Saletan on ID, Take 4.

Does anyone have any hard scientific data on the link between the teaching of evolution and these various social trends? I'm about to teach a course on evolution and creationism, and I'd love to have some solid findings that I could point to about this link (or, I suspect, the lack thereof).

Does anyone have any hard scientific data on the link between the teaching of evolution and these various social trends? I'm about to teach a course on evolution and creationism, and I'd love to have some solid findings that I could point to about this link (or, I suspect, the lack thereof).

Blame all the world's ills on evolution. This is a standard tactic with the Intelligent Design/Creationist (IDC) movement. However, they never explain all of the ills that came before Darwin. If you consider monotheists alone, you find a long history of believers warring among themselves and killing each other in the name of their One True Intelligent Designer.

Maybe the problem is with monotheism. The development of monotheism put in place a religious/political hierarchy that provided a justification for controlling and disposing of dissenters. Could it be that this is what the IDC movement is ultimately all about? To return us to the glory days in which they were in charge?

They seem to want their sectarian views to have the imprimatur of science so they can justify the establishment of a theocracy with them at the helm. Then they can eliminate all those forms of critical thinking that draw on the spirit of scientific inquiry.

How better to rule than to have a population of sheep who accept without question everything they are told by their rulers. How much easier to raise a fanatic army of would-be martyrs to conquer infidels and take what the rulers want.

Watching their deceitful tactics for nearly 30 years, I often get the impression that this is really what IDC proponents really want.

Hey, Johnson might be on to us homosexuals here. Origin of the Species was published in 1859, and a decade later, Karl Maria Kertbeny coined the word homosexual. Everything is so obvious now. There were no homosexuals until 1869, just people engaging in sodomy, but when they learned that humans were just overgrowned monkeys, they organized themselves to corrupt western society. Now, if we could only have Marx (another Karl, even! connections?) get an early peak at Darwin's work before planning out socialism.

Is open sexuality, abortion, homosexuality etc. really a problem?

Genetic testing and abortion have almost eliminated things like Downs syndrome and other detectable genetic diseases. Homosexuality existed during the most religious times, it was just swept under the rug, or into the closet. If teaching evolution encourages such things as abortion and gays coming out of the closet is that wrong?

"Now, if we could only have Marx...get an early peak at Darwin's work before planning out socialism."

Actually, I read somewhere that Marx read Darwin's work,
and sent him a copy of Das Kapital (I think) to elicit his response. If memory serves, Marx's book is still in Darwin's library at Down House, though someone described the pages as appearing 'uncut'.

Blame all the world's ills on evolution. This is a standard tactic with the Intelligent Design/Creationist (IDC) movement. However, they never explain all of the ills that came before Darwin. If you consider monotheists alone, you find a long history of believers warring among themselves and killing each other in the name of their One True Intelligent Designer. Maybe the problem is with monotheism. The development of monotheism put in place a religious/political hierarchy that provided a justification for controlling and disposing of dissenters. Could it be that this is what the IDC movement is ultimately all about? To return us to the glory days in which they were in charge?

— Mike Elzinga

Is open sexuality, abortion, homosexuality etc. really a problem?

— Norman Doering

Genetic testing and abortion have almost eliminated things like Downs syndrome and other detectable genetic diseases.

Yeah and there's a quote from Marx that fundies just loooove about "Darwin's Book" (Origins, one presumes) and its influence on his thinking.

The simple fact (alluded to here somewhere in another comment) that evolution somehow provides support for both Communism and unfettered free-market capitalism should raise some questions for those who would view science as some kind of ideology.

Ah, the baseless claims of the ideologue.

I recall reading an account in an early 70's issue of Ramparts about a woman with an unwanted pregnancy who had the baby in the back of a car; the boyfriend/"father" wrapped it in a towel and then snapped its neck. He later told her that he put the body in concrete and dumped it in a river. How common something like this was back then, I cannot say. People were pretty hush-hush in the good old days, from what I've heard, so there could have been all sorts of nasty business. At least if someone puts it in a dumpster it has a chance of being found and surviving, and its out in the open.

Well, I don't have time to support the link between social ills and Darwinism, but I suspect that societies are healthier when they embrace positive heroes and goals. As soon as people learn to sneer and satirise society's core values, then that culture is doomed. Christians have committed many atrocities, that is true, but what would you put in its place?

I certainly wouldn't lie, distort and blame others for my own shortcomings.

In fact, I think societies are healthier when they DON'T deny their own sins. People "sneer" when society's leaders pay only lip service to their ideals, instead of trying to live up to them.

Dover, PA would be a prime example.

Well, I don't have time to support the link between social ills and Darwinism, but I suspect that societies are healthier when they embrace positive heroes and goals.

— Ghost of Paley

By the way, where did young mothers get the idea that putting newborns in dumpsters is an acceptable life style choice? America didn't see much of this pre-Wade.

Are you happy to live in a society where thugs and trollops dominate the popular discourse, where senseless brutality becomes trite, where no man can challenge the most obvious evil, where the government strips the civilised of both property and liberty to finance evil? Where the only solution is to give up and hand our future over to the irresponsible? Thanks, but no thanks.

Christians have committed many atrocities

I don't believe in forcing people to adopt Christianity

I do think that the Christian philosophy should dominate how we govern and live.

Doesn't god order a few infanticides in the bible?

I don't believe in forcing people to adopt Christianity, but I do think that the Christian philosophy should dominate how we govern and live.

A contratiction in one sentence.

It's a pathetic argument, that claiming a tenuous connection between a scientific theory and a list of societal ills is supposed to invalidate or disprove the actual science. If some loony tunes use evolution as an excuse to kill, torture and maim, that's supposed to cast doubt on the actual facts?

I don't believe in forcing people to adopt Christianity, but I do think that the Christian philosophy should dominate how we govern and live.

Wasn't it the famous Professor Harold Hill (The Music Man) who made the displacement syllogism memorable? ("Folks, we got trouble, with a capital T, and that rhymes with D, and that stands for Darwin!")

Comment #62436 Posted by DHR on December 11, 2005 07:20 PM (e) (s) I don't believe in forcing people to adopt Christianity, but I do think that the Christian philosophy should dominate how we govern and live.

Whoo Hoo Haa Haa. What's the little smily face that shows that I'm laughing so hard that I'm crying?

One FUndy posts and that's a good thing. It gives us a point to focus our ridicule guns on. C'mon, you know that you don't respect them.

I live in the UK a secular country in comparison with the US. In my country the homicide, abortion, drunk driving,and sexual disease rates are markedly lower than in the United States.
My country is not an isolated example: 'The Journal of Religion and Society' did a comparative study of belief in God/evolution versus various social ills.
The correlations they found were pretty striking - look at the results for yourself here: Is religion good for society?

There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002).

...but I suspect that societies are healthier when they embrace positive heroes and goals.

...As soon as people learn to sneer and satirise society's core values, ...

...then that culture is doomed.

...devolves into moral relativism and rejection of the highest ideals of the West?

...Are you happy to live in a society where thugs and trollops dominate the popular discourse, ...

where senseless brutality becomes trite, ...

...where no man can challenge the most obvious evil,...

...where the government strips the civilised of both property and liberty to finance evil?

Other than it encourages the spread of Aids, teen pregnancy, and foetal murder?

Other than its creation of a generation of violent, mentally disturbed latchkey kids who wind up in prison or welfare? The debasement of popular entertainment?

I suggest that all Christian proselytizers be forced to read the essays at EvilBible. Paradoxically, most Fundies are perfectly okay with God's atrocities (ie 10th plague), while spewing forth all sorts of crap about pro-life....

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies. "The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so." Gregory Paul, the author of the study [in the Journal of Religion and Society]and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

— Times of London

Decloaking for a moment...
I'd like to point out that the comments of The Ghost of Paley are actually utterly irrelevant to the discussion of the SCIENCE of evolution/ID. This is the case even if TGoP were correct and that the teaching of evolution leads to these societal ills.

I'd be willing to bet that the behavior of many children who celebrate Christmas is markedly better during the month of December and possibly latter November because of the concern that Santa Claus "knows what you've been doing". Nonetheless, it doesn't make Santa Claus any more real. Do we really want to continue to lie to our children through adulthood to convince them to behave?

I can sympathize with the concern that society has major problems, that concievably could be tied to the new knowledge that organisms evolve and that the Earth is far older than 6000 years. However, that has no effect on the facts, and even if it were true, then it's up to society to form a new paradigm to convince our populace to "behave".

I've seen many students in my geology classes at the University and Community College level who have argued that evolution is wrong because to believe in it is to risk personal or societal disaster. What they are really arguing comes down to 2 possibilities:

1. Evolution must be wrong because the implications for society if we know about evolution are horrible, irregardless of the data.
2. We should lie to the public to keep them in line for their own benefit, irregardless of the data.

The first argument is childish, the second Facist. Either one shows a fundamental disconnect with logic and with reality.

Isn't there a causal link that needs to be explored in greater depth than the teaching of evolution being the impetus for immorality? I think it had something to do with pirates and global warming...

Well, I don't have time to support the link between social ills and Darwinism, but I suspect that societies are healthier when they embrace positive heroes and goals.

The Ghost of Paley thinks he's a friend of ID, but on fact he's their own worst enemy, and precisely the reason ID will never be accepted as real science.

