Defusing The Religion Issue: Taking John West to task for distorting the positions of Scott and Miller

Posted 25 February 2008 by Guest Contributor

by Jeremy Mohn My friends and fellow Kansans Jeremy Mohn and Cheryl Shepherd-Adams (a KCFS Board member) have a nice website/blog called "Stand Up for Real Science" that deserves wider attention. I really like their motto: "Critically Analyze All Theories---Teach the Actual Controversies" Today Jeremy's post, Defusing the Religious Issue, takes Discovery Institute fellow John West to task for distorting via quotemine (surprise!) positions held by NCSE's Genie Scott and by biologist Ken Miller, author of Finding Darwin's God. I'd like to post the entire article by Jeremy here. I encourage you to visit Jeremy and Cheryl's site, and even if you comment here you might drop by there and leave a comment. (By the way, patrons of our discussion forum, After the Bar Closes, will find the first couple of comments there interesting.) ---Jack Krebs The Discovery Institute's Dr. John G. West, recently gave a lecture in which he claimed that supporters of REAL science are promoting religious instruction in public school science classrooms.

Public schools are certainly allowed to hold objective discussions of competing religious beliefs, in relevant courses, but that's not what the defenders of evolution are proposing. They are pushing one-sided, really, religious indoctrination with the clear intent of changing the religious beliefs of students, not just the science beliefs, but changing and molding the religious beliefs of students. -Dr. John G. West

If what West said is true, it would seem to expose a startling hypocrisy on the part of evolution proponents. After all, it is normally the supporters of evolution who accuse their opposition of seeking to promote a specific religious view. Such an accusation requires serious consideration and a close examination of the evidence. Unfortunately, West's lecture was full of insinuations but empty when it came to concrete evidence. In his talk, West repeatedly claimed that Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), encourages science teachers to promote one religious view over others. To support his accusation, West cited an article written by Scott entitled "Dealing with Antievolutionism." According to West,

She recommends that science teachers use science classroom time to have students read statements by theologians endorsing evolution. That's right, science class should be spent reading and discussing statements by ministers and theologians. She's quick to point out, however, that only theologians endorsing evolution should be assigned . . . but I guess that's not promoting a particular religious view in her mind.

Not surprisingly, in order to make this point, West had to completely ignore the context provided in the article. It turns out that Scott offered the above activity as an example of how one teacher makes students aware of the diversity of religious attitudes towards evolution. Here is what Scott actually wrote:

Teachers have told me they have had good results when they begin the year by asking students to brainstorm what they think the words "evolution" and "creationism" mean. As expected, some of the information will be accurate and some will be erroneous. Under "evolution," expect to hear "Man evolved from monkeys" or something similar. Don't be surprised to find some variant of, "You can't believe in God" or some similar statement of supposed incompatibility between religion and evolution. Under "creationism" expect to find more consistency: "God"; "Adam and Eve," "Genesis," etc. The next step in constructing student understanding of concepts is to guide them towards a more accurate view. One goal of this exercise is to help them see the diversity of religious attitudes towards evolution. After one such initial brainstorming session, one teacher presented students with a short quiz wherein they were asked, "Which statement was made by the Pope?" or "Which statement was made by an Episcopal Bishop?" and given an "a, b, c" multiple choice selection. All the statements from theologians, of course, stressed the compatibility of theology with the science of evolution. This generated discussion about what evolution was versus what students thought it was. By making the students aware of the diversity of opinion towards evolution extant in Christian theology, the teacher helped them understand that they didn't have to make a choice between evolution and religious faith."

So instead of promoting a particular religious view, as West contends, the purpose of the activity was to make students aware of the wide range of religious views concerning evolution, including some views that are compatible with it. Not content to stop there, West continued:

Dr. Scott further recommends requiring science students to go out to interview clergy in the community . . . but not if the community is what she calls conservative Christian, because then the intended lesson, that evolution is okay...uh...with theology, that theology endorses evolution, might be undermined."

Again, West misleadingly distorted what Scott actually wrote:

A teacher in Minnesota told me that he had good luck sending his students out at the beginning of the semester to interview their pastors and priests about evolution. They came back somewhat astonished, "Hey! Evolution is OK!" Even when there was diversity in opinion, with some religious leaders accepting evolution as compatible with their theology and others rejecting it, it was educational for the students to find out for themselves that there was no single Christian perspective on evolution. The survey-of-ministers approach may not work if the community is religiously homogeneous, especially if that homogeneity is conservative Christian, but it is something that some teachers might consider as a way of getting students' fingers out of their ears."

As should now be evident, West consistently failed to acknowledge the stated purpose of the activities and, in so doing, managed to make it seem as though Scott is encouraging teachers to promote one particular religious view over others. In reality, the instructional activities described by Scott were intended to address a common misconception: the notion that religious people must reject evolution in order to hold on to their faith. So, upon closer examination, West's accusations against Eugenie Scott turn out to be egregiously false. Scott does not encourage the promotion of religious views in the science classroom. She merely offers her help to science teachers who are looking to defuse the religious objections to evolution that originate outside of the classroom so that authentic learning can take place inside of it. Pointing out that the diversity of viewpoints among religious people does not equate to promoting one viewpoint over another. That is a simple fact, one that West tried hard to obfuscate. Representatives of the Discovery Institute claim that they really want students to learn more, not less, about evolution. If they really meant that, they would be supporting such attempts to defuse the religion issue because students are much more likely to learn about evolution when they can approach it without the fear that doing so will automatically lead them to reject their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, this was not the only misleading part of West's lecture. He also used a quote from Dr. Kenneth Miller's book, Finding Darwin's God, to blatantly misrepresent Miller's viewpoint concerning evolution and the development of human beings:

Even the self-professed theists among evolution proponents tend to be less friendly to traditional religion than one might think. Let's take Ken Miller, who is usually cited as a traditional Roman Catholic by the news media. Yet he insists in his writings on evolution that it's an "undirected" process and that the development of human beings was "an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out."

I happen to own a copy of Finding Darwin's God, and the text quoted by West is not reflective of Miller's view. Miller does not believe that intelligent beings capable of knowing their Creator are an "afterthought" or a "minor detail" in evolution. The following long excerpt provides a clearer view of Miller's beliefs:

So, what if? What if the comet had missed, and what if our ancestors, not the dinosaurs, had been the ones driven to extinction? Or, to use one of Gould's metaphors, what if we wind the tape of life backwards to the Devonian, and imagine the obliteration of the small tribe of fish known as rhipidistians. If they had vanished without descendants, and with the them the hope of the first tetrapods, vertebrates might never have struggled onto the land, leaving it, in Gould's words, forever "the unchallenged domain of insects and flowers." No question about it. Rewind that tape, let it run again, and events might come out differently at every turn. Surely this means that mankind's appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might as well have left us out. I agree. What follows from this, for skeptic and true believer alike, is a conclusion the logic of which is rarely challenged--that no God would ever have used such a process to fashion His prize creatures. He couldn't have. Because He couldn't have been sure that leaving the job to evolution would have allowed things to work out the "right" way. If it was God's will to produce us, then by showing that we are the products of evolution, we would rule Him out as our Creator. Therein lies the value or the danger of evolution. Case closed? Not so fast. The biological account of lucky historical contingencies leading to our own appearance on this planet is surely accurate. What does not follow is that a perceived lack of inevitability translates into something that we should regard as incompatible with a divine will. To do so shows no lack of scientific understanding, but it seriously underestimates God, even as He is understood by the most conventional of Western religions. Finding Darwin's God, p. 272-273

Miller summarizes his position on the following page:

Can we really say that no Creator would have chosen an indeterminate, natural process as His workbench to fashion intelligent beings? Gould argues that if we were to go back to the Cambrian era and start over a second time, the emergence of intelligent life exactly 530 million years later would not be certain. I think he is right, but I also think this is less important than he believes. Is there some reason to expect that the God we know from Western theology had to preordain a timetable for our appearance? After 4.5 billion years, can we be sure he wouldn't have been happy to wait a few million longer? And, to ask the big question, do we have to assume that from the beginning he planned intelligence and consciousness to develop from a bunch of nearly hairless, bipedal, African primates? If another group of animals had evolved to self-awareness, if another creature had shown itself worthy of a soul, can we really say for certain that God would have been less than pleased with His new Eve and Adam? I don't think so. Finding Darwin's God, p. 274

Clearly, Miller's theological views are more nuanced than West would have his audience believe. While Miller does not believe that human beings were the inevitable outcome of evolution, he does believe that God intended to create beings that were worthy of a soul. It is therefore false to claim that Miller's views are "less friendly to traditional religion than one might think." Ironically, after maligning Eugenie Scott for encouraging instructional activities that defuse the religion issue, John West demonstrated exactly why such activities are necessary. People like him are working hard to make sure that the fuse stays lit.

125 Comments

Paul Burnett · 25 February 2008

One thing you've got to love about the Dishonesty Institute: They're consistent. They lie, then they lie some more, then they lie again.

West is a member in good standing of the Dishonesty Institute's Ministry of Disinformation, Agitation and Propaganda, along with Luskin, Crowther and ex-scientists Dembski, Behe and others.

Jedidiah · 25 February 2008

It's the most dreaded prospect of all to the Literal Creationists- what if they actually started letting the science teachers teach Creationism in the classroom? Since we of course can't mandate that they all be Christians of the Literal Creationist variety, or Christians at all, then we now have a bunch of non-theologians teaching theology. Which means, they can teach all kinds of weird stuff about religion.

They complain that they can't teach religion in the classroom, and then complain when religion is actually shared in the classroom, because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions of what religion is. A shame they don't also accept cloning- it seems that would make the Literal Creationist crowd most happy at all- if everyone was just exactly like them.

Jack Krebs · 25 February 2008

I'd to point out that it's really "Teach all the controversies," not "Tach" all the controversies. Since I'm not the actual author of this post I can't fix that right now, but we'll get it fixed soon.

Divalent · 25 February 2008

The issue with religious folks and quote mining is that it is actually the way one goes about studying religious texts. No rational person can possibly believe that the bible as a whole provides a coherent and consistent picture of a harmonious universe ruled by an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving, caring god.

The only way to read the bible and hold this belief is to quote-mine the hell out of it. You have to skip over the enormous number of "inconvenient" parts and take snippets out of context.

If you don't realize this about religious folks, their behavior will continue to drive you crazy. It's the only way they know how to approach anything larger than a sentence.

David Stanton · 25 February 2008

I actually saw that lecture broadcast. The guy actually seemed quite reasonable. He said that evolution was indeed a theory and that that was just fine. He said that it should be taught in public schools and that that was just fine. He even seemed to admit that there was a lot of evidence to support evolution and he didn't seem to have a problem with that.

However he did keep implying things that were just plain wrong. For example, he kept stating over and over that religion and evolution were fundamentally incompatible. He obviously knew about people such as Miller and others, but he completely discounted their perspective. It was the same old "my religion is the only right one" routine. The fact that other religions disagreed with his was not considered relevant.

He also pulled out the old "scientists have been wrong about things before" routine in order to argue that the consensus view should not be the only one taught in schools. However, he made no distinction between high school and university level studies, which is of course a critical distinction.

He even tried to pull the old "Darwin turned into an atheist before he died" routine to try to explain away the fact that such a religious man could come up with the idea of evolution if the two things are so incompatible.

He brought up three questions that he wanted addressed in the old "teach the controversy" routine. Stuff like random mutations and macroevolution, etc. I don't think that the questions that he raised are quite the problem for evolution that he thinks they are.

Overall he came across as very sincere and knowlegeable, but he was obviously very biased in some very fundamental ways.

Jeremy Mohn · 25 February 2008

Actually, Jack, our slogan is "Teach the ACTUAL controversies." No biggie, though.

I would also like to pass along a link to West's lecture that was shown on Book TV:

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=9088&SectionName=&PlayMedia=No

In my original blog post, I included a link to West's lecture on an ID-friendly blog. However, the Book TV version includes the Q&A where West repeated and amplified the distortions that he made in his prepared remarks.

I encourage readers to listen for themselves!

Mike Elzinga · 25 February 2008

One thing you’ve got to love about the Dishonesty Institute: They’re consistent. They lie, then they lie some more, then they lie again.

And, it seems, that every time they open their dirty mouths they self-taser themselves intellectually. As I commented on another thread, I have yet to meet a fundamentalist who isn’t totally screwed up in his education and ability to process information properly, no matter what level their “educations” are purported to be. It’s hard miswiring due to their indoctrination. Oh well, if we just keep displaying their spastic brain-farts, maybe the public will begin seeing them as the mean-spirited clowns that they are, always have been and always will be. The public has seen so much of it with the G.W. Bush administration that they beginning to show signs of rejecting it everywhere. We can still hope.

PvM · 25 February 2008

I just listened to part of West's presentation at CSPAN, and I cannot believe what he is saying. For instance, he is claiming that Judge Jones stated that the correct religious interpretation is that evolution and religion are compatible.

