Opening Shot

Welcome Henry! At least three of your fellow 'Pandists' are also theists, but none has your valuable special knowledge. But just so you'll know where you stand, Phillip Johnson, big guy at the DI (Discovery Institute) and reputed Father of the Wedge has said that Christians who don't reject evolution are "... worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism under a veneer of religion." (1) I'm afraid this means you're going to Hell. At least if the DI gets to choose. Before you go though, perhaps you can help us unravel the DI's cat and mouse theology.

1. As related in Jack Krebs' talk.

Welcome Henry! At least three of your fellow 'Pandists' are also theists, but none has your valuable special knowledge. But just so you'll know where you stand, Phillip Johnson, big guy at the DI (Discovery Institute) and reputed Father of the Wedge has said that Christians who don't reject evolution are "... worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism under a veneer of religion." (1) I'm afraid this means you're going to Hell. At least if the DI gets to choose. Before you go though, perhaps you can help us unravel the DI's cat and mouse theology.

1. As related in Jack Krebs' talk.

Welcome Henry! At least three of your fellow 'Pandists' are also theists, but none has your valuable special knowledge. But just so you'll know where you stand, Phillip Johnson, big guy at the DI (Discovery Institute) and reputed Father of the Wedge has said that Christians who don't reject evolution are "... worse than atheists, because they hide their naturalism under a veneer of religion." (1) I'm afraid this means you're going to Hell. At least if the DI gets to choose. Before you go though, perhaps you can help us unravel the DI's cat and mouse theology.

1. As related in Jack Krebs' talk.

If the Bible must be rejected as an explanation of the origin of the diversity of life and the early history of humanity, why discuss it on this site? Why present negative theological arguements, instead of positive scientific arguements?

Why discuss it at this site? 1) Why not? 2) The DI is in effect spreading a package of bad science and bad religion. And I don't mean the Rock Group.

Very simply, it works like this: they want people to believe that the argument from ignorance is scientific. In theology, the argument from ignorance becomes 'God of the gaps'. This may lead to additional problems in either field. Many in the general public would be more concerned with keeping bad religion out of schools than bad science. But they don't know about it. Let's help them find out.

p.s. don't let the posting system here, which sometimes reacts slowly, lure you into a double post. :(

Welcome Mr. Neufeld! As a fellow theist, I am looking forward to what you have to contribute. Your area of expertise is precisely what I would like to go into once I finish up with my undergrad studies. I, too, graduated from a Christian school and am wrapping up a management/ministry degree at a Christian college. I have talk.origins to thank for opening my eyes (or sending me to hell, depending on who you ask) over the last four years or so.

Welcome to Pandas Thumb!!

Henry,

What is your opinion on the "seventh day?" When I read Genesis 2 it seems to come out of no where, as if it was tacked onto an earlier story. I think Genesis 2 might have been adapted from a base-six mesopatamian culture and the base-seven hebrews added the final day to work it into their culture. Is this reasonable or bullshit?

Hi, Henry: You certainly are welcome to PT as any sincere person should be. As a life-long agnostic, I've some questions for you. Now, when I define myself as an agnostic I mean that I don't know of any unequivocal proof of either existence or non-existence of a Creator of the universe and therefore I abstain from maintaining a definite position on that point (although circumstantial evidence, IMHO, makes atheism more plausible than faith). However, my view of religions is a different matter. There are tens of thousands of religions, so why should I take Christianity more seriously than, say, Bahai or Sikh faith? My opinion is that all religions are based on very shaky foundations so thair tenets cannot be taken seriously. You are a theist - but from what you told about your biography seems to follow that your faith in a personal God stems from the indoctrination you receieved in your early formative years rather than from any rational argumentation.

Can you kindly explain why you, an obviously rational person who is capable of viewing the Genesis story from the standpoint of its logic and consistency, nevertheless keep faith in a personal God despite the complete lack of evidence, besides a sentimental adherence to your sweet childhood emotions? I have tried to get an answer to that question from other theists who, apart from their faith, are perfectly rational and science-loving people, but none of them gave a coherent answer (most simply avoided any answer).

Thanks in advance and, again, welcome. Mark Perakh.

Mark-

To be honest, I don't think that's really an appropriate question for this forum. Henry is not here to defend theism or Christianity, but to look at the validity of creationism/ID from the standpoint of a biblical scholar. To get off into arguments about the truth or falsity of Christianity in this forum would be counter to our goals, I think.

Ed, the question I asked may indeed be viewed as inappropriate for PT if judged from the original position of this blog's initiators. However, in the course of its gradual progress, PT has been inundated with many comments and even posts that went rather far from the initial scope of its topics, so a brief discussion of my question will hardly lead us much farther from the original schema than it has gone already. I am not requesting from Henry a defense of faith or Christianity but only an explanation of how people like him maintain both their faith and adherence to science despite the quite serious divergence of the approaches and methods between religion and science. If, though, there is a strong aversion to discussing my question here, I'd be quite satisfied with getting a private response from Henry.

I too welcome you Henry, not quite as enthusiastically as Pete has perhaps, but genuinely just the same.
I am new here too, and find most of the discussion a bit too technical to really grasp, particularly complex arguments about the chemistry involved.
As a confirmed agnostic, I have been open to the fence sitter argument, but two things have moved me to my position, one is the extreme ignorance of our species on scientific questions of the most basic sort, the other, the problem of beginnings. God, gods, or naturalism has vouchsafed me no insights, so I am more inclined to the atheistic side of agnosticism, but still, I don't know.
I view a lot of what I see here as a competition between apples and oranges, the apples accuse the oranges of not having enough appleness, and the oranges demanding the apples submit to their orangeness, then provide pseudo applish reasons, and, in fact, become oranges "on faith" and applish argument.
Religion, and science are very different at the core, and both have important places in the society we have. Try as it may, science cannot answer all questions, and (some) religion often makes unreasonable claims on the credulity of the flock.
I am hoping that you will add some insights to this ongoing impasse. I certainly have not seen an example of anyone being convinced to "switch" in spite of a sea of arguments.

This all seems to be quite timely as I discussed intelligent design with several Christian friends who (surprisingly to me) had reached the independent conclusion that intelligent design was dishonest and a God of the Gaps argument and as such was posing a danger not just to science but also to religion.
It was good to hear how Christians are starting to see how Intelligent Design is scientifically meaningless and poses a significant risk to religion.

I view a lot of what I see here as a competition between apples and oranges, ....

— Joseph

pete wrote:
being very politically insistent about teaching these things in school as if they were science."

I agree pete, you are preaching to the choir here, I am saying that the realm of science and the realm of religion do NOT and should NOT be overlaped, that the new "Religious Right" wants to was addressed by my earlier post here:

"demanding the apples submit to their orangeness, then provide
pseudo applish reasons, and, in fact, become oranges "on faith" and applish argument."

I find it wildly inapproiate, they do not understand their own religion IMHO.

From what I have read here so far, I am inclined to the view that pussyfooting around difficult questions leads far too often, to discussions like competition between apples and oranges . It is as if the thinking apparatus of some correspondents slides away from the initial point. Where is the terrier instinct? Let us define ourselves by our brains.

IMO all those who confess religious beliefs should try to answer this reductionist question. " Is belief in a existence after death of the body, essential to be considered human and if so, then by what means do humans acquire this property of continuation? ".

Science teaches that humans evolved from proto-humans. Therefore there had to be the first one, different from its parents. This poor bastard was the first of our kind to realise the concept of personal death. What a ghastly thought! Probably the most pyschologically damaging idea idea ever. In order to rationise the fear, this horror of personal oblivion, the first thinker decided that positing the hypothesis of after-existence and actually coming to believe in it, seemed like a good idea at the time. Oh boy, that was a bad idea.

Humans since then have believed in thousands of false gods. Atheists simply choose to believe in one less than the rest.

Pericles

If the Bible must be rejected as an explanation of the origin of the diversity of life and the early history of humanity, why discuss it on this site? Why present negative theological arguements, instead of positive scientific arguements?