So have at it Ghost, continue dazzle us with your nonsensical rants about the evils of a evolution and the depravity of a God-less society. Just remember that with every diatribe you post, you're one shovelful of dirt closer to burying ID for good.

Just remember that with every diatribe you post, you're one shovelful of dirt closer to burying ID for good.

"Are you happy to live in a society where thugs and trollops dominate the popular discourse..."

— The Ghost of Paley

Norman
They won't a message but they will find a story.
That story is all of humankind's past survival.
The biggest problem is man F***k's up every time he tries to impose a closed mind over reality.

Apesnake
Yeah the whole DI crew seem to have a real THING going there.
They should do the right thing and dress up as nuns whenever they open their mouths,
then it would all MAKE SENSE.

I'm a strong Agnostic. But I do not understand why so many here are so hostile to religion. Many of our greatest scientists were in fact very religious men, such as Micheal Faraday, Newton, even Galileo. For them, investigating the natural world as like looking into the mind of God.

It's scientists like these who we should welcome IMO, no matter if we think that their beliefs are irrational.

JonBuck
Your missing the whole point.
Fundamentalism is identity politics =look it up
Galileo was himself persecuted by fundamentalists
when the cardinals did not want to look through his telescope for fear it would break the "Music of the Spheres"
Galileo was a champion of the enlightenment, the Fundamentalists want to obscure the truth and are a danger to all.
The magical reality they create for themselves to support their control of the minds of the people is just another world view except with some impotant bits missing.
If you want to see the ultimate damage an obscureationists world view can do see this speach made on 9 January 1928.
Note the speaker understands the one simple point made by Jesus and the other Great Mystics and even says he accepts it as a "great responsibility".
As do the Taliban, Ayatollahs, and Rushdooney type people of this world.

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb54.htm

Moses

it was not my comment, the last sentence was my reply, sorry about the lack of quotes.

k.e.:

I understand your point completely. But I also think that religion is a psychological necessity for most humans. We have, ironically, evolved this way. So we need to accept the fact that it will not go away. We can fight the fundamentalists while welcoming the pious who do not blame science for all our problems.

Stupid comment submissions form - I was trying to write something about the differing roles of religion and science, and the amusement inherent in fundies blaming something society as a whole doesn't understand (evolution) for society's problems, and I was told that my post had questionable content! I was trying to be civil, I swear!

Oh well. Here's the website I wanted to link to:
http://koning.ecsu.ctstateu.edu/religion/scifaith.html

JonBuck
I understand what you are saying the problem I see for those who find the scientific method too cold and methodical or emotion free just don't understand the sheer excitement and rapture of .......finding out what it is.... all about :) (stolen from JJ Cale)
Creationism for cretins..... 5 min for a Man..... 9 months for a Woman.

JonBuck,
I find it very interesting that you are echoing the victimization meme of the fundamentalist right. Do you really believe it? My sense is that the vast majority of scientists would be perfectly happy to let people have their religious beliefs as long as they leave those beliefs out of science classrooms in public schools. Yes, all of us are fighting against the so-called 'theory of Intelligent Design'. We fight it because it is a Trojan horse: religion pretending to be science, in order to corrupt science. Most of us would be content to ignore Intelligent Design if it were not such a well-funded political movement and so potentially damaging to the next generation of scientists. What is at risk here? Religion or Science? I think Science (in the United States, that is) is at more risk of damage than Religion. Yet religious fundamentalists somehow insist in seeing themselves as victims.

Interesting factoid: the word "cretin" comes from the word for "christian". It's especially obvious in the French, chrétien.

k.e.: finding out what it is all about is indeed good fun. Other fun things you can do with science involve just finding out what you can do with this stuff. For example: did you know that you can create a stable ball of plasma inside an ordinary microwave?
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/oa_plasmoid.htm

Back to the original topic: the author of the articles makes an excellent point. ID has no substance to it. Creationism says something, you know? God did it, He did it this way in this much time, go to Hell if you think it's wrong, etc. ID is vaguer than a newspaper horoscope. Dembski, Behe, etc. and their followers have reduced fundamentalism to new-age pseudoscience.

I've seen many students in my geology classes at the University and Community College level who have argued that evolution is wrong because to believe in it is to risk personal or societal disaster. What they are really arguing comes down to 2 possibilities: 1. Evolution must be wrong because the implications for society if we know about evolution are horrible, irregardless of the data. 2. We should lie to the public to keep them in line for their own benefit, irregardless of the data.

— GvlGeologist

We can fight the fundamentalists while welcoming the pious who do not blame science for all our problems.

— JonBuck

Hah.

This is completely off-topic, but... well... you know all those ID proponents who apparently have incredible knowledge about rates of mutation and the like? Maybe they can do my homework for me :D

I particularly await their conclusions for question 5, which is evil.

I don't believe in gravity, because to believe in it is to risk personal or societal disaster. Just consider those who fall out of tall buildings, or those in planes if the engines fail. We should always consider the consequences before we decide whether to accept the facts.

— Corkscrew

Oops! I should have ascribed the above quote to Dale, NOT Corkscrew. Dale, Corkscrew, please forgive me for my libel.

More on topic, Corkscrew raises an excellent point. Fundy-trolling does no one any good here or anywhere. It's been said before, and with more wit and eloquence than we can manage here. Perhaps we could find a more productive line of discussion?

Back when there was a sexual revolution (yes, that was a long time ago), I noticed that all the new and nasty things we weren't supposed to do (or even know about) had Greek and Latin names!

I think that may apply to this situation.

Despite what the anti-evolutionist / religoug fundamentalist crowd wants to think, Darwinism didn't give birth to sexual perversion. When it comes to sexual perversion and amoral conduct, I doubt very seriously that there is anything we do now that the Romans hadn't already done twice.

Before you mention something based on our current technological capabilities, e.g. internet pornography, remember to distinguish between the perversion and the delivery system.

There just ain't nothing new under the sun!

Unless, of course, they find a message from God in our junk DNA.

where did young mothers get the idea that putting newborns in dumpsters is an acceptable life style choice?

Psalm 137:9 -- Happy the one who takes and dashes Your little ones against the rock! Isaiah 13:15-18 -- Everyone who is found will be thrust through, And everyone who is captured will fall by the sword. Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished. "Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, Who will not regard silver; And as for gold, they will not delight in it. Also their bows will dash the young men to pieces, And they will have no pity on the fruit of the womb; Their eye will not spare children. Nahum 3:10 -- Yet she was carried away, She went into captivity; Her young children also were dashed to pieces

— The Bible

I've seen many students in my geology classes at the University and Community College level who have argued that evolution is wrong because to believe in it is to risk personal or societal disaster.

Unless, of course, they find a message from God in our junk DNA.

— Miguelito

Might that message be: "We apologize for the inconvenience."?

Don't you see, Isaiah, teen mothers shouldn't be leaving unwanted children in dumpsters, Ghost of Paley wants that they should be dashing them against rocks! (I expect that, for the purposes of following God's will, concrete or tarmac would be equally acceptable, or would that be heresy?)

"This monkey mythology of Darwin is the cause of permissiveness, promiscuity, pills, prophylactics, perversions, pregnancies, abortions, pornotherapy, pollution, poisoning, and proliferations of crimes of all types."
Georgia Judge Braswell Dean

Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion?

Amnesty, Abortion, and Acid?

Comment #62482 Posted by David Heddle on December 12, 2005 08:21 AM (e) (s) GvlGeologist wrote: I've seen many students in my geology classes at the University and Community College level who have argued that evolution is wrong because to believe in it is to risk personal or societal disaster.

I've seen many students in my geology classes at the University and Community College level who have argued that evolution is wrong because to believe in it is to risk personal or societal disaster. What they are really arguing comes down to 2 possibilities: 1. Evolution must be wrong because the implications for society if we know about evolution are horrible, irregardless of the data. 2. We should lie to the public to keep them in line for their own benefit, irregardless of the data.

— GvlGeologist

Many students?

Sorry Mr Heddle that you "dont buy" Gvls observations, but I can tell you from my 30 years in education that there is more to it than you care to admit I have many students who accept the fact of evolution,but on religious grounds cannot accept the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine purpose implicit in natural selection.We are all aware of the input of religion on human history ,the good and the bad of it,what it does offer is to comfort the anxious and afflicted.For many, to imagine a society without a God or Gods is far beyond their comprehension.

Many students? Arguing that evolution is wrong because it leads to personal or society disaster? Nah, I don't buy it. Not for a minute. Too convenient. It's too good to be true.

The ensuing 130 years have seen an enormous growth of the Darwinian heritage. Joined with molecular and cellular biology, that accumulated knowledge is today a large part of modern biology. Its centrality justifies the famous remark made by the evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1973 that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." In fact, nothing in science as a whole has been more firmly established by interwoven factual documentation, or more illuminating, than the universal occurrence of biological evolution. Further, few natural processes have been more convincingly explained than evolution by the theory of natural selection or, as it is popularly called, Darwinism. Thus it is surpassingly strange that half of Americans recently polled (2004) not only do not believe in evolution by natural selection but do not believe in evolution at all. Americans are certainly capable of belief, and with rocklike conviction if it originates in religious dogma. In evidence is the 60 percent that accept the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as truth, and yet in more evidence is the weight that faith-based positions hold in political life. Most of the religious Right opposes the teaching of evolution in public schools, either by an outright ban on the subject or, at the least, by insisting that it be treated as "only a theory" rather than a "fact." Yet biologists, particularly those statured by the peer review and publication of substantial personal research on the subject in leading journals of science, are unanimous in concluding that evolution is a fact. The evidence they and thousands of others have adduced over 150 years falls together in intricate and interlocking detail. The multitudinous examples range from the small changes in DNA sequences observed as they occur in real time to finely graded sequences within larger evolutionary changes in the fossil record. Further, on the basis of comparably firm evidence, natural selection grows ever stronger as the prevailing explanation of evolution.

