New York Times: Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

There are some interesting quotes in an article from the San Antonio Express-News recently (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/stories/MYSA060108.1B.Sciencecurriculum.3a526e4.html note: I had to scroll down to the bottom of the screen to see the actual article when I viewed it) about the coming fight on the SBOE about the science standards. Lot's of "it's just a theory" talk.

Luckily the creationists on the board are doing everything to undermine the claim that this is about a standard developed by committee when they saw fit to replace the proposal with one they shoved under the door of hotel rooms in the early morning hours.

I can't wait to hear them explain themselves in court.

The dishonesty institute has posted a response.....

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/06/new_york_times_makes_a_big_mes.html

As someone said on Pharyngula, a short version of the article would be "this is not new, we have been using this dishonest tactic for 10 years."

We are going to have a rough time in Texas getting rid of "strengths and weaknesses", as it stands now, the state board has the votes to put whatever they want into the revised standards.

We fully expect an "Academic Freedom" bill next spring. A court case might result over the standards, but Texas is not the best place for that. DI has laid some good ground work in Texas, with willing board members.

Yes, McLeroy surely knows how to make us Christians look foolish.

What McLeroy has NOT done is to cherry-pick which tales to take literally and which tales to regard as fictional. You know, like a REAL Christian would. McLeroy is at least consistent - he knows that you swallow them all or none.

— Flint

“The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe.”

He's got that right. It is in-credible, which is why I don't accord it one shred of credibility at all.

I don't know what to call someone who believes all kinds of incredible things, except maybe seven kinds of fool...

I wrote an essay review about the efforts of the Creationists on the Texas State Board of Education to keep anti-science "weaknesses" (http://www.texscience.org/reviews/weaknesses.htm) in the Texas science standards. The seven radical religious right members of the Texas SBOE want to keep the "strengths and weaknesses" language currently in the Texas science standards and add specific alleged but bogus "weaknesses of evolution" to further undermine science education in the state. The essay reviews two long and important news reports just published about the forthcoming Texas science standards revision and provides valuable context and historical information about the "weaknesses" language. It also looks at the humorous responses by Discovery Institute officers who apparently based their critiques of one of the news articles on only its headline.

This last item is particularly funny. The DI is up to its old tricks of accusing others of not reading the article when they themselves are guilty. Here's the significant passage:

Finally, in two weird blogs by Robert Crowther and John West of the Discovery Institute on June 5, both harshly criticize Laura Beil for trying to falsely make it appear that the "strengths and weaknesses" language in Texas is a "new, post-Dover innovation," "a brand new idea cooked up by Discovery Institute," and "implying that support for covering the 'strengths and weaknesses' of evolution is supposedly a new strategy on the part of Darwin critics." Crowther says Beil's premise was "flagrantly false" and West says she "botched" the story. Wow. The DI is certainly not trying to curry favor with the New York Times. But perhaps this language is a product of a past DI grievance with the Times. Naturally, as always, the DI is wrong. If they had bothered to read the story, the article states quite clearly and correctly that

The "strengths and weaknesses" language was slipped into the curriculum standards in Texas to appease creationists when the State Board of Education first mandated the teaching of evolution in the late 1980s. It has had little effect because evolution skeptics have not had enough power on the education board to win the argument that textbooks do not adequately cover the weaknesses of evolution.

When I read the article, I thought its theme was that the next battle between scientists and anti-evolution critics would be in Texas, and that the topic of controversy would be "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. All true, and exactly what I have been saying and writing for the past year. If Beil had bothered to access the TCS website or interview me, she could have found this information easily. Nowhere did I get the impression that Beil was claiming that the "strengths and weaknesses" language was a new DI idea or innovation. I admit that the headline suggested that: "Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy." This was written by an editor, of course, not by Beil, so I must agree with the DI folks that here their criticism has merit. But only for the headline, which is perhaps the only part of the article the DI writers read before jumping to a conclusion. The headline is certainly in error, since the DI used the same strategy in 2003 in Texas. They lost then, but now the battle goes into a second round, and the outcome is unsure. The vote could go 8-7 either way.

Seems to me the focus is all one-sided - discuss the strengths & weaknesses of Evolution. What exactly are the strengths of the “Theory of Intelligent Design?” We know it abounds in weaknesses - in fact it brings nothing to the table. And no strengths have ever been advanced, have they? A previous PT article quoted Phillip Johnson stating that ID had nothing comparable to evolution. Why isn’t the scientific community taking off the gloves and counterattacking instead of bearing the brunt of these attacks and politely turning the other cheek, only to be whipped again?

