Gert Korthof reviews Behe: "Either Design or Common Descent"

Korthof is odd but I don't think he is an ID supporter per se. Note for example how he has included explicitly on his page a variety of different ideas about origin of life and the source of life's variety that are not creationist but are cranky.

"Korthof is odd but I don't think he is an ID supporter per se. Note for example how he has included explicitly on his page a variety of different ideas about origin of life and the source of life's variety that are not creationist but are cranky."

Korthof is odd? No. You are odd. You can't even distinguish a noted and smart anti-IDist (Korthof) from "not an ID supporter per se".

Korthof's reviews have since long by my favorites. ID supporter? Or science supporter?

Gert Korthof's 1997 (with a 2007 update) detailed review of Michael Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box' is at http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof8.htm.

More recently I listened to Behe talk about intelligent design, suggesting that the design instance could very well be moved to the moment of 'creation'.

You can imagine that he doesn't concede that point when he's talking at churches about his, "scientific" book (wink, wink) that has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

If natural law and chance can in fact explain the evolution of life after the instance of 'creation', then ID has made itself irrelevant and yet ID also argues that there are 'edges' which evolution cannot explain and which would require some intervention. However at the same time it also suggests that such interventions may not be needed but then there are no edges left to evolution.

— PvM

I wonder - is Behe drifting back towards the mainstream? Will he eventually find that his position is the same as Ken Miller's?

Bob

An excellent review, pinpointing some of the peculiarities of the IDC business. But aren't these implicit in creationism generally?

Leading IDist Dembski has complained that evolution doesn't give God credit for his alleged actions. These actions include designing dread diseases; bacterial flagella are involved in many diseases of both animals and plants. Dembski simply refers this to the theological problem of evil. Evolution has the theologically desirable effect of somewhat mitigating the problem (Darwin's Gift).

Meanwhile something that was long implicit is now explicit: the "common descent" accepted by some creationists is an endless series of immaculate conceptions. But who is the immaculate conceiver? Cthulhu?

Gert Korthof ... shows a level of internal contradiction one has grown accustomed to from ID proponents.

a no-nothing blathers: But come on, you don't want that! Crusading against creationists gives importance to teachers like Jack Krebs and "graduate students" like Josh Rosenau here in Kansas! (although Rosenau has actually abandoned the state for the San Francisco area) Or the whole crowd at KCFS. What would they be known for if not for their anti creationist zeal? And when the issue finally dies down, they can go on with their anti religious rants like half of the "science" bloggers, taking PZ Myers as the finest example.

And yet the materialism evident in the extraction of dollars from rubes never seems contradictory to them.

Make your choice: it is either Design or Common Descent. Contrary to Behe, both cannot be true.

Make your choice: it is either Design or Common Descent. Contrary to Behe, both cannot be true.

Actually, I think this one is true. Design and Common Descent can't both be true, and theistic evolutionists must come to grips with this.

Once again Gert has done a great piece of work.

(Joshua Zelinsky is reacting to the measured and scholarly tone that Gert uses, and misunderstands that as not being "an ID supporter per se." This is an interesting reflection on the level of discussion generaly found on internet BBs).

harold:

I'm afraid the confusion is all yours. Mats is a well-known theist troll.

But come on, you don't want that!

Crusading against creationists gives importance to teachers like Jack Krebs and "graduate students" like Josh Rosenau here in Kansas! (although Rosenau has actually abandoned the state for the San Francisco area) Or the whole crowd at KCFS.

What would they be known for if not for their anti creationist zeal?

And when the issue finally dies down, they can go on with their anti religious rants like half of the "science" bloggers, taking PZ Myers as the finest example.

Actually, I think this one is true. Design and Common Descent can’t both be true, and theistic evolutionists must come to grips with this.

More recently I listened to Behe talk about intelligent design, suggesting that the design instance could very well be moved to the moment of 'creation'.