And you don't believe Mirecki was really attacked, either.

heddle,

Why then don't you want to believe in evolution?

And where did you come up with that fantasy?

Now, an interesting theological question is: do you owe someone an apology if you don't believe them and their story turns out to be true? I suppose so---although I can't really do anything about the fact that I do not believe the totality of Mirecki's account. I mean, I can say to myself, David, you must believe what you don't believe. But that kind of self-sermonizing is just not efficacious. Arminian soteriology faces the same problem. How can you believe in Jesus if you don't believe in Jesus? Well, I don't believe Mirecki's (complete) story. I am willing to believe he was beaten up, but not that it was by two "fat faced fundies" who made references to ID. (In any case, I feel compelled to state the obvious: I hope whoever beat him up, even if they turn out to be hardcore Calvinist Post-Millennial Partial-Preterists from the local PCA church, are prosecuted.) The reason I don't believe Mirecki's full account is that it sets off my "too good to be true" detector. If you are interested in what I mean, read this. In addition, his credibility is not exactly beyond reproach.

I resent the acusation that I really am just trolling for fundies. I am actively berating them. I will be going to hell. But all the while I will be laughing at the stupid fundies who forget that no one gets laid in heaven!

Arden,

In other words, you were wrong.

And you [Heddle] don't believe Mirecki was really attacked, either.

— Arden Chatfield

The reason I don't believe Mirecki's full account is that it sets off my "too good to be true" detector.

— Heddle's blog

In other words, you were wrong.

Unbernatural, you are an uber-quote miner.

BWE,

Perhaps not in the best of taste but...

Some of my pagan friends like to say something along the lines of: "it's their Hell, let them burn in it".

Similarly, (paraphrased) only Christians can be Satan worshippers.

And you [Heddle] don't believe Mirecki was really attacked, either.

Sorry, I drank my tea too fast this morning and burned my taste buds. I'm sure they will recover soon. I'll try to keep the exceptionally kooky stuff on my own blog.

I wish I had pagan friends. Mine are all just run of the mill hedonists.

Sorry Mr Heddle that you did not get my point,but I think you know what I was trying to say. Even if a student accepted the science for evolution,they would ultimately reject the total concept because of the issues I stated earlier

No, that is only your deflection. Shall I repeat your (now refuted) main point from #62494:

I don't think Heddle exists. Everything posted by or about him sets off my too good to be true indicator.

I supopse we'll all just have to decide for ourselves which is more credible: GvlGeologist, or Heddle's "too-good-to-be-true"-meter.

Hunting cows with a high power rifle and a scope. WHo said that again?

Heddle, Have you ever taken a hallucinogenic substance (LSD, Psylocybe mushrooms or perhaps the wonderful peyote from carlos castenada's fantasies) and gone to a mountain at night? It's sublime. Try it. Bring a bible. Read Genesis 19.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=1&chapter=19&version=31

By the way, it is my recent observation that any post of mine on a PZ Myers thread will be disemvowelled faster than a post on Dembski's blog gets deleted, so PT cannot take the high ground here. I don't know that Dembski does what you claim, I've never actuualy seen it, but I do know that PZ does not tolerate dissent.

— David Heddle

To give you additional guidance, here are some questions I ask of any cross-national survey: 1) Did the study make demographic adjustments at any point? (Are white, middle-class Americans compared with white, middle-class Europeans? Or at least did they compare similar races? If not, the study is a joke.) 2) Were adjustments made for the varying percentages of 15-35 (or similar-aged) men in the respective populations? If not, the study is propaganda. 3) Are there any other considerations (population density, gun laws, etc.)? If not, the study is compromised.

— Paley

The Cobb County, GA case involving putting warning stickers in school textbooks that talk about evolution is coming to the Atlanta federal court of appeals.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/5515655/detail.html

This story doesn't say so, but I heard on the radio that the day is going to be this coming Thursday. If any reader here is planning to attend the proceedings, please email me, or leave me a comment anywhere on my blog. Thank you!

How many times have your posts been disemvoweled at PT??

Comment #62494 Posted by Arden Chatfield on December 12, 2005 11:43 AM (e) (s) Heddle said: " Many students? Arguing that evolution is wrong because it leads to personal or society disaster? Nah, I don't buy it. Not for a minute. Too convenient. It's too good to be true." And you don't believe Mirecki was really attacked, either.

I have taken to simply posting quotes from the articles he (dembski) links to. It takes him a little while longer to realize that I am pointing out his inconsistencies that way.

I'm really loving this time off that I have right now. WHat better thing is there to do than see what you guys are doing and making fun of people? My wife tells me I am being childish but I have developed so many wonderful bad habits that I am beginning to doubt her.

Mr. Heddle,

You have no interest in Dembski's blog. You have no interest (from what I can tell) in challenging biological evolution. You believe in cosmological ID. A totally different thing than the biological variety, which is what the Panda's Thumb is concerned with.

For the record, from what little I understand, the universe is "fine-tuned" for its own existence, and I think some people here have responded poorly to your arguments regarding it. But its a non-sequiter to jump from that to a belief in the Xian God. That you want to make that jump is not my business, and it concerns me not a whit.

I'd just like to admit this up front so that you know that the readership of the Panda's Thumb is not monolithic in nature. I'm not jumping on you because you're an ignorant bible-thumper. As to physics, you know your stuff; way beyond my ability to argue with you about it.

Now to the jumping on you part: Why the hell are you here? It's a blog about biological evolution, a topic you don't seem to be much interested in. Yet you persist in jumping into threads so you can post your two bits about "God being in the details". Why should anyone here care? Its a completely separate issue! Are you just keen to score points about physics over a bunch of biologists and naturalists? Originally, when you came around I thought you got a bum rap about some of your comments. But now you just seem to be trolling through threads looking for an innaccuracy to pounce upon. I just don't get it.

Ok. Done ranting. Back into lurker mode.

Ghost is correct in implying that survey research is always problematic. If the survey is done by mail, the inevitably high non-response rate is hard to interpret. If done in person, yet other studies have shown often conclusive influence of nominally irrelevant factors - sex of pollster, attractiveness of pollster, time of day, clothing, tone of voice, length of questionnaire, type of question (multiple choice often misses the point, "what do you think" questions are too open-ended to grade), size of scale (3 choices? 5 choices? rank 1-10, 1-100, etc.) This list of influencing factors is very long.

Not to mention (as Ghost does, at least somewhat) where those being polled were selected (phone book? Voter registrations?) and what biases the selection process inevitably introduces, how to find coherent groups (how large an age range makes a difference? Does culture matter? Gender?), and all of this resting on the fundamental problem that what we find are correlations, always subject to interpretation as to what (if anything) is causing what.

Dump all these (and lots more) in the pot and stir, and before long it's pretty evident that ANY survey research producing uncongenial results can be found to suffer potentially fatal methodological shortcomings. It's quite true that the same survey can be replicated as close to identical as due diligence permits, yet will generate somewhat different results. Changing one or two factors can change results not only surprising amounts, but in unexpected directions.

This doesn't mean survey research is totally useless, or produces capricious, arbitrary results. But it DOES mean that if you tell me what you want me to find, I'll be able to produce what you want to hear using entirely proper and professional techniques. Even moreso, tell me who funded a survey whose results became public, and I'll tell you the results without any need to actually read them. After all, if the results were "wrong" they'd have been buried. There aren't many exceptions to this (there are some). Alternatively, tell me who is objecting to the methodological issues, and I'll tell you what the survey found on that basis alone. It's no secret what Ghost doesn't wish to be true (whether it is or not).

So back to square one. Is there in fact enough similarity between nations to produce meaningful comparisons? Just how much baby is in that bathwater? In this particular case (The Times piece), my gut feeling is "not much."

If some zealot showed up on my blog and posted the same repetitive lunacy for over a year, say, idk, hypothesis testing with no distribution, said he was leaving, then didn't leave, I might get tired of it and disemvowel him.

Many of our greatest scientists were in fact very religious men, such as Micheal Faraday, Newton, even Galileo.

— JonBuck

Similarly, (paraphrased) only Christians can be Satan worshippers.

Andrew,

In generally I forcefully agree with you. :)

I also believe that Muslim's have their own equivalent to "Satan". I've heard conflicting opinion of Judaism and am not willing to wade into it.

But I think the intent of the statement was that the concept of "Satan", as expressed by fundamentalist Christians, could only be worshiped by someone who actually believed in the tenets of fundamentalist Christians but decided that that version of Satan was more worthy of worship than that religion's God.

But I'm sure you get the point...

