Have no fear! I shall rescue you all from the endless temptations of the cursed undead heart of the vengeful bride of the son of the thread that will not die! This thread will be safe.
John Wesley, the Methodist theologian, also advocated ‘natural’ cures for illness, so he was kind of a quack. However, this account of Wesley’s recommendations for treating the sick has one prescription I really like. No, not the one about holding a warm puppy against your tummy for stomach-ache (although that one is pretty good)…it’s a couple of paragraphs below that one.
I’ll let you figure it out.
NO! It’s not drinking beer for tuberculosis, either!
I was going to blog along with the talks today, but my note-taking computer, a little netpc, decided to turn up dead on arrival when I sat down to start listening — I had to take notes on paper. It felt medieval. There were a bunch of good talks and I’ll transcribe them later when I get a chance.
For now, I just have a brief moment before I head off to the next event, so I’ll leave you with a couple of Immensely Difficult Questions for Evolution that were just sent to me.
Q1. If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there not any other intelligent
beings that have evolved from other animals? Should we not see more
“intelligent beings” evolving from other species?Q2. After centuries, we have yet to reproduce any artificial system that
simulates the functioning of the brain. Is it possible for such an complex
organ to have evolved from simpler organisms? how could this have been
possible?
Q1 is just a trivial variant of the “if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys” nonsense. We haven’t evolved more intelligent species because a) intelligence seems to be an unlikely destination for an evolving species, b) there is no particular reason any particular species ought to evolve intelligence rather than, say, a better immune system or adapt to a new diet or acquire more efficient camouflage, and c) any intelligent monkey-men will be either enslaved or slaughtered by the species currently occupying the intelligent-tool-user niche, i.e., us.
Q2 is also just a variant of the “it’s too complex to have evolved” argument. The human brain exists. We have evidence of predecessors with smaller brains. We can see that the brain forms by natural processes. We can see advantages to individuals in our lineage that are smarter. We can readily infer from the available evidence in anatomy, comparative biology, paleontology, molecular biology, and neuroscience that the simplest explanation, the one that requires the least invocation of mysterious, unidentified forces, is that the brain evolved. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise should provide concrete examples of other processes that could have played a role…and no, scientifically-inclined intelligent monkey-men who evolved 2 million years ago and used advanced biotechnological engineering to inflate the brains of their primitive tailless relatives is not a concrete example, unless you have real evidence of such creatures’ existence.
Oh, and vaporous cosmic deities doing likewise don’t count either, for the same reason.
Jen has the full account, complete with a video, of my talk. I was a rude boy.
Right now, I’m in Bloomington, at the “Current Frontiers in Evolution, Development and Genomics” conference. I gave the keynote last night — which means I am now free to sit back and simply enjoy the meeting without fretting over a silly talk any more. I think I’ll be able to get online in the auditorium, so you may be subject to more live-blogging of evo-devo over the course of the day.
I see we’ve got events scheduled all day long, up to 11pm. I might die.
I’d never realized what a useful tool the Bible is in infallibly resolving difficult moral problems until I read this detailed dissection of a difficult situation on Answers in Genesis.
Here’s the hypothetical situation: you know the whereabouts of a family of Jews hiding from the Nazis. A Nazi patrol comes up to you and asks where they are; you, a good God-fearing Christian, can either lie and say you don’t know (which would be bad, because, like, lying is a sin), or you could tell the truth, and the Nazis would zip off and search for and presumably execute the family. What do you do?
As a non-Bible believing amoral godless atheist, my first thought was that this is trivial: you lie your pants off. The ‘crime’ of telling a lie pales into insignificance against the crime of enabling the death of fellow human beings.
According to Bodie Hodge of AiG, though, I’m wrong. The good Christian should reject lies, Satan’s tools, in all circumstances, and should immediately ‘fess up the location of the Jews. He backs it up with Bible quotes, too.
If we love God, we should obey Him (John 14:15). To love God first means to obey Him first–before looking at our neighbor. So, is the greater good trusting God when He says not to lie or trusting in our fallible, sinful minds about the uncertain future?
