"Evolution 101" - Understanding evolution for the layperson in Kansas

This is a great idea.

Downloading big audio files is not possible in all countries, or just too slow to be worth it. Could someone please get this in small (text) electronic format for distribution?

From my own experience, most people do not know what evolution really is. If we could have a simple document explaining it, I thing it would go a long way to remove misconceptions that has been widely circulated by creationists. Also, focus on the "proof" we have for the various areas. Even just mentioning some transitional fossils would be good. Mention VitC gene as a sample of genetic proof. It just needs to be simple.

Anyway, I think it is a really great idea and perhaps long overdue.

Sounds like a great idea. Wish I lived close enough to attend.

Good luck with it.

So I see Uncommon Descent linked to this post in order to mock the Unitarian Universalist Church as not being Christian enough.

I'm confused... wasn't Intelligent Design supposed to be a scientific theory?

"It's intended to help the average person who accepts evolution understand it better [says Jack Krebs]. In other words he's preaching to the choir. I mean literally preaching the pseudo-religious Darwinian dogma in conjunction with a pseudo-religious church to people who already have psuedo-religious faith in the Darwinian narrative but hope to find a rational basis for their Darwinian pseudo-religion."

It is interesting how 'anti-evolutionists' can pick up on what would otherwise be a throw-away line and read vastly more into it than what was intended. I thought about pointing this out to DaveScot but I couldn't be bothered registering at Uncommon Descent. I figure they'll read this anyway. Hey DaveScot, Jack didn't say that people who don't accept Darwinism CAN NOT come!

Besides, is there anything wrong with people who accept evolution further developing their understanding of the theory? I've read the online course that Jack will be presenting. I was very impressed by the concise way in which it explains the key components of evolutionary theory and why they exist. It is certainly not an evangelical promotion of Darwinism. This will give people in Kansas a chance to assess evolutionary theories and decide for themselves how valid they are. Surely that is preferable to them just trusting scientists and blindly accepting evolution to be true? Why doesn't some one produce a similar online course on ID?

Why is faith so much more compelling, to so many, than fact? Seems like such an indefensible waste.

So I see Uncommon Descent linked to this post in order to mock the Unitarian Universalist Church as not being Christian enough.

So I see Uncommon Descent linked to this post in order to mock the Unitarian Universalist Church as not being Christian enough.

Trackback: Another Boner from the Church Burners Posted by Uncommon Descent on March 27, 2006 10:31 PM Last month the big joke was three college kids torching 9 churches in Alabama. This month it's making a mockery of the religion of 8 of 10 Americans. The bungling political ineptitude of the Darwin worshippers is just incredible. They're...

The Universalist Unitarian Church is composed of (multiple answers were allowed in the survey so it adds up over 100%) humanist (54%) agnostic (33%) earth-centered (31%) atheist (18%) Buddhist (17%) pagan (13%) Christian (13%) You can believe anything or nothing in this so-called "church". What a coup for Jack Krebs and Kansas Citizens for Science to have the backing of a local UUC congregation. We should start worrying now I guess.

I think this is also a good idea. Not only for schools but churches as well ! I've already received this quite a while ago from NCSE and thought it was excellent.

However, one of the main attacks on evolution, and science in general, is the topic of the age of the Earth. For instance in AIG's media section "Answers with ken Ham" the old claim of "The decay of the Earth's magnetic field" is being used yet again as proof of a young earth. I think the question of the age of the Earth is, in my opinion, even more important than convincing kids of evolution. For YEC's, if they can prove that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, then macro-evolution could not possibly have occurred. I think a history lesson on how we came to believe the Earth is billions and not thousands of years old would be invaluable along with the above and would surely go along way in convincing children as to why YECism is so silly.

A simplified version of this maybe, would be excellent:

I like the way he examines and debunks a number of creationist claims, many of which I have heard recently.

Excellent statement by Anton Mates.

And zero, your post has been moved here, as it was not related to my post and was pretty much spam.

Honestly, the UUs are NOT "Christian enough", whatever that phrase means. I remember attending a UU service in which a UU minister was walking on eggs just by ~~mentioning~~ the word "sin" in her sermon.

You don't go to a UU service to get closer to Jesus and gain a more trusting attitude towards Him and His Scriptures...nope nope nope. Forget it, mamacita.

Having said that, however, Jack Krebs is entirely on the right track in taking his message to the UUs or any church that will listen.
I remember a YEC pastor in Kansas, Glenn Kaillor, who despite physical sickness and handicaps and not much money, did a positively great job of that kind of thing on behalf of the YECs in Kansas.

Plenty of opportunities. I've only done one class, which the church I attend graciously allowed me to do, but it's a wide open field, and every bit as important as what's happening with school boards and schools.

If Non Darwinists can get with the program and really fight to win in the churches and campus Christian groups (both high school and college) I bet the overall public policy and educational battles would be much easier to win over time. The real battle is actually not in the courts, but within the churches.