Korthof's wrong in the same way that it is true that it could (in the range of infinite unfalsifiable "possibilities") be that the devil planted all of the fossils to make it look like evolution occurred and to test mortals' faith.

That is, of course it could be that God designed everything to look like it evolved, but it was either that or life evolved. Behe's doing whatever he can do to make it sound as if design and evolution make the same predictions (except for his rubbish about IC) but of course, if they really do make the same predictions, God is superfluous and ID isn't science. And of course IC won't save Behe for any number of reasons, the most prominent and simple one being that the default to design is a false dichotomy and (for that reason and others) unscientific.

If Behe were serious about making ID a science he'd do his best to find a way of differentiating between evolution and design (other than his ignorant calculations). For in the scientific sense, Korthof's certainly right, Behe would need to show how design explains what evolution doesn't. Behe doesn't and can't do this, rather he tries to say that actually it is evolutionary mechanisms which cannot be responsible for the fulfilled predictions of evolutionary theory, hence it is the designer that steps in to make "naturalistic" evolution's predictions come true.

What's stunning is that the relatively genuine creationists, and true believers in design, are willing to put up with such rank swill in the hope that it will make them appear more scientific. Sweet dreams, dearies.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

I'm afraid the confusion is all yours. Mats is a well-known theist troll.

Plenty of religious scientists, including the likes of Ken Miller and Francis Collins (with apologies for using only Christian examples, this is off the top of my head) accept the theory of evolution, and do not at all suggest that magical "design" was necessary. I don't know or particularly care whether they describe their views as "theistic evolution".

Bunjo -

I noticed the same thing. ID is harmful claptrap, but maybe not for this reason.

The FSM could simply wait until a sperm cell fertilized an egg cell and then poof some new mutations into the genome. Common descent plus design. (No, that's not what I think happened.)

Obviously, this is no defense of ID; ID is still -

1) Untestable
2) Unneccessary
3) Based on the premises of the "Paley watch analogy" and "irreducible complexity", both of which are transparently false.
4) Motivated by a nefarious social and political agenda rather than sincere scientific or philosophical conjecture and
5) Charaterized by activities that are virtually diagnostic of disingenuous machinations, for example quote mining, censoring of criticism from forums, failure to note criticisms when repeating the same disproved arguments in later published works, use of extreme verbosity and irrelevant or flawed "mathematical formulae" to "bamboozle" lay readers, etc.

I wonder - is Behe drifting back towards the mainstream? Will he eventually find that his position is the same as Ken Miller's?

— Bob O'H

harold:

I see your (admittedly partial) "mirror image" concept as a pernicious strawman.

I've never seen ANY atheist claim "...that the theory of evolution must be valid (at least they get that part right), so everybody must define themself as an atheist...".

By far, prominent atheists argue instead that the theory of evolution fits exceedingly well in a rational world view, and that, although a vaporous god can never be ruled out as a theoretical possibility, it is not needed and has no supporting evidence, so any special pleading can safely be dispensed with.

Of course you are free to criticize atheism and atheists as much as you please; but try to do so on the basis of what we actually think and say, and not of misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Thank you.

I first noticed Korthof's unusual position on common descent in "Why Intelligent Design Fails." There he was criticizing Paul Nelson, who is one of the few IDers who explicitly rejects common descent. But even Nelson can't commit to which lineages originated independently, because he knows that there's no evidence to support one scenario over the other. That might be OK in a classic creationist outfit, but as an IDer, it puts him in a bind; either he remains vague or there's trouble in the big tent.

Korthof's approach, AIUI, is that, considering only the evidence at hand - specifically a historical account and a mechanism to explain it, it must be common descent. Saltation, or front-loading, whether design based or "naturalistic," aren't considered because they lack a mechanism. I may be wrong, but Korthof's faulty logic seems to be that if "design" denies the basic mechanism behind species change, then if "design" were right, everything about evolution would fall apart, including common descent.