— Joe

The Bible is preserved, reliable, and true because of the nature of its Author. It should be believed over observation and evidence. (Faith, Form, and Time, p. 26)

— Kurt P. Wise

"Therefore there had to be the first one, different from its parents. This poor bastard was the first of our kind to realise the concept of personal death. What a ghastly thought! Probably the most pyschologically damaging idea idea ever. "

cf Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead:
"Whatever became of the moment when one first knew about death? There must have been one, a moment, in childhood when it first occurred to you that you don't go on for ever. It must have been shattering- stamped into one's memory. And yet I can't remember it. It never occurred to me at all. What does one make of that? We must be born with an intuition of mortality. Before we know the words for it, before we know that there are words, out we come, bloodied and squalling with the knowledge that for all the compasses in the world, there's only one direction, and time is its only measure."

If, though, there is a strong aversion to discussing my question here, I'd be quite satisfied with getting a private response from Henry.

— Mark Perakh

What is your opinion on the "seventh day?" When I read Genesis 2 it seems to come out of no where, as if it was tacked onto an earlier story. I think Genesis 2 might have been adapted from a base-six mesopatamian culture and the base-seven hebrews added the final day to work it into their culture. Is this reasonable or bullshit?

— Reed A. Cartwright

What is your opinion on the "seventh day?" When I read Genesis 2 it seems to come out of no where, as if it was tacked onto an earlier story. I think Genesis 2 might have been adapted from a base-six mesopatamian culture and the base-seven hebrews added the final day to work it into their culture. Is this reasonable or bullshit?

— Reed A. Cartwright

I'm confused. One important creationist position is that evolution is inconsistent with theism, and that accepting the former does or could lead to rejecting the latter. "Theistic evolutionists" say that evolution is not, or need not be, incompatible with theism. Mr. Neufeld said he was such a person. He also said, at least by implication, that in his view the creationist position is a mistake, and indeed a theological mistake. Mr. Perakh's (original) question, as I understand it, is how one can embrace science (and its methods) while still maintaining belief in a personal god -- how one can accept evolution (or science) and also theism. This seems pertinent to the typical creationist view that the two are incompatible. What's inappropriate about that as a subject for discussion on this forum? Isn't this a "theological problem ... with intelligent design theory?" How can one argue that the creationist position that evolution (in particular, and maybe science in general) is incompatible with theism is "bad theology" without "defend[ing] theism" -- at least to the extent of defending its compatibility with science?

Pericles wrote:
all those who confess religious beliefs should try to answer this reductionist question. " Is belief in a existence after death of the body, essential to be considered human and if so, then by what means do humans acquire this property of continuation? ".

A significant portion of those with religious beliefs would answer "no" and consider the rest of the question meaningless, for example Hinduisim and Buddhism are concerned with the removal of the individual from the wheel of life. This "karmic" idea also seems to have been present in the Orphic, and other mystery cults of the pre christian mediteranean area.
Much of the Tao is concerned with proper behavior in society, and has little to say of an afterlife.
Many religions have seen, and do see the afterlife as, at best, a shadowy affair. Ancient Greeks among them.
Religions that have a strong "after life" theme have this continuation usually conditional on "right" behavior. Of course the definition of "right" is the exclusive realm of the church leadership's interpretation. Galileo's "crimes" come to mind.
Science is based on reason and methology.
Religion is based on faith.
Any overlap is a figment, in the eye of the beholder, an argument from ignorance, or if you will, comparing apples to oranges, an argument, settled to the satisfaction of most, a century ago.
This is an EX-ARGUMENT (or parrot).

The thing about YECs that has always rankled me is that they are nearly as ignorant about their Bible as they are about science. This was touched on by Margaret Gray Towne, in her 2003 book "Honest to Genesis: A Biblical & Scientific Challenge to Creationism" (Baltimore:PublishAmerica) that was based on her dissertation written under paleontolgist Jack Horner. How Towne failed, in my opinion, was by pulling her "punches." You can't have your "plain language" inerrancy and reality too.

The Genesis account of the creation corresponds extremely well with the Babylonian creation myth written from oral sources around 1800 BCE. The most noteworthy point of the difference is the assertion that Yahweh/Elohim (Gen 2:4-25) is the sole creator and dominates the Heavens, and the Earth. This is even more clear in the Priestly source material, Gen 1:1-2:3.

While it would be best to directly compare the two for ones' self (an excellent translation of the seven Babylonian creation tablets is in Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised 2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press), there is a reasonable website comparison at this site: GENESIS 1 & A BABYLONIAN STORY OF ORIGINS. Under the threat of Babylon, the ancient Hebrews, circa 800 BCE, were bravely defiant- boldly proclaiming their god superior to all others, even using the Babylonian account to do so.

As far as the number of "days" the Genesis creation account gives, the sense I have is that literal days were meant, but I also respect that other (more knowledgeable) people say otherwise. Clearly, "yom" in Gen 2-4 is not refering to a 24 hour interval. The ancient Hebrews were again proclaiming the greatness and power of their God versus all other gods.

There are structural arguments concerning the grouping of creation events according to categories used by the then popular philosphical theory: sky, earth, water, which of course are ignored by literalists.

Several years ago, while visiting the Smithsonian, I saw an exhibit of artifacts from the excavations at the ancient site of Ur (most on loan from the U of Pennsylvania). One of the most striking artifacts is a small sculpture of "A ram caught in a thicket," which has a clear parallel in the story of Abraham and Isaac.

Picture available at http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/001019/ur.shtml

Henry, do you know of a more complete list of "borrowings" from Mesopotamian mythology in the first 5 books of the Bible?

(A local columnist has described Biblical fundamentalists as being obsessed with Genesis and Revelations, while paying too little attention to everything in between.)

How can one argue that the creationist position that evolution (in particular, and maybe science in general) [YES- pete] is incompatible with theism is "bad theology" without "defend[ing] theism" --- at least to the extent of defending its compatibility with science?

— Jeff Chamberlain

I don't know of other "list" like articles. Most discussions of the flood myth remark on the obvious match points using Atrahasis, and Gilgamesh. The flood story was very popular. The gods regret creation of man, they disagree (in Genesis Yahweh/Elohim is conflicted too), they seek to destroy man, man the "clever one" (the literal translation of Atrahasis) with help from a god, defeats the gods intention, the gods regret their acts and promised not to try to destroy man again.

When told in the oldest version known to scholars, Atrahasis, there are many persuasive details that this is an account from the origins of agriculture, and early state level organization.

Some readily accessable books are:

Blenkinsopp, Joseph
1992 The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday

Cross, Frank Moore
1973 Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Boston: Harvard University Press

Dalley, Stephanie
2000 Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, The Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. Revised Oxford: Oxford University Press

Friedman, Richard Elliott
1987 Who Wrote the Bible New York:Harper and Row (Paperback Edition)

Jacobsen, Thorkild
1976 The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion New Haven: Yale University Press

Pardee, Dennis
2002 Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Parker, Simon B. (Editor)
1997 Ugarit Narrative Poetry Translated by Mark S. Smith, Simon B. Parker, Edward L. Greenstein, Theodore J. Lewis, David Marcus, Vol. 9 Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Friedman skimps the earlier Summer and Old Babylonian material, but has interesting thinks to say about the authorial sequences in the pentateuch.

Henry, do you know of a more complete list of "borrowings" from Mesopotamian mythology in the first 5 books of the Bible?

— Frank

There are many versions of the bible, in many languages. Vulgate, Catholic, Protestant. Some years back I was informed the the phrase "It is easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven", was mis-translated. Apparently the Aramaic words for camel and rope differ by one dot. Does anyone know whether that is true? I would seem to make more sense. Then there is the needle itself. A modern needle is steel and manufactured in millions. 2000 years ago, what was a needle?

Rather more recently, I was informed that the bible is available in Pidgin for New Guinean tribesman, the people whom Jared Diamond is convinced are brighter than us. There were many difficulties in rendering the King James version in Pidgin, however the phrase I like, illustrates how cultural differences shape language. The tribesman at that time were unaware of what sheep were, so the description "Lamb of god" had to be translated in terms to which these people could relate. An animal with which they were all familiar.