Jack's just doing what Non-Darwinists have already been doing, are still doing, AND need to do a lot more of.
Can't fault the man for that.

FL

FL said "You don't go to a UU service to get closer to Jesus and gain a more trusting attitude towards Him and His Scriptures...nope nope nope. Forget it, mamacita."

I have been a UU for 7 years and I have heard many sermons and presentations in our church on the value of the teachings of Jesus. I feel that I have a better appreciation and trusting attitude toward his teachings than I did as a member of a mainstream Christan church many years ago. I am getting really tired of people who know nothing about UU making such blanket statements. Read the UU principles and tell me if they are not compatible with the pronouncements in the Sermon on the Mount or any number of Christian teachings. We are open to valid spiritual insights from many sources - including Christianity.

Maybe churches are a good place to teach people about evolution for another good reason - their histories illustrate some of darwin's important ideas

Descent with Modification ( how today's church is different from the church one's ancestors attended);

Common Descent ( today's churches descend from a common origin circa 2000 years ago);

Allopatric Speciation ( the National churches in England and elswehere)

That's a fantastic idea!! It's a shame it isn't practical to have a lot more of this done. Lack of understanding of what exactly evolution is is one of our biggest problems.

FL makes it sound like UU is christianity minus the vile parts.

Sign me up.

Re. Brian:What the YECer will say is:If you can't treat Genesis 1-11 as literal truth then how can you believe John 3:16. Every-time I tell a fellow christian that I accept science and evolution this is what I get thrown back in my face. My view is that Genesis can be treated as a parable and still not loose it's spiritual meaning. YECers seem to forget that many great Evangelists like C.S.Lewis,B.B.Warfield or Charles Hodge accepted science and evolution as well.

In relation to my statement on the age of the Earth I've just heard Tom Vail state, on British television, that "If you take away millions of years then their(the evolutionists) deck of cards will come tumbling down. If the Earth is only a few thousand years old then evolution could not have happened"

It seems to me that in order to be "saved" an increasing number of evangelicals now seem to insist on belief in a young Earth as well. In my opinion the YECers will ultimately damage the church.

I would like to also suggest a public class on geocentrism, if possible.

My family attended a UU church in Memphis for many years while I was young. I remember it as being a terrific organization of compassionate, intelligent people who gave a tremendous amount to the community. Sadly, we moved when I was a teenager to another state, and the area where we lived was vastly populated by ultra-conservative, non-believers are evil kind of churches. My family was turned off, and we stopped going to church altogether. That was a shame, as I think if we had found a comparable UU church it would have been a great way for community involvement.

I find DaveScot's ignorant words on the matter not just eye-rollingly stupid, but, as has been pointed out, hilariously ironic, given the protestations that ID is scientific, not religious. If it's about science, what does it matter if the UU isn't "Christian" enough for your tastes?

Beyond that, the snyde comments about Kreb's event in general are puzzling. ID advocates routinely give lectures and speeches to their "choirs." Why should the pro-science crowd not be allowed to do the same thing?

I'm a pretty hard-core atheist, in fact along with Hitchens I consider my self more an antitheist than an atheist, but you guys are making UU sound pretty good actually.

"If you can't treat Genesis 1-11 as literal truth then how can you believe John 3:16."

Considering not a single person actually believes every word of the Bible is literally true, I find this belief puzzling. Just corner a "literalist" on some of the Biblical statements on science/history that are clearly not true, and they'll dodge saying it's not meant to be taken literally. Ask them to reconcile the Gospel accounts of what happened after Jesus's death, and they'll plead that the criticism is too literal, and we have to take into account a "different way of writing" or something like that.

So, why can't the same be said for Genesis accounts?

"I'm a pretty hard-core atheist, in fact along with Hitchens I consider my self more an antitheist than an atheist, but you guys are making UU sound pretty good actually."

It varies greatly from church to church. They aren't as standardized as, say, the Catholic church. I remember attending a small UU church a few years back that was very New Age, "Power Crystal" and mystical mumbo-jumbo oriented. Really, it looked like a bunch of kooks and aged hippies.

Peter, I think you're right, though it seems to me the YECs have already damaged the church.

I'm puzzled by that literalist interpretation thing too. We KNOW the Earth isn't flat. We KNOW that rabbits don't chew the cud. Similarly, we know the Earth wasn't created in six 24-hour days. Someone blogged recently that What's wrong with accepting Genesis as God's way of explaining to a prescientific, nontechnological society where they came from?

Posted by moakley on March 28, 2006 07:46 AM (e)

"Why is faith so much more compelling, to so many, than fact? Seems like such an indefensible waste."

Because "faith" requires no work. Thinking for yourself requires work, but all faith requires is thinking and doing what someone else tells you to think and do.

I've never understand why anyone considers "faith" to be a virtue.

Lynn

What's wrong with accepting Genesis as God's way of explaining to a prescientific, nontechnological society where they came from?

