A fair number of creationists must be leaving a certain propaganda movie and getting on to the internet to find targets of their ire, because I’m getting a little surge in hate mail — mostly short, petty whines and accusations. For any who find this site in addition to my email address, I have two suggestions for you:
-
Look up the actual stories of the “expelled”. It seems their martyrdom has been grossly exaggerated.
-
Then compare those stories with more serious case of religious persecution against those who favor evolution.
Creationists, much as I’d love to smack down every one of your silly arguments, I can’t possibly do it one by one. Hang around, ask questions in the comments, and take your turn: we’ll eventually get around to dismantling your ludicrous claims.
In an hour or two, I’ll be fine–
It’s just too much burritos and wine–
But for right now, oh boy, let
Me get to a toilet:
I’ve got to expel some ben stein.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/04/friday-limericks-expelled.html
Honk your horn if you love the fact that a bunch of ignorant hicks in Texas live in a place called “Permian Basin” and even probably have that place name on all their churches. Heehee. Ignorance is piss.
Wonderful closing line from today’s Boston Globe Review:
Ryan @ 362,
You’ve finally done what all people who hate science do. People give you tonnnnnes of evidence as to why you’re wrong (evolution does not promote racism despite your claims).
Then you just say that it’s turned into name calling, you have your bible and i guess we all make choices.
No one called you names, we just proved you wrong. Hopefully you’ve learned something from this experience despite your running away from the issue when prevented with the truth.
Oh geez. The true downside of Expelled! *jazzhands* is coming clear: All those people showing up here to Tell Us What They’ve Learned.
O_o
A bit off topic, but just to add to Wanglese at #486:
Are Creationist astronomers allowed to see anything further than 6,000 light years away?
Loudon,
here’s your ring:
Now, what causal factors lead to the eugenics movement during WWII? And Ben Stein, wants us to consider this god as part of science? Ben is completely confused about the persecution of his own people. Sheesh! *shaking head*
John wrote
The point is that an academic consensus, based on documents written between sixty and several hundred years after the event, that a person called Jesus probably lived and preached in the Middle East at that time is not the same as evidence that he was the Son of God sent to Earth to save mankind.
As for the Acts of Pilate, there are serious doubts about their authenticity.
Look, people, there are no good arguments against evolution. It’s a fact, extremely well supported by multiple independent lines of copiously published evidence, which rival theories of evolution compete to explain. Learn to live with it. If any compelling challenge to the neo-Darwinian consensus does arrive, it’ll come from a materialistic, naturalistic, scientific theory like that of Margulis and Sagan, certainly not from the Intelligent Design fad or any other Chrislamic effort to expel biology from our children’s classrooms.
If you really want to argue for divine design the smart thing would be to concede the factual truth of evolution completely. Frankly, you should concede also that evolution is completely unguided, since many biological details point that way.
You may be tempted to situate your divine intervention claim just prior to evolution, at the moment of abiogenesis, but I advise against that as well. Indeed, the likelihood that some design-free scientific explanation or other will be found for abiogenesis has become so great that a retreat even further back in time than abiogenesis will sharply improve your chances of successfully arguing design.
Due to evidence that our universe had a beginning, the next understandable temptation is to claim that divine design preceded and ignited the Big Bang. Unfortunately, the likes of John Allen Paulos, Victor Stenger and Richard Dawkins have made very strong arguments against that kind of deistic design. We’ve already seen such an argument well presented on this thread, by amk in comment #59.
If even the origin of our universe offers no refuge, where then can anyone possibly seek, or claim to find, persuasive evidence of divine design? I recommend trying an impressionistic argument based on the beautiful nonsimple continued fraction representations of irrational numbers like π (pi) and e. Evidence of these numbers can be found in our universe, but the geometry to which they belong could even be older than our universe is. Their continued fraction representations sure do look designed! They even look designed by a nonhuman intelligence, one more comfortable with infinities and less preoccupied by integers and ratios than human math teachers typically are. Moreover, there isn’t yet an abundant scientific literature of design-free explanations for how those numbers came to have such obviously nonrandom and perhaps non-arbitrary values.
Give it your best shot. It may be design’s last chance.
Ryan wrote:
Okay, then, speaking as an attorney, if you had to go to court and prove the existence of Jesus, for example, using the Bible as evidence, how do you think it would stand up? Keep in mind that we have no original texts, only second-hand copies at best. Would that make them hearsay? The accounts are inconsistent or contradictory and, in some cases, show evidence of having been tampered with by later authors. Wouldn’t any competent attorney be able to expose all this on cross-examination, fatally undermining the Bible’s credibility as a reliable historical document?
I’ve come late to this thread and I haven’t read all the way through the comments, so forgive me if someone’s already made these points:
William Paley (Comment #28):
No, no, and no. We identify design by experience, specifically of things that we already know to be designed. This provides us with a set of empirical criteria which allows us to distinguish between things that are artificial and things that are natural. In fact, the key to detecting design is being able to make a meaningful artificial/natural distinction. Thus, for example, one criterion for identifying design is whether or not it is made of materials that are typically found in nature. For example, if something is made of plastic, or stainless steel, then that is a good indicator that it was designed (or at least manufactured). Similarly, we can look to see if the components of the object are arranged in a fashion that is typically found in nature – again, if they are not, then this tends to indicate that they are artificial.
Consequently, any attempt to define some a priori criterion for design is doomed to question-begging failure. If you insist that X is an a priori criterion for design (i.e., that one can identify something as being designed purely from it’s having characteristic X, independently of our actual experience of designed things), then the onus is on you to demonstrate a correlation between X and design (i.e., to demonstrate that designed things typically have characteristic X, and that non-designed things do not). But to do that, you need some other criterion to identify design independently of X, and the only reliable criteria we have are the empirical rules of thumb outlined in the previous paragraph.
So even if characteristic X is present in most of not all objects that we know to be artificial, if X is also present in things that we know to be natural, then it cannot be a criterion for design. And if X is also present in things that we don’t independently know to be designed, then we cannot tell if X is a reliable criterion for design, because we can’t establish the necessary correlation.
Let’s consider complexity, and let’s assume that it is an open question as to whether or not living organisms are the products of design. Let’s look at the things we do know to be designed – human artefacts. Well, some are complex, but some are very simple, so right off we can tell that complexity on its own is not a necessary indicator of design. Let’s look at nature, in particular living organisms. Well, these are certainly pretty complex, by any definition of the term. But can we infer from this that living things are designed? No, we can’t, because we have not established that complexity is typically correlated with design. Why? Because there are a vast number of complex things in the world which we do not know to be designed – those self-same living things. And if we don’t know if these are designed, then we don’t know if complexity indicates design.
The same applies for your other criteria – utility and organisation. These characteristics may be found in most things we know to be designed, but they are also found in living organisms, which we do not know to be the products of design. But since the very question at stake is whether living organisms are designed, we cannot use the fact that they exhibit complexity, utility or organisation as grounds for supposing them to be designed. To do so would be to beg the question in the worst way possible – of assuming that X indicates design in order to prove that things that exhibit X must be designed.
In short, the real William Paley’s argument for design is fallacious because it implicitly assumes its own conclusion. Worse, it undermines its own premises. Unless we can make the empirical distinction between artificial and natural, we have no grounds for assuming the watch on the heath to be designed in the first place, because our ability to recognise it as being designed depends on our background knowledge of what kinds of materials and arrangements are found in nature and which are known to be produced by designers. But if Paley’s conclusion is true, it follows that this experience-based artificial/natural distinction is no longer a meaningful one, which means that the argument can never get started in the first place – since unless we have some independent, reliable means of detecting design at the outset, the watch analogy falls apart.
Anthony Flew, back in the days when he was still compos mentis, made a not dissimilar point about Paley’s “Watchmaker” argument:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/antony_flew/design.html
So even if we didn’t have an alternative explanation for organic complexity in the form of evolution, the argument for design would fail, simply because it is an invalid inference.
Iain M: Apparently, when god created the world, the speed of light was higher, and that’s why things further away than 6000 light years can be seen
it’s funny how they twist their theories to fit the facts, except in biology, where they twist the facts to fit their theories.
MAJeff,
As a transplant from my beloved New England to backcountry North Carolina, I was expecting my local paper to print a more generous review of “Expelled” than I suspected the Boston Globe would.
I was, thankfully, oh so wrong.
Full review at the News & Record.
Now that they’ve finally released this piece of tripe, the larger community can now enjoy shredding it into tiny little propagandistic meatballs. Salud!
kevinj, you’re right, of course. Montsegur did for the bulk of them, the rest were mopped up by the inquisition. Including one bedridden old lady lashed to her bed and thrown on a pyre while priests sang! Quite right too. You can’t have these heretics being all happy and singing. The religious persecution of the Cathars was also a cover for a papally-sanctioned land-grab by the northern barons.
http://www.trufax.org/avoid/nazi.html
I don’t know why I do this: like playing the devil’s advocate?, contrarian nature? or I just get fed up with irrelevant matter being dragged into a discussion on whether evolution is correct, and I wish like the guy at the link in #338, we could just keep our logic straight.
It seems undeniable that biology does lend itself to abuse by people with a perverted creed, just like a lot of religions in fact.
Peter
Peter: Not knowing your background or having the time to sift through the previous 500 posts, they main question in response to yours would be…what doesn’t lend itself to abuse by people with a perverted creed? I think a lot of ID’ers with their inclination towards self-righteousness tend to forget that when they try to “Nazi-ize” darwin etc…
Ichthyic @#37:
As far as I can tell, it goes something like:
– Gee, this artifact looks kinda like a wooden bowl.
– All the humans I know like to eat.
– There is extensive documentation on humans eating out of bowls.
– This artifact would serve well as a bowl, as I can demonstrate by eating soup out of it.
– If this artifact was made by a human in one of the cultures who lived in this area around the time the alleged bowl was made, it might have been made by chiseling out the inside of a piece of wood, using stone chisels and wooden hammers.
– Hey, looky what I found: chisel marks on the inside of the artifact.
– Oh, and looky here: long narrow stones that can be used as chisels.
– So until someone shows me a better explanation, I’m going to call this a manmade wooden bowl.
Notice the obvious parallels with the ID approach:
– Gosh, lookit all them, you know, chemicals and stuff those godless scientists have found inside cells.
– Therefore, Magic Man done it!
Rudolf Hess was not a biologist, so his opinion is worth squat. Yes, it seems biology certainly is abused by people who are ignorant of it.
Heh. Figures.
I find it amusing that they spend so much time complaining about biologists poking holes in their myths, and yet don’t seem to notice the astrophysicists and geologists carrying the pneumatic drills.
Incidentally, peter (#514), that is a wonderful citation on your part. I went to trufax’s welcome page, they have great selections on books like Matrix 6: Wayfarers of Reality – The Quest for Experience about the incarnational experience, and The Abduction and Manipulation of Humans Using Advanced Technology, “…perhaps the most influential piece of work that has ever appeared on the planet on the subject of the alien-human interaction issue.” Some deep thinking going on there.</sarcasm>
I’ve found the answer! Bro. Buddy says: Satan is to blame!
The reason Hitler wanted to kill the Jews is due to the power of Satan. Satan knows that redemption history works around the Jews. If he could eliminate the Jews, then the testimony of Jesus Christ and the prophets would be done away with. So Satan found a man to carry out his purposes. You can compare Satan to Haman in the Bible. (Read the book of Esther.)
Once again, the Bible has the answer.
Citizen Z #519
..yes, that link doesn’t look very impressive does it? I’d had that quotation in the back of my mind for some time, remembering it was what some Nazi grandee had said, and just now googled it, and found the attribution to Hess. The link I provided was top of the list: I’d never been there before: but there are enough other hits to make the authenticity of the quote look pretty likely. I’ve now done it in German, and the following link looks more confidence-inspiring (if your German’s up to it):
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/german/
It’s an unappetising business trawling for something like this: I found myself in a blog with David Irving.
Peter
Fair enough peter. (Of course I stand by my first response.)
Most of those stories seem to have happened at religiously-affiliated institutions, which is disappointing but not entirely unexpected. But the first one caught my attention: The professor who was fired from an Iowa community college for failing to teach the Adam and Eve story as literal truth. Fired from a community college. Aren’t community colleges part of the public education system, and as such, aren’t they supposed to have no religious affiliation?
Maybe there are exceptions. Maybe there is such a thing as private, religious community colleges. But this would be the first I’ve ever heard of them.
This just in…
Expelled is not an “anti-evolution” movie.
http://kevinwrites.typepad.com/otherwise_known_as_kevin_/2008/04/expelled-is-alr.html
You need to count them. Of the 12 cases of Xian fundie mediated persecution, only 4 involved private religious colleges. That isn’t most, that is 1 out of 3.
Bitterman really got shafted at the Iowa CC. As he said, he was fired because he didn’t teach that western civilization (his class), didn’t start with a…..talking snake!
I posted this already, but it needs to be used again for that Kevin Miller claim….
Eric:
I checked out the website. This highlights a major weakness in the ID/creationist camp: utterly mutually incompatible worldviews are calling themselves ID. There are young earthers, evolutionary creationists, and whatever else under the same writhing tent. I wonder how Biblical literalists will respond to Kevin Miller’s endorsement of Behe-style divinely guided evolution. (Which is very different from the theistic evolutionist view, since evolutionary creationism requires an immense number of divine interventions.)
These differences within the ID camp should be exploited. Taunt Young Earthers – who pride themselves on piety – with the fact that their so-called allies are promoting “evilution,” the anti-God doctrine of man from monkeys. Ridicule evolutionary creationists – who imagine that they are sophisticated – for their association with pathetically childish seven-day creation and other literalist fairy tales.
———————
Ryan never answered my question on whether God condemned Holocaust Jews to Hell.
Concerning Hitler:
“In his vision of the thousand-year Reich he placed will over education as the driving force of the national state: science in the schools, he declared, was to blame for the fragmentation and chaos of the Weimar Republic. Writing on education policy in Mein Kampf, he cited scientific and technical education as a reason for ‘the plague of our present-day cowardly lack of will’. But his grasp of what science was and what scientists do was narrow and ill-informed. He vaguely understood that scientific propositions, unlike those of metaphysics, were provisional, that scientific research should be allowed freedom unhampered by the need to teach, but he had a poor understanding of the nature of experimental and empirical method, and tended to identify scientific training with mere accumulation of facts, with scant appreciation of how those facts were obtained.
Once in power, he wrote, he would change the curriculum: ‘The scientific school training which today is really the beginning and end of all state educational work can with only slight changes be taken over by the volkish state’. The volkish state, he emphasized, ‘will have to put general scientific instruction into an abbreviated form, embracing the essentials’. He was convinced that Germany was passing through a ‘materialized epoch’, meaning that ‘our scientific education is turning increasingly towards practical subjects – in other words mathematics, physics, chemistry, etc.’ These preoccupations, he warned, were ‘dangerous’ since they implied a neglect of an ‘ideal’ education and the renunciation of ‘forces which are still more important for the preservation of the nation than all technical or other ability’.
All the same, although he would change his views about technical innovation during the war, he believed through the 1920s that the Fatherland’s best defence ‘will lie not in its weapons, but in its citizens…a living wall of men and women filled with supreme love…and fanatical national enthusiasm”… (John Cornwell, Hitler’s Scientists, 2003, pages 31-32)
What this is getting at, and many commenters above have alluded to it as well, is that Hitler and his supporters were idealists, substituting the Race-State for God. They were antimaterialists. In this, they resemble the Marxists and the market fundamentalists, who both substitute History for God. The dangers of all of these forms of idealism were articulated quite well by Mikhail Bakunin in 1871:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_archives/bakunin/godandstate/godandstate_ch1.html
The dominance of idealism in political life leads not only to bad science (in the case of the Nazis we can be thankful for this, since their scientific and technological weakness proved a great disadvantage in the war), but also to the commission of horrific acts, as we have seen time and time again.
By the way, if you’re looking for an example of a murderous twentieth-century regime operating in the name of Christianity, you need look no further than Franco’s Spain. In the years of and following the Civil War and Revolution, they struck a blow for their ideals in the form of mass killings (the evidence of their crimes continues to grow, but the victims are now thought to number in the hundreds of thousands), mass imprisonment and slave labor camps, the kidnapping and brainwashing of the children of people on the left, and massive abuses of the rights of women and gay people. Franco’s was a confessional state, and this was all done with the collaboration and blessing (sometimes literal) of the Catholic Church. Last year, one bishop tried to offer an apology for the actions of the Church in these years. He was not supported by the pope, and at the same time they chose to beatify around 500 Spanish priests and nuns, regardless of the crimes in which they had participated. Many in the Church to this day consider Franco a hero whose acts were justified in defense of Christianity from atheism and Communism. Sinverguenzas.
P.S. Ryan, I don’t want to firebomb you, but I am seriously considering reporting you to the Apostrophe Protection Society:
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
I shouldn’t bounce the troll anymore but this guy is way, way out there and it is amusing in the light of day. Nothing much happened to me because of Xian terrorists.
But it was unnerving watching 7 of my colleagues being killed by them, 17 attempted asassinations, and over 200 wounded some seriously. Then the fundies started trying to sneak their wingnut mythology into our kid’s science classes. While attempting to destroy the USA, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages.
Sorry, ryan, I like living in a democracy where people aren’t murdered for their beliefs. The Dark Ages aren’t too appealing either.
Ooh, name calling. You got 1 out of 4 right. I take it you don’t like women very much. Not unusual but weird. Your mother, sisters, and daughters might be….women. Sorry to break the bad news, but reality is what it is.
The sad thing is that he has already proven he possesses an intelligence level that would indicate he knows basic history and its contexts, and this necessarily prevents me from believing the assertion that he is merely confused about this. I think it is pretty obvious that he is twisting facts to fit the truth the movie wants to portray, and in the course of doing that he is making claims that I don’t even think he believes, and worse is the fact that the claims he is making are false attributions concerning the pogrom that just about wiped his religion from the face of Europe. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest, folks!
Quantity, quality, why quibble over a couple of letters’ worth of difference?
Good point about Francoist Spain, SC. And one of the ID authorities valorized in Expelled is Maciej Giertych, a Polish geneticist and politician who admires Franco.
Someone really should have called Godwin on this thread long ago.
Apologies if someone has already done so and i missed it.
Giertych is also a notorious antisemite who wrote an article on why he hates the Jews.
Got to hand it to Stein. He hangs around with a nasty group of Xian Dominionists who will probably throw him off the bus first chance they get, plus the odd crackpot and antisemite.
I can’t believe he did it just for the money. Must be a very lonely guy or something.
Uh-oh. Looks like a fair number of people are choosing to see Expelled.
Top Movies
1. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
2. 88 Minutes
3. The Forbidden Kingdom
4. Smart People
5. Superhero Movie
6. Street Kings
7. Nim’s Island
8. Prom Night
9. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
10. Zombie Strippers
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/daily/2008/04/17/
#534 Gustav Nyström | April 20, 2008 1:28 PM
It is the movie that invokes Godwin’s Law. This thread cannot help but reflect that if we are to discuss the movie and the points it attempts. The movie conflates Darwin and Hitler – saying the Holocaust was not possible without Darwin’s theory. Should we, as advocates of the Theory of Evolution thus declare victory from the outset because Ben Stein calls on Hitler?
Read the reviews of people who’ve seen the movie from a Christian mindset, they wholeheartedly bought the “Evolutionists are Evil” message and are going to do their best to spread it around, to their family, their friends, their neighbors, and their co-workers. From the perspective of an advocate for the Theory of Evolution, I say this cannot be allowed to stand.
We should not, and cannot legally, do as Ben Stein suggests we have, expel the IDiots. We can, however, demonstrate what a load of tripe their ideology is. This is not a good time to sit by passively and think, “This, too, shall pass.” Should we do so, we may find ourselves included in that passage. This is the time to speak out, to evangelize, if you will, the message that Intelligent Design is a morally bankrupt ideology, has no basis of truth within, and has as its goal the elimination of honest scientific pursuits.
JBS
I think Godwin is implied, once you start talking about “Expelled”.
Maybe “Stein” can become a new corollary of “Godwin”. In the context of linking Darwin/evolution to Nazism/Hitler, we shall deem this “Stein”.
Anyone? Anyone?
“Quantity, quality, why quibble over a couple of letters’ worth of difference?”
You want some Hitler? I’ll give you some Hitler.
“[Genocide is] the same sort as the battle waged, during the last century, by Pasteur and Koch. How many diseases have their origin in the Jewish virus! We shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jew.” (Konigsberg)
Pasteur the germ theorist and Koch the brilliant immunologist, cited by Hitler as inspirations. Yet no one is proposing a less Nazi-friendly alternative to the germ theory of disease! How odd.
Unless, y’know, scientific theories don’t actually have any inherent moral implications, but what are the odds of that? It’s not like they’re founded in methodological naturalism and exclude teleology or anything.
Comparing box office of Expelled to other docs:
The only other newcomer in the Top 10 was conservative commentator Ben Stein’s documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed which makes the intelligent design argument. Playing in 1,052 theaters, the pic distributed by Rocky Mountain Pictures fell over the weekend from 8th to 10th place after earning $1.2M Friday and $989K Saturday for a $2.9M weekend. But the per screen average for Friday was a feeble $1,145 and for Saturday $940 (and $2,830 for the entire weekend), showing there wasn’t much pent-up demand for the film despite an aggressive publicity campaign on right-wing media. So much for the conservative argument that people would flock to films not representing the “agenda of liberal Hollywood”. (Just for comparison purposes: Michael Moore’s most recent Sicko did $4.4 mil its opening weekend from only 441 theaters, and his Fahrenheit 9/11 did $23.9M its opening weekend from 868 venues.)
Not so good!
Read the reviews of people who’ve seen the movie from a Christian mindset, they wholeheartedly bought the “Evolutionists are Evil” message and are going to do their best to spread it around, to their family, their friends, their neighbors, and their co-workers. From the perspective of an advocate for the Theory of Evolution, I say this cannot be allowed to stand. – John B. Standlin
Indeed, and also from the perspectives of human decency, of freedom of expression, and indeed of opposition to anti-semitism and fascism. If we allow this insolent obfuscation of their deep roots in European culture, we weaken our ability to fight these dangerous social pathologies.
CalGeorge at #536 and #540
I am personally rooting for Zombie Strippers. It is clearly a bigger critical success than Expelled, as seen at Rotten Tomatoes:
Zombie Strippers: all critics, 40%; top critics 38%
Expelled: all critics, 9%; top critics, 0%
Note, too that the drones at Rotten Tomatoes are trying to boost Expelled’s ratings:
Zombie Strippers: community rating: 44%
Expelled: community rating: 54%
The best I can do is say that you are ignorant and a liar. You don’t know a damned thing about the Bible and not nearly that much about how it came to be and even what biblical criticism has to say on the subject.
As to the claim that you are a 32 year old attorney I would have to say that you certainly don’t demonstrate the maturity nor the education that would indicate this claim of yours is true. Your behavior and lack of education and critical thinking skills give attorneys a bad name and they already suffer from bad PR.
Kseniya,
Your reputation as an insulter par excellent is known in Pharangula and your stature in this field is trending much the same way as Cuttlefish and his expertise in poetry. Just as commenters ask Cuttlefish to compose a poem I ask you to compose an appropriate insult in Ryan’s honor. I don’t want to tell you how to do it but could it reflect his ignorance, seeming lack of intelligence, his racism, and the fact that he claims to be an attorney.
Thanks Kseniya, it would be fun to read.
Zombie Strippers!
Check out the trailer:
Looks pretty good!
And it has cool science dialog:
“The virus is based on the human X chromosome, so it stays more pure from woman to woman.”
Must. Visit. Isohunt.
CalGeorge:
I’m pretty sure all of those movies are projections put out by the studios. I don’t think we get the actual numbers or any approximation until Monday, at least.
Slate had a pretty good explanation of this a while back:
http://www.slate.com/id/2133482/
#541 Nick Gotts | April 20, 2008 2:06 PM
Ah, the old “Appeal to Human Decency” ploy. You know, it just might work!
Thank you for pointing this out. I’d gotten so tied up in the misrepresentation of science, I missed the larger issues. Indeed, this movie is an attack on basic human decency, an attack that is as likely motivated by racial hatred as bad science – and Ben Stein is in the middle of it.
No matter how hard they try to claim their love for the Jewish people, it rings of insincerity. It appears that these people are unwilling to admit the deep heritage of hatred they carry with them.
JBS
@Ryan #272
Ryan you are still copy/pasting the same rubbish with same wrong name in that I saw you pasting into threads months back! Please can you at least correct “Hawkins” in the gibberish you copy/paste? Please.
Me: @ #545
“I’m pretty sure all of those movies are projections put out by the studios.”
Well, that’s kind of obvious.. what I meant to say was that I’m pretty sure the box office numbers are projected by the studios.
I also can’t help but wonder if their Sunday ticket sales aren’t quite going to hit their projection…
Um, thanks, I’m good anyway. I was pointing out that verifying the source of a quote based on the number of google hits you get is a bit dodgy. If there was any way to misread my pedantic little post, I’d have thought it was possibly that I was implying that Nazis didn’t reference biology in their speeches at all. (Which, for the hard of understanding, I am not saying, I’m sure they misused biology in their rhetoric.)
Reading comprehension. It’s not just for wimps.
Dear Dr. PZ Myers,
I think it is hysterical that you were denied entry into the screening of the movie that you starred in. I would consider that a badge of honor.
About four or five years ago, I was banned from anncoulter.org for displaying a list of Egyptian Pharaohs that were NOT killed by Noah’s Flood.
Oh well.
Later.
So have the Expelled apologists leveled the “liberal media” charge yet, now that they’re suffering the intellectual beating they dared intelligent people to give them?
“About four or five years ago, I was banned from anncoulter.org for displaying a list of Egyptian Pharaohs that were NOT killed by Noah’s Flood.”
Thanks for putting a smile on my face, after wading through such crap from creationists in this thread.
#551 BlueIndependent,
From the news section of the Expelled site:
“Big Science Academy” is proud to have the support of the “Mainstream Press” in stifling the rise of freedom of speech in our science classrooms. In so many ways, “Big Science” and “Big Media” are on exactly the same page, when it comes to making sure that dissenters and troublemakers are properly expelled.”
And the conspiracy widens…
Gary T wrote:
“I think it is hysterical that you were denied entry into the screening of the movie that you starred in. I would consider that a badge of honor.”
Obviously, that’s why PZ told the story, but I find it hard to believe this happened. Why would anyone care if he went to the movie, unless he was causing some sort of commotion. The biologist on a rampage – scary.
James F. Wrote:
“Big Science Academy” is proud to have the support of the “Mainstream Press” in stifling the rise of freedom of speech in our science classrooms. In so many ways, “Big Science” and “Big Media” are on exactly the same page, when it comes to making sure that dissenters and troublemakers are properly expelled.”
And the conspiracy widens…
I think its pretty funny that no matter who knocks them, its a conspiracy against ID. You know, because once a year, movie reviewers, network executives, scientists, teachers, and the general public get together to scheme how we can keep “Darwinism” alive; and then we sacrifice a goat to him or something. (/eyesroll)
Iain M said:
“I find it amusing that they spend so much time complaining about biologists poking holes in their myths, and yet don’t seem to notice the astrophysicists and geologists carrying the pneumatic drills.”
Like Stephen Barr?
@ James F:
My question was rhetorical, but thanks for filling in the gap anyways. Nothing like a good old persecution complex to pat ones’ self on the back with. The DI, AiG, Expelled crew, etc….willing martyrs for their pet BS. And they keep telling me how they’re just so god at this self-reflection and betterment thing. Such allergic reactions when real truth comes home for dinner.
The other thing I notice is, they tend to be of the conservative political stripe, one that is highly critical of the concept of pure democracy, labeling it as “mob rule”. How convenient that the mob rule charge only apply to perceived Earthly human organizations, but not to pious, unproven, unevidenced powers worshipped unquestioningly by “mobs” that gather at specific locations every first day of the week?
The next time a creationist/IDist charges Big Science with some form of “mob rule”, laugh and point derisively.
Paley, you’re right!
“The utility that suggests a designer is one that is honed for a specific purpose”
ID theory has finally discovered the reason for Intelligently Designed male nipples!
Subordinate males nuzzle the nipples of alpha males to indicate submission, and a cessation of conflict.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushmccainhug.htm
Meltwater said:
“If you really want to argue for divine design the smart thing would be to concede the factual truth of evolution completely. Frankly, you should concede also that evolution is completely unguided, since many biological details point that way.”
I completely agree with you and I wish some religious folks would have a better understanding of the real issue (and yes, I’m a God-believer too). Personally, my only “complaint” about the evolution topic is simply the scope of what it explains. Its been conceded here before that it does not explain the origin of life and less certainly, origin of species. (I’m sure this is debatable, and I also realize that some hold that evolution will someday explain the origin of life, but that is only a belief at this point.)
Within the scope of what has been proven about evolution, there is no argument/conflict between evolution and belief in a god. The problem comes up when science is used to project(intentionally or unintentionally) unproven things to make a case against God and secondarily, against religion (which is a man-made organization and thus subject to many faults as are regularly brought out here).
This site is listed under scienceblogs.com, but it really should be under materialists.com, or anti-god.com. If one concedes that there is any spiritual, non-physical reality, which is by definition outside of the scope of science, then the whole anti-god argument falls apart.
A cheer for John.
Gimme an N
Gimme an O
Gimme an M
Gimme an A
What’s that spell?
Not much of value.
Ok, I think this is the fundamental confusion: science is about understanding the laws and mechanics of the universe, not ‘Ultimate Truth’. You’re free to believe that science doesn’t explain everything, and many scientists do have a religious or spiritual belief in supernatural power. We don’t really care, even if some of us DO in fact believe that science encompasses all that their is to encompass.
What’s critical is the realization that as soon as anyone ventures into the supernatural in their quest for ‘Truth’, they have left behind science. Science is by definition the study of the natural world. I don’t care whether or not Stephen Barr believes he sees the hand of a creator in particles, although I would much rather he not call that conclusion scientific.
Sabrina @ 555
Don’t you know? It’s the Pentaverate!
This little tidbit is even richer and more delicious than MAJeff’s tomato and fennel soup:
“Your hatred of God (no doubt stemming from a difficult relationship with your father, regarding which I am very sorry)”
What’s with this insistence that the omnipotent, omnipresent, incorporeal Supreme Being has a dick and balls? What’s with these people?
Er, ok, that was in response to John’s next-to-last comment, not the one where he basically makes the same argument I do before holding up a shiny shiny mirror and mixing up a word salad.
We’re not bringing science into religion, we’re trying to keep religion out of science. Also, having it be recognized that atheism does not equal immoral depravity/Un-American-Behavior would be nice, too. And sometimes, the ways in which some people reject reality and substitute their own is egregious enough that they really should be called out on it. Furthermore, we don’t try to disprove God using science, as that is fundamentally impossible, but we’re well within reason to use philosophy to point out the fact that we don’t find much evidence for his existence, and that we feel our worldview is significantly improved by this.
We don’t really care, even if some of us DO in fact believe that science encompasses all that their is to encompass.
Errr, my apologies. All that THERE is.
Its been conceded here before that it does not explain the origin of life and less certainly, origin of species. (I’m sure this is debatable, and I also realize that some hold that evolution will someday explain the origin of life, but that is only a belief at this point.)
Within the scope of what has been proven about evolution, there is no argument/conflict between evolution and belief in a god. – John@559
First, “evolution” does not explain anything whatever: evolution is a natural process occurring over time. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, explains an enormous mass of what would otherwise be unconnected facts.
Second, it is not “conceded” that the theory of evolution does not explain the origin of life, any more than it is “conceded” that general relativity does not explain Napoleon losing the battle of Waterloo. The origin of life is simply outside its scope. The origin of life may indeed eventually be explained as due to processes having a good deal in common with those that explain its evolution once originated; but natural selection, the most important evolutionary mechanism, cannot operate until at least one population of self-reproducing entities exists.
Third, the modern theory of evolution most certainly does explain the origin of species, in the sense that it describes a number of processes which can lead, and in many cases have been observed to lead, to the development of a new species from one or more existing ones. There is still debate about the details of some of these processes, their relative importance, and whether there may be more as yet undiscovered.
Fourth, you’re right, there is no logical conflict between belief in a god, and acceptance of the theory of evolution. However, the theory does undoubtedly remove a powerful reason for believing that some external intelligence was necessary to produce life as we now see it; and in practice those who study it often become atheists.
I’ve been watching the Rotten Tomatoes reviews for Expelled…my favourite one yet?
“The film shows that Intelligent Design should be on the table for discussion. But if you’re looking for ammo to argue your Darwinist friends under the table, look elsewhere…” from Christianity Today.
Hehehehee. No shit.
#327 Ryan
elude: to escape from, to avoid
allude: to make oblique reference to, to suggest
What is your metric? What is it that you consider different people have done “more” or “less” of? If, for example, you mean number of changes in the genome since some specific time in the past, well, that’s pretty much evenly distributed. In that case, the answer to your question is Yes. On the other hand, if you meant expected number of offspring reaching reproductive age, then the answer is It Depends. For people living in an area where there’s lots of malaria, there’s a particular genetic change that will give its possessors a big advantage. For people living elsewhere, it gives them serious odds of having sickle-cell anemia.
But these are only examples. What is your metric?
Nick Gotts said:
“Fourth, you’re right, there is no logical conflict between belief in a god, and acceptance of the theory of evolution. However, the theory does undoubtedly remove a powerful reason for believing that some external intelligence was necessary to produce life as we now see it; and in practice those who study it often become atheists.”
Until the THEORY (better?) of evolution does in fact demonstrate a process by which a species is created or science in general finds a natural process by which life is created, then your use of science to make such a conclusion about the non-physical world is mere dogma.
John@559:
No, that’s not the point that is conceded. If there is a non-physical reality, science cannot study it. That does not imply its existence.
Can you give an example of this sort of argument, coming from anywhere?
Ryan:
Ted @568
Which only considers that Ryan meant ‘evolved equally’ in a biological sense. I got the impression from his post that he might have had something more political in mind, although his writing wasn’t clear enough to tell. If he meant it biologically, it’s nearly impossible to answer because the question is poorly stated/defined. If he meant it politically, it’s a non-sequiter, since biology has nothing to say about political constructs.
Falyne said:
“We’re not bringing science into religion, we’re trying to keep religion out of science.”
“Furthermore, we don’t try to disprove God using science, as that is fundamentally impossible, but we’re well within reason to use philosophy to point out the fact that we don’t find much evidence for his existence, and that we feel our worldview is significantly improved by this.”
I see it the other way around. If Darwinism (sorry, but if Richard Dawkins can use it so can I) had not FIRST been used to “explain away” the need for a god, then the backlash by the religious would not be going on now.
On the second point, everyone is certainly free to express philosophical conclusions or defend their worldview, but they should not be presented as though science can authoritatively back them up until that is in fact the case (beyond a mere belief that proof will occur at some future date). Again, its a scope issue for me.
@john
you seem to be getting a tad confused between evolution and abiogenesis, if you search using that you might get further.
and wtf is “non-physical world” anyway?
oh and while we are on this proving thing malarkey, how about you provide just a tincy weeny bit for your position.
among the things i am curious about is why god doesnt make personal visits anymore – you know parting seas and such like. is it she has got bored and found another world?
and religious backlash? give me a fecking break, what is it with the persecution complex.
Until the THEORY (better?) of evolution does in fact demonstrate a process by which a species is created
For the love of god, Montressor! This has been DONE!
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
or science in general finds a natural process by which life is created,
We’re not quite there yet, but there’s no reason to even suspect that we won’t
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
then your use of science to make such a conclusion about the non-physical world is mere dogma.
It doesn’t prove or disprove a damn thing, no. It’s mere dogma to conclude that God didn’t create an older-seeming world last Thursday. But it does at least imply that a Creator was not a necessary condition for the origin of life or species (or anything, for that matter).
Really? Ever care to investigate what is the most historically accurate text ever written? The Bible. Seriously, ask your local atheist historian. No doubt their face will contort, but they will admit its the Bible. So who is ignorant? There is no serious debate in an academic circle questioning the life of Christ. He lived. Check your calendar friend, what year is it?
It makes baby Jesus cry when you lie, Ryan, even thirty-two year old attorneys from Chicago aren’t exempt from this rule. Somewhere, it’s raining, the devil is beating his wife, and the bears are getting married because of your lies.
Since you’re a professional attorney at law perhaps you would like to produce for us a list of the other “almost most accurate” history books in the history of the world that come close, but fall short of the ultimate history book prize? Maybe a top ten? And if you can’t do that, perhaps some qualifications for “the most accurate history book” ever. I await your response with bated breath – and some degree of bemusement, that a professional attorney of thirty-two years of age from Chicago would make such a claim. Please, enlighten us with your professional knowledge.
Dawkins uses “Darwinism” because the UK, being less populated by creationists, hasn’t had the word co-opted by the same. That’s besides the point, though.
If the religious didn’t argue that atheists “hate God” or are horrific immoral beasts or in denial or just plain looney, then we wouldn’t be trying to justify ourselves.
If the religious weren’t forcing us to make oaths (Pledge of Allegiance) we disagree with or putting religion in science class or lose out on scientific advances due to funding cuts or diverting funding into ‘faith based initiatives or sabotaging sex education or AIDS prevention or letting children die for want of a blood transfusion or eliminating the right to choose or blowing up clinics or preventing consenting adults from marrying or forcing children to marry or flying planes into buildings…. (deep breath)
Shorter John: You guys started it.
Shorter Me: NO U!
Until the THEORY (better?) of evolution does in fact demonstrate a process by which a species is created or science in general finds a natural process by which life is created, then your use of science to make such a conclusion about the non-physical world is mere dogma.
As I said, some processes at least by which new species form are quite well-understood and exemplified. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.
Before the development of evolutionary theory, it could quite reasonably be said to atheists that they could not account for the origin of humanity and other existing species, or the adaptation of organisms to their environments, or the operation of the eye. All these things appeared to require the operation of an external superintelligence. Now, they clearly don’t. Hence, powerful reasons (I should have used the plural) for believing in such a superintelligence have indeed been removed. It is true that the origin of life remains unexplained, but I think theists would be unwise to count on this continuing to hold – the case of evolutionary theory, among others such as the disappearance of “vital force”, indicates that the “God of the gaps” is vulnerable to being squeezed into ever fewer and smaller niches.
Actually, John, what you wrote is “dogma.” Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. Since all science is, by the nature of science, provisional and is only as accepted as the last experiment failed to disprove it, there is no dogma with scientific theories. To the extent scientific theories can rebut dogma, they still do not take on the characteristics of “dogma.”
For example, it was believed that the continents, at one time, were not joined, but that they’d been this way forever. This was believed because the best evidence of the day said you couldn’t move them. In the early 1900’s some made the case for Pangaea. It was rejected because there’d been no evidence presented for the MECHANISM of forcing the continents apart. It wasn’t until they discovered sea-floor spreading did the Pangaea theory become accepted.
At one time Newton’s theory of gravity was tops. Then came Einstein and general relativity. Now it’s the quantum theory of Gravity. And so it goes. Science always takes the best theory. But you’ve got to have a better one. And saying “gravity doesn’t work, it’s Angels holding us down” is weak sauce and we’re not interested.
Especially when bible-thumpers, like you, are so devastatingly ignorant of the origins of your religion. Rare is a Christian that knows at one time Judaism was a POLYTHESITC RELIGION. Rare is a Christian that knows God had a Wife and Kids. Rare is a Christian who knows most of Exodus, including the bondage and escape of the Israelites, is made up to cover-up the kicking out of the Hyksos from Egypt.
Hell, John, I could go on for HOURS about all the things you don’t know about your religion. How your bible is cobbled up from all kinds of religions, including the whole Jesus myth. Then, after being cobbled up, it was severely edited.
Why does he need a moldy Bronze-Age book of religious stories cobbled together from the many, many religions in the area when he could have written one from scratch? Why does he need to commit adultery and fuck Mary when he could create his son, just poof him into existence? Why did the Christians change the old testament to make it agree with the doctrinal mistakes they made? Why did Mark get it wrong? And Luke? Why don’t the genealogies agree? Why does the bible talk about cities that weren’t in existence when the events allegedly happened, some of of these cities, btw John, only existed in the 7th Century BCE when the Jews totally REVAMPED their religion under Josiah.
Did you know this John? Did you know that, by-and-large, your entire religion is ripped off from other religions that were in existence hundreds of years before Judaism and Christianity? That the way it is practiced today is lies based on the stories told by the priest/rulers of Israel, then Europe, to keep control of the populace? That the final origin religion of Judaism was actually a hybrid religion of the EL polytheists of Israel and the small JHVH (predominantly monotheist) cult from Judea?
By the way John, her name (God’s wife) is Asheroth. You here her voice in Genesis 1 when God makes Adam and Eve out of dust. And God says:
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”
That was in the feminine voice. Even though Asheroth was written out, her voice remained. Because in the ancient Hebrew texts, that was written in the female plural, not the male plural.
John, there’s so much you don’t know because someone told you something. Something without proof. Something based on lies and alterations handed down for century upon century.
And that, John, is dogma.
Not a scientific theory that, if someone ever finds a better one (and the original has been improved and modified over time) will hit the dustbin faster than the Ptolemaic theory of the Universe.
Hell, John, modern biblical archeology is killing the origin of the bible stories you people tell yourselves. You don’t read these books and papers. You’re not interested — better, in your minds, to be certain than face the truth. Because if you faced the truth, you’d feel abused and manipulated and lied to and angry.
You, like me, might become an atheist. You, like me, might walk away from the priest hood. You, like me, might remain pissed for decades because much of your life was built on lies.
Then, someday, like me, you can remain an atheist and go back to Church even. Because once you get over the anger, The Unitarian-Universalists will be happy to take you. They’re happy with me, and I’m an avowed atheist.
Plus, they’re, unlike most Christian denominations, pretty cool about the whole religion thing. And they’re definitely not into finger pointing and blaming and controlling and hating others. Why, they’re just like the vast majority of atheists I’ve met: accepting of people. Even if they don’t believe what you believe.
And, thus, you get to have the positive things you missed from your religious up-bringing, without the bullshit.
Every organism living today has had equal time to evolve since the earliest common ancestor. Thats what i meant at least.
Until the THEORY (better?) of evolution does in fact demonstrate a process by which a species is created or science in general finds a natural process by which life is created, then your use of science to make such a conclusion about the non-physical world is mere dogma.
Non-physical world? What’s that?
So something Moses said does make sense after all.
#578 —
Thank you for those very interesting bits of biblical history. After reading all the bits of IDiocy on this thread, it’s nice to actually learn something new.
Oh, I get it now. Gary Zukov on non-physical reality:
Non physical reality is our home. We came from non physical reality and we will return to non physical reality when we die. When this personality, body and intuitional structure, which perfectly suit the evolution of our soul for this time in the earth school, passes, we will return home. We will come back into the waiting arms and loving arms of our non physical guides and teachers. There we can look back on all of the things that we have done, we will see our lives in detail, minute detail, all of the things that we experienced. Most of which we have forgotten. We will see it. How these things affected us and how they affected others. We will see the exquisite pattern of interaction with which we met other souls. We will see how our actions influenced them and how their actions influenced us. We will see how we learned together. We will see those lessons that we have yet to learn. We will see the consequences that we created but we have yet to experience and these will form the basis of ;yet another journey into the earth school.
Quantum wooooooooooooo!
“If one concedes that there is any spiritual, non-physical reality, which is by definition outside of the scope of science, then the whole anti-god argument falls apart.”
This statement is utterly vacuous as it rests entirely on a false premise (the acceptance of a spiritual, non-physical reality). Basically, all you are saying is “if one accepts god, then the whole anti-god argument falls apart.” Nice try.
Yay Moses @ 578!
BTW, I thought you were a myth.
# 410
“I must ask you just how many “fundie” attacks there have been on such facilities? Less than a handful in 30 years?”
Yeah, less than a handful…
7 murders
3 kidnappings
17 attempted murders
383 death threats
153 assault & batteries
655 anthrax threats
41 bombings
173 arsons
91 attempted bombings or arsons
619 bomb threats
1630 trespassings
1264 vandalisms
100 stink bomb attacks
…so lighten up there, Candy.
I’m going to start referring people to The Pocket Darwin (PDF) to save energy. Read that first, then come back and argue. Read Michael Shermer’s Why Darwin Matters. Look at the long list of transitional fossils and transitional forms that actually exist – more than 300 of them in the vertebrates alone. Read the newspaper stories about the new species of mosquito that developed in the London subway system over the last 150 years. DON’T complain that it didn’t evolve into something else — nobody expected it to. And for heaven’s sake, learn something about the actual theory of evolution, not that cardboard cut-out you’ve been told about: Read Carl Zimmer’s Evolution. Then you can criticize it properly.
Otherwise you’re as far off the mark as I would be if I criticized you for worshipping donkeys.
#447 Ryan
Yet, according to you (#284, #316), the original language of Genesis was Greek.
“How? You presume morality. A higher moral authority. Where does that come from? Where do right and wrong come from?”
As previous posters have pointed out, morality in no way implies a higher moral authority. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that a well-reasoned, independently derived humanistic moral code is LESS HARMFUL and more beneficial to humankind than your ‘higher power’ derived morals.
In the former case, morality is something people can debate in an intelligent fashion. Based on empirical evidence of how a particular set of morals do (or do not) help society to function well in a variety of situations, these humanistic values can be changed to create a better, more egalitarian society.
In the latter case, morals are dictated by an invisible, unreachable ‘higher power.’ So Hitler says “I think God tells us all the Jews should die” (whether Hitler was in fact Xian is debatable; however, he certainly used it in persuading the masses that it was a good idea); and you can say ‘God says it is wrong to kill 6 million Jews.’ Unfortunately, since there is no way to get God to come down and tell people who is right, and the Bible and other holy books are so self-contradictory that they offer no help, so no one will ever be able to settle which of these is in fact God’s will, and the argument will go back and forth in perpetuity with no hope of resolution.
IN SUM: *Anyone* can say that *anything* is God’s will, and there’s no way to prove them wrong or right. Subjective/humanly-derived morals are not the problem. Objective/God-derived morals are.
Moses:
Any good books you know of about early Israelite polytheism and all that? I’ve picked up lots of bits and pieces, but it’d be nice to have a consolidated reference I can add to the book piles growing around my house.
“That is, what are the general features that indicate design?”
From my experience, it’s a little label with washing instructions…
/me inspects her dog for such an item.
There’s a couple of things here. First, this is “weak release” time. There aren’t any holidays to bump up theatre participation. No spring break. No summer vacation. No winter break. So, movies that aren’t likely to gain attention release at this time, when there is far, far less competition for the movie goers.
Second, $3 million in box is really pathetic. And its big day was Friday and it already dropped on Saturday, which is NOT a good thing as Saturday should be the biggest day on a on a weekend box.
Third, if it had a typical documentary budget of $10 million, it’s got a chance to cover, but I’d be skeptical. I just don’t like the second day drop of about 10% instead of the bump of 5%.
And, while I’m sure they’ll be “proud” of their #9 opening, and we’ll here all about it, it’s really pathetic. I don’t see this challenging Bowling for Columbine which took in $58 million world wide when ticket prices were, on average, $1.01 less than they are today. Or Sicko that took in $30ish million. Heck, I’m not entirely sure it’ll over-take Roger & Me that was released in 1989 in just 256 Theatres. That grossed about $7 million, but tickets were a full $3.00/seat cheaper than today’s $6.82 average.
Anyway, once that’s done, you also have to look at the profitability of the film. Unless they’re huge block-buster films, like the Star Wars series, studios only take 55% of the gross. Which means Expelled “the producers” have made about $1.7 million against their costs.
And why they haven’t yet released their full production costs, and I heard it was low budget to the max, they still haven’t covered the rumored amount I read. (In the $3 million range to produce.)
All-in-all, I’m expecting a (Pyrrhic) “victory proclamation” which will be a real-world loss. BTW, my numbers from a different source:
#255 —
“Really? Ever care to investigate what is the most historically accurate text ever written? The Bible. Seriously, ask your local atheist historian. No doubt their face will contort, but they will admit its the Bible. So who is ignorant? There is no serious debate in an academic circle questioning the life of Christ. He lived. Check your calendar friend, what year is it?”
First of all, I’d like to learn how to find my local atheist historian. Is there a special section in the yellow pages? And if so, is it under “A” (atheist historians) or “H” (historians, atheist).
But in all seriousness, the calendar year doesn’t prove the existence of Jesus; it simply proves that a mythology spread far enough and into powerful enough circles (the Roman Empire) that it was incorporated into the way we describe dates — about 525 years after the fact. (And in fact, while the system was devised in the year 525 AD, it only began to be widely accepted in Western Europe in the year 800.) If Scientologists gained power and renamed our dating system to AX (‘After Xenu’) would that be historical proof of the existence of Xenu? Hardly.
However, all of this debate over the historicity of the existence of Jesus is occluding the real point: it doesn’t matter if every verifiable event described in the Bible actually happened. That doesn’t lend *any more* credibility to its unverifiable theological claims. Even if we had incontrovertible historical proof that Jesus was born and died at age 33 due to crucifiction (we don’t), that would not make the theological claims about him (born of a virgin, son of God, died for our sins, rose from the dead, performed miracles, etc) any more credible. Just like if I wrote a paper full of valid scientific findings and then put in a few sentences to the effect that “God did it,” it wouldn’t make my theological claims any more valid.
Wow. I feel like a right regular atheist historian now. Maybe I should look into getting that yellow page listing….
Blake Stacey at #590;
Of interest to you might be a televised debate between Dr. Gerald Larue and Dr. Walter Kaiser, two scholars who debate some of the issues you mentioned. It is available from John Amkerberg Ministries. Both come across as well-versed and are gentlemen to boot. I find sometimes that I get more out of a debate like this rather than a book written from a single point of view.
Apologies: I was wrong! I got my wires crossed between two books I’ve been reading. I don’t know how many transitional vertebrate fossils there are. Same-sex sexuality has been observed in more than 300 vertebrate species.
I’m pretty sure TalkOrigins has a list of more than 200 transitional forms. And that’s not counting organisms that aren’t fossils but but are transitional forms or show transitional features.
The real problem, I think, is that people don’t understand evolution and think that if they start to believe in it, or even learn too much about it, they’ll lose their faith. Or they’ll become bad people…. as if becoming a Christian made you a pedophile like many a Catholic priest or a drug-using homosexual like Ted Haggard.
#559 John
Not so fast. That was not a concession, it was a complaint about misrepresentation. Evolution simply does not address the origin-of-life issue. The claim that it purports, but fails, to do so is a straw man. Calling people on a straw man argument does not constitute “concession”–it constitutes dealing with an ignorant and/or dishonest debater.
As for “origin of species” a species does not necessarily have a clear-cut origin. Google “ring species” (with the quotes).
brokenSoldier said, “…and worse is the fact that the claims he (Stein) is making are false attributions concerning the pogrom that just about wiped his religion from the face of Europe. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest, folks!”
I aqree, well said! The only conclusion I can draw for Stein’s deep delusion is Israel which, as you know, is founded on old testament drivel.
Do you think Stein and the Israeli military-industrial complex is capable of a shitty PR campaign like this to keep their delusional citizens in a nuclear dream? Personally, I wouldn’t doubt it.
@Moses,#578
fantastic post. any further reading on this you’d recommend?
#596 (me)
Make that, “The study of evolution simply does not address…”
Evolution, per se, does not “address” anything, it’s a process that just happens.
John wrote:
(Well, OK, maybe that was edited a bit…)
Commenter Paley here, taken the name of a famous Creationist, asks the same damn question asked by every Creationist ever. PZ’s commenters do a pretty good job answering the questions, but the question really plagued me for it’s vacuity. He sets the lowest hurdle a designer can be made to jump. His designer is assumed a moron. Find the marks of an incompetent designer, he argues, and, PRESTO, you’ve found GOD. What do I mean by this? Well, Complexity can be a mark of design, but simplicity without loss of function is better. Utility can be a mark of design, but greater utility with reliability is better. Organization is a catch-all term with no real meaning. What we want is GOOD organization.
And this is where Intelligent Design fails. Unintelligent, Incompetent or Malevolent Design Theory can still be argued. But to do that, one has to concede that the Designer/God is Unintelligent, Incompetent or Malevolent.
Ah, but where is the evidence, the IDiots ask, of Incompetent design. The answer to that is everywhere. But, here’s a statement that makes a simple and memorable refutation of the theory that humans are intelligently designed:
Every tool used by man is evidence that the human body is not intelligently designed.
What does that mean? Well, first, “tools” as defined here is “everything man’s uses on a daily basis to live.” How do these “tools” prove poor design? Let’s give a few examples. Our clothing is proof that we are poorly designed for living in the elements. A properly designed human would not need clothing to survive. Glasses are proof that our eyes are poorly designed. A properly designed eye, an intelligently designed eye would have perfect vision, every time. Shoes are proof that our feet are poorly designed. Screwdrivers, wrenches, hammers are proof that our hands are poorly designed. Houses with heating and air conditioning are proof that our bodies are poorly designed for bad weather. Cars are proof that are bodies are poorly designed for travel. Why can’t humans run 60 miles per hour for hours at a time? Poor design. Every pill ever made to address a health concern is proof that our bodies our poorly designed. Every one. It doesn’t matter how complex or partially useful our bodies are. It is still shockingly poorly designed. And that is enough to refute intelligent design theory. That’s all that is needed.
So, ryogam, would you call that the anti-Panglossian paradigm? :)
I notice a lot of people calling Ryan out on his claim of biblical accuracy. Whenever Creobots try to tell me the bible is accurate, I just point out that the Australian Aborigines didn’t notice their flood. If the bible were the most accurate history book ever written, as our deluded friend claimed, the flood would have to have happened within the last 6,000 years. The Aborigines have been in Australia for at least 40,000 years.
I like that. We might not be in the Worst of All Possible Worlds, but, Lordy, we sure ain’t in the best.
My relatives would call it “The Talking Out Your Ass” Paradigm.
@moses #578:
awesome.
Ryogam in #601;
You state; “A properly designed eye, an intelligently desgined eye would have perfect vision every time”.
I am not sure there are many engineers or designers out there who would agree with that. Although I am not an engineer by trade, I work with engineers in an engineering environment who design things. What I’ve found so far is that no mechanical device is 100% efficient or works perfectly every time, but that does not mean they aren’t “good” designs. We use two 500,000 watt shortwave transmitters and my guess is, properly maintained, they have on on air efficiancy of 90+%. Not perfect, but very, very reliable.
In the US Navy, the base I was stationed on had as it’s main aircraft an F/A-18 Hornet, one of the best fighter craft in the world at that time (mid 1980s). Did we have to sometimes put them in the shop? You bet. There Full Mission Capable status as I remember was better than 70%.
Anyway, just my two cents:)
I notice a lot of people calling Ryan out on his claim of biblical accuracy. Whenever Creobots try to tell me the bible is accurate, I just point out that the Australian Aborigines didn’t notice their flood. If the bible were the most accurate history book ever written, as our deluded friend claimed, the flood would have to have happened within the last 6,000 years. The Aborigines have been in Australia for at least 40,000 years.
the problem lies in the fact that rarely do xians who use this argument differentiate between accuracy and precision.
the bible has horrible accuracy (most xians don’t know this, which is why I like to link again and again to theolgians who actually HAVE studied the relevant history and archeology*), but starting from at least later translations, could be said to have at least as good a precision as the Iliad.
Now, the question becomes:
Why in the fuck should anyone care if a book based on mostly oral storytelling is as precise as another book based on oral storytelling?
*see re: Hector Avalos
http://mnatheists.org/component/option,com_seyret/task,videodirectlink/Itemid,61/id,16/
Gee, 605 posts and not one of the Creationists here have even tried to bring up the OP (i.e. 1)The mythology that ID supporters are persecuted by academic, 2) the very real treatment of evolution’s defender’s by Creationists).
I guess you really can’t defend the indefensible.
@517:
I award you the A+ for doing the creobots homework for them, since they would not do it for themselves.
I understand why they inevitably fail to answer the question correctly, but it’s always humorous to see them flail at it in exactly the same way every time.
Malcolm have YOU PERSONALLY RADIO-ISOTOPE dated a aborigine? Have you READ THEIR HISTORICAL BOOKS? RYAN HAS. HE’S VERY WELL READ. GODDAMNIT, he’s a thirty-two year old attorney at law from Chicago! DOESN’T THAT MEAN ANYTHING, ANYMORE?!?
Rather late on this one, but:
#22: “In other words have we ever watched one kind of animal like a dog become another kind of animal like a cat. This is only an example I just want to be clear that I do not mean cross breeding between dogs or cats but actually new species.”
Actually, if anyone’s demonstrated cross-breeding between dogs and cats, I would love to see *that*. I’ve always wanted a cat-dog….(cog? dat?)
Also from #22: “I only have one question Dr. Myers.”
Doesn’t that just say it all?
Moses, #578…very nice job!
You said to John,
Let us not forget Mithra/Mithraism and Zoroastranism (yes, John the zorasters (magi) from jebus’s birth.) One of the early monotheistic faiths from approximately 1000-800 bce. They featured baptism, the 12 deceivers…I mean, ahh, er, disciples, Mithra was born in a cave and jebus was buried in a cave. Mithra was born on December 25th, too. And, as I’m sure you know Moses, it was one the main religions of the Roman army. It acted as a replaced for Mars veneration, which btw, was where we got the word march..as in armies marching. I’m happy to say, studying Mithrism was one of my xtian-to-atheist tipping points!
Isn’t knowing religious shit cool? You can see how people have been controlled by this crap for eons. However, I humbly wish we’d get over this mularky already and move on to something a little more concrete…such as evolutionary theory!
#601 ryogam
And that’s why “irreducible complexity” is to be expected from our understanding of evolution. At some point, or even at multiple successive points, in the development of some feature, bits of previously-essential scaffolding become redundant, and are no longer selected for. In many cases they will either drift out of existence, or even be selected against as a waste of resources. If this happens enough, after a while there will be nothing else that can be removed without loss of functionality. Irreducible complexity–a sign of natural selection at work. (Sorry, Behe; apparently you didn’t think this through.)
Let us not forget Mithra/Mithraism and Zoroastranism (yes, John the zorasters (magi) from jebus’s birth.)
Hey now, Dagon says you shouldn’t forget the Philistines!
Etha Willaims said:
“”If one concedes that there is any spiritual, non-physical reality, which is by definition outside of the scope of science, then the whole anti-god argument falls apart.”
This statement is utterly vacuous as it rests entirely on a false premise (the acceptance of a spiritual, non-physical reality). Basically, all you are saying is “if one accepts god, then the whole anti-god argument falls apart.” Nice try.”
While I’m really impressed that you found a way to use the word vacuous, no, a spiritual, non-physical world could contain aspects other than god. And I can certainly posit such a reality just a well as folks here can posit that natural processes will “someday” explain the origin of life. Nice try yourself.
If anyone cares to carry the debate elsewhere I could use a hand RE: posts 127 and 130 at http://science-community.sciam.com/topic/Six-Things-Expelled-Ben-Stein/Six-Things-Expelled-Ben-Stein/580000711?start=120&#msg570001975
John #559 wrote:
Is “spiritual, non-physical reality” really outside the scope of science? Or is it simply something which could, in theory, be confirmed scientifically — but hasn’t been?
Consider the following possibilities:
In the next few years
ESP experiments are successfully replicated.
Psychokenesis is repeatedly demonstrated in labs all over the world.
Studies reliably show that mediums can indeed talk to the dead, and psychics can predict the future with pinpoint accuracy.
Prayers for healing cancer are found to always succeed if done by priests wearing purple on Friday.
The evidence for reincarnation and actual Out of Body Experiences is verified through the most stringent criteria.
The ‘Law of Attraction’ (that your intentions manifest reality to attract what you concentrate on) gets off The Oprah Winfrey Show, and onto the cover of a special edition of Nature.
Convincing data from some or all of the above passes peer review, persuades skeptical scientists, and is then incorporated into mainstream scientific models of reality, generating an enormous amount of new research and testable theories as scientists strive towards new discoveries.
Now — given this, the theory that there is a “spiritual, non-physical component to reality” would, I think, become rather popular. Materialism is desperately playing redefinition catch up, and losing. Don’t you think?
So, was it really “outside the scope of science?”
Moses, #578, that was wonderful, thankyou!
I’ve never been religious so never had to go through the loss of faith that you did (I did read the Bible once – quite a trip), but I am certainly fascinated by the bizarre history of the Xian religions.
I am still constantly amazed that anyone can read the Bible and consider it to be accurate about anything.
For those of you who wanted to read where Moses learned so much about the history of the Bible here are a few books that I found to be very good.
Did God Have A Wife? Archaeology And Folk… by William G. Dever is one of his 4 or 5 books on what archeology tells us about Israel. He mentions Asheroth and shows where the Bible alludes to it also.
Secrets of the Exodus: The Egyptian Origins of the Hebrew People by Messod Sabbah and Roger Sabbath is one of my favorites that I think Moses should read that I found very persuasive. Briefly it shows that the Hebrew alphabet came from Egyptian hieroglyphics rather than the Phoenician alphabet. Furthermore by reading the cartouches of the Armanian pharaohs you can get hints as to who the biblical characters were referring to when they rewrote the Old Testament upon their capture and exile into an anti-Egyptian Babylon. By that I mean they had to disguise their writings to conceal their Egyptian heritage because the Egyptians were the enemies of the Babylonians. This rewriting is referred to in the Bible BTW as well as in other ancient Jewish writings. Plus, there are more bombshells in this book that need to be checked out. I’ve read many books that made interesting claims that couldn’t be proven but this book is not one of those. The last quarter of the book is basically a linguistics course in the Egyptian/Hebrew language and cultural similarities and derivations.
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart D. Ehrman is one of several of his books that reveal just how accurate the Bible is (not very). One factoid is that there are more discrepancies between the many Biblical texts that exist than there are ancient texts themselves. He says that no 2 texts are identical which flies in the face of claims made by Christians that the Bible is the most accurate book ever written.
Finally, as Ichthyic mentioned, Hector Avalos wrote “The End of Biblical Studies” which I just finished and sums up the topic nicely. The Bible is flawed and is not even a good work of literature. It basically is a relic of the past and deserves no more study.
Moses @ 592
That’s not how Randy Olson is looking at it over at Shifting Baselines: Meet Ben Stein, the New Spokesman for the Field of Evolution
I have to say that I am slightly confused by what it all means, to be honest. What exactly are we supposed to have done to counter the nonsense?
He’s added plenty more in the comments section. I can understand his frustration, but it still pisses me off that we are living in a time when presenting the facts and exposing deceit is seen, at best, as irrelevant, and at worst, as helping the enemy.
Gleaner63 at 606,
It’s not that simple. It does not matter that a fully human, limited, person can not design some object that works with 100% efficiency.
The IDiots want me to believe in a creator that is PERFECT in knowledge and all powerful. Surely, a creator with those attribute could design “the Perfect 100% Efficient Eye.” The eyes we’ve got, where 60%+ (?) of the population needs corrective lenses, don’t even come close to Good Design.
It does not matter that a fully human, limited, person can not design some object that works with 100% efficiency.
that sparks a recollection of something fun the next time someone talks about Behe’s “irreducible complexity” via the mousetrap analogy.
I give you, the REDUCIBLE mousetrap:
http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html
If so, considering a non-physical reality would not automatically cause an anti-god argument to fall apart, contrary to your previous claim.
You can posit non-physical realities all you want, but once you say that the non-physical interacts with the physical, you are stepping on the realm of science.
We should make a counter movie to these nitwits, containing *real* cases of abuse against those with scientific views, along with, if possible, crime photos of the victims, where appropriate. But, by someone that knows how to do it right. And, some where in there, make this point, maybe with a high quality CG cartoon, where some “defender” for the gates of creationism stops the guy (the biologist) with a bow and arrow at the gates, for “carrying an obvious weapon”, while waving through the guys with a crate full of gear marked “geology and astronomy equipment”, who happen to, oddly, be all dressed like Sam Fisher from Splinter Cell and loaded down with jack hammers, and other such stuff. The punch line? When asked what they are doing there, the super secret spies tell the guard, “Oh, we are just here to fix the plumbing.”, and the moron falls for it.
Ok, may need a bit of work, but you get the idea. lol
@447 ryan
“I am a 32 year old attorney in Chicago.”
I tend to concur with Rick T, you sound more like a kid pretending to be an educated professional. But if your statement is true, yikes! It makes your conclusory reasoning even more inexcusable. To say nothing of your failure to understand the nature and reliability of scientific evidence.
“I am well read, far more than most.”
You’ve provided no evidence for that assertion. Based on your responses here, you don’t seem to read well at all. I suggest you start reading some materials that are written in a form with which you should be familiar if you are what you claim to be.
First, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District (M.Dist Pa. Case No. 04cv2688) 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, 727 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Then try Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 509 US 579 (1993), regarding the admissibility of “expert” science opinion as evidence in the federal courts.
Whether you like the results of Daubert or not, it reflects the US Supreme Court’s efforts to distinguish between legitimate science and crack pot quackery. And there is a difference between science (e.g., the theory of evolution) and crack pot notions (creationism).
“I am not a scientist and am obviously out of my league.”
Yes, which means that you are commiting intellectual malpractice when you make assertions that are not well founded in fact, evidence, or reason.
Look, Ryan, you may earnestly believe in the Creationist tripe and hateful propaganda that excreted “Expelled,” but don’t pretend that your belief is based on anything other than willfull ignorance and wishful thinking. Because there sure ain’t no science, reliable data, or sound logic supporting it. And very little intelligence showing in your comments.
I wonder if anyone here, particularly Prof. Myers, has the energy to refute this article:
Break Down The Wall.
I have posted many detailed refutations of the claims made by IDers in support of ID, and of the movie Expelled, on The Constructive Curmudgeon. I have provided links to Expelled Exposed. Nothing works.
It is obvious that Dr. Groothuis, the Discovery Institute ideologue who runs the blog The Constructive Curmudgeon and teaches at Denver Seminary, has not taken the time to read any of the refutations (or he has read them and he just does not care about the truth), because he has now posted his favorable review of Expelled. Help! I feel overmatched! (In numbers only, not in arguments.)
Ryogam at #621,
I agree that nothing is ever simple. As far as I can tell, not everyone on the ID side believes the “designer” is a perfect being in the mold of the Christian diety. I think you will find that Dave Scott, one of the mods at UD is an agnostic. To those who believe in some type of directed panspermia, the creators themselves were mortal, imperfect, alien beings, therefore their designs would be imperfect also.
According to what I *think* I know about the theistic IDers, in this case those that are Christian, they hold that originally God’s designs here on Earth were perfect, but the Edenic curse has caused a steady “running down” of everything. I think some would call this a type of “divine entropy”. To illustrate look at the condition of the civil war warship USS Monitor in 1861, and when it was raised off the coast of NC several years ago. Except for the turrent it was in an advanced state of decay. But in it’s day it was maybe the most powerful, sophisticated warship afloat.
I’m a backyard “tinkerer”. I have a wood lathe and eventually will be getting a metal cutting lathe. I have fun and like to build things, some that work and some that don’t. I also like observing how other things work and how they are designed. So let me respectfully ask you this; in principle, are you opposed to the idea of directed panspermia as a means for the origin of life on earth?
Moses said:
“Actually, John, what you wrote is “dogma.” Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. Since all science is, by the nature of science, provisional and is only as accepted as the last experiment failed to disprove it, there is no dogma with scientific theories. To the extent scientific theories can rebut dogma, they still do not take on the characteristics of “dogma.””
I understand what the word means, Mr. Moses, and I used it properly. While, like ELF, the scientific community may not be an “organization,” the balance of the definition applies. Science is as you say, is provisional, but the materialist positions taken here are not. To put it any way, my argument is that the banner of science has been misused to support philosophical positions that have not been supported. Its a misuse of the label of science for the advancement of some other agenda.
The remaining 90% of your response has nothing to do with anything I said and is therefore intellectually dishonest – or you have ADD. Furthermore, the history of religion has nothing to do with the fundamental question of whether there is a creator/god, and whether science has any bearing on the question.
Ichthyic,
Hell no…how could I forget/ignore the Philistines!
Philistines were (and still are) an ancient people, John. Moses, heck, tell John, weren’t they around way before jebus? And as I recall, they’ve been a secretive yet prominent historical assembly seemingly, forever! I have not studied them much but I recall they go way, way back…before, I believe, the biblical moses, even…maybe back to adam and eve.
As far as I know (and because of how secretive they are,) we could still be living amongst a slug of them right now…In fact, if jebus would deliver us from the land of Philistine, I’d be a true believer!
I swear, the pope, Ben Stein, John, Planet Killer, Bryan Fisher, Behe and all the rest of the lurking creos are doing the best Philistian impersonation I’ve ever seen!
I wish they’d quit, however and get a REAL fricken education. Thanks for the reminder, Ichthyic…it made my day!
Nothing works
a quick glance at the article shows lies popping up like crabgrass everywhere.
You’re simply not going to convince someone like that with an evidentiary argument.
all you can do is point out the lies and misinformation, put or post links to the correct information, and hope whatever visitors he has manage to see your posts and maybe have some second thoughts about this guy’s honesty.
tell him, if he thinks ideas so impermeable, that if he thinks there REALLY is a “scientific” side to ID, that he should come HERE and defend it himself.
He won’t, most likely, and at least you can show him to be the liar and chickenshit he is.
Windy said:
“If so, considering a non-physical reality would not automatically cause an anti-god argument to fall apart, contrary to your previous claim.”
Yes, it would, because the existence of a non-physical reality opens the door for god, with both being outside the realm of science. My point was that the ideas of non-physical reality and god are not identical concepts, that’s all.
Science is as you say, is provisional, but the materialist positions taken here are not.
you mean the “materialist” philosophies that you project on to us?
get a grip.
Sastra said (#618):
“So, was it really “outside the scope of science?”
Thanks for the response, Sastra, and what you conjecture may come to pass. It would be most interesting for people on both sides of this argument (actually, I think there are more like 5 sides to this argument).
(actually, I think there are more like 5 sides to this argument).
THAT i can concur with.
John,
Perhaps you’d care to point out the differences? Something non-physical like dark matter, for instance? Something we infer?
Go on, you could be on to something here: but I warn you; we take enough interest in things here to actually hash them out and research them…least we act like Philistians.
Science is as you say, is provisional, but the materialist positions taken here are not.
On the contrary, materialism is simply a working theory, and falsifiable. Depending on the definitions, Naturalism would be readily discarded in favor of Supernaturalism by most scientists — if the evidence warrants it.
There’s no such thing as “methodological naturalism” — not as a basic tenet of science, at any rate. That would be dogmatic.
Ichthyic at #630:
I am afraid you are right. One can only hope to dissuade his visitors, which is why I have kept posting on his blog in spite of the endless string of inaccuracies and lies it provides to its readers. I could use some help, though…
John,
To put it any way, my argument is that the banner of science has been misused to support philosophical positions that have not been supported. Its a misuse of the label of science for the advancement of some other agenda.
You keep saying science has an agenda to disprove God. It doesn’t. That’s not its agenda. You don’t know what the agenda of science is. You’re just making stuff up.
What scientists want to believe is irrelevant to science.
One can only hope to dissuade his visitors, which is why I have kept posting on his blog in spite of the endless string of inaccuracies and lies it provides to its readers.
It’s great that you do, and your only reward, if you ever see it, will be some lurker thanking you for pointing out the misinformation presented on that blog (at least until the blog owner finally decides you are troublesome).
I’d help, but I find this blog occupies too much of my time already. However, I wouldn’t discourage you from repeatedly trying to generate interest.
I can’t think of a better place to ask.
also try over at the Panda’s Thumb:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
you will find science fans with a more xian bent there, which might help your cause even more than an old atheist like myself.
What scientists want to believe is irrelevant to science.
indeed, just ask
Francis Collinsor Ken Miller.Hell’s bells, what baloney. The second most accurate historical book is the Iliad, but all the defensiveness is on the side of this latecomer JHWH, not the Titans or Olympians. Then I learn that the original Genesis was in Greek.
With all that out of the way, what of pathogens? Did some god/ess/s make them to cause suffering? If life is created, then so are pathogens, and all the suffering that they cause is the intent of the creator. All that meaningless suffering is the fault of this malevolent creator.
And with that is the poor design of our bodies, a heart without backup circulatory plumbing, a backwards wired eye with a blind spot, a spine well made for quadrupeds but not bipeds, the list goes on… So we have a malevolent creator that anyone with a basic knowledge of physiology could outdo on design.
Epicurus (the ancient philosopher, not a commenter here) wrote
Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent?
Is God able but not willing? Then is he malevolent?
Is God both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
So we either have an impotent, malevolent or evil creator, and add unskilled to the mix, or we have everything we expect to see from an unguided process producing good enough for survival but not perfection by any measure. Is it a false dichotomy? Sort of, but you can select unskilled impotent, unskilled malevolent, unskilled evil, or none of the above. Are there other unspoken options? Perhaps a disinterested deistic creator, a watchmaker who offers no warranty on craftsmanship?
If you pick from the first set of options, then I weep for Christianity. If you accept that the bible is in no way a book of science, and decide to follow the better parts of your religion, leaving the demand behind that reality constrain itself to the understandings of a bronze age mythos, then perhaps you join the rest of humanity in the enlightenment.
Ichthyic said:
“you mean the “materialist” philosophies that you project on to us?
get a grip.”
No, I’m referring to the ones that have been stated here, obviously. And unlike some here, who have called me a bible-thumper and a moron when I have not said a single word in support of any religion, I would not presume to project anything on “us” as I regard each person here as an individual with individual beliefs. What was that moral code you had again? Something about the golden rule?
Rick Schauer (#629):
Dark matter is physical. There’s more of it, by far, in this Universe of ours than there is of the matter of which we are made. It’s just not easy to see. If that makes something “nonphysical”, then the inside of a brick is nonphysical. As Feynman once pointed out, break the brick open and all you see is more surface. That the brick has an interior is just a theory.
When was the firs/last time a scientist murdered another scientist etc… wiped a rival school of thought or teaching institution, because of a disagreement over science. I am sure it might have happened. At least on tv.
This is just a circular argument: “non-physical reality” is defined as being outside of science, so science can’t touch it, because it’s outside science.
But like I said, anything that AFFECTS THE PHYSICAL WORLD is not by definition outside the realm of science. A non-physical reality may or may not interact with the physical.
What was that moral code you had again? Something about the golden rule?
what was that about you not projecting morals on to the rest of us again?
how do you know I’m not a church-burning, ebola spreading gang member?
Posted by: gleaner63 | April 20, 2008 8:53 PM
Having been an XO for a Cavalry Troop, I know what you mean about keeping up with military maintenance, but I don’t think you can reasonably cite this as support for to God’s efficacy as a designer. As you well know, no engineer, designer, or contractor in history that has ever designed and produced products for the military claim to be omnipresent and omniscient. If these men HAD been all-powerful, as God is purported to be, then his creations would necessarily have been 100% effective – they very definition of all-knowing and all-powerful necessitates this fact. In this situation, if it is posited that there is a all-knowing and all-powerful God that ‘designed’ the universe, then he would necessarily be free from the foibles in human engineering that cause our own equipment to become faulty either through defect or prolonged use. If you believe in God, in a situation where there are obvious flaws in nature and the “design” of its inhabitants, there can only be two logical conclusions:
1. There is a God that is all-knowing and all-powerful, and he designed the universe with its flaws deliberately.
OR
2. There is a God, but he is neither all-knowing nor all-powerful.
Each seem quite unappetizing to me…
Re: #645
Definitions can be kind of arbitrary here, but I would argue that anything that interacts with the physical world can be defined as being part of “physical” reality.
Rick Schauer said:
“”John: My point was that the ideas of non-physical reality and god are not identical concepts, that’s all.”
Perhaps you’d care to point out the differences? Something non-physical like dark matter, for instance? Something we infer?
Go on, you could be on to something here: but I warn you; we take enough interest in things here to actually hash them out and research them…least we act like Philistians.”
Well, I’m not sure I could come up with anything that you’d agree could be inferred, but I’ll try. How about these questions:
Are there any forces in nature/the universe that cannot be explained by cause and effect?
Is there an innate “sense” of right and wrong in human beings of a different nature than the mere survival instincts of other animals?
Is there such a thing as human consciousness — are humans unique in their ability to confront themselves and if so, what does this imply?
Is thinking a merely chemical process, or do “values” come into play?
Can one can heal the body through positive thought and/or access to internal “chi” forces?
Is such a thing as “luck” and if so, can it be controlled?
Plus, I think these were possibly sarcastic, but the things listed above by Sastra (I quote):
ESP experiments are successfully replicated.
Psychokenesis is repeatedly demonstrated in labs all over the world.
Studies reliably show that mediums can indeed talk to the dead, and psychics can predict the future with pinpoint accuracy.
Prayers for healing cancer are found to always succeed if done by priests wearing purple on Friday.
The evidence for reincarnation and actual Out of Body Experiences is verified through the most stringent criteria.
The ‘Law of Attraction’ (that your intentions manifest reality to attract what you concentrate on) gets off The Oprah Winfrey Show, and onto the cover of a special edition of Nature.
#642 John | April 20, 2008 10:55 PM:
Actually, I’m the one that posted the comments on the Golden Rule. Do you let your friends drive drunk? Think about this then, a skeptic doesn’t allow friends to believe fairy tales. If I’m wrong, I expect to be corrected. And if I see someone I believe is wrong, I try to correct them – within reason. That follows the golden rule. Some people may be a bit more blunt, or “colorful,” in their method. Plus, these folks are human – they may not follow the Golden Rule perfectly ;)
A world view that supposed humankind cannot be its own moral authority hasn’t looked outside it’s own world view. I chose to use the Golden Rule because nearly every culture that has ever existed for any appreciable length of time has developed, independently or otherwise, a synonymous rule to the Golden Rule. Some of those cultures were essentially godless.
JBS
Meltwater @ 309:
Don’t forget that according to the Bible, pi is exactly three. ;-)
Ichthyic said:
“what was that about you not projecting morals on to the rest of us again?
how do you know I’m not a church-burning, ebola spreading gang member?”
You gave me permission to do so by referring to yourself as part of “us.” Another part of “us” stated that his morality was the golden rule, or something along those lines.
And by “309,” I of course meant 509.
I still can’t get over Ryan’s race argument. “Black people are really stupid and primitive, and if you believe they got this way because of evolution then you’re a racist.” Thanks for the biggest laugh of my weekend.
JBS said:
“Some of those cultures were essentially godless.”
I’m not arguing that this could not occur, but do you have any examples?
Some quantum events, at least as it now appears. Such events are neither non-physical, or outside the realm of science.
As for the rest of your examples, first of all, why should we assume that any of these involves anything “non-physical”? (compared to Sastra’s)
Windy said:
“Some quantum events, at least as it now appears. Such events are neither non-physical, or outside the realm of science.
As for the rest of your examples, first of all, why should we assume that any of these involves anything “non-physical”? (compared to Sastra’s)”
As to the quantum events, such as?
For the rest, we don’t assume. We look into it.
2008, C.E. I’m surprised a supposedly well-read lawyer doesn’t know that. And what C. E. has to do with christ is beyond me…
I have been following this thread since it started it was most entertaining and enlightening. I usually don’t post because others do a far better job of refuting idiocy than I could. Which brings me to the point. Someone posted a link to another debate on this subject on the Scientific American boards. Unfortunately there it actually looks like. (from a quick scan) That the arguments are not as cogent as they are here. I would love to see some of the more articulate posters here, correct some of the errors there. They keep calling ID a Theory, it makes me shudder.
Windy said:
“But like I said, anything that AFFECTS THE PHYSICAL WORLD is not by definition outside the realm of science. A non-physical reality may or may not interact with the physical.”
Agreed, but do we know whether the scientific method is useful in evaluating any such interactions?
As to the quantum events, such as?
Such as vacuum fluctuations.
For the rest, we don’t assume. We look into it.
How do we look if something is non-physical?
“While I’m really impressed that you found a way to use the word vacuous, no, a spiritual, non-physical world could contain aspects other than god. And I can certainly posit such a reality just a well as folks here can posit that natural processes will “someday” explain the origin of life. Nice try yourself.”
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
spiritual: 1.a Of or pertaining to, affecting or concerning, the spirit or higher moral qualities, esp. as regarded in a religious aspect.
When you spoke of a ‘spiritual, non-physical’ reality, this is the meaning I took spiritual in; if it does not imply god, it certainly strongly suggests it. Next time, if you don’t want to imply a god, you might want to leave out the ‘spiritual’ and just go with the ‘non-physical.’ Though even this argument remains fairly meaningless, since all you are saying is, “If you believe in a reality outside the realm of science, then you can hold unscientific ideas without being philosphically inconsistent.”
I’d also bring up amphiox’s rather good point in #648 that anything that interacts with the physical world (to originate life, for example) should probably be considered part of that physical reality.
As for positing that natural processes will someday explain the origin of life — of course we can’t be certain of this, but there is mounting evidence. For example, a paper in 2002 (Brooks et al — J Mol Biol Evol) demonstrated that conserved genes (genes that exist in multiple distantly-removed species and thus probably existed in our common ancestor) are enriched in codons for those amino acids that were believed to be most abundant in the prebiotic environment. This, combined with the Miller-Urey experiment (which was *not* a failure, contrary to claims by the likes of Stein; while it did not produce new life, it did produce amino acids), strongly suggests that life could have spontaneously originated out of the environment of prebiotic earth. So to say that it is likely that science will one day be able to conclusively explain the origin of life is not unreasonable at all.
John #649:
I think I’d grant some of your examples as evidence for “non-physical, spiritual” reality, and not others. Even if human morality and consciousness have unique features, this doesn’t necessarily imply special cosmic significance or supernatural forces at work. And my understanding is that virtual particles at the quantum level don’t seem to follow the usual cause and effect laws we’re familiar with — but physicists don’t therefore draw spiritual conclusions (though New Agers who misunderstand quantum theory may.)
Healing energy, chi, and “luck” are pretty good, though.
Though a bit humorous, my examples were seriously intended. As I define it, the word “supernatural” is used to indicate a top-down view of reality where pure mind or mental properties (such as values) somehow precede or ground nature, and are creative forces which can’t be reduced in any significant way to matter/energy.
Theism would be included as one possible supernatural hypothesis. Other examples would be disembodied souls, ghosts, ESP, psychokenesis, magical correspondances, vitalism, karma, prana, cosmic consciousness, mind as “energy force,” a universal tendency towards the harmonic balance of Good and Evil, progressive evolution towards Higher States, mind/body substance dualism, and holistic nonmaterialistic monism.
“Natural,” on the other hand, indicates the bottom-up view of reality in which complex systems, including minds, have arisen from lifeless material processes. Yes, the definitions are a bit stipulative, and can be argued with — but I think they capture the basic significant differences.
As Dembski put it, “Is reality fundamentally mindful and purposive or mindless and material?” Or, as Dennett puts it, skyhooks vs. cranes.
Our intuitions favor the first view — and early scientists in the 17th and 18th century assumed that this is what was going to be confirmed. It’s not what happened — and mind/brain dualism, vitalism, and related theories are pretty much discarded today. And we’re seeing that complicated things, including our minds, appear to be the result of mindless, cumulative processes.
But if there were good new evidence which materialism and naturalism couldn’t be stretched to fit, then they’d be discarded. All conclusions — even naturalism — are provisional. I think that putting up a boundary on what science can or can’t study is a bit hasty.
Agreed, but do we know whether the scientific method is useful in evaluating any such interactions?
Prayer represents a hypothetical interaction between the physical and non-physical. The (non-)efficacy of prayer has been scientifically tested. So, apparently it is.
An interesting quote that came up when I reloaded the page (under the ‘Random Quotes’ section in the left column):
“Atheism does not entail the theory of evolution, and evolution does not entail atheism. Many theists are evolutionists. They believe that god has guided evolution. So of what use is an attack on evolution when the target is atheism? Zacharias seems to think that if he can show that belief in evolution is unwarranted that this shows that the “atheistic” worldview is untenable as a whole. Perhaps this is the ‘existential’ hurdle mentioned earlier. But that approach is doomed. Even if the theory of evolution could be shown to be false, this would not affect atheism. True, one who rejects supernatural explanations would want a naturalistic explanation of human origins, but there could be any number of other naturalistic explanations of human origins besides evolution.”
Atheism does not entail the theory of evolution, and evolution does not entail atheism. Many theists are evolutionists. They believe that god has guided evolution. So of what use is an attack on evolution when the target is atheism? Zacharias seems to think that if he can show that belief in evolution is unwarranted that this shows that the “atheistic” worldview is untenable as a whole. Perhaps this is the “existential” hurdle mentioned earlier. But that approach is doomed. Even if the theory of evolution could be shown to be false, this would not affect atheism. True, one who rejects supernatural explanations would want a naturalistic explanation of human origins, but there could be any number of other naturalistic explanations of human origins besides evolution.”
-Doug Krueger, ‘That Collosal Wreck’
John @ 659:
“Agreed, but do we know whether the scientific method is useful in evaluating any such interactions?”
What are your criteria for a method to be ‘useful’ in evaluating something?
Just more fuel for the fire: Brent Bozell III of the Media Research Center has a *glowing* review of “Expelled”:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080418/cm_uc_crbbox/op_235852;_ylt=Ak2jgsJQ8cm8zPyODH9_jQ4EtbAF
I didn’t recognize his name, so I googled him. He seems like a lovely person.
Frank Mitchell @#666 –
Wow. I’m just…stunned. That read like a self-parody. Apparently he’s serious, though.
I had to laugh when I loaded up this thread and saw it had 666 comments.
I don’t know if everyone has seen this ( Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein’s lying propaganda
by Richard Dawkins), but it seems to be a sad consequence of Expelled. If true, of course.
Someone sent Michael Shermer a letter, essentially claiming that “atheists and Darwinists” are all for the odd Holocaust, as long as we get to believe that life evolved. :(
Re: 664 (me)
Just realized that I posted that quote twice (overzealous command-z’ing). Sorry.
John wrote:
I need to get to bed, but I’ll tell a quick story here. I’m probably getting some details wrong, but here’s the gist:
Ray Hyman, a psychology professor who has made a special study of how to set up studies, once helped evaluate some guy who was using “applied kinesiology,” a bit of pseudoscience where people who hold things that are “bad” for them will be unable to keep their arm up when it’s pressed on (because the body magically senses the ‘badness’). As I recall, they were testing responses to different kinds of sugar. It “worked” just fine when the subjects knew whether they were holding the GOOD sugar or BAD sugar — arms firm under pressure when holding natural, falling weakly when holding artificial. But when the experiment was run again under Hyman’s strict and well-controlled double blinding conditions (where neither the administrator nor the subject knew which was which), the results were pure chance.
The applied kinesiologist immediately turned to Hyman and said “You see? THAT’s why we never test under double blind conditions. The tests don’t work!”
If the “scientific method is not useful” in evaluating spiritual, non-physical realities — how do we know that the problem is that science is inadequate? Maybe the tests don’t work because we’re wrong.
I remember Randi’s NOVA special in Russia featured a “scientist” who made the same excuse … that scientific techniques were “too crude” to detect the effect.
Contrast this to the Michaelson-Morley experiment, where the “failed” experiment surprised and dismayed the scientists … but they published their results anyway. Those results became one of the foundations for Einsteinian Relativity.
Or, to quote Philip K. Dick (again), “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
Blake Stacey said,
Thanks Blake, I agree. However, that was just an example (and perhaps a poor one) of something we know is there (since Zwicky’s observations in ’33) yet it is “seemingly non-physical” as in we’re unable to directly observe it with our naked eye like a tigerfish mutation…except of course, by gravitational lensing and other gravitational measurements.
Dark matter like Feynman’s brick analogy -lol- you’re right, again. At least until we’re able to, for example, break a neutralino in two and observe its inner qualities! Who knows, we might be suprised…we might find god or little chunks of jebus’s toenail.
Definition of ‘physical’, from the OED:
“Of or relating to natural phenomena perceived through the senses (as opposed to the mind); of or relating to matter or the material world; natural; tangible, concrete.”
The ‘of or relating to’ here is still rather vague, though…I would agree that things like the inside of a brick, or dark matter, which we can infer from those things that we perceive through the senses, are physical; and things that interact with the observable world — and thus, whose interactions should be observable — ought to be considered physical as well.
#669: What I consider ironic about that letter is that Shermer wrote several chapters debunking Holocaust denial in “Why People Believe Weird Things.”
Also, I still see none of the Creationists on this thread have addressed the OP. How do you justify what has happened to the people mentioned in the Blake Stacey’s blog?
Loudon #285:
That is really funny – I think you owe my wife a new keyboard. You are projecting so well I can your thoughts from here – but I think that you should try visualizing them in something other than crayon next time.
Please avoid bringing a spork to a gunfight next time.
Meltwater,
Thank you. An anecdote:
I first heard this argument… in my school’s chapel. As part of a sermon. And it was left unanswered. The fellow giving the sermon was a guest brought in by the school, who told us that Christianity as a world view stood or fell with the reality of the resurrection, and that if we examined the historical evidence then we would be compelled to accept its reality. This rather contradicts the position of faith as a virtue and doubt as a vice found in Christianity. As discussed above, there isn’t really any conclusive evidence even of Jesus’ existence, never mind his crucifixion and resurrection. Combined with the unanswered regression argument, I’m left wondering whether this speaker wanted to sabotage the school’s faith. This all happened around the time I rejected a religious world view, but I don’t remember this as an important factor.
gleaner63,
Panspermia simply moves the problem of the origin of life off Earth. It solves nothing. Unless you allow that life can independently arise from non-life, you’re back into the above regression (#59).
Turtles all the way down
Moses,
Like others, I’m interested in a bibliography on the origin of Abrahamic religions. I offer this comparison of the Horus and Jesus stories, but can’t vouch for its accuracy.
Evolution is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated upon the world, and yet for all the conspiracies needed to keep it going, and all the supposed “evidence” (lies), it is tremendously easy to refute!
The peerless Creation scientist Ray Comfort, http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/ has destroyed the “theory” using only the humble banana! Imagine that, God was in your fruitbowl all along, what a thought!
Though everyone here may hate him, God is very real and to go against his word can lead only to ruin!
To name just four, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and Denmark. Secular countries all, they have turned their backs on God and are now suffering the consequences.
Crime rates in those countries are through the roof, and the people huddle in their homes afraid to leave for fear of being robbed or worse!
It’s such a tragedy that after the rapture all of these supposed “intellectuals” will be left behind to lament their foolishness!
Peace be with you.
@ Ed Flanders # 678
I can’t speak for Australia, Sweden or Denmark, but in a speech given 2 days ago (19/04/08) the Police Minister in New Zealand, Hon Annette King, described how crime has actually fallen in almost all categories since 1992:
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/sensible+sentencing+trust+conference
“So who is ignorant? There is no serious debate in an academic circle questioning the life of Christ. He lived. Check your calendar friend, what year is it?”
What day is it?
wrpd.
Ignorant lies for God are still Lies.
The date is dependant on your cultural settin.
Orthodox Jews, The Chinese, Buddhists, Sri Lankans, Maori’s, Muslims, etc have a different dating scheme.
Your ignnorant idea that the whole world is the Christian US just demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the world.
It further demonstrates that you proceed from the silly beleif that the Bible translation you adhere to is the final undeniable word of God. You discount utterly anything that predates or postdates that.
I forgot to add:
YOu know that Pope Gregory changed the calendar, don’t you?
You know where we get the days of the week from?
Do you know why we celebraqte EASTER, Christmas, etc?
IOW, your using a calendar as proof that JC exisited is laughably inept, and it puts the rest of us Christians in a bad light.
Michael Shermer not only wrote a couple of chapters about Holocaust denial, he also wrote an entire book: Denying the Holocaust.
I am a mechanical engineer and and I work directly in the field of design. Every Day. 8+ hours a day. In design there are numerous artifacts. They begin with specifications and requirements, proceed to research and review of resources, prior art and other input. Multiple solutions are explored and simulations and analysis are performed on them. Documentation is developed during all phases of this and subsequent activities. Then during the elaboration of the design, material is processed, by something, somehow. There are leftovers, traces, scrap. there are tooling marks. Proof marks. Traces.
Unless Id apriori asssumes all the charactoristics of the designer to be a god I would expect to see them at least start to organizze a search for those things that are the common result of design as we understand it.
To Lee Brimmicombe-Wood, damn! I wish I could speak as cogently as you Brits!
Robert Estrada- Meyers (in the Spanish tradition)
wrpd was quoting someone else, ya wally.
@ Ed Flanders # 678
I’m probably wasting my time arguing with a troll who is long-gone, but…
A little Googling reveals that crime statistics in Australia don’t support the assertion that crime rates are “through the roof”.
I live in Australia and this reflects my experience here. Crime is not “through the roof”.
source: Australian Government – Australian Institute of Criminology
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2007/facts_and_figures_2007.pdf
Ed Flanders:
I’m in Australia. Neither my wife nor I “huddle in their homes afraid to leave for fear of being robbed or worse!”
I have no idea where you cherry pick the rubbish you rabbit on about.
OH, yeah I do, you got it from Comfort. Figures. How much have you given to “the cause”? I think it costs about $19.95 US for the whole set of pamphlets doesn’t it? YOu can get themn on remainder for about $2.00
But then telling lies for God comes naturally to you doesn’t it?
Also Comfort is NOT a scientists, in *any* sense of the word. He’s a hack preacher, and even he has backed away from the nonsense he was spouting about Bananas.
You *do know that telling lies for God is still a sin, don’t you?
Zarquon:
OOPS!. Apologies all round. I got carried away by the firing in the trenches, and took a random shot over the ramparts.
APJ
Off subject
I was in Adelaid for 10 weeks in the end of 2004 and found it to reminded me of the San Francisco of my youth. Open kind people. Honest, I lost my camera in the airport and, SHOCK!, it was turned into the lost and found at the airport. I love my country but that does not elevate it above anywhere else. Barcelona is great too! Rhone valley! The French alps! Frankfurt! Munchen! (forgiveness please I am too tired to look up how to print an umlaut) Aschaffenburg. even Paris. Places loaded with godless and god fearing folk
Ed Flanders was an obvious parody, guys. Sweden and Denmark are famous for having fewer social problems than most developed countries. Even other creationists are embarrassed by Comfort’s banana argument.
The fact there is a FEMALE police minister only serves my point!
God intelligently designed men for certain roles, (Muscles for physical labour) and intelligently designed women for others (a lower centre of gravity for child-rearing).
Evolution is a load of bunk, again as scientist, prolific author, television host and educator Ray Comfort points out, where are these half and half transtional forms that should litter the fossil record?
When I see say, a half-beaver and half-duck, (see this artist’s conception of what such a fantastical creature would look like) http://www.learnanimals.com/platypus/pictures/platypus-03-swimming.JPG
THEN I’ll believe in evolution.
But not before.
Peace be with you.
@amk #690
I took the bait.
This is pretty good though:
My problem with IDists/YECs/other fundies is I just can’t tell who is a loonie and who is a jokester taking the piss.
It all starts to sound the same.
Is that part of their wedge strategy too – “make up such ridiculous shit that the non-believers will exhaust themselves arguing with the parodists, thinking they are arguing with us?”
This is Poe’s Law – “Without the use of a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to make a parody of Fundamentalism that someone won’t mistake for the real thing.”
I suspect that Ed Flanders is Ned Flanders’ twin. Okely dokely, Ed.
STILL no explanation by the Creationists for the cases mentioned in Stacey blog. Just the same tired rehashes of long debunked tripe.
Come on Chrisitians! Stay on topic. Do you guys need Ritalan?
@537″It is the movie that invokes Godwin’s Law. This thread cannot help but reflect that if we are to discuss the movie and the points it attempts. The movie conflates Darwin and Hitler – saying the Holocaust was not possible without Darwin’s theory. Should we, as advocates of the Theory of Evolution thus declare victory from the outset because Ben Stein calls on Hitler?”
I see that my sad attempt at humour was misunderstood. Yes, I am quite aware what Expelled is doing, I even followed that monster-thread PZ wrote about being expelled from Expelled. Irony!
Ah Gleaner at 627,
Yes, the Edenic curse, last refuge of the scoundrel who refuses to give up their assinine belief in a “Perfect” designer when the evidence of piss-poor design is staring at them right in the face. Let’s examine the Edenic curse, shall we?
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
003:017 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
003:018 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
003:019 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Hmmm, nothing about glasses, or cataracts, detached retinas, blind-spots, or glaucoma being a curse. Nothing about “divine entropy” at all. Surprise. Why, one could accuse the Bible-Thumpers of pulling their hypothesis straight out of their asses, huh? Hell, I accuse them of just that. The “Divine Entropy” hypothesis is pulled straight from their ass and no where else.
Eyes are undesigned kludges. They work, but, because of lack of real intelligent design, they are full of defects. They are proof that either there is no designer, or the designer is imperfect. It’s that simple.
Also, I realise of course that refrences to Hitler and the holocaust are pretty much unavoidable when that is what the movie seems to be about.
I have never really had a problem with people alluding to Nazis, especially not when it’s called for. Ben Stein’s juxtapositioning of evolution and the holocaust – as if one lead to another – is not, however, called for.
Scientist?
BWWWhahahahahahaha
More like deluded ignoramus. The drivel that comes out of his blog has to be some of the most ill-informed, willfully ignorant, pig-stupid garbage that is on the Internet at any given moment.
There are transitional fossils a plenty. Get your nose out of your bible and do some actual research, Ned.
Ah, the old atheist’s worse nightmare argument. This is a wind-up isn’t it?
Sorry but bananas are a rather good example of evolution in action (albeit of the man-guided cultivation variety).
Here’s a challenge to all creationists who reject the theory of evolution and want proof of intermediary species etc.
How do you explain the DUCK-BILLED PLATYPUS?
Sheesh. Color me dummy.
Only 2 hours of sleep has my parody detecting abilities at nil.
Of course our bodies are intelligently designed. Who wouldn’t put a recreation area in the middle of the waste disposal sites, as the saying kind of goes.
I’m still snickering about how they always think that one species has to go to another species which already exists in order for evolution to be true. No, parrots, it’s new species that are being created.
Ray Comfort Food.
Dang, I got it right away. It was immediate.
As BigDumbChimp pointed out, his ability to detect satire was compromised by a lack of sleep. Perhaps there’s a corollary to Poe’s Law in there somewhere.
We have blogs4brownback, blogs4huckabee, TD Gaines Crockett…
The rise of the satiriblog. It had to happen.
PZ, I’m looking forward to seeing some of the “better” emails you got regarding that POS movie, “Expectorated” (or whatever it is we should be calling it by now).
Its good opening weekend was easy to see coming; the second weekend will be a disaster. And it’ll be fun to see them have to give XVIVO and Yoko most of the money.
Vic:
What are you talking about? 2008 CE means that it’s been 2008 years since christ wasn’t born.
John:
i’ve seen DaveScot proclaiming the gospels many times on the UD threads. he comes across as slightly less fundamentalist than O’Leary.
i don’t think you have a proper definition for “non-physical” here. is it just a dimension full of things that don’t exist? or of things that have no impact on the real world. as soon as God splits the moon in half, science has something to go on. it’s nigh-on impossible for something to exist without haveing any discernable, distinguishable properties, however inscrutable those properties may seem. physicality is, as far as we know, apparently a requisite for real objects.
possibly quantum events. this is not supernatural, just very difficult to understand. there is a difference.
yes. this is not a syptom of the supernatural. there are many differences between all sorts of animals. a more complex intellect is one of the differences between humans and other animals. eagles have better eyesight than us – are they godly?
it certainly does not necessitate the supernatural.
as far as we know, thinking is related to the physical nature of the brain. damage the brain and you damage the thinking process. i don’t understand what you mean by your use of “values” in such a way.
no. “qi” is just air. the Chinese used to believe veins carried air through the body and that certain practices could help the flow of “qi”. not supernatural, no longer relevant even in China.
there is such a thing as chance. sometimes good things happen, sometimes bad things happen. they happen more or less as you’d expect if there were no gods in the universe (or even “outside” the universe).
Well, you know that and I know that, but remember that this well-read lawyer was originally positing the calendar year as proof of jeebus’ existence (I’m assuming the ‘reasoning’ was something like ‘we call it 2008 AD, and AD means anno domini, which means in the year of OUR LORD, therefore god exists. I’ll have to check that list of god’s proofs to see if this one is on there… lol ).
Ryan @ #447:
No you aren’t. Your command of written English is nowhere near what it would have to be to graduate from law school.
I don’t know if you’re a teenager or not, but you are definitely not an attorney.
delurk
Never have I loved and hated this site more then this post and the comments with it. Loved it for the fact that now I’ve just spent an entire day bemused at the content of said comments (and also the added bonus of feeling just a bit smarter), and hated for the zero productivity today that has followed with it. Thank you!
Hmm, this comment here got me thinking a bit:
If you’ll allow me to wax philosophical for a moment, one might consider that abstract entities ‘exist’ and yet are non-physical, i.e. numbers could be said to exist and yet have no physical substance. Not that I’m suggesting God (indeed, I’m an atheist). More of a curious thought, I suppose.
Additionally, someone brought up Dark Matter earlier, which asks the question how does one define when something is physical? I prefer the definition that a physical entity is an object that interacts via the fundamental forces (or at least one there of). In this case, even Dark Matter is physical, as it interacts via Gravity. This also has the rather nice effect of pulling god, if such an entity existed, out of the aether and into the real world were it to perform any sort of supernatural act.
Of course, we’re all actually just a computer simulation anyway…
Ryan,
You say (in comment 362) that
[blockquote] I never found a remotely plausible explanation for the origin of life. Micro-evolution of species, of course, but not the origin of life.[/blockquote].
If you were expecting to find one in studies of evolution, you were looking in the wrong place. Evolution isn’t about the origin of life; that would be abiogenesis, which is a whole ‘nother story. Evolution is about how life (meaning, living organisms) changes over time within it’s environment.
In other words, we aren’t having the same conversation. :)
Okay. Clearly I haven’t got this blockquoting thing whipped. Could somebody please tell me where I went wrong?
[i]Test[/i]
[b]Test[/b]
[i][b]Test[/b][/i]
Okay. TOTAL fail.
Help?
you need to change the square brackets to angle brackets.
the angle brackets are the shift of the , and . keys
[i]fail?[/i]
success!
Alligator brackets. ;-)
btw, have there actually been ANY comments regarding the actual topic of the thread (the real expulsions) from the creationists yet?
Is it really the case that the actual reality of the situation has finally shut them up?
say it ain’t so!
So, STILL no explanations from the local Cdesign proponentsists about the firings, harassment, threats against, and (in one case) murder of defenders of evolution.
Come on guys, even a lame excuse would do.
Test
Test
Test
Oops. I meant to add, thank you, Ichthyic! :)
You’ve almost got it right, Cicely! The sticking point is, you need to type angle-brackets, not square-brackets, into the “comments” box. So rather than this —
[i]Test[/i]
— you type, instead, this:
<i>Test</i>
The idea here is, the angle-brackets are being used here as a marker for what might be called “stage directions”; when the vast and satanic Scienceblogs Comments Engine sees “<i>” in a comment, it thinks “Okay, time to start italicizing the text.” Likewise, when the v&sSbCE sees “</i>” in a comment, it thinks “Right — no more italics now.” It’s the angle brackets that do it. So how did I manage to get the v&sSbCE to put real angle-brackets in this comment, instead of misinterpreting things as ‘stage directions’? Answer: I cheated. What I actually typed was “<”, and when the v&sSbCE sees that gibberish, it thinks “Oh — right — this guy really does want to put an honest-to-Cthulhu angle-bracket in his post.”
Hope this clears things up a bit for youj, Cicely…
Looking above, there was the report that Expelled pulled in $2.9m over the weekend. Anyone have any idea how much it cost to make/advertise the movie? It’d be interesting to see whether or how much they’ve lost on it.
If the date 2008 AD is proof of Jeeses, Do the days of the week and some of the months prove the existence of other gods?
One counterexample is glaringly omitted from Expelled–Bush’s Council on Bioethics. Every single member is a Creation/ID proponent. Leon Kass, its once chair, even published a book entitled “The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis”. Why is this not featured in Expelled? Because it undermines the “conspiracy”. There is only a “conspiracy” because the minority cannot have its way unchallenged at all times.
#655 John | April 20, 2008 11:37 PM
Sure. I can give a few examples.
JBS
Crap, I accidentally deleted part of my post in editing.
Leon Kass at least was a tenured professor. All members working on the Bioethics Council hold academic positions. You can read brief synopses here:
http://www.bioethics.gov/about/members.html
This weekend Ben Stein’s anti-evolution movie, “Expelled,” had a HUGE opening, estimated to rake in over $3 million dollars. One of the top five openings EVER for any documentary.”
…and will have just as rapid a demise, based on how fast the revenues are decreasing on a daily basis.
people who don’t know shit when they smell it, certainly do when they have it rubbed in their faces.
Thursday was named after Thor. Does that mean Thor exists?
#655 John | April 20, 2008 11:37 PM
Oh – You probably wanted me to actually give you those examples! Here are two (from http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm)
There were also some of the ancient Greeks, though because of the pantheism, it’s tougher to determine that the Golden Rule was devised by man and not by Zeus and just picked up by the handful of humanist Greeks, so I left them out.
Another thought, the bit from Confusius is from 500 years before Jesus.
I supposed I’ve been to general with the application of the Golden Rule. There is this one small detail that isn’t in the formalized and made pretty version of the Golden Rule. And it works like this: You start with the standard golden rule, treating everyone with respect when you first meet them, as you would wish to be treated. However, if they abuse that respect and generally don’t play nice in return, you get to scold them for it or perform some other form of “Return the Favor” (could also be called “Tit for Tat”). If they start playing nice again, all is forgiven (sort of) and you go back to be playing nice.
We are at that stage when we’ve played nice that that playing nice has been abused. We’re returning the favor.
JBS
I have nothing to add here. I just want to get in on the fun, and perhaps get my hit counter to spin a bit more.
So, does Thursday prove the existence of Thor the same way Anno Domini “proves” God exists?
Anyone?
*crickets chirp*
Sastra #663:
“I think I’d grant some of your examples as evidence for “non-physical, spiritual” reality, and not others. Even if human morality and consciousness have unique features, this doesn’t necessarily imply special cosmic significance or supernatural forces at work. And my understanding is that virtual particles at the quantum level don’t seem to follow the usual cause and effect laws we’re familiar with — but physicists don’t therefore draw spiritual conclusions (though New Agers who misunderstand quantum theory may.)”
Sorry, hope you didn’t you were dealing with a disappearing troll, but I had to go to work today.
Thanks for the thoughtful answer. Certainly the things I mention don’t “necessarily” imply anything. My original point is simply that if anything non-physical exists, then there are truths out there that science seemingly can’t touch. Even if we can observe the physical manifestations of these things, it would still not be the thing itself. For example, each mini-process necessary for the brain to think is a mechanical/natural event, but is there some guiding constant behind it all that we don’t see (such as the mathematics that seem to guide the entire universe to the point where Einstein could have predicted the Big Bang theory if had believed his own equation)?
John B. Sandlin:
John, is this a veiled reference to the prisoner’s dilemma computer tournaments a few years ago?
JBS said:
“And it works like this: You start with the standard golden rule, treating everyone with respect when you first meet them, as you would wish to be treated. However, if they abuse that respect and generally don’t play nice in return, you get to scold them for it or perform some other form of “Return the Favor” (could also be called “Tit for Tat”).”
Or “giving the benefit of the doubt.” Thanks for the examples – I readily agree with Confucianism, but I’m not so sure Buddha isn’t regarded as a god (walked on water, virgin birth).
John #732 wrote:
I think your point got lost, then, because at least some of the examples of non-physical phenomena you gave seemed testable to me — chi energy and “luck,” for instance. You had also included ESP and PK. Even if we can’t observe “nonphysical mindpower” directly, we could — at least in theory — be able to measure and predict its effects. That counts. And these effects would be very difficult to explain under either mind/brain physicalism or materialism in general. We’d have to give naturalism up. Science itself would lead to that.
A “nonphysical” or supernatural force which always and forever lurks mysteriously behind natural material processes and does nothing to draw attention to itself, on the other hand, might be outside of science’s ability to “touch” — but it also seems outside of our ability to touch at all. Why do we infer it? Should we?
I think you’ve got the same problem I mentioned in my post somewhere back there on Ray Hyman and Applied Kinesiology: how do you tell the difference between a phenomena science is not adequate to discover — and us being wrong?
#734 Epikt | April 21, 2008 10:26 PM
I didn’t think it was that veiled… :D
However, the results of the games, and how we do act in the real word are a much better fit than the ungarnished version of the Golden Rule.
JBS
#734 : John | April 21, 2008 11:12 PM
At the time Siddhārtha Gautama had his revelations, things for him were still fairly secular (well, at least in the version I learned). He was a prince out for a stroll, saw life wasn’t so good for the ordinary people, and had to think about things (this is the condensed, condensed version). It was during this time that the Buddhist version of the Golden Rule developed.
That he became venerated and worshipped almost as much as Elvis is a later occurrence. Well, some people I know worship Elvis, anyway, and I’d swear they treat it as a religion, shrine and all.
(I just noticed I cribbed the wrong post number on my reply to Epikt – his was #733).
JBS
Sastra said:
“how do you tell the difference between a phenomena science is not adequate to discover — and us being wrong?”
We likely never will, at least not before the world ends in 2012. (That’s a joke 8^).)
Thanks all for the conversation. I’m returning to my normal life now. I particularly enjoyed being introduced to vacuum fluctuations. I had always assumed that an electron didn’t fly away from a proton due to an offsetting gravitational pull, just like a mini solar system – oops.
Posted by: gleaner63 | April 20, 2008 10:22 PM
This would necessarily place them higher on the list of probable originators of our current situation than God. Regardless of the specious claims made by most ID proponents that they do not assume to suggest the identity of the designer, the clear ridicule of Dawkins displayed in Expelled betrays the fact that while ID claims to not hypothesize as to who or what the designer might be, whenever a theory alternate to God as the designer is introduced, it is dismissed as lunacy. And if concrete proof is your requirement for considering this claim (and this seems odd to me, with your preference for faith in the face of such proof), here is a link to an ID proponent’s position paper that clearly portrays God as the designer (the proof of this is in his final sentence). And this man is no exception, though I will not clog this board with other examples of viewpoints like his — they are not hard to locate at all.
http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/papers.asp?id=112
Continuing my point, God is – and always has been – portrayed (by those who believe in such a being) as omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. I would think that the flaws in our nice little system here on Earth would necessitate a flawed designer rather than a perfect one, placing Panspermia’s “E.T.’s” as more logical candidates for the role of ‘designer’ than God in the speculation and disinformation that is being marketed as ID theory.
Entropy is an observable, natural process that has been verified again and again by experimentation and the data from it. The so-called “Edenic Curse” is just as supernatural and unverifiable in origin as Intelligent Design and Creationism, and therefore is not a sound premise to use in a debate of a scientific nature. And the condition of a ship that sank into salt water almost 150 years ago is directly attributable to oxidation and other forms of natural degradation of manmade materials, and is in no way even remotely connectable to something as mystical and unverified as the “Edenic Curse.” Besides, the only individuals who would even be able to verify that God’s designs were “perfect” here on Earth prior to that mystical curse would be Adam, Eve, and their family, and I’d imagine that it might be a bit difficult to find any information they might have published on the topic.
Respectfully (and I honestly mean that), I am not opposed to the idea of Panspermia, just as I am not opposed to any scientifically possible hypothesis of our biogenesis here on this planet. In the cases of these ideas of how we came to be, they are not contradictory to the observable laws of nature, and therefore I have no scientific grounds to dismiss them. If Intelligent Design and its proponents were truly open to the idea of Panspermia and began programs of research attempting to delve deeper into this possibility, I would lend it a bit more credence. But it appears that the entirety of effort on the behalf of most ID proponents – the Discovery Institute being the biggest perpetrator of this intellectual dishonesty – seem bent on shoehorning ID into the curriculum (with the idea that God is the designer cleverly NOT excluded), while ridiculing any alternate hypothesis as to the identity of their ‘designer.’ It is for this very reason that ID does not receive – and in its current state, does not deserve – to be part of scientific curriculum.
There is a reason that these people need to disprove science. It’s because they have no faith in god. Try as they might to believe, they do not, and so they desperately grasp for some proof. That in itself is blasphemy and a rejection of their faith.
I can hardly wait. I’m already tempted to make a short video of a Soul Caliber-esque Fight Loading Screen of you versus… yeah. :D
Just discovered your blog today… got lots of reading to do.
All you design advocates, ESPECIALLY the watchmaker theorists: gird yourselves for horror and despair, and do a google search for “harlequin baby.” Look at the photos. Read about the poor wretches on wikipedia. Ask yourself what designer, especially what omnipotent, omniscient, supposedly benevolent designer, would inflict that miserable existence on its creations, for however thankfully brief a span.
More erudite persons than myself have served you with elegant argument and attempts at educating you. I just want you to ask yourselves what kind of god would either create these pitiful creatures, whether by special creation or by establishing a system that would bring them into being.
John B. Sandlin:
Did I miss something in a previous post?
The first of those (prisoner’s dilemma) tournaments that I know about did indeed show that the golden rule, or at least the tit-for-tat version of it, was one of the most successful strategies, and that the “nice” strategies were generally more successful than the “not-nice” ones. I remember wondering if there were some sort of broader, fundamental principle here–morality from game theory, so to speak.
But it turns out that those results weren’t necessarily definitive. The next tournament had a different collection of strategies, and in that different environment, the results did not favor the nice strategies. In other words, what constitutes success depends on the environment–on the way everybody else behaves. So whether the golden rule works depends on whether enough other people are doing it; I doubt that that surprises anybody.
I guess this moral relativism in silico suggests that what nonbelievers have said all along–that we make our own morality based on the kind of world in which we want to live–reflects the way the universe operates.
Ryan, Liar For Jesus™, @#272
No, we cannot. Because you clearly have no interest in learning anything. We can show you the evidence. We can explain it to you. We can point out where each of your laughable excuses for arguments are wrong. But as long as you willfully reject reality, it accomplishes nothing. You will remain an ignorant christian because you WANT to remain an ignorant christian.
Ryan, lying again:
Ah, now we see! Ryan is a sociopath! I don’t mean that as an insult (though it is one), I mean it as an accurate descriptioin. You’re trotting out the tired old “atheists have no morals” lie. This claim says nothing about atheists, but a lot about you. It shows that your only reason for not going out and murdering anyone who dares disagree with you is that your imaginary friend hasn’t given you permission yet. It shows that YOU really don’t have a conscience, you don’t have any respect for your fellow human beings, you just pretend to have these things out of fear that the invisible man in the sky will do mean things to you if you don’t. Deep down, you realize your own moral deficiency, but you can’t admit it to yourself, so you project it on everyone else.
Ryan the sociopath:
Ah, not just a sociopath, but a RACIST sociopath. Here you demonstrate that you know nothing whatsoever about the actual accomplishments of black people, nor it seems about the brutal wars started by WHITES. Again, you don’t know because you don’t WANT to know. If you knew, you’d have to give up your belief that your race is somehow superior. So you voluntarily turn off your brain. You refuse to face the evidence in front of you.
Ryan the racist sociopath:
LOJIC: U R DOING IT RONG!!11
This is NOT “the logical conclusion of Darwinian theory.” It’s just your own racist bullshit reflected off a funhouse-mirror misrepresentation of evolutionary science. You don’t know the first thing about how evolution really works, because, once again, you don’t want to know.
Ryan the irrational racist sociopath:
Fuck you very much. Answer for your own damn self. And you already have, you just won’t let yourself see it.
Ryan the arrogant irrational racist sociopath:
False dichotomy and projection.
Ryan the arrogant irrational racist sociopath:
You are both racist and wrong.
Posted by: pcarini | April 20, 2008 1:16 AM
pcarini,
I caught this admittedly late, but I wanted to rectify it anyway… My apologies – I definitely didn’t pay enough attention to figure out who your post was for and what its aim was. And thanks for being so composed about it, too. Maybe I can fry up some bacon to go with the egg on my face… :P
Is it just me, or does this thread contain an unusually high density of unintentionally hilarious typographical errors?
“Can you bread a chihuahua”
No, but you can wrap one in a flour tortilla.
What a thread! Just one comment – not sure if anyone else pointed this out:
Assuming the poster was not a Loki troll, he should learn that his cart is before his horse. Hostility to religion is not why there are relatively fewer religious scientists today. That trend came first, then the religious backlash, and now the anti-religious backlash saying, essentially, “Yes, we have no need for your God hypothesis. If you want to keep it, then keep it to yourself.”
Religious scientists who agree to those terms can be successful and proceed undisturbed. Contrary to Expelled‘s propaganda, non-religious scientists don’t mount purges or pogroms against religious scientists. They do often tire of being attacked themselves by the ignorant and/or mendacious, however.
#743 Epikt | April 22, 2008 9:41 AM
I’m not as familiar with the newer games – so I’m not sure how the changes to the algorithm affected the outcome. The point, though, is that the Golden Rule works at least in some conditions.
I always take the Prisoner’s Dilemma gaming with a grain of salt. The changing rewards and punishments expected for the specific decisions can dramatical change the outcome.
Humans evolved in social groups – so it should be no surprise that we also developed social rules (ethics and morals) as part of that.
As I final point, I didn’t actually follow the game tourney’s – but rather read about them in an ethics study. The game was a side bar – so either the book was written prior to the second set, or the author elected to ignore them.
JBS
Good grief. What have I done?
… appears to be grossly inflated. I was just trying to come up with a string of piquant put-downs that wouldn’t get me thrown out of a sword-and-sorcery RPG. :-)
Last!
:)