The direct translation? Christ was the "Pig of god". On that basis, should creationists really believe in the literal truth of their bible? I am sure we would all like to know the answer.

The early fathers of the Roman church edited the New Testament to suit their political goals. Anyone any ideas what they left out as inconvenient?

Pericles

TTTTTTTT
"It is easier for a camel pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven", was mis-translated. Apparently the Aramaic words for camel and rope differ by one dot. Does anyone know whether that is true? I would seem to make more sense.

It would seem to make more sense.

-------------------------------------- Have had look at bible translations. Found this!

Should The Church Be Concerned About Bible Translations?
(By Marc A. Graham, D. Min.)

I am frequently asked as a pastor, "Which Bible translation do you recommend?" Most people, even most pastors, consider the answer to this question to be a matter of personal preference rather than an area of conviction.

Why does it matter which Bible we use: the King James, the New American Standard, or the increasingly popular New International Version? They are all the Word of God, we are told. ARE THEY REALLY? Let's look and see.

The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew with the New Testament being penned in Greek. This is why you hear many preachers referring to "the Hebrew" or "the Greek" in their sermons. But the key question is this: "Since none of us possess the original manuscripts of the Bible, can we truly say that we have the Word of God in our hands today?"

This continues somewhat and concludes.

Digital Sword note:
The King James Bible is free, whereas most other translations are not, and is the bible translation used for this site. If you want to check a verse then click on it and the whole chapter will be shown in a new window and will jump straight to the verse you want.

If you like the bible translation used here you can get it for free from the brilliant HTML Bible website. They provided the translation used here and they also have free translations of the bible in many other languages, not just in English.

Please note that reading a different translation than the King James is not a sin, it won't stop you being saved either, but it will mean you have missing words or verses and this could be a problem if you do detailed bible studies for instance.

This page has been used with the permission of the webmaster here where, if you click the link, you will find the original page. The content is exactly the same except for spelling corrections I noticed and corrected, and the addition of each bible reference being made into a link so that you can check out every reference for yourself . I didn't write the article but do agree with it's content which is why I have asked for, and been given, permission to have it on the site.

Hopefully this will be interesting to you, at the very least it's an eye opener :o)

So, There we have it. Missing phrases or words. Digital Swords words, not mine. Let us consider reducing the number of words even more, so it makes better sense. And the word is "bollocks".

Pericles

I believe people without a religion do not exist. There is an evolutionary necessity for religion. Something has to fill the hole, some conviction or philosophy. In an ever changing world, what is inside us needs to be a sure foundation, a definite truth, at least one. This is my justification for attempting to prove why theism and scientific reasoning can successfully co-exist. The first way they can co-exist is by having your beliefs co-incide with what can be proven. But this is taking the easy way. Most people seem to choose this route. But not everything can be observed. When the outcome depends on chance, no one can know what will happen, although using probability we can guess.
I propose that, although God is not bound to working within 'chance,' it is certainly a way he can work without the possibility of being detected. He may do otherwise, but whether someone witnesses it is up to Him. He will not allow science to probe him, therefore ID has no chance to prove His existance, neitehr does real science, to prove either His absence or presence. Is this a "God of the gaps" argument? It is the only way I can think of to pacify both sides.

I believe people without a religion do not exist. There is an evolutionary necessity for religion.

With all due respect, I submit that this is either nonsense, or a preface to a definition of "religion" that renders it meaningless.

My definition for religion is broad, I admit. A set of values and beliefs that are a foundation to one's judgement of actions. I think at least this much is necessary for people. Why is that nonsense?
I apologize if anyone finds it offensive, but what of my main point about chance?

Katarina, I don't tell people what you believe, so return the favor.

Steve wrote:

"Katarina, I don't tell people what you believe, so return the favor."

Are you saying I tell people what you, Steve, believes? I am merely stating that you have a belief, not what it is. And I was defining that belief as a religion. Maybe it was a mistake to say so. I was merely justifying the reason for trying to show how religion and science can co-exist. I don't think there is anyone who lives purely on rational thought, because as we are bound to make mistakes in our reasoning.

I don't know why Russel and Steve are being hostile to my comment. For the sake of getting an answer to the more important question about chance, please allow me to withdraw the comment that I believe there are no people without a religion. I admit that such a comment cannot just be put out there without further explanation. Will someone please just tell me whether you think that a God who acts in the sphere of uncertainty (i.e. "chance")is a "god of the gaps?" That is all I ask.

The reason I posted this question here is that I believe our new contributor, Henry Neufeld, may find it relevant to his contribution.

Apparently I hit a nerve with some who think science has, or has the potential to produce, the answer to everything. Why so sensitive, unless you hold this view religiously???

I withdraw, that was posted too hastily. I apologize most sincerely.
It is none of my business what you believe.
However personal this question though, I hope you see that it is indeed relevant to people who struggle to accept evolution theory. They care about what its proponents believe.

Katarina, for the most part, it isn't scientists who claim that science and religion are incompatible, it's the fundamentalists who insist on the literal truth of an ancient (and human-produced) text. Science and religion, properly understood, simply don't operate in the same spheres. Science deals with observable phenomena, and constructs and tests hypotheses to explain the phenomena. Religion, on the other hand, deals with the unobservable - for example what happens to the self after death - and moral behaviour. Now, many people, myself included see no need for a god, or indeed any force unkown to science (eventually), to live their lives. It's perfectly possible both to address the unobservable and to construct a principled code of behaviour without reference to the supernatural. But the point is that questions about morality, or about the afterlife or the meaning of life are meaningless to science. There is no incompatibility.

I don't know why Russel and Steve are being hostile to my comment.

On the question of relevance to the broader purposes of an endeavor like PT, I would say that the intendend contribution of Henry are right on target. To borrow and paraphrase from Bill Clinton, "it's the religion, stupid". As a theist and biologist, I have long been more troubled by the "bad theology" of traditional creationism (in its various flavors) and IDC than by any threat posed to good science. It may be a hard pill to swallow for some atheists, but this battle is not going to be won solely by appeals to reason and science. We have to pay attention to the (at least perceived) theological implications in order to effectively address the issue with the American public (with apologies to the rest of the world).

Katarina: I'm sorry - I didn't mean to seem prickly, and certainly not hostile. But you raise a point that tends to get abused in settings like school boards. To wit: Group A subscribes to a creationist account, Group B subscribes to an evolutionary account. Neither can "prove" its case in an absolute sense; therefore in the end it boils down to faith on either side. That's nonsense (IMHO, of course).

And - again IMHO of course - defining "religion" as broadly as you do drains the term of some of its essence. To someone who is in fact without religion, questions about god - such as you posed above - have no meaning, so I can't venture an answer about chance and gaps.

It's none of my business, of course, but like Mark Perakh, I admit to a certain degree of bafflement over how one reconciles what we know about the physical universe with the anthropomorphic concept of god that seems to underlie any strain of Christianity that's ever been explained to me.

If this discussion has been deemed inappropriate for this site and is being pursued elsewhere, I'd be curious to see where it goes.

Flint,

Thank you for your explanation. It makes a lot of sense. I didn't think people never change their minds about what the truth which discerns right from wrong is, or never modify it. For instance, because you are scientists, perhaps you are more inclined to beleive that people need to make statements that are specific and verifiable. Therefore you recoiled at my broad statement about religion. However, I went too far in defining it as religion. And you were right. I do not know all people, but I can admit to being wrong, and I do. Not everyone is religious in the common understanding of the word, but there has to be a starting point, for example, rules of conduct, and the reasons behind those rules. And that reason has to be strong enough to make a case for good behavior. Good behavior is necessary for social beings such as humans to survive, and pass on their genes for evolutionary success.

I admit this strays far from my original assertion, and thank you for helping me to revise it.