Well, I certainly don't mean to insult you, Brian, and I indeed took time to read the UU principles (and any other printed UU material I could get my hands on, including their UU songbook) while doing several (not just one, but several) visits to the UU church.

And I could point you to a few UU individuals who (most likely like yourself) are indeed worthwhile getting to know on an individual level.

But having said that, there's no use sugarcoating this stuff.
Stated simply, it's precisely because I spent some serious time and effort getting to know you folks up close and personal, that I said what I said.

I don't look for your agreement on what I said, but I believe that you must have some idea what I am talking about.

Permission to speak freely? UU church services and principles, from what I have experienced and studied, are just plain locked into:

(1) ...Abandoning the authority and trustworthiness (both historical and doctrinal) of the Bible.

(2) ...Abandoning the authority and trustworthiness (and infinite transformative power) of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

(3) ...Abandoning the plain ole acknowledgement and worship and praise of an all-powerful, all-loving, all-holy Creator God, to whom humans are accountable, and to whom humans can get personally hooked up to via Jesus.

This is not an attack upon you. But it is just what I have seen, heard, and read.
And it's ~this~ kind of spiritual seedbed that makes UU the perfect place to do an Evolution 101 class, honestly.

Where else, where BETTER, to start spreading St. Darwin's Gospel among the churches?

**************

Oh sure, sure, nobody amongs the UU's minded quoting Jesus as long it was those nice safe little quotations like "Love Thy Neighbor."

Shoot, I know of NOBODY anywhere (even other religions) who isn't willing to tolerate at least a few nice safe Jesus quotes from here and there, including from the Sermon on the Mount. Goodness!

But what about those heavy-metal risk-taker Jesus quotes like
"You must be born again" or "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and nobody comes to the Father but through Me"?

Oh no, the UU's don't dare talk like that, mm-mmmm.

I was watching some of their faces when the lady UU minister briefly, carefully, tactfully, gingerly talked for a single moment as if the concept of sin--the traditional Biblical concept of sin--might somehow yet be a reality in today's world.
Their faces weren't a smilin', believe me!

************

Now, since UU's doesn't have ANY bedrock set of beliefs common to them (Please note that even the UU Principles are optional), it's always possible that you, Brian, may attend a UU church that takes the Bible a little more seriously in some areas.

(The lady UU minister told me that the UU's back East are a little more conservative. Maybe you are among them.)

But if I were to ask if you and your particular church and clergy believes Jesus to be correct when He said what he said in John 3:16-18, I think I know what your answer would be.
I'd welcome being wrong about that, but we ARE talking UU here.

So it's back to the bottom line again:

Getting hooked up to Jesus, and trusting and walking in God's Word (not just a tiny piece here and there, but ALL of the Scriptures) as a committed born-again disciple of Jesus, is just plain NOT where the UU principles--or their churches or clergy--are at.

If I am incorrect about this assessment, talk to me and show me; I want to hear it.

**************

Meanwhile, that brings us back to the UU's as the natural launch point for evolutionary evangelism.

If I were an evolutionist wanting to spread the Gospel of St. Darwin in the churches, the first stop on the tour would logically HAVE to be a Unitarian church. Ye perfect fit.

Why? Because the simple fact is that the historical claims of the Bible regarding the origin of humanity are in TOTAL disagreement with the historical claims of naturalistic evolution regarding the origin of humanity.

Again, the fact is that the evolutionists' textbook-taught total denial of teleology will NEVER be compatible with a Bible and a Christianity whose God is teleological (especially where humans are created and concerned) from start to finish, literally from Genesis to Revelation.

Therefore any religion whose members largely and clearly reject the historical and doctrinal claims of the Bible in the first place, would naturally form a fresh launching pad for an Evolution 101-type course or courses.

And with many or most UU's already be on the outs with the Bible and Christianity (and also on the outs with the traditional churches they left behind) well, what more can you say? Evolution 101, here we come!

FL

Are the Anglicans and Catholics also "not Christian enough," since they officially reject ID Creationism and embrace evolution?

I agree Leon. There are also many other statements in the bible that obviously cannot be true. eg: Bats are birds (Leviticus) or the brain is in the heart etc. I reckon a lot of the so-called science in the bible is what people's perception of the Earth and the Universe (or what they thought was the Universe) was at that time. I think science has moved on considerably since then. Even in the last 100 years our view of things has changed a lot. Which is why a history lesson on why we believe what we know and how we came to those conclusions would be useful. When a YECer says something like "radiometric dating methods are just based on assumptions" I wonder how many people could answer that one and tell them why they are wrong ?

Ask them to reconcile the Gospel accounts of what happened after Jesus's death, and they'll plead that the criticism is too literal, and we have to take into account a "different way of writing" or something like that.

Permission to speak freely? UU church services and principles, from what I have experienced and studied, are just plain locked into: (1) ...Abandoning the authority and trustworthiness (both historical and doctrinal) of the Bible. ... But what about those heavy-metal risk-taker Jesus quotes like "You must be born again" or "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and nobody comes to the Father but through Me"? Oh no, the UU's don't dare talk like that, mm-mmmm. I was watching some of their faces when the lady UU minister briefly, carefully, tactfully, gingerly talked for a single moment as if the concept of sin---the traditional Biblical concept of sin---might somehow yet be a reality in today's world. Their faces weren't a smilin', believe me!