That just borders on either incompetence or reckless disregard for the facts.

Chayanov · 26 February 2008

They complain that they can’t teach religion in the classroom, and then complain when religion is actually shared in the classroom, because it doesn’t fit their preconceived notions of what religion is.

Which is a point that I make in my World Religions class whenever a student laments about the lack of prayer in public schools: "Do you really want your kids learning about religion from their science teacher?" I think the implications of that scenario terrifies them.

Frank J · 26 February 2008

Add this to the growing pile of evidence that the DI is abandoning the "ID is science just like evolution" tactic in favor of "religion is already being taught, so it's only fair to teach our religion too."

IDers and classic creationists have been using that shell game for years, but would always revert the "ID is science" with each new audience. This time, with "Expelled" and all, it looks like they are staying with "plan B."

IANAL, so I can't dispute the encouragement I received that "plan B" is just as easy to shoot down in court, but I still get a little nervous when the fuzzy concepts of religion are emphasized over the no-brainer fact that ID is completely science-free.

On that note, one thing is consistent with the recent "ID is science, but don't teach ID, just 'critically analyze' evolution" approach. That is that, for all the quote mining of Scott and Miller, I have no clue from the above excerpts what West thinks happened in lieu of evolution. Does he agree with Behe that life has a 3-4 billion year history and that humans share common ancestors with other species? Without hearing his lecture, I'm willing to bet that he says nothing about the implied better (or next best?) theory.

It's important to show how IDers misrepresent evolution, of course, but don't stop there. Get them to elaborate on their alternatives, and internal disagreements if any. If they try to evade the questions, that's yet more evidence that their goal is to mislead, not inform.

wad of id · 26 February 2008

I watched this "Darwin Day" crap that the DI and Johnny boy put up this past week on CSPAN. It is notable that the DI cut off the press Q&A afterwards, which were, with the exception of several obvious plants in the audience, generally skeptical of the Dumbass's claims. I don't have a transcript, but here's one question that he struggled with: "shouldn't we teach the scientific consensus?" He said he agreed, but the he wasn't for "uncritical" support of "dogmatism" and that we should teach consensus as well as "thoughtful criticisms" of the consensus. Bullshit. To juxtapose "thought" and DI in any discussion is to endorse lies. If there are "thoughtful criticisms" to be taught, it needs to be part of the consensus as well. Can we, after all, not have consensus views and criticisms of scientific hypotheses simultaneously? Sure, just look at string theory, or hormone replacement therapy, or fossil fuel alternatives to name but a few. What lazy ass Johnny boy wants is a shortcut around doing science and then, being too cowardly to engage with the scientific community, insert his minority viewpoint into the classrooms. Shame on him!

MattusMaximus · 26 February 2008

Chayanov: Which is a point that I make in my World Religions class whenever a student laments about the lack of prayer in public schools: "Do you really want your kids learning about religion from their science teacher?" I think the implications of that scenario terrifies them.

The way I see it, so long as I'm giving tests in my physics classes, there will always be prayer in schools. :)

Josh S · 26 February 2008

What if a teacher was teaching evolution (and not creationism), but was giving assignments to be familiar with what religious leaders said against evolution? I think it would be clear the point was introduce a religious viewpoint. I don't see how this is any different. Science class should teach science only.

MattusMaximus · 26 February 2008

wad of id: It is notable that the DI cut off the press Q&A afterwards, which were, with the exception of several obvious plants in the audience, generally skeptical of the Dumbass's claims.

You know, didn't the "Expelled" folks recently have a screeing where they did exactly the same thing afterwards? They held a "press conference" and then the only people allowed to actually ask questions were the plants throwing out nothing but softballs. Here's a link about it... The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled'

I don't have a transcript, but here's one question that he struggled with: "shouldn't we teach the scientific consensus?" He said he agreed, but the he wasn't for "uncritical" support of "dogmatism" and that we should teach consensus as well as "thoughtful criticisms" of the consensus. Bullshit. To juxtapose "thought" and DI in any discussion is to endorse lies. If there are "thoughtful criticisms" to be taught, it needs to be part of the consensus as well. Can we, after all, not have consensus views and criticisms of scientific hypotheses simultaneously? Sure, just look at string theory, or hormone replacement therapy, or fossil fuel alternatives to name but a few.

Yes, string theory is a perfect example of a legitimate scientific controversy. Too bad the Disco Institute and their cronies are still stuck in the mid-19th century. I think points like this should be made more often when discussing these issues with the press.

What lazy ass Johnny boy wants is a shortcut around doing science and then, being too cowardly to engage with the scientific community, insert his minority viewpoint into the classrooms. Shame on him!

Essentially, they are trying to reverse the scientific process. They wish to assert their "Truth" and then cherry-pick, or just plain make up, evidence to fit with it. In addition, it is worth noting that they not only wish to reverse the scientific process but others such as textbook content, etc. They want to insert their ideas into science texts as accepted scientific fact, but they haven't even gone through the process of proposing any hypotheses yet! And then, of course, there is the Wedge Document which outlines the real reason why they're doing all of this in the first place. It's about much more than science - the Disco Institute and IDM wish to, in their own words, "see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral, and political life." In other words, folks, they want it all - they basically wish to use ID-creationism as a tool to promote theocracy in the United States (and beyond). This is why I share the Wedge Document so much whenever I talk on this topic. It is very interesting to see the reaction of most people when they see some of the information in the Wedge. As for Johnny's lies... well, I guess the only thing I can say is that "bearing false witness" isn't really lying if you're doing it in the name of God, right? ;)

FL · 26 February 2008

Like Jeremy, I have a copy of Miller's book Finding Darwin's God....and it seems very clear (even with all those "nuances" or extra details) that Miller does a stellar job of proving exactly what West said of him. For Miller, the origin of humanity human existence is a matter of "lucky historical contigencies" (that means historical ACCIDENTS, nothing less) as Miller himself pointed out. When you look at Miller's extended paragraphs, as Mohn does, it turns out that you're reading what Miller himself is actually believing. He's actually NOT denying those things at all. Rather, near the very end, Miller claims (WITHOUT taking time to rationally justify that claim) that what Miller believes is "not incompatible" with the divine will. (Which would mean that God is directing an undirected process, a rational contradiction which evolutionists simply haven't resolved.) Meanwhile, Genesis 1:26 makes ABSOLUTELY clear that there was nothing "lucky" nor "accidental" about the origin of the first humans. God deliberately created humanity, God directly created the first humans, not via naturalistic evolution but by His own supernatural actions (Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:26). Even Jesus affirmed and quoted the Genesis record of Adam and Eve's creation. (Unlike Miller.) Therefore, John West's assessment turns out to be correct, even when you quote Miller paragraph by paragraph and in detail. West tells the documented truth, as it were:

Even the self-professed theists among evolution proponents tend to be less friendly to traditional religion than one might think. Let's take Ken Miller, who is usually cited as a traditional Roman Catholic by the news media. Yet he insists in his writings on evolution that it's an "undirected" process and that the development of human beings was "an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out."

Long story short, Ken Miller has clarified the issue by proving that evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Thanks Ken!! FL

Frank J · 26 February 2008

Meanwhile, Genesis 1:26 makes ABSOLUTELY clear that there was nothing “lucky” nor “accidental” about the origin of the first humans.
— FL

Does Michael Behe approve of your reading of the Bible as a science text? Also, do you consider the origin of individual humans (new souls and all) design actuation events, or just the same old "microevolution"?

Mike · 26 February 2008

As an occasional AP Bio teacher I have to disagree with Dr. Scott. West shows that it is far too easy to misunderstand the exercise as denouncing someone's religion in science class. Even the most extreme luddite religious beliefs need to be respected in a public school, and the concept of diverse religous beliefs regarding evolution can be handled on a brief sentence. Sure, West is being deliberately dishonest, but I can easily see students, parents, and admins coming away with the same impression. A science class is not the place to discuss religion, other than to briefly put science in context with religion in a NOMA sort of way. Very briefly. Science class time is precious, and needs to be used for science education.

Jack Krebs · 26 February 2008

I've been around this block with FL before, and don't intend to spend much time on it. I will point out that FL is a Biblical literalist, but neithe Miller nor Catholics in general are. Miller's views are incompatible with FL's brand of Christianity, but not with all Christian perspectives.

Jeremy Mohn · 26 February 2008

A question for FL:

In your view, are Christians required to reject the idea that God is responsible for our existence if it can be shown that chance played a role in making us who we are?

If so, then it appears that the chromosome theory of inheritance is also incompatible with Christianity. After all, the sorting of chromosomes during meiosis I is a process affected by the "random" interactions of spindle fibers and centromeres.

If you accept that the chromosome theory of inheritance is accurate, then you already accept that every human that has ever existed is the result of an undirected process.

BTW, FL, Genesis 2 only has 25 verses.

MattusMaximus · 26 February 2008

FL: Meanwhile, Genesis 1:26 makes ABSOLUTELY clear that there was nothing "lucky" nor "accidental" about the origin of the first humans. God deliberately created humanity, God directly created the first humans, not via naturalistic evolution but by His own supernatural actions (Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:26). Even Jesus affirmed and quoted the Genesis record of Adam and Eve's creation. (Unlike Miller.)

The Troll is back, claiming (yet again) that his supposed "literal" interpretation of the Bible is scientific. It's not only not scientific, it isn't even a literal reading of Genesis since both accounts of creation in Genesis 1 & 2 contradict each other. Here is the literal text which outlines the contradictions... First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) Genesis 1:25-27 (Humans were created after the other animals.) "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image.... So God created man in his own image." Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25) Genesis 2:18-19 (Humans were created before the other animals.) "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. ====================== First Account (Genesis 1:1-2:3) Genesis 1:27 (The first man and woman were created simultaneously.) "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Second Account (Genesis 2:4-25) Genesis 2:18-22 (The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man's rib.) "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man." FL's response to this? He claims the Bible (as he reads it) is 100% true and infallible, yet when confronted with contradictions like those above, one among many many such contradictions, he cites sources external to the Bible that bascially say "there are no contradictions." Well, if the Bible is "100% accurate" as he claims, then why should anyone have to cite any source outside of the Bible? FL means "literal" to be "my interpretation is the one Truth and therefore I'm on God's side." Anyone who disagrees (Christian or otherwise) is on the side of evil, in his eyes. You know, I seem to recall the Taliban taking a similar "literalist" stance on the Koran... In any case, I have posed the following questions to FL on another thread. He either cannot or refuses to answer these questions... 1. Who wrote the Bible? 2. When and where was it written? 3. What was the original language of the Bible? 4. Why are there un-canonized books of the Bible (such as the Gospel of Thomas, etc)? 5. Why do we have different versions of the same books of the canonized Bible? 6. Why is the Catholic Bible different from the standard KJV?

Frank J · 26 February 2008

I’ve been around this block with FL before, and don’t intend to spend much time on it. I will point out that FL is a Biblical literalist, but neither Miller nor Catholics in general are.
— Jack Krebs

Nor is Michael Behe. That does not mean I approve of how he misrepresents evolution, but only to show how literalists under the big tent make excuses for Behe, yet never for Miller, even though neither offers any hope to vindicate any of the mutually contradictory fairy tales promoted by various "kinds" (e.g. YEC, OEC) of literalist.

Christopher Letzelter · 26 February 2008

FL said: "God deliberately created humanity, God directly created the first humans, not via naturalistic evolution but by His own supernatural actions (Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:26). Even Jesus affirmed and quoted the Genesis record of Adam and Eve’s creation. (Unlike Miller.)"
So, the Biblical account(s) of creation are true because the Bible says so. They are true because Jesus said so. Why should we regard Jesus as an authority? Because the Bible says we should. Why should we listen to what the Bible says? Because it says we should, or else.
So, why should we bother doing science, FL? We could just go back to living as Bronze-Age goat farmers, right? Get your staff and sandals ready, FL....

Jack Krebs · 26 February 2008

I may have posted this before, but I had a one-to-one discussion about this issue of the role of chance with FL at the KCFS forum, which you can read at http://kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=419

Even though, as Jeremy points out, there is nothing inconsistent with Christian theology that events that look like chance to us are in fact within the domain of God's providence, but FL is so wedded to his belief in special creation and the rest of the Genesis story that he can't see the inconsistencies in his position, nor, again, can he accept other Christian viewpoints as valid.

Ravilyn Sanders · 26 February 2008

Admins,

We need a way to handle trolls like FL. Some don't like to leave his
drivel go unchallenged. The lurkers might misunderstand the lack
of response to such drivel. And others, like me, like to read the point by point
by rebuttals. So that we can present science
better in the water cooler conversations or when buttonholed in the
airport by these lunatics. Removal or ban of such posts raises
gleeful cries, "censorship. what are you afraid of?" kind of jeering.

But these trolls and their follow-ups derail the discussion of the thread.

Have we tried designating a thread as the standing "den-of-trolls" thread? May be even an existing one like the
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/professing-to-b.html ?