I do want to further explain what I meant by a God who acts in the realm of chance. Chance-driven events are events that can come out one way or another, no one can tell for sure. We can predict the most likely outcome, but not with 100% certainty. For example, it is totally up to chance where on a chromosome a mutation will strike. There may be those key mutations and gene duplications that God meddled in, which ultimately produced the evolutionary outcome that we see, including us. By saying something is either chance or God-driven, one excludes the possibility that God can drive chance.
Since we can never fill the gap, is it still a "god of the gaps?"

Welcome to the board! I think your contributions will be invaluable to this discussion. In order to defeat ID in courts and legislatures, a multi-pronged approach is needed. It is not enough to show that ID is bad science - because legislators and judges aren't scientists. Many of them are simply not going to believe the scientific arguments because they are hostile to evolution. It is therefore necessary to show that ID is simply religion in disguise. It is also necessary to show that ID is ONE INTERPRETATION of ONE RELIGION. Many Christian denominations have public statements indicating that there is NO CONFLICT between evolution and Christianity. Only by winning all of these arguments can ID be put on the dustbin where it belongs.

Katarina wrote:

"There may be those key mutations and gene duplications that God meddled in, which ultimately produced the evolutionary outcome that we see"

As a theist I am sympathetic to acknowledging the presence of God in, with and under the universe, but I am troubled by this statement more on theological grounds than anything else. It seems to imply that God as Creator somehow didn't get it right in God's first crack and so had to tweak the system behind the scenes to get the outcome that God wanted (presumably, us). This, IMHO, casts God as a sort of basement hack playing with junk picked up at the surplus store. For me it is entirely satisfactory to allow God the creativity to have created a universe in which we and the rest of life were a possibility. If we grant to God the room to be, well, God, why should we presume that God can't anticipate or even fully know the outcome of God's creation without needing to tinker around with it in the shadows? As a matter of relating to the theme of this thread, I don't see the physical/material process of evolution as in any way limiting the role of God as Creator; rather, IMO it points to the open creativity of God.

In the biblical story of Adam and Eve, God indeed does not seem to have gotten the results he intended. The story goes that at first he created Adam, then decided because Adam was lonely to make Eve. Then because of their disobedience, he decided to change their circumstances yet once again, in effect, changing his own creation. I am not saying we have to stick to the Bible, but if what you say is right, shaggy, than the way God is described in the Bible would seem to be poor theology.

P.S. If this discussion is inappropriate within the context of welcoming our new contributor, please tell me so, and where I should move it to, if anyone is interested in pursuing it further.

I should mention that the "open creativity of God" that Shaggy describes sounds very interesting and plausible.

Katarina wrote:

"but if what you say is right, shaggy, than the way God is described in the Bible would seem to be poor theology"

If by your statement you mean interpreting the events depicted in the bible as literal, historical events, then I would absolutety agree that such a use of the bible is indeed a poor starting point for theology.

Thank you for your comment about the idea of the openness of God's creativity. I must acknowledge that it is certainly not one I claim as original. John Haught comes to mind immediately as an author who has written theologically about evolution who probably seeded that notion in my head.

I would rather die a thousand deaths than to lead someone to believe that the many books of the Bible tell literal truth. However, if God exists, than he has allowed it to circulate for all these centuries, has He not? There must be something of value in it. That book has influenced many lives and a beautiful civilization which puts the ideals of empathy, kindness, selflessness, above personal success.
I think Genesis is like a fairy tale you would tell your 3 or 4-year old to explain something that the child has not tools as yet to comprehend. It is metaphorical, perhaps, but it has some beauty and maybe a sprinkle of truth in it. I would not, in any case, toss it out completely. But throughout all of the books of the Bible, God did not simply set a plan in motion and allow it to unwind on its own. He is always interfering, sending angels to talk to people to influence them to do something, etc. It is not just Genesis that portrays God as a meddler in his own creation.

Also, as I said before, God would certainly not be limited to the basement. If he exists, I am sure it is his choice whether or not to reveal it, and to whom.

In case anyone is confused as to my position, I am still looking for one. But for a starter, I have already decided that evolution is a fact.

Katarina, for the most part, it isn't scientists who claim that science and religion are incompatible, it's the fundamentalists who insist on the literal truth of an ancient (and human-produced) text.

I think Dembski's position is a very bad one, especially given the scary fact of how many people trust him on his word. It does not make any sense to use science in order to back up one's faith. It is simply illogical.

Whatever else it is, FL, evolution is science. And it's the biblical literalists who claim it's incompatible with religion, not the scientists. Some scientists argue it (along with other scientific theories) renders religion unnecessary, but that's not the same thing.

And that's just a specific example. The whole notion of biblical literalism, of taking your understanding of the physical universe from a literal interpretation of a text written thousands of years ago by people without access to modern technology, is incompatible with the scientific method. Even if you make the assumption that the Bible is literally true, to base your world view on it is still incompatible with science. What testable predictions does Genesis make? Or Revelations? To the extent that there are testable predictions (eg effectively simultaneous generation of all life, waters above the firmament), when the evidence contradicts them, biblical literalists toss out the evidence rather than the text. That's not science.

As has been said by others on this thread, the supposed conflict between religion and science is entirely the product of bad theology.

I dunno Ginger, I can't think offhand of many (or even few) conservative biblical Christians who are running around claiming that "science and religion are incompatible".

— FL

Many people who believe ID-ists also believe that there is an evil force driving science.

Fyi

Here's a recent legal brief which illustrate one pesky and mildly diabolical "orthodox Christian" public school teacher's efforts to work the school code in order to effect a modest state of religiosity amongst his 5th grade pupils:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1124041declar8.html

In any case we know that there is a big drive by the DI gang to drive a Wedge between humanity and science.

FL,

The reason I think Dembski's position is scary and bad is that it is incoherent, dishonest, and inconsistant. As authors of this website have exhaustively shown. He is a very intelligent man, but this intellect is ill-used to confuse and lull people into submission to his beliefs.. Whatever his motives, it is the wrong way.

"But what about the predictive power of intelligent design? To require prediction fundamentally misconstrues design. To require prediction of design is to put design in the same boat as natural laws, locating their explanatory power in an extrapolation from past experience. This is to commit a category mistake. "

That's Dembski himself. Sounds to me like he's saying they're incompatible. Shortly after, he says this: " Yes, intelligent design concedes predictability." You can't concede predictability (ie predictive power) and remain science. By definition.

FL,

At the risk of being crude and vulgar, pull your head out of your butt and take a braeth of fresh air while you enjoy the sunshine.

FL,

You are playing word games by saying that DI is talking about materialism and not science. The wedge document says: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Immaterial science is not science as practiced today but immaterial science is what the DI wants.

Replace materialism with a SCIENCE that is Christian. You are being maliciously misleading when you attempt to say the subject is not science.

Replacing science with religion seems to imply an incompatibility between the two. For the DI, the looser is science since it is being replaced.

If PT introduced a new contributor as an astrologist, or a tarot reader, or even as a Scientologist, I think a lot of readers would wonder if the editors were joking. Why do some irrational beliefs -- Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. -- deserve more respect than fortune telling or homeopathy?

I visit this site for science and philosophy of science. When contributors admit to supernatural beliefs, I wonder how rational their thinking is in the realms of science and nature. If someone admitted to believing in ghosts, I wouldn't bother reading their opinions on evolution.

We avoid personal conflict by pretending that we can separate religion and science into separate non-overlapping realms, but ultimately one belief system must be compromised. Either the universe and everything in it has a naturalistic explanation (even if we don't know what it is yet), or there's some higher supernatural power that trumps science. You can't have it both ways -- you can only push the issue to the side for the sake of politeness. I don't believe anyone can honestly believe in a supernatural deity and maintain credibility as a scientist -- the supernatural belief calls into question the commitment to science. Or the religious faith gets more and more watered down (Seventh Day Adventist becomes theism) as scientific understanding expands.

I don't intend to offend anyone, but I think most of us tend to tread a little too carefully when it comes to talking about religious beliefs. Everyone is free to believe what they want. I don't believe in any god or deity, or anything supernatural. Most people don't choose a religion -- their family chooses it for them. As adults people who think about it at all often try to resolve their childhood faith with their more sophisticated understanding of nature.

