ID is creationism, by any but the most narrow and contrived definition of creationism. And this is a classic example of the IDists’ lack of concern about the differences between themselves and the rest of creationists.
“Proof”, even in the vernacular or legal senses, is not what finding the “missing link between creationism and ID” truly is, however. Conceivably, Behe might have a notion of ID that does not overlap with Panda’s sense of creationism, which could be true of any number of other IDists as well. As in, a possible mistake by one person in the ID movement would not mean that all in the ID movement are so sloppy and/or mistaken.
The real reason ID is creationism is that it is just another version of the lie that life was “designed”, which is an old creationist claim (God performing a miracle to bequeath life upon non-living matter has given way to an engineer’s version of God, iow). A design is a creation, which leads to a further creation.
People like Kevin Miller just lift a narrow definition of creationism as Biblical creationism in order to try to “distinguish” their ID from literalistic versions of Genesis. That definition hasn’t held any water since Paley, as his version of ID was indeed the creationism that Darwin had to fight and vanquish (mostly by proxy). The fact is that ID happens to be exactly the version of creationism that evolutionary theory put down in the past (not YECism, a more recent and vulgar form, at least as a political movement).
It’s insane to recognize that evolutionary theory gained victory over creationism, only to now claim that virtually the same version of creationism is not creationism.
Could someone provide the link to this video so I can forward it to other people without linking PZ’s blog. I adore PZ…but the people I intend to send it to risk closing out of the website the moment they recognize his blog…
Patrick Conleysays
Chris: just click on the video (outside of the play button in the centre) to go to YouTube.
If I click on the video it jumps to YouTube and the video, so you can send them there.
http://www.youtube . com /watch? v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ
just eliminate the spaces.
intelligently designedsays
The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. – St. Paul
lostnsays
If there was design, it is anything but intelligent. I mean which idiot designed the eye so that almost all of us would need glasses some day?
Btw, the chick in the video is pretty nice looking.
Mikklesays
Dear ID,
Well thank goodness to St Pauli for the insight. Certainly nice to be blinded to the delusion. Saves on the lithium.
Crudely Wrottsays
God of this age? Different from god of another age? What became of them and whence the new one?
hambonesays
A yawl. The misenboom. Right.
Ted Powellsays
“…so that the gospel of Christ … would not shine on them.”
Glows in the dark, does it?
briansays
If you watched the PBS special called “Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” or something like that, you would’ve seen the history of the book Crpandas and Peopleists. Go watch it anyway.
ravensays
ID moron cultist:
The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. – St. Paul
Paul was speaking of the 1st century AD inasmuch as he died in 65 AD. You need to look on a calendar, it is now 2008.
He might have been a bit bitter, inasmuch as both the Jews and Romans were persecuting Xians at the time and the Romans probably killed him.
Besides which, the quotation doesn’t make any sense. Who is the “god of this age” (1st century AD) and why is he different from the god of “image of god”. So far we have 2 gods, the age god (must be Jupiter) and the image god. The age god is the stronger one. So much for omniscient and omnipotent.
Not that anyone needs to be told, but just sayin’…
Nasikabatrachussays
I think Dr. Anne Holden is one heckuva natural selection. Her biological acumen is such that she already has me thinking about horizontal gene transfer.
And yes, I did just write that for the sake of making a dirty joke with scientific nomenclature. I wish I knew more about evolution so I could write a better one.
Trent1492says
This video could be improved if only Dr. Holden would wear a nightie during the presentation.
raynsays
cdesign proponentsists. hehe! i love that.
so what’s happening with the two lawsuits about “expelled?” (Yoko one and the harvard animation) I haven’t heard anything new yet.
Again at number eight, intelligently designed, who said, “The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. – St. Paul.”
When I close my eyes to your fairy tales (which were at one time gospel to me) why do you think that my eyes are closed to all things? Why do you assume that my lack of respect for Invisible Supernatural Spooks represents the overthrowing of all things nice?
I could answer this question for myself but I’d much rather hear your own defense of your position.
Dennis Nsays
Maybe #8 was making some kind of joke that would make sense in the 1st century AD. I find most religious stuff only makes sense in context of 2000 years ago and has no bearing on today’s world. That could be the poster’s point. I think it’s a very helpful insight, thank you intelligently designed.
Dennis Nsays
I just realized I am trying to find intelligence in that post where none exists due to an anthropomorphic world view. Sound familiar. Wow, I must be an IDiot.
I guess I must not be one of the cool kids: my thoughts while watching weren’t on the spokeswoman’s looks.
The whole thing reminds me of when the government released those .doc files with the versioning system in place so you could just go back and see the earlier versions… anyone else remember that?
Wowbaggersays
The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. – St. Paul
As far as I can tell this means if you don’t already believe in god he will prevent you from believing – and that makes very little sense to me even when compared to some of the other gems the bible has provided us. Can someone more versed in anti-woo than I explain that this invalidates the free will argument?
Sounds like the sort of rubbish Ray Comfort spouts – you can’t really understand the bible unless you already believe in it. Atheists are ‘missing the point’.
As for fighting with the creationists about ID? I have to fall back on the old line that you can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into.
Robert Thillesays
Off topic, but if anyone caught the American Idol final (yeah, I have family members who can’t miss it ), did you notice how Mormon David Archuleta totally cut the anti-religion verses out of Imagine? Yech!
Charlie Foxtrotsays
@#8
I have a standard reply for you wingnuts… now in handy (and topical!) T-Shirt form!
My heart’s on my sleeves and my mind’s on my chest.
(disclaimer – I’m no affiliate of Goats or Cafe Press etc etc, just love their work!)
The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them….in bed.
JCfromNCsays
The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. – St. Paul
As far as I can tell this means if you don’t already believe in god he will prevent you from believing – and that makes very little sense to me even when compared to some of the other gems the bible has provided us. Can someone more versed in anti-woo than I explain that this invalidates the free will argument?
I don’t have the context, but I’m about 85% certain that St. Paul is referring to a ‘false god’, probably science or something of the sort, thus the small ‘g’. This ‘false god’ is preventing the ones looking towards it from seeing the glory of the gospels that the thing to do is shup up, make babies, and let the priests tell them what to think and how to act.
The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. – St. Paul
As far as I can tell this means if you don’t already believe in god he will prevent you from believing – and that makes very little sense to me even when compared to some of the other gems the bible has provided us. Can someone more versed in anti-woo than I explain that this invalidates the free will argument?
This passage is taken from 2nd Corinthians 4.4. I’ve generally heard “the god of this age” (alternately translated “the god of this world”) interpreted as referring to Satan, sometimes referencing the passage in Luke 4 where the devil (whose identity they extend to be the same as Satan) offers Jesus all the kingdoms of this world, thus implying that he has dominion over them.
This still seems pretty screwy WRT the free will issue (it maybe allows some free will to choose between Satan and Jesus, but that seems to be about all it offers), but there you have it. There’s a typically garbled interpretation of this chapter here. It has the following gem:
Who do not believe: Satan can only blind those who do not believe. If you are tired of having your mind blinded by the god of this age, then put your trust on who Jesus is and what He has done for you! Then Satan can’t blind you anymore!
Stop letting Satan keep you from believing…and to do this, you need to start believing…very confusing.
Wowbaggersays
#31 – thanks for that, it makes a lot more sense than my interpretation.
Why can’t someone believe in intelligent design and evolution at the same time? I am not saying that I do, but I have met many liberal Christians that do. Besides, I am a software developer so intelligent design and evolution of software are both part of my day to day activity so I don’t see any real conflict.
Dr. Holden somewhat reminds me of some of the fundamentalists Christians I used to hang with who looked for Satanic lyrics by playing music backwards.
BostonRobsays
I do believe that cdesign proponentsists is my new favorite way of referring to these wackos.
nanoAlsays
That PBS documentary is really good, I thought ID was pretty harmless until I saw it, that may or may not have something to do with the way canadians interpret and portray ID (I’ve heard it mentioned once on CBC as sort of a christian compromise on evolution. stupid, but harmless).
That documentary definately caused me to plunge deep into the atheistic culture of creationist bashing which now consumes much of my internet time.
ravensays
I don’t have the context, but I’m about 85% certain that St. Paul is referring to a ‘false god’, probably science or something of the sort, thus the small ‘g’. This ‘false god’ is…
Hmmm, you know that this was written in 1st century AD. Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Darwin, and a few million other scientists hadn’t been born yet. There was a science of sorts but it didn’t play the role that science does today and modern science is from the enlightenment. No smart ass intellectuals were domolishing the Big Boat incident or proving the earth was round and orbited the sun.
I can’t see it being Satan either. Satan isn’t a god, he is a fallen angel. He has a name or rather a bunch of them and is usually referred to by it. He is also considered to be much the lessor of the real god.
Chances are Paul was just making up an excuse while the Romans were feeding Xians to the lions. Or maybe referring to Jupiter who was still riding high. Or it is just old bafflegab.
Wowbaggersays
Thanks, Etha.
The free will thing is one of my biggest issues with religion – I just saw that as another example of where the bible contradicts the party line and leapt on it without stopping to think it through.
#34
It’s possible to believe in both (obviously there are people who do) – but my question is why? If I had a magic wand with which to create the universe i wouldn’t bother with the limitations of evolution. And why would a god (presumably omni-max) not know exactly what he/she/it wanted from the start and just make that? Part of my satisfaction with evolution (without any ID) is that there are stunningly complex processes in place that wouldn’t be necessary if an infinite being was involved. I suspect most (if not all) engineers will tell you that the best designs are the simplest ones.
There is, of course, the option of the imperfect, non-omnimax creator – which would be the only one that would make sense to me considering how often he gets all nasty about things he technically should have known were going to happen. But I don’t know if anyone in the ID crowd is supporting anything like that. From what I can tell it’s all very standard Abrahamic in some form or another.
Crudely Wrottsays
Once again I would like to recommend Jack Miles’ book “God, A Biography”
I keep hearing that the big dog is constant, worthy of trust, stalwart and secure, able to sustain us. Observation indicates otherwise and Miles provides thoughtful background.
Not that I would rather perceive appeals to magic as synonymous with religion in general, but that I do in fact perceive it. I should distrust my senses, all the lessons I’ve learned in a lifetime of questing for the foundation of whatchacall? Throw all that away (and where is “away” anyway?) and “just accept” the deep convictions of those who show troubling signs of cognitive uncertainty?
I think not. Such grand assertions demand grand evidence which is, easily observed, glaringly absent.
Yeah, but then I know a guy who thinks the Pistons can take four from the Celtics.
Now then, did the dog just cause me to listen to Kip Attaway singing “Lovin you ‘s the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever done” or did that just happen as a result of prior events? With or without supernatural influence? If so, why? What has been outlined in metaphor that is not a lesson that is easily learned by simply being human? And why do most religionists’ arguments demand that such weak arguments be granted any gravity at all?
foxfiresays
Why can’t someone believe in intelligent design and evolution at the same time? I am not saying that I do, but I have met many liberal Christians that do.
Randy (aka IDer), referring back to the video PZ embedded in this post, note the definition of ID in “Pandas and People” (see here):
Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc. (Pandas 1993, 2nd edition, published, pp. 99-100)
Now, please explain how to avoid the unpleasantness of cognitive dissonance by believing “in intelligent design and evolution at the same time”.
This little exercise should clarify the “why can’t”.
Now, please explain how to avoid the unpleasantness of cognitive dissonance by believing “in intelligent design and evolution at the same time”.
You’re forgetting the all-important 11th commandment – Thou shalt believe in me, no matter how much the batshit loonery of doing so makes your head hurt when you think about it.
I’ve said before that cognitive dissonance is an essential skill to possess if you’re religious and in any way thoughtful about it. While I know some Xians who haven’t a clue what they’re claiming to believe in (I had to explain to one what a Protestant was; she also claimed the Xianity and Buddhism were ‘pretty much the same thing’) there are others who try.
Then there’s the guy who’s Greek Orthodox Xian, but believes that the Greek pantheon of gods (Zeus and pals) existed as well. I can’t even begin to understand how he makes that work.
SEFsays
Intelligent Design = Creationism
Of course ID is creationism because, despite their misnaming of their movement, none of the nutters are actually claiming that some intelligent being(s) merely filed a set of designs somewhere – eg in a supernatural patent office. All of them instead claim that various things were created in the real world using those imaginary intentional designs.
SEFsays
Oops, I forgot to add: and they haven’t done anything to show the design stage, the creation stage nor even that the creator(s) were the same people as the designer(s), rather than the products of the design team being contracted out to sets of builders or “rude mechanicals”.
Wowbaggersays
#43:
some intelligent being(s) merely filed a set of designs somewhere – eg in a supernatural patent office.
So, God had to put it through a patent office? Hang on a second, didn’t Einstein work in a patent office?
It all makes sense now…
Janine IDsays
Dr. Holden somewhat reminds me of some of the fundamentalists Christians I used to hang with who looked for Satanic lyrics by playing music backwards.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer
There are many differences between Dr. Holden and those fundies but I will stick with these. Dr. Holden was not shot in the dark when investigating the background of those creationists books. Also, she can prove the linkage between creationism and intelligent design. The fundies had no real reason to search for backwards masking in rock music and could never find any, except for those artists who made a joke of backwards masking.
Oh wait, I suppose you think it takes just as much faith the believe in evolution as it does to believe in god.
