apple inspired a Jewish teacher,
And made him a more effective preacher.
Some kook in Florida used an orange,
and… um… er…
Dammit, Cuttlefish, how do you do that!!!???
Ah, good ole’ personal incredulity.
I love real-word-typo corrections… *waggles finger.* I think we know what he meant.
Re: silly teacher.
It’s somehow not so comforting to have reaffirmed my suspicion that it wasn’t just the Baptist congregation raising me who gets it wrong.
I’m going to start calling this the “sparkly, wondrous think-naught blindfold”. Because my dad is sure wearing it, and so is this guy — and everyone he teaches how to strap it on for life.
I find this post rather condemning of a simple man. I wonder if you have a lot of baggage that has led you to hate the misled, or perhaps you’re just looking to shut down a guy who doesn’t know any better because it helps you beat off at night.
“Enjoy the spectacle of a delusion Jewish ‘teacher’ misleading his students and lying out of ignorance.”
Since a lie, definitionally, is a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive, the idea of lying out of ignorance is incoherent. To be in ignorance is a lousy condition, and willful ignorance is a major moral failing, especially when the guilty party is in a position of trust and influence. It may well be no better than lying. But it’s not lying, no matter how righteous the cause and/or how beneficial the rhetorical advantage for claiming it to be so.
I don’t get the appeal to science when they talk like this. Why even mention DNA?
If they’re going to stop thinking at some point — and they obviously will, i.e., with “Goddidit” talk — then why even bother starting with the science-talk in the first place? Don’t talk about DNA if you have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. You’ll save us all a lot of time.
Talk about something else — like, you know, fairy dust or something.
PZ said:
Having perused some of the screeds you’ve put up for our enjoyment I am forced to the conclusion that this is due to a certain similarity of IQ.
Or is that reply in the wrong frame? :-)
That’s a good point, Bob — but I think the recent desire to pull science into Creationism talks is in order to take advantage of the ignorance of science that their audience generally possesses. Take Kirk Cameron and his buddy (whose name escapes me) and their “Way of the Master” videos. Present your own anti-science ideas as correct, and ignorant kids don’t know any better. Their immediate reaction is “oh wow! He must be right.” And it prevents them from questioning it.
On the level they’re trying to achieve, bringing up science (no matter how incorrect they may be) gets the job done.
Is this simple man saying stupid things or not?
Should people who say stupid things be called out for it?
Should people who don’t bother to research responses before opening their mouths be called out for their ignorance?
Has there ever been any research done to see if creationist brains are wired differently to the rest of us ?
Matt Penfold @ #11
See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,995465,00.html
@flannery#5 and sinbad#6:
I wouldn’t normally consider being ignorant the same as being malicious, but when you purport to teach something, and are ignorant of the subject, that transcends simple ignorance into the realm of malicious lying.
And not even just saying stupid things, but trying to teach stupid things to children (and adults) who don’t know any better.
“I find this post rather condemning of a simple man. I wonder if you have a lot of baggage that has led you to hate the misled, or perhaps you’re just looking to shut down a guy who doesn’t know any better because it helps you beat off at night.”
It is one thing to be misled, that can simply be considered misfortune. It is quite another to teach those misunderstandings to others. Anyone who wants the privilege of teaching others has a duty to understand what it is they are teaching. This man does not understand, and has no business teaching.
Flannery (#5):
I find this post rather condemning of a simple man.
OK, if he’s a “simple” (ie, simpleton=stupid) man, then why has his community entrusted the teaching of their young to him? Their business, of course, but that makes them fair game.
If he’s not actually a simpleton, but merely willfully ignorant and MSU, then he’s fair game.
Sounds like you’re trying to give him a pass based on presumed piety. That’s a non-starter, here.
I wonder if you have a lot of baggage that has led you to hate the misled, or perhaps you’re just looking to shut down a guy who doesn’t know any better because it helps you beat off at night.
Almost-clever attempt to shield all reality-deniers from criticism: They don’t know any better, so we can’t criticize them.
And the ad-hominem: Classy (not).
But what about the chickens!!!
I think we should also consider it to be lying if you recklessly repeat something that whilst you may not know it to be untrue you have failed to take sufficient steps to ensure that it is true.
If he doesn’t know any better then he should have found out better before mouthing off in public.
The fact that he didn’t, and indeed displays his ignorance with the kind of monumental certainty I’ve come to associate with people who are completely flat-out wrong is his look out.
This is particularly true considering the fact that, whether through ignorance or otherwise, he is not the misled but instead has chosen to become the misleader.
Mock away people.
The most interesting part of that video for me was the rabbi’s last, ‘throwaway’ line. After going on about the wonderful “blueprint” found in the seed he concludes:
“…And everything is here for the grand purpose of opening up our eyes to recognize a Great Designer. Masterpiece…. (almost looks natural).”
And that’s a laugh line. “Almost looks natural.” Because he’s been arguing that it isn’t really natural, after all. It’s supernatural. It only “looks” natural. But it also is natural. Delicious irony is that it’s both.
That’s the fatal flaw in the argument, of course. In order to claim that some part of nature requires a supernatural explanation, you have to demonstrate how the whatever-it-is simply doesn’t occur naturally, it requires artifical intervention, every time. But of course, you picked out something which DOES occur in nature, and does happen without apparent intervention, all the time. There’s no human intervention. And there are no common examples of supernatural intervention, so that we can compare nature with, and without, supernatural intervention. When is nature unnatural? Would apples and apple trees make much more sense without seeds, so we know God stepped in to make them?
No, it’s all a miracle. Which makes the entire concept of “miracle” completely vacuous. Interesting that the pleasant rabbi telling the story seems to understand this, and it doesn’t phase him. There’s no real argument here, it’s just one big incredulous sigh.
Bronze Dog,
Granted, while I might be wrong, it sounded like the guy was espousing not so much the ID argument against Evolution (though I have no doubt he would if given the chance) but the argument of first cause for a Designer.
If that is the case, I have little reason to condemn the man as the Cosmological argument is so time-tested that the matter is still being mulled over by the likes of Swinburne.
Holydust (#4): I love real-word-typo corrections… *waggles finger.* I think we know what he meant.
OK, I presumed PZ meant “delusional teacher,” but “delusion teacher” reads more humorously — like he’s knowingly teaching delusional mind-sets to his students.
I’m appropriately chastened by the finger wagging. :::hangs head in shame:::
If he is a simple man, what in the hell is he doing teaching other people about religion, science, or anything? Generally we just call morons morons and give them simple jobs within their capabilities to do.
Or used to anyway. Nowadays we elect them president and then wonder how things got so screwed up.
I actually found his discussion interesting right up until the very end. In fact, he never really mentions God, and if not for the crack about “nature” at the end of his discussions, it very well could have been a generally instructional talk. Swap the obviously religious man with a smart dressed middle aged woman and have her saying the exact thing to a bunch of 5th graders and you would all be praising her, right up until the nature crack, that is. Instead of making the nature crack and he said “isn’t nature wonderful?” this little youtube would never have made a blip.
I find it interesting how he anthropomorphizes the apple tree growth. It includes the factories and laboratories, yadda yadda yadda. I suppose he thinks his TV is filled with tiny people…
…wound up looking like the round thing on the side opposite the door-hinge.
OK, that sucked.
Perhaps the neurons required to operate all those appendages get co-opted into searching the possible rhyme-space? Must be something special, anyway….
“Almost-clever attempt to shield all reality-deniers from criticism: They don’t know any better, so we can’t criticize them.”
Having grown up in a Fundamentalist area of America, I look back on my upbringing not with resentment but with a certain degree of sadness. While I am presuming this Rabbi has shares a intellectual “bubble” like mine, I sadly think this man is really living in his reality that the community has created for themselves. There is no denying, because what they hold to be so manifestly true and self-evident is everything they believe.
“Granted, while I might be wrong, it sounded like the guy was espousing not so much the ID argument against Evolution (though I have no doubt he would if given the chance) but the argument of first cause for a Designer.
If that is the case, I have little reason to condemn the man as the Cosmological argument is so time-tested that the matter is still being mulled over by the likes of Swinburne. ”
Swinburne would have trouble mulling over what to have for dinner. Why should take any notice of a man who thinks the holocaust was good for the Jews as it gave them a chance to be heroic ?
This “simple man” has set himself up as an authority and is lecturing an audience on a topic on which he is manifestly ignorant. There are good grounds for recognizing him as both a fool and a liar.
“This ‘simple man’ has set himself up as an authority and is lecturing an audience on a topic on which he is manifestly ignorant.”
Indeed, and he’s morally culpable for doing so.
“There are good grounds for recognizing him as both a fool and a liar.”
Fool? Surely. Liar? Only if we should all be free to make up definitions as we go along (for rhetorical advantage in support of a worthy cause I’m sure).
I get the message :this video no longer available”
I sadly think this man is really living in his reality that the community has created for themselves. There is no denying, because what they hold to be so manifestly true and self-evident is everything they believe.
This is where I have to part company with you. His ‘community’ doesn’t get to create their own ‘reality’. There might have once been some vital community function served by religious decrees on how the world works, but that day is long past.
As a scientist, this is a point that I sometime find contentious with unscientific, though otherwise rational, intellectuals- some grave and solemn respect for ‘other ways of knowing’, or a decrying of the ‘fascism of evidence-based medicine’ are examples off the top of my head- which seem to be some ideological problem with there actually being a reality that, however imperfectly we know it, we can interrogate and refine our understanding of.
In the case of fundamentalists, the problem is that they see science as usurping what belongs to their god(s) or magic holy books. With woo-begones, it is an unhappiness (I hypothesize) with nature for not bending to political or personal will, and for scientists for persistently pointing out that this is so.
In either case, I don’t think it makes sense to sit still for bullshit. Not out of a misplaced sense of pity or manners, certainly.
Works fine for me.