That's especially puzzling because Korthok is one of the few people who reviews Schwabe and Senapathy, who propose a "naturalistic" alternative to common descent. So Korthof is very aware that ID vs. common descent is a false dichotomy.

Actually, I think this one is true. Design and Common Descent can't both be true, and theistic evolutionists must come to grips with this.

— Mats

That's especially puzzling because Korthok is one of the few people who reviews Schwabe and Senapathy, who propose a "naturalistic" alternative to common descent. So Korthof is very aware that ID vs. common descent is a false dichotomy.

I've never seen ANY atheist claim "...that the theory of evolution must be valid (at least they get that part right), so everybody must define themself as an atheist...".

raven:

More strawmen, I'm afraid. PZ and Dawkins (the two most quoted atheist boogaboos) are well aware that one can be a theist and a scientist... via compartmentalization.

You know what? When they criticize fellow scientists for their theism, it is for their theism (d'oh!), not for not being scientists.

I read PZ's blog regularly, and I have missed all these derogatory posts about the claim you make. I've seen people trying to smuggle special pleadings riding on the coattails of that claim, and being promptly called on that; but this is something else, I hope you'll admit.

As far as your two numbered points are concerned, I am among those who get upset when a theist claims (1), because it is false and slanderous; and the sneaky rhetorical trick - of pretending that people getting upset at being lied about, somehow, lends credibility to the lie - is very intellectually dishonest. As to (2), it is trivially true and has no bearing whatsoever on the matter.

As I told harold, I have no problem with theists criticizing atheists, provided they criticize them for what they really think and say. The same holds for you.

Nonsense, false, rubbish. Go to PZ's blog and claim that one can believe in god and accept evolution and reality and even be a scientist. What will follow will be 10-20 derogatory posts calling you all sorts of names and claiming that anyone who understands science and evolution and is a practioner thereof has to be an atheist or they are a deluded idiot who believes in demons and magic. I've done that experiment too many times lately and no longer bother. About all I got out of that is: 1. Atheists can create quasi-religions that are every bit as intolerant and fundie as any moslem or xian sect. They get real upset if you point this out. 2. It is possible to be an atheist and be a moron, troll, bigot, or all of the above.

raven and Glen:

I'm ready to admit I'm wrong. Go on, quote a post by PZ Myers that says that people cannot be theists and scientists.

If you cannot find one, will you be as ready to admit that you are wrong?

I've never seen ANY atheist claim "...that the theory of evolution must be valid (at least they get that part right), so everybody must define themself as an atheist...".

By far, prominent atheists argue instead that the theory of evolution fits exceedingly well in a rational world view, and that, although a vaporous god can never be ruled out as a theoretical possibility, it is not needed and has no supporting evidence, so any special pleading can safely be dispensed with.

Of course you are free to criticize atheism and atheists as much as you please; but try to do so on the basis of what we actually think and say, and not of misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Thank you.

I'm ready to admit I'm wrong. Go on, quote a post by PZ Myers that says that people cannot be theists and scientists.

harold:

I do not intend to launch a flamewar, but please note that what I objected to was your original remark, and it is still unsupported. I have NEVER (with the full force of this adverb) seen ANY atheist, either prominent (e.g. PZ or Dawkins) or insignificant (e.g., me), make the claim you reported. You think you were simply paraphrasing, but you did more. Then, of course, raven moved the goalposts to a different (but also unsupported) claim.

Anyway, that's it. I don't want to blow this out of proportion; simply keep in mind that the equation "atheists = fundamentalists" is designed to insult us, and while nobody has a right not to be insulted, at last be aware that that's what you are doing when you use it.

P.S.: the "vaporous god" I referred to is the one that cannot possibly be disproved. I called it vaporous because it is invisible, intangible, and undetectable. It is the ethereal "theologians' god". Whenever a god becomes visible, tangible and/or detectable, it of course ceases being vaporous.

It also ceases being unfalsifiable.