Move the posting by FL and the follow ups it generates to this thread. Leave a message here saying, "FL babbled incoherently here,
the posting and responses have been moved to this thread" with a clickable link.

Thus trolls don't go unchallenged, trolls are not censored either,
and the people interested in it can follow it easily. And the
main topic of discussion does not get derailed.

Another technological solution would be to create two tags,
"troll" and "response-to-troll" and tag postings from FL and his ilk,
and the responses they generate. Give regular readers buttons to "hide/show trolls and responses-to-trolls"
so that they don't see them. The admins can do the tagging once or
twice a day.

Both solutions put some extra load on the admins, and we should find
a way to balance the load.

David B. Benson · 26 February 2008

I see that poster FL has escaped over to this thread, still not answering any of the questions asked by poster MattusMaximus.

Stanton · 26 February 2008

David B. Benson: I see that poster FL has escaped over to this thread, still not answering any of the questions asked by poster MattusMaximus.

That's because FL can not answer them, so he's jumped ship to a new thread. And yet, he claims that he doesn't like derailing threads.

Christopher Letzelter · 26 February 2008

Everyone: sorry I fell for the bait, but I just couldn't let the circular reasoning go...
I do really appreciate all the sophisticated discussion otherwise.
Cheers

Ravilyn Sanders · 26 February 2008

Stanton:
David B. Benson: I see that poster FL has escaped over to this thread, still not answering any of the questions asked by poster MattusMaximus.
That's because FL can not answer them, so he's jumped ship to a new thread. And yet, he claims that he doesn't like derailing threads.

So let us put him back in that thread. Let everyone see how many times he says the same thing again and again, how many times he dodging questions.

Larry Gilman · 26 February 2008

Divalent writes,

The only way to read the bible and hold this belief is to quote-mine the hell out of it. You have to skip over the enormous number of “inconvenient” parts and take snippets out of context.
If you don’t realize this about religious folks, their behavior will continue to drive you crazy. It’s the only way they know how to approach anything larger than a sentence.

While it is true that some “religious folks” do study their scriptures by atomizing those texts and focusing with laser intensity on particular passages, it is silly to generalize this to “religious folks” as a whole. Such statements may make the die-hard, evangelical-atheist cheering section hoot and toss popcorn in the air and exchange high-fives, but are intellectually nowheresville.

It is a fact there are many “religious folks,” some scholars and some not, who do not skip over or soft-pedal the nasty bits in the Bible. Take someone as widely-read and theologically conservative as C. S. Lewis, for example. Lewis devotes long passages of his book Reflections on the Psalms (1958) to discussing the cursings in the Psalms; he refers to these as “diabolical” and “terrible” (21) and says he is sure

that we must not either try to explain them away or to yield for one moment to the idea that, because it comes in the Bible, all this vindictive hatred must somehow be good and pious. (22)

I could go on but won’t, for brevity’s sake. My point: the claim that quote-mining is “actually the way one goes about studying religious texts,” the way all "religious folks" read their Bibles or other sacred texts, is demonstrably false.

Religion is an extremely diverse phenomenon about which no sweeping generalizations, whether flattering or dismissive, are particularly useful.

Sincerely,

Larry Gilman

Just Bob · 26 February 2008

Further ADMIN suggestion:

How about a specialized thread for honest non-trolls who have honest questions about evolutionary concepts, details, research, etc.? You know, for average Joe non-scientists who have real questions that they would like to ask some of the experts here.

As a layman myself, who is probably above-average conversant with evolutionary science, I sometimes have a real question, but it may not fit into an active thread at the time.

And I can certainly understand how a true seeker-after-knowledge might be put off by (deserved) rough handling dished out to the dishonest trolls who show up occasionally. A first-time or occasional lurker might even see an apparently serious point or query from a known troll responded to with insults and vituperation, not realizing that PT posters have learned the hard way that the guy never really asks honest questions, seeking education. The honest questioner might then be reluctant to jump in with the sharks, or fear being considered stupid.

The usual threads serve their purpose, discussing current news. And some require some pretty specialized expertise to follow. But there seems to be no appropriate place for the casual non-expert to get a little explanation from the experts. Even if many of the responses were just links to TO and a little friendly comment, they could be of great service to the general public (and yes, sometimes to the middle schooler trying to do his research the easy way for his report on dinosaurs). Here's what I envision: a smart kid in a "Christian" school, using BJU materials, who dares to think that maybe all those scientists aren't complete idiots or Satan's minions, and would like to hear what they have to say about the "facts" he's being taught.

What do you think?

Reed A. Cartwright · 26 February 2008

We have forums for open discussion. There is a link to them on every page.

The admins hardly ever read the comments not connected to their own posts. To get attention, suggestions should be sent to "the crew" using the email address linked at the top of the page.

Jack Krebs · 26 February 2008

Thanks for the idea, Bob.

You could email us at thecrew@pandasthumb.org and ask if someone would address your question. Then one of us could write an opening post in response, and the discussion could go on from there.

Jack Krebs · 26 February 2008

Oops - I see Reed was writing the same thing when I was writing my comment.

Bill Gascoyne · 26 February 2008

Ravilyn Sanders: So let us put him back in that thread. Let everyone see how many times he says the same thing again and again, how many times he dodging questions.

Gee, I'm not sure I can count that high... ;-)

MattusMaximus · 26 February 2008

Larry Gilman: Religion is an extremely diverse phenomenon about which no sweeping generalizations, whether flattering or dismissive, are particularly useful. Sincerely, Larry Gilman

I agree with much of what Larry is saying here. Though I am personally an atheist and various aspects of religious beliefs confuse, frustrate or anger me, I see a difference between someone who is "religious" versus what I call a "fundamentalist". There are many on this blog who are religious, and then there are those (like FL, ABC/Larry, etc) who are fundamentalists. The former I have no real problem with, the latter I cannot stand.

Gary Hurd · 26 February 2008

I guess that it will take me hours to listen to John West's lies. I need to go outdoors every few minutes to be reassured that there is a reality.

Regarding the need for a "questions" section:

We once had an "Ask an Expert" or I guess it was "Ask Prof. Steve Steve." There was also the TalkOrigin archive feedback page. The "Ask Stevesteve" never attracted much traffic, and the TO feedback page was hacked (to death it seems). Wes Elsbery has re-established a feedback at Antievolution.org . But, again, we have not had much traffic.

Albatrossity · 26 February 2008

I don't think it is useful to debate trolls, but some of them are excellent (unwitting) humorists.

FL: Which would mean that God is directing an undirected process, a rational contradiction which evolutionists simply haven't resolved.

It's sorta sad that I have to point this out - contradictions between your religion and reality are problems only for those who adhere to your religion. If it is impossible for your God to be responsible for an undirected process, and undirected processes are the reality we observe, then I'll take reality over your God any time. This is not a problem for science, despite the humorous suggestion that it needs to be "resolved" by science. Resolve it for yourself; just don't drag any kids down with you while you wrestle with this problem created by your conception of your (apparently not so omnipotent) God.

Jack Krebs · 26 February 2008

Very good comment!

As I have pointed out to FL, most Christians have no problem understanding that what is chance to us, from our limited point of view, is not chance to God. If FL really believed, and understood the implications of his belief, in an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent divine entity existing outside of time and space, then he would understand that.

Bill Gascoyne · 26 February 2008

Fixing Jack's pseudo-HTML code (Jack: try "quote" text to see how I did it).

Jack Krebs: Very good comment! </cheerleading> As I have pointed out to FL, most Christians have no problem understanding that what is chance to us, from our limited point of view, is not chance to God. If FL really believed, and understood the implications of his belief, in an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent divine entity existing outside of time and space, then he would understand that.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM · 26 February 2008

the origin of humanity human existence is a matter of “lucky historical contigencies” (that means historical ACCIDENTS, nothing less)

Not so. Contingencies in this sense are incidental. Whether they are lucky or not may be random outcomes. More precisely here, the origin of humans is the evolutionary process, while the specific outcome (a population of humans) is accidental.

Which would mean that God is directing an undirected process, a rational contradiction which evolutionists simply haven’t resolved.

Don't confuse observations from a science with religious claims. It is futile, as the science is reasonably clear here.

FL · 26 February 2008

Ah, here we go... Jack Kreb is right, the two of us have dialogued about it at length. He sincerely believes that God can direct an undirected process, but, his theological explanation clearly falls short when it's specifically applied to the "completely mindless process" (Futuyma, Evo. Bio. 3d ed) of evolution. Further, he is unable to support his particular analogy from Scripture and most certainly not the Creation account itself or from any post-Genesis references to that Creaion. (Discussing Bible specifics is where I'm at but it's not where Jack is at, as he prefers to avoid what he calls "sectarian" arguments.) Of course, Jack has his own take on the matter, and he has directed you guys to the dialogue link if you wish to peruse it. *** David Benton makes a genuine mistake there, so let's look at that one next.

I see that poster FL has escaped over to this thread, still not answering any of the questions asked by poster MattusMaximus.

If Mr. Benton (or anyone else) will briefly scoot over to PvM's thread "Professing to be wise", he will see that SOME of Mattus's questions were directly answered by me. He will also see that quite a few posters received answers from me at least once. (Kinda like that "Blade" stuff in the movies. where the hero Blade openly takes on all of the Sourpuss Vampire Gang using all his martial arts for as long as he can remain standing.) Anyway, you don't have to retract anything right now, Mr. Benton; just phrase your posts a little more carefully so as to avoid easily confirmed falsehoods on your part. Thanks! *** for Frank J: Behe doesn't subscribe to macroevolution, (common descent yes, macroevolution no), nor has he echoed the No-Teleology position of the evolutionists. He believes in intelligent design, and promotes the intelligent design hypothesis, which of course drives you evolutionists up the wall. for Stanton: If you'll revisit the "Professing" thread, you'll see that at least one evolutionist openly stated that I wasn't derailing that thread. I leave it to you to go back and check. for Ravilyn: Trolls don't spend entire weekends sifting through long threads and trying to respond to as many as possible without sacrifing real-world business. I am inclined to believe at this point that you (yes I'm talking about you directly, Ravilyn) are either a bit too scared or else not-equipped for the type of extended discussion that took place in the "Professing" thread. I also notice you cannot handle the one post--just one little reply post that's directly on topic--in this thread. You want the ADMINS to do something because you haven't got the goods to dialog yourself with a Bible-believing Christian in a thoughtful manner. (Is this where you are also at, Bob?) *** Returning to Frank J, he asks something interesting.

"Also, do you consider the origin of individual humans (new souls and all) design actuation events, or just the same old “microevolution”?"

100 percent design. Not even "microevolution" can suffice to explain Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:21-22. Only supernatural design and creation fits those two passages. Furthermore, there STILL remain certain aspects of humans even today (even yourself!!) that evolution cannot account for. How unfortunate, then, that "Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations", as Ernst Mayr wrote in SciAm. Just proves again that evolution and Christianity are incompatible. *** Mattus says he can't stand fundamentalists. Well, I understand. A lot of atheists feel that way, and Mattus is an atheist. No problem (well, not with me, but I doubt God is pleased with the situation). Anyway, your question about whether Genesis 1 and 2 are complementary or contradictory HAS been answered. You were given a short answer by Dr. Kitchen (to paraphrase, chap.1 is the skeleton-outline, chapter 2 fills in more details on chap. 1 and puts the focus on man and God, hence 1 and 2 are complementary not contradictory.) That short answer can be seen directly by reading the biblical texts themselves ( chap 1 and 2), no further explanation or links necessary. You did NOT refute this particular short explanation. But then you were provided with no less than FOUR articles from a variety of flavors, all of them explaining the situation in yet more detail. Did you refute any of them? No. Did you even analyze any of them? No. Did you even READ any of them? You don't really give any indication. All you did was whine that the specific explanations were from "outside sources" instead of the Bible text directly. But you refuted nothing and you yourself offered no refutes of any of the articles from the Bible text itself. If you were to present me with a link to TalkOrigins, or in this case extended quotations from Ken Miller's book, the expectation would probably be that I would read it (them) and try to better understand your position thereby. Well, I have an expectation too. If I offer you a link, I'm thinking that you'd be able and willing to read it too, so you can understand what I'm trying to say. (You dont' have to agree with it; besides, if you ever didd the other evo-homies would jump you and call you a troll and then YOU would be trying to respond to multiple posters at the same time.) But for now, Mattus, I just get the impression that you weren't willing to genuinely deal with (let alone refute) the sincere answer I gave you. So nope, I don't have to re-do that stuff again. *** Meanwhile, Miller's words speak for themselves. West characterized them accurately. FL :)

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams · 26 February 2008

FL, earlier: (Which would mean that God is directing an undirected process, a rational contradiction which evolutionists simply haven’t resolved.)

FL, you're missing the fact that what may appear undirected to humans may well be directed by God. Mysterious ways and all that, remember? No contradiction there unless you're claiming that humans know every nook and cranny of the mind of God. Or are you so claiming? Jeremy's summary of West's truth-finagling is spot-on.