As in:

In heaven you have to listen to harp music for eternity!
You can't get drunk in heaven!
(as I mentioned above, which started this topic)No sex!
You have to say nice and wonderful things about God, even if he's having a bad day and cranky!
No one reads your blog in heaven!
Ghandi is not in heaven!
Thich Nat Han won't go to heaven!

But! YOur hayfever will be cured.
So! Heaven is already as bad as it can get so why make a special effort to get there?

Oh yeah, no crossdressing either.

If PZ or PT does not tolerate dissent, how come I, and everyone, are still talking to you?

Arden, you fell for a trick. Heddle didn't say Mirecki wasn't attacked, he made the much harder to falsify claim that he didn't believe every last detail of the Mirecki claim. This way he can smear Mirecki, without being proven wrong, because of how hard it would be to verify every detail of the claim.

Synthesizing ethics/morality outside divine edict requires two problematic things: recognition of man's inherent power to create values, and a corresponding responsibility for those values. The former undermines heirarchical religious control, and the latter is just plain unpopular. Is it any wonder that this approach is so demonized by the faithful and their masters?

And if my post offends your philosophy, feel free to disregard it, as I typoed "hierarchical".

And I'm wearing a dress.

This, more than monkey ancestors, is what alarms creationists. Larson lists the social ills they blame on the teaching of evolution: abortion, eugenics, homosexuality, effeminacy, divorce, communism, long hair. He's been told that Phillip Johnson, the founder of the intelligent design movement, brought up cross-dressing three times in his most recent book

Answer me this:
WHy does this whole topic matter?

I am not saying that you are all crazy, (well,) I think it is important but I just asked myself, WHat is wrong with just having us all believe that god created the earth and the church gives us the only authority among us on earth and that we will be judged according to our actions and if we were people who fit the bell curve Just right (maybe the bottom 10th percentile) we would go to heaven?

My theory is that we have evolved almost enough intelligence to understand something of real cosmic import. Maybe this close (holds thumb and forefinger together with just a sliver of light shining between) to getting the cosmic joke or tragedy or nirvana or whatever but we're not quite there. Maybe at IQ of 250 or so and we are there. So, the ones who are farther left on that bell curve have a harder time seeing it than those who are farther to the right but even the most brilliant among us isn't quite there but they see glimpses of it. Those who really can't get even a glimpse only know that it is there because they have been told. My dog, for example, doesn't care about god as far as I can tell. I don't think she cares about most abstract things.

The other side would be that we know the answer implicitly but our intelligence gets in the way so the farther to the right we are the farther away from understanding we go.

I think it matters because the ones to the right of that scale (and you know that there isn't a quality of life difference on the scale so all you 140ers can wipe that smug smile off your faces:) feel like they are almost there, they can taste it, hear it and sometimes smell it but they can't quite grasp it and they feel like the others are creating the noise that is hindering their efforts.

What do you think? I am perfectly willing to accept that I have gone over the deep end and I should relegate myself to lurker status. Or even shut down this stupid computer and go fishing.

And worst of all, it leads to dancing. :-)

What is wrong with just having us all believe that god created the earth and the church gives us the only authority among us on earth and that we will be judged according to our actions and if we were people who fit the bell curve Just right (maybe the bottom 10th percentile) we would go to heaven?

David Heddle wrote: I stay off PZ threads because who wants to be disemvowelled?

BWHHHHHH!

Tht wld b hrrbl!

BWE:
"What do you think? I am perfectly willing to accept that I have gone over the deep end and I should relegate myself to lurker status. Or even shut down this stupid computer and go fishing."

Yes, you have definitely gone off the deep end --- that is what happens when you post here when you could be fishing! Sheeesh, get you priorities straight!

Ah, so the teaching of evolution leads to crossdressing ... I wonder who the time-travelling professors were who taught evolution to such notorious public figures as Lord Cornbury (a century before Darwin's birth) and Le chevalier d'Eon (who died when Darwin was a few years old).

And who knew Joan of Arc had such a modern education?

I am amused to a degree beyond what this deserves. Never realized just how modern I was.

you're right of course. Thank you. Please read my blog now and then. Bye.

Ah, so the teaching of evolution leads to crossdressing ... I wonder who the time-travelling professors were who taught evolution to such notorious public figures as Lord Cornbury (a century before Darwin's birth) and Le chevalier d'Eon (who died when Darwin was a few years old).

— D. Glenn Arthur Jr.

Ooops! That should be "your" priorities. (sum times me ferget ho wtoo poof reed :( )

This, more than monkey ancestors, is what alarms creationists. Larson lists the social ills they blame on the teaching of evolution: abortion, eugenics, homosexuality, effeminacy, divorce, communism, long hair. He's been told that Phillip Johnson, the founder of the intelligent design movement, brought up cross-dressing three times in his most recent book.

Dump all these (and lots more) in the pot and stir, and before long it's pretty evident that ANY survey research producing uncongenial results can be found to suffer potentially fatal methodological shortcomings. It's quite true that the same survey can be replicated as close to identical as due diligence permits, yet will generate somewhat different results. Changing one or two factors can change results not only surprising amounts, but in unexpected directions. This doesn't mean survey research is totally useless, or produces capricious, arbitrary results. But it DOES mean that if you tell me what you want me to find, I'll be able to produce what you want to hear using entirely proper and professional techniques.

— Flint

"Help! Help! I'm being censored!!!!", Rev Heddle screamed to the whole world.

(shrug)

Okay Ghost of Paley - you 'contest' the other crimes. I gave you a research paper:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
which clearly shows that:
The United States has high levels of crime, low life expectancy, imprisonment, pregnancy in 15 -17 year olds, youth suicide, under-five mortality, gonnorhea and syphyllis infection; compared to all developed nations not just Europe.
There are significant correlations between the proportion of the population beleiving in god, in all these nations.
There are significant negative correlations between these social evils and understanding of science and evolution.

If you wish to 'contest' these other crimes would you like to back up this contention please.

It seems disgraceful to me that you obviously want to put all the blame for these social evils onto your ethnic minorities. Don't they count as Americans? do they worship the wrong god?

Conclusion [20] The United States' deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.

I'd love to believe that article, but I wonder whether those statistics were cherry picked. Why Europe and America only?

Here's some quick dabbling into statistics I've found on the net:

http://www.paho.org/English/AD/DPC/NC/violence-graphs.htm

This article's stats:
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html

say that these are TEN WORST COUNTRIES FOR MURDER (MID-1970s)

PER 100,000
(1) Lesotho 141
(2) Bahamas 23
(3) Guyana 22
(4) Lebanon 20
(5) Netherlands Antilles 12
(6) Iraq 12
(7) Sri Lanka 12
(8) Cyprus 11
(9) Trindad & Tobago 10
(10) Jamaica 10

What the hell is Lesotho?

Other stats say Columbia -- that suggests drugs are at the root of high murder rates.

The ten safest countries are mostly European.

The article is about capital punishment, not religion, thus we get a different skew on the stats. At first glance I think there was a modest pit of cherry picking. America is not the worst place for murder by a long shot. But then, some of the worst places are very catholic.

What the hell is Lesotho?

Okay Ghost of Paley - you 'contest' the other crimes. I gave you a research paper: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html... which clearly shows that: The United States has high levels of crime, low life expectancy, imprisonment, pregnancy in 15 -17 year olds, youth suicide, under-five mortality, gonnorhea and syphyllis infection; compared to all developed nations not just Europe. There are significant correlations between the proportion of the population beleiving in god, in all these nations. There are significant negative correlations between these social evils and understanding of science and evolution. If you wish to 'contest' these other crimes would you like to back up this contention please.

— Dean Morrison

The International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) is the most farreaching programme of standardised sample surveys to look a householders' experience with crime, policing, crime prevention and feelings of unsafety in a large number of countries. This page summarises the development of the ICVS. There were two main reasons for setting up this project. The first was the inadequacy of offences recorded by the police for comparing crime in different countries. The second was the absence of any alternative standardised measure. Police figures are problematic for comparative purposes because the vast majority of incidents the police know about are notified by victims, and any differences in propensity to report in different countries will undermine the comparability of the amount of crime counted by the police. Moreover, official police figures vary because of differences in legal definitions, recording practices, and precise rules for classifying and counting incidents. These limitations are well-established. A number of countries have independently mounted crime or 'victimisation' surveys to asses national crime problems- and the ICVS mirrors their approach. Such surveys ask representative samples of the population about selected offences they have experienced over a given time. They are interested in incidents are whether or not reported to the police, and indeed, the reasons why people do and do not choose to notify the police. They thus provide both a more realistic count of how many people are affected by crime and - if the surveys are repeated- a measure of trends in crime, unaffected by changes in victims' reporting behaviour or administrative changes in recording crime.