As a theist I am sympathetic to acknowledging the presence of God in, with and under the universe, but I am troubled by this statement more on theological grounds than anything else.  It seems to imply that God as Creator somehow didn't get it right in God's first crack and so had to tweak the system behind the scenes to get the outcome that God wanted (presumably, us).  This, IMHO, casts God as a sort of basement hack playing with junk picked up at the surplus store.

For me it is entirely satisfactory to allow God the creativity to have created a universe in which we and the rest of life were a possibility.  If we grant to God the room to be, well, God, why should we presume that God can't anticipate or even fully know the outcome of God's creation without needing to tinker around with it in the shadows?  As a matter of relating to the theme of this thread, I don't see the physical/material process of evolution as in any way limiting the role of God as Creator; rather, IMO it points to the open creativity of God.

Hell's teeth, what is going on?

The Positive Atheism site has this:

The Riddle of Epicurus
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

It works for me!

When the human body ceases to function and rots, all thoughts also cease, because there is no brain to generate those thoughts. Kill an ape and the same thing happens. We are great apes. Where is the difficulty? It is simply fear of the unknown that has created this belief in a super being who is supposed to care about great apes. Don't be stupid!

We people die. That is it! Do chimps and gorillas get all upset because they die? Well--- do they? Come on, answer me someone!!

What about our protohuman ancestors? Neanderthals, did they have souls? Homo Erectus? Receptors of souls?

What makes us think our destiny is to continue as the highest form of life on this planet?

The invention of an afterlife--what a contradiction in terms--was simply a primitive strategy to comfort a bunch of great apes who needed some answers. Time to move on m'thinks!

Pericles

Pericles,

You underestimate the power of religion. Not everyone has the intellect to have their own personal philosophy, developed by natural observation and through a solid education. Most people, as a result of religion, are better individuals, and the communities have less crimes, where there is a strong religious belief. It binds people together, and binds them to responsibility for their neighbors. I don't think we will see the day when religion is put aside.

Side note: Neanderthals were not our ancestors, they co-evolved with our ancestors and went extinct. Or at least that is the present consensus.

As to the problem of good and evil, it has always been discussed in theology. C.S. Lewis is a great theologian who wrote on the subject. But I don't see how it relates to our present debate.

For those of you who do not value religion, where would this country be without it? Sometimes people just need to get on with the business of living, and they need a dogma to keep them balanced. Think of the mindless masses, where would it leave them if religion were abandoned?

Besides, we live in a democracy and the prevailing feeling in our grand country is sympathetic to at least some form of religion, mainly Christianity. And the children of these people deserve a solid education. So for the greater good, it behooves the readers and authors of this site to pay a little more attention to the majority who already believe they have to choose either science or faith, and would rather choose faith.

Most people, as a result of religion, are better individuals, and the communities have less crimes, where there is a strong religious belief. It binds people together, and binds them to responsibility for their neighbors. I don't think we will see the day when religion is put aside.

"I don't think we will see the day when religion is put aside."
By K. Aram. Exactly!!! You don't think.

I am English and as a nation we are inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, you posted this:

"For those of you who do not value religion, where would this country be without it? Sometimes people just need to get on with the business of living, and they need a dogma to keep them balanced. Think of the mindless masses, where would it leave them if religion were abandoned?"

Are you ****ing demented? Your country would not be castigated around this planet if the born again self righteous ****head you have for a leader had not decided to embroil your forces in a crusade against islam. 50% of your citizens reject evolution. That is dysgenics if ever I were looking for an example.

Mindless masses! Mindless masses? Where would it leave them if religion were abandoned? You said it! Religion is for the mindless and obviously this includes you.

Have you ever travelled to other countries? Without priests, rabbis and imams, people would not be held in thrall. The people would be so much better off. Religious fervour is mental instability. Have you considered that the three religions that had their origins in the Middle East have caused more death and destruction in the name of their deities than just about any other cause. And you want to perpetuate this?

Listen, your country may spend more money on the military than the next twenty countries combined, but that does not make you clever. I suggest you read "Decline and fall of the Roman Empire" Between the lines you will find evidence of population change. Over the centuries, the founder Romans migrated away from Rome and were replaced by Easterners who brought with them their eastern gods like Mithras and Jesus. These morally bankrupt incomers hadn't the fighting qualities necessary to defend against the Goths and Vandals, so Rome fell.

In business, it is common knowledge that the quality of the personnel dictates whether that business will be successful. Not products or services, people So it is with nations. If the people are crap, so's the nation.

Success or failure are not destinations, they are journeys. The USA could have been really super. They could have been friends with everyone. Instead, your leaders piss everyone off and wonder what is wrong. Only science and clear sighted policies will stem the tide and time served Xian dogma stands in the way.

I think it is too late. Sorry about that.

Pericles

I don't think you really want to know about me, or can even see past your intellectual conceit, but first off I am not American. I immigrated here from Serbia, on which war was waged by America (leading NATO). They bombed the crap out of the city I grew up in, Belgrade, and though no one of my family was hurt, my grandmother's windows were broken and she now helps the many refugees the war created. I was born in Germany, lived in India for 4 years, and have been to a few places besides.

Second, I am very much against the war in Iraq, and the many other unjust wars this country has waged. Bush is appealing to right-wing Christians, but not to the left. He is certainly not appealing to me.

I am happy to count myself among the masses who need religion. My father and grandfather were atheists and they left me with very little to go on, I had to spend a lot of time reading philosophy and exploring all the religions to see where I could fit. There was a huge void in my life. That may not be true of everyone, but as a child whose parents told her that God is a myth and a fairy tale, I can tell you I was different from the others.

There are certainly people writing here who may be more educated than I, but by putting me down I think you are showing something worse than stupidity.

As to the question of how much harm vs. how much good religion has done, it is difficult to answer. It has done a lot of harm, I admit. However, remember recent history when Communists (my father and grandfather included) tried to forget religion. That strategy backfired on them big-time.

Katarina's gentle, gracious, and patient manner of response certainly goes a long way to making Pericles look the fool. What, may I ask, is the relevance of Pericles' anti-religious diatribe to this thread. That the evolution vs. creationism/ID problem is a fundamentally religious issue is patently obvious. Why should a community interested in constructive solutions tolerate sophomoric diatribes that only confound the problem?

I agree with the effectiveness of Katarina's response to Pericles, but I would encourage both to simply be sure to take advantage not only of pro-evolution books and resources, but also evolution-critical and pro-ID books/resources too. It's good to have a working knowledge of both sides of the story, and the only way to get one is to crack the books/videos thereof.

FL,

I agree with you. My mother-in-law, a United Methodist pastor, and I, have had an ongoing discussion going on 2 years now. She gives me books on the ID side and I give her ones that debunk them. I don't like to read them but I make myself. For example, she gave me "The Design Revolution." I have read through much of it, and that is why I think Dembski is intellectually dishonest and inconsistant.

One simple issue I have with his reasoning is that he oversimplifies the evolution of complexity as a single event and then goes on to calculate the probability. Complex organs and cellular mechanisms evolve bit by bit, not in one fell swoop.

For excellent reviews of Dembski's books simply search the archives of this site,

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/cat_book_reviews.html

Greg Jorgenson wrote:

"I'm curious why such a belief system would appeal to anyone. I can understand why people want to believe in a personal god who cares about them and listens to their prayers. But what comfort is a god who just sets the universe in motion and then sits back to watch?"

You seem to be assuming that God can't be both/and, i.e. both personal and non-directive. It may seem contradictory to you; to me it is paradoxical and a possibility that I am perfectly comfortable allowing to God. You raise interesting questions that I am happy to address, but doing so openly in this thread is likely outside the purview of its purpose. You can email me if you want a direct response.

K. Aram: One simple issue I have with his reasoning is that he oversimplifies the evolution of complexity as a single event and then goes on to calculate the probability. Complex organs and cellular mechanisms evolve bit by bit, not in one fell swoop.