Sinbad, maybe “fraud” would be more accurate and precise than “liar”. While he’s not speaking words he consciously knows to be untrue, his is engaged in a dishonest enterprise and has some responsibility for presenting himself as something he is not.
I don’t know why I felt compelled to click on this link in the video PZ linked to, but it was worth it. This was one of the funniest things (albeit in a painful sort of way) I’ve seen on YouTube:
Admittedly, I should probably feel a little bad for this guy (he’s not likely to be doing any real damage to anyone), but he’s just so damn hilarious. It’d be easy to believe he’s high on more than Jesus. My favorite part was the end when he bites the head off of the match and says “That’s what God does with a human being.”
“Sinbad, maybe ‘fraud’ would be more accurate and precise than ‘liar.’‘
Perhaps. Defamation law covers intentional falsehoods as well as instances where there is “reckless disregard for truth.” I have no disagreement with equivilent moral blame and culpability, but much disagreement with going along with the Humpty Dumpty-ization of the language for rhetorical advantage.
Oh look, another creationist has found evidence of design in a product of human intervention. If he tried planting that seed, he would get a gross crabapple tree – suitable only for cider. Even so, the plant is the result of natural evolution + human design.
These creationists are traipsing into my field – back off!
Nope, still get the same “We’re sorry, this video is no longer available.” message. Oh well, from the comments, I can guess what’s said.
Odd that they would use personal incredulity as an argument against science (especially when history has shown us that science is so far the best method for turning one generation’s incredulous fantasies into another’s mundane reality), when they don’t accept it as an argument against faith.
I personally find it incredible that a loving God who wants us all to join Him in heaven would spend all His time speaking to a douche like Hovind and couldn’t bother to spare a kind word for a sweet young Catholic boy who only wanted to do right by his deity. I guess God never heard that it takes ten times as much work to gain a new customer than to keep an old one.
Ah, but God works in mysterious ways….
New Pharyngula tagline?
Interestingly, at the same time these individuals in the richest country in the world are exercising their choice to remain ignorant, there are other people in far more resource-poor places who are doing their best to do science to the degree they can with what they have available.
I have a friend who works with HIV/AIDS researchers in Sénégal, for example, and the Indian Health Service’s Research Page greets visitors with: “Welcome to the Indian Health Service Research Program: Scientific Inquiry and Practice-Based Evidence for the Health of American Indians and Alaska Natives”. These programs, and many similar ones, do the best they can under very tight financial constraints.
So when someone who clearly has the resources to choose his path, and to gain real knowledge if he should choose to, decides to pontificate about matters he knows nothing about, and sets himself up in opposition to those who do, or spends $27 million on a “Creation Museum”, or whatever, I think it’s totally appropriate to call those individuals out as liars.
Unlike many people around the world, they have the resources and the choice to find out about the world around them, and they simply don’t have the interest in it. They deliberately choose not to, and they deliberately choose to set themselves up in opposition. If they just didn’t care about learning for themselves, however, I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass about what they believed in their own homes.
But in addition, they damage the children they teach, and they divert scientific resources into damage control for the mess they make on school boards, like Dover, instead of making those resources more available to scientists in low-resource areas who are starving for them, and they bring down this country’s competitiveness in the future of science and technology. I see no problem in insisting they take responsibility for their public actions and the subsequent consequences.
(I’m still waiting for FtK to answer my 3 questions; I’ll repeat them here, to save her the trouble of going back so many threads to find them: 1) what about the kids whom $27 million could feed, clothe, and educate; 2) what about the young minds whose education is being stunted by efforts like this guy and the Creation Museum, and 3) what about the kids with craniofacial deformities, whose syndromes Matsuoka and Shubin, among others, link to evolutionary developments in our anatomy, and point out how evolutionary developmental biology can shed insights into common causes and possible treatments? Is spending $27 million dollars on lies really a better use of funds for the kids, and if so, why and how do you rationalize that? ‘S ok; I can continue to wait for your answers.)
Every time I see one of these bits with fruit, I’m reminded of the good, succinct summary of genetic similarities that was in the Cracking the Code of Life special on PBS. Robert Krulwich and Eric Lander discuss how similar genes are across all species, and it starts with Robert holding up a banana and saying “50% of the genes in a banana? I feel very different from a banana!”
Video here, part 6, about halfway through, you have to watch through a bit of Craig Venter first.
I call David Hume against this person.
In other words, any natural event that happens in a predictable is not a miracle. The very premise is flawed. But than, so is Paley’s premise.
the jewish apple video doesnt come close to the level of stupid of this christian apple video
http://tiny.cc/bigbang
Fruit don’t bite back if they feel compelled to it, just because some ignorant creo uses it as an example to promote ignorance and superstition. That’s why xD
How’s this quote:
“Putting the Superfluous back into Supernatural”
gg wrote:
But Ken Ham prefers pig minge.
I thought it was delightful. Scientists want to protest against a fun little talk like that! Good Grief.
“I thought it was delightful. Scientists want to protest against a fun little talk like that! Good Grief.”
Yeah aren’t scientists weird, thinking it would be better if people accepted things based on evidence rather than superstition. Next think you will be telling me that they claim the earth is not 6000 years, but about 4.7 Billion.
Perhaps you’d like to read See Spot Run as your intellectually stimulating book for the week. It’s a delightful read.
@thalarctos,
FtK is in the dungeon; you’ll have to seek her out elsewhere if you really want a response (seriously, do you actually care what she has to say?).
From his tone, I would conclude he was aware of the stupidity of what he was teaching, and he did not took himself too seriously. Nor did the children. He never even mentioned God. But, well, there is no way you can teach the Bible without Creation (chapter one, page one). At least he didnt have to explain the dinosaurs.
At least the rabbi is rather jolly and his congregation seem to have a sense of humour. Quite a change from dour protestantism.
Of course he’s a delusional whackjob who owed it to his audience to have done some research before pontificating about apples and their designer. So 6/10 for presentation and 0/10 for content.
(Comfort gets 2 for unintentional humour).
At least the rabbi is rather jolly and his congregation seem to have a sense of humour. Quite a change from dour protestantism.
Of course he’s a delusional whackjob who owed it to his audience to have done some research before pontificating about apples and their designer. So 6/10 for presentation and 0/10 for content.
(Comfort gets 2 for unintentional humour).
Eamon Knight & Tosser: Okay, you’ve proven that everyone is a better rhymer than me! I didn’t think there were any passable ways to rhyme with orange! :)
Granted, while I might be wrong, it sounded like the guy was espousing not so much the ID argument against Evolution (though I have no doubt he would if given the chance) but the argument of first cause for a Designer.
Here, here! It actually seemed to me that his point was veering towards a denouncement of the idea of a pathetic God who must constantly tinker with creation. That finding something obviously created in an apple, like a silver dollar, would be LESS sublime than a prime mover who in one act of creation umpteen millennia ago caused such an impressive thing as an apple seed (much less conscience beings ‘in His own image’ as it were) to eventually come into being.
But that’s treading upon the ragged edges of naturalism and that shit ain’t going to get any love around here.
Drat! ‘Conscious’ beings not ‘conscience’ beings.
Oddly, finding a pinworm egg on an itchy anus doesn’t have quite the cachet of an apple seed found in an apple, although it is exactly equivalent.
Finding an apple seed inside a pumpkin, now that would be something.
I don’t know, MartinDH. I usually take that laughter in Creationist lectures as the collective laughter at silly scientists. You often hear laughing as the people listening giggle at how stupid the rest of us are, not believing in the “obvious truth of Creation”.
I really enjoy reading your blog, it always has great insight. But I am very frustrated with the media’s lack of questions to the presidential candidates about global warming. Now that it is down to just a few candidates I would think that this would be a bigger issue.
Live Earth just picked up this topic and put out an article ( http://www.liveearth.org/news.php ) asking why the presidential candidates are not being solicited for their stance on the issue of the climate change. I just saw an article describing each candidate’s stance on global warming and climate change on earthlab.com http://www.earthlab.com/articles/PresidentialCandidates.aspx . So obviously they care about it. Is it the Medias fault for not asking the right questions or is it the candidates’ fault for not highlighting the right platforms? Does anyone know of other websites or articles that touch on this subject and candidates’ views? This is the biggest problem of the century and for generations to come…you would think the next president of the United States would be more vocal about it.
The ignorant don’t know they’re ignorant. If they did they wouldn’t be ignorant.
denying knowledge they wish to destroy their own foundations.
then blame everyone else when their house falls.
What is it with creationists and fruit?
For people obsessed with Genesis, you’d think they’d have learned their lesson about using fruit as teaching aids.
What do these idiots learn in Sunday school anyway?
@#2 & #26–aw…thanks for thinking of me!
The apple gets my sympathy; it’s been abused so long
From Genesis, where Eve is blamed for turning us to wrong
Through childhood tales of razor blades to ruin Halloween,
And now this silly video–the one that you’ve just seen.
(Ironically, the hybrid fruits he uses in his screed
Are products of technology, not grown from wild seed;
The touch of Man is evident in root-stock and in grafting,
But truth should never interfere with moral story-crafting.)
The story as he tells it is amusing, but absurd,
But that won’t stop Rabbi Appleseed’s attempt to spread the word.
A teacher spreading falsehoods? It may seem a little odd,
But a little apple-polishing should set him right with God.
And once again the apple is the patsy in this game;
I despair that “spreading ignorance” might be its claim to fame.
But then, a recollection comes upon me like a snap,
A story that’s so obvious, my forehead gets a slap:
The apple holds a special place in science, as you know,
Cos it fell, and hit the head of Isaac Newton down below,
And that alone, if I were judge, would outweigh all the bad;
The apple’s reputation once again is ironclad–
Let rabbis or creationists continue their pursuit;
We know which one’s the apple, and which one is just a fruit.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/02/apple-of-my-eye.html
Cuttlefish, you rule!
Cuttlefish: Aargh! How do you do that?