CATI method The technical management of all (but Finland and Malta) of the surveys in the industrialised countries has been carried out by Interview, a Dutch surveying company. Interview subcontracted fieldwork to survey companies in the participating countries, while maintaining responsibility for the questionnaire, sample selection and inteview procedures. The survey on Malta was done according to the Face to Face method, supervised by UNICRI. sampling: a sample of between 1000 and 2000 households was drawn by random dialing of telephone numbers. Non relavant contacts (like companies) were ignored. Within a household, there was a random selection of a household member aged over 16. In case of a refusal, this household member was not replaced. The process continues until the agreed amount of completed interviews were reached. An exeption to this procedure is Finland, a random selection of individual were drawn from the population register. Also an exeption was Northern Ireland and some rural parts of Spain, since telephone penatration was low the interviews were taken face to face, but also computer assisted. response rates: in the eleven industrialised countries in the 1996 sweep taken as a whole, 67% of the respondents selected for interview agreed to take part. this was an improvement on the overall response rate of 60% for the twelve countries of the 1992 sweep and on the 43% response rate in 1989. In 1996, response varied from 40% in the USA to 80% or more in Austria, Finland and Northern Ireland. For the seven countries which took part both in 1992 and 1996, the response rate was about the same or better in five, but fell slightly in two (the Netherlands and USA). For the three countries which had surveys in 1996 and 1989, responses were lower in Switzerland but higher in the other two. CATI: the interviews were done by telephone. The interviewer reads the questions (and instructions) from a computer screen. The answers are directly entered into the computer system and used to select the next question. (For instance, the items on car crimes were skipped if the household has no cars.)

One more thing. I think your assumption that racial crime disparities are merely a function of social inequalities can be questioned. The Color of Crime, a study done white nationalists Ian Jobling and Jared Taylor, but based exclusively on federal crime data and surveys, suggests that this may not be the case. Apparently, this study was reviewed by several criminologists who endorsed the paper's math, if not conclusions. Some of its provocative findings: Quote "... between 2001 and 2003, blacks were 39 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than the reverse, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery." Between 2001 and 2003, blacks committed, on average, 15,400 black-on-white rapes per year, while whites averaged only 900 white-on-black rapes per year. "Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent." Nationally, youth gangs are 90 percent non-white. "Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely." The only crime category in which Asians are more heavily represented than whites is illegal gambling. "Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black." Far from being guilty of "racially profiling" innocent blacks, police have been exercising racial bias on behalf of blacks, arresting fewer blacks than their proportion of criminals: "... blacks who committed crimes that were reported to the police were 26 percent less likely to be arrested than people of other races who committed the same crimes." "... police are determined to arrest non-black rather than black criminals." (I have seen this practice in operation on the streets and subways of New York.) "[Blacks] are eight times more likely than people of other races to rob someone, for example, and 5.5 times more likely to steal a car." Charges of racial profiling, which maintain that police target innocent black motorists for traffic stops notwithstanding, a 2002 study by Maryland's Public Service Research Institute found that police were stopping too few black speeders (23%), compared to their proportion of actual speeders (25%). In fact, "blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites" in general, and there was an even higher frequency of black speeders in the 90-mph and higher range. "... the only evidence for police bias is disproportionate arrest rates for those groups police critics say are the targets of bias. High black arrest rates appear to reflect high crime rates, not police misconduct." Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than non-blacks, but their crimes are more violent than those of whites. Blacks are three times as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with guns, and twice as likely as non-blacks to commit assault with knives. Blacks not only commit violent crimes at far higher rates than whites, but blacks commit "white collar" offenses -- fraud, bribery, racketeering and embezzlement, respectively -- at two to five times the white rate. The single greatest indicator of an area's crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate. [my emphasis]

Re "Evolution leads to fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to bad Star Wars references. Bad Star Wars references lead to pain. Pain leads to suffering."

May the farce be with you.

---

Re What's Lesotho?

A country in Africa surrounded by South Africa, formerly British territory Basutoland, capital Maseru.

Henry

The single greatest indicator of an area's crime rate is not poverty or education, but race and ethnicity. Even when one controls for income, the black crime rate is much higher than the white rate.

— Ghostface quoted an article in a webrag, which

The social ills they blame on the teaching of evolution: abortion, eugenics, homosexuality, effeminacy, divorce, communism, long hair. He's been told that Phillip Johnson, the founder of the intelligent design movement, brought up cross-dressing three times in his most recent book. "And those are important issues," Larson adds, trying to sound even-handed, but the journalists laugh. "It is important," a colleague next to me whispers. "There's a lot of shopping involved. You have to buy for two."

"Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next. ... However elevated in power over the rest of life, however exalted in self-image, we were descended from animals by the same blind force that created those animals. ..." This view of "scientific humanism" implies that our alleged undirected evolutionary origin makes us fundamentally undifferentiated from animals. Thus Wilson elsewhere explains that under Neo-Darwinism, "morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. ... Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed on us by our genes to get us to cooperate."

you can hardly deny that darwinism, being based on purposeless and ultimately meaningless changes/mechanisms, doesnt lead directly to this sort of thing. most NDE's state that morality is an illusion- there is no true right and wrong, that were all just glorified apes who evolved the illusion of free will, morality, right, wrong, etc. of course NDE theory speaks of morals- if you take the theory to its logical conclusion you have to conclude that morals are actually nonexistant- they are, themselves, constantly evolving merely in an attempt to carry on the change...morals are whatever makes it easier to reproduce and evolve some more- tho human emotions and morals contradict this, because many of our morals makeit harder to keep the status quo. morals tell us you dont sleep around, bioevo tells us that men DO sleep around (actually many neodarwinists have written books that say men raping women is merely evolution/survival of the fittest in action and should be accepted as part of the struggle to survive and spread our seed/genes). the problem is- darwinists refuse to fully carry out the theory. most of them stop at a certain point, abandoning the theory itself for a more civilized approach.

BWE, I see you are bringing up the argument that to accept the model of evolution is to refuse any model of morality. To quote the immortal Penn and Teller, "Bull-s**t!"

Morality arises from spiritual sources, not physical root causes. God, the embodiment of morality, lies above our plane of existence. We cannot expect a plane below God to hold to the same laws as God. We are held to God's moral standard because we are spirits, but the world is by nature an amoral place.

This search for a physical origin of morality reminds me of the geocentric model's "firmament", beyond which was said to be the realm of the angels. They believed not so long ago that God had a physical place in the universe, and that if you looked you could find physical, incontrovertible evidence of God. To me, looking for physical evidence of God is as fruitless as traveling the world in search of the Sun. You're looking in the wrong place.

By the way, BWE, sorry if my comment was confrontational or holier-than-thou. I merely sought to distinguish the physical from the spiritual, not point fingers.

Morality arises from spiritual sources, not physical root causes.

To quote the atheists you quoted, Penn and Teller, "Bull-s**t!" Morality does arise from physical causes. All moral and ethical acts have consequences in the physical world and the causes of moralities are their consequences. If this were not true, then acting immorally wouldn't harm society.

— Norman Doering

We're suppose to think and adapt our moral rules to a changing world and religion keeps people from thinking and adapting these moral rules.

— Norman Doering

Whenever we argue morality sanely we argue about it's larger consequences. You have just denied those consequences.

— Norman Doering

Tice with a J wrote:I thought I defined humans as spiritual beings, which would place us within the realm of spiritual consequences, like salvation and damnation.

(Note: unacknowledged seasonal classic quote, with a degree of intentional irony, Gulliver-ish}

Dear Ticewithwhatever,

Please prove to ME you are not a bit of undigested beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato.

I believe I would be far more troubled by the effects of any of these than by the ridiculously pompous infantile blatherings of a non-entity like yourself.

To Norman Doering:
The statistics were not 'cherry picked' - they relate to OECD 'developed countries' - unless you think it is unfair to count the USA as one.
I know you Americans don't get out much, so here's a Geography lesson: Australia, Japan and New Zealand are not in Europe.

In terms of your sources the first is for the 'Pan American Health Organisation' - a worthy body no doubt - but their stats hare hardly helpful in this case -another geography lesson - Europe is not in 'the Americas'.

The second reference is a little better, although it is a partial analysis of some out of date statistics. However the author helpfully quotes his sources - Interpol and the UN; as well as the excellent tool by which you can obtain and analyse these stats "Nationmaster". Helpful because some US wingnuts will not accept stats collated by the UN, arguing that all the countries in the world that provide their stats fiddle them to make the US look bad (a pretty grand conspiracy theory). I'm glad you're not one of them.

For a current listing of the most murderous countries in the developed world check this chart: murder rates in OECD countries:
where you find the USA right up at the top of the list with Mexico and Poland. As the latter are pretty pious countries (Poland notably so in European terms) I don't think this upsets the research. Or don't catholics count as Christians?

Tice with a J
An old Buddhist Monk who founded the "life long learning school of of Zen Buddhist learning in China around 600CE told a Master Confucian Leader who was bothering him to "teach" him the way of the Buddha.
.
.
.

"I seek instruction," said Hui K'o, "in the doctrine of the Buddha."
"That cannot be found through another," came the response,
"I then beg you to pacify my soul."
"Produce it, and I shall do so."
"I have sought it for years," said Hui K'o, "but when I look for it I cannot find it."
"So there! Its is at peace. Leave it alone." said the monk, returning to face the wall. And Hui K'o thus abruptly awakening to his own transcendence of all daylight knowledge and concerns, became the first
.
.
.
.
I piously (giggle) typed this out of Joesph Campbell's "Myths to Live by" during a magical vs real discussion over traditional church type Buddhism vs Zen discussion on another part of PT.
To my (never ending surprise) those on the the other side of the Levant just can't swallow it. I blame it on sexual repression, warriors who can't put their p*nises in their scabbards for a minute and other evils.
Look up "Hog Mythology" man is a little more complex than just a fallen god. The psyche of "god" is an ideal as the Greeks realized and the players on earth had to deal with good and evil in themselves and society. The establishment sets the tone.. the world view of the body politic. Lucky for us it is a 2000 year old system of law from Greece and Rome. NOT a dysfunctional war of the worlds mayhem from the OT.

The rest of the Zen story is here http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/oh_the_irony.html

...The Color of Crime, a study done white nationalists Ian Jobling and Jared Taylor, but based exclusively on federal crime data and surveys, suggests that this may not be the case. Apparently, this study was reviewed by several criminologists who endorsed the paper's math, if not conclusions...

In assessing the burden of crime, overall victimisation rates take no account of the nature of what happened. This means that serious crimes such as robbery are given the same weight in counting victimisation experience as more minor ones (such as bicycle theft) --- even though, as shown, some countries have proportionately more minor crimes than others do.

I notice that they answered you 'rants' and inablity to understand statistics on the other thread G.O.P.("anti-evolution") And then got bored.... No matter how hard you tried to 'bump' the tread....

Clearly you'd like the world to be populated entirely by white christians of your variety. Perhaps with Blacks and Atheists under your 'dominion'?

To get back on-thread: I've never tried cross-dressing before: never seen the point: but if it annoys the fundies and GOP I'm prepared to do it. Anyone else up for it? Perhaps if we weave in a bit of piratey costume we can pay homage to the FSM as well?

Much more fun than trying to debate with a closet r****t like G.O.P.

I recall the discussions about religiosity and crime, and found them inconclusive and complicated. My own point is quite simple:

That comparing the USA and UK leaves me with the idea that religion has little to do with it. Not counting murders using guns, the two countries have similar crime rates. Yet the UK is well known for being a lot less religious than the USA.

(And I blame the murders with guns on a combination of widespread ownership and a different culture)

No Guthrie, not true.

First remember that the item I cited references all sorts of social ills such as life expectancy, teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, not simply murder. The comparisons were between a number of OECD countries, not just the US an UK.
Even if we permit you not to count 'murders with guns' because you have a 'different culture' (yes - a predominantly religous one) then lets look at some other methods of murder:

"Assault by Sharp Object"
Rank....Country.........Amount
#36.....United States.....6.10 deaths per 1 million people
#56.....United Kingdom..0.79 deaths per 1 million peoople

"Assault by Blunt Object"

#35.....United States....0.71 deaths per 1 million people
#50.....United Kingdom..0.18 deaths per 1 million people

Go to Nationmaster and pick almost any serious crime of your choosing:
Nationmaster

From simply asserting that lack of religiousity is the cause of social evils we now get a statement that our two countries have "similar crime rates"; despite; " the UK being well known for being a lot less religious than the USA.

When confronted with the facts you find them "inconclusive and complicated".

This seems to be an about turn to me: you wouldn't be retreating in the face of facts would you?

I argue that the consequences in the physical world are the product, not the basis, of real morality.

— Tice with a J

Religion would seem to form a nice basis for a moral system.

Please prove to ME you are not a bit of undigested beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of an underdone potato.

Religion would seem to form a nice basis for a moral system.

— Tice with a J

you can hardly deny that darwinism, being based on purposeless and ultimately meaningless changes/mechanisms, doesnt lead directly to this sort of thing. most NDE's state that morality is an illusion- there is no true right and wrong, that were all just glorified apes who evolved the illusion of free will, morality, right, wrong, etc. of course NDE theory speaks of morals- if you take the theory to its logical conclusion you have to conclude that morals are actually nonexistant- they are, themselves, constantly evolving merely in an attempt to carry on the change...morals are whatever makes it easier to reproduce and evolve some more- tho human emotions and morals contradict this, because many of our morals makeit harder to keep the status quo. morals tell us you dont sleep around, bioevo tells us that men DO sleep around (actually many neodarwinists have written books that say men raping women is merely evolution/survival of the fittest in action and should be accepted as part of the struggle to survive and spread our seed/genes). the problem is- darwinists refuse to fully carry out the theory. most of them stop at a certain point, abandoning the theory itself for a more civilized approach.

— Josh Bozeman quoted by BWE

Re: Lesotho:

Interesting. In the past, whenever I saw that little country sitting in the middle of South Africa, I would wonder how it came to be like that. Countries completely surrounded by other countries aren't very common. I highly recommend taking a look at Lesotho on Google Earth with the terrain on, like I just did. You can see that the whole country is on a huge plateau. If you turn off the border lines, the outline of the country is still visible, defined by natural terrain. The northern and eastern border of the country are right on the edge of the plateau, which is highly eroded with steep cliffs and jungle. It's a perfect natural boundary, providing a niche for a new country, kind of like niche for a new organism...

Dean, you seem to have mistaken me for someone else.

Obviously my information was out of date, its been a couple of years since I tried to argue crime rates with anyone, and it was hard to work out which statistics did what to whome. I didnt have time to read up much on the topic when that study about religiosity and crime came out a few months ago, but from the arguments I saw online came away feeling the anti-religious case had not been proven, but then the converse definitely had no legs to stand on.

So, yes consider my to have changed my mind with regards to the different crime rates. On the other hand, I was trying, perhaps too subtly, to argue your point. After all, if the UK with its comparatively homgenous caucasian Christianity related culture with strong transatlantic ties has similar crime rates to the USA, then not being religious probably doesnt have much to do with it. As an aside here in Scotland, the death rate due to stabbing is quite low, except in Glasgow and its environes, in part because of the local culture of being a hard man. Being a hard man can be demonstrated by stabbing someone who offends you. Needless to say this leads to a lot of deaths, many more than in any other part of Scotland.

Sorry Guthrie, I thought you were the same Guthrie that found the debate confusing and complicated. I always find a few facts (data) help.
You may have been trying to help but you seemed to have swapped data for guesswork. Why made you think that non-gun homicide rates are the same in the USA and the UK? They aren't. Americans' weapon of choice is the gun, but they make us look amateurs across the board; whether you choose poisoning, drowning, or mowing someone down with a vehicle. (check Nationmaster)
A few hard men in Glasgow may be doing their best to up our figures, but our homicide rates are still disappointingly low; as the figures I quoted make clear.
We may share a 'Christianity related culture' - but as far as church attendance and professed belief is concerned Americans are right in thinking that we are a largely Agnostic or even Atheistic country. If we aren't why do their christian cults send their missionaries here?

I don't think the 'anti-religious' case is proven on the basis of one paper; and one that seems to be a fairly obvious baiting excercise to me. I don't even think it very important that it is.
However if the fundies start making assertions that evolution is responsible for society's evils on the basis of nothing; then they are responsible for getting people interested in investigating the evidence.
Which in case turns out to go against them.
Again.
Incidentally I love Scotland, and did my degree there: but in Edinburgh. I found that there was less sectarian religouly motivated violence (between Catholics and Protestants)in that town than in Glasgow.

And yet, unless my reading comprehension is totally shot, the study (http://www.nc-f.org/colorcrime99.pdf) referenced did not account for income or education. So there's my whirl. And as religion goes, I don't think African Americans are any more atheistic than the rest of us.

— Argy Stokes

Let's take this one apart for starters, shall we?

— Julie

First: "White nationalists"? Well, that's a polite way to put it. Jobling and Taylor are two of the people behind American Renaissance, a white-supremacist magazine and website.

— Julie

If you have the stomach for it, check out the site now. Lest anyone think that the "American" part of the title is provincial: You might (not) be surprised to find the website's loyal readers clamoring for more anti-immigrant rioting in Australia, too.

— Julie

Second: "Endorsed the paper's math, if not conclusions ....". Says it all, doesn't it? ("I counted four ant mounds behind the house last summer and six this summer. That means we have a net gain of two ant mounds. This species is known to be common in the northern U.S. Therefore, the ants must have gotten hold of a teleporter and beamed themselves here from central Wisconsin.")

— Julie

Nice try.

— Julie

I'm glad you've 'been there, done that'. Shame that you seem unable to share your conclusions about this paper which I will remind you shows positive correlations between religiosity of a country and: homicide youth suicide, under-five mortality, low life expectancy gonorrhea infection syphilis infection abortion in 15-19 year olds pregnancy in 15 -17 year olds

— Dean Morrison

I notice that they answered you 'rants' and inablity to understand statistics on the other thread G.O.P.("anti-evolution") And then got bored.... No matter how hard you tried to 'bump' the tread....

— Dean Morrison

Clearly you'd like the world to be populated entirely by white christians of your variety. Perhaps with Blacks and Atheists under your 'dominion'?

— Dean Morrison

One more thing. As I've stated, I don't think that the government should discriminate against any of its citizens, but as a Bible-believing Christian, I believe that a woman's place is in the home, and that men (black, white, or whatever) should lead. Recent social trends reflect the danger in transferring power from men to women. But this should be an individual issue; the government has no right to enforce this.

(In response to Norman Doering) However the author helpfully quotes his sources - Interpol and the UN; as well as the excellent tool by which you can obtain and analyse these stats "Nationmaster". Helpful because some US wingnuts will not accept stats collated by the UN, arguing that all the countries in the world that provide their stats fiddle them to make the US look bad (a pretty grand conspiracy theory). I'm glad you're not one of them.

And yes, I addressed your complaints about the surveys. I'm not saying they're perfect, only that they're preferable to cooked police reports.

But part of the reason the group fled was because they were getting tired of being cuffed around like naughty puppies.

On June 7, 1998, white supremacists hitched James Byrd of Jasper, Texas, to the back of a truck, and dragged him to death. This appalling crime reminded the country in the most forceful way that racial hostility and interracial crime continue to be serious problems in the United States. The resulting national outcry demonstrated how deeply Americans feel about racial violence. Outrage over acts of this kind is entirely appropriate. However, to concentrate on one crime, no matter how sickening, is to present a distorted picture of interracial crime. If we are to respond appropriately to the problem of racial violence it is important to know its true nature and proportions.

So, anyone want to relate this all back to ID? I note paleys ghost is great at crime etc stats, but has yet to show any comparable abilities with evolutionary biology.

I'm so glad our British Bobbies are busily cooking up Police reports (about what?) to make the USA look bad, the naughty boys.

— Dean Morrison

Since the British homicide rate lags behind the U.S. rate, it is only reasonable to ask whether these figures, too, have been cooked to suit political expediency. The answer to that is a resounding "Yes". In their 1996 book Guns & Violence: The Debate Before Lord Cullen, Richard Munday and Jan Stevenson analyzed the difference between British and U.S. reported homicide rates, and showed how the true British homicide rate has been camouflaged. Here in the States, the homicide rate is based on arrest data, not on the final disposition of cases. In Great Britain, however, Munday and Stevenson point out that, as a result of the 1967 Criminal Law Act, each homicide case is "tracked through the courts and the figures pruned annually to cull out those in which the courts found the death to be the result of accident or self defence, or [the perpetrator was] convicted on a lesser charge." For instance, a murderer could be convicted of "causing grievous bodily harm with intent", and such a case would then be removed from the homicide crime statistics. Observed Munday and Stevenson, "Britain's comparatively low homicide rate is in part due to...massaging down the figure", reducing recorded homicides by as much as 25 per cent." The bottom line: "All of these reporting practices go to make the recorded U.S. homicide rate as high as it could possibly be...[while] in Britain, by contrast...the homicide figure... is massaged down to a bare minimum."

What do we adapt them to?

Special relativity declares ...

Religion would seem to form a nice basis for a moral system.

Norman Doering wrote: Whenever we argue morality sanely we argue about it's larger consequences. You have just denied those consequences.

I thought I defined humans as spiritual beings, which would place us within the realm of spiritual consequences, like salvation and damnation....

A purely physical morality ceases to exist once you die. A spiritual morality may change with death, but it does not go away.

Since the British homicide rate lags behind the U.S. rate, it is only reasonable to ask whether these figures, too, have been cooked to suit political expediency. The answer to that is a resounding "Yes". In their 1996 book Guns & Violence: The Debate Before Lord Cullen, Richard Munday and Jan Stevenson analyzed the difference between British and U.S. reported homicide rates, and showed how the true British homicide rate has been camouflaged.

Quote: The Associated Press Fatal Shooting in Fla. Ruled Self-Defense July 21, 2005 The fatal shooting of two men by a tenant they were trying to evict was ruled self-defense because one of them was brandishing a gun and a chain, a prosecutor said Wednesday. State Attorney Harry Shorstein ruled that the July 9 deaths were justifiable homicides. "That's my decision, based on the facts that I have," said Shorstein, who reviewed the case last week. He said the victims --- cousins John McPherson, 21, and Calvin Threadcraft, 26 --- had a handgun and chain when they entered the home and the tenant, Melvin Wilcox, was threatened. "The law is relatively simple," Shorstein said. "If someone enters your home and you are in fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, you can use deadly force." The victims were shot along with landlord Pamela Batie, McPherson's sister. She survived. Shorstein's decision didn't sit well with Leonard McPherson, father of Batie and John McPherson, and uncle to Threadcraft. "That ain't right. He killed two people," McPherson told The Florida Times-Union on Tuesday. "That's cold-blooded murder." Wilcox, 26, was questioned by police but not arrested.

I'm a little curious as to why IDers keep bring up "Christian religion" in every conversation.

I was under the impression that ID is *science* and doesn't have a blooming thing to do with religion or Christianity. . . . ?

Or are IDers just lying to us whenever they claim that?

If ID has nothing to do with religion, then, uh, why is it that IDers can't go five minutes without dragging their religious opinions into the discussion?

(Not that I'm COMPLAINING, mind you --- after all, this incessant compulsion to preac at every opportuinity has helped us beat the ID/creationists, handily, in court, every single time. But I vconfess I am a little mystified as to why they keep doing it anyway, even after it has burned them in court. After all, even an earthworm is capable of learning from unpleasant experiences, and is capable of altering its behavior to avoid being burned yet again. ID/creationists, apparently, aren't that bright.)

At least the Orthodox Jews in Florida who have joined the debate don't beat about the bush Lenny:
It's not the back door its the front door!
I'd like to see the DI get them back on-message. Or perhaps they think they need to get the Christians back 'on-message'?

I learned that White Nationalism is not equivalent to white supremacy, although there is a considerable overlap between the two.

The nasty old United Nations tries to get countries to work to standardised definitions - you'll find what these are on the WHO sites.

— Dean Morrison

If you look at the mortality figures I have been quoting you'll see that the intention or judicial fate of the perpetrator is irrelevant to the cause of death. This comes from the death certificate. Or perhaps our Doctors or in on the conspiricy and are busily faking death certificates?

— Dean Morrison

And you don't count what we would certainly count as homicide in this country:

— Dean Morrison

In Great Britain, however, Munday and Stevenson point out that, as a result of the 1967 Criminal Law Act, each homicide case is "tracked through the courts and the figures pruned annually to cull out those in which the courts found the death to be the result of accident or self defence, or [the perpetrator was] convicted on a lesser charge."

You are "Off your Trolley" as we say- it would be funny if it wan't so sad. I'm fed up with helping you de-rail this thread so I'll banish you back to Paley's world White Ghostey and let you do your haunting there. Goodbye.

— Dean Morrison

Goodness me, that is breathtakingly naive...

— Arden Chatfield

but as a Bible-believing Christian,

— The Ghost of Paley

I believe that a woman's place is in the home, and that men (black, white, or whatever) should lead.

— The Ghost of Paley

Recent social trends reflect the danger in transferring power from men to women.

— The Ghost of Paley

But this should be an individual issue; the government has no right to enforce this.

— The Ghost of Paley

As I understand it, a white supremacist wants to rule the land, while a white nationalist wants his own land. I hope this helps.

— Ghost of Paley

Ghost of Paley tells us that "Christian philosophy should dominate how we govern and live".

Being a Canadian citizen and resident of Quebec, I can confidently say that our Quiet Revolution is probably the best modern example of why Paley's belief does not seem to hold true, and in fact leads to cultural, intellectual, and political retardation, and the overall detriment of society.

Seriously. In a nutshell: During the 1930s-50s, the political, educational, economic and social spheres of Quebec were under the absolute domination of the Roman Catholic Church. It was awful. Society was dead, stagnant, and lagging far behind the rest of the Western world. This period is, in fact, referred to by historians as the "Grande noirceur" or Great Darkness.

Then Maurice Duplessis died, there was a social revolution, old values were ousted, and a rapid and effective secularization of society occurred.

...and Quebec thrived in every meaningful way. It is now the most progressive, forward-thinking, culturally diverse, intellectually rich, politically motivated province in Canada.

Paley would now be laughed back to the United States if he suggested anything along the lines of Christian philosophy governing people's lives.

Also, this has nothing to do with Intelligent Design, which remains scientifically vapid, religiously motivated and intellectually dangerous.

Begone Whiter Shade of Paley - off to Paley's world with you - we don't believe in Ghosteys round here.
Say hi to the Cloud Cuckoo while your there.

Whenever we argue morality sanely we argue about it's larger consequences. You have just denied those consequences.

Did I? (rest of response snipped)

Yes. You denied the ones I was talking about --- the real material, in this world while you and your children live, consequences.

OH Tice,Twice,Thrice
On all points except the following I agree with you.
...while you[say that I] consider the physical side of things the essential part of reality, with the spiritual side being at best hypothetical.

I actually consider for what it is worth that your "physical side" is nature described in a language that makes sense and is real without reference to magic and allows for a common understanding beyond all horizons across cultures and any spirituality, a mechanical description of process that is not open to false interpretation, bending of words or meaning and flexible only where a writer or group on a particular observation makes an error as determined in the secular world by consent.

Now when you get onto "spiritual" you are going into the underworld of the human mind, EVERYTHING is a world view.

I make no apologies for being real, however don't fret. What doesn't kill you will you builds a stronger character. And for objectivists whose relativism and nihilistic world view leading to a totally unromantic understanding of the world are so shallow as to be pathetic beyond reason, I salute you along with the Pope AFTER my own conscience. That is the [small c] catholic/universal world view. EG0 ET MON REGIS? ascribe to Atheism in its truest sense from the Greek word for theist i.e god outside the human mind=theist...atheist= God doesnot exist outside the mind of its owner. One and in part of the whole = Hinduism. Zen =the seeking of enlightenment by banishing obscurantism.
http://www.bartleby.com/45/3/202.html

k.e., you are exactly right about physical reality. It's the only objective reference we've got. The existence of anything outside of it is beyond the scope of evidence and is a matter of personal belief. In fact, that is an important doctrine in my religion. I believe that faith in God cannot come for signs, every person must take the leap of faith to trust in something they do not know exists in order to come to know God. We have doctrine we declare to be true, but we teach that every person must test this doctrine to see if it really is true. In short, upon further examination of my own views, I concede just about every point you made.

What would the Greek word be for the view that God cannot be proved outside of the mind?

P.S. I curse my ignorance - even though I've seen the word 'nihilism' before, I haven't absorbed it into my lexicon, and I had to do a doubletake and look up the word again to get your meaning.

Tice
The Greeks had a much more "hands on" approach to life. Along with most ancient cultures everyday life, while having some aspect of modernity was not as far removed from the balance provided by rural life.....as now however, the ills of modern living were documented in their Myths.
They knew the inherent nature of the human psyche as did the ancients on both sides of the Levant. Their Myths were parables if you like, but perhaps more clearly, journeys that travelers in the game of life could find parallels in their own life depending on their personalities-- revelatory fiction just like any other art, revealed through Myth...need i go on?
The Greeks had a clever trick they used to complete a plot at the end of a play. Where they would bring on a prop that would resolve an outstanding issue that would be a clue to the audience that they had to think what in their own life was missing.
The "life of Brian" had exactly the same thing right at the end where a UFO buzzed by and rescued Brian.
It is called
Deus ex machina.
In Germany it is Deutschsexmachina a BMW
In Holland its is Ducthsexmachina the Amsterdam Wink ;>
When I was much younger this would have put a smile on my face
http://www.deusexmachina.com.au/
......need i go on?

On the meaning of words ...objectivism has stripped the the flesh ..the meaning from the bones...the text and Nietzsche has been demonized when he really was sounding a warning.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htmhttp://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nihilism.htm

The disconnect? I see it as physical/spiritual, while you see it as real/spiritual

— Tice

In fact, I even go so far as to consider the spiritual side of things the more essential part of reality

while you consider the physical side of things the essential part of reality, with the spiritual side being at best hypothetical

As I understand it, a white supremacist wants to rule the land, while a white nationalist wants his own land. I hope this helps.

— Spectral Paley

In my liberal days...

— Ghost of Paley

In my liberal days I researched the racial right movement (gotta keep up with the enemy and all...), and I learned that White Nationalism is not equivalent to white supremacy, although there is a considerable overlap between the two.

Not quite. I see it as world-outside-the-mind/world-inside-the-mind.

Searching for the string "cross-dressing" in the Amazon copy of Johnson's "The Right Questions" (his most recent ID-related book) produces zero hits.

Fundamentalists tip #358 - When identifying yourself as a Christian, make sure to differentiate yourself from those heathen Christians with a term like "right-thinking" or "Bible-believing". It keeps people from mistaking you from one of those Episcipalians.

I just think Tice is simply dead wrong. There is no afterlife, there is no judgement from gods who created us. Without evidence for such a thing his arguments are ineffective for all who don't share his belief. His argument is, however, demonstratebly dead wrong when he claims his belief is necessary to be moral and that was implied by what he said. Every atheist who lives a good life is evidence to the contrary of his claim and he is shot down easily there.

Tice addressed that to me and you're just slightly off as far as I see things. Indeed, whatever evidence Tice has for a spiritual realm in the afterlife, or whatever weirdness he believes, it is only in his head and he has not shared that evidence with us. However, he doesn't think that spiritual realm is only in his head. He thinks it's real and outside his head.

— Norman Doering

I just think Tice is simply dead wrong. There is no afterlife, there is no judgement from gods who created us. Without evidence for such a thing his arguments are ineffective for all who don't share his belief. His argument is, however, demonstratebly dead wrong when he claims his belief is necessary to be moral and that was implied by what he said. Every atheist who lives a good life is evidence to the contrary of his claim and he is shot down easily there.

— Norman Doering

Then you are a Platonist.

Long, long ago, before your mother or your grandfather were born child, before humans began to use wheels to move things about, before anyone had learned that the earth is a sphere, before humans knew about electricity and magnetism, before we understood that the continents drift about on the surface of our globe ...

As time went on, those wisest among us began to make discoveries into how our natural world worked.

Who among us believes that Achilles or Jesus were the product of a god and a human?

We know that even if we blaspheme an old god, the floods will not come down to punish our towns.

...although investigation can show us some of what the universe is like, it has yet to tell us why.

I am a frustrated childrens novelist I guess :)
And see, it is the scientist in you that begins to speculate about the connection between politics and climate!

Why indeed. And that is why it can't tell us why yet. But don't be a pessimist. http://www.mkaku.org/articles/physics_of_alien_civs.shtml

Searching for the string "cross-dressing" in the Amazon copy of Johnson's "The Right Questions" (his most recent ID-related book) produces zero hits.

— Nat Whilk

on Page 128: "... tongues. They asked, "So what does this mean?" The son answered, "It means I'm a girl. I want to wear dresses and makeup and challenge the whole patriarchal, bourgeois idea of gender." This announcement sent the parents close to panic because ..." ... 2. on Page 129: "... Shouldn't they have foreseen the humiliation it would cause a decent father like himself to see his son wearing a dress? Perhaps the boy could be shamed out of that dress and accompanying underwear But he couldn't, and instead he expressed ..."

So, I am apparently Naive. How the heck do you do that? I go to amazon and I don't see any "input search string here" box.

BWE,

I'll show you how.

Go to the Amazon site for the book here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0830822941/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/002-4491051-7055266?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=283155

See the picture of the book cover? Underneath it are 4 clickable phrases:
See larger image
Share your own customer images
Search inside this book

You click on "Search inside this book"

The very top search bar of the page you get, see it? It has a box to type in and a "Go" button.

If that doesn't get you there, ask more questions.

Ha! Cool. I tried it on "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design -- by William A. Dembski, Charles W. Colson" first and that option isn't available.

I tried it on "The Design Revolution: ..."

Ha ha. These darn computers. People are so smart.

Those who do not believe in the spiritual realm are free from the responsibility of basing their morals on spirituality.

— Tice with a J

I learned that White Nationalism is not equivalent to white supremacy, although there is a considerable overlap between the two.

— GOP

getting back to the point.....

.. Paley Ghosteys that need to quote white nationalists or white supremacists to establish the moral superiority of Christians are pretty desperate.

- and why did GOP capitalise "White Nationalism" rather than "white supremacy"?

Like christians, Atheists of my variety are always careful about how we use "UpPeR cAsE".

Perhaps the former are okay by him but the latter are taking things a bit far? That would explain a lot.

.. still shouldn't speak badly of the dead. Poor old Paley Ghostey seems to have ****** off back to "Paley's World".

Sad.......

getting back to the point....... Paley Ghosteys that need to quote white nationalists or white supremacists to establish the moral superiority of Christians are pretty desperate. - and why did GOP capitalise "White Nationalism" rather than "white supremacy"? Like christians, Atheists of my variety are always careful about how we use "UpPeR cAsE". Perhaps the former are okay by him but the latter are taking things a bit far? That would explain a lot... still shouldn't speak badly of the dead. Poor old Paley Ghostey seems to have ****** off back to "Paley's World".

— Dean Morrison

GoP,

You forgot to respond to Lenny here.

You don't need to start a new thread. You just need to answer the questions posed to you in the ones you've already posted in.

For a man who doesn't want to derail threads, you sure enjoy bringing this issue up.

Yours is a progressive theology. If raging barbarian fundamentalists of all stripes shared it, everyone would be better off.

— AC

GoP, You forgot to respond to Lenny here. You don't need to start a new thread. You just need to answer the questions posed to you in the ones you've already posted in.

— jim

I wish I had a dollar for every ID/creationist who wanted to tell me that "darwinism" is the basis for nazi-ism, racism, slavery, blah blah blah.

— Lenny

GoP,

Would you mind posting a link to your replies?

Sorry Paley Ghostey,

I'm not one to say no to a drink, but you're not my kind of drinking partner.
I am white by the way, and I don't find the term 'whitey' at all offensive, I doubt if you really do either.

If you are going to quote white supremacists/nationalists in support of the argument that you have to be religious/christian to be moral this shows:
How desperate you are.
How ****** ** your brain is.
IMHO how deserving of ridicule you are.

Incidentally I suppose by calling me a 'liberal' you mean some kind of insult? - actually in my country it is regarded as quite a compliment, suggesting intelligence, culture and open-mindedness: so thanks.

I forgive you Paley Ghostey, for you know not very much.

Unless you choose to entertain us by answering Lenny's questions: begone to Paley Land! where the colour is White and the ladies are servile! or alternatively to whatever bar will take your currency.

So long, and thanks for all the fishy references.

... unless you want to come shopping for frocks of course!!!

I'm not one to say no to a drink, but you're not my kind of drinking partner.

— Dean Morrison

I am white by the way, and I don't find the term 'whitey' at all offensive, I doubt if you really do either.

— Dean Morrison

If you are going to quote white supremacists/nationalists in support of the argument that you have to be religious/christian to be moral this shows: How desperate you are. How ****** ** your brain is. IMHO how deserving of ridicule you are.

— Dean Morrison

.. thought you were going to the bar to mutter to yourself?
Who the flying f*** is Derbyshire? ... some other racist blog-crank that you want to quote? unless you are you talking about Derbyshire and England's finest fashion designer

Dean Morrison · 16 December 2005