Consider this carefully. In the situation of a Nazi beating on the door, we have assumed a lie would save a life, but really we don’t know. So, one would be opting to lie and disobey God without the certainty of saving a life–keeping in mind that all are ultimately condemned to die physically. Besides, whether one lied or not may not have stopped the Nazi solders from searching the house anyway.
As Christians, we need to keep in mind that Jesus Christ reigns. All authority has been given to Him (Matthew 28:18), and He sits on the throne of God at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:33; Hebrews 8:1). Nothing can happen without His say. Even Satan could not touch Peter without Christ’s approval (Luke 22:31). Regardless, if one were to lie or not, Jesus Christ is in control of timing every person’s life and able to discern our motives. It is not for us to worry over what might become, but rather to place our faith and obedience in Christ and to let Him do the reigning. For we do not know the future, whereas God has been telling the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).
Gosh. I never thought of it that way. So…all those Christians who sheltered Jews during WWII are actually burning in hell right now for their sinful wickedness? That is so counterintuitive, it must be true!
Plans are afoot to build a creation “science” education center in Henning, Minnesota — about two hours north of Morris. They plan to push the simple-minded literalist creationist claim that the earth is 6,000 years old and peddle the same BS that the Creation “Museum” does — it’s stark raving mad. These quotes tell the whole story:
The aim, Schultz said, is to provide families and young people with information they can use to respectfully question differing points of view they may encounter, like at school.
“What we’re finding is, many kids are subject to ridicule, lower grades, being laughed at, just because they lay forth different arguments and different interpretations of the same information,” Schultz said.
The Rev. George Sagissor, who is working to help create the learning center, said he ran into similar reactions when he attended the University of Minnesota-Morris in the 1960s.
He recalled one lecture when he said he politely raised his hand to ask a question from a creation standpoint and was asked to leave the class.
“We don’t get a chance to let our point of view be heard because we’re put down and we’re asked to shut up,” Sagissor said.
I am pleased to see that my university has a long tradition of dealing with nonsense appropriately. I’m sure that creations was polite in his questions, but I’d like to know more about the instructor’s response: I’m sure whoever he or she was was equally polite, and addressed the question in a proper way…and if the student was actually asked to leave, it was because he was being disruptive and a distraction.
Students should be subject to lower grades when they give wrong answers. Schultz is wrong, because creationists do not deal with the same information — they are selective, ignore all of the evidence that contradicts their claims, and give very, very bad arguments for their position. They invite ridicule; stupid is as stupid does, after all.
The claim of persecution is typical, too. Here they are, free to express their uninformed opinion, and even able to muster the money to build little echo chambers where they can babble about Flood Geology to each other, and they mistake the fact that real scientists are also free to point and laugh at the goofy superstitions of these wackaloons as evidence of oppression.
Clearly modeling his strategy after the anti-vaccination campaigns, Stephen explains how to cobble up your own homemade controversy on just about any subject. All you have to do is ignore all the evidence and invent a non-existent danger, and people will believe anything you say.
A sensible federal judge has struck down South Carolina’s plan to proselytize with license plates, pointing out that it violates the separation of church and state for the state to not only endorse religion, but a specific religious sect. Good work, except that it would have been such a useful marker for vehicles to avoid on the road — after all, their drivers could be raptured up into heaven at any moment.
I suppose there will be a compensatory over-reaction to help out, though. All the Christian drivers of the state are still welcome to slap on lots of bumper stickers and cover their dashboards with Jebus bobbleheads.
About 2½ years ago, I highlighted the environmental threats to the Australian lungfish, in particular the planned construction of a dam that would destroy their habitat.
To my surprise, Australian environmentalists won this battle!
The proposed $1.8 billion Traveston Dam in Queensland has been quashed to protect endangered species, including Mary River turtle and cod, after a landmark decision by the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett.
In explaining his decision yesterday Mr Garrett said the dam would have ”serious and irreversible effects” on threatened species – which also include the Australian lungfish and the southern barred frog – and he had no option but to reject it.
It’s a little discombobulating—they actually made a good decision to protect some unique biology? The cynic in me says there has to be some other reason, too, but I’ll take it.