(For a audio clip that faithfully reproduces my “Aargh!”, look here, particularly the very end… :)
I don’t think it says in the bible that it’S an apple… who the heck decided it was an apple? :P
@#62 :”What do these idiots learn in Sunday school anyway?”
Well he’s jewish, so that’s saturday school. And I guess they learn faerie tales :)
And these people wonder why their dress, speech, and beliefs are ridiculed?
There are a lot of jewish comedians out there with parodies of unintentional jewish clowns like this, and many are even funnier and even more sly: Woody Allen’s transformation into a rabbi due to side effects of a prison medical experiment was the one that immediatly came to mind (and Joe Frank’s blues guitar rabbi after that.)
Well he’s jewish, so that’s saturday school.
Oops, good point.
He’s correct – the great designer is evolution,,,a natural process, which may or may not be the product of a supernatural being, which explains why anything exists to evolve at all,,but then that’s not what he is “adducing”, since he is wearing a religious hat,,,
I am still waiting for the creotards to come up with a video with a steak, stating that it’s an irrefutable proof of god because animals are made out of meat.
This rabbi may be ignorant, willfully so, even, but, he is still trying to promote falsehoods in order to maintain the ignorance of his flock. Last I checked, the Old Testament did have a little blurb about Moses being told “THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS,” and last I checked, most Jewish people tend to regard the idea of ignorance being vital to piety to be an extraordinarily unwholesome thought. (I mean, if this isn’t true, then why have Jewish mothers always badgered their daughters into marrying nice medical doctors for the last 10 millennia?)
now if they add walnuts, cashews, pecans, rolled oats, and pressed wheat to the arguments from apples and oranges, and then publish the whole thing, the combined title could be “Fruits, Flakes, and Nuts Against Evolution”
they’re missing a golden opprotunity, if you ask me
what is it with creationists and fruit, i dont get that. dont they get that pretty much every fruit and vegetable we eat has been selectively bred for US, that all food products prove evolution not creation.
you think they would stear as far away as they can. is this some variant of the go proverb “my enemies strength is my strength”? maybe they should opt instead to “play away from the thickness”
And even worse for creationists, the seed plant life cycle makes no sense what so ever unless in an evolutionary context. Why else would there be vestiges of a sexual haploid generation unless seed plants had a common ancestry with organisms that have separate, free-living haploid and diploid phases to their life cycle. All the goofy incorrect names date from when biologists misinterpreted the seed plant life cycle and thought it like that of animals, thus the ovule (but its a sporangium, not a gamete).
Rabbi Miller was a brilliant talmudist, but his science was for crap. I find it fascinating that all of the creationists/id’ists/anti-evolutionists etc will point to things like the brilliant design of the banana but are seemingly ignorant that almost every fruit that humans eat today were originally barely edible by humans as they needed to be attractive only to other animal & insect species in order to propagate. And it is by HUMAN design that they exist in their current form! (Of course, some fruits are again barely edible because they have been bred for production and shelf-life rather than taste!)
Ah yes, I remember from the old Flanders and Swann tune about the rebellious teenage cannibal, whose father argues: “Well if the Great Ju-JU hadn’t meant us to eat people, he wouldn’t have made us of MEAT”.
J Myers, you’re absolutely right; I totally forgot about her getting herself banned. It’s not fair to taunt someone who can’t answer, so I take back my challenge.
Up until she got herself banned, of course, she was evading the question. But as of her banning, my question no longer stands, since I don’t care enough to seek her out on other fora.
It is indeed wondrous how well a banana fits in your palm. It is almost
as if… oops. My bad. My very very bad.
re #2
Some kook in Florida used an orange
door-knob with a matching door-hinge
I wish these religious fuckers realized just how similar they all are to each other. They’re hypocrites who never cease to break their own laws when it comes to spreading their reprehensible parasitic memes to children. Hey rabbi, how about you open a biology book and actually read it? It’s a shame that with all the evolutionary changes required to reason and properly communicate with each other, some people are reduced towards extrapolating fantasy. A lot of what makes these morons think the way they do is the assumption that since certain things have existed for a while, then there must be some truth to it. This idiot probably believes that his way is the one true path because it’s been practiced by ignorant morons like him for a few thousand years. Tradition is meaningless when trying to reason and think critically.
Well, I think we’re all better off without christians, jews, muslims, hindus, buddhists, etc, poisoning the minds of the ignorant. Should we awaken tomorrow and find that these ministers, rabbis, priests, imams, gurus, monks, etc have all but vanished, the world would amount to a more tolerant place. Granted, religion isn’t the root of every ill, but it sure does manage to place itself in all aspects of those ills.
The Jolly Rabbi was doin’ his job by telling a teaching story about G-d the designer of All. Hasidic rabbis rarely climb away from the Community that they serve. The Community would not support a [Rabbi= Teacher] who poisoned children against modern science. The parents wouldn’t pay him. Unlike the Christian megachurches where the “board” owns the property the Jewish Congregation holds the deed. The youngsters just heard the story of a marvel in the here-and-now. The kids won’t become Creos or Baptists on this guy’s watch. They will learn Biology in school.
Can someone give him one of Ray Comfort’s bananas and explain how it’s triploid, so it’s sterile and doesn’t have any seeds and has to be grafted. Then give Ray a wild banana and ask why it’s not perfectly designed for fitting into Kirk’s
anusmouth. How about a coconut or even better a cashew with it’s corrosive and toxic apple? How about giving them all some nice almonds. In fact, lets give them some non-domesticated strains, yes some wild almonds would do the trick. The fruit of the wild forms contains the glycoside amygdalin, “which becomes transformed into deadly prussic acid (hydrogen cyanide) after crushing, chewing, or any other injury to the seed Definitely evidence of the great beneficent designer.I find this post rather condemning of a simple man. I wonder if you have a lot of baggage that has led you to hate the misled, or perhaps you’re just looking to shut down a guy who doesn’t know any better because it helps you beat off at night.
flannery
Flannery, are you calling this Rabbi “simple”? Are you saying he “doesn’t know ant better”
Calling Jews stupid or simple-minded is anti-semetism, and I won’t put up with it!
Why do you think he’s not intelligent? This is an outrage!
I wish I could find some silver dollars in an apple. If it’s so much harder for God to stick seeds in there, it wouldn’t be that much trouble to do this. Or just cut out the middle man and materialize the cashy money right in my wallet.
last I checked, most Jewish people tend to regard the idea of ignorance being vital to piety to be an extraordinarily unwholesome thought
Then Zionism came along, and ignorance, and things much worse than that, became an essential part of Judaism.
Bummer; video “no longer available”.
I tried again on this page and low and behold, it worked! Paley said it long ago. And Paley wasn’t original.
He is indeed a simple man, even a nice man. But he is posing as a teacher. He should acquaint himself with modern knowledge before attempting to teach people in the modern world. He is deliberately placing himself in the same camp as Ken Ham & Co.
Hi everyone :) First time poster, but I have been reading the blog for a little while so I thought I’d say g’day and offer a comment about something in the video as well. BTW you can blame Phil Plait from the BadAstronomyBlog for pointing you out to me (he seems like a nice guy, so don’t hate him too much :D ).
Anyways, in the video the Rabbi says about the many volumes of reference books it would take to store all the information about, and the instructions to make, the apple. He then shows amazement at how it all fits in one little seed and insinuates that something special is occurring.
Well, that may be true except for one thing – there is more to that seed than just information. In actually, information takes up no space – those volumes of books are just the media chosen in his example, and the seed is just another way of storing it. If we take all those books and scan them into a computer, then what? How about we copy it to a USB device, or store it in some other form. The size varies quite a bit.
Also, how much information is truly needed regarding an apple? And how many steps are there in growing an apple tree and fruit from a seed? I am sure a computer scientist could come up with some rather compact code to do this. There really isn’t too much information stored in that seed when you think about it.
Of course, the cheeky part of me would love to go to an orchard and force some silver dollars into an apple when it was young, and then give one to these people when it ripens. I think the shock on their face when they cut into it and find it would be priceless.
Especially when you reveal it was all done by a person, and there was no divine influence at all ;)
Bust it:
Comfort was awed at the shape and the size:
Bananas fit quite well, fellatio-wise,
Then a kook from Orlando offered a bet:
His orange, no kin to a “household pet”.
And now an old rabbi, inane and ambitious,
Says silver dollars ain’t found in no Red Delicious.
Call them fruitloopy, or ripe with unreason–
Insanity’s harvest has an unending season.
PZ, you wrote;
“I suppose it’s good that I have an opportunity to take a chop at the third big branch of the Abrahamic tree, but I really take no joy in being so thorough. Enjoy the spectacle of a delusion Jewish ‘teacher’ misleading his students and lying out of ignorance.”
Since I have been on your case about balance and the political implications of our selections, I suggest the following on this very timely post.
1. Using scientist as an ideal and proceeding by definition, you surely must find some scientific satisfaction (you claim no joy) in being thorough and scrupulously fair to all concerned.
2. It is imperative and mandatory by the same definition of scientific scrutiny to focus on the inescapably similar creationist mythology for all three of the Abrahamic traditions – especially since we are murdering each other about the alleged differences.
One could even claim that Christianity & Islam both owe a debt (or dishonor, if you will) to the Abrahamic tradition.
Much more similarity than difference!
3. I cannot “enjoy” observing a passionate and probably sincere rabbi distort the brains of his young charges, but I most assuredly must try to understand it. I observe the overwhelming similarity in the delivery and content from iman, rabbi, minister, & priest.
4.Were you to deliver four or five of such posts critical of rabbis in a row, especially in the absence of Islamic and Christian pedagogical similarities, I would be first to accuse you of un-natural selection and concocting some kind of agenda.
I am thankful that you have attempted to be thorough and scientifically scrupulous.
At this perilous time when some people are vociferously calling for more murder in the name of “their religion,” I think scientific “thoroughness is much needed.
If science can’t scrutinize religion, what can?
The good Rabbi speaks of the DNA within the apple seed.