I read PZ's blog regularly, and I have missed all these derogatory posts about the claim you make. I've seen people trying to smuggle special pleadings riding on the coattails of that claim, and being promptly called on that; but this is something else, I hope you'll admit. As far as your two numbered points are concerned, I am among those who get upset when a theist claims (1), because it is false and slanderous; and the sneaky rhetorical trick - of pretending that people getting upset at being lied about, somehow, lends credibility to the lie - is very intellectually dishonest.

That Korthof would review a different mechanism for CD than RM+NS+ is hardly the same thing as noting that ID and CD are dichotomous---in the scientific sense.

— Glen Davidson

raven:

Read the definition of ad hominem. Since you are at it, read also the definition of "moving the goalposts".

Your inability to parse what I really wrote, trying instead to insult me, is duly noted. Also noted is your decision (or inability?) to support your claim.

While Korthof reviews some authors who argue for different mechanisms for CD, S & S argue against CD altogether. They offer no mechanism of course, but no design claims either. It may be that, since S & S don't provide a mechanism, Korthof puts them in the design camp. Although to my knowledge they aren't activists like the usual ID players.

Aureola -

This post does not violate the terms of my unilateral peace agreement :-).

I have to admit that I have had a an experience very similar to Raven's.

Mine happened maybe a year ago.

I'm sure I was much more guilty of keeping the inflammation going than Raven was. Nevertheless, it was pretty annoying.

There are some people out there - and you certainly don't appear to be one of them, although you do appear minimally hesitant to concede their existence - who feel compelled to use insults, rudeness, overgeneralizations, stereotypes, oversimplifications and the like to argue for the superiority of their brand of humanist atheism over anyone else whatsoever's philosophical or religious perspective. This doesn't make atheists unique, it makes them much like everybody else. (You've noticed I've even specified humanist atheism, which I have no problem with in principle, to be fair, and exclude controversial political ideologies which may be peripherally associated with atheism.)

At the end of the day, being a strident, intolerant "atheist" on an internet discussion board is a very mild "sin".

I'm not going to push this point any further. My only point here is that Raven's comments are not really ad hominem, nor unfair. (In fact, even if they were unfair they wouldn't necessarily be "ad hominem". "Ad hominem" does not mean unfair insult. It refers to the logical flaw of saying that someone's argument must be wrong because of some irrelevant characteristic of the individual who makes the argument.)

However, rather than argue about past behavior that I have observed, but failed to record and don't wish to search for, I'll stop.

Hopefully, I'll never be "proven right".

If I see the type of behavior I'm talking about going forward, I'll draw attention to it. If not, so much the better.

Did you read Korthof's review?

my post dismissed the idea that "theists" can never accept the theory of evolution.

Go to PZ's blog and claim that one can believe in god and accept evolution and reality and even be a scientist. What will follow will be 10-20 derogatory posts

"is very intellectually dishonest" Oooooh, an insult, an ad hominem attack. Atheists never do that so you must not be an atheist. Look guy, this is an evolution blog. Can't you take your crusade somewhere else rather than derailing threads by being a troll?

Go to PZ's blog and claim that one can believe in god and accept evolution and reality and even be a scientist. What will follow will be 10-20 derogatory posts calling you all sorts of names and claiming that anyone who understands science and evolution and is a practioner thereof has to be an atheist or they are a deluded idiot who believes in demons and magic.

"is very intellectually dishonest" Oooooh, an insult, an ad hominem attack. Atheists never do that so you must not be an atheist. Look guy, this is an evolution blog. Can't you take your crusade somewhere else rather than derailing threads by being a troll?

Go to PZ's blog and claim that one can believe in god and accept evolution and reality and even be a scientist. What will follow will be 10-20 derogatory posts calling you all sorts of names and claiming that anyone who understands science and evolution and is a practioner thereof has to be an atheist or they are a deluded idiot who believes in demons and magic.