That is exactly right. Do Dembski et al. not understand this? Then they're really not qualified to be writing the pretentious tomes they write. Are they intentionally misleading on this point? Then they're unscrupulous, dishonest, maybe even - dare I say it? - evil.

I suspect morality (meaning, the golden rule and related principles of social organization) predate religion by a few tens of thousands of years. What religion has done is codified these moral principles, that evolved by trial and error, into ethics. In this view, ethics are the letter of the law and morals are the spirit. And the letter of the law has a seductive attraction - it invites literal interpretation independent of its intent (which takes thought to extract). The tension here isn't really between science and religion, but between the moralists (and even atheists recognize the need for moral obligation) and the ethical literalists, who have bet the house on a literal interpretation and can't afford to lose.

— Flint

You underestimate the power of religion. Not everyone has the intellect to have their own personal philosophy, developed by natural observation and through a solid education.

Most people, as a result of religion, are better individuals, and the communities have less crimes, where there is a strong religious belief. It binds people together, and binds them to responsibility for their neighbors. I don't think we will see the day when religion is put aside.

As to the problem of good and evil, it has always been discussed in theology. C.S. Lewis is a great theologian who wrote on the subject. But I don't see how it relates to our present debate.

For those of you who do not value religion, where would this country be without it?

Sometimes people just need to get on with the business of living, and they need a dogma to keep them balanced. Think of the mindless masses, where would it leave them if religion were abandoned?

Besides, we live in a democracy and the prevailing feeling in our grand country is sympathetic to at least some form of religion, mainly Christianity.

You seem to be assuming that God can't be both/and, i.e. both personal and non-directive.  It may seem contradictory to you; to me it is paradoxical and a possibility that I am perfectly comfortable allowing to God.

Greg, I also object. It should be science vs creationism. But many people on this blog believe their best hope at beating the nuts in the public sphere is to ally with the more liberal religionists. I think the liberal religionists are also part of the problem, but that's not the popular opinion here.

If I believe in a god who created the universe and set it in motion, I may have to choose some day between my faith and a scientific discovery that questions my faith.

That's only true if your "faith" rests on some disprovable assumption, which is really the lamest sort of faith to begin with (and sadly, the most common kind).  It is easy to devise and leap into a faith which no scientific discovery could ever disprove.  If I felt like I needed it, that kind of faith is certainly the sort I would be inclined to subscribe to.

Religions require faith. Faith is unreasoning belief. So, no truth there.

Decades of consensus about a multicultural society have been thrown into question recently as leading German politicians suggest that minorities living in the country need to do more to fit in.

Germans argue over integration

By Ray Furlong
BBC News, Berlin

Many Turks found work during Germany's economic miracle
"The notion of multiculturalism has fallen apart," said opposition conservative leader Angela Merkel in a recent interview.

"Anyone coming here must respect our constitution and tolerate our Western and Christian roots."

It was just one of a chorus of voices, from left and right, among politicians and the media.

The debate centres largely around the three million-strong Muslim community - mostly Turkish, with Bosnians making up the next largest group, followed by people of Arab origin.

It was sparked by the killing of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh, and subsequent attacks in the Netherlands on Muslim and Christian sites.

Fears that something similar could happen in Germany were fanned by a TV broadcast in which a secret recording caught an imam telling worshippers that Germans would "burn in hell" because they were unbelievers.

If multiculturalism means that it's OK for 30,000 Turks to live in a certain quarter of Berlin, and never leave, and live like they're still in deepest Turkey, then the term is now discredited

Nikolaus Blome
Die Welt newspaper

Pericles

Mr. Jorgensen,

Thank you for your thorough, albeit devastating dissection of my comment. I don't know whether you expected my response, but I felt I should show where my original comment came from.

"So most people are too dumb to think for tehmselves..."

Not necessarily dumb, but maybe otherwise occupied. And if they were dumb, lack of intellect is not the worst trait in a person. (yeah, I should know, laugh it up:) If I thought unintelligent people were worthless, I might point at a mentally handicapped person in public and say something mean. Every person has worth.

But not everyone lives a life of the mind, and this is what I meant by the mindless masses. Many people would rather challange themselves in different ways. I personally know many people who find the authority of the church comforting and whose quality of life is greatly improved by it. It humbles them.

My grandmother is not a thinker but a doer. She has given her whole life to charity, and not out of the stores of her material wealth, for she has none, but from the work of her own hands. She lives by the example of the Christian saints, and she has done so much good to so many people. My father on the other hand, ever the atheist, using his mind and philosophty, is able to justify anything he feels like doing. He is not a bad man, but he can always find ways to excuse bad choices, because there is no absolute word set in stone as to how he is expected to behave, so only state law limits him.

At the moment this country is quite Bushwacked and war propaganda makes people irrational. I am not responsible for so-called Christians who do evil things. The bishop of the United Methodist Church begged Bush W. not to wage war on Iraq, and since Bush is a member of that church one would think he would at least consider the advice of the bishop.

From personal experience, and as one who lives in an overwhelmingly Christian community, I tell you that it can bring great stability, if people are sincere. My community is also home to many Mennonites, who are only one step from the Amish. They are very anti-war and anti-violence and they vehemently protest the war in Iraq, as they have other wars.

As a Serb, I know that religious motivation was NOT at the heart of the Bosnian and Kosovo wars. But western propaganda on this topic has been very thorough that it's pointless for me to bring it up. Sufficed to say that religion was the simplest way for the media to sell the war, for which America's motive is like that for waging war on Iraq. Please don't try to discuss this with me, unless you want to write to my e-mail.

The Roman Empire, much like our America of today, tolerated many religions before it became Christian. To me that seems the most humane model to follow.

For anyone who is baffled by my comment on the Balkan wars,

For a debunking of the propaganda behind the Balkan wars, I reccomend the following websites:

www.iacenter.org

emperors-clothes.com

There is some distrust between the people founding each website, but the overall truthful picture is there.

Note:
Yes I am aware of how severely the Roman empire persecuted Christians and their inhumane practice of crusifiction among others. But viewed in the context of the history of the Roman Empire as a whole, it was pretty tolerant.

Though that tolerance made all the religions into a meaningless conglomerate, and sometimes people didn't even remember why they would worship a certain goddess or what she was goddess of. Sorry for not writing everything in a single comment.

I have nothing against atheists, and I don't see why atheists feel they have to make a case against religion. You may not need religion to understand your life, but many people do. Why is it any of your business?

On the other hand, all the religions that Rome incorporated ended up being a meaningless conglomerate. Yet it still played a beneficial role to the state. OK, maybe the Roman Empire is not the best example, but tolerance is a good idea all the same.

Sorry for all the comments, I will try to be more concise in the future. It's just that I only get brief snippets of time to get on the computer and defend myself.

Greg Jorgenson--

You are certainly entitled to your opinions about the relative worth (or lack thererof) of religion to society. I certainly don't know your personal experience; you may have perfectly reasonable cause for your opinions. What I can say is that your opinion of religion and the value of faith experience in life is quite apart from mine. IMO, your exposition displays a very ill-informed and incomplete picture of the impact and importance of religious expression in the lives of many people. You seem to be entirely ignorant of a wide range of humanitarian work that is done by people who are motivated by their faith. Sure, anyone can be a humanitarian, faith or no faith, but for many that faith is their foundation. IMO, it is extremely condescending for you to imply that such folks are just somehow unnecessarily deluded with fairy tales. For many people of faith, God's presence in their lives is a first hand experience - that experience is the personal evidence that grounds their faith. For example, by faith I experienced the healthy birth of my son as a miraculous event to which I am moved to express thanks to God. Amy I a deluded idiot? Your exposition seems to imply as much, yet I am fully aware of the fully materially sufficient explanation underlying reproduction and evolution. That doesn't change my faith experience of the event as miraculous. Now can an atheist have a fully actualized experience of gratitude at the birth of a child? Of course. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to imply that someone can't live a fully fulfilling life apart from faith. By faith, I accept that God gives the freedom to live life apart from God. So why should I bother? It is because my experience in faith is that there is more in my life as a result. Speaking personally, my experience of life is richer and fuller in faith than it would be apart from faith, and yes, I have had times in my life that were faithless.