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blahblah blah blah blah UU is awesome blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah UU's are smart people blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."

Oh for heaven's sake! No one, absolutely no one, "worships" Darwin. He is regarded among the scientific community, and thinkers everywhere, as the discover of evolution (and I really think that we should emphasize that he was the first to discover that evolution had occurred, rather than simply inventing it). He proposed a mechanism for it which was at least partly correct. But above all he was the first to see the true inter-relatedness of all living things. Having seen this vision, and knowing that it works practically as a scientific tool, we can never unsee it again, or pretend that we really were created from mud and dust about 6000 years ago - an estimate based entirely on counting the names in the bible!
But he was just a man, not a god, or even a prophet, and he was not infallible. His books do contian some errors. They are as good as you can get if you do not have the benefit of modern knowledge about genetics, microbiology, or DNA, to name but three fields which add to the evidence and fit entirely into the picture.
We don't worship Darwin: we revere him as one of the greatesst thinkers of all time.
He gave us knowledge, not faith.
And this is something you religious anti-evolutionsists simply cannot understand.

UU church services and principles, from what I have experienced and studied, are just plain locked into: (1) ...Abandoning the authority and trustworthiness (both historical and doctrinal) of the Bible. (2) ...Abandoning the authority and trustworthiness (and infinite transformative power) of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (3) ...Abandoning the plain ole acknowledgement and worship and praise of an all-powerful, all-loving, all-holy Creator God, to whom humans are accountable, and to whom humans can get personally hooked up to via Jesus

If I were an evolutionist wanting to spread the Gospel of St. Darwin in the churches, the first stop on the tour would logically HAVE to be a Unitarian church. Ye perfect fit.

HAVE? I don't think so. After all, as has been mentioned, the Catholic and Anglican/Episcopal churches already accept evolution as truth. Since these two churches comprise exponentially more followers than the UU church, it would be most logical to address them, if that were one's aim.

As for the contradictions in the Gospels, I once read a detailed list of every action Mary Magdalene is supposed to have taken starting with visiting the tomb. If you take the Gospels literally and that she did indeed do all these acts, it reads as a hilarious exercise in schizophrenia. She was here, she was there, she did one thing here, and the opposite there, etc. I will try to find it.

The apologist versions, like your links provide, are simply that there must be omitted info that explains it all away. "Gospel of the Gaps," as it were.

Again, the fact is that the evolutionists' textbook-taught total denial of teleology will NEVER be compatible with a Bible and a Christianity whose God is teleological (especially where humans are created and concerned) from start to finish, literally from Genesis to Revelation.

— FL

We must be on our guard against giving interpretations that are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers. Saint Augustine of Hippo AD 354-430

Honestly, the UUs are NOT "Christian enough", whatever that phrase means.

Instead, I would simply direct you to the Christian scholarship where your concern has been addressed and worked out, and then leave it up to you to examine and reflect on the plausible reconciliations already on the table, at your convenience.

You don't go to a UU service to get closer to Jesus and gain a more trusting attitude towards Him and His Scriptures...nope nope nope. Forget it, mamacita.

Oh for heaven's sake! No one, absolutely no one, "worships" Darwin.

There is no "Gospel of Darwin", any more than there is a "Gospel" of Einstein, Copernicus, Mendeleev, or the father of any other scientific theory.

Charles Darwin may have been an ordained minister in the Anglican Church but his wife Emma Wedgewood was a Unitarian.

There is no "Gospel of Darwin", any more than there is a "Gospel" of Einstein, Copernicus, Mendeleev, or the father of any other scientific theory.

Anthony,
Re "Oh for heaven's sake! No one, absolutely no one, "worships" Darwin."

ID pushers and Creationists come closer to it than anybody else, though. Strange, that.

--

Jeremy,
Re "It seems to me that FL may be just as effective at proselyting for atheism as he is at proselyting for theism."

Yeah, a similar thought has crossed my mind on reading some of the arguments - convince somebody that they have to pick one or the other, and the likely result is that they will pick one - or the other. And those that pick religion would have been religious anyway. Those that pick science have rejected religion - because the ID pushers told them to. Seems counterproductive, on the face of it.

Henry

Evolution is missing from Arkansas classrooms:
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e1-ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91

Wonderful Idea!

I would like more people make the effort to provide an accessible public forum aimed at a better understanding of science in general and evolution in particular. I'd like to see a good course that was free, or nearly so, where a member of the general public could earn some sort of certificate signifying some defined level of comprehension.

Great!