"is very intellectually dishonest" Oooooh, an insult, an ad hominem attack. Atheists never do that so you must not be an atheist. Look guy, this is an evolution blog. Can't you take your crusade somewhere else rather than derailing threads by being a troll?

Go to PZ's blog and claim that one can believe in god and accept evolution and reality and even be a scientist. What will follow will be 10-20 derogatory posts calling you all sorts of names and claiming that anyone who understands science and evolution and is a practioner thereof has to be an atheist or they are a deluded idiot who believes in demons and magic.

1. Atheists can create quasi-religions that are every bit as intolerant and fundie as any moslem or xian sect. They get real upset if you point this out.

— Raven

Apologies if my predictions are inaccurate, but they are based on extensive observation of this site.

At any rate, my post dismissed the idea that "theists" can never accept the theory of evolution.

Nonsense, false, rubbish. Go to PZ's blog and claim that one can believe in god and accept evolution and reality and even be a scientist.

Oversimplified claims that "religion" cannot be compatible with science or "reason"

You couldn't have read PZ's posts in the last few days. The data is there in many, many small pieces of my hide. Not going to cut and paste them.

This BTW, is a creo fundie trick. You stole it. It is called denial of the facts.

Aureola - This post does not violate the terms of my unilateral peace agreement :-). I have to admit that I have had a an experience very similar to Raven's.

I'm not going to push this point any further. My only point here is that Raven's comments are not really ad hominem, nor unfair.

But because you are so blindly ideological on this matter, you failed to notice that mats never said anything of the sort.

No, you stupid lying sack of feces

As far as I know, both "design" and "theistic evolution" are definable concepts and have been analyzed many times over for such reasons.

"Some are arguing that the theory of evolution must be valid (at least they get that part right), so everybody must define themself as an atheist (with which I don't agree).

Just substitute the word Muslim for Christian and you got yourself a call to jihad.

There is no difference whatsoever in religious fuckwittery of any denomination. All religious followers are deluded, slightly or entirely. There are no exceptions.

"Some are arguing that the theory of evolution must be valid (at least they get that part right), so everybody must define themself as an atheist (with which I don't agree).

Popper's Ghost -

I noticed, when searching for an example for Areola, that you have, in fact, put up some posts that don't contain insults. So in a sense, I was unfair to you.

It's merely that you have an extremely low threshold for bugging out and hurling quasi-obscene insults.

However, while accuracy and sourcing are crucially important, concrete hyper-literalism and focus on semantic trivialities are the mark of those who argue futilely for the sake of arguing. Whether literally "all" of your posts contains such insults is hardly the point.

harold:

nope, it won't do. Your claim was specific: "some atheists" claim that the theory of evolution must be valid, so everybody must be an atheist.

What you quoted says nothing of the kind. It says that every theist is deluded, which is a paraphrase of "there is no evidential support for the existence of gods".

I'm beginning to suspect that you might read any declaration of disbelief in gods as "fundamentalist", which is clearly false. But I might be wrong: please, feel free to try again. But this time, look for someone claiming that "the theory of evolution must be right, so everybody must be an atheist."

Not "there is no evidence of the existence of gods, so everybody who's not an atheist is deluded". That's a completely different claim.

I'm beginning to suspect that you might read any declaration of disbelief in gods as "fundamentalist", which is clearly false.

You have mistaken me for someone who criticizes atheists and atheism in general, which I most certainly do not, on any level. Although I don't consider myself an atheist, I think that atheism is highly compatible with rational thought and ethical behavior.

Furthermore, it would be your own business, even if I didn't think it was compatible with rational thought (it obviously is, but even). (Ethical or unethical behavior is by definition potentially the business of others.) I do, however, criticize rude behavior, social class bias, and illogical argumentation (I'm not accusing you of any of this) by atheists, as well as by anyone else.

I really don't care what religion other people "believe" or "practice", as long as they do so in a way that respects the rights and interests of others, including the ability to live in a society that provides a strong scientific education in public schools, and uses mainstream, rigorous science as the basis of public policy, where appropriate.

To some degree it's just mirror image. The old "Acceptance of evolution = 'atheism' " thing. Some are arguing that the theory of evolution must be valid (at least they get that part right), so everybody must define themself as an atheist (with which I don't agree). Some are arguing, far more irrationally, that it's unthinkable to be an atheist, so the evidence for evolution must be ignored.

There is no difference whatsoever in religious fuckwittery of any denomination. All religious followers are deluded, slightly or entirely. There are no exceptions.

Let's see...

ID Proponent book? Check.

Book shown to be wrong on just about everything? Check.

Book's erroneous points discussed exhaustively on PT and elsewhere? Check.

One more review of book mentioned? Check.

Little new ground to be covered, so...

Another pointless religion-atheism "discussion" breaks out? Check.

Laser -

I agree, and it's largely my fault.

Just to add to my points above, I said -

"3) However, just because many reasonable people are atheists does not mean that all atheists are reasonable people. Sometimes, unreasonable arguments are offered in defense of atheism, and sometimes, intolerant attitudes are displayed by self-proclaimed atheists"

That's true, but it's not really my business, or my problem.

I guess the reason I bother to comment on it is that I've been arguing against the creationist/ID political/public schools agenda, which is my business and my problem (and everyone's), since 1999.

Creationism/ID/fundamentalism wouldn't really be my business or problem, either, if they didn't have enough of a political agenda to, if not outright teach creationism in public schools, significantly mess with government policy in other ways.

I think we can all agree, without any controversy, that "evolution = atheism" is a commonly used creationist canard. That probably causes me to argue against what I perceive as variants of it.

But at the end of the day, I've got my scientific education, I've got my private philosophical or religious or whatever beliefs, and it's a free country. Other peoples' private beliefs are not really my problem, unless they behave in a way that makes it my problem. So far, right wing fundamentalists are the only ones doing that.

harold:

I read your words as a way of alleging an equivalence between "some atheists" who (supposedly) make a totally idiotic and easily refuted claim and "some fundamentalists". Once pressed, you could not find any atheist making said idiotic and easily refuted claim. This means that you were committing a strawman fallacy, as I said all along.

Now, you are instead saying that sometimes, some atheists say stupid things, and in support of this you quote... something which is not stupid at all, but rather a mere restatement of atheism itself.

First, let me point out that this is known as "moving the goalposts"; the very fact that you try to change the terms of your claim speaks louder than your half-hearted concession.

Second, it is obvious that, if someone does not believe in gods, and sees no evidence being offered for the existence of gods, that someone will tend to regard theists as deluded, i.e. clinging to a false belief despite its lack of evidence. This is in no way irrational, or fundamentalist; it is a logical consequence of the lack of evidential support for the claims of theism.

The only way to show that theists are not deluded would be... to show that their belief is not false, which would require some evidence.

Note also that I never said you were a theist, and atheist, or anything in between. I am merely addressing your fallacious claims about atheism.

Now, you are instead saying that sometimes, some atheists say stupid things, and in support of this you quote... something which is not stupid at all, but rather a mere restatement of atheism itself.

There is no difference whatsoever in religious fuckwittery of any denomination. All religious followers are deluded, slightly or entirely. There are no exceptions.

First, let me point out that this is known as "moving the goalposts"; the very fact that you try to change the terms of your claim speaks louder than your half-hearted concession.

Second, it is obvious that, if someone does not believe in gods, and sees no evidence being offered for the existence of gods, that someone will tend to regard theists as deluded, i.e. clinging to a false belief despite its lack of evidence. This is in no way irrational, or fundamentalist; it is a logical consequence of the lack of evidential support for the claims of theism.

The only way to show that theists are not deluded would be... to show that their belief is not false, which would require some evidence.

harold:

I think instead that you have shown Popper's Ghost's harsh opinions of your intellectual honesty to be justified.