It is interesting to discuss whether otherwise science-accepting, constitutional-rights-respecting Christians are still deluded for being Christian at all, but that discussion is not germane to the topic at hand.

What is relevant about McLeroy is that, first of all, he seeks to distort and sabotage the teaching of science in public schools, which would be bad under any circumstances, and second of all, that he seeks to do it in order to falsely teach children of all backgrounds, in an underhanded way, at taxpayer expense, that one particular religious dogma or set of religious dogmas is more "scientifically correct" than others, which is a violation of human rights in general, and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States in particular.

His comments about Baby Jesus in a manger are relevant only in that they reveal a religious bias. (*Actually, I personally think they reveal manipulation of religious imagery in the service of what is, consciously or unconsciously, an authoritarian agenda unrelated to any spiritual concerns, but whatever...*).

However, plenty of people believe that Baby Jesus lay in a manger, yet also accept scientific reality in the present day, and respect the rights of others.

And plenty of people who aren't traditional Christians seek to violate rights and sabotage science and science education.

C'mon now PvM, McLeroy (like most fundie creationists) knows that the Augustine quote carries no weight. Augustine was after all a Catholic, and according to the Chick tract that fundies are so fond of Catholics are not Christians.

Flint said: What McLeroy has NOT done is to cherry-pick which tales to take literally and which tales to regard as fictional. You know, like a REAL Christian would. McLeroy is at least consistent - he knows that you swallow them all or none.

DavidK said: What exactly are the strengths of the “Theory of Intelligent Design?”

Seems to me the focus is all one-sided - discuss the strengths & weaknesses of Evolution. What exactly are the strengths of the “Theory of Intelligent Design?” We know it abounds in weaknesses - in fact it brings nothing to the table.

— DavidK

Then how come McLeroy has yet to advocate that unruly children, wearers of polyester, people who work on Saturdays/Sundays, or people who eat pork, cheeseburgers, shellfish and or lasagna be publicly executed by death by stoning, as the Bible prescribes?

What is relevant about McLeroy is that, first of all, he seeks to distort and sabotage the teaching of science in public schools...

The Augustine quotation has been copied onto this blog so many times, one might just wish to provide a link instead of the full text.

Lying and deception are new strategies? Since when?

There's a passage in the New Testament where Jesus says it's not what goes in a man's mouth that makes him unclean, it's what comes out, followed by the passage "In so saying Jesus made all foods clean". So you can't really use that argument.

Mark 7:18ff

Still, a lot of silliness abounds in the fundie circus.

Minor amendment:

The prohibition is against "mixed" fabrics. If you want to be very specific, Deut 22:11 forbids wearing of a mixture of wool and linen. Some translations say not to wear cloth of "divers sorts" of which the wool-linen mix is only an example. Either way, polyester is not a mixture of wool and linen, nor is it of divers sort. So it's perfectly OK, biblically speaking, to wear it. The point remains valid, however, that many people advocating a literal interpretation of the Bible go about wearing mixed threads.

Either way, polyester is not a mixture of wool and linen, nor is it of divers sort. So it’s perfectly OK, biblically speaking, to wear it.

Before the class, Crocker had told me that she was going to teach "the strengths and weaknesses of evolution." Afterward, I asked her whether she was going to discuss the evidence for evolution in another class. She said no. "There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution," Crocker said.

Laura Beil: Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became “intelligent design,” ...

Well this is reasonably interesting timing. The past week or two I've been wondering what was going to be the next move from the creationists. "Intelligent design is real science" has gone the way of its predecessors, and Expelled has achieved much the same for the "we're all victims of an evil conspiracy that keeps us from doing real science" argument.

Strengths and weaknesses fails to impress me. The answer to that is simple. The strength is that evolution has proven to be a useful framework to base the study of biology on for over a hundred years. The weaknesses are that it is not perfect, a weakness shared by every scientific discipline. In that it is interesting, the question can be asked whether the writers of this bill would suggest that other scientific disciplines be subjected to the same treatment. Are teachers expected to teach the strengths and weaknesses of Pi? The Bernoulli Equation?
Of course I know the answer. But it's still a question worth asking, in public forums, to those who feel that such bills are worthwhile.