Natural, Godless reproduction *needs* that DNA in order to work. An apple couldn’t beget more apples without internalized instructions.
God-based replication shouldn’t *need* the DNA. Apples could beget more apples even without internalized instructions, because… well, because God can make anything happen.
That thought alone hardly disproves the notion of divinely designed DNA… but it’s yet another example of how nature’s evidence more strongly supports evolution than it supports creationism.
I would be first to accuse you of un-natural selection and concocting some kind of agenda.
nobody cares, Gerald.
Least of all PZ.
This rabbi probably assumes that if you plant each of these seeds from the red apple he cut, you’ll get an apple tree with similar fruit. He has no idea how the random genetic shuffling will most likely result in a tree with fruit that hardly resembles the apple he’s holding up. All of those tiny seeds in that specific apple is destined to be an inedible tree if planted. Apples instead are grafted from clones originating from a specific tree. The only decent thing you can make from naturally planted apple seeds is apple cider, and other fermented alcoholic beverages. Goes to show how fun and educational real science can be, instead of wasting the precious minds of these children with stupid babbling abrahamic bullshit. Take off your idiot hat rabbi, and come join the rational world. Fruits aside, another oft wondered question is what is it with these religious freaks and their headgear anyway? There are far better solutions to hiding your balding then wearing a hat that shows some supposed subservience to an imaginary deity that is drooling over how proper your headgear must be.
My mother and I intend to prove you wrong, Helioprogenus.
Buuut, if we’re wrong, I’ll send you a bottle of our best vintage.
Damn Cuttlefish, he writes so well.
O’er many folks he casts a spell.
So now we see there are a few
Who try to post a poem or two.
But 99 of a hundred times
They miss the metre if not the rhyme.
All of those tiny seeds in that specific apple is destined to be an inedible tree if planted.
Not necessarily, if the tree is self-fertile. Propagation by cutting is fast, easy, and the results are guaranteed to be the same strain, but that doesn’t mean that the “regular” way will not produce results (for most varieties), just that the results are not guaranteed. And even if the result is not the same strain it doesn’t make it “inedible” – even crab apples are edible. They just may not be as marketable/desirable. Certainly there are some varieties that must be cloned and/or are infertile, but that’s not carved in stone.
Remember that the wild varieties of our domesticated plants must have been usable to some extent to have even been considered for cultivation… even the wild almond can be made safe by cooking.
True, but the varieties shown in the rabbi’s video are quite some ways away from a wild (or even heirloom) self-pollinator. Yes, an apple tree will likely grow from the seed of a store-bought apple, but even if it is a self-pollinating heirloom, it will probably be a fairly unsuccessful tree (from the standpoint of the human planting it, in terms of quality and quantity of fruit, which to me was the unspoken emphasis of the apple footage in the video), because it will not have the advantage of the specially chosen root stock. Essentially, one variety of tree is bred for roots, others are bred for fruit, and we artificially graft the two together.
So, yeah, the seed could, under good conditions, give us apples. It will not give us the apples shown in the video.
That is almost correct. A friend used to live on an old farm. The original apple trees were still there, although without pruning they were 60 feet tall. Due to the birds and bees, there were dozens of seedlings scattered around the fencerows.
The fruit of the F1 varied all over the place. Some approached the parents in appearance, some were quite a bit different. Maybe half were worth picking. One tree had bright red apples that looked great and never ripened. Another tree was identical to yellow transparent only quite a bit better IMO.
There were also some wild pears. They varied a lot too and some looked OK but weren’t very good, most were small and inedible.
@ 66 & 68;
No, you were right the first time – its Sunday school for most Jews, too. One of the many Shabbat restrictions is a ban on writing, so Observant or traditional Jewish schools are held on any day except Saturday.
Re#2,
While I myself can’t possibly even come close to Cuttlefish’s mastery with poetry rhyme and metre, methinks no small part of his success is due to his ability to think outside the proverbial
boxicosahedron.His thinking and language skills are so mulitifaceted. Must be that cephalopod neurology and communicating in shades of polarized light.
BTW isn’t “orange” one of those few words that can’t be rhymed?
In Florida, an orange used by some kook
Saddly makes this a trend and not a fluke.
To AlanWCan at #82,
The red “apple” of cashews are edible, and, in fact, are highly prized in where they’re grown. I have been told that they taste like slightly unripe bananas (and have similar aftertastes). It’s just that cashew fruit do not ship well.
Essentially, one variety of tree is bred for roots, others are bred for fruit, and we artificially graft the two together.
A condition that also varies widely by variety and the intended climate. Hybrid Tea roses are much the same, in some climes they can be own root, in colder places they muct be grafted. Wine grapes are almost all grafted onto phylloxera resistant root stock, but eating grapes aren’t always given that treatment.
There’s one we should ask the creo-bots about. When did God change his mind about wine being a good thing?
A bit (bite?) late perhaps, but the Rabbi’s very first sentence contains a lie. He speaks of a silver dollar, but holds up a Susan B. Anthony dollar, whose makeup is cladding 75% copper 25% nickel, core 100% copper. It’s not even silver colored, unless you lump all non copper or gold metals as silver AND ignore the conspicuous copper edge.
Fruits aside, another oft wondered question is what is it with these religious freaks and their headgear anyway? There are far better solutions to hiding your balding then wearing a hat that shows some supposed subservience to an imaginary deity that is drooling over how proper your headgear must be.
One might infer from your gratuitously nasty and vulgar comments, that you are perhaps not as secure in your position as you’d like to be. I suppose the ad hominems are an easy way for you to debunk a position with which you disagree without having to engage your mind. If you don’t have anything intelligent to say, do you really think that comments regarding the Rabbi’s hat adds anything to the conversation?
Pardon me for my observation, but if we compare the Rabbi’s presentation with your own (without regard to agreement or disagreement as to content) I think we can make the following contrast: I think we can all agree that the Rabbi spoke pleasantly and with good grace; on the other hand, based on your own presentation, it’s *you* who comes off looking like a freak.
Thanks for the concern. Move along.
Yeah lies are always easier to swallow when they come from a sweet, harmless religous man.
Hey Amused, obviously you didn’t read the rest of what I wrote. In case you didn’t understand, I was generally saying that more or less tongue-in-cheek to comment on the fact that the religious feel the need for headgear. It wasn’t meant to be just directed at the rabbi, but also imams, and the skullcap, various hats, and other such headgear that bishops, priests, and the pope wears. Obviously I have offended your delicate cultural sensibilities, and I won’t lose sleep over it. If I came off sounding hostile, good, religion and stupid religious objects of artifice should be left in the trash bin of history.
As for the apples, yes, generally, if you plant the seeds from an apple from the store, you’ll get a few trees with apples that are edible, and in fact, the apples on even one tree can vary greatly. I know for a fact because my grandfather was a soviet era horticulturalist, and he had planted groves of apple trees from seedlings for cider. In fact, if you go to central Kazakhstan, you will find wild groves of apples in myriad variety. Try tasting apples on those trees, and most are awful. It’s those rare apples that have the requirements for popularity. Look at the Granny Smith, all granny smith apples (my personal favorite) apparently had their origins from a single tree in Southern Australia. Naturally, I am not claiming to be a malologist (I’m not sure if that’s an invented term or not), and I’d welcome the input of anyone in the know.
If I came off sounding hostile, good, religion and stupid religious objects of artifice should be left in the trash bin of history.
Ah – and do we take it that you and your ilk represent the pinnacle of the evolution of Man? Thanks, but I’ve seen monkeys with better breeding and manners than you have.
Why are you so hostile? As for me, I find people like you to be quite amusing. :-)
So Gramps was a Soviet? Interesting how the Communists were so successful in engineering a better, more advanged society through godless enlightenment. LOL!
what is it with creationists and fruit, i dont get that. dont they get that pretty much every fruit and vegetable we eat has been selectively bred for US, that all food products prove evolution not creation.
Doesn’t this prove the opposite case? What you are saying is that left to natural processes, apples would not reproduce beneficially from generation to generation. So how does this prove the natural evolutionary process? Doesn’t this prove that intelligent intervention is necessary to provide the requisite intervention and ‘guidance’ in order to produce a beneficial product?
It is exactly because modern food plants required (and often still require) careful and intelligent management by humans that demonstrates that they are evolved.
It is part of the creationist mythos that food plants are a “gift” from the creator; that their purpose is solely to feed humans.
However, the evolutionary view of plants is that the plants exist as evolved organisms whose sole “purpose” is to reproduce themselves. And this is demonstrated by the fact the wild versions of those plants are often foul-tasting, or sometimes even poisonous: they evolve those traits which discourage their bodies and/or their seeds — those parts of themselves which enable them to reproduce — from being utterly destroyed. The food sources that humans enjoy so much were originally mutants that would last a very short time, evolutionarily speaking, without human cultivation.
Of course, the situation is a bit more nuanced than that, given that plants do co-evolve with other animals expressly so as to scatter their seeds. But again, the whole point is the enabling of the plant’s reproduction.
Amused, you’re assuming that “beneficially” means “nice and tasty by the standards of us humans!” Explain how that equals “beneficial the the continuation of the apple tree.” What benefits the apple tree in the wild and what benefits us as growers may be two different things. Off the top of my head, I’d speculate that a big, tasty apple is a waste of apple-tree fruit-growing resources, and that a smaller, less fructose-laden fruit would be more efficiently grown and get the reproductive job done just as effectively. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
My grandfather WAS a Soviet, actually. By birth, that is, though I don’t know that he ever really considered himself to be one. (No Ukrainian nationalist was very popular with the boys in the Kremlin.) Then there was the whole Nazi invasion thing… Anyway, not unlike in Third Reich, the problem with the CCCP was runaway authoritarianism, not godlessness per se. Stalin enlisted the Church as an ally when it suited him to do so. It was inhumane power flexing its muscles under a veneer of Marxism, just as Nazi Germany flexed under the veneer of Catholicism. (Yes, that’s a gross oversimplification, but hey, it’s 1:00 a.m.!)
Uh, yeah. I’m slow on the Post here.
What Owlmirror said!
It is exactly because modern food plants required (and often still require) careful and intelligent management by humans that demonstrates that they are evolved.
It is part of the creationist mythos that food plants are a “gift” from the creator; that their purpose is solely to feed humans.
I don’t think you understand basic theology or Man’s role within the creationist framework. Do you think that the fact that bread doesn’t grow on stalks is some sort of proof against the creationist position? Just because human intervention produces a more refined product isn’t an argument against creationism by any means.
All of theology — basic and advanced — begins with the assumption that a fiction, a made-up story, is true. Everything else is argued from that assumption.
That argument might hold with some plants, where the wild versions are edible, but simply smaller or less tasty. But “less refined” hardly applies when the wild versions are obviously toxic or otherwise inedible.
Good point, there, Amused. When everything (and I do mean everything) can be attributed to God, without rhyme, reason, evidence, or rationale, the positions that stand on those attributions cannot be argued and their claims cannot be falsified. Which brings to mind this: By explaining everything, they explain nothing.
There are more compelling arguments against the benevolence of the creator than the inedibility of wild fruit. Still, it’s amusing to watch Ray Comfort go ape over a cultivated banana.
For those who are interested, Michael Pollan writes about pomology in this article, and in his book, The Botany of Desire (historical note: speaking of fruits and religious nuts, Pollan has a bio of Johnny Appleseed, who was a Swedenborgian evangelist). Pollan’s other fascinating book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, covers, among other things, the history of maize cultivation, and why it has led to modern obesity and other health problems.
Maize is fascinating for a variety of reasons; one of the interesting things I read recently is that a cross between teosinte and modern maize actually produced offspring, which I think was even fertile.
The other book that I’ve read that is interesting for the review of wild vs cultivated plants is Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel.
When I say soviet, I don’t mean communist. Well, not any more then you and I are christian (just because it’s the dominant religion in the US). My grandfather was Armenian, and although you had your fair share of communists there, Armenia was generally outside the sphere of heavy politicization. He was no more a communist, then you and I are.
Amused, I think you’re completely self-diluted. You purport to know who I am, when you have no information about me. You have no idea who I am and it doesn’t bother me that you think I sound unreasonable. I’m tired of having to put up with people who assume hostility towards religion is intolerable. We have been slaves of this delusional thinking, and people like you, who sympathize with coddling religiousity should recess into the past. I’m glad I live in a place where I’m generally free to criticize religious lunacy, but it pains me to realize there’s people who think like you. I’m not going to sit here and break down your points systematically, but you can’t argue your way out of ignorance and idiocy.
I’m no scientist, but I haven’t seen any posting here pointing to any inaccuracy in the Rabbi’s statement, so I assume that he is completely accurate. Offense seems to be taken at his conclusions, not his facts.
I believe his point is that there is no such thing as “nature” but that what appears as “nature” is in reality a facade; that it is “God” who is the controlling hand behind “nature”.
A miracle is defined as an occurrence that cannot be explained in “natural” terms.
Speaking of hostile, Xian terrorists have killed many MDs, attempted to kill 17, and wounded 200 or so and this is just lately. Tim Mcveige killed 200 civilians many young children in one bombing.
Xian death cult fundies lie always and occasionally publish lists of people to murder. They occasionally kill them. Few things are as ugly as a fundie fanatic with a bible in one hand and a rifle in the other. So amused, who is on your To Kill list. We know you have one.
More below.
Not following this thread too closely since the fundie trolls showed up.
But yes, all our food plants, grains, vegetables, fruits, and domestic animals are highly evolved. By human selection for our own purposes. What is beneficial to us is not beneficial to the plants and animals living in the wild.
Modern turkeys can’t fly and need help just to reproduce.
If you just let any of these food plants or animals go, they revert eventually and rather quickly back to wild forms that might be edible but aren’t particularly good or productive.
The theory that our food plants and animals were given to us by a god is demonstrably false. Any idiot can see that easily.
For example, wild turkeys are common in most of the USA and there are even some around my house. They don’t look anything like the ones in the store, they can even fly reasonably well. Wild maize still exists and it is more or less inedible and doesn’t look much like corn, teosinte. We selected and bred them ourselves.
In this clip the Rabbi is recognizing the grandness of “nature”; he illustrates that we take pits within fruits for granted when in fact they are extremely complex; he concludes that there is a Guiding Hand behind all of “nature”.
No reason to get all bent out of shape.
Amused, I think you’re completely self-diluted.
I haven’t been drinking. Have you? :-)
You purport to know who I am, when you have no information about me.
I don’t have a lot of information, but the information which I do have suggests that you are a hostile and obnoxious jerk. Surely, you don’t begrudge me my right to draw an inferential hypothesis based on the evidence?
You have no idea who I am and it doesn’t bother me that you think I sound unreasonable.
Good. I’m glad that you’re not bothered by my assessment.
I’m glad I live in a place where I’m generally free to criticize religious lunacy
Me too. I’m glad we both live in a place where we are free to criticize obnoxious behavior.
I’m not going to sit here and break down your points systematically, but you can’t argue your way out of ignorance and idiocy.
Nor can you base your conclusions on ignorance and idiocy. Well, you can of course – it’s a free country. But that would just make you an ignorant idiot.
By the way, why are you so down on the Nazis? From an evolutionary perspective, what could be more natural than weeding out undesirables and creating a ‘master race’? Just one more spin of the evolutionary cycle – survival of the fittest, evolution of species and all that. Obviously, that’s not my point of view. I’m Jewish, I’m a Creationist. I wear one of those funny caps on my head and naturally, I subscribe to a different set of values.
(As an aside, isn’t it great how we live in a country which has laws to protect guys like me from the hostility of guys like you?)
Before you fly off the handle, let me clarify that I don’t think that your views are consistent with Nazism. This is not a Godwin’s Law moment here. I’ll take you at face value, that you abhor Nazism together with the rest of civilized humanity. What I’m asking is, since Nazi ideals seem to be consistent with evolution of species, survival of the fittest and all the rest, why is it that you disagree with them? Isn’t that exactly the sort of evolutionary behavior which will create the ‘master race’, the culmination of humanity? If lunatics such as myself are preventing this sort of positive evolution, wouldn’t true morality demand that we be eliminated? If not, I’m interested to know why not.
Not following this thread too closely since the fundie trolls showed up.
Huh – the fundies are all trolls. The guys who are making fun of people’s headgear are the intellectual giants around here!
LOL!
If you can’t debate intelligently, why not just clear the field for those who can?
The feeble point you are making, that Man’s stewardship is a necessary component to augment the system of Nature, in no way debunks the Creationist position. All you’re doing is restating Genesis 2:15 in your own words. Of course, I’m not suggesting that this is a proof to my position, I’m not trying to prove anything to you. Merely demonstrating that your observation doesn’t debunk the Creationist position in the slightest.
But then again, you have no need to apply intelligence in order to debunk anything. Simply call me a troll and I am de facto debunked – to your mind at least.
…since Nazi ideals seem to be consistent with evolution of species, survival of the fittest and all the rest, why is it that you disagree with them?
Actually, I believe these concepts are linked to Social Darwinism (Herbert Spencer) and an evolutionary theory prior to Darwin called inheritance of acquired characteristics (Jean Baptiste Lamarck).
So if one wishes to pass blame around, it should be connected to these two individuals, and, the failure to distinguish between natural selection as it concerns evolutionary theory (i.e., for the most part, the natural surroundings dictate the traits that survive in a population without necessarily having a ‘goal’ trait), whereas natural selection as it concerns Lamarck’s evolutionary theory (i.e, unlike Darwin, describes evolution as a force that drives organisms from simple to complex).
The idea that evolution is driven by a force that moves things from simple to complex (an idea which I think is implicit to creationism), is also the foundation of Spencer’s social Darwinism. Which in turn, is most likely the basis for Hitler’s ideas.
I’m an amateur biology person, so someone can correct me as it concerns the distinction between the two evolutionary theories.
So if one wishes to pass blame around…
OK, but why ‘blame’? Why not use the term ‘credit’? After all, if the efficiency of nature is the highest ideal, the most powerful and beneficial force over time, why not let it run its course in order to produce the master race, the pinnacle of the evolutionary process?
I’d like to hear from evolutionists why it is that they feel that Nazism*, the drive toward the production of the ‘master race’ through the elimination of lunatics and undesirables (such as myself), was ‘immoral’ and why is it that the Western counterattack, against the forces of Nazism*, which effectively prevented the production of this ‘master race’, was ‘moral’. Can you explain this to me?
(* Or as you term it – Social Darwinism. May we leave the terminology aside for the purpose of the discussion? I’m more interested in discussing the *principle* of the ideology, than the *semantics* of what to call it.)
Amused, speaking of hostility. Ever hear of Paul Hill? He assasinated 2 MDs and was tried, convicted, and executed by the state of Florida. He was also a Xian terrorist and a Presbytarian minister.
How about Tim McVeigh? He’s dead too for murdering 200 people.
And Rushdooney, the father of Xian Dominionist wingnuttery. He proposed to murder roughly 99% of the US population to enforce biblical purity. That is 297 million people. Hard to get more hostile than that.
It would be easy to dismiss Rushdooney as a warped psychopath. After all he was. He is also a very influential theologian and the mentor of another psychopath, Pat Robertson.
In terms of ugly minds, hard to beat fundies. I suppose the Moslem fundies might be worse but really, it would be a even contest to decide.
Don’t you have some disobedient children to stone to death or something? If not, maybe you can find someone eating a shrimp or lobster to stone.
Blame has a negative connotation. Credit has a positive connotation. It seems more accurate to describe creationists’ view as one of blaming Darwin for things like the Holocaust rather than crediting Darwin with the Holocaust.
After all, if the efficiency of nature is the highest ideal, the most powerful and beneficial force over time, why not let it run its course in order to produce the master race, the pinnacle of the evolutionary process?