You are the one straining definitions beyond their breaking point (need I remind you that "theism" and "atheism" are defined on the basis of belief in "gods", or lack thereof, for instance?), and this is readily apparent from this overlong attempt to defend your indefensible claim; and very clearly, trying to argue civilly with you leads nowhere, fast.

So I'll stop here. Feel free to keep inventing convoluted reasons why "some atheists" say whatever you want them to say, despite your inability to find any real-life, flesh-and-blood atheists substantiating your allegations.

In a fallacy bingo game, you would have won.

Go to PZ's blog and claim that one can believe in god and accept evolution and reality and even be a scientist. What will follow will be 10-20 derogatory posts calling you all sorts of names and claiming that anyone who understands science and evolution and is a practioner (sic) thereof has to be an atheist or they are a deluded idiot who believes in demons and magic.

I've never seen ANY atheist claim "...that the theory of evolution must be valid (at least they get that part right), so everybody must define themself (sic) as an atheist...".

Sorry, that should read "theist acceptors of the ToE". No excuse for bad usage.

#41This debate will be won by those who can explain why there is no incompatibility between faith, a belief in God and the spiritual and science Unfortunately, your premise is just plain, conservative, old-fashioned wrong. Science is founded on logic, rationality, evidence, and observation. Faith and a belief in God and the spiritual is founded on illogic, irrationality, lack of evidence and ignorance of obseravtion. There can be no compatibility between those things. They are polar opposites. Faith and unfounded beliefs are not scientific. Basing thought on logic, evidence and observation, and more importantly, the ability to reshape those thoughts when they don't hold up to evidence and observation leaves no room for faith. If a person comes along who manages, somehow, to meld faith and science, then we all - believer and sceptic - lose. Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 26, 2007 12:28 PM

harold-

I was mainly being glib. You are not solely to blame. Aureola, raven, Popper's Ghost, among others, have kept the "discussion" going.

[Raven]"The vast majority of xians and other religions are perfectly OK with science and reality." Most Christians believe in miracles and the power of prayer. Most Christians in the US don't believe in evolution. A large portion don't believe the earth is more than 10,000 years old. How does this translate into "perfectly OK with science and reality"? "This isn't a popular statement on a fundamentalist atheist board*, but science and religion are compatible as shown by the fact that both have coexisted for 2,000 years." Because religions have never persecuted scientists that promoted ideas contrary to their beliefs. Posted by: Tulse | July 26, 2007 12:13 PM

"raven: Most mainstream protestant, nonchristian, and catholic sects are OK with science." You can continue to assert that, but the evidence is far to the contrary. Again, most Christians believe in the efficacy of prayer, in miracle, and don't believe in evolution. That's not being "OK with science". I also think it is arguable that, worldwide, most non-Christian sects are also profoundly anti-science. "If US religion and science weren't coexisting, none of the above would have happened." Surely you are familiar with the huge attack on science during the recent US presidential administration, largely based on religious grounds. Look at funding for stem-cell research, look at the fight over HPV vaccine, look at the fight over global warming, look at the attempt to get creationism in schools, and then tell me science isn't under attack by religion. Posted by: Tulse | July 26, 2007 12:54 PM

"Raven said: The vast majority of xians and other religions are perfectly OK with science and reality. This isn't a popular statement on a fundamentalist atheist board*, but science and religion are compatible as shown by the fact that both have coexisted for 2,000 years." Ignoring for now the fact that science has not existed for 2,000 years, co-existence is not evidence of compatibility. Both aggression and pacifism have co-existed for even longer, yet they are clearly polar opposites. A mobster can be a sweetheart to his family and a sadist to his victims. Just because people are capable of holding contradictions doesn't mean they aren't contradictions. *You know the drill. Issue a fatwa, declare heresy, put on the Jihadi hat, and go crusade. It is amusing how fast nonbelief takes on the resemblance to a religion. Is this supposed to be funny? Because you've just listed everything that differentiates religion from non-religion. Even if you were just throwing around hyperbolic metaphors in the case of atheists, the fact that these things aren't merely metaphors when it comes to religion is extremely telling. Posted by: H. Humbert | July 26, 2007 01:19 PM