One truly important point about the Christians and their approach to their bibles(plural since there are so many versions) is that they treat them like coupon books. If they like a passage or it supports their thought for the day then its good - they clip it out and use it. Beyond that, they do not adhere to biblically-guided moral guidelines any more than non-Christians. Most interaction among people at religious gatherings is more like coffee-shop, or beauty-parlor talk - not much religion or morality at all.

One of my uncles is a clergyman and he claims to be able to get by on about 200 verses from the entire book, less than 100 of which are used regularly. He freely admits that he, like almost all other clergy he knows, is both bored and boring. It's sad to hear him discuss how trapped he feels.

Jack, Great idea. I am trying to get my zoo (where I'm a volunteer) to do an "Understanding Evolution" program next year. Pretty much like you said: Let's not let the anti-science crowd frame the discussion. Let's present people with information to help them understand what evolution is, and what it isn't. But be prepared to address the Yeah-buts when they are raised. I'll be reviewing your material to help us set this thing up.

We may also be looking for some outside speakers. So if anyone has any recommendations for dynamic presenters in the northwest, drop me a line.

"FL" is one of those people who merely support ID as a means to an end. He is die-hard YEC and thinks that Answers In Genesis presents trustworthy science. ID is theologically useless to YECs (we already know it's scientifically useless). However, if ID can open a crack for getting a literal YEC Genesis taught in science class, then it's apparently a good thing.

So it's not altogether surprising that he would post what is essentially a religious rant against the UU. FL doesn't care about the tiptoeing of the DI w.r.t. ID's blatantly religious motivations. As long as their are creationists like FL using ID to advance their particular agenda, the DI will find it very hard to separate creationism from ID in the public perception.

Quiz for FL! Where is Charles Darwin buried? I think you'll find that it's not only the UU that seem to have no issue with evolution. Of course, no doubt you'll tell me that all those denominations that do accept that particular scientific theory are going to roast in hell for all eternity?? ;)

Comment #90167 posted by Dizzy on March 28, 2006 03:38 PM Are the Anglicans and Catholics also ``not Christian enough,`` since they officially reject ID Creationism and embrace evolution?

Oh dear God. Larry just became a Heddle sock puppet.

Comment #90268 Posted by Leon on March 28, 2006 07:49 PM

Anthony Kerr wrote: Oh for heaven's sake! No one, absolutely no one, ``worships`` Darwin.

Damn right! There is no "Gospel of Darwin", any more than there is a ``Gospel`` of Einstein, Copernicus, Mendeleev, or the father of any other scientific theory.

Here's Larry with his "All My Aliases" soap opera. How many voices do you hear in your head, Larry?

When I read that, I almost threw up...

So let's be clear on this, Larry: you're so emotionally brittle that you can't take seeing your enemies having a good time once in awhile; and you're too timid, dishonest and cowardly even to pick a single handle and stick to it, or to admit this even when it's perfectly obvious to the rest of us. So why should we consider you a credible source of information on any subject?

Also, the International Theological Commission, which was headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the present pope, said, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."

FL: the citation or link won't help. Note thet Ratzinger did NOT say that divine guidance of evolution was scientifically provable, therefore it is not an endorsement of creationism or intelligent design.

Raging Bee: That doesn't matter, quote-mining is what creationists do best. Look for that quote to be completely stripped of context on about 800 YEC websites now.

OK Larry you're right the Church of St Darwin is open for business. How could we be so cruel as to try and pull the wool over your sheepliness.

You have seen through our evil plot to replace "The one true word of *insert favorite deity here*" As we speak an army of loyal foot soldiers are walking the suburbs collecting foreskins and money of the faithful, while admonishing the faithless, so we can build great houses of worship where the whole family can be provided with a truly inspiring service. Children can play with toy plastic animals, adults can be advised on everything from which furniture Charles would have chosen to long lectures on how to read the holy book NOT SUBJECTIVELY but literally as OBJECTIVE FACT.

Constant subliminal advertising will pervade the media channels that carefully praise the Saint while obsequiously and figuratively sticking the knife into non believers.
When you apply for a job careful attention will be paid to your beliefs, Politicians will be obliged to state their beliefs and all this will be duly noted on a vast database so when the day of judgment comes the Holocaust will look like a walk in the park.

Whole teams of crack public relations wonks are this minute converting previously mundane prayers and verse to a postmodernist frenzy of freaky new objectivist mumbo jumbo.

Such as this:
Our Darwin, who art in Westminster Abbey, Worm fodder be thy Name.
Thy revelation will come. Thy (maybe) will be done, On Fundy land as it is everywhere else. Give us this day our daily Larry. And forgive us our insults,
As we forgive his insults against us. And lead us not into temptation to thump his living daylights out, But deliver us from his ignorance. For thine is the reality,
and the reason, and the rapture of sanity, for ever and ever.
RAmen.

When I read that, I almost threw up.

— Larry

Raging Bee Et all,
There is a article in my local (Florida) newspaper about "Bodies The Exhibition" and how the human body shows design.I would like to send a letter of rebuttal and need some suggestions please.I value any good opinions,but the letter is restricted to 200 words
Thanks in advance.