My point is that this very comment has nothing to do with Darwin’s evolutionary (biological) theory nor it’s modern formulation (evolution on a genetic level), and everything to do with the ideas of Herbert Spencer and Jean Baptiste Lamarck. The closest you can get to your comment in the biological realm is perhaps the idea of the Dawkins’ meme which concerns cultural evolution.
The creationists’ basic argument is flawed because it is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. As soon as they understand the distinction between cultural evolution (governed by humans) and biological evolution (governed by nature–probably closer to God), it should become clear that they are in fact arguing for a concept that is somewhat the opposite of God’s presumed kind nature.
As an example, the difference between a person who survives a harmful virus versus a person who doesn’t (without human intervention) is an instance of evolutionary theory. The person who survives has some trait that allows him/her to survive and reproduce.
In contrast, if the same two persons go to the hospital and are given a drug that helps them survive the virus (and both survive), they both survive as a consequence of human (and cultural) intervention. Of course there’s morality built in here as well, concerning whether or not particular persons should be treated (or harmed).
Drawing the creationists’ argument to its logical conclusion (and again based on Social Darwinism–not Darwin’s evolutionary theory), it would suggest that there should be know such thing as hospitals. After all, hospitals are designed to prolong the survival of weaker individuals in a population, and that (as one can tell by observing the rest of the natural world), is completely the opposite of natural (biological) selection.
And since hospitals are a product of science, and creationists seem anti-science, the logical conclusion of creationists’ reasoning (paradoxically), is that hospitals should not exist and the supposedly weak individuals should perish naturally in accordance with Darwinian principles.
Which begins to sound alot like Hitler.
So I would surmise the objection against creationists, is that they sound like Hitler.
Amused is just a creo liar. Hitler was a devout Catholic and admirer of Martin Luther the notorious antisemite. He traced his inspiration back to god and Jesus. We know this because he said so often. Below is one such quote. There are pages and pages more, it is all through Mein Kampf.
Amused, speaking of hostility. Ever hear of Paul Hill? He assasinated 2 MDs and was tried, convicted, and executed by the state of Florida. He was also a Xian terrorist and a Presbytarian minister.
How about Tim McVeigh? He’s dead too for murdering 200 people.
Amused is just a creo liar. Hitler was a devout Catholic and admirer of Martin Luther the notorious antisemite. He traced his inspiration back to god and Jesus.
Frankly, I am more Amused than ever. As a Jew,
(Prediction: Grab the Raid, because here come the anti-Semites crawling like cockroaches out of the woodwork.)
As a Jew, I’m not interested in mounting a defense for Christianity any more than I am interested in mounting a defense for Random Evolution. A lot of effort has been expended in denying that the Evolutionist point of view had nothing to do with Nazism. But I still don’t understand, from the Evolutionist point of view, why there is so much heat on the subject. Specifically, from the Evolutionist point of view, what is it about Nazism that you find so objectionable? After all, isn’t it the duty of every species to do whatever it needs to do in order to perfect itself for its mission of survival? Again, I think we all agree that what the Nazis did was abhorrent, a monumental crime against humanity. I just don’t understand, from the Evolutionist viewpoint, why a program of ‘selection’ which is designed weed out undesirables in order to evolve humanity toward its ultimate goal as a ‘master race’ should be viewed as a crime against humanity. Can you explain it to me?
And since hospitals are a product of science, and creationists seem anti-science
This is absurd. Of course there is a system in place. The system works in predictable ways which can be observed and measured by the scientific method, and the appropriate conclusions can be drawn. The question is simply, what force set up this system in the first place? Is that force intelligent or insentient? Stupid comments alluding to angels inserting seeds into an apple are just that – stupid comments.
When scientific achievements are attained, do you marvel at the random chance which brought about the phenomena? Do you look at the Jarvik heart and credit a billion years of random evolution which ultimately threw together the precise combination of metal and plastics to make it work. Or do you rightly give credit to Dr. Jarvik himself, who used his intelligence to produce the artifact? The only difference between the Creationist and Evolutionist point of view is that Creationists credit an Intelligent Designer for setting up the system in the first place. You too have a ‘god’; the insentient forces of evolution and naturaly selection are your ‘gods’. You prefer a dumb god, I prefer an intelligent God. I think that about sums it up.
And since hospitals are a product of science, and creationists seem anti-science, the logical conclusion of creationists’ reasoning (paradoxically), is that hospitals should not exist and the supposedly weak individuals should perish naturally in accordance with Darwinian principles.
Which begins to sound alot like Hitler.
So I would surmise the objection against creationists, is that they sound like Hitler.
Just curious. When you typed this drivel, did you expect anyone intelligent to respond?
Evolution is a scientific theory and fact. How life changes through time.
It has nothing to do with politics, religion, or society except as a few crackpots and cranks misuse and misunderstand it. Such as yourself.
BTW, most educated scientifically literate Jews have no problem with evolution. Some evolutionary biologists are Jewish. I call them “colleagues” and “friends” and “coworkers”. Why don’t you ask them about the “Evolutionist” point of view. Don’t be surprised if they look at you like you are a nutcase. Done, my time is too valuable to waste on a troll.
Among other things, Evolutionary Biology is descriptive, not prescriptive, in that Evolutionary describes how the diversities of life as it is now, and as it was then, came to be. If you actually knew how to enter into a class on elementary Biology, you would have realized this already.
Having said this, Negative Eugenics, where “undesirable” members of human populations are culled, is a bad thing from an Evolutionary viewpoint, especially since with Hitler’s Eugenics, people were culled according to Hitler’s own aesthetics, and insane nonsense about culture purity. Hitler was not a biologist, as no sane biologist, by any stretch, would not have closed down Nazi Germany’s blood banks for fear of German soldiers being transformed into Jewish by injection.
Furthermore, Negative Eugenics is also bad, from an Evolutionary standpoint, as it seeks to make the population genetically homogeneous. One of the first things learned in either Evolutionary Biology, or Population Biology is that a genetically homogeneous population can not adapt very well, if at all, to a changing environment, nor can a genetically homogeneous population adapt to the appearance or change of new predators, competitors and parasites. If you actually knew how to read a biology textbook, you would have already known this.
Of course, then there is the fact that 99.999% of all evolutionary biologists happen to be humans who routinely instinctively display empathy towards their fellow humans, and that studying how the diversities of life came to be does not, in any way, shape or form, require a dampening of concern towards the wellbeing of other members of one’s own species.
Because there are lots of fundamental misconceptions in there.
First of all, evolutionary biology is a science, and as a science, is descriptive, not prescriptive. Science can offer recommendations, but the actual implementation is part of public policy.
Secondly, the very idea of a “master race” is practically meaningless. Germans and Jews are of the same species. Note that the designation of all humans as being members of the same species derives from evolutionary biology as well.
In addition, the Nazi program was not based on any sort of rational analysis of traits, but rather on the completely incoherent concept of “blood”. This is not natural selection, nor even true artificial selection, but rather gross-level group privileging.
A genuine scientific view of the human race might note that there are traits that are more beneficial than others, but the problem is, first of all, many of those are dependent on environmental context, and second of all, how are traits to be promoted or eliminated, given that there is no catalog of them as such? Even within a fairly small population, expressed traits can vary markedly. Which of them are “undesirable”? And can “undesirable” traits be eliminated without also removing desirable ones that are tied to them? And finally, it has been noted by evolutionary biologists that variation is actually a necessary component of all populations; that larger variation means that there is likely to be greater disease resistance. Disease-causing microbes and viruses thrive best in greatly homogeneous organisms; the same sorts of biological attack methods work exactly the same throughout the infected population. Genetic variation means that there is at least the probability that some of the variants will have a natural resistance.
No scientist who genuinely understood genetics, evolution, and heredity, would ever suggest that some group of people are “undesirable”, and should therefore be eliminated. And that’s purely from a practical viewpoint, not an ethical one. Scientists are perfectly capable of learning basic ethical behavior, the same as everyone else, and most do. The exceptions are deplored, the same as with non-scientist humans who are non-ethical. Thus the Nazis are deplored, both as humans who behaved unethically, and as scientists whose understanding of biology was badly broken.
However, group privileging, of course, is something common to all social groups — including Jews, one might note. And again, while population biologists or sociobiologists might note the ubiquity of group privileging, they would not make recommendations of exterminations based on this; it is a descriptive observation, not a prescription. Yet because group privileging is so common, one sees its ubiquity in all of the scriptures of the major religions, including Judaism. All of them have multiple instances of “divinely” mandated slaughter and/or genocide of those outside the ingroup.
Owlmirror, you’ve been deserving for a while now, but you just secured yourself my next Molly vote with that comment.
This is why so many Old-World diseases, especially influenza and smallpox spread so quickly among the various Native American tribes and cultures.
You prefer a dumb god, I prefer an intelligent God. I think that about sums it up.
Would a god that set evolutionary processes into motion (perhaps starting with Darwinian premises) count as a dumb one or an intelligent one?
You too have a ‘god’; the insentient forces of evolution and naturaly selection are your ‘gods’. You prefer a dumb god, I prefer an intelligent God.
Actually my tendency is towards agnostic theism. So to me, God is neither dumb or intelligent because such an entity should, technically, be incapable of being defined. If you can define such an entity, then that would make the god I’m thinking about, much more encompassing than yours. Of course my pet theory about god is of the science-fiction variety (ie., an alien life form that seeded planet earth).
Do you look at the Jarvik heart and credit a billion years of random evolution which ultimately threw together the precise combination of metal and plastics to make it work. Or do you rightly give credit to Dr. Jarvik himself, who used his intelligence to produce the artifact?
I can give credit to Dr. Jarvik for his invention due to billions of years of biological and cultural evolution. I suspect at some point in history, Darwinian evolution was replaced by cultural evolution, perhaps in a manner suggested by Geoff Miller.