Mike Elzinga · 26 February 2008

It’s sorta sad that I have to point this out - contradictions between your religion and reality are problems only for those who adhere to your religion. If it is impossible for your God to be responsible for an undirected process, and undirected processes are the reality we observe, then I’ll take reality over your God any time.

If you’ve noticed FL on other threads, you can tell that he worships a god who is cruel to the extreme. FL must have been very, very bad at some time in his life. To punish him, his god has condemned FL to roam though the world completely oblivious of any knowledge that surrounds him. His god sent demons to remove FL’s ability to learn or to recognize any source of knowledge or data, and to be unable to respond to or have any empathy with other humans. Other humans are only to be treated as demons out to twist his mind. If FL even notices any book that contains knowledge of any sort, he will not be able to read it or understand anything in it. If FL encounters any phenomena in the physical world that could teach him anything about the universe in which he exists, he will not be able to recognize it or see that it has any significance for him or anyone else. To make matters even crueler, FL’s god gave FL a book that has words in it that says everything in it is true. And this god caused FL to have an obsession with this book as the only source of information in the universe. This god also caused FL to be unable to see the mistakes that the god deliberately placed in the book so that FL will believe he is very astute even as he is seen as a complete fool by everyone else. He also made FL incapable of even becoming aware of this fact. And to finish it all off, FL’s deity caused FL to love him.

PvM · 26 February 2008

FL: Meanwhile, Miller's words speak for themselves. West characterized them accurately.

You troll. If you can so willfully ignore the context how can we accept your claim that your 'literal' interpretation is accurate?

Jeremy Mohn · 26 February 2008

FL wrote: How unfortunate, then, that “Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations”, as Ernst Mayr wrote in SciAm. Just proves again that evolution and Christianity are incompatible.

How unfortunate, then, that Boveri-Suttonism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. Just proves again that the chromosome theory of inheritance and Christianity are incompatible.

MattusMaximus · 26 February 2008

FL: But for now, Mattus, I just get the impression that you weren't willing to genuinely deal with (let alone refute) the sincere answer I gave you. So nope, I don't have to re-do that stuff again.

Wrong and wronger. I did look at your links, and you continue to miss my point, either out of intentional blindness or just plain stupidity. For now, let's assume that you actually did address my points about Genesis (which you didn't, but let's move on). I'm perfectly willing to allow others viewing our conversation to come to their own conclusions about whether or not you're making any sense. Since you're feeling so cocky, how about addressing those other questions which you seem so willing to avoid... 1. Who wrote the Bible? 2. When and where was it written? 3. What was the original language of the Bible? 4. Why are there un-canonized books of the Bible (such as the Gospel of Thomas, etc)? 5. Why do we have different versions of the same books of the canonized Bible? 6. Why is the Catholic Bible different from the standard KJV? Oh and, for the record, there are plenty of Christians on this blog and in my own personal life who also cannot stand fundamentalists like you. My guess is that you'd view them as "not real Christians"... c'est la vie. For the religious moderate lurkers on this and other threads, pay very close attention to this discussion with FL. Such fundamentalists view you with the same derision and scorn as they view atheists such as myself. To them, there is no real difference between us - God has told them so.

MattusMaximus · 26 February 2008

PvM: You troll. If you can so willfully ignore the context how can we accept your claim that your 'literal' interpretation is accurate?

The answer is so obvious PvM... they aren't "interpreting" the Bible. They are reading it "literally" - God has told them so. Sorry, I can no longer resist flexing my sarcasm muscle.

Frank J · 26 February 2008

100 percent design. Not even “microevolution” can suffice to explain Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:21-22. Only supernatural design and creation fits those two passages. Furthermore, there STILL remain certain aspects of humans even today (even yourself!!) that evolution cannot account for.
— FL

After posting I figured that you'd interpret the question wrongly. To be clear, I was not asking about the origin of the first humans, but the origin of every individual human. IOW is conception, or in the case of identical twins, the cell division that forms the individual, a design actuation event or not? And yes I know that Behe accepts CD but not "macroevolution." But after 12+ years he has failed to say, let alone test, what happens other than "microevolution," aside from admitting that it occurs in-vivo, unlike the increasingly vague suggestions to the contrary by most anti-evolutionists. Even in the case of the origin of our species, where, AIUI, he's not even clear that it's not "microevolution!" So Behe offers no more than Miller, whether in terms of proximate or ultimate causes. The only difference is that Behe is willing to misrepresent evolution and Miller is not. So Behe is welcome under the big tent and Miller is not.

David B. Benson · 26 February 2008

It seems that poster FL cannot read so good. Maybe also does not know how to copy-n-paste.

What is my name, FL?

Jeremy Mohn · 26 February 2008

Earlier in the thread, Josh S asked a question that I think deserves to be addressed.

Josh S said: What if a teacher was teaching evolution (and not creationism), but was giving assignments to be familiar with what religious leaders said against evolution? I think it would be clear the point was introduce a religious viewpoint. I don’t see how this is any different. Science class should teach science only.

This is a good question. I would like to make a few points. 1. Despite what John West claimed, neither of the activities described in Scott's article were specifically meant to promote or highlight one religious viewpoint over another. They were both intended to make students aware of the diversity of religious opinions regarding evolution. I tend to agree with Mike that such activities are far too easy to be misinterpreted or, as we saw with John West, misrepresented. My objection to West's portrayal of the activities was that he ignored their stated purpose and instead tried to paint them as "pushing one-sided religious indoctrination with the clear intent of changing the religious beliefs of students." 2. In my experience, defusing the religion issue requires only a brief mention of the wide range of viewpoints that exist on this issue. This is best done early on, as a prelude to studying evolution. Since most students can recognize themselves somewhere on the continuum, they appreciate the fact that their personal viewpoints are at least being acknowledged. Once this is out of the way, everyone can focus on science. 3. The job of a public school Biology teacher is to help students understand basic Biology, and evolution is a fundamental part of any rigorous Biology curriculum. As with any topic, before students can learn about evolution, they must be willing to do so. The activities described in this thread are intended to help relieve the some of the tension surrounding evolution so that authentic learning can take place. The need for such activities assumes, of course, that a significant percentage of students come to Biology class with the false notion that it is impossible to be a religious person and also accept evolution. As clearly seen in this thread, people like FL are working hard to make sure this message drowns out any other viewpoints.

Stanton · 26 February 2008

for Stanton: If you’ll revisit the “Professing” thread, you’ll see that at least one evolutionist openly stated that I wasn’t derailing that thread. I leave it to you to go back and check.

How does that negate the fact that you do attempt to derail every thread you post in? Furthermore, how does that negate the fact that you either refuse to answer questions posed to you, such as how Intelligent Design can explain Nipponites mirabilis better than paleontologists, or how one is obligated to abide by and follow to the letter a literal interpretation of the Bible, and yet, allow for reinterpretation of the laws in Deuteronomy, or not account for the gross errors in observation made by the Bible's author, OR use these questions posed to you in pathetic attempts to ridicule the questioner, such as when you refused to explain why no one has ever tried to search for the Garden of Eden, despite the fact that you were quite haughty in spelling out its exact location?

Mike Elzinga · 26 February 2008

And I can certainly understand how a true seeker-after-knowledge might be put off by (deserved) rough handling dished out to the dishonest trolls who show up occasionally. A first-time or occasional lurker might even see an apparently serious point or query from a known troll responded to with insults and vituperation, not realizing that PT posters have learned the hard way that the guy never really asks honest questions, seeking education. The honest questioner might then be reluctant to jump in with the sharks, or fear being considered stupid.

This is indeed a valid concern, and, I am sure, it has not gone unnoticed. There is a tradition of sending trolls who derail threads to the “Bathroom Wall” rather than censoring them. Unfortunately, Panda’s Thumb is a magnet for all those fundamentalist anti-evolutionists who want to become “heroic warriors” for their sectarian dogmas. It is part of the traditional fantasy of the wannabe leaders of these sects to be doing battle and demonstrating they can confound and defeat multiple “enemy” attacks simultaneously (at least in the eyes of their cohorts). So they keep coming back. FL appears to be just such a troll; but his repetitive and rigid stereotypical behavior suggests that he may also be seriously mentally ill (or a sock puppet with a pretty good puppeteer behind it). Many of these fundamentalist trolls also use Duane Gish’s tactic of taunting and making outrageous comments in order to get attention. Instead, they typically get profiled as they respond to challenges to their claims; something most of them don’t appear to have figured out yet.

Jack Krebs · 26 February 2008

I'm glad Jeremy has brought the discussion back to what goes on in the classroom. I agree with the poster earlier who pointed out that time is precious, and we have so much content to cover, that taking time to wade into extra-scientific waters is hard to justify.

On the other hand, I agree with Jeremy that a short discussion early in the year is quite appropriate. Most good science teachers manage to get some current events into their curriculum - ones which combine scientific content with social issues, and so addressing this "actual controversy" (to borrow a phrase from Jeremy's website) is important.

We certainly don't expect a science teacher to become a comparative religion teacher, but a good teacher can set the stage for his or her students to explore on their own, or in other classes, or at a later stage in life, religious and philosophical ideas about the nature of science with a broad perspective.

But I don't think a science teacher should ignore the issue. The anti-evolutionists focus on their belief that evolution is anti-God, and that is the message students often bring into the classroom. It is appropriate and important for the science teacher to point out that this is wrong by pointing to the objective observable fact that religious people of many sorts accept evolution.

Shebardigan · 26 February 2008

FL emitted: Which would mean that God is directing an undirected process, a rational contradiction which evolutionists simply haven’t resolved. [and a great deal of additinal puffery here elided]

I'm always reminded of one passage or another from J. B. Phillips' lovely book Your God Is Too Small whenever FL grants us his latest chapter of Exfoliations From The Blazing TULIP, or whatever his magnum-opus-in-progress might have as a denomination. FL: Your "god" is much too small. I'm delighted to see that Lady Ninhursag has recently enjoyed some additional attention in this forum, because She is at least as integral and coherent as the bizarre pastiche that you have adopted from the promulgations of your evil masters. The most blasphemous insult someone could offer to such a deity as yours is to believe in it.

Frank J · 26 February 2008

In my experience, defusing the religion issue requires only a brief mention of the wide range of viewpoints that exist on this issue. This is best done early on, as a prelude to studying evolution.
— Jeremy Mohn

Whether or not that's kosher for a public school bio class, the "prelude" approach reminds me of what I have seen in chem classes. The lesson starts with obsolete models like the Rutherford and Bohr models of the atom, then progress to current explanations. Without any reference to religion, can't a bio course start with obsolete models and progress to the current ones? Specifically, starting out with the proposal that many lineages originated by separate origin-of-life events, with some models even claiming that such origins occurred very recently in geological history? Then show how they fail, and contradict each other to boot?

Les · 26 February 2008

Hey #144278 while we're asking questions why not review these---

Stephen Jay Gould: “The most famous such burst, the Cambrian explosion, marks the inception of modern multicellular life.
Within just a few million years, nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time … The Precambrian record is not sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash.” (“An Asteroid to Die For,” Discover, October 1989, p. 65)

Gould: “[T]he absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. (“Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?”, in Maynard-Smith ed., Evolution Now: A Century after Darwin, W. H. Freeman & Co., 1982, p. 140)

Mike Elzinga · 26 February 2008

What if a teacher was teaching evolution (and not creationism), but was giving assignments to be familiar with what religious leaders said against evolution? I think it would be clear the point was introduce a religious viewpoint. I don’t see how this is any different. Science class should teach science only.

Jeremy already gave a nice answer to this. Here is another approach I used in a special program for gifted and talented high school students (some of whom came from conservative religious backgrounds). It begins with the question about the meaning of scientific evidence and the deeper questions of how we can know anything (epistemology). There is never any mention of religion. Work your way toward a detailed description of the position of pure solipsism. Then start exploring the question of how one can decide whether there is an external world or whether self is all there is. After some discussion and exploration by the students (the movie The Matrix invariably comes up), raise the question of where new knowledge comes from. How does a pure solipsist find out there are new things in his imagination? If the solipsist hears that, say, a new restaurant opened up at a certain address, and he goes there and finds that indeed there is a restaurant with the menu he was just told about, where did that information come from in his solely-existing imagination? Does the self have a hidden dimension that must be discovered? How does the solipsist go about doing that? Continue exploring the way a solipsist will end up behaving in his solely-existing imagination and start comparing that with what he would be doing in a world that really existed outside him. Then continue with the nature of scientific investigation as it would appear in either world. This approach may not appeal to the average student, but the bright ones really liked it. And the questions about conflicts with religion never came up after that.

PvM · 26 February 2008

FL's behavior is both unscientific and anti-Christian as he undermines, per St Augustine's warnings, Christian faith with his ill informed musings

“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations”

Any science does for obvious reasons. However that does not mean that Darwinism denies supernatural phenomena FL, either you are a troll, a fool or an ignoramus. And I do not say this lightly. In Christ

Jeremy Mohn · 26 February 2008

Frank J wrote: Without any reference to religion, can’t a bio course start with obsolete models and progress to the current ones? Specifically, starting out with the proposal that many lineages originated by separate origin-of-life events, with some models even claiming that such origins occurred very recently in geological history? Then show how they fail, and contradict each other to boot?