Your right to life a happy and full life apart from any faith experience of God is yours and I wouldn't deign to deny it to you. However, in the context of this discussion, I think it is dead wrong to disregard the faith-based religious experience and expression of the public when it is so patently obvious that the underlying problem with evolution vs. creationism is a theological, rather than scientific problem.

If you want to keep Panda's Thumb free of any acknowledgement of importance of religious expression to people opposed to evolution, so be it. It's resulting relevance to the evolution v. creationism problem will, as a result, be exactly zero. My challenge to you is to try to push you mind a little bit to step back from your self-satisfied anti-religious posture to see the forest for the trees.

Cheers,

Shaggy

Greg

Basically I agree with Shaggy. I don't have a problem with faith-based beliefs per se. I have a problem when people who hold faith-based beliefs pretend that the beliefs are NOT faith-based and argue, essentially, that knowledge is gained not by collecting and analyzing facts but by reciting a faith-based script over and over again until everyone forgets to disagree.

Just a quick aside: one of my favorite movies of my time has a significant religious aspect: Robert Bresson's "Balthazar". After decades of unavailability, it was finally released on DVD by Nouveux Pictures from an impeccably restored print, anamorphic transfer. Absolutely stunning. It's PAL format so you need to a player that can do the conversion (why anyone would own a DVD player that isn't region free and that can't convert PAL to NTSC is beyond me, unless of course you live in Europe).

Obviously Shaggy is not a mindless drone, and he has made an excellent comment about faith. I did not mean to say that all religious people are mindless, only that the mindless masses would have very few choices without it, or should I say, too many bad choices. There are those for whome religion is the light in an otherwise dark life, and there are those who choose it for themselves for many reasons, that may or may not involve the intellect.

My grandmother is not a thinker but a doer. She has given her whole life to charity, and not out of the stores of her material wealth, for she has none, but from the work of her own hands. She lives by the example of the Christian saints, and she has done so much good to so many people. My father on the other hand, ever the atheist, using his mind and philosophty, is able to justify anything he feels like doing. He is not a bad man, but he can always find ways to excuse bad choices, because there is no absolute word set in stone as to how he is expected to behave, so only state law limits him.

From personal experience, and as one who lives in an overwhelmingly Christian community, I tell you that it can bring great stability, if people are sincere. My community is also home to many Mennonites, who are only one step from the Amish. They are very anti-war and anti-violence and they vehemently protest the war in Iraq, as they have other wars.

As a Serb, I know that religious motivation was NOT at the heart of the Bosnian and Kosovo wars. But western propaganda on this topic has been very thorough that it's pointless for me to bring it up. Sufficed to say that religion was the simplest way for the media to sell the war, for which America's motive is like that for waging war on Iraq.

The Roman Empire, much like our America of today, tolerated many religions before it became Christian. To me that seems the most humane model to follow.

Mr. Jorgensen,

Sorry about all the personal anecdotes. It is difficult to talk about how someone's religion affects their lives and that of others without knowing them intimately. Just because you may be aware of some world events does not mean you really understand them or the people involved. And I am no expert on the history of religion, but I have never been asked to defend it's value - the value of all religion - before. You may have a point, but in this blog I think people don't want to go that route. Shaggy might have done a better job than me in his recent comment.

Have you looked at the websites I recommended about the Balkan wars? This is not the place to talk about this complex issue. But by looking at it more closely, you may gain a less simplistic understanding. What your friends think about it may or may not be another product of propaganda, just as my anecdotes may or may not apply more widely.

I am not the first to compare the Roman Empire to America, and my suggestion was purely comical, since the Roman Empire, before and after Christianity, was actually not tolerant of any faith that challanged the Emperor. To try to kill someone's religion, or kill that person for being a member, only martyrs them and makes their followers grow stronger.

You strike me as someone who thinks your own perception of the world is the only correct one.

The reason I think this country is great is because of its constitution which grants every person the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, people of different cultures, races, and religions. What is happening presently is only a moment in its history, and I hope we will move toward a more tolerant and compassionate time. It is no reason to give up on Chirstianity.

I would love to see in what manner you, President Jorgensen, would rule a country, and win the hearts and minds of people. (I guess it wouldn't be by calling them a mindless mass!;))

BOTTOM LINE: whatever you or I say, the purpose of this site is not to show people how useless and stupid religion is, but to defend the theory of evolution, and more recently with our new author, to show that the theory of evolution and religious beliefs may peacefully co-exist (I hope). So whatever you have against me, is of no relevance. Like I keep saying to the good people who tolerate my comments, I am here to learn about how to answer ID/creationist questions effectively.

... What I can say is that your opinion of religion and the value of faith experience in life is quite apart from mine.  IMO, your exposition displays a very ill-informed and incomplete picture of the impact and importance of religious expression in the lives of many people.  You seem to be entirely ignorant of a wide range of humanitarian work that is done by people who are motivated by their faith.

IMO, it is extremely condescending for you to imply that such folks are just somehow unnecessarily deluded with fairy tales.

For many people of faith, God's presence in their lives is a first hand experience - that experience is the personal evidence that grounds their faith.  For example, by faith I experienced the healthy birth of my son as a miraculous event to which I am moved to express thanks to God.

By faith, I accept that God gives the freedom to live life apart from God.

IMO, it is extremely condescending for you to imply that such folks are just somehow unnecessarily deluded with fairy tales.

"So the problem changes to, when to put it more bluntly, when to put it less bluntly, when to avoid discussion."

Exactly. It is so politicized now that defenders of science have to tread more carefully to avoid stepping on people's personal beliefs. After all, it is extremely personal. Be diplomatic. If our leading evolution "idols," as someone put it earlier, had done that all along, (what purpose is there to saying that God was not needed in the process? It would have been enough to say that we cannot know either way, or to avoid mentioning God at all) maybe the anti-evolution movement would not be as politically strong.

I don't like mixing theology and science either, but it has been done already, and not only by anti-evolutionists.

The point that Mr. Jorgenson made, that he does not trust scientists who are religious, can go both ways. People don't trust scientists who write about whether or not God is needed for the process of evolution. It may be true that he is not needed, but is it a good move for a scientist who is not a theologan to even bring it up? I think not. It is too late to run from the question now.

Me (to Greg)...IMO, it is extremely condescending for you to imply that such folks are just somehow unnecessarily deluded with fairy tales.

Greg (in reply to me)...No more condescending that people of faith constantly talking down to atheists and implying that we are immoral, incapable of compassion or humanitarianism, or that we are missing something essential in our lives.

Do I correctly take this response to mean that you are satisfied with your condescending tone? I've never said those things about atheists - though I have no doubt you may have heard them from some condescending people of faith. I don't see much practical value in taking such a posture.

"I offered the opinion that someone who holds supernatural beliefs is ultimately less credible as a scientist than someone who doesn't. That isn't to say scientists can't believe --- Darwin and Einstein come to mind --- but that their faith either imposes a limit on their ability to reason, or their faith is always receding into abstraction as science shines more light on their understanding."

Greg thanks for clarifying what is, I believe, your most direct and yet least well supported point. Surely you must have some data to support such a strong assertion, or are we to take your personal distaste faith expression as authoritative reason to accept this unsupported premise?

Do you really think a person of faith who is a scientist necessarily expects some inexpplicable quirks in their data and just chalks it up to the hand of God or some meddling pixies? If you I'll await your convincing demonstration of why a person of faith cannot practice science under methodological naturalism that is in any way less than that produced by an athiest.

In my haste to reply, it seems I added a confusing negation to my last sentence. Hopefully, it is obvious that I mean to ask...why, other than Greg's opinion, should we accept the premise that science practiced by a theist is necessarily less than science practiced by an atheist?

my comment above should read "Nevertheless, they are..."

Nevertheless they do is confusing and the result of overwork.