Just curious. When you typed this drivel, did you expect anyone intelligent to respond?
I write to suit the question asked.
Done, my time is too valuable to waste on a troll.
Don’t flatter yourself. I doubt it.
We seem to have issues with terminology. I get that you use the term ‘troll’ to represent anyone who disagrees with someone else. By that definition, I am a troll. By that definition, so are you.
As to the rest, we seem to be arguing solely based on semantics. Perhaps my use of the term ‘evolutionists’ is poor semantics. I use the term evolutionists to describe those who posit that the evolutionary process itself is its own first cause. I have no problem with the evolutionary process, as long as it posits an intelligent Designer as the prime cause for setting into place the framework which allows for the evolutionary process to take place. If we get past that point, we can disagree about whether that intelligent designer takes an active role in guiding the evolutionary process through its paces. I couldn’t prove the case one way or another and neither could you.
If you point to the complexity which has arisen from the evolutionary process and you want to posit from that, that the evolutionary process itself is solely responsible for the complexity which has evolved, (my definition of an ‘evolutionist’) that’s where we’ll part ways. I’ll point you toward Dr. Jarvik’s workshop which is not doubt littered with early prototypes and intermediate attempts, and I’ll ask you whether it seems plausible to you that the final classic Jarvik pump artifical heart device evolved by itself with no intelligent designer. If you say yes, then you’re just plain nuts and we’ll agree to disagree. If you say no, then you’ll understand why evidence for the evolutionary process is no refutation against the assumption of an intelligent designer. Nor is the assumption of an intelligent designer necessarily at odds with the evolutionary process. So why the initial condemnation of the Rabbi’s presentation? After all, his only point was to demonstrate the complexity of the system in order to assert the existence of an intelligent prime cause who brought the system into being. But from the way the Rabbi’s presentation was mocked, and he himself demeaned, it became obvioust to me that many participants on this forum accept the evolutionary process to the exclusion of an intelligent prime cause. That’s just plain nuts and I’m not shy in saying so.
Regarding the whole debate of Intelligent Designer, vs absence of such; I note that Science has become the new Church. In ancient times it was the Church who dictated acceptable beliefs to the scientific community. Today, it’s the so-called scientific community who want to dictate acceptable belief to the religious community. In essence, Science is the new Church.
No scientist who genuinely understood genetics, evolution, and heredity, would ever suggest that some group of people are “undesirable”, and should therefore be eliminated.
Unless they are still in the womb. Or past the age of productivity. Then such undesirables can be eliminated with impunity. Shall we make a wager? Within 20 years, we will see laws on the books, which state that a deformed baby may be terminated within, oh say 24 hours of birth. Care to take that wager?
So to me, God is neither dumb or intelligent because such an entity should, technically, be incapable of being defined. If you can define such an entity, then that would make the god
Very good – Maimonides states that we can only accurately describe God by what He is not. We can by no means accurately describe what He is. That doesn’t mean though that we can’t try to articulate certain ideas, using the limited concepts and vocabulary available to us.
I write to suit the question asked.
Next time, try applying a little thought as well. Your remark about religion being against caring for the sick and generally downtrodden, or being against hospitals was absolutely assinine. Open a Yellow Pages. How many hospitals in your city are founded by religious organizations, or named after some religious personage? I find it incredible that you could actually beleive your own drivel.
For amused the troll:
If you want to forecast doom and gloom, wait until the fundie Xians get in power. Most vicious antisemites are fundie Xians.
They have plans for the Jews in the USA. You will all be rounded up and gassed. Again.
They’re close. Huckabee is a Xian Dominionist. Xian, not Judeo-Xian.
You can’t run to Israel either. There are many evolutionary biologists in Israel especially at the Hebrew University of Jerusaleum. Rather shocking that the Darwinist Nazis ended up there, isn’t it?
You might be able to claim asylum in Germany though.
Owlmirror, thank you for your explanation demonstrating how badly the Nazis bungled their own attempt to create the master race, the ultimate, or at least the next step, in the evolution of humanity.
You’re avoiding the question of course. If the Nazis, or any group for that matter, were skilled geneticists and were in fact able to create a higher race through a selective process, would you applaud such a course of action? If not, why not?
More doom and gloom for amused. The US is about to declare itself a Xian nation. Not JudeoXian. They already did this once last year for Xmas. House bill 888.
Got your plane ticket? You should. Once the US is a Xian nation, all other religions will be in big trouble. This is a fundie bill, I’m sure the Jews will be the first to know how much trouble there will be.
BTW, this bill has also been introduced in many state legislatures. It will almost certainly pass.
You are a schmuck and a schlemiel.
“Intelligent Design” as put forth by the Discovery Institute is the idea that organisms are incapable of evolving without magical assistance from an “Intelligent Designer,” of which the ‘Institute has given many many ham-handed hints that it’s none other than God, as described in the Bible. Intelligent Design is/was intended to be a Trojan Horse that would sneak Creationism into the American scientific community and subvert it so that the scientific community would be changed from a meritocracy into a theocracy, as per the ultimate plans of Christian Domionists who intend on turning the United States of America into a theocracy.
The scientific community does not want to dictate what is and is not acceptable to religious communities, it wants religious persons and communities to not interfere with scientific education. Really, please explain why, given as how Christian fundamentalists occupy the school boards of Kansas, Florida and Texas have turned these three states into three of the worst academically performing states in the US?
Really, please explain why, given as how Christian fundamentalists occupy the school boards of Kansas, Florida and Texas have turned these three states into three of the worst academically performing states in the US?
Hmm, that’s a tough one. You’re not from one of those states by any chance are you?
You are a schmuck and a schlemiel.
OK, I raise – you are an inbred freak. If I had a dog with a face like yours, I’d shave its rear-end and teach it to walk backwards.
Now, did that get us anywhere? Hey, I have a great idea! Say something intelligent and I’ll respond in kind. (Are you capable of saying anything intelligent?)
Is it any wonder I’m amused by a putz like you?
More news for amused the troll who is apparently oblivious to history. Antisemitism existed long before Darwin. It was present early in the Xian church and the German version of Xianity was the guiding philosophy of the Holocaust. BTW, this is the mainstream Jewish explanation for the Holocaust.
That is the good news. The bad news is the fundies are reaching for power. Could they engineer another holocaust. Sure, these are fanatics who can be and often are quite violent. And are often vicious antisemites. IMO, you need better friends than the creo fundie Xians, but that is your problem.
Here’s a Truth, be Amused.
http://www.redmeat.com/redmeat/2006-02-21/index.html
It would work if Amused knew how to recognize truth to begin with, True Bob.
But, it seems that because Amused regards “Science” as a religion, he would prefer to live in a time predating “Science,” such as the Dark Ages, where the leading causes of death were famine, disease, diarrhea, and speaking one’s mind.
On the other hand, I wonder if that schmuck would appreciate being subjected to the pogroms that went on during the Dark Ages.
How dare we mock a Rabbi? Give me a fucking break. If he was holding up a picture of the sea and said… “look at the horizon.. see the world is flat, only the grace of god keeps us from sailing off the edge.”
Should he be absolved? Spared the wrath?
Yeah yeah. Would you say the same thing about mocking Tom Cruise?
Amused can kiss my ass. Another godbot.
And that means that going by Maimonides, you cannot call God either “intelligent” nor a “designer”.
No.
Science does not dictate belief. Science records that which is known and observable. You may believe whatever you want, supported by evidence or not. But you may not call it “science” unless there is, indeed, evidence in support of it.
That’s as insidious and reprehensible an accusation as that against Jews seeking world domination. Or for that matter, Jews using the blood of Christian infants and children to bake unleavened bread for Passover.
And it deserves the same degree of utter contempt for those making the accusation. You are not being called a troll because you disagree; you are being called a troll because you demonstrate dishonesty and bad intent.
Shall we make a wager that within 20 years, the entire economy and all of politics will be controlled by Jews? Or that Christian children will be forced to donate blood to Jewish bakeries every spring?
Feh.
Very good – Maimonides states that we can only accurately describe God by what He is not. We can by no means accurately describe what He is. That doesn’t mean though that we can’t try to articulate certain ideas, using the limited concepts and vocabulary available to us.
Next time, try applying a little thought as well. Your remark about religion being against caring for the sick and generally downtrodden, or being against hospitals was absolutely assinine. Open a Yellow Pages. How many hospitals in your city are founded by religious organizations, or named after some religious personage? I find it incredible that you could actually beleive your own drivel.
Well, that comment should have come across as sarcasm, but I was only half joking. It is targeted at creationists (read: fundamentalists), who do not appear to have a good track record of being kind and open-minded (particularly as it concerns science). Consider some history.
The evolution vs. creationism ‘debate’ looks very much like the heliocentric vs. geocentric, and, round earth vs. flat earth debates that characterized science vs. religion arguments that have taken place over the centuries. Religious officials (read: fundamentalists) did not have a sympathetic approach towards scientists during those times (and indeed during Darwin’s time–he actually postponed publishing his theory for that very reason), and I presume their lack of compassion can now be held in check due to cultural advancement (owing largely to science and the rennaisance).
With the possible exception of a few fundamentalists, nobody believes that the earth is flat and stationary despite what previous Biblical interpretations have suggested. I suspect a number of religious persons now also believe that life on earth evolved according to evolutionary mechanisms taking place over billions of years.
Let’s just take this into perspective, and go with the scientific conclusions that the earth is round, moves around the sun, and life on it evolved via evolutionary mechanisms.
Taken together, does any of this information lead you to useful speculations about what God is not?
The amused troll wouldn’t care about the truth much less recognize it. I doubt very much that he is really a Jew as he claims.
The Jews keep a wary eye out on antisemitic Xians. It has been 2,000 years of persecution, pogroms, forced conversions, forced expulsions, and mass murder at the hands of Xians. They can’t afford to be stupid about it and amused is stupid about it.
Most likely either a fundie Xian trolling or a 15 year kid trolling for kicks.
And BTW, evolutionary biology is taught at Israeli universities. Shows what real Jews think of the Darwindidit theory.
I answered your question as you asked it. What you’re doing now is shifting the goalposts. I said that “master race” was meaningless, now you saying “higher race”. Well, what is a “higher race”, then? I explained why the entire concept was incoherent, and you’re repeating “selective process”. What the hell do you mean, “selective process”?
Hey, I’ve got a great question for you: speaking of “selective process”, every year, every single Passover, Jews all around the world pray to God to “pour out his wrath upon the nations who do not know you”, that is, who do not know God. If you could press a magic button that actually did that; that would kill (and bury – no muss, no fuss) every man, woman, and child who was not a believing, observant Jew, would you press the button? Would you make that selection?
It’s like this one lady said, in that, people won’t laugh at you if you don’t do something worth laughing at, i.e., demonstrating gross, willful ignorance of botanical embryology, and mistake it for faith.
The blood libel concerning matzo is, sadly, alive and well in the Modern World. This one Saudi newspaper printed an article alleging that the blood of murdered Muslim teenagers is used.
Zo my freakin Gott! A creationist refuses to acknowledge his painfully inane question has been answered in detailed so he can continue with his moronic boasting about how no one can apparently answer his questions?
But seriously, Owl, honey-dear, you honestly think that this schmuck has the braincells or social skills to give you a straight answer, free of insults?
He’s trying to get you (or someone, or anyone) to admit that you’d support an Eugenics program if some sort of ill-defined “success” was “guaranteed.”
I wonder if Amused has heard of, or cares about “Dor Yeshorim”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dor_Yeshorim
You are not being called a troll because you disagree; you are being called a troll because you demonstrate dishonesty and bad intent.
Huh, you snip Maimonides’ statement to shreds, leave off the salient part, but I’m the one demonstrating dishonesty and bad intent.
Bye, guys. Thanks for the amusement. Feel free to echo among yourselves without me.
Shrug. Either Maimonides was internally consistent in his defense of rationalism, or he wasn’t. If he was, and he were to study and understand the foundations of modern biology, he might well have been a theistic evolutionist.
Of course you are.
Would you say the same thing about mocking Tom Cruise?mock Tom Cruise?
how dare we…
UNNNLIMITED POOWWWWEEERRRR!!!!
Is Amused a plant from Jews for Jesus?
That’s a branch of the Southern Baptist Convention after the Dominionist takeover. Now that he has “signed off” perhaps he is ‘wiping the dust from his shoes’ as a failed Evangelist. I’d like to ask if he is a of the Haredim or a Sepharad Orthodox. Or JfJ.
Or he just got his ass kicked WITH his prosthesis and found the intransigence hereabouts daunting.
Here, Amused, chase the Cat!
House bill 888.
uh, don’t panic yet.
that bill has been lost in committee for several months now.
a committee with an awful lot of liberal demos on it, btw.
I highly doubt it will ever get to the Senate, or even out of that committee.
It was sponsored by Southern Republicans who need to look like they are doing something for their evangelical base in order to get re-elected.
seriously; if you look at who sponsored the bill, you will not see a single democrat on the list.
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
There’s certainly something about the troll style that does not smell kosher.
The scent of Baco Bits on his breath?
You people are still avoiding the question! Since the germ theory states that diseases spread through “micro-organisms”, and it could be proven that mailing so-called anthrax letters would guarantee the successful spread of these “micro-organisms”, would you as a supporter of germ theory in fact applaud such a course of action? WHY OR WHY NOT?
Shrug
You’re improving. Your most eloquent argument yet.
Intransigense? Nonsense is a more suitable adjective to describe your lunatic rantings.
Troll! Baco Breath! You are a schmuck and a schlemiel.
Insults and ad hominems are a good way to temporarily reinforce your own insecure beliefs, but don’t make the mistake of confusing them with actual logical arguments.
My apologies, I seem to have inadvertantly interrupted your service with my dissenting opinion. Please continue your devotions – I won’t interrupt your services again.
LOL!
Well, I thought amused had some potential. If it’d just not followed troll tactics, its words were mostly not harsh or attacking. Unfortunately, it couldn’t stay back from moving goalposts, ignoring relevant material, willful ignorance, etc. Could’ve been a worthwhile discussion. Except for us evilutionist, master race creating, nature tampering bastardos.
Amused isn’t a Jew. He probably isn’t even a fundie Xian.
This is just some 15 year old kid trolling. Lying, making wild statements, unfounded accusations, changing the subject, false claims, insults, and anything just to get a response.
Disturbed adolescent behavior. Any attention positive or negative is better than no attention.
Maybe he will grow up some day but disturbed adolescents tend to become disturbed adults. Unfortunate, but the way it goes.
Play the troll game if anyone wants but that is all it is, trolling.
Favorite troll stance…
Evolution is a religion.
Troll.
“Lying, making wild statements, unfounded accusations, changing the subject, false claims, insults, and anything just to get a response.”
Don’t forget claiming to leave the forum and then sticking his head back in to take more potshots.
No doubt his mother must be so proud of him, demonstrating that he has the stunted social and learning skills of a 14 year old who’s been forced to repeat 2nd grade for the 7th time.
Well the behavior gives it away every time. A troll is not interested in an open discussion, a troll is interested in irritation, side tracking, whatever, as long as it annoys the local netizens.
Amused #136,
“I use the term evolutionists to describe those who posit that the evolutionary process itself is its own first cause. I have no problem with the evolutionary process, as long as it posits an intelligent Designer as the prime cause for setting into place the framework which allows for the evolutionary process to take place. If we get past that point, we can disagree about whether that intelligent designer takes an active role in guiding the evolutionary process through its paces. I couldn’t prove the case one way or another and neither could you.”
First, there are no evolutionists that posit that the evolutionary process was the first cause.
All science does however, rely on the assumption, that is was a natural cause. That’s called methodological naturalism. Now, if you think that’s wrong, fair enough, write a scientific paper why you suggest otherwise, and get it published. If your paper is that revolutionary and makes valid points, includes models, hyptheses that can be falsified, brings in evidence or suggests how one can find evidence, and eventually leads to succesful experiments, you’ll make it into the pantheon of Science, together with Darwin, Einstein, Newton and others.
Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened yet. Not because there is a dogma that says that it can’t be put into question, but because noone has been capable of putting that into question with something which has at least a semblant of validity, so that it can be analysed and discussed, amongst peers. This includes all these would-be-geniuses Behe, Dembski, et al, who have done nothing, so far, to put methodological naturalism in question. They wish, but they just cannot.
Now, maybe it is difficult for you to understand;
– positing for example that an Alien intelligence, came to this earth about 3.5 billion years ago, carrying the first replicators, which it deposited, and then, didn’t like it here and left without leaving any trace. Why isn’t this called science. Seems like a nice story. So why not ? Well, for two reasons essentially :
1) where is the evidence ?
2) as long as we haven’t found any evidence, don’t you think it is more logical, and simple, to assume that it didn’t happen that way, but by natural means. Indeed, even if it did happen that way, we’d be left with having to explain how this Alien intelligence came about. Was that also, from another prior Alien intelligence then ? And how did that one come about ? etc…
Or you can assume that the first Alien was God himself, that didn’t need any first cause, or used to live in another prior universe. But same thing, how did he come about ? Oh, I know, he didn’t you’ll say, he always existed. Do you really honestly believe that this is scientific ? And if you can assume, that God had existed an infinite amount of time, why can’t you assume, that the universe had always existed (not this one, but a prior, and a prior, …etc)
Do you really believe that any of these “explanations” have anything to do with science, when they are, as you say, “posited”, prior to having found any evidence ?
So, again, write this paper, and get it published. It’s just not that easy to make it to the pantheon of Science, many wish they could…
negentropyeater, it’s impossible that the troll Amused would even attempt to right such a paper, as, he has stated that he considers “Science” to be a religion, and that being the fundamentalist troll that he is, he’s forbidden from participating in it, as well as being forbidden from even attempting to understand it.
WILLIAM BLAKE
Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau
Mock on, Mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau;
Mock on, Mock on, ’tis all in vain.
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again;
And every sand becomes a Gem
Reflected in the beams divine;
Blown back, they blind the mocking Eye,
But still in Israel’s paths they shine.
The Atoms of Democritus
And Newton’s Particles of light
Are sands upon the Red sea shore,
Where Israel’s tents do shine so bright.
Raven: Your sophmoric attempts to raise the strawman specter of Christian persecution vs. Jews is pathetic.
Sinbad, maybe “fraud” would be more accurate and precise than “liar”.
Not necessarily.
If I tell you that you are healthy when I do not know if you are healthy or not, and when you want to know for sure either way, then my intention is to get your to believe that you are healthy regardless of whether it is true or not. This means that if it is false, my intention must be that you be deceived.
This is not my only or ultimate intention, but it is a background intention I must have by trying to get you to believe something as true when I know that I do not or cannot know if it is true or not.
There is nothing about the definition of lying that requires that deceiving others be your only intention. In the above hypothetical, I am lying to you if it turns out that you are not healthy.
Consider another hypothetical: I tell you that you are healthy even though I have information that you have a serious illness. That’s lying, because my intention is to deceive you. Imagine, though, that it turns out that my information is wrong – you’re in fine shape after all. The information I gave you was true. Does this mean that I didn’t lie? Not really, because it was my intention to get you to believe a falsehood, even though it turned out to not be a falsehood.
This is similar to the first hypothetical in that what I tell you might actually be true, even though I don’t know it is true. The fact that it’s true doesn’t suddenly mean that I’m being truthful and honest. What matters is that it was my intention to get you to believe a falsehood if it really was false. Having that intention is what makes my statement a lie.
One might reasonably argue that it’s a worse lie when I know it’s false than when I don’t know for sure. One might also argue that it’s a worse lie when it puts your life in danger than when it simply inconveniences you – the existence of gradations in lies doesn’t change anything here.