This approach would probably work well in a college course, but I forsee two problems with implementing this at the high school Biology level: 1. By taking the time to explain obsolete models before presenting the current ones, you run the risk of confusing students who do not yet have the basic knowledge needed to evaluate the merits of each model. Even worse, by describing obsolete models, you might just confirm pre-existing misconceptions about the history of life. 2. Even without any reference to religion, specifically setting out to show how the obsolete models fail could be interpreted as intentionally attacking the students' religious beliefs. You don't have to mention religion for students to recognize that the obsolete models were originally based on interpretations of the Genesis account of creation.

ABC/Larry · 27 February 2008

John West said, Dr. Scott further recommends requiring science students to go out to interview clergy in the community … but not if the community is what she calls conservative Christian, because then the intended lesson, that evolution is okay…uh…with theology, that theology endorses evolution, might be undermined.

West is correct here. Eugenie Scott actually said,

The survey-of-ministers approach may not work if the community is religiously homogeneous, especially if that homogeneity is conservative Christian, but it is something that some teachers might consider as a way of getting students’ fingers out of their ears.” (emphasis added)

Scott's statements that the "survey-of-ministers approach may not work" in a homogeneous conservative Christian community and is "something that some teachers might consider" are consistent with West's statement that Scott recommends that this approach not be used in that situation.

PvM: I just listened to part of West's presentation at CSPAN, and I cannot believe what he is saying. For instance, he is claiming that Judge Jones stated that the correct religious interpretation is that evolution and religion are compatible. That just borders on either incompetence or reckless disregard for the facts.

Again, West is correct. Judge Jones said in the Conclusion section of the Dover opinion, "Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution . . . in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."

MattusMaximus: There are many on this blog who are religious, and then there are those (like FL, ABC/Larry, etc) who are fundamentalists.

I am neither fundamentalist nor religious.

raven · 27 February 2008

“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations”

Why is this a problem? So does auto mechanics, plumbing, and computer programming. As well as medicine, law, and agriculture. As well as all fields of science, astronomy, physics, geology, etc.. Most of us dropped the elves, brownies, demons, ghosts, trolls, fairies didit explanations of how the world works a while ago, a few centuries in fact. These explanations didn't actually explain anything or lead anywhere. These days their heyday is known as the "Dark Ages."

Frank J · 27 February 2008

Even without any reference to religion, specifically setting out to show how the obsolete models fail could be interpreted as intentionally attacking the students’ religious beliefs.
— Jeremy Mohn

I suspected that that's why there isn't more of a parallel between biology and chemistry course material. Caveat: My knowledge of the "typical" high school bio class comes second hand. I haven't sat in one since my own in 1969-70, and I can't recall if evoltution was even covered. If my second hand information is accurate, however, I think most schools need to add more detail on "whens" of biological events (e.g. Cambrian, K/T boundary). By stating the timeline clearly, teachers can at least imply that young Earth and young Life models have been falsified, without addressing them directly. Also, I think that the concept "it's a tree, not a ladder" needs to be made clear. It's amazing how many high school and college graduates still think in terms of "ladder" and that dinosaurs lived "about a million years ago."

MattusMaximus · 27 February 2008

ABC/Larry: I am neither fundamentalist nor religious.

Oops, my apologies. While I disagree completely with your views on ID, I will admit that with my previous statement I was painting with too broad a brush... See FL? I can admit when I'm wrong.

Frank J · 27 February 2008

I am neither fundamentalist nor religious.
— ABC/Larry

That’s nice, but it's as important to me as what you like on your pizza. FL has yet to answer my question on whether human conception is a design actuation event. Would you like to try? If you think it’s off-topic, you can answer it on the BW. On that note, have you answered my other “off-topic” questions there yet?

MattusMaximus · 27 February 2008

Jack Krebs: But I don't think a science teacher should ignore the issue. The anti-evolutionists focus on their belief that evolution is anti-God, and that is the message students often bring into the classroom. It is appropriate and important for the science teacher to point out that this is wrong by pointing to the objective observable fact that religious people of many sorts accept evolution.

I agree, so I have a good way of dealing with this when I discuss the Big Bang and cosmic evolution in my physics & astronomy classes. I tell my students that it's a science class, so that is what I'm teaching them: the tested and verified science as established by the scientific community. I'm not teaching them about philosophy, religion, or theology, so those aren't topics that I'm going to touch upon in the class. I then tell them that if, for some reason, they happen to have beliefs that somehow conflict with the science that I'm teaching, then I will assume that they are mature enough to figure out a solution to the conflict for themselves. I finish by saying again that I'm teaching science, and it isn't my job to get into the business of teaching them what to or not to believe in their personal religious/philosophical life. I've been doing this for years, and I have yet to have a student challenge me on it. In fact, many religious (and non-religious) students of mine have come up after that lecture and thanked me for this approach. Sometimes, if I'm feeling a bit silly, I will use the line by Indiana Jones from one of his movies: "[Science] is the search for fact; if it's 'truth' you're looking for, then go down the hall to the philosophy class." For what it's worth...

gregwrld · 27 February 2008

What really makes folks like Larry and Les such sad sacks is their inability to realize that if there is a god it is a far deeper and more profound entity than they in their superstitious minds can conceive.

Hey Les, instead of quote-mining Gould why don't you try reading those quotes in context - you might learn something interesting...

David B. Benson · 27 February 2008

PvM: FL, either you are a troll, a fool or an ignoramus.

Better, IMO, is FL, you are a troll, a fool or an ignoramus since or is inclusive when written without either.

Dale Husband · 27 February 2008

Creationists like FL get so hung up on evolution because they think that the references Jesus made to the Genesis creation stories render them literally true accounts. But they don't. Jesus could have used them because they were a basic part of his Jewish culture. When you are teaching people, you must talk to them in their own "language". Would Jesus have been an effective moral teacher if he had simply ignored or attacked the previous lessons of Judaism? No, he would have been rejected even more than he was, and Christianity would never have come into being.

Insisting that the two different creation stories in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious is like calling the sky green. And if people like FL are lying about that, nothing else he says can be taken at face value.

FL · 27 February 2008

Well, let's see what's in the mix now.... Albatrossity writes;

(C)ontradictions between your religion and reality are problems only for those who adhere to your religion. If it is impossible for your God to be responsible for an undirected process, and undirected processes are the reality we observe, then I’ll take reality over your God any time.

I appreciate the honestly inherent in this post. (Don't need agreement, just need honesty.) And to be honest, it is indeed to those professing to be members of my religion that I pointed out that Ken Miller in fact CONFIRMED instead of NEGATED what West spoke of. This is important stuff that Christians (or professing Christians) need to consider. (You evolutionists may not believe it, but for me, what happens in the church-house is far more important than what happens in the school-house, though school is important too.) Interesting way you view it as a comparison between religion and reality. In other words, you define reality as, well, the usual evolutionist historical claims. The Bible's historical claims (that's the only "religion" I'm referring to in this thread) are false in your view, UNLESS they first conform to your chosen religion---Evolution's historical claims. Therefore we have that Incompatibility thing again. Proved. ****** Let's checkout CSadams.

FL, you’re missing the fact that what may appear undirected to humans may well be directed by God. Mysterious ways and all that, remember?

Sure, for theists. But... (1) what you affirm for yourself, the evolutionists specifically DENY for all of evolution at all points of the evolutionary process. There ain't no "appear undirected" in evolutionary theory. There is strictly "undirected" period. No teleology whatsoever. (You probably noticed that even Ken Miller's book accepts the strictly undirected route.)

"Evolutionary theory does NOT admit conscious anticipation of the future, i.e. conscious forethought." ---Evolutionary Biology 3d ed, Futuyma

You say "appears directed", but you are not saying what the evolutionists themselves directly say, whether it be Futuyma, Mayr, or even Kenneth Miller. They say, UNDIRECTED (including at the point of the process where the first humans originate. No qualifiers. No exceptions. Incidentally, this is a very key point that Jack as well as Cheryl are unable to refute. They say one thing, and do so sincerely, but evolutionary theory AND the bigname evolutionists (even theistic evolutionist Ken Miller!) clearly say AND PUBLISH another thing entirely. Yet Jack and Cheryl and other theistic evolutionists openly ignore this major disconnect, this key discrepancy, when they are trying to sell the "Evolution compatible with Christianity" shpiel to people of faith. (2) The mere phrase "Mysterious ways" actually does NOT rationally explain how (nor does it even answer the question of whether or not) God actually directs an undirected process. Can you provide a specific explanation (WITH REFERENCE TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY) of how God actually directs an undirected process? (Miller of course failed to do so in his book.) *** Mike Elzinga says:

There is a tradition of sending trolls who derail threads to the “Bathroom Wall” rather than censoring them.

Here's a simple question. The original post discussed Ken Miller and John West. My response discusses Ken Miller and John West, the same issue, even doing quotations from the OP itself. Can somebody please explain to me, rationally and sincerely, how I'm supposed to be derailing this thread? You up for it Mike? *** PvM says,

You troll.

I'll say it again: Trolls don't take the time to sift through and think about people's posts and try to come up with as many reasoned, thoughtful responses to them as possible. Trolls don't try to be respectful (reasonably so) to those whom they respond. Trolls don't go back and respond anyway. Candidly, in this forum, the term "troll" has devolved to the rough equivalent of the term "heretic." You've allowed (well, some of you) your hatred to get out of hand. *** Mattus says,

See FL? I can admit when I’m wrong.

Sometimes you can. Other times, doesn't look like it to me. But it don't matter: the point is to exchange our views and present our arguments. Once that's done, that's done. *** ABC/Larry wrote,

Scott’s statements that the “survey-of-ministers approach may not work” in a homogeneous conservative Christian community and is “something that some teachers might consider” are consistent with West’s statement that Scott recommends that this approach not be used in that situation.

Extremely correct. West is vindicated there. In response to Mattus, ABC/Larry says he's no fundie, but that shouldn't have been an issue anyway: the correctness of ABC/Larry's point never depended on one's personal religious affiliation anyway. **** Back to PvM:

FL, either you are a troll, a fool or an ignoramus.

Nope, I have no intention of calling you a bunch of names in return. Name-calling won't resolve the issues raised by West, Miller, etc. (Besides, I'm a Christian.) Also, PvM says

If you can so willfully ignore the context how can we accept your claim that your ‘literal’ interpretation is accurate?

But that's just it. With BOTH the Genesis text, AND with Ken Miller's text, I've particularly paid attention to context. That's why I posted what I posted. (Speaking of context, What can you say when Adam is mentioned 31 times in the Bible, and 3 biblical geneaologies in both OT and NT, and EVERY SINGLE TIME he's referred to as an actual historical figure? Contextually, you have to read Gen. 2:7 and 2:21-22 as literal. But that means straight Teleology, a specifically directed process (and it even gets MORE specific when you look at the text of those two particular Genesis verses.) There is NO rational sense in which any undirected process (not even an "apparently undirected" process) can be reconciled with those two verses.) *** Frank J:

FL has yet to answer my question on whether human conception is a design actuation event.

Did you know that there are powerful aspects of human conception and development that evolution totally absolutely cannot account for, Frank J? Therefore human conception and development has to be a DESIGN EVENT PERIOD. (I know you disagree. I'm just answering your question.Does this seem clear enough, does this answer your inquiry? Can you show me that evolution accounts for all the phenomena observed WRT human conception and development? *** Given the evolutionist rule stated by Mayr:

“Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations”

Raven says: "Why is that a problem?" Hey, it's no problem at all....Unless You're A Christian. Zero supernatural phenomena? Then Zero Christianity baby!!! Incidentally, I have searched high and low to find any other science textbook (be it physics or chemistry or "auto mechanics" as you put it), that directly openly completely "rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations" like Mayr clearly stated for the theory of evolution in SciAm. Can't find any reference to such, nor any No-Teleology preachments, in ANY other scientific-discipline textbooks. Can you find me such a textbook in those other sciences? *** Okay, that should do it. "Thanks again for your patience" (btw, that's **another** thing that real trolls don't say to people.) FL :) 1

FL · 27 February 2008

Ooops! Got a last-minute entry there!

Insisting that the two different creation stories in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious is like calling the sky green. And if people like FL are lying about that, nothing else he says can be taken at face value.

Hey, I supported MY claim of "harmonious" with multiple sources, both print and online, a short easy version, AND several long technical versions, scholarly and rational, all the way down the ole pike. Nothing got refuted. And I was sincerely watching closely to see if you guys were able or willing to engage/refute the material because I thought you guys might be up to it. However, I was....disappointed. (insert quiet *snicker*.) FL

Stanton · 27 February 2008

And yet, nowhere in FL's smarmy and unctious post does he even make a half-hearted attempt to explain how a literal interpretation of the Bible is better at explaining the natural world than science, or how Creationism or Intelligent Design can even be considered science, why no one has ever been able to locate the Garden of Eden, in spite of FL's insistance that its exact location is common knowledge, or even how one can insist on adhering to a literal interpretation of the entire Bible, while simultaneously insist on allowing for reinterpretation concerning the Book of Deuteronomy.