Re my previous post,I should mention that the exhibit is on display at the Museum of Science and Industry in Tampa,and the article stated that "many people commented that,there must be a intelligent designer"

Oh sure, sure, nobody amongs the UU's minded quoting Jesus as long it was those nice safe little quotations like "Love Thy Neighbor." Shoot, I know of NOBODY anywhere (even other religions) who isn't willing to tolerate at least a few nice safe Jesus quotes from here and there, including from the Sermon on the Mount. Goodness! But what about those heavy-metal risk-taker Jesus quotes like "You must be born again" or "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and nobody comes to the Father but through Me"? Oh no, the UU's don't dare talk like that, mm-mmmm.

— FL

When I was a child, at both church and school, not only did we have special sermons or discussions (respectively) on or around President's Day and MLK,Jr. Day, we occasionally had cake in celebration. Mind you, my church had no black members some years due to demographics.

Imagine my surprise many years later to find out that I had been worshipping dead political figures, rather than merely celebrating their life's work and its impact on my life.

Not to mention all the other stuff that goes on, such as all the hoopla a week and a half ago (yes, I have partaken of a St. Patty's Day cake - while wearing orange, of course)

Celebration /= worship

Well Jonboy since words have more than a symbolic meaning to the spin meisters at the DI and the Fundy circle **** it is quite simple to sabotage their efforts.

They believe they can take ownership of the "word" and therefore the public mind by carefully twisting and inverting reality with ...well non-reality (magical thinking).

So take ownership of the word "design".

Use it in the context of evolution and just leave the areas that science can't cover open ended (big tent *insert favorite "ism" here*.)

Use the word over and over but always associate it with objective factual evolution data.
I am not a biologist but a few simple lines

Such as
The Human body has the same Design as most of the animals on the earth.
This Design can be traced all the way back to the creatures which first walked on land.
That Design is traceable to fish fossils xxx million years old

Use the word Design in every sentence. And always capitalize it when it is a noun and use lowercase when it is an adjective.

In fact if you are clever you can use the word DESIGN as a REPLACEMENT for EVOLUTION

Keep the story very simple
The following is a basic outline.
The evolution of the mammalian ear from the reptile jawbone becomes.

The Design of the mammalian ear is easily traced through the design stages of the jawbones of intermediate fossils of early reptiles (blah blah... you will need to look up a more scholarly text obviously)

and say how biologists are able to recognize Design of Chimps DNA and Design of Human DNA is 9X.XX% (look it up) the same and the reason is that the Design was passed from a common ancestor.

Finish off with something like

Recognizing Design is what biologists do every day and without it evolution would not work and creationism correctly and intelligently recognizes that evolution is design passed from generation to generation and rightly attribute that design to their religious texts since belief in those words is a requirement for their faith.

He he...... Then sit back and watch the fireworks.

KE.Thanks for your suggestions,I will incorporate your suggestions in my response.I also thought that showing that people "find" design when it is not there, would be a good angle? Would you point out poor design(If an engineer were to design a biped from scratch, he or she would not take the body plan of an arboreal quadruped and tip it on its back legs)?
Thanks again

I agree with Schonborn's position that JP II's 1996 statement that evolution is "more than just a hypothesis" has been taken out of context. JP II did not define evolution in the speech in which that statement was made. When JP II made that statement, maybe he was just speaking about "changes with time," common descent, evolutionary/phylogenetic trees, etc., but was not speaking about unguided evolution, because Schonborn's 7-7-05 NY Times article shows that JP II made statements doubting unguided evolution. Also, ID was not a well-known concept in 1996, so JP II might not have been aware then of any attempted scientific challenges to the idea of unguided evolution. Also, the International Theological Commission, which was headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the present pope, said, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist." Anyway, I think that evolution is a question that the Catholic church is leaving to individual Catholics to decide for themselves.

Damn wrong. Darwinists recently held big celebrations of the birthday of their founding prophet. What is worse is that many of the celebrations were held at houses of worship --- see http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/evol... And one of the celebrations included a "Darwinian birthday cake, suitably decorated" --- see http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/evol... When I read that, I almost threw up. You can't tell me that Darwinism isn't a religion to some people.

I know that some Darwinists are atheists, but I never use that as an argument against Darwinism.

When I read that, I almost threw up. [Bold emphasis added.]

Re "so we can build great houses of worship where the whole family can be provided with a truly inspiring service."

Followed by a pot-luck supper with all kinds of pasta? :)

"An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."

It might be worth noting that the Catholic Church has long held that it is possible for divine providence to embrace even the truly contingent. That would seem to allow evolution proceeding by purely material means to fall within divine providence.

Anyone else notice that Larry cherry-picked Schonborn's statement on ID yet is known to disagree with other, more important church teachings? Larry, do you also agree with Schonborn's position (the Catholic Church's) that all humans should be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of race? And do you agree with his position that the Holocaust happened and was a terrible crime against humanity?

Or are you just happy he said one thing you could agree with?

FL, you win, okay? You're the rootinest, tootinest, Jesus-lovinest Christian 'round these parts. But not everyone has your psychological need for a "personal relationship" with a being whose qualities are indistinguishable from a small child's imaginary friend. Not everyone is or wants to be a FL-approved "true" Christian. How can you begrudge those people a humanistic appreciation of Jesus's ethical teachings - such as "love thy neighbor" - simply because they reject John 3:16, et al.?

How do you differ from Christians? A primary way we differ is that we do not regard Jesus as a unique revelation of God. Most UUs (even UU Christians) would reject a literal interpretation of accepted Christian beliefs such as the Virgin Birth, the miracles of Jesus and the Resurrection. While UU Christians would accept a symbolic interpretation of these events, most UUs view Jesus as a moral and ethical teacher and no more than that. http://www.uunashua.org/100q/c2.shtml#q19

FL, you said:
"But being a Christian really does involve personal trust and acceptance of some OTHER things that Jesus said and did as well. His self-claims. His miracles. His substitutionary atonement on the Cross for you and I. The Resurrection that vindicated that atonement. Non-negotiables, clearly."

Thank you for recognizing that being Christian does *not* depend on accepting Genesis as science.

Name-calling and insults do not equate with the logical fallacy of ad hominem, FL.

That doesn't necessarily mean that such behaviors are appropriate, of course. But let's not keep confusing logic and nicety of manners.

Comment #90386 posted by FL on March 29, 2006 09:00 AM

Also, the International Theological Commission, which was headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the present pope, said, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."

In light of my sinister diehard YEC motives etc etc, I'd like to borrow your statement for future nefarious gigs. Do you happen to have a citation or link handy?

Comment #90418 posted by J. Biggs on March 29, 2006 12:41 PM by the way what happened to ``I know that some Darwinists are atheists, but I never use that as an argument against Darwinism.`` as you stated in a previous thread. I guess it's not alright to point out that some "Darwinists" are atheists but its alright to say they worship Darwin.

Comment #90402 posted by W. Kevin Vicklund on March 29, 2006 10:38 AM When I was a child, at both church and school, not only did we have special sermons or discussions (respectively) on or around President's Day and MLK,Jr. Day, we occasionally had cake in celebration.

But being a Christian really does involve personal trust and acceptance of some OTHER things that Jesus said and did as well. His self-claims. His miracles. His substitutionary atonement on the Cross for you and I. The Resurrection that vindicated that atonement. Non-negotiables, clearly.

You know what the Four Gospels and the New Testament say about Jesus. You know what Jesus himself said in John 3:16-18, for example.

If you reject those non-negotiable truth claims, then it's better to at least be honest and simply say that one is not a Christian.

In contrast, some people have tried to link my anti-Darwinism to my holocaust revisionism and my opposition to censorship of Confederate symbols

I'm sorry to see that you find a cake decorated with American flags with the phrase "Happy Birthday George and Abe" disgusting. Or a cake, again with American flags, with the phrase "Happy B-Day MLK" on it. But then again, it's not surprising, considering your revisionist views. Could I interest you in a General Lee birthday cake, decked out in Confederate flags and manacles?

Furthermore, how is it that you offer me nothing but ad hominem and name calling?

We're questioning your credibility and honesty, Larry/Andy/Nonane/J Simes/FL Feebleman, based on idiotic and dishonest things you and your obvious sock-puppets have said here in the very recent past. Also, you never ANSWERED any of our questions about your credibility, honesty, or willingness to engage in real debate, so the questions still stand.

Again, it's not about any "holier-than-thou's", but simple honesty.

Which you have yet to exhibit. When was the last time you washed your sock-puppets?

FL is certainly not one of Larry's sock puppets, Raging Bee. He's been around for much longer, and has a decidedly different agenda (namely, to lie to his congregation about the state of science, particularly biology).

I am always saddened a bit to see these discussions devolve from the topic at hand down to personal name-calling and the resurrection of old feuds.

I know very little about this Larry guy who seems to post under different names, but this is a problem for PT management, not something that should be trotted out everytime someone with a counter-perspective shows up. So I ask that we drop that line of discussion: if you have a concern, email me at jkrebs@sunflower.com and I will move your concerns to our administration.

I also ask that we drop the name-calling. For instance, FL posts both here and on the KCFS forums. Most of us here don't agree with his perspective, but I've not known him to be rude or abusive, and he does work to express and defend his position: he is not a troll and doesn't deserve to be treated rudely.

Thanks,
Jack

Why don't any other churches/synagogues invite real scientists in to speak?

Are they afraid of what their congregants might learn?

Or are they just content to legislate their views on the rest of us?

Kevin: sorry for the mistake -- I responded a bit too quickly to something that sounded a lot like Larry's "Criticism = Persecution = Proof that I'm right" nonsense. Looking more closely, I see FL does seem a different animal.