Unless the bill provides language to allow fictional weaknesses it does nothing to allow people to follow in Crocker's footsteps. A fabrication invented to further a religious agenda is not a weakness.

I'm sure it can still be used to harm the education of our country's children, but it feels like a rather limp attempt to spring back from the previous failures.

Apologies.. I don't know how I posted that twice. I must have impatiently hit submit twice.

Apologies.. I don't know how I posted that twice. I must have impatiently hit submit twice.

What a great feeling to see the postings being flushed down the bit bucket.

Let's be clear about this. Such a move by the Texas BOE sets a precedence that is NOT restricted to the domain of science. Despite its focus on evolution, it gives any teacher the right to speculate on anything, to argue against anything in the current curriculum, WITHOUT FEAR OF PUNISHMENT OR RETRIBUTION. For instance, the DI's movie "Expelled" is an outright fraud, the narrator Ben Stein, a Jew, is simply trying to cover up for the Jewish political efforts to unseat the Nazis. Much evidence can be produced to bear this out, and teachers would/should be able to freely express themselves and their views in presenting this evidence to make their case in the classroom.

As Sun Tzu said, seek out the enemies weaknesses and capitalize on them. This is one argument that can be used against these creationists. I'm sure the Jews would not like to see something like this come about. The DI/creationists focus on the narrow, but broaden the scope of the argument and its inclusiveness. Turn the tables on them.

Who let the crazies in?

I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.

By the way, what's with that "manger" comment? I mean, is there anything in the Bible about manger? I thought that part appeared later...

Dr. McLeroy believes that Earth’s appearance is a recent geologic event — thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion.

Basically an ad hominem against certain evolutionists not a critique of evolution (which in other writings, Lewis didn’t seem to have much problem with).

— jkc

Ah, the insane troll Mabus makes an appearance on PT. Don't feed, send medication.

Dr. McLeroy believes that Earth’s appearance is a recent geologic event — thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion.

Frank J said:

Dr. McLeroy believes that Earth’s appearance is a recent geologic event — thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion.

Well if he really believes that, then why is he not demanding a critical analysis of that? No "creation" or "design" language is needed to discuss that, so it's perfectly legal.

And is McLeroy going to be mandating the teaching of the strengths and weaknesses of modern geology, physics, and astronomy? Really, it is time for some other science fields to get picked on.

— raven

Because questioning the Bible for scientific materialistic philosophical reasons is perfidious sacrilege, of course.

— Stanton

The NY Times has an editorial this morning on the situation in texas entitled "The Cons of Creationism"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07sat3.html?ref=opinion

Raven - There are a couple of other areas the right wing extremists are going to attack in the Texas document. The Big Bang, radiometric dating, inquiry are some of the others I have heard about. Of course they want the "strengths and weaknesses" in every science course/grade level, but they only expect it to be addressed in one subject, one topic. No amount of evidence, facts, or data will sway their opinions. If we are lucky, we might convince enough of the general public that what they want to do is intellectual high treason. If they have their way, Texas students will get a 15th century science education.

raven said:

Either way, polyester is not a mixture of wool and linen, nor is it of divers sort. So it’s perfectly OK, biblically speaking, to wear it.

HAH!!! This is blashemy and heresy. While polyester itself may not be a mixed fabric, the thread used for stitching, buttons, etc. may well be cotton, nylon, silk or wool. In addition, a lot of polyester clothing is actually a blend of one sort or another, cotton polyester blends are common for T shirts. Real Xians(TM) wouldn't jeapordize their immortal souls and earthly existence by running the risk of making a mistake. You could be walking down the street wearing a shirt made of polyester with buttons attached by cotton thread one minute and end up dead under a pile of stones the next in a hardcore Xian neighborhood.

Frank J said: More recently critics of ID like Ken Miller also harshly criticized those evolutionists who defend it more as an atheistic "religion," so I have to wonder whether, had he lived, Lewis would have agreed with Miller or sold out to pseudoscience.

It seems to me that scientist are undermining themselves when they allow for no opposition to their facts and dogma.

For example:

Here is a recent headline:

Hunters have wiped out the Caribbean monk seal, which was last spotted in 1952. The sea creatures' close cousin, the Hawaiian Monk seal, above, in Oahu in 2002, is facing a similar fate, with only 1,200 remaining. The Mediterranean monk seal is in even worse shape, with only 500 left.