And of course, then there is the problem that FL refuses to admit that he's hijacked another thread, given as how he's digressed from defending John West's duplicity to expounding on how horrible Science and "Darwinism" is because "GODDIDIT" is not a valid scientific explanation.

Frank J · 27 February 2008

Did you know that there are powerful aspects of human conception and development that evolution totally absolutely cannot account for, Frank J? Therefore human conception and development has to be a DESIGN EVENT PERIOD. (I know you disagree. I’m just answering your question.Does this seem clear enough, does this answer your inquiry? Can you show me that evolution accounts for all the phenomena observed WRT human conception and development?
— FL

As a matter of fact I don't disagree that conception is a design actuation event. In fact I suspect that it is, but only because I suspect all biology (and evolution) is design actuation. But I can't verify or falsify that, so it's useless to try to defend it. But I thank you for doing what every IDer I have asked has refused to do, which is commit to design actuation events that are observable in real time, as opposed to remote events like the first flagellum or Cambrian explosion. The hard part, of course, will be to get other IDers to either agree with you or challenge you. But now that someone has come forth and finally identified a critical "Dembski discontinuity" that is observable in real time, IDers have much less of an excuse not to discuss them. Especially since it's one that occurs in-vivo, it will be that much harder to pretend that design actuation events require new abiogenesis events.

Stanton · 27 February 2008

FL: Ooops! Got a last-minute entry there!
Insisting that the two different creation stories in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious is like calling the sky green. And if people like FL are lying about that, nothing else he says can be taken at face value.
Hey, I supported MY claim of "harmonious" with multiple sources, both print and online, a short easy version, AND several long technical versions, scholarly and rational, all the way down the ole pike. Nothing got refuted. And I was sincerely watching closely to see if you guys were able or willing to engage/refute the material because I thought you guys might be up to it. However, I was....disappointed. (insert quiet *snicker*.) FL

So then please to explain how a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is scientific.

raven · 27 February 2008

FL being insane: “Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations” Raven says: “Why is that a problem?” Hey, it’s no problem at all….Unless You’re A Christian. Zero supernatural phenomena? Then Zero Christianity baby!!!

That is not quite what I said. I said so does auto mechanics, plumbing, computer programming, medicine, agriculture, law, as well as All Other Sciences. So according to FL, one cannot accept physics, geology, medicine, paleontology, anthropology, history, archeology, astronomy, and be a Xian since they have zero supernatural content as well. And contradict his bronze age mythology. Science is the whole basis of our civilization and why our life spans are 3 decades longer than a century ago. In point of fact, virtually no one of any intelligence or education does this in practice. If it was up to FL, we wouldn't be talking about bronze age mythology, we would be living in something like it still. BTW, your "I'm head of the Xian church and excommunicating a billion or more of them" act is getting old. It is starting to seem crazy really. It is theological nonsense. According to the New Testament, Judgement is for the Lord, not man. Most Xians would find your bigotry to be unXian, spooky, and heresy or blashemy. In times past up to the 21st century, Xians killed each other by the tens of millions with your medieval attitude.

raven · 27 February 2008

I have to do this for once.

JUDGING Luke 6:36,37 "Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. And do not judge and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned." 41 41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

According to a guy named Jesus, judgement is the function of the lord, not man. FL, for someone who claims to be a literalist Xian, seems to cast judgements on most Xians, most of modern civilization, and most of modern science. With as much right as anyone, which is to say 1 out of 6.7 billion votes. Hard to say when this stops being weird and starts being crazy.

MattusMaximus · 27 February 2008

Stanton: So then please to explain how a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is scientific.

Yes, FL's supposed "literal" reading of the Bible. That horse has been beaten into dust. But, while you're at it FL, how about addressing those other questions I keep posing about the Bible? You know, the ones you keep avoiding... 1. Who wrote the Bible? 2. When and where was it written? 3. What was the original language of the Bible? 4. Why are there un-canonized books of the Bible (such as the Gospel of Thomas, etc)? 5. Why do we have different versions of the same books of the canonized Bible? 6. Why is the Catholic Bible different from the standard KJV? We're waiting... [crickets chirping]

MattusMaximus · 27 February 2008

FL: Hey, I supported MY claim of "harmonious" with multiple sources, both print and online, a short easy version, AND several long technical versions, scholarly and rational, all the way down the ole pike.

Hmmm, except for the inherent contradiction in FL's own arguments which he refuses to address... 1. FL claims the Bible is 100% true and accurate in its accounts. 2. FL then claims the Bible can be read & understood literally. 3. Contradictions are pointed out to FL in the literal text; for example, the differing accounts of creation in Genesis 1 & 2 (for starters). 4. FL claims these aren't real contradictions by citing outside sources from the Bible. So, here come the kickers... 5. If FL is citing outside sources for reading the Bible text, then explain why this doesn't qualify as interpretation. At this point FL still insists that he's looking at it "literally." Why? - AND - 6. Explain why one would even need to address a supposedly 100% accurate and literal text by going to outside sources anyway. If it is 100% accurate and true, as FL claims, then a literal reading is all that is necessary. And, for the record, FL has never addressed these points. He never even addressed the original question about contradictions in the Bible. He has merely skirted the questions at hand, claiming success. Yawn... [crickets getting sleepy]

Dale Husband · 27 February 2008

FL: Ooops! Got a last-minute entry there!
Insisting that the two different creation stories in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious is like calling the sky green. And if people like FL are lying about that, nothing else he says can be taken at face value.
Hey, I supported MY claim of "harmonious" with multiple sources, both print and online, a short easy version, AND several long technical versions, scholarly and rational, all the way down the ole pike. Nothing got refuted. And I was sincerely watching closely to see if you guys were able or willing to engage/refute the material because I thought you guys might be up to it. However, I was....disappointed. (insert quiet *snicker*.) FL

Supporting your claims with multiple sources is not the same as proving them. Several different people can repeat, repeat, and repeat the same ridiculous lies 1000 times at various times and places, but that won't make the lies any more true than they were at the beginning. The only way you can refute evolution is with scientific data, which you have never presented to us at any time.

Frank J · 27 February 2008

3. Contradictions are pointed out to FL in the literal text; for example, the differing accounts of creation in Genesis 1 & 2 (for starters).
— MattusMaximus

But only "for starters." For the life of me I can't figure why everyone picks the example for which anti-evolutionists have a well rehearsed answer, when there's a far better example in citing the mutually contradictory creationist accounts in cold, dry "what happened when" terms. Don't get me wrong. I don't buy the "well rehearsed answer," but it keeps the argument on their turf, and gives them more opportunity to snow the fence-sitters with fuzzy language. It makes them squirm so much more to simply say that Gish, Ross and Behe can't all be right. If they can't commit to which 2 of them (or all 3) are just as wrong as mainstream science, then they are either hopelessly postmodern, or know darn well that they're covering up the fact that they don't have a prayer against evolution.

Jeremy Mohn · 27 February 2008

FL wrote: Can you provide a specific explanation (WITH REFERENCE TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY) of how God actually directs an undirected process? (Miller of course failed to do so in his book.)

FL- For someone who owns Miller's book, you display a peculiar lack of familiarity with the content therein. On pages 241-242, Miller writes:

Even the most devout believer would have to say that when God does act in the world, He does so with care and with subtlety. At a minimum, the continuing existence of the universe itself can be attributed to God. The existence of the universe is not self-explanatory, and to a believer the existence of every particle, wave, and field is a product of the continuing will of God. That's a start which would keep most of us busy, but the Western understanding of God requires more than universal maintenance. Fortunately, in scientific terms, if there is a God, He has left Himself plenty of material to work with. To pick just one example, the indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay. Chaos theory emphasizes the fact that enormous changes in physical systems can be brought about by unimaginably small changes in initial conditions; and this, too, could serve an undetectable amplifier of divine action. Another opportunity for divine action can be found in time itself. John Polkinghorne, a distinguished theoretical physicist who is also an Anglican priest, has pointed out that if Western theologians agree on anything, it is on the eternal nature of God. This means that God, who always has been and always will be, transcends time and therefore is the master of it. We, on the other hand, traverse time in a linear fashion. An eternal being who is present everywhere and at all times could easily act to alter what both physicists and Hollywood call the space-time continuum in ways that profoundly affect events. Locked in a single point in time and moving in a single, unchanging path from the present to the future, we wouldn't have a clue. And God, the Creator of space, time, chance, and indeterminacy, would exercise the degree of control He chooses. Finding Darwin's God, pp. 241-242

I'm trying to figure out how you might come up with an excuse for overlooking this passage. I'm guessing it's going to be your use of the caveat "WITH REFERENCE TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY." However, Miller brings in mutations, animal behavior (activation of neurons), and even the survival of individual cells and organisms. If you don't see a connection between those phenomena and evolution, then I honestly don't know what to say.

MattusMaximus · 27 February 2008

Frank J: It makes them squirm so much more to simply say that Gish, Ross and Behe can't all be right. If they can't commit to which 2 of them (or all 3) are just as wrong as mainstream science, then they are either hopelessly postmodern, or know darn well that they're covering up the fact that they don't have a prayer against evolution.

A good point - exposing the ID-creationism "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a nice tactic that I've read about before right here on PT. Actually, I like to use the disagreements between Gish, Ross, Behe, etc. to claim that "ID is in crisis." I mentioned this recently in a public lecture, and strangely, it pisses creationists off when I use their own language against them. Another one I like to use is that ID-creationists are making "politically correct" arguments when they push their "teach all views" and "teach the controversy" schticks. And then I connect their arguments to postmodernist thinking. They don't like that either ;)

FL · 28 February 2008

Earlier, I posed this particular question:

Can you provide a specific explanation (WITH REFERENCE TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY) of how God actually directs an undirected process? (Miller of course failed to do so in his book.)

So Jeremy located his copy of Miller's book and quoted thusly:

To pick just one example, the indeterminate nature of quantum events would allow a clever and subtle God to influence events in ways that are profound, but scientifically undetectable to us. Those events could include the appearance of mutations, the activation of individual neurons in the brain, and even the survival of individual cells and organisms affected by the chance processes of radioactive decay. Chaos theory emphasizes the fact that enormous changes in physical systems can be brought about by unimaginably small changes in initial conditions; and this, too, could serve an undetectable amplifier of divine action.

So, has Ken Miller finally found an answer to the above question? Well, upon closer examination, the answer turns out to be a flat-out "No." And that big "No" is largely being offered not by creationists, but by Miller's own pro-evolution homies who otherwise really like his book. In fact, this may have been a substantial part of the reason why Miller got publicly labeled a creationist by Prof. Frederick Crews in the New York Review of Books. The reasons why Miller's explanation doesn't work (as you'll see from the following quotations) are: (1) Miller doesn't provide ANY justification for his theological statement but just baldly engages in raw speculation without backing it up--(notice the maybe/maybe-not phrase "could include" stuck in there. He's engaging in speculation.) (2) Miller's book clearly attacks creationists for "God Of The Gaps", but with this particular argument, Miller does EXACTLY what he's attacking the creationists for doing. So in fact Miller HAS NOT actually explained how God can direct an undirected process, and the best that evolutionist Miller can do, turns out to be Stanton's favorite term "Goddidit." (Btw, Prof. Crews didn't just call Miller a "creationist"; he called him a "God-Of-The-Gaps creationist". Looks like now you gonna find out why!) And on that note, let's look at some Amazon.com reviews from some pro-evolution folks who really liked Miller's book: (November 2004) Throughout his book Miller rejects (and ridicules) the idea that God works through the unknown aspects of nature (God of the Gaps) but then goes on to argue in Chapter 7 that God acts in the mysterious unknowable breaks (literally gaps) in quantum action. He thinks this is a safe bet because quantum indeterminacy can never be solved--but that's precisely the position he has mocked so many times- those who put God in the 'safe' areas that will never be figured out!

(August 2003) I could not avoid the impression that what is presented as Darwin's god could more aptly be called Miller's god. The author finds his breakthrough in quantum mechanics and its assurance that atomic-scale uncertainty is absolutely unresolvable, even in principle. Here, claims Miller, is the foundation of free will and the perfect channel through which god can influence natural events or, perhaps, tweak human destinies. Quantum uncertainty forms a sort of firewall which may, if god so chooses, forever bar us from directly perceiving his influence on Earth. Well, what's wrong with such guesses? Nothing, really, except that like all religious proposals they constitute an arbitrary, speculative overlay on questions which science is quite capable of answering eventually, provided only that accessible answers exist.

(June 2005) Miller reads too much into quantum theory. Neither God's ability to act in the world nor free will is contingent on quantum indeterminacy. Readers seeking an introduction to free will can refer to sections in intro level philosophy books such as Pojam's Introduction to Philosophy. Additionally, similar to other scientific fields, much work is on going in quantum theory and many of the current limitations in this area may prove to be methodological.

(August 2001) ....There are many confusions in his discussion of quantum effects. He mixes up common definitions of chance and lack of information with the rigorous ideas of indeterminacy that have been developed in quantum physics. Even where he tries to apply indeterminacy to a specific process, mutations in DNA, his discussion is incorrect.

(Sept. 2007) He is just moving the gap from [God created life] to [God created evolution which then created life]. He is still claiming that behind this universe, a place that science can never go (so he assumes), we will find a God who created all universal processes. It is exactly the same type of argument the creationists make.
****** Okay, so now we see the real deal. Ken Miller didn't provide a solution to the question, and his attempt clearly has problems all over it. But what about the second paragraph Jeremy quoted, where Miller talks about John Polkinghorne and time and such? Well,--and I have to wrap this up--Polkinghorne himself does NOT buy into quantum indeterminacy as the "causal joint" for God's action. You'd think Ken Niller would have went ahead and told his readers THE TRUTH on that one since he's the one bringing up Polkinghorne. At any rate, see the link: http://www.counterbalance.net/ghc-div/criti-frame.html (One other item on Polkinghorne: the same website says that in his view, "the future is not known to God"---that position iis a direct denial of what the Bible says about God.) Also, as evolutionist Victor Stenger has pointed out at one of the essays on his website, theologian Nancy Murphy has registered some objections to Polkinghorne's position. In short, she says he still has some things to explain about the "how" of God's action that he's not explained yet. What this means (in brief) is that Polkinghorne, too, has NOT yet shown us "How God actually directs an undirected process." ****** So let's end this post the way it began:

Can you provide a specific explanation (WITH REFERENCE TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY) of how God actually directs an undirected process? (Miller of course failed to do so in his book.)

Miller has still failed to do so, that much is clear. FL :)

Frank J · 28 February 2008

Another one I like to use is that ID-creationists are making “politically correct” arguments when they push their “teach all views” and “teach the controversy” schticks. And then I connect their arguments to postmodernist thinking. They don’t like that either ;)
— MattusMaximus

That's another one that I see far too seldom. And usually from Paul Gross, who points out how the far-right has no problem using the same tactics that they disapprovingly associate with the far-left.

Richard Simons · 28 February 2008

Yes, FL, how does God implement the designs that IDers talk about? I've always wondered about this.

BTW, you never answered how Australian aborigines were able to get supplies of grain from Egypt to see them through a seven-year famine but somehow quickly lost all knowledge of the whole event.

PvM · 28 February 2008

Miller has still failed to do so, that much is clear.

Is it? What's the alternative? An indefensible caricature of evolutionary theory and biblical theology like the one FL proposes? PS, did not Dembski attempt to explain this using an infinite wavelength communication channel. Sadly he forgot that such a channel is zero bandwidth. Of course, the answer to FL's question is a simple as the answers to his theological ignorance:

Can you provide a specific explanation (WITH REFERENCE TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY) of how God actually directs an undirected process?

There are at least two ways. 1. God directs/influences mutations 2. God directs/influences selection processes And of course, the definition of evolution as an undirected processes is vague and ambiguous. Especially since evolution is all but undirected. Ironically, FL keeps making the same mistakes

(One other item on Polkinghorne: the same website says that in his view, “the future is not known to God”—that position iis a direct denial of what the Bible says about God.

Correction: a denial of FL's interpretation of the Bible. And we all know what that's worth...

PvM · 28 February 2008

No one seems to think that a religious person engaged in the study of history must find a way that God rigged human events in order to cause the Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, or the Holocaust. Yet curiously, that is exactly what many expect of a religious person engaged in the study of natural history—they want to know how God could have ensured the success of mammals, the rise of flowering plants, and most especially, the ascent of man.

–Kenneth R. Miller, Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (orig. 1999; Harper Perennial, 2002), pp. 237-8

fnxtr · 28 February 2008

Just wondering how long it will take before people realize that FL is just another Mark Hausam, insulated in his "bible is the only truth" suit, impervious to empirical data. You're wasting your time. Nothing to see here, folks...

raven · 28 February 2008

FL is just another Mark Hausam, insulated in his “bible is the only truth” suit, impervious to empirical data.

We know. His answer to any questions, fossil record, astronomy, DNA sequence homology, drug resistant Staph. is to quote the bible. It is boringly predictable. More interesting in a horror show sort of way is his bizarre theology. Most Xians are fake Xians. This means Xianity is a dying religion slipping towards extinction. This attitude isn't too unusual in fundie circles, Pat Robertson says the same thing. These are religious extremists of the "Who would Jesus kill, maim, torture, and kill" variety. Throwbacks to the bad old days of the religion when Xians killed each by the millions over doctrinal points few care about anymore. The difference between them and Moslem extremists is quantitative, not qualitative. Some Moslems are still stuck in the middle ages killing each other over sectarian differences that they care passionately about. Xians gave that up a whole 8 years ago when the Northern Ireland groups laid down their weapons. So far. So FL, what is the name of your cult? This is idle curiousity, we don't want to know who you are or where you are.

raven · 28 February 2008

FL is just another Mark Hausam, insulated in his “bible is the only truth” suit, impervious to empirical data.

MattusMaximus · 28 February 2008

Frank J:
Another one I like to use is that ID-creationists are making “politically correct” arguments when they push their “teach all views” and “teach the controversy” schticks. And then I connect their arguments to postmodernist thinking. They don’t like that either ;)
— MattusMaximus
That's another one that I see far too seldom. And usually from Paul Gross, who points out how the far-right has no problem using the same tactics that they disapprovingly associate with the far-left.

Yes, it is ironic, isn't it? Postmodernism from the far-left "thinkers" being effectively used by far-right theocrats as a way of advancing their agenda. Talk about strange bedfellows. I see that sort of postmodernist argument used by all manner of pseudoscientists to justify their positions - creationists, anti-vaccinationists, 9/11 conspiracy nuts, etc. The "gift" of postmodernism will be with us for some time, I fear. Recently, a colleague of mine (an English teacher) was making postmodernist arguments via email - you know, the standard "there's no objective reality" weirdness. I responded by saying, "You may not believe there's any objective reality, but somehow I think that when you cross the street you look both ways first." It's the same sophistry that allows creationists to poo-poo evolutionary science while at the same time taking modern medicines that result from that science. But they, like the postmodernists, won't admit the inconsistencies in their arguments. Dumb, dumber, and dumberer...

Mike Elzinga · 28 February 2008

(You evolutionists may not believe it, but for me, what happens in the church-house is far more important than what happens in the school-house, though school is important too.)

If what happens in your church so important to you, why don’t you just stay there and stop bothering others? Why is it so important for your cult to mess with the secular educations of strangers who want nothing to do with your sectarian dogma? You still have not provided any evidence to support your literal interpretation of your so-called bible. In fact, you still haven’t provided any evidence whatsoever that you have any insight into the mind of any deity. You haven’t explained why your kinds of cult continue to proliferate and fight among themselves over who has the correct dogma. You have no moral or intellectual authority anywhere (with perhaps the exception of rubes and children in your church); you are simply a cult follower. Why do you refuse to provide evidence? You keep derailing threads with your dogma, but never respond with evidence. Why? If you secretly know that you cannot provide any such evidence (and it is clear that you cannot), what is the point of all your proselytizing? How can you prove you are not one of those false prophets you hate so much? So here it is again: What evidence can you provide that yours is the one true sectarian dogma and everyone else’s is wrong, and what evidence can you provide that you have any insight whatsoever into the mind of any deity? Are you a closet atheist and too terrified to admit it?

Tyrannosaurus · 28 February 2008

Now imagine that the Creos succeed in inserting religion in the guise of ID in the schools. The little tikes will push further than just question evilution and accepting ID. Specially the kids raised on fundamentalists houses will convert the class into a religious discussion. Now you will have teachers that could be atheists or gasp!!! Xians not fundamentalist..... leading or teaching religion. I say to the fundamentalists and Disco Institute be careful what you wish for.

Henry J · 28 February 2008

Yep. That "separation" thing is there to protect them (the Fundmentalists, that is) just as much as it's there to protect atheists or whoever else. Take that down, and they might find themselves under the rule of some other religion's rules.

Henry

Stanton · 28 February 2008

Anyone else notice how FL conveniently forgot to explain how a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is scientific?

Bill Gascoyne · 28 February 2008

There ain’t no “appear undirected” in evolutionary theory. There is strictly “undirected” period.
— FL

FL: the "appears" part is understood in science. That's "appears" as in "is observed to be." The qualifier is not necessary. Science is all about observation, what "appears" to our senses and our instruments. When we enter the realm of theology, we can reconcile our observations with our beliefs by speculating about a God that we cannot observe because he requires us to have faith by adding the qualifier, but when we operate in the realm of science, the qualifier is superfluous, and we leave it off. Furthermore, if we are working from theory we don't use the "appears" qualifier (in this sense) because we make sure that our theoretical predictions match reality. If they don't match reality, we adjust the theory until we get a match, we don't accept the theory as dogma and make excuses about the observations.

JohnK · 28 February 2008

Back to the Topic --- West's talk...
No one has yet mentioned the audience questioner (no doubt part of the large contingent of sympathizers the DI advertised to) who asked dubiously whether "evolution and religion" could ever be compatible. An astounding and revealing choice of words -- only exceeded by West's complete unrecognition and acceptance of the terms.
In the subconscious of these people the only religion worth the name is FL's antievolution style of christianity.
Imagine the kind of "freedom of religion" that lies in store.

FtK · 28 February 2008

**giggle**

~Loving~ this thread, FL. Outstanding job! Jeremy tried to lay his accusations about West at my door step, and I just bleeped his comments off into space. I've grown **extremely** tired of trying to reason with the unreasonable.

Stanton · 28 February 2008

JohnK: Back to the Topic --- West's talk... No one has yet mentioned the audience questioner (no doubt part of the large contingent of sympathizers the DI advertised to) who asked dubiously whether "evolution and religion" could ever be compatible. An astounding and revealing choice of words -- only exceeded by West's complete unrecognition and acceptance of the terms. In the subconscious of these people the only religion worth the name is FL's antievolution style of christianity. Imagine the kind of "freedom of religion" that lies in store.

In that, people would be forced to adhere to a literal interpretation of the Bible (with wiggle room only in Leviticus), or be ~~put to death~~ "excommunicated"?

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams · 29 February 2008

FtK: **giggle** ~Loving~ this thread, FL. Outstanding job! Jeremy tried to lay his accusations about West at my door step, and I just bleeped his comments off into space.

Here at PT, Jeremy's post has engendered almost a hundred comments. Over at FtK's blog, it wasn't even allowed to see the light of day. Yet who keeps shrieking to "teach the controversy" because those "Darwinists won't give us a fair hearing?"

FtK: I've grown **extremely** tired of trying to reason with the unreasonable.

Agreed. But not in the way FtK means it. ********************************************* FL - you keep referencing Futuyma's quote that evolution won't acknowledge the Divine. My kids' math textbooks don't acknowledge Christ either . . . so hence they're atheistic by your definition. ********************************************* The likes of West rely on distorting the original intent of respected scientists' to bolster their floundering cause. As long as they rely on such political and semantic shenanigans instead of research, they'll rightfully face the scorn of real scientists. They know all too well that the general public usually can't tell the difference between best science and bullshit, so the DI's tactics have a chance of succeeding. It's up to the rest of us to point out their lies and distortions and deletions. Jeremy did so - reasonably, calmly, and masterfully - in his post.

Frank J · 29 February 2008

~Loving~ this thread, FL. Outstanding job! Jeremy tried to lay his accusations about West at my door step, and I just bleeped his comments off into space. I’ve grown **extremely** tired of trying to reason with the unreasonable.
— FtK

Which, if any of the following do you consider "unreasonable"?: Duane Gish, Hugh Ross, Michael Behe. Also, have you noticed that FL admitted what a real IDer has never dared to admit - that design actuation events occur where they can be tested by direct observation, rather than inferred solely based on sought and fabricated incredulity of evolution?

Jeremy Mohn · 29 February 2008

FtK called me "unreasonable?" Hmmm....I guess she may be right.

It was certainly unreasonable for me to expect her to post a comment at her blog that exposed another instance of dishonest behavior on the part of her fellow ID promoters. FtK has a long history of censoring such comments.

It was definitely unreasonable for me to think that she might be interested in a carrying on a dialogue about these issues. FtK studiously avoids any serious attempt at discussion.

It was also unreasonable for me to assume that she would want to examine the actual evidence that John West cited. FtK has a notable inability to distinguish evidence from opinion.

So, yeah, I guess I have been pretty unreasonable. I'll have to work on that.

Stanton · 29 February 2008

Jeremy Mohn: FtK called me "unreasonable?" Hmmm....I guess she may be right. It was certainly unreasonable for me to expect her to post a comment at her blog that exposed another instance of dishonest behavior on the part of her fellow ID promoters. FtK has a long history of censoring such comments. It was definitely unreasonable for me to think that she might be interested in a carrying on a dialogue about these issues. FtK studiously avoids any serious attempt at discussion. It was also unreasonable for me to assume that she would want to examine the actual evidence that John West cited. FtK has a notable inability to distinguish evidence from opinion. So, yeah, I guess I have been pretty unreasonable. I'll have to work on that.

Jeremy, by "unreasonable," For The Kids actually means "refusal to snivel, while nodding your head in a simpering manner."

FtK · 29 February 2008

"FtK studiously avoids any serious attempt at discussion."

Oh, come now, Jeremy...you know I've carried on *endless* discussions with you about every topic in this debate. I think you're being a bit hasty in your judgment of my character. But, I shouldn't be surprised by that considering what you attempted to do to West. I'm at the point where I'm simply tired of wasting my time repeating myself to the deaf. Some people want compromise and fair play...others aren't interested. I'm in the former group, while you seem to associate with the later. Our conversation on this topic would have gone no where. It's obvious what Genie is suggesting, and no amount of squirming is going to change her targeted angle of *using* clergy to accommodate her objectives. You can probably expect to see even more "moderating" at RK...perhaps a good dose of being "expelled" from voicing your opinions might give you a better sense of what ID supporters are having to deal with if they question Darwinism in academia. Carry on...

fnxtr · 29 February 2008

Using clergy to accomodate her objectives, says ForTheKooks.

Well, her objective seems to be to show students that most Christian denominations have accepted the fact that evolutionary biological science is as valid as any other science.

1)Now, who do you suppose would have a problem with that?

2)Where was she supposed to go, AiG? Timecube?

Mike Elzinga · 29 February 2008

Oh, come now, Jeremy…you know I’ve carried on *endless* discussions with you about every topic in this debate.

Yup, endless; and therein lies the problem. When there is sufficient information and/or data that should end the discussion for sane, reasonable people who care to look, only the delusions of the evolution deniers will keep it going forever.

Jeremy Mohn · 29 February 2008

FL-

Your objections seem to be based solely on your assertion that your version of Christianity is the one and only "traditional religion." Obviously, I think that you are being much too exclusive, and I think most religious people (both today and throughout history) would agree with me.

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

FtK-

Unfortunately, it seems that evidence-free assertions are all that you have to offer. Can you provide any evidence to support your disagreement with the points I made in my essay?

FtK · 29 February 2008

No need, Jeremy. Others here have already addressed your confusion. You must have missed it...as usual.

Ichthyic · 29 February 2008

I’m at the point where I’m simply tired of wasting my time repeating myself to the deaf

many have prayed for the day you would finally give up and shut your yap (not me, I'm an atheist).

maybe you misinterpreted?

or maybe you were just projecting, as usual?

yes, I rather think the latter.

just more projection.

endless projection.

nothing but projection.

Jeremy Mohn · 29 February 2008

FtK said: No need, Jeremy. Others here have already addressed your confusion. You must have missed it…as usual.

Unfortunately, FtK, that's just another evidence-free assertion. I can't reply to your claim that "others here have already addressed my confusion" unless you provide the specifics. It appears to me that you are the one determined to make sure this conversation doesn't go anywhere. Why is that, FtK?

Stanton · 29 February 2008

Jeremy Mohn: It appears to me that you are the one determined to make sure this conversation doesn't go anywhere. Why is that, FtK?

Because she is supremely arrogant enough to think that you should bow to her alleged scientific superiority, despite the fact that she demonstrates that she does not know enough science to qualify entry into an elementary school level science class.

Mike Elzinga · 29 February 2008

Unfortunately, FtK, that’s just another evidence-free assertion.

And it comes from a subculture that makes evidence-free assertions routinely without the slightest thought that evidence has any meaning whatsoever. Immerse a scientist in the crucible of peer-review questioning and what emerges is clarification and knowledge that stands up for all to see. Immerse a fundamentalist evolution-denier in that same crucible and what emerges is maudlin self-pity and a persecution complex.

MattusMaximus · 1 March 2008

Stanton: Anyone else notice how FL conveniently forgot to explain how a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is scientific?

Yup, and in addition FL and other Biblical literalists here still refuse to address the following questions: 1. Who wrote the Bible? 2. When and where was it written? 3. What was the original language of the Bible? 4. Why are there un-canonized books of the Bible (such as the Gospel of Thomas, etc)? 5. Why do we have different versions of the same books of the canonized Bible? 6. Why is the Catholic Bible different from the standard KJV?

MattusMaximus · 1 March 2008

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams: Yet who keeps shrieking to "teach the controversy" because those "Darwinists won't give us a fair hearing?"

Sure they think that we should give "both sides" a fair hearing - what utter garbage. Their "teach the controversy" is bogus; they don't want "equal time", they want all of the time. Period. Here's two words that give concrete confirmation of this fact: Chris Comer

Frank J · 2 March 2008

Yup, and in addition FL and other Biblical literalists here still refuse to address the following questions:
— MattusMaximus

Not to defend his antics in any way, but FL and other Biblical literalists at least answer the scientifically relevant questions (e.g. how old is life, are humans related to broccoli, etc.). Of course they make excuses for those with contradictory answers as long as they share their disdain for "Darwinism." The non Biblical literalists are far shrewder. They'll answer that your Bible questions are irrelevant, and they'll either evade the scientifically relevant questions, or admit that mainstream science is correct on one or both questions. Behe is a rare example of one who admits to both. But they too will make excuses for those who doubt common descent and/or the chronology concluded by many disciplines, not just evolutionary biology.

Stanton · 2 March 2008

Frank J: The non Biblical literalists are far shrewder. They'll answer that your Bible questions are irrelevant, and they'll either evade the scientifically relevant questions, or admit that mainstream science is correct on one or both questions. Behe is a rare example of one who admits to both. But they too will make excuses for those who doubt common descent and/or the chronology concluded by many disciplines, not just evolutionary biology.

As shown in his radio interview, he not only excuses his anti-Darwinist colleagues, he shamelessly panders to them.

Frank J · 2 March 2008

As shown in his radio interview, he not only excuses his anti-Darwinist colleagues, he shamelessly panders to them.
— Stanton

Which brings up the other irony, that classic creationists (leaders, if not the rank and file) occasionally complain about ID, while IDers, despite knee-jerk "ID is not creationism" disclaimers, do nothing but pander to classic creationists (aka Biblical literalists).

Stanton · 2 March 2008

Frank J: Not to defend his antics in any way, but FL and other Biblical literalists at least answer the scientifically relevant questions (e.g. how old is life, are humans related to broccoli, etc.). Of course they make excuses for those with contradictory answers as long as they share their disdain for "Darwinism."

Also, I don't know about you, but, I have never seen FL even attempt to give an answer that was not an insulting, demeaning, or otherwise mean-spirited non sequitor that was barely relevant to the question(s) at hand, that is, when he's made the attempt to given an answer at all.

Frank J · 2 March 2008

Also, I don’t know about you, but, I have never seen FL even attempt to give an answer that was not an insulting, demeaning, or otherwise mean-spirited non sequitor that was barely relevant to the question(s) at hand, that is, when he’s made the attempt to given an answer at all.
— Stanton

It may not always be insulting, demeaning, or mean-spirited, but in 7 years of posting I can assure everyone that 99+% of anti-evolutionists, Biblical literalist or otherwise, never miss an opportunity to offer unsolicited, irrelevant statements of incredulity that do nothing to indicate, let alone support, any "theory" that they might prefer.

Stanton · 2 March 2008

Frank J: It may not always be insulting, demeaning, or mean-spirited, but in 7 years of posting I can assure everyone that 99+% of anti-evolutionists, Biblical literalist or otherwise, never miss an opportunity to offer unsolicited, irrelevant statements of incredulity that do nothing to indicate, let alone support, any "theory" that they might prefer.

Beyond making ham-handed, unsubtle hints that what believing ONLY what they believe is the only way into Heaven?

Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2008

Stanton:
Frank J: It may not always be insulting, demeaning, or mean-spirited, but in 7 years of posting I can assure everyone that 99+% of anti-evolutionists, Biblical literalist or otherwise, never miss an opportunity to offer unsolicited, irrelevant statements of incredulity that do nothing to indicate, let alone support, any "theory" that they might prefer.
Beyond making ham-handed, unsubtle hints that what believing ONLY what they believe is the only way into Heaven?

For some reason it has become standard in polite society to never take them to task on any of their claims (religion and politics not allowed in polite conversation). It seems that they now expect that they are under no obligation to provide evidence for anything. However, when someone finally does start asking the hard questions, these fundamentalists become angry and start tossing out a barrage of irrelevant claims, all without evidence to back them up. My own position is to stop being polite and start asking the hard questions about their dogma.

Frank J · 2 March 2008

Beyond making ham-handed, unsubtle hints that what believing ONLY what they believe is the only way into Heaven?
— Stanton

Actually very few of them these days require that one believes exactly what they believe, only that they denounce "Darwinism." As I wrote above, many YECs and OECs make excuses for each other, and IDers generally make excuses for all of them. In fact it would not surprise me if some IDers have admitted that many "Darwinists" will "get to heaven" too. Behe (Catholic opponent of evolution) would likely say that Pope John Paul II (Catholic proponent of evolution) is now in heaven.

Frank J · 2 March 2008

My own position is to stop being polite and start asking the hard questions about their dogma.
— Mike Elzinga

Not sure what you mean by "hard questions," but as you know most of them these days can't even answer the simple questions regarding the age of life and common descent. Questions that people like Gish, Ross and Behe have no problem answering (although I strongly suspect Behe wished that he had joined the "don't ask, don't tell" chorus from the beginning). Whatever questions we ask, we should avoid taking the bait by asking about the designer's identity, whether there is or isn't a designer, or make unnecessary reference to the Bible, Christianity, etc. Even getting into detail about evolution only gives them more facts and quotes to take out of context. The more we keep it on cold and dry "whats" "whens" and "hows" (proximate, not ultimate causes) the harder it is for them.

Richard Simons · 2 March 2008

Frank J: The more we keep it on cold and dry "whats" "whens" and "hows" (proximate, not ultimate causes) the harder it is for them.

I have several times asked how they imagine the design was implemented. The only person to attempt an answer did not realize that design and implementation are different processes. I suspect that most have never given the matter any thought.

Frank J · 2 March 2008

I have several times asked how they imagine the design was implemented. The only person to attempt an answer did not realize that design and implementation are different processes. I suspect that most have never given the matter any thought.
— Richard Simons

I don't even ask about the "how" of implementation, but merely the most basic "where" questions, such as whether in vivo (common descent) or in vitro (life from nonlife), and "when" questions, such as when the last such event occurred in our lineage. IIRC Behe has admitted that the design itself existed since at least the origin of the universe, but the closest he has come to a clear answer of the latest implementation was the origin of the malaria parasite. Compare that to FL (a literalist, unlike Behe) who is the only one so far to answer my question (whether he understood it is another question), and actually admitted that each human conception is a design implementation event. I can hear the DI folk pulling their hair out behind closed doors: "No! no! no! never admit that anything that can be observed in real time is one of our elusive 'discontinuities'."

Mike Elzinga · 2 March 2008

Not sure what you mean by “hard questions,”…

I no longer get into any religious questions or science questions with them or debate them in any way. I found out long ago that this is just what they want and that they can wrangle endlessly about stuff they just make up. Normally I simply tell the ones that come to the door that I am not interested. If they persist, then I demand something impolite and hard, such as; given centuries of sectarian warfare and the proliferation of mutually suspicious sects, produce the evidence that theirs is the one true sectarian dogma and that the proselytizers themselves have any insight into the mind of a deity. I simply make it clear that, if they cannot produce such evidence, then they have nothing interesting to say. I then refuse to take any tract they try to hand me as they take their leave. For the ones who write to the editor of our local paper trying to push ID or creationism, I have responded with letters that simply point out how they have been taken in by the political tactics of the ID/Creationist movement (which I outline), and I then point out the complete lack of any research and evidence on their part that supports their claims. We seem to be in a lull in this activity for the moment, but these people were flooding the letters-to-the-editor section of our local paper during the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns (the editor is a born-again type). There are only occasional probes in the local paper, but they look pretty stupid. Certainly in the past, these fundamentalists seemed to have some kind of arrogant expectation that they should be allowed to make claims without any accountability whatsoever. And other people, either out of politeness or because of uneasiness about the implications for their own religious beliefs, wouldn’t challenge this expectation or demand to see evidence for the “credentials” of the fundamentalists. Even now, after Dover, people are still uneasy about asking the kinds of questions that need to be asked of these fundamentalist claims. The conservative religious element in the community around here still avoids these questions. Even the more moderate churches are reluctant to challenge the fundamentalists.