There was a science of sorts but it didn’t play the role that science does today and modern science is from the enlightenment. No smart ass intellectuals were domolishing the Big Boat incident or proving the earth was round and orbited the sun.
No, but there were Greek philosophies such the Epicurean school, which taught (in the words of wikipedia) “that pleasure and pain are the measures of what is good and bad, that death is the end of the body and the soul and should therefore not be feared, that the gods do not reward or punish humans, that the universe is infinite and eternal, and that events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space.” Paul, the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles,’ would have been aware of this school of thought and its influence. There’s an interesting article analyzing Paul’s epistles as reactions to Epicurean philosophy here — the section (VII) on the “logic of the cross” is particularly relevant.
Sigmundsays
At the risk of sounding a little too much like the ‘framers’ I think that its a mistake to make a claim that Intelligent Design is ‘religious’.
To the US public the term ‘religious’ basically means ‘good’ or ‘moral’ or carries some other positive association.
ID is religious ?
Well?
So what.
What’s the harm in that.
The whole question of ‘fair-play’, present in peoples minds when they hear the question phrased like that is unlikely to make the fact that ID is ‘religious’ to be a logical reason to prevent it being taught in schools.
What you need to do is to split the religious camp.
ID is not ‘religious’.
ID is the teachings of ONE specific religion – Fundamentalistic Protestantism – a minority of the US population.
Phrase it like this:
Is it fair that the protestant fundamentalistic 20% of the US population get to dictate what the other 80% learn in school?
I suspect that even the fundies (well some of them!) might see that that doesn’t quite sound ‘fair’.
Unlike the framers I don’t advocate getting the Catholics or Episcopalians ‘on our side’.
What I DO advocate is that we get the Catholics and Episcopalians on the opposite side to the Fundamentalistic Protestants. Get them at each others throats in what is really a religion versus religion clash, rather than a religion versus Science – and then let the public know that Science is always the best way to solve problems regarding the physical world and that is fair to everyone because it is based on EVIDENCE – something that anyone of any religion is free to provide (whether they do or do not provide it is their problem).
Try looking outside your own borders and ask why US style creationism is not popular in other western countries.
Apart from fundamentalistic segments of Northern Ireland there is probably not a single region in all of Western Europe where protestant creationism has a hold and even there it is kept in check, not by science alone, but through it being clearly viewed as a SECTARIAN rather than purely religious point.
SEFsays
ID is the teachings of ONE specific religion – Fundamentalistic Protestantism – a minority of the US population.
But they like to claim the support of the muslim mob, eg Mustafa Akyol, etc (although various of those object to inclusion, eg to Allah not being named). They also pretend they include UFO/alien-beliving nuts in their big tent. So your simplistic account isn’t going to work the way you imagine.
You’re forgetting the all-important 11th commandment – Thou shalt believe in me, no matter how much the batshit loonery of doing so makes your head hurt when you think about it.
That’s the first 2 or 3 Commandments (depending on which version of the Decalogue you like); traditionally, the 11th is, “Thou shalt not get caught”.
Kennysays
Well, I guess that is how you get to join the NCSE. If you are cute and you like science then you are welcome to join.
All very scientific.
MartinMsays
It would’ve been nice if we could have made it more than two hours without comments on Dr Holden’s appearance.
Der Bruno Stroszeksays
[i]Well, I guess that is how you get to join the NCSE. If you are cute and you like science then you are welcome to join.
All very scientific.[/i]
Actually, Kenny, in our evil godless moral system we acknowledge that it’s possible for a woman to be both attractive and incredibly intelligent. I realise that this doesn’t meet the lofty standards of the hate-filled misogynistic cult you were brought up in, but try to move with the times.
I’m a little creeped out by all the people commenting on the narrator’s appearance and sex. Could we not do that, please? We can all see that she’s attractive, but the point is to listen to what she is saying, and not get hung up on the fact that someone with breasts is talking about evolution.
Sigmundsays
“and not get hung up on the fact that someone with breasts is talking about evolution.”
Must not make joke about Jonathan Wells.
Must not make joke about Jonathan Wells.
………
Doh!
Citizen Zsays
Dr. Holden somewhat reminds me of some of the fundamentalists Christians I used to hang with who looked for Satanic lyrics by playing music backwards.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer
You honestly think “cdesign proponentsists” and all the other substitutions were just a coincidence?
Pablosays
Appropos of nothing…
Off topic, but if anyone caught the American Idol final (yeah, I have family members who can’t miss it ), did you notice how Mormon David Archuleta totally cut the anti-religion verses out of Imagine? Yech!
I didn’t see it, but remember that they have to cut quite a bit to get their songs down to the 90 seconds that they have to sing. So it could be not a coincidence that they cut out the godless stuff, but doesn’t have to be.
That being said, my wife keeps telling me that she thinks the kid will get into the “inspiriational and religious” music when he is done with Idol (which I guess is tonight).
not get hung up on the fact that someone with breasts is talking about evolution.
Did anyone hear about the recent ruling that a gay man could be charged with voyeurism for photographing man boobs?
Kseniyasays
I’m a little creeped out by all the people commenting on the narrator’s appearance and sex
I grant that boys-will-be-boys to some extent, but it’s a theme. Is it really still so astonishing that intelligent, science-educated women can be attractive?
(On the other hand, the good looks of guys like Mooney and Nisbet have been mentioned once or twice, too… though these mentions are clearly in the minority.)
There’s something in our culture that promotes this. Hillary Clinton received far more criticism about her look, her wardrobe, and her sense of style than any ten male candidates combined – criticism that frequently was offered up by female commentators. Sigh.
It must be genetic. O_o
And why would a god (presumably omni-max) not know exactly what he/she/it wanted from the start and just make that?
Maybe because writing an algorithm that incorporates a random element, firing it up, watching it go, and waiting to see what weird creations it coughs up is more fun than pouring plaster into molds? :-)
curioussays
I’m curious about the ones here (like Crudely Wrott) and on other comment threads who once were Christians (i.e. “believed the gospel” or some similar phraseology) and who then disbelieved, moved on, wised up, or however they would put it.
What was it that made you consider your faith system to be false?
The reason I’m curious is because from a Christian perspective, you can never be “un-born.” To believe in Jesus is to receive the divine life, and thus to be “regenerated” (or more colloquially, “born again”). You can never lose that divine life dwelling in your human spirit once you receive it. So while the mind may be convinced of many things subsequent to the receiving of the divine life through regeneration, the spirit is still joined to the Holy Spirit, and the person even as an unbeliever is still a member of the Body of Christ.
Feel free to say more.
Kseniyasays
Well, I guess that is how you get to join the NCSE. If you are cute and you like science then you are welcome to join. All very scientific. Posted by: Kenny
Is that the best you can do, you gabbling limpet? Imply that she’s not qualified to speak by virtue of her intelligence and education?
That’s rich, coming from an ignorant rockhead like you. Your dishonesty shines brighter with each passing day, Kennyboy.
Speaking of dishonesty and cowardice: Kenny, does the ACLU only defend atheists and liberals, as you claimed?
MartinMsays
I grant that boys-will-be-boys to some extent, but it’s a theme. Is it really still so astonishing that intelligent, science-educated women can be attractive?
I don’t imagine the comments would have been so drastically different were she stupid and ignorant, to be honest.
mesays
Sigmund says:
“let’s call it a sectarian war and let the religious minded duke it out”
It is not religion v religion.
It is evangelical religion v an entire culture.
Absolute cultural hegemony is the principal goal of the American Protestant fundamentalism movement (they admit as much in their Wedge Document).
THEY’VE chosen publicly funded secondary schools as a key battle ground. THEY’VE decided to try and try and try to impose fundamentalist christian doctrine into science curriculum throughout the country.
As for getting the catholics involved, I’d point out that THEY’VE got a hell of a lot more respect for the US Constitution (even though that is very little respect in absolute terms) than they have for the Pope and what he represents.
If THEY had decided instead to play by the rules and wage their campaign screaming from the tops of boxes at busy city street corners, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
ihedeniussays
The reason I’m curious is because from a Christian perspective, you can never be “un-born.”
I’d say the perspective on that depends on which christian is asked. As a lifelong atheist I offer no opinion but I’d like to point to http://de-conversion.com/index/ where I know this has been and is being disscussed among ex-christians.
The reason I’m curious is because from a Christian perspective, you can never be “un-born.”
From a very narrow perspective perhaps. In the vast and varied plethora of Christian dogmas, I’ve not come across many that endorse a free will, decision based and irreversible “salvation”. Generally much mumbo jumbo is required to keep in Gods good graces. In catholicism for example, little more than bad luck or poor timing can result in eternal damnation or at least a lengthy delay in limbo (I’ll grant you this is somewhat dated dogma).
For myself, I was a born again, tounges talking, talk walking, Jesus serving missionary. Six years of Bush claiming to be a Christian made me examine the whole thing more closely than I ever had before, Thomas Paine and the “God Delusion” brought the whole edifice crashing down. Took about 5 years from “hang on a second … ” to “this is utter unabridged poppycock, I’ve been had!”, but I got there.
The key ingredient is no holds barred reflection and questioning. So very hard to get that cycle going, since roughly 90% of religious dogma is geared to short circuit that process, the spurious and absurd concept of “faith” being exhibit A.
mesays
#61 asks: “What was it that made you consider your faith system to be false?”
In my case, it was approaching the problem rationally.
And if it is true, as you say, that I’m still “saved”–than that’s like the ultimate “no blood, no foul”–freeing me to be completely rational at no risk whatsoever to my eternal soul.
I mean, you guys have a pretty good gig going there, I must say.
Santiagosays
Every time I hear that “cdesign proponentsist” anecdote, I lol. It’s just too good to be true.
ravensays
The reason I’m curious is because from a Christian perspective, you can never be “un-born.”
Which Xian perspective is that? There are 34,000 extant sects (Wikipedia) and who knows how many dead ones in 2,000 years.
You probably mean your Death Cult, one of the ones that desperately hopes god shows up soon and kills 6.7 billion people and destroys the earth.
Or the one that believes a twice divorced, korean excon is Jesus the 2nd.
Doesn’t sound like the Unitarians.
ravensays
Well, I guess that is how you get to join the NCSE. If you are cute and you like science then you are welcome to join. All very scientific. Posted by: Kenny
Actually, you can join the NCSE by going to their website and sending them money, IIRC it is $30/year. In other words, kenny could join in 5 minutes. After all, on the internet, no one knows if you are a dog.
negentropyeatersays
The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. – St. Paul
You see “Intelligently Designed” the irony of this verse is that the one who is being condemned here, the unbelieving, is exactly you, the creationist.
Transposed today,
“The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving” means
“the farce of a creationist god that you are
worshiping which is so evidently a joke and is the god of this age, has incapacitated those who follow him”,
“so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them” means
“so that the true meaning of Christ’s message, which is the one that will lead to the truth and to God, will not be understood by them as only reason can lead to the truth”.
Epiktsays
Kenny:
Well, I guess that is how you get to join the NCSE. If you are cute and you like science then you are welcome to join.
Kenny boy, this is the same NCSE that handed the creos their lumpy, misshapen asses in Dover. The same NCSE that (among others) had the Discovery Institute so spooked that it asked its parrots fellows not to testify at the Dover trial. The NCSE that provided the definitive proof that exposed the fact that the creos were lying about their agenda, and about whether ID was in fact just re-branded creationism.
The fact that some of the major minds at NCSE are female is an added bonus–not because of some infantile obsession with Dr. Holden’s appearance, but because it strikes a blow against another conservative article of faith–that women are equipped only to be domestic workers and baby factories.
So that video is really a two-for-one win for our side. Deal with it.
T.A.C.says
I enjoyed the video, and I am extra behind all the work the NCSE does to preserve science standards in our schools, but the one thing I cannot approve of is what was apparently a clumsy attempt at subliminal messaging. When she is saying “beaks and wings, etc.” for the first time we see a super quick flash of the “Intelligent Design is Religious” headline, which I wouldn’t even have been able to read if not for my choice to go back at pause it at just the right second. People who truly believe they are in the right should not act like this. We have the truth on our side, we don’t need these shady tactics.
Traffic Demonsays
curious (#61)
I came to understand Christianity to be false about a year ago. There were plenty of things leading up to the final break, mostly having to do with the treatment I received at the hands of other Christians who refused to accept my faith so long as I accepted science as accurate. Stuff like being ostracized by my classmates in the seventh grade for daring to think a fossil could be millions of years old, complete strangers telling me that the time spent getting my anthro degree were wasted since I could just have read Genesis, and generally being told that I couldn’t be part of the club unless I turned my brain off.
The final straw was when I was fired from a Lutheran school for teaching evolution; the fact that the administrators and faculty were so blind to reality and so determined to lie to the students still makes me sick. Seeing them cripple some of the most curious and capable minds I’d ever encountered in middle schoolers, accusing me of blasphemy for suggesting that Genesis might not be 100% literal, and asking me to remain silent while they forced their lies on those kids got me to see just how little value they placed on the truth and made me more receptive to seeing the glaring problems with Christianity I’d been able to overlook before. As I thought about it more, and as I studied both the Bible and the works of skeptics, the more I came to realize that for a god to exist, it had to be a complete idiot, a sadistic bastard, or both. Neither of those sounded much like a being I felt any desire to associate myself with (although the latter describes the biblical god pretty well), so I made the break.
You say that my “spirit is still joined to the Holy Spirit,” well, thanks but no thanks. If you think it’s reasonable that your imaginary friend bind me to a belief I took on as a brainwashed twelve year old after I’ve renounced it with my eyes wide open, fuck you and fuck him. I have no desire to remain attached to a monster like the one the Bible describes. Besides, I’ve never seen your god, never heard or felt him, never seen anything that would support the idea that he exists. He could convince me with what would be a simple act for a supposedly almighty being, he could turn on the burned-out light in my ceiling fan, strike me dead where I sit, cause my roommate’s cat to jump onto my couch from her current nap spot, or summon Angelina Jolie to my bedroom. – Five minutes after typing that, the light’s still off, I’m still breathing, the cat’s still on the floor, and I’ve still got all my clothes on. – My faith came to an end when I realized that no evidence was going to turn up, that I believed what I did because of peer pressure and an accident of geography, and that it could only be maintained by ignoring the massive problems with the claims of Christianity.
Mark Bsays
Every time I hear that “cdesign proponentsist” anecdote, I lol. It’s just too good to be true.
Wow, creationists are too stupid to even use search and replace currectly. Instead of using serach and replace, they just highlighted ‘creationist’ and pasted in ‘design proponents’, sloppily missing the word boundaries. Apparently also replacing a singular with a plural form. The book must be a really crappily done affair, if they took this little care with the editing.
Kseniyasays
Hmmm. Strange. Maybe it was an editing error. Such things have been known to happen.
John Phillips, FCDsays
curious, you see the problem in the replies you have had, few of the other xian cults share your exact interpretation. And yes I do consider all religions cults. Large numbers of members and longevity doesn’t legitimise any of them. For, to paraphrase, you really can fool many of the people much of the time. After all religions other than xianity are considered false to one degree or another by xians even though they also have large numbers and longevity on their side. So from a xian POV, that is one example of many people being fooled for much of the time. We atheists just add xianity to the list of those many being fooled much of the time. Anyway, sidetrack rant over :)
So, the fact that you consider anyone who has been ‘born’ can’t be unborn is only relevant to others of your particular cult as many other cults will disagree on your exact interpretation. That is often a problem when we criticise xian or fundie stupidity or malevolence, different xian cults come out of the woodwork crying, but that’s not my xianity. Talk about shifting the goal posts.
As to why I stopped believing as a xian, I could give you a long screed about it. However, I won’t waste your time beyond saying that when I really really read and examined the various holy books of xianity and other world religions, both extinct and extant ones, as a teenager in comparative religion classes, in a CofW college ironically, it soon became apparent that a belief in god was irrational, even using the very best evidence the religions themselves supplied. And one other item that became obvious quite quickly as well, we were not so much made in god’s image but god was made in our, at least for the Abrahamic ones anyway. Everything else was just rationalising the irrational and a lot of politics.
Dennis Nsays
And their spell checker thinks cdesign in a word?
ravensays
The final straw was when I was fired from a Lutheran school for teaching evolution; the fact that the administrators and faculty were so blind to reality and so determined to lie to the students still makes me sick.
Not the only one that this has happened to. Many professors and science supporters have been threatened, fired, harassed, beaten up, and even killed by the fundies.
You should write your case up for posterity if you don’t mind losing a bit of your privacy. Pandasthumb or someone might give you a guest slot. My impression is that a lot of secondary school teachers have been threatened, run out, or intimidated into silence by the fundies about teaching evolution in biology classes. Despite the fact that in most states it is part of the state standards. They rarely go public and it is understandable, not everyone wants to be a martyr, most just pick themselves up and go on with life.
The fundies made a big mistake in demanding a litmus test to believe that irrefutable facts are wrong because of 2 pages of 4,000 year old mythology which were never even intended by the compilers to be anything other than stories. A few will buy into the delusion because they don’t care. The brightest and best will eventually look at the facts and say, OK if it is genesis or the highway. Bye, I’m off to see the real world.
PS Which branch of the Lutherans? There are many and they vary widely. One of my colleagues teaches evolution at a Lutheran college.
mesays
the point is to listen to what she is saying, and not get hung up on the fact that someone with breasts is talking about evolution.
I have to admit, though, it is very titillating.
Benjamin Franklinsays
Having been plagued with an almost unnatural obsession concerning Expelled, I still follow its fading light as though I was watching a snowflake melt on the warm exposed belly of a nymph laying supine on the forest floor. Wow, that even creeps me out!
Nonetheless, regarding the copyright infringement case, the court has stayed the restraining order on any further release or duplication of Expelled, after preliminary arguments by the litigants, which means that the restraining order it previously issued will continue to remain in effect. The court has indicated that it will rule quickly, as Expelled is scheduled to be released in Canada on June 6, and is scheduled for DVD distribution in October. In order for the DVD distribution to take place as scheduled, it must go into production by the end of May.
Damn, and there I was, counting on giving out copies of Expelled as Hanukah presents. Oh well, I guess I can give out season passes to Ken Ham’s Flintstone Museum instead.
Iain Walkersays
Curious (Comment #61):
What was it that made you consider your faith system to be false?
I’m afraid I have no great insight from personal de-conversion to pass on – although raised a Presbyterian, I never had any emotional attachment to the religion, and so when I worked out at age 10 that I didn’t believe any of it, the process was really quite gradual and painless. It was as simple as realising that adults weren’t always knowledgable or right, and that if they couldn’t give good reasons for supposing their claims to be true, then this was a good reason to be skeptical of said claims. It was, in short, part of growing up and learning to think for myself. There was no ideological conviction that I had to overcome.
Mind you, even at a younger age the rituals and teachings of Christianity (the Presbyterian version, at least) struck me as being absurd and banal. Dinosaurs were so much more interesting.
The reason I’m curious is because from a Christian perspective, you can never be “un-born.” To believe in Jesus is to receive the divine life, and thus to be “regenerated” (or more colloquially, “born again”). You can never lose that divine life dwelling in your human spirit once you receive it. So while the mind may be convinced of many things subsequent to the receiving of the divine life through regeneration, the spirit is still joined to the Holy Spirit, and the person even as an unbeliever is still a member of the Body of Christ.
Hmm. To a non-believer, this looks like an opaque and uninformative metaphor at best, and incoherent gibberish at worst. (Sorry, but the term “divine life” doesn’t have any obvious meaning that I can discern.) I suppose it’s nice and inclusive of you to grant that apostates are still part of God’s big family, but I wonder: why should any apostate care? After all, your “Christian perspective” is itself part of what is being rejected by people moving from belief to non-belief.
Traffic Demonsays
Raven (#79)
Thanks for the link, I’ll write something up for him. The “school” was run by Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. As much as I loathe them for what they teach their students, I’ll always owe them a debt of gratitude for helping me to shed my faith.
Citizen Zsays
And their spell checker thinks cdesign in a word?
Keep in mind the video points out that the draft in question was made, not coincidentally, after the Edwards decision in 1987. Microsoft Word would’ve been around version 3.0. The idea that they did the substitution manually is not inconceivable.
David Marjanović, OMsays
And yes, I did just write that for the sake of making a dirty joke with scientific nomenclature. I wish I knew more about evolution so I could write a better one.
Easy: replace “horizontal” by “vertical”. Multicellular as she is, horizontal gene transfer to her requires loads of retroviruses… not recommended.
so what’s happening with the two lawsuits about “expelled?” (Yoko one and the harvard animation) I haven’t heard anything new yet.
Emphasis added. Never, I repeat, never use a spellchecker.
Then there’s the guy who’s Greek Orthodox Xian, but believes that the Greek pantheon of gods (Zeus and pals) existed as well. I can’t even begin to understand how he makes that work.
Easy: they all exist, but they are evil demons, whom to worship is positively dangerous. This used to be common dogma, and at least some American fundies still believe it.
Maybe because writing an algorithm that incorporates a random element, firing it up, watching it go, and waiting to see what weird creations it coughs up is more fun than pouring plaster into molds? :-)
This requires not being omniscient. If you’re omniscient, you know the outcome beforehand.
the spirit is still joined to the Holy Spirit
This requires two assumptions: that spirits in general, and the Holy Spirit in particular, exist. Ockham’s Razor has something against both of these assumptions.
or at least a lengthy delay in limbo
Purgatory.
And if it is true, as you say, that I’m still “saved”–than that’s like the ultimate “no blood, no foul”–freeing me to be completely rational at no risk whatsoever to my eternal soul.
I think this is called the Nicolaidite Heresy… (I suggest a celebrity deathmatch.)
apparently a clumsy attempt at subliminal messaging. When she is saying “beaks and wings, etc.” for the first time we see a super quick flash of the “Intelligent Design is Religious” headline, which I wouldn’t even have been able to read if not for my choice to go back at pause it at just the right second. People who truly believe they are in the right should not act like this. We have the truth on our side, we don’t need these shady tactics.
1) I deny that subliminal messaging works.
2) Why can’t it be a cutting error?
JeffreyDsays
Kseniya, re your #76, your dry wit always makes me smile. I even read your replies to Kennygasms, tho I no longer read his posts.
Anyway, spell checkers are anti-bible you know. They did not have them then, the words were inspired and there are no errors in the KJV, the only real bible (YMMV). Their textbook, being inspired by the fight for souls of men (yes, men, women need not apply), is likewise free of sin and stain. What we see as an error is just a test of faith.
On the other hand, the good looks of guys like Mooney and Nisbet have been mentioned once or twice, too… though these mentions are clearly in the minority.
Actually, I think Carl Zimmer’s picture looks better.
#34: Dr. Holden somewhat reminds me of some of the fundamentalists Christians I used to hang with who looked for Satanic lyrics by playing music backwards.
Perhaps you’ve overlooked the fact that what she’s talking about is a piece of legal research that was done for a court case–abbreviated in replies here as “Dover”–in which the NCSE was one of the allies working to establish precisely that ID is religious, and therefore shouldn’t be taught in public schools.
That explains the tenacity here; one needn’t blame it on nitpicking or obsession. I think previous commenters have backed up the factuality of what was found, as opposed to what people hallucinate when listening to recordings backward.
Wow, do I feel old. I distinctly remember hearing “I buried Paul” in some Beatles song, played backwards, on an LP, even though I knew perfectly well that the dead-Paul rumors were bullshit. I don’t think it’s possible to play a CD backwards. What about MP3s?
MartinMsays
Their textbook, being inspired by the fight for souls of men (yes, men, women need not apply), is likewise free of sin and stain. What we see as an error is just a test of faith.
Listen not to such heretical babblings! Only the Word of God is free from error. These heathen spellcheckers are no more than a pagan attempt to emulate His glorious perfection. It’s Babel all over again, I say.
JeffreyDsays
Ron, re your #88, that is why the MAN pushed for the switch to CDs and MP3s, so you cannot play them backwards. They dont want you to know the truth, they are taking away your rights by taking away LPs.
Hey, did you know there is a car that runs on tap water? Detroit has blocked it for years and…
What, oh, ok, yes nurse, I will take my meds now.
Ciao
negentropyeatersays
Raven,
The fundies made a big mistake in demanding a litmus test to believe that irrefutable facts are wrong because of 2 pages of 4,000 year old mythology which were never even intended by the compilers to be anything other than stories. A few will buy into the delusion because they don’t care. The brightest and best will eventually look at the facts and say, OK if it is genesis or the highway. Bye, I’m off to see the real world.
I think this is a very central discussion. Why do they insist on these 2 pages which are so evidently false ?
Let’s take two populations of young kids ;
Pop. A : kids that are taught religion at a young age and are forced (and threatened) to believe in these as an absolute truth,
Pop. B : kids that are taught religion with mention that the creation aspects are symbolic (as I was taught).
In both pop A and B, the most brilliant kids, will be able to make their own choices later on. Here we are talking small %.
But I think that when exposed to science classes, and unbiased information, a vast majority of kids in Pop. A will remain incapable of making their own choices.
Whereas with Pop.B, a much larger % of people will start moving around, looking for other religious options,or spiritual-woo, or simply abandon religion.
It’s purely for competitive reasons that the creationists are insiting on these two pages, and it only works when it’s enforced at a very young age, before they get any possible exposure to scientific concepts in classes.
I’ve always wondered if the key to the problematic is the timing of the exposure. It’s who comes first wins !
The brain of the child is always searching for answers, do kids in primary school in America get any basic science knowledge ?
JeffreyDsays
MartinM, re your #89, thanks, nice addition to make my post even sillier. (big smile) Well, off to do some things around town, fried shrimp sounds good for lunch. SC may have some goofy fundies, but man, does Charleston have good seafood.
Ciao
cicelysays
curious @#61:
What was it that made you consider your faith system to be false?
Well, speaking of course only for myself (but, I strongly suspect, in common with many others), it was several things; the dissonances between the values that were claimed by the church, and the values presented in Holy Writ, and the values actually deomonstrated by the faithful; the fact that the All-Powerful, All-Present, and All-Powerful Creator of All Reality is apparently, judging from the evidence, either unwilling or unable to rein in the behaviors of his avowed followers when they commit atrocities in his name (or, alternatively and just as bad, is unaware of these actions); and the fact that innocent bystanders have to suffer, sometimes horribly, just to act as examples to complete strangers so they will See the Light. A few other things, as well, but those were the ones that got me to thinking (an activity that apparently is also Prohibited, outside of carefully-circumscribed bounds).
The reason I’m curious is because from a Christian perspective, you can never be “un-born.” To believe in Jesus is to receive the divine life, and thus to be “regenerated” (or more colloquially, “born again”). You can never lose that divine life dwelling in your human spirit once you receive it. So while the mind may be convinced of many things subsequent to the receiving of the divine life through regeneration, the spirit is still joined to the Holy Spirit, and the person even as an unbeliever is still a member of the Body of Christ.
Who the hell do you think you are to speak for all Christians? That may be your perspective, and that of your friends, family, and the closeted rubber fetishist who undoubtedly runs your church.
But that is not the Christian perpective, since there isn’t one.
This is what the cdesign proponentsist signifies more than anything: the type of lazy half-assery that would envelop science if the creos had their way. Didn’t properly autoclave those samples? Who cares? Jesus loves me! Your theory has no predictive power? No matter, the bible doesn’t either, but that doesn’t stop me from knowing that Jesus loves me! Got two competing theories? Let’s call in the theologians, and we’ll start another denominational schism! Jesus loves me! No, Jesus loves me more!
God save us from Christian ‘scientists’ who edit their textbooks with the same diligence with which they follow the ten commandments.
cicelysays
Well, darn; I left off the next bit:
Again, curious @#61
So while the mind may be convinced of many things subsequent to the receiving of the divine life through regeneration, the spirit is still joined to the Holy Spirit, and the person even as an unbeliever is still a member of the Body of Christ.
You cannot be joined to something that does not exist. You cannot be disjoined from something that does not exist.
RE: “You cannot be joined to something that does not exist.”
Not true. The invisible pink unicorn (blessed be her pinkness) loves pineapple pizza and since the initiation-rite into the Invisible Pink Unicorn religion is eating a pineapple pizza than anyone who has ever eaten a pineapple pizza is automatically a member of IPU and subject to her omnipotent rule and her wrath for any transgressions.
dug.innsays
I love the idea that “cdesign pronponentist” is the fossil of a transitional form in the evolution of the ‘Creation Science’ textbook into the ‘Intelligent Design’ textbook.
phantomreader42says
curious @ #61:
What was it that made you consider your faith system to be false?
In simple terms, the complete lack of evidence for the existence of god, combined with the truly vile actions of so many believers. There is no evidence that any god exists, and if one did, then obviously it isn’t doing a good job policing its own followers, which makes it either incompetent or evil (in either case, unworthy of worship).
For more, look at some of the representatives of christianity in our society.
We’ve got a president who claimed God told him to invade Iraq, an invasion that led to the sacrifice of four thousand American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraquis, when the objective for the invasion was something that didn’t even exist, a fact any God worthy of the name would’ve known, and which said President may have been aware of at the time he invaded. Whether lying, insane, or both, he brought about the deaths of about a million human beings, for no reason at all, with no end in sight.
We’ve got a gaggle of homophobic preachers and politicians, who meet with this President regularly, babbling about moral decay and the need to impose their version of morality on the rest of the country, whether we like it or not. One of these was caught buying drugs from a male prostitute. This was not an isolated incident.
We’ve got the Catholic Church, haven for pedophile priests for decades, prescribing prayer as a solution and trying to weasel out of responsibility.
There’s Pat Robertson, who blamed 9/11 on gays, pagans, feminists, the ACLU, in short anyone he didn’t like. This is the guy whose idea of “thou shalt not kill” doesn’t apply when he feels like calling for the assassination of a foreign leader.
John Hagee, who said the Jews brought the Holocaust on themselves, along with countless sexist and anti-catholic rants, but when John McCain eagerly sought his endorsement, no one bothered to bring up what a sickeningly hateful man he was.
How about Fred Phelps and his cult, with their psychotic hatred of homosexuals? Just hearing about them made me ashamed to be the same species.
And beyond public voices, just look at some of the comments from “christians” on this very blog. Kenny with his fantasies of murdering gay people, transformed by the magic of projection into an imaginary gay conspiracy to murder christians. The endless, shameless lying of creationists. The entire Expelled debacle, a documentary founded wholly on lies, from the fraud perpetrated to get the footage to the vile slander of the premise. People who fantasize about everyone who dares disagree with them being tortured for all eternity, who see no moral problem with this.
What kind of god would want to be represented by such people? Liars, frauds, hypocrites, murderers, rapists, peddlers of hatred, thieves who manipulate the faithful for money and political power. What kind of god would let its followers do that without doing anything to stop them, without making the slightest effort to show them the error of their ways? A stupid god. An impotent god. An evil god. A worthless god. If there were any evidence that a god existed, the actions carried out in its name would cast doubt on its value or goodness. But there is no such evidence. Because there is no such god.
curious @ #61:
The reason I’m curious is because from a Christian perspective, you can never be “un-born.” To believe in Jesus is to receive the divine life, and thus to be “regenerated” (or more colloquially, “born again”). You can never lose that divine life dwelling in your human spirit once you receive it. So while the mind may be convinced of many things subsequent to the receiving of the divine life through regeneration, the spirit is still joined to the Holy Spirit, and the person even as an unbeliever is still a member of the Body of Christ.
It’s quite common for people who think like that to twist their beliefs into knots to make the problem go away. They take “Once a christian, always a christian” and twist it around until they get “no longer a christian, never a christian.” These nutcases deny the very existence of any ex-christian, by claiming they were lying all along. Despicable, irrational bastards. Note that these are the same despicable, irrational bastards who claim to be wholly devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ, who claim those teachings include “love your neighbor as yourself”, but who demand that anyone the slightest bit different from them be treated like a second-class citizen, if not outright murdered. Homophobes, theocrats, wannabe dictators. Again, what kind of god would want to be represented by these people? Not one worth worshipping.
phantomreader42says
David Marjanović, OM @ #85:
so what’s happening with the two lawsuits about “expelled?” (Yoko one and the harvard animation) I haven’t heard anything new yet.
Emphasis added. Never, I repeat, never use a spellchecker.
Might’ve been a typo, but it makes sense. As in, of the two lawsuits against the producers of Expelled *jazz hands* for theft of intellectual property (hmm, guess they think that commandment was repealed?), the “Yoko one” is the one started by Yoko Ono.
Then there’s the guy who’s Greek Orthodox Xian, but believes that the Greek pantheon of gods (Zeus and pals) existed as well. I can’t even begin to understand how he makes that work.
Easy: they all exist, but they are evil demons, whom to worship is positively dangerous. This used to be common dogma, and at least some American fundies still believe it.
I remember reading Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World, and the mention of fundamentalist churches that claimed UFOs were real, but piloted by demons. It was clear that there was no real evidence for the alien abductions and such, and anyone thinking about it critically would notice that, but the fundies didn’t dare let their followers think critically about anything, lest they start looking too closely at their even more insane religious dogma. So they just took an outside bit of insanity and recast it into their own insane idiom.
ravensays
Here is another fine example of a family values theocratic Xian. He probably thinks Expelled is fact instead of fiction and all scientists are mass murdering atheists.
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A New York congressman who admitted to fathering a child out of wedlock with a woman who bailed him out of jail on a drunk driving charge (BAL of 0.17%) this month announced Monday that he will not run for re-election.
Fossella is the 30th Republican to announce they would not seek re-election to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Prof MTHsays
Creationism and Intelligent Design CAN BE logically distinct. Allow me to make an analogy with manufacturing. Let us say we are building a car. First we must create the parts–the fuel injectors, seats, seat belts, tires, etc. (Of course each of these have smaller parts.) Afterwards you put those parts together–organize them.
It is logically possible for an omniscient and omnipotent entity to instantiate a complete car, for example. My point is Creationism, strictly speaking, is an “alternative” to Big Bang (used generally as a class of explanations) and ID as an “alternative” to evolution. ID cannot explain the origin of the universe without assuming creationism and conversely creationism cannot explain the diversity of species without either assuming ID or collapsing ID into a singular instantiation event. If ID wants to separate itself from creationism, for the legal reasons noted, then it must admit these distinctions.
I am not denying that intelligent design is creationism. I would certainly argue agaist equating intelligent design with biblical creationism.
Nor am I disputing the facts presented by Dr. Holden. I was referring to her witch hunting attitude. So what if the book was edited to conform to legal standards.
ravensays
So what if the book was edited to conform to legal standards.
Not very smart, are you. The book was edited in order to lie more effectively. It was just a bunch of lies in the first place.
Of course, ID is just creationism thinly disguised. The people pushing it are all a vicious group of Xian Dominionists and fundie Death Cultists who want to destroy the USA. Read their damning Wedge document on Wikipedia.
This is why fundie Xian has become synonymous with liar among other flattering nouns.
Prof MTHsays
Raven @#37
The standard view taught in many churches is that Lucifer and Satan are the same person. However this view lacks scriptural support.
Lucifer means lightbringer, from the Latin lux “light” and ferre “to bear or bring.” The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Bible — Isaiah 14:12 — but only in the King James and related versions: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . .” The New Revised Standard Version translates the same passage as “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, Son of Dawn!” In other translations we find: “O shining star of the dawn!” (Moffatt) or “O morning-star, son of the dawn!” (Hebrew Bible). The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as “lucifer,” which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. And yet it is this lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness.
As Lucifer is the morning star, daystar, or Venus, the absurdity of connecting him with the Devil is revealed in the three New Testament passages where morning star or daystar is mentioned:
So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. — 2 Peter 1:19
. . . from my Father. To the one who conquers I will also give the morning star. — Revelation 2:28
It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. — Revelation 2 2:16
All three references to the morning star point to Jesus or things Jesus says or gives. In the Vulgate the word “morning star” in 2 Peter is even translated as lucifer but not as a proper noun. In the other two references it is stella matutina. http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-ibel2.htm
The only place “satanas” (the Greek version of the Hebrew שָׂטָן)appears as a proper noun is in the book of Job. From the start we should take special note of that use. Furthermore, “satanas” (to use the Greek as it is easier in this medium) is a neutral term. It appears in the Jonah and Balaam’s Ass stories but not as a proper noun. In both of those stories it is used positively, the satanas, or stumbling block in this case, prevents Balaaam and Jonah from turning away from Yhwh. In Job, satans, is used to me “accuser”. That term is neutral as well. Its value is derived from what kind of accusation or charge is being made.
My point here is that Lucifer and Satan as characters cannot be equivalent as their etiologies are completely different. It would, and did, take some serious intellectual break dancing to make them equivalent. One this development I highly recommend “The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth” by Neil Forsyth (out of print).
You seem to have missed the point, “intelligent designer”. They didnt’ edit it to CONFORM to legal standards – they edited it to TRY to conform to THE APPEARANCE of legal standards, while sneaking in their ILLEGAL BS – which is why the definitions of ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent design’ are virtually identical.
—
As for the original topic:
I can’t remember now if I read it in Edward Humes’ book or saw it in the NOVA documentary about the trial, but in one of those they said that they opted NOT to use this particular piece of information in the trial itself. It was such a knockout blow that I wondered why they wouldn’t use such a damning piece of evidence. Not that they needed it, as the ultimate outcome proves, but still – if you have the ammo, why not use it?
ravensays
The standard view taught in many churches is that Lucifer and Satan are the same person. However this view lacks scriptural support.
OK. I was just using the popular culture words, satan, devil, lucifer, beezlebub etc.
He still can’t be the god of the age, as he is never referred to as a god.
Kseniyasays
This requires not being omniscient. If you’re omniscient, you know the outcome beforehand.
Feh. I knew someone would call me on that. But tell me, in your opinion: Why? Because omniscience implies prescience? Or because knowledge of the outcome of each step in the algorithm undermines the surprise? Or both?
(If a random event occurs in an omniscient forest, is it still random? Heh.)
I was referring to her witch hunting attitude. So what if the book was edited to conform to legal standards.
Witch-hunting? Bull. It’s only witch-hunting if a) the witches are innocent, b) the hunt serves your ideological or political purposes, *and* c) there’s no such thing as a witch.
The smoking-out of an honest-to-god dishonest attempt at pushing pseudo-science into school curricula does not qualify.
tonysays
I remember the StPaul piece from my Catholic high school — and it was explained then (AFAICR) that ‘god of the ages’ was a reference to the old ‘hebrew’ god – remembering that Jesus was a Jewish ‘prophet’. In other words – St Paul was commenting on the fact that the jew’s ‘blind following’ of the hebrew god had blinded them to the light of Jesus.
Or something like that.
Anyway – as many others here have commented, I too have rejected jeebus and god for ‘lack of evidence’. Being Scottish, I’d return a verdict of ‘not proven’ on the god thing (there is simply no evidence pro or con that can direct me to an unequivocal answer).
However, also being ‘sciency’, I see ‘not proven’ as something that can remain in the heap of ‘maybe someday’ but that I don’t concern myself with on a daily basis, and which doesn’t inform my life or behavior in any way (FTL spaceships and time travel occupy similar status!).
I’m willing to be convined on any and all of these. I expect FTL to arrive before any conclusion on the god thing!
tony
Patricia C.says
#103 – step lightly with the witch hunting my pretty.
Carliesays
Randy Stimpson – you wouldn’t by any chance go by the handle “Randyson” on other blogs, would you? Just curious.
As was mentioned before, this was not a “witch-hunting attitude”, it was data collection for a lawsuit. You’re supposed to be thorough when putting together a court case.
Kseniyasays
Blake:
Actually, I think Carl Zimmer’s picture looks better.
No, no – you’re right. Carl’s a pleasant-looking fellah, and appealing in ways a camera can’t catch. I’d say the same about you too, mister, if this wasn’t a public forum.
Those more interested in Dr. Holden’s form than her function may also find amusing this “ID Rockumentary” being pushed by Sal (Nice hair!) Cordova at UD a few days ago. The comments there show that UD and Pharyngula sample from the same population, after all.
Kseniyasays
Oops.
Patricia C.says
#61 – Curious – Don’t waste your time having any good christian pity for me. There is only one way to become unsaved, un-born again, to be rejected from heaven and hell, and shunned from god almighty forever – meaning the christian gawd. You should know this if you read your bible.
Wanna see? *I DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT*
There, done.
David Marjanović, OMsays
Feh. I knew someone would call me on that. But tell me, in your opinion: Why? Because omniscience implies prescience? Or because knowledge of the outcome of each step in the algorithm undermines the surprise? Or both?
Omniscience implies omni-. As in “knowing everything“. Ponder “everything”.
(If a random event occurs in an omniscient forest, is it still random? Heh.)
Sure.
Those more interested in Dr. Holden’s form than her function
LOL!
Such a simple in-joke, and yet nobody got the idea for 112 comments…
David Marjanović, OMsays
Wanna see? *I DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT*
There, done.
Out of context. You get unsaved if you deny that a few cases of exorcism were due to the Holy Spirit.
Not, however, if you deny that those exorcisms ever happened in the first place. =8-) =8-) =8-)
Aegissays
If I were not already married, I would marry Dr Holden. Bravo, narrator!
Randyson isn’t me. The only other alias I have is my chess playing alias HappyPawn8.
Patricia C.says
Dammit David – Are you gonna make me dig that old 10 pounder out again?
OK. I’ll get the book & verse…if you’re right I owe you a sangria. :)
Kseniyasays
Omniscience implies omni-. As in “knowing everything”. Ponder “everything”.
Yes David, of course I will not argue that, but couldn’t An Omnipotent Being make Itself selectively unaware of the outcomes of certain random events, and therefore also to those outputs of the algorithm which depend on those outcomes, until the point where It wished to view the results produced by the algorithm? I mean, just for Its own Amusement? :-)
Patricia C.says
This is the one I was thinking of: St. Matthew 12:31 & 32 – 31- Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 – And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (In red so Jesus must have said it…) The bible I’m qouting this out of is a King James version c. 1960
Also you can find this in Luke 12:10 and Mark 3:29
Now David, are you being a gentleman & letting me off the hook because this says only ‘men’ are unforgiven? *grin* Damn, can’t even get kicked out of hell.
Wowbaggersays
#85 – David Marjanović, OM
I wrote: Then there’s the guy who’s Greek Orthodox Xian, but believes that the Greek pantheon of gods (Zeus and pals) existed as well. I can’t even begin to understand how he makes that work.
David Marjanović, OM wrote:
Easy: they all exist, but they are evil demons, whom to worship is positively dangerous. This used to be common dogma, and at least some American fundies still believe it.
No, he doesn’t believe they were evil demons. Well, I don’t think he does, since he claims to be descended from them. I think he specifically mention Achilles. He believes they were good – well, maybe not good per se; too many thunderbolts from Olympus for that – and as depicted in the mythology. I never asked him what happened to them, but i don’t think worshipping them is an option.
But, as far as I can, tell he’s a Greek Othordox because he’s Greek and that’s the core of his identity – hence the ability to dispose of the older mythology, which he’s rather proud of. If they, as a race/culture, decided to switch to Scientology I suspect he’d be the first one in line to buy an autographed Tom Cruise biography and an e-meter.
ihedeniussays
but in one of those they said that they opted NOT to use this particular piece of information in the trial itself.
After Barbara Forrests turn on the stand the plaintiffs insisted on logging in all her unused materiel so in all likelyhood ‘cdesign proponentsists’ is part of the court record.
The plaintiffs found it a prudent choice that the more the creartionists are documented the better in case of future questioning of the KvD trial.
Btw, the chick in the video is pretty nice looking.
Agreed. Dr. Holden is a cutie! :-)
Alvenosays
To Phantomreader42 comment #99. Jesus said that those who left, were never one of us. Meaning that people can fellowship with Christians and not be a Christian. Including preachers etc. Also in the book of Hebrews it says that a true person of the faith, can not leave the faith, because to ever leave would put Christ to open shame. It was impossible. Meaning that to re-accept the person into repentance again means the Christ wasn’t powerful enough to hold that person. Most people don’t grasp that Jesus/God picks those that will have the faith. Once you have it, you can’t lose it.
phantomreader42says
Alveno @ #126 (left after the thread died like a coward so no one would contradict him):
To Phantomreader42 comment #99. Jesus said that those who left, were never one of us. Meaning that people can fellowship with Christians and not be a Christian. Including preachers etc. Also in the book of Hebrews it says that a true person of the faith, can not leave the faith, because to ever leave would put Christ to open shame. It was impossible. Meaning that to re-accept the person into repentance again means the Christ wasn’t powerful enough to hold that person. Most people don’t grasp that Jesus/God picks those that will have the faith. Once you have it, you can’t lose it.
Why how convenient! It’s almost as if someone put that line in specifically to give the brainwashed an excuse to ignore anyone who dared think for themselves!
Some good detective work.
Very nice video. And I now know the origin of “cdesign pronponentist.” Hilarious IDiotic incompetence!
ID is creationism, by any but the most narrow and contrived definition of creationism. And this is a classic example of the IDists’ lack of concern about the differences between themselves and the rest of creationists.
“Proof”, even in the vernacular or legal senses, is not what finding the “missing link between creationism and ID” truly is, however. Conceivably, Behe might have a notion of ID that does not overlap with Panda’s sense of creationism, which could be true of any number of other IDists as well. As in, a possible mistake by one person in the ID movement would not mean that all in the ID movement are so sloppy and/or mistaken.
The real reason ID is creationism is that it is just another version of the lie that life was “designed”, which is an old creationist claim (God performing a miracle to bequeath life upon non-living matter has given way to an engineer’s version of God, iow). A design is a creation, which leads to a further creation.
People like Kevin Miller just lift a narrow definition of creationism as Biblical creationism in order to try to “distinguish” their ID from literalistic versions of Genesis. That definition hasn’t held any water since Paley, as his version of ID was indeed the creationism that Darwin had to fight and vanquish (mostly by proxy). The fact is that ID happens to be exactly the version of creationism that evolutionary theory put down in the past (not YECism, a more recent and vulgar form, at least as a political movement).
It’s insane to recognize that evolutionary theory gained victory over creationism, only to now claim that virtually the same version of creationism is not creationism.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Intelligent Design = Creationism = A Political Strategy
Could someone provide the link to this video so I can forward it to other people without linking PZ’s blog. I adore PZ…but the people I intend to send it to risk closing out of the website the moment they recognize his blog…
Chris: just click on the video (outside of the play button in the centre) to go to YouTube.
If I click on the video it jumps to YouTube and the video, so you can send them there.
http://www.youtube . com /watch? v=GUB8Mv1SaKQ
just eliminate the spaces.
The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. – St. Paul
If there was design, it is anything but intelligent. I mean which idiot designed the eye so that almost all of us would need glasses some day?
Btw, the chick in the video is pretty nice looking.
Dear ID,
Well thank goodness to St Pauli for the insight. Certainly nice to be blinded to the delusion. Saves on the lithium.
God of this age? Different from god of another age? What became of them and whence the new one?
A yawl. The misenboom. Right.
“…so that the gospel of Christ … would not shine on them.”
Glows in the dark, does it?
If you watched the PBS special called “Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” or something like that, you would’ve seen the history of the book Crpandas and Peopleists. Go watch it anyway.
Paul was speaking of the 1st century AD inasmuch as he died in 65 AD. You need to look on a calendar, it is now 2008.
He might have been a bit bitter, inasmuch as both the Jews and Romans were persecuting Xians at the time and the Romans probably killed him.
Besides which, the quotation doesn’t make any sense. Who is the “god of this age” (1st century AD) and why is he different from the god of “image of god”. So far we have 2 gods, the age god (must be Jupiter) and the image god. The age god is the stronger one. So much for omniscient and omnipotent.
I second Brian’s (#14)recommendation about the PBS special and you can get a great T-Shirt here: http://www.cafepress.com/buy/cdesign+proponentsists/-/pv_design_details/pg_1/id_23611213/opt_/fpt_fXcq__DB__aCXDa_qz0X_VOD_eah__lS____o3/c_10651/
Dr Anne Holden is very cute.
Not that anyone needs to be told, but just sayin’…
I think Dr. Anne Holden is one heckuva natural selection. Her biological acumen is such that she already has me thinking about horizontal gene transfer.
And yes, I did just write that for the sake of making a dirty joke with scientific nomenclature. I wish I knew more about evolution so I could write a better one.
This video could be improved if only Dr. Holden would wear a nightie during the presentation.
cdesign proponentsists. hehe! i love that.
so what’s happening with the two lawsuits about “expelled?” (Yoko one and the harvard animation) I haven’t heard anything new yet.
A shining example of creationist stupidity, but it’s more of a paradigm for the argument than a source. I think it’s hardly the only case.
Again at number eight, intelligently designed, who said, “The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them. – St. Paul.”
When I close my eyes to your fairy tales (which were at one time gospel to me) why do you think that my eyes are closed to all things? Why do you assume that my lack of respect for Invisible Supernatural Spooks represents the overthrowing of all things nice?
I could answer this question for myself but I’d much rather hear your own defense of your position.
Maybe #8 was making some kind of joke that would make sense in the 1st century AD. I find most religious stuff only makes sense in context of 2000 years ago and has no bearing on today’s world. That could be the poster’s point. I think it’s a very helpful insight, thank you intelligently designed.
I just realized I am trying to find intelligence in that post where none exists due to an anthropomorphic world view. Sound familiar. Wow, I must be an IDiot.
I guess I must not be one of the cool kids: my thoughts while watching weren’t on the spokeswoman’s looks.
The whole thing reminds me of when the government released those .doc files with the versioning system in place so you could just go back and see the earlier versions… anyone else remember that?
As far as I can tell this means if you don’t already believe in god he will prevent you from believing – and that makes very little sense to me even when compared to some of the other gems the bible has provided us. Can someone more versed in anti-woo than I explain that this invalidates the free will argument?
Sounds like the sort of rubbish Ray Comfort spouts – you can’t really understand the bible unless you already believe in it. Atheists are ‘missing the point’.
As for fighting with the creationists about ID? I have to fall back on the old line that you can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into.
Off topic, but if anyone caught the American Idol final (yeah, I have family members who can’t miss it ), did you notice how Mormon David Archuleta totally cut the anti-religion verses out of Imagine? Yech!
@#8
I have a standard reply for you wingnuts… now in handy (and topical!) T-Shirt form!
My heart’s on my sleeves and my mind’s on my chest.
(disclaimer – I’m no affiliate of Goats or Cafe Press etc etc, just love their work!)
Nice of the devil to manifest as such a wholesome-looking young lady.
The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving, so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them….in bed.
I don’t have the context, but I’m about 85% certain that St. Paul is referring to a ‘false god’, probably science or something of the sort, thus the small ‘g’. This ‘false god’ is preventing the ones looking towards it from seeing
the glory of the gospelsthat the thing to do is shup up, make babies, and let the priests tell them what to think and how to act.@#26 Wowbagger —
This passage is taken from 2nd Corinthians 4.4. I’ve generally heard “the god of this age” (alternately translated “the god of this world”) interpreted as referring to Satan, sometimes referencing the passage in Luke 4 where the devil (whose identity they extend to be the same as Satan) offers Jesus all the kingdoms of this world, thus implying that he has dominion over them.
This still seems pretty screwy WRT the free will issue (it maybe allows some free will to choose between Satan and Jesus, but that seems to be about all it offers), but there you have it. There’s a typically garbled interpretation of this chapter here. It has the following gem:
Stop letting Satan keep you from believing…and to do this, you need to start believing…very confusing.
#31 – thanks for that, it makes a lot more sense than my interpretation.
Why can’t someone believe in intelligent design and evolution at the same time? I am not saying that I do, but I have met many liberal Christians that do. Besides, I am a software developer so intelligent design and evolution of software are both part of my day to day activity so I don’t see any real conflict.
Dr. Holden somewhat reminds me of some of the fundamentalists Christians I used to hang with who looked for Satanic lyrics by playing music backwards.
I do believe that cdesign proponentsists is my new favorite way of referring to these wackos.
That PBS documentary is really good, I thought ID was pretty harmless until I saw it, that may or may not have something to do with the way canadians interpret and portray ID (I’ve heard it mentioned once on CBC as sort of a christian compromise on evolution. stupid, but harmless).
That documentary definately caused me to plunge deep into the atheistic culture of creationist bashing which now consumes much of my internet time.
Hmmm, you know that this was written in 1st century AD. Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott, Darwin, and a few million other scientists hadn’t been born yet. There was a science of sorts but it didn’t play the role that science does today and modern science is from the enlightenment. No smart ass intellectuals were domolishing the Big Boat incident or proving the earth was round and orbited the sun.
I can’t see it being Satan either. Satan isn’t a god, he is a fallen angel. He has a name or rather a bunch of them and is usually referred to by it. He is also considered to be much the lessor of the real god.
Chances are Paul was just making up an excuse while the Romans were feeding Xians to the lions. Or maybe referring to Jupiter who was still riding high. Or it is just old bafflegab.
Thanks, Etha.
The free will thing is one of my biggest issues with religion – I just saw that as another example of where the bible contradicts the party line and leapt on it without stopping to think it through.
#34
It’s possible to believe in both (obviously there are people who do) – but my question is why? If I had a magic wand with which to create the universe i wouldn’t bother with the limitations of evolution. And why would a god (presumably omni-max) not know exactly what he/she/it wanted from the start and just make that? Part of my satisfaction with evolution (without any ID) is that there are stunningly complex processes in place that wouldn’t be necessary if an infinite being was involved. I suspect most (if not all) engineers will tell you that the best designs are the simplest ones.
There is, of course, the option of the imperfect, non-omnimax creator – which would be the only one that would make sense to me considering how often he gets all nasty about things he technically should have known were going to happen. But I don’t know if anyone in the ID crowd is supporting anything like that. From what I can tell it’s all very standard Abrahamic in some form or another.
Once again I would like to recommend Jack Miles’ book “God, A Biography”
I keep hearing that the big dog is constant, worthy of trust, stalwart and secure, able to sustain us. Observation indicates otherwise and Miles provides thoughtful background.
Not that I would rather perceive appeals to magic as synonymous with religion in general, but that I do in fact perceive it. I should distrust my senses, all the lessons I’ve learned in a lifetime of questing for the foundation of whatchacall? Throw all that away (and where is “away” anyway?) and “just accept” the deep convictions of those who show troubling signs of cognitive uncertainty?
I think not. Such grand assertions demand grand evidence which is, easily observed, glaringly absent.
Yeah, but then I know a guy who thinks the Pistons can take four from the Celtics.
Now then, did the dog just cause me to listen to Kip Attaway singing “Lovin you ‘s the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever done” or did that just happen as a result of prior events? With or without supernatural influence? If so, why? What has been outlined in metaphor that is not a lesson that is easily learned by simply being human? And why do most religionists’ arguments demand that such weak arguments be granted any gravity at all?
Randy (aka IDer), referring back to the video PZ embedded in this post, note the definition of ID in “Pandas and People” (see here):
Now, please explain how to avoid the unpleasantness ofcognitive dissonance by believing “in intelligent design and evolution at the same time”.
This little exercise should clarify the “why can’t”.
Randy IDer – the “see here” link in my comment (#40) refers to this: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html
Additional information on the “Pandas” drafts can be found here: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9018_90__matzke_2006_the_story_10_3_2006.asp
If needed, a great description of cognitive dissonance can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Now if I could just get HTML tags to work….
#40:
You’re forgetting the all-important 11th commandment – Thou shalt believe in me, no matter how much the batshit loonery of doing so makes your head hurt when you think about it.
I’ve said before that cognitive dissonance is an essential skill to possess if you’re religious and in any way thoughtful about it. While I know some Xians who haven’t a clue what they’re claiming to believe in (I had to explain to one what a Protestant was; she also claimed the Xianity and Buddhism were ‘pretty much the same thing’) there are others who try.
Then there’s the guy who’s Greek Orthodox Xian, but believes that the Greek pantheon of gods (Zeus and pals) existed as well. I can’t even begin to understand how he makes that work.
Of course ID is creationism because, despite their misnaming of their movement, none of the nutters are actually claiming that some intelligent being(s) merely filed a set of designs somewhere – eg in a supernatural patent office. All of them instead claim that various things were created in the real world using those imaginary intentional designs.
Oops, I forgot to add: and they haven’t done anything to show the design stage, the creation stage nor even that the creator(s) were the same people as the designer(s), rather than the products of the design team being contracted out to sets of builders or “rude mechanicals”.
#43:
So, God had to put it through a patent office? Hang on a second, didn’t Einstein work in a patent office?
It all makes sense now…
Dr. Holden somewhat reminds me of some of the fundamentalists Christians I used to hang with who looked for Satanic lyrics by playing music backwards.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer
There are many differences between Dr. Holden and those fundies but I will stick with these. Dr. Holden was not shot in the dark when investigating the background of those creationists books. Also, she can prove the linkage between creationism and intelligent design. The fundies had no real reason to search for backwards masking in rock music and could never find any, except for those artists who made a joke of backwards masking.
Oh wait, I suppose you think it takes just as much faith the believe in evolution as it does to believe in god.
Given the number of unscrupulous edits and silly typos of Of Pandas, you’ve got to wonder about how many made it into the Bile.
Peter Mc, did you do that on purpose? Not that it matters, I find it funny.
No, but there were Greek philosophies such the Epicurean school, which taught (in the words of wikipedia) “that pleasure and pain are the measures of what is good and bad, that death is the end of the body and the soul and should therefore not be feared, that the gods do not reward or punish humans, that the universe is infinite and eternal, and that events in the world are ultimately based on the motions and interactions of atoms moving in empty space.” Paul, the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles,’ would have been aware of this school of thought and its influence. There’s an interesting article analyzing Paul’s epistles as reactions to Epicurean philosophy here — the section (VII) on the “logic of the cross” is particularly relevant.
At the risk of sounding a little too much like the ‘framers’ I think that its a mistake to make a claim that Intelligent Design is ‘religious’.
To the US public the term ‘religious’ basically means ‘good’ or ‘moral’ or carries some other positive association.
ID is religious ?
Well?
So what.
What’s the harm in that.
The whole question of ‘fair-play’, present in peoples minds when they hear the question phrased like that is unlikely to make the fact that ID is ‘religious’ to be a logical reason to prevent it being taught in schools.
What you need to do is to split the religious camp.
ID is not ‘religious’.
ID is the teachings of ONE specific religion – Fundamentalistic Protestantism – a minority of the US population.
Phrase it like this:
Is it fair that the protestant fundamentalistic 20% of the US population get to dictate what the other 80% learn in school?
I suspect that even the fundies (well some of them!) might see that that doesn’t quite sound ‘fair’.
Unlike the framers I don’t advocate getting the Catholics or Episcopalians ‘on our side’.
What I DO advocate is that we get the Catholics and Episcopalians on the opposite side to the Fundamentalistic Protestants. Get them at each others throats in what is really a religion versus religion clash, rather than a religion versus Science – and then let the public know that Science is always the best way to solve problems regarding the physical world and that is fair to everyone because it is based on EVIDENCE – something that anyone of any religion is free to provide (whether they do or do not provide it is their problem).
Try looking outside your own borders and ask why US style creationism is not popular in other western countries.
Apart from fundamentalistic segments of Northern Ireland there is probably not a single region in all of Western Europe where protestant creationism has a hold and even there it is kept in check, not by science alone, but through it being clearly viewed as a SECTARIAN rather than purely religious point.
But they like to claim the support of the muslim mob, eg Mustafa Akyol, etc (although various of those object to inclusion, eg to Allah not being named). They also pretend they include UFO/alien-beliving nuts in their big tent. So your simplistic account isn’t going to work the way you imagine.
That’s the first 2 or 3 Commandments (depending on which version of the Decalogue you like); traditionally, the 11th is, “Thou shalt not get caught”.
Well, I guess that is how you get to join the NCSE. If you are cute and you like science then you are welcome to join.
All very scientific.
It would’ve been nice if we could have made it more than two hours without comments on Dr Holden’s appearance.
[i]Well, I guess that is how you get to join the NCSE. If you are cute and you like science then you are welcome to join.
All very scientific.[/i]
Actually, Kenny, in our evil godless moral system we acknowledge that it’s possible for a woman to be both attractive and incredibly intelligent. I realise that this doesn’t meet the lofty standards of the hate-filled misogynistic cult you were brought up in, but try to move with the times.
I’m a little creeped out by all the people commenting on the narrator’s appearance and sex. Could we not do that, please? We can all see that she’s attractive, but the point is to listen to what she is saying, and not get hung up on the fact that someone with breasts is talking about evolution.
“and not get hung up on the fact that someone with breasts is talking about evolution.”
Must not make joke about Jonathan Wells.
Must not make joke about Jonathan Wells.
………
Doh!
Dr. Holden somewhat reminds me of some of the fundamentalists Christians I used to hang with who looked for Satanic lyrics by playing music backwards.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer
You honestly think “cdesign proponentsists” and all the other substitutions were just a coincidence?
Appropos of nothing…
I didn’t see it, but remember that they have to cut quite a bit to get their songs down to the 90 seconds that they have to sing. So it could be not a coincidence that they cut out the godless stuff, but doesn’t have to be.
That being said, my wife keeps telling me that she thinks the kid will get into the “inspiriational and religious” music when he is done with Idol (which I guess is tonight).
Did anyone hear about the recent ruling that a gay man could be charged with voyeurism for photographing man boobs?
I grant that boys-will-be-boys to some extent, but it’s a theme. Is it really still so astonishing that intelligent, science-educated women can be attractive?
(On the other hand, the good looks of guys like Mooney and Nisbet have been mentioned once or twice, too… though these mentions are clearly in the minority.)
There’s something in our culture that promotes this. Hillary Clinton received far more criticism about her look, her wardrobe, and her sense of style than any ten male candidates combined – criticism that frequently was offered up by female commentators. Sigh.
It must be genetic. O_o
Maybe because writing an algorithm that incorporates a random element, firing it up, watching it go, and waiting to see what weird creations it coughs up is more fun than pouring plaster into molds? :-)
I’m curious about the ones here (like Crudely Wrott) and on other comment threads who once were Christians (i.e. “believed the gospel” or some similar phraseology) and who then disbelieved, moved on, wised up, or however they would put it.
What was it that made you consider your faith system to be false?
The reason I’m curious is because from a Christian perspective, you can never be “un-born.” To believe in Jesus is to receive the divine life, and thus to be “regenerated” (or more colloquially, “born again”). You can never lose that divine life dwelling in your human spirit once you receive it. So while the mind may be convinced of many things subsequent to the receiving of the divine life through regeneration, the spirit is still joined to the Holy Spirit, and the person even as an unbeliever is still a member of the Body of Christ.
Feel free to say more.
Is that the best you can do, you gabbling limpet? Imply that she’s not qualified to speak by virtue of her intelligence and education?
That’s rich, coming from an ignorant rockhead like you. Your dishonesty shines brighter with each passing day, Kennyboy.
Speaking of dishonesty and cowardice: Kenny, does the ACLU only defend atheists and liberals, as you claimed?
I don’t imagine the comments would have been so drastically different were she stupid and ignorant, to be honest.
Sigmund says:
“let’s call it a sectarian war and let the religious minded duke it out”
It is not religion v religion.
It is evangelical religion v an entire culture.
Absolute cultural hegemony is the principal goal of the American Protestant fundamentalism movement (they admit as much in their Wedge Document).
THEY’VE chosen publicly funded secondary schools as a key battle ground. THEY’VE decided to try and try and try to impose fundamentalist christian doctrine into science curriculum throughout the country.
As for getting the catholics involved, I’d point out that THEY’VE got a hell of a lot more respect for the US Constitution (even though that is very little respect in absolute terms) than they have for the Pope and what he represents.
If THEY had decided instead to play by the rules and wage their campaign screaming from the tops of boxes at busy city street corners, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The reason I’m curious is because from a Christian perspective, you can never be “un-born.”
I’d say the perspective on that depends on which christian is asked. As a lifelong atheist I offer no opinion but I’d like to point to http://de-conversion.com/index/ where I know this has been and is being disscussed among ex-christians.
The reason I’m curious is because from a Christian perspective, you can never be “un-born.”
From a very narrow perspective perhaps. In the vast and varied plethora of Christian dogmas, I’ve not come across many that endorse a free will, decision based and irreversible “salvation”. Generally much mumbo jumbo is required to keep in Gods good graces. In catholicism for example, little more than bad luck or poor timing can result in eternal damnation or at least a lengthy delay in limbo (I’ll grant you this is somewhat dated dogma).
For myself, I was a born again, tounges talking, talk walking, Jesus serving missionary. Six years of Bush claiming to be a Christian made me examine the whole thing more closely than I ever had before, Thomas Paine and the “God Delusion” brought the whole edifice crashing down. Took about 5 years from “hang on a second … ” to “this is utter unabridged poppycock, I’ve been had!”, but I got there.
The key ingredient is no holds barred reflection and questioning. So very hard to get that cycle going, since roughly 90% of religious dogma is geared to short circuit that process, the spurious and absurd concept of “faith” being exhibit A.
#61 asks: “What was it that made you consider your faith system to be false?”
In my case, it was approaching the problem rationally.
And if it is true, as you say, that I’m still “saved”–than that’s like the ultimate “no blood, no foul”–freeing me to be completely rational at no risk whatsoever to my eternal soul.
I mean, you guys have a pretty good gig going there, I must say.
Every time I hear that “cdesign proponentsist” anecdote, I lol. It’s just too good to be true.
Which Xian perspective is that? There are 34,000 extant sects (Wikipedia) and who knows how many dead ones in 2,000 years.
You probably mean your Death Cult, one of the ones that desperately hopes god shows up soon and kills 6.7 billion people and destroys the earth.
Or the one that believes a twice divorced, korean excon is Jesus the 2nd.
Doesn’t sound like the Unitarians.
Actually, you can join the NCSE by going to their website and sending them money, IIRC it is $30/year. In other words, kenny could join in 5 minutes. After all, on the internet, no one knows if you are a dog.
You see “Intelligently Designed” the irony of this verse is that the one who is being condemned here, the unbelieving, is exactly you, the creationist.
Transposed today,
“The god of this age has blinded the unbelieving” means
“the farce of a creationist god that you are
worshiping which is so evidently a joke and is the god of this age, has incapacitated those who follow him”,
“so that the gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, would not shine on them” means
“so that the true meaning of Christ’s message, which is the one that will lead to the truth and to God, will not be understood by them as only reason can lead to the truth”.
Kenny:
Kenny boy, this is the same NCSE that handed the creos their lumpy, misshapen asses in Dover. The same NCSE that (among others) had the Discovery Institute so spooked that it asked its
parrotsfellows not to testify at the Dover trial. The NCSE that provided the definitive proof that exposed the fact that the creos were lying about their agenda, and about whether ID was in fact just re-branded creationism.The fact that some of the major minds at NCSE are female is an added bonus–not because of some infantile obsession with Dr. Holden’s appearance, but because it strikes a blow against another conservative article of faith–that women are equipped only to be domestic workers and baby factories.
So that video is really a two-for-one win for our side. Deal with it.
I enjoyed the video, and I am extra behind all the work the NCSE does to preserve science standards in our schools, but the one thing I cannot approve of is what was apparently a clumsy attempt at subliminal messaging. When she is saying “beaks and wings, etc.” for the first time we see a super quick flash of the “Intelligent Design is Religious” headline, which I wouldn’t even have been able to read if not for my choice to go back at pause it at just the right second. People who truly believe they are in the right should not act like this. We have the truth on our side, we don’t need these shady tactics.
curious (#61)
I came to understand Christianity to be false about a year ago. There were plenty of things leading up to the final break, mostly having to do with the treatment I received at the hands of other Christians who refused to accept my faith so long as I accepted science as accurate. Stuff like being ostracized by my classmates in the seventh grade for daring to think a fossil could be millions of years old, complete strangers telling me that the time spent getting my anthro degree were wasted since I could just have read Genesis, and generally being told that I couldn’t be part of the club unless I turned my brain off.
The final straw was when I was fired from a Lutheran school for teaching evolution; the fact that the administrators and faculty were so blind to reality and so determined to lie to the students still makes me sick. Seeing them cripple some of the most curious and capable minds I’d ever encountered in middle schoolers, accusing me of blasphemy for suggesting that Genesis might not be 100% literal, and asking me to remain silent while they forced their lies on those kids got me to see just how little value they placed on the truth and made me more receptive to seeing the glaring problems with Christianity I’d been able to overlook before. As I thought about it more, and as I studied both the Bible and the works of skeptics, the more I came to realize that for a god to exist, it had to be a complete idiot, a sadistic bastard, or both. Neither of those sounded much like a being I felt any desire to associate myself with (although the latter describes the biblical god pretty well), so I made the break.
You say that my “spirit is still joined to the Holy Spirit,” well, thanks but no thanks. If you think it’s reasonable that your imaginary friend bind me to a belief I took on as a brainwashed twelve year old after I’ve renounced it with my eyes wide open, fuck you and fuck him. I have no desire to remain attached to a monster like the one the Bible describes. Besides, I’ve never seen your god, never heard or felt him, never seen anything that would support the idea that he exists. He could convince me with what would be a simple act for a supposedly almighty being, he could turn on the burned-out light in my ceiling fan, strike me dead where I sit, cause my roommate’s cat to jump onto my couch from her current nap spot, or summon Angelina Jolie to my bedroom. – Five minutes after typing that, the light’s still off, I’m still breathing, the cat’s still on the floor, and I’ve still got all my clothes on. – My faith came to an end when I realized that no evidence was going to turn up, that I believed what I did because of peer pressure and an accident of geography, and that it could only be maintained by ignoring the massive problems with the claims of Christianity.
Every time I hear that “cdesign proponentsist” anecdote, I lol. It’s just too good to be true.
Wow, creationists are too stupid to even use search and replace currectly. Instead of using serach and replace, they just highlighted ‘creationist’ and pasted in ‘design proponents’, sloppily missing the word boundaries. Apparently also replacing a singular with a plural form. The book must be a really crappily done affair, if they took this little care with the editing.
Hmmm. Strange. Maybe it was an editing error. Such things have been known to happen.
curious, you see the problem in the replies you have had, few of the other xian cults share your exact interpretation. And yes I do consider all religions cults. Large numbers of members and longevity doesn’t legitimise any of them. For, to paraphrase, you really can fool many of the people much of the time. After all religions other than xianity are considered false to one degree or another by xians even though they also have large numbers and longevity on their side. So from a xian POV, that is one example of many people being fooled for much of the time. We atheists just add xianity to the list of those many being fooled much of the time. Anyway, sidetrack rant over :)
So, the fact that you consider anyone who has been ‘born’ can’t be unborn is only relevant to others of your particular cult as many other cults will disagree on your exact interpretation. That is often a problem when we criticise xian or fundie stupidity or malevolence, different xian cults come out of the woodwork crying, but that’s not my xianity. Talk about shifting the goal posts.
As to why I stopped believing as a xian, I could give you a long screed about it. However, I won’t waste your time beyond saying that when I really really read and examined the various holy books of xianity and other world religions, both extinct and extant ones, as a teenager in comparative religion classes, in a CofW college ironically, it soon became apparent that a belief in god was irrational, even using the very best evidence the religions themselves supplied. And one other item that became obvious quite quickly as well, we were not so much made in god’s image but god was made in our, at least for the Abrahamic ones anyway. Everything else was just rationalising the irrational and a lot of politics.
And their spell checker thinks cdesign in a word?
Not the only one that this has happened to. Many professors and science supporters have been threatened, fired, harassed, beaten up, and even killed by the fundies.
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626 (link goes to Blake Stacey’s blog which has details on 12 such cases.)
You should write your case up for posterity if you don’t mind losing a bit of your privacy. Pandasthumb or someone might give you a guest slot. My impression is that a lot of secondary school teachers have been threatened, run out, or intimidated into silence by the fundies about teaching evolution in biology classes. Despite the fact that in most states it is part of the state standards. They rarely go public and it is understandable, not everyone wants to be a martyr, most just pick themselves up and go on with life.
The fundies made a big mistake in demanding a litmus test to believe that irrefutable facts are wrong because of 2 pages of 4,000 year old mythology which were never even intended by the compilers to be anything other than stories. A few will buy into the delusion because they don’t care. The brightest and best will eventually look at the facts and say, OK if it is genesis or the highway. Bye, I’m off to see the real world.
PS Which branch of the Lutherans? There are many and they vary widely. One of my colleagues teaches evolution at a Lutheran college.
the point is to listen to what she is saying, and not get hung up on the fact that someone with breasts is talking about evolution.
I have to admit, though, it is very titillating.
Having been plagued with an almost unnatural obsession concerning Expelled, I still follow its fading light as though I was watching a snowflake melt on the warm exposed belly of a nymph laying supine on the forest floor. Wow, that even creeps me out!
Nonetheless, regarding the copyright infringement case, the court has stayed the restraining order on any further release or duplication of Expelled, after preliminary arguments by the litigants, which means that the restraining order it previously issued will continue to remain in effect. The court has indicated that it will rule quickly, as Expelled is scheduled to be released in Canada on June 6, and is scheduled for DVD distribution in October. In order for the DVD distribution to take place as scheduled, it must go into production by the end of May.
Damn, and there I was, counting on giving out copies of Expelled as Hanukah presents. Oh well, I guess I can give out season passes to Ken Ham’s Flintstone Museum instead.
Curious (Comment #61):
I’m afraid I have no great insight from personal de-conversion to pass on – although raised a Presbyterian, I never had any emotional attachment to the religion, and so when I worked out at age 10 that I didn’t believe any of it, the process was really quite gradual and painless. It was as simple as realising that adults weren’t always knowledgable or right, and that if they couldn’t give good reasons for supposing their claims to be true, then this was a good reason to be skeptical of said claims. It was, in short, part of growing up and learning to think for myself. There was no ideological conviction that I had to overcome.
Mind you, even at a younger age the rituals and teachings of Christianity (the Presbyterian version, at least) struck me as being absurd and banal. Dinosaurs were so much more interesting.
Hmm. To a non-believer, this looks like an opaque and uninformative metaphor at best, and incoherent gibberish at worst. (Sorry, but the term “divine life” doesn’t have any obvious meaning that I can discern.) I suppose it’s nice and inclusive of you to grant that apostates are still part of God’s big family, but I wonder: why should any apostate care? After all, your “Christian perspective” is itself part of what is being rejected by people moving from belief to non-belief.
Raven (#79)
Thanks for the link, I’ll write something up for him. The “school” was run by Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod. As much as I loathe them for what they teach their students, I’ll always owe them a debt of gratitude for helping me to shed my faith.
And their spell checker thinks cdesign in a word?
Keep in mind the video points out that the draft in question was made, not coincidentally, after the Edwards decision in 1987. Microsoft Word would’ve been around version 3.0. The idea that they did the substitution manually is not inconceivable.
Easy: replace “horizontal” by “vertical”. Multicellular as she is, horizontal gene transfer to her requires loads of retroviruses… not recommended.
Emphasis added. Never, I repeat, never use a spellchecker.
Easy: they all exist, but they are evil demons, whom to worship is positively dangerous. This used to be common dogma, and at least some American fundies still believe it.
This requires not being omniscient. If you’re omniscient, you know the outcome beforehand.
This requires two assumptions: that spirits in general, and the Holy Spirit in particular, exist. Ockham’s Razor has something against both of these assumptions.
Purgatory.
I think this is called the Nicolaidite Heresy… (I suggest a celebrity deathmatch.)
1) I deny that subliminal messaging works.
2) Why can’t it be a cutting error?
Kseniya, re your #76, your dry wit always makes me smile. I even read your replies to Kennygasms, tho I no longer read his posts.
Anyway, spell checkers are anti-bible you know. They did not have them then, the words were inspired and there are no errors in the KJV, the only real bible (YMMV). Their textbook, being inspired by the fight for souls of men (yes, men, women need not apply), is likewise free of sin and stain. What we see as an error is just a test of faith.
Ciao
Kseniya:
Actually, I think Carl Zimmer’s picture looks better.
#34: Dr. Holden somewhat reminds me of some of the fundamentalists Christians I used to hang with who looked for Satanic lyrics by playing music backwards.
Perhaps you’ve overlooked the fact that what she’s talking about is a piece of legal research that was done for a court case–abbreviated in replies here as “Dover”–in which the NCSE was one of the allies working to establish precisely that ID is religious, and therefore shouldn’t be taught in public schools.
That explains the tenacity here; one needn’t blame it on nitpicking or obsession. I think previous commenters have backed up the factuality of what was found, as opposed to what people hallucinate when listening to recordings backward.
Wow, do I feel old. I distinctly remember hearing “I buried Paul” in some Beatles song, played backwards, on an LP, even though I knew perfectly well that the dead-Paul rumors were bullshit. I don’t think it’s possible to play a CD backwards. What about MP3s?
Listen not to such heretical babblings! Only the Word of God is free from error. These heathen spellcheckers are no more than a pagan attempt to emulate His glorious perfection. It’s Babel all over again, I say.
Ron, re your #88, that is why the MAN pushed for the switch to CDs and MP3s, so you cannot play them backwards. They dont want you to know the truth, they are taking away your rights by taking away LPs.
Hey, did you know there is a car that runs on tap water? Detroit has blocked it for years and…
What, oh, ok, yes nurse, I will take my meds now.
Ciao
Raven,
I think this is a very central discussion. Why do they insist on these 2 pages which are so evidently false ?
Let’s take two populations of young kids ;
Pop. A : kids that are taught religion at a young age and are forced (and threatened) to believe in these as an absolute truth,
Pop. B : kids that are taught religion with mention that the creation aspects are symbolic (as I was taught).
In both pop A and B, the most brilliant kids, will be able to make their own choices later on. Here we are talking small %.
But I think that when exposed to science classes, and unbiased information, a vast majority of kids in Pop. A will remain incapable of making their own choices.
Whereas with Pop.B, a much larger % of people will start moving around, looking for other religious options,or spiritual-woo, or simply abandon religion.
It’s purely for competitive reasons that the creationists are insiting on these two pages, and it only works when it’s enforced at a very young age, before they get any possible exposure to scientific concepts in classes.
I’ve always wondered if the key to the problematic is the timing of the exposure. It’s who comes first wins !
The brain of the child is always searching for answers, do kids in primary school in America get any basic science knowledge ?
MartinM, re your #89, thanks, nice addition to make my post even sillier. (big smile) Well, off to do some things around town, fried shrimp sounds good for lunch. SC may have some goofy fundies, but man, does Charleston have good seafood.
Ciao
curious @#61:
Well, speaking of course only for myself (but, I strongly suspect, in common with many others), it was several things; the dissonances between the values that were claimed by the church, and the values presented in Holy Writ, and the values actually deomonstrated by the faithful; the fact that the All-Powerful, All-Present, and All-Powerful Creator of All Reality is apparently, judging from the evidence, either unwilling or unable to rein in the behaviors of his avowed followers when they commit atrocities in his name (or, alternatively and just as bad, is unaware of these actions); and the fact that innocent bystanders have to suffer, sometimes horribly, just to act as examples to complete strangers so they will See the Light. A few other things, as well, but those were the ones that got me to thinking (an activity that apparently is also Prohibited, outside of carefully-circumscribed bounds).
Who the hell do you think you are to speak for all Christians? That may be your perspective, and that of your friends, family, and the closeted rubber fetishist who undoubtedly runs your church.
But that is not the Christian perpective, since there isn’t one.
This is what the cdesign proponentsist signifies more than anything: the type of lazy half-assery that would envelop science if the creos had their way. Didn’t properly autoclave those samples? Who cares? Jesus loves me! Your theory has no predictive power? No matter, the bible doesn’t either, but that doesn’t stop me from knowing that Jesus loves me! Got two competing theories? Let’s call in the theologians, and we’ll start another denominational schism! Jesus loves me! No, Jesus loves me more!
God save us from Christian ‘scientists’ who edit their textbooks with the same diligence with which they follow the ten commandments.
Well, darn; I left off the next bit:
Again, curious @#61
You cannot be joined to something that does not exist. You cannot be disjoined from something that does not exist.
New movie idea:
Misspelled: No Cdesign Proponentsists Allowed
RE: “You cannot be joined to something that does not exist.”
Not true. The invisible pink unicorn (blessed be her pinkness) loves pineapple pizza and since the initiation-rite into the Invisible Pink Unicorn religion is eating a pineapple pizza than anyone who has ever eaten a pineapple pizza is automatically a member of IPU and subject to her omnipotent rule and her wrath for any transgressions.
I love the idea that “cdesign pronponentist” is the fossil of a transitional form in the evolution of the ‘Creation Science’ textbook into the ‘Intelligent Design’ textbook.
curious @ #61:
David Marjanović, OM @ #85:
Might’ve been a typo, but it makes sense. As in, of the two lawsuits against the producers of Expelled *jazz hands* for theft of intellectual property (hmm, guess they think that commandment was repealed?), the “Yoko one” is the one started by Yoko Ono.
I remember reading Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World, and the mention of fundamentalist churches that claimed UFOs were real, but piloted by demons. It was clear that there was no real evidence for the alien abductions and such, and anyone thinking about it critically would notice that, but the fundies didn’t dare let their followers think critically about anything, lest they start looking too closely at their even more insane religious dogma. So they just took an outside bit of insanity and recast it into their own insane idiom.
Here is another fine example of a family values theocratic Xian. He probably thinks Expelled is fact instead of fiction and all scientists are mass murdering atheists.
Creationism and Intelligent Design CAN BE logically distinct. Allow me to make an analogy with manufacturing. Let us say we are building a car. First we must create the parts–the fuel injectors, seats, seat belts, tires, etc. (Of course each of these have smaller parts.) Afterwards you put those parts together–organize them.
It is logically possible for an omniscient and omnipotent entity to instantiate a complete car, for example. My point is Creationism, strictly speaking, is an “alternative” to Big Bang (used generally as a class of explanations) and ID as an “alternative” to evolution. ID cannot explain the origin of the universe without assuming creationism and conversely creationism cannot explain the diversity of species without either assuming ID or collapsing ID into a singular instantiation event. If ID wants to separate itself from creationism, for the legal reasons noted, then it must admit these distinctions.
I am not denying that intelligent design is creationism. I would certainly argue agaist equating intelligent design with biblical creationism.
Nor am I disputing the facts presented by Dr. Holden. I was referring to her witch hunting attitude. So what if the book was edited to conform to legal standards.
Not very smart, are you. The book was edited in order to lie more effectively. It was just a bunch of lies in the first place.
Of course, ID is just creationism thinly disguised. The people pushing it are all a vicious group of Xian Dominionists and fundie Death Cultists who want to destroy the USA. Read their damning Wedge document on Wikipedia.
This is why fundie Xian has become synonymous with liar among other flattering nouns.
Raven @#37
The standard view taught in many churches is that Lucifer and Satan are the same person. However this view lacks scriptural support.
Lucifer means lightbringer, from the Latin lux “light” and ferre “to bear or bring.” The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Bible — Isaiah 14:12 — but only in the King James and related versions: “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . .” The New Revised Standard Version translates the same passage as “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, Son of Dawn!” In other translations we find: “O shining star of the dawn!” (Moffatt) or “O morning-star, son of the dawn!” (Hebrew Bible). The King James Version is based on the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Jerome. Jerome translated the Hebrew helel (bright or brilliant one) as “lucifer,” which was a reasonable Latin equivalent. And yet it is this lucifer, the bright one or lightbearer, that came to be understood by so many as the name for Satan, Lord of Darkness.
As Lucifer is the morning star, daystar, or Venus, the absurdity of connecting him with the Devil is revealed in the three New Testament passages where morning star or daystar is mentioned:
So we have the prophetic message more fully confirmed. You will do well to be attentive to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. — 2 Peter 1:19
. . . from my Father. To the one who conquers I will also give the morning star. — Revelation 2:28
It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star. — Revelation 2 2:16
All three references to the morning star point to Jesus or things Jesus says or gives. In the Vulgate the word “morning star” in 2 Peter is even translated as lucifer but not as a proper noun. In the other two references it is stella matutina.
http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/christ/xt-ibel2.htm
The only place “satanas” (the Greek version of the Hebrew שָׂטָן)appears as a proper noun is in the book of Job. From the start we should take special note of that use. Furthermore, “satanas” (to use the Greek as it is easier in this medium) is a neutral term. It appears in the Jonah and Balaam’s Ass stories but not as a proper noun. In both of those stories it is used positively, the satanas, or stumbling block in this case, prevents Balaaam and Jonah from turning away from Yhwh. In Job, satans, is used to me “accuser”. That term is neutral as well. Its value is derived from what kind of accusation or charge is being made.
My point here is that Lucifer and Satan as characters cannot be equivalent as their etiologies are completely different. It would, and did, take some serious intellectual break dancing to make them equivalent. One this development I highly recommend “The Old Enemy: Satan and the Combat Myth” by Neil Forsyth (out of print).
You seem to have missed the point, “intelligent designer”. They didnt’ edit it to CONFORM to legal standards – they edited it to TRY to conform to THE APPEARANCE of legal standards, while sneaking in their ILLEGAL BS – which is why the definitions of ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent design’ are virtually identical.
—
As for the original topic:
I can’t remember now if I read it in Edward Humes’ book or saw it in the NOVA documentary about the trial, but in one of those they said that they opted NOT to use this particular piece of information in the trial itself. It was such a knockout blow that I wondered why they wouldn’t use such a damning piece of evidence. Not that they needed it, as the ultimate outcome proves, but still – if you have the ammo, why not use it?
OK. I was just using the popular culture words, satan, devil, lucifer, beezlebub etc.
He still can’t be the god of the age, as he is never referred to as a god.
Feh. I knew someone would call me on that. But tell me, in your opinion: Why? Because omniscience implies prescience? Or because knowledge of the outcome of each step in the algorithm undermines the surprise? Or both?
(If a random event occurs in an omniscient forest, is it still random? Heh.)
Witch-hunting? Bull. It’s only witch-hunting if a) the witches are innocent, b) the hunt serves your ideological or political purposes, *and* c) there’s no such thing as a witch.
The smoking-out of an honest-to-god dishonest attempt at pushing pseudo-science into school curricula does not qualify.
I remember the StPaul piece from my Catholic high school — and it was explained then (AFAICR) that ‘god of the ages’ was a reference to the old ‘hebrew’ god – remembering that Jesus was a Jewish ‘prophet’. In other words – St Paul was commenting on the fact that the jew’s ‘blind following’ of the hebrew god had blinded them to the light of Jesus.
Or something like that.
Anyway – as many others here have commented, I too have rejected jeebus and god for ‘lack of evidence’. Being Scottish, I’d return a verdict of ‘not proven’ on the god thing (there is simply no evidence pro or con that can direct me to an unequivocal answer).
However, also being ‘sciency’, I see ‘not proven’ as something that can remain in the heap of ‘maybe someday’ but that I don’t concern myself with on a daily basis, and which doesn’t inform my life or behavior in any way (FTL spaceships and time travel occupy similar status!).
I’m willing to be convined on any and all of these. I expect FTL to arrive before any conclusion on the god thing!
tony
#103 – step lightly with the witch hunting my pretty.
Randy Stimpson – you wouldn’t by any chance go by the handle “Randyson” on other blogs, would you? Just curious.
As was mentioned before, this was not a “witch-hunting attitude”, it was data collection for a lawsuit. You’re supposed to be thorough when putting together a court case.
Blake:
Sure, sure, if you like moose skeletons.
:-)
No, no – you’re right. Carl’s a pleasant-looking fellah, and appealing in ways a camera can’t catch. I’d say the same about you too, mister, if this wasn’t a public forum.
Those more interested in Dr. Holden’s form than her function may also find amusing this “ID Rockumentary” being pushed by Sal (Nice hair!) Cordova at UD a few days ago. The comments there show that UD and Pharyngula sample from the same population, after all.
Oops.
#61 – Curious – Don’t waste your time having any good christian pity for me. There is only one way to become unsaved, un-born again, to be rejected from heaven and hell, and shunned from god almighty forever – meaning the christian gawd. You should know this if you read your bible.
Wanna see? *I DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT*
There, done.
Omniscience implies omni-. As in “knowing everything“. Ponder “everything”.
Sure.
LOL!
Such a simple in-joke, and yet nobody got the idea for 112 comments…
Out of context. You get unsaved if you deny that a few cases of exorcism were due to the Holy Spirit.
Not, however, if you deny that those exorcisms ever happened in the first place. =8-) =8-) =8-)
If I were not already married, I would marry Dr Holden. Bravo, narrator!
Randyson isn’t me. The only other alias I have is my chess playing alias HappyPawn8.
Dammit David – Are you gonna make me dig that old 10 pounder out again?
OK. I’ll get the book & verse…if you’re right I owe you a sangria. :)
Yes David, of course I will not argue that, but couldn’t An Omnipotent Being make Itself selectively unaware of the outcomes of certain random events, and therefore also to those outputs of the algorithm which depend on those outcomes, until the point where It wished to view the results produced by the algorithm? I mean, just for Its own Amusement? :-)
This is the one I was thinking of: St. Matthew 12:31 & 32 – 31- Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
32 – And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (In red so Jesus must have said it…) The bible I’m qouting this out of is a King James version c. 1960
Also you can find this in Luke 12:10 and Mark 3:29
Now David, are you being a gentleman & letting me off the hook because this says only ‘men’ are unforgiven? *grin* Damn, can’t even get kicked out of hell.
#85 – David Marjanović, OM
I wrote:
Then there’s the guy who’s Greek Orthodox Xian, but believes that the Greek pantheon of gods (Zeus and pals) existed as well. I can’t even begin to understand how he makes that work.
David Marjanović, OM wrote:
No, he doesn’t believe they were evil demons. Well, I don’t think he does, since he claims to be descended from them. I think he specifically mention Achilles. He believes they were good – well, maybe not good per se; too many thunderbolts from Olympus for that – and as depicted in the mythology. I never asked him what happened to them, but i don’t think worshipping them is an option.
But, as far as I can, tell he’s a Greek Othordox because he’s Greek and that’s the core of his identity – hence the ability to dispose of the older mythology, which he’s rather proud of. If they, as a race/culture, decided to switch to Scientology I suspect he’d be the first one in line to buy an autographed Tom Cruise biography and an e-meter.
but in one of those they said that they opted NOT to use this particular piece of information in the trial itself.
The judge never saw the ‘cdesign proponentsists’ paper, but he did see the arguably even more powerful ‘creation vs design’ cognates wordcount charts. Scroll down halfway:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html
After Barbara Forrests turn on the stand the plaintiffs insisted on logging in all her unused materiel so in all likelyhood ‘cdesign proponentsists’ is part of the court record.
The plaintiffs found it a prudent choice that the more the creartionists are documented the better in case of future questioning of the KvD trial.
For the impact these charts had on the judge watch Eugenie Scott having a sinful amount of fun telling about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=924Nz5WPxcQ (start 20 min in)
For the whole speech:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1777,Eugenie-Scott-on-Intelligent-Design-and-Young-Earth-Creationism,Eugenie-Scott-AAI-07
Agreed. Dr. Holden is a cutie! :-)
To Phantomreader42 comment #99. Jesus said that those who left, were never one of us. Meaning that people can fellowship with Christians and not be a Christian. Including preachers etc. Also in the book of Hebrews it says that a true person of the faith, can not leave the faith, because to ever leave would put Christ to open shame. It was impossible. Meaning that to re-accept the person into repentance again means the Christ wasn’t powerful enough to hold that person. Most people don’t grasp that Jesus/God picks those that will have the faith. Once you have it, you can’t lose it.
Alveno @ #126 (left after the thread died like a coward so no one would contradict him):
Why how convenient! It’s almost as if someone put that line in specifically to give the brainwashed an excuse to ignore anyone who dared think for themselves!