Comment #90418 posted by J. Biggs on March 29, 2006 12:41 PM by the way what happened to "I know that some Darwinists are atheists, but I never use that as an argument against Darwinism." as you stated in a previous thread. I guess it's not alright to point out that some "Darwinists" are atheists but its alright to say they worship Darwin.

Here are two reasons why I don't point out that some Darwinists are atheists --- (1) I don't want to imply that I think that their belief in Darwinism is necessarily caused by their atheism. (2) It could be interpreted as an ad hominem attack or as implying guilt-by-association ( some people think that atheism is bad ). And I think it is OK to make an issue of Darwin-worship here because this is directly related to the controversy at hand.

In contrast, some people have tried to link my anti-Darwinism to my holocaust revisionism and my opposition to censorship of Confederate symbols --- my views on these different subjects are completely unrelated. http://hnn.us/articles/23113.html even tries to link the ID and creationist movements to the white supremacist and "neo-Confederate" movements, saying, " It will mark an important step forward for Neo-Confederate, Christian Reconstructionist, and white supremacist activists........This quarter of the rightwing assault on academia therefore shares a common ideological foundation with broader Fundamentalist campaigns to advance Creationist and Intelligent Design claims at the expense of legitimate scientific findings with respect to evolution." Thank Lenny Flank for bringing to our attention this horrendous example of stereotyping and guilt-by-association.

Yes, but a "birthday cake, suitably decorated" ? Come on! That's disgusting. I wonder, what would a "suitably decorated" Lincolnian birthday cake look like ? Would it have little US and Confederate flags and blue and gray Civil War figurines ? LOL

And why the emphasis on using houses of worship as places to celebrate Darwin's birthday? And why was the celebration held on a Christian sabbath, "Evolution Sunday"?

I am a student of argumentation hoping to understand why the Intelligent Design / Creationism vs. Evolution controversy has been so dominant for so long in the United States.

One thing that recently occured to me is that the model of "teaching the controversy" proposed by ID advocates is problematic because it divorces conviction from religoius and scientific adovocacy. In other words, to say that both should be taught is a method of democratic pedagogy aimed at teaching students to be essentially sophists.

I'm wondering what you all think about this in the context of Evolution 101. Is the point of the seminar to derail efforts to place ID at the level of science therefore eroding notions of truth and conviction?

Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks,

J.R.

I am a student of argumentation hoping to understand why the Intelligent Design / Creationism vs. Evolution controversy has been so dominant for so long in the United States.

One thing that recently occured to me is that the model of "teaching the controversy" proposed by ID advocates is problematic because it divorces conviction from religoius and scientific adovocacy. In other words, to say that both should be taught is a method of democratic pedagogy aimed at teaching students to be essentially sophists.

I'm wondering what you all think about this in the context of Evolution 101. Is the point of the seminar to derail efforts to place ID at the level of science therefore eroding notions of truth and conviction?

Any comments would be appreciated.

Thanks,

J.R.

I'm wondering what you all think about this in the context of Evolution 101. Is the point of the seminar to derail efforts to place ID at the level of science therefore eroding notions of truth and conviction?

Btw, I don't "begrudge" anybody their quoting safe little "Love Thy Neighbor" Jesus quotes or other such non-threatening snips. ANY snippet or snippets of Bible held to be true by an individual, is far better than nothing, I am convinced. No telling what God might do in a person's life down the road, using that little snip or snips. But being a Christian really does involve personal trust and acceptance of some OTHER things that Jesus said and did as well. His self-claims. His miracles. His substitutionary atonement on the Cross for you and I. The Resurrection that vindicated that atonement. Non-negotiables, clearly. You know what the Four Gospels and the New Testament say about Jesus. You know what Jesus himself said in John 3:16-18, for example. If you reject those non-negotiable truth claims, then it's better to at least be honest and simply say that one is not a Christian.

— FL

he does work to express and defend his position

You have your interpretations, FL. Other people have theirs. Yours are no better than theirs. Is it your opinion that your interpretations of the Bible are infallible, FL? Sorry, but I simply don't believe that you are infallible. In fact, I don't believe that you know any more about god than anyone *else* alive does. Your religious opinions are just that --- your opinions. They are no more holy or divine or godly than anyone else's, and are no more authoritative than those of my next door neighbor, my car mechanic, my veterinarian, or the kid who delivers my pizzas. Can you tell me why I *should* think they are, FL (other than your say-so) ... ?

Just because I said that FL does express his positions and defends them doesn't mean he is obligated to answer every question asked of him - recognizing this is standard internet forum etiquette, I think.

I agree with Lenny that the question he is asking is a good one, and he is persistent in asking it of multiple people. But I don't think continuing to ask this of the same person is appropriate when that person has made it clear that he is discussing other things and not the question asked.

I agree with Lenny that the question he is asking is a good one, and he is persistent in asking it of multiple people. But I don't think continuing to ask this of the same person is appropriate when that person has made it clear that he is discussing other things and not the question asked.

I've managed to save up roughly $66561 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?