#52"The vast majority of xians and other religions are perfectly OK with science and reality. This isn't a popular statement on a fundamentalist atheist board*" Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. AHEM. Sorry, I think I need some orange juice, and maybe a little fresh air. Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 26, 2007 01:26 PM

"The majority are smart enough to realize that the benefits of science are for everyone. Longer life spans, better health, improved technology, a 21st century lifestyle instead of a 16th century one." Raven, you have successfully shown that christians are inconsistent and hypocritical, hostile to applying the scientific method to their own mythology yet more than willing to reap the benefits of science. And you think this proves what again? Posted by: H. Humbert | July 26, 2007 03:36 PM

Go to PZ's blog and claim that one can believe in god and accept evolution and reality and even be a scientist. What will follow will be 10-20 derogatory posts calling you all sorts of names and claiming that anyone who understands science and evolution and is a practioner (sic) thereof has to be an atheist or they are a deluded idiot who believes in demons and magic.

Look, it's easy. Find some writing that * is written by an atheist, and * which claims that the validity of the ToE logically excludes non-atheism (aatheism?), * or at least claims that non-atheist acceptors of the ToE are "deluded idiots who believe in demons and magic." I'm not saying you can't do this; just that you haven't.

...the ability to reshape those thoughts when they don't hold up to evidence and observation leaves no room for faith.

This borders on being fair except for the continued use of concrete hyperliteralism ("no, he only said that the theory of evolution 'makes all religions look ridiculous', that's not what you said" - this is a made up example of a possible future resonse).

You're basically demanding that I "prove" my exact words to super duper exactly true right down to the letter, rather than acknowledging the gist. Nevertheless, I'll keep trying.

Yes, because the gist isn't accurate in this case. The gist of your charge is that atheists impugn the intellectual honesty of theists, especially if that theist is a scientist. Well, that's hardly surprising, and while you can argue about the meaning of "impugn", the gist of your argument would be uncontroversial. (If atheists didn't at least question the intellectual honesty of theist scientists, I don't see how they could remain atheists).

If, on the other hand, you charge that atheists claim that scientific thinking excludes theism,

or that they claim that the acceptance of the ToE is tantamount to atheism, then you would be saying something controversial and intentionally harmful, as has been pointed out

Harold: Again, if this isn't the case, why do you say above "If atheists didn't at least question the intellectual honesty of theist scientists, I don't see how they could remain atheists"? If both are compatible with science, then there's no logical reason to impugn anyone's intellectual honesty, at least not on the grounds of atheism/theism.

Why do they need to impugn, question, debate or otherwise cast negative aspersion on the intellectual honesty of theist scientists, if on the other hand, they do not claim that scientific thinking in some way excludes theism?

I did more or less charge that some, by no means all, atheists make this claim.

The issue seems to be that, while on one hand, you think it's natural for atheists to question the intellectual honesty of theist scientists, on the other hand, you deny that any atheist has ever specifically argued that the ToE, specifically, is compatible with atheism but not theism.

harold,

That example was freakin hilarious. I hope you don't mind if I borrow some of those nice insults to use in my own posts.

It is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of religion in work life in the USA. It is also considered morally reprehensible and just plain low life tacky.

I would have fallen asleep whist trying to skim this thread if it hadn't been for harold. Congradulations.

But there are many ways to impugn someone's intellectual honesty based on their religion, some of which are neither tacky nor reprehensible.

you [...] have failed to back up your charge

Myself, I prefer to base a claim of intellectual dishonesty upon an actual action rather than a mental state alone. Your mileage may vary.

I understand. And you seem to realize that it isn't a representative position.