Hello,
I have a comment on the literalism: if you insist that the Bible is literally true, IMHO you cannot possibly refer to any text except the original Hebrew for the Old Testament and the ancient Greek for the New Testament. So, how comes that most YEC swear by KJV?
I would like Henry's opinion on this.
(You see, I am Italian, and there are almost no open creationists around here, so I don't know whether this argument has been tried by someone and with what degree of success)
Thanks

Salvatore-

What's worse, we have none of the original manuscripts for any of it. Arguments about which English version is authoritative come down to arguments over which (unoriginal) manuscripts were used in the translation process, though I'm sure Henry could answer you much more precisely.

Shaggy

My comment is mainly that it is logically impossible to expect having a version of any text that is both literally true and a translation from another language.

The translation process simply cannot convey all the original meaning, because each language creates its own network of concepts, and they are all different in subtle ways (as anybody who knows more than one language can attest).

So, it is irrelevant which original the translation was made from, the very fact that it is a translation defies its literal interpretation (indeed, Muslims insist on not translating the Koran AFAIK), yet I would expect this point to be completely lost on most YECs.

Salvatore-

Your point is well-taken, indeed. Another reason to question literal interpretation a la YECs and other fundamentalists is that it is a practice that is essentially a modern approach to scripture and not at all consistent with the way in which scripture has been read and regarded over the larger course of church history. Trying to regard scripture as a factual account of historical events is a culturally derived practice that only really came about in the late 1800s and early 1900s. As Karen Armstrong has pointed out in _The Battle for God_, so-called fundamentalism, which grounds itself in biblical literalism, is not any kind of return to fundamentals, but is rather a very modernistic approach. Throughout most of church history, scripture was read primarily in a liturgical context. Reading scriptures such as Genesis as if one were reading a newspaper account is a significant departure from historical practice.

Shaggy

Salvatore-

There is another basic problem with literalist interpretation like we see from so-called fundamentalists. Such reading of scripture is out of step with the history of the church. Picking up the bible and reading it as though one were reading a factual account such as you might hope to find in a newspaper is a strong departure from the largely liturgical context in which scriptures were read throughout most of church history. Karen Armstrong in _The Battle for God_ points out that so-called fundamentalism grounded in biblical literalism is an essentially modernistic phenomenon. Fundies who claim to be doing something pure by "just reading what it says" and taking it at face value are treating scripture in a decidedly novel manner. There is little historical precedent and even less scholarly support for reading scripture in this manner.

Shaggy

Oops, I thought my comment had been lost in the blogosphere - sorry for the repetition.

Speaking of translations and such, I've always liked Jimmy Williams' article from Probe.org, entitled
"Are The Biblical Documents Reliable?"

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/bib-docu.html

An additional, classic resource would be FF Bruce's The New Testament Documents, Are They Reliable?, but that's a book-length gig instead of article-length. So I usually settle for sharing William's article with those interested in the question of whether or not Biblical reliability is adversely affected by "translations."

FL

Speaking of translations and such, I've always liked Jimmy Williams' article from Probe.org, entitled "Are The Biblical Documents Reliable?"

The scribe was considered a professional person in antiquity. No printing presses existed, so people were trained to copy documents. The task was usually undertaken by a devout Jew. The Scribes believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down.

I'm quite happy to respond privately, but I am also quite willing to respond publicly, just in another forum. I'm already available on the Compuserve Religion Forum (I have links to the sections at http://energion.com/chatting.shtml).

— Henry Neufeld

Looked over there in Scholar's Corner->Theistic Evolution but found no reply. Have you posted a reply to Mark Perakh's question anywhere?

— Giant Sloth

Greg thanks for clarifying what is, I believe, your most direct and yet least well supported point.  Surely you must have some data to support such a strong assertion, or are we to take your personal distaste faith expression as authoritative reason to accept this unsupported premise? Do you really think a person of faith who is a scientist necessarily expects some inexpplicable quirks in their data and just chalks it up to the hand of God or some meddling pixies?  If you  I'll await your convincing demonstration of why a person of faith cannot practice science under methodological naturalism that is in any way less than that produced by an athiest.

Greg-

I appreciate that you identify your claim as opinion. Your historical review nicely shows the erosion of supernaturalistic views, albeit largely by the work of theistic scientists as you acknowledged in the case of Copernicus and others.

It is not in anyway my agenda to try to convince you or anyone, for that matter, of the existence of God. My faith will remain a valuable part of my life in any case. I don't think you really answered my question, though. Do you have reason to expect a theistic scientist to make non-scientific claims about their data, i.e. to contaminate their work as a scientist with non-scientific claims? If the answers is yes, then I think your opinion demands some kind of evidence to be taken seriously, as it is quite a critical claim indeed. If on the other hand, you concede that a theist is can be perfectly capable of doing good science then I submit that your opinion is just anti-theistic posturing that is irrelevant to the discussion. Are you claiming that theists necessarily can only produce science that is of lower quality than non-theists? If so, you have a lot of history to deal with, indeed.

Cheers,

Shaggy

I used the phrase "theistic scientists" above. That is not what I meant. I meant to say scientists who were also theists. Sorry for the confusion.

Do you have reason to expect a theistic scientist to make non-scientific claims about their data, i.e. to contaminate their work as a scientist with non-scientific claims?  If the answers is yes, then I think your opinion demands some kind of evidence to be taken seriously, as it is quite a critical claim indeed.  If on the other hand, you concede that a theist is can be perfectly capable of doing good science then I submit that your opinion is just anti-theistic posturing that is irrelevant to the discussion.  Are you claiming that theists necessarily can only produce science that is of lower quality than non-theists?  If so, you have a lot of history to deal with, indeed.

Mr. Jorgensen,

You may be right in all you say. But I am having trouble figuring out where your point leads. Do you wish religion would be absent only from scientists, or from all people? If you wish religion would disappear, with what would you replace it, for, let's say a factory worker raising a family? Or a farmer in a third world country? A philosophical code of ethics? What would compel them to accept it?

If religion is so awful for society, are you willing to disclose what you would suggest instead? Just curious.

Maybe I'm not reading this the way others are. How I read what he says is that there is a history of scientists allowing their religious beliefs get in the way of good science. That in our day scientist should be extra careful that they don't do something non scientific because of their beliefs. In that same vain though Scientists that are atheists or agnostics shouls be careful too.

Greg Jorgensen wrote:

"No one needs a religion to tell them what is right or wrong --- religion is a crutch."

It wasn't his original point, but a response to one of my comments. Still, I just want to know if he's thought beyond that.

"God is going to reveal to us things He never revealed before if we put our hands in His. No books ever go into my laboratory. The thing I am to do and the way of doing it are revealed to me. I never have to grope for methods. The method is revealed to me the moment I am inspired to make something new. Without God to draw aside the curtain, I would be helpless." ---(speech given at Marble Collegiate Church, 1924, quoted by Wm. Federer)

I think I made my point at least twice already, but I'll restate it. Irrational beliefs in the supernatural (which includes religion) are always in danger of clashing with rational scientific thought. That doesn't preclude anyone from practicing science, as long as their scientific thought is comfortably removed from their supernatural beliefs.

"God is going to reveal to us things He never revealed before if we put our hands in His. No books ever go into my laboratory. The thing I am to do and the way of doing it are revealed to me. I never have to grope for methods. The method is revealed to me the moment I am inspired to make something new. Without God to draw aside the curtain, I would be helpless." ---(speech given at Marble Collegiate Church, 1924, quoted by Wm. Federer)

Do you wish religion would be absent only from scientists, or from all people? If you wish religion would disappear, with what would you replace it, for, let's say a factory worker raising a family? Or a farmer in a third world country? A philosophical code of ethics? What would compel them to accept it? If religion is so awful for society, are you willing to disclose what you would suggest instead? Just curious.

In fact, for [George Washington] Carver, it was quite the opposite: Openly trusting in God, depending upon God, "placing your hand in His" regarding one's chosen scientific research or study or experimentation. That was the path to never-before-seen discoveries, Carver suggested.

I don't have any proof, but I am convinced that the USA would have been much further along in terms of scientific and engineering progress if we'd taken Carver's personal philosophy of science (viz., dependence and trust in the supernatural God of the Bible) to heart as a nation.