The problem comes with a little further checking into history. It seems that scientist are sometimes wrong. Now if that is the case, and scientist are sometimes wrong, why are today's evolutionist so intent upon having their findings interpreted in one way only and reported as facts in the public schools?

These facts were all printed along with pictures on AOL news.

A peculiar breed of frog discovered on the island of Borneo seems to have evolved in reverse, scientists reported April 9.

In May 2007, scientists discovered these rare soft-shell turtles, once thought to be on the brink of extinction, in a once-restricted part of Cambodia.

The "sheer volume" of the starfish "challenged what we as scientists thought we knew," said one researcher.

This cloud rat, found in a mossy forest about 7,700 feet above sea level in Mt. Pulag National Park in the Philippines in April, was the first of its species to be seen in 112 years.

Researchers from the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo said April 16 that they discovered a rare giant turtle in northern Vietnam. Swinhoe's soft-shell turtle was previously thought to be extinct in the wild.

Until this picture of a wolverine was taken on Feb. 28 in the northern part of the Sierra Nevada range in California, scientists didn't believe wolverines still existed there.

In May 2007, scientists discovered these rare soft-shell turtles, once thought to be on the brink of extinction, in a once-restricted part of Cambodia.

The long-whiskered owlet, one of the world's smallest owls, was spotted in the wild for the first time in January 2007.

Why do today's scientist think that they have the right to teach what they KNOW to our children without having any questioning of their facts when a quick survey proves that science today is just like science has been throughout the ages. It is a process or method of discovery, but the discoveries are not exact and can only by used in the ongoing process of learning. They are not to be set in stone and never questioned. Reporting facts is one thing. Drawing conclusions is another. Insisting that everyone agree with your conclusion becomes a method of mind control.

Raven - There are a couple of other areas the right wing extremists are going to attack in the Texas document. The Big Bang, radiometric dating, inquiry are some of the others I have heard about.

Observer said: It seems to me that scientist are undermining themselves when they allow for no opposition to their facts and dogma.

The problem comes with a little further checking into history. It seems that scientist are sometimes wrong.

Observer trolling: It seems to me that scientist are undermining themselves when they allow for no opposition to their facts and dogma.

Observer tosses in the standard red herring... It seems to me that scientist are undermining themselves when they allow for no opposition to their facts and dogma... (and then goes on to list a bunch of new discoveries, mostly little known species, some of which were thought to be extinct)

Here is The New York Times' editorial on the so-called "weaknesses" of evolution published in today's edition:

Editorial
The Cons of Creationism

Published: June 7, 2008
When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality. They believe, after all, that evolution by means of natural selection is false and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. They also believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology - or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view - are not being disadvantaged.

The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism.

It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching "intelligent design," which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense.

The chairman of the Texas board, a dentist named Don McLeroy, advocates the "strengths and weaknesses" approach, as does a near majority of the board. The system accommodates what Dr. McLeroy calls two systems of science, creationist and "naturalist."

The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is "naturalist" to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator. Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education.

Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.

Observer said: It seems to me that scientist are undermining themselves when they allow for no opposition to their facts and dogma.

Science Avenger said: My money says he'd have sold out. When you read Lewis, which I try to do as little as possible these days, you don't see a mind that carefully analyzes evidence and reaches rational conclusions. You see a mind prone to pulling assumptions out of thin air and rumbling down the preordained path.

Keith Eaton has left the building.

Eric Finn said: It is absolutely true that scientists want to stick to their dogma.

Shebardigan said:

Eric Finn said: It is absolutely true that scientists want to stick to their dogma.

Definitely! Just look back to when the silly idea of "continental drift" was pronounced to be false by the Supreme Scientific Authorities. Nobody has dared to bring up the subject since then, and everyone unanimously agrees that Continents Don't Move.

My money says he’d have sold out. When you read Lewis, which I try to do as little as possible these days, you don’t see a mind that carefully analyzes evidence and reaches rational conclusions. You see a mind prone to pulling assumptions out of thin air and rumbling down the preordained path.

— Science Avenger

Raven - There are a couple of other areas the right wing extremists are going to attack in the Texas document. The Big Bang, radiometric dating, inquiry are some of the others I have heard about.

— JJ

Most of the readers here seemed to have missed the point entirely. I am not complaining because scientist are sometimes wrong and further investigation proves an original theory incorrect. Neither am I saying that science is useless. I think it is a very worthwhile study and something that enables us to learn more about the world around us. I agree that man has been blessed by results of scientific study. The point that I would like to make is that it is an on-going process and it is foolish for evolutionist to be involved in this constant effort to silence anyone who looks at evidence and draws a different conclusion from their own. Fearing that what you teach is going to be proven wrong and spending endless hours trying to squelch the ideas of others hardly seems like good science to many of us.

Observer said: Most of the readers here seemed to have missed the point entirely. I am not complaining because scientist are sometimes wrong and further investigation proves an original theory incorrect. Neither am I saying that science is useless. I think it is a very worthwhile study and something that enables us to learn more about the world around us. I agree that man has been blessed by results of scientific study. The point that I would like to make is that it is an on-going process and it is foolish for evolutionist to be involved in this constant effort to silence anyone who looks at evidence and draws a different conclusion from their own. Fearing that what you teach is going to be proven wrong and spending endless hours trying to squelch the ideas of others hardly seems like good science to many of us.

"Fearing that what you teach is going to be proven wrong and spending endless hours trying to squelch the ideas of others hardly seems like good science to many of us."

Indeed.

Fortunately, none of us who teach evolution or science based on evolution fears that it will be proven wrong. The evidence in favor of descent with modification by the mechanism of natural selection is so overwhelming that there is no viable scientific alternative.

And none of us spends any time "trying to squelch the ideas of other," at least trying to squelch any scientific alternatives to evolution. There are no scientific alternatives to evolution to squelch.

It is creationism and ID that is afraid that its teaching will be exposed as unscientific and that spends endless hours trying to squelch the ideas of evolution rather than coming up with even one testable hypothesis.

Just to add:

no scientist is interested in "squelching" the religious beliefs of creationism and ID. We are only interested in preventing those religious beliefs from being passed off in public school classrooms as a scientific alternative to evolution. Believe what you want. Practice your beliefs in your homes and churches. Just don't use taxpayer dollars to prop up your religion by pretending that it is science.

There’s a passage in the New Testament where Jesus says it’s not what goes in a man’s mouth that makes him unclean, it’s what comes out, followed by the passage “In so saying Jesus made all foods clean”. So you can’t really use that argument. Mark 7:18ff

Observer trolling some more: The point that I would like to make is that it is an on-going process and it is foolish for evolutionist to be involved in this constant effort to silence anyone who looks at evidence and draws a different conclusion from their own.

observer troll lying: Fearing that what you teach is going to be proven wrong and spending endless hours trying to squelch the ideas of others hardly seems like good science to many of us.

observer troll lying: Fearing that what you teach is going to be proven wrong and spending endless hours trying to squelch the ideas of others hardly seems like good science to many of us.

Observer said: Most of the readers here seemed to have missed the point entirely. I am not complaining because scientist are sometimes wrong and further investigation proves an original theory incorrect. Neither am I saying that science is useless. I think it is a very worthwhile study and something that enables us to learn more about the world around us. [...]

[...] Fearing that what you teach is going to be proven wrong and spending endless hours trying to squelch the ideas of others hardly seems like good science to many of us.

Observer said: The point that I would like to make is that it is an on-going process and it is foolish for evolutionist to be involved in this constant effort to silence anyone who looks at evidence and draws a different conclusion from their own.

Fearing that what you teach is going to be proven wrong and spending endless hours trying to squelch the ideas of others hardly seems like good science to many of us.

Observer wrote:

"Fearing that what you teach is going to be proven wrong and spending endless hours trying to squelch the ideas of others hardly seems like good science to many of us."

Exactly. So why do creationists do this almost exclusively?

Seriously. Science is quintessentially non-dogmatic and creationism is fundamentally dogmatic. Scientists do research and find new data, creationists do not. Creationists try to suppress the teaching of evolution, scientists discover new data and welcome it with open arms. They have no need and no desire to suppress anyone or anything.

Now if you don't have any evidence but want your views taught as science anyway, then real scientists will certainly point this out. Do you really think they shouldn't?

Only a dogmatic teacher whose views are not based on evidence would fear being wrong. Only a teacher who already claims to know the ultimate truth would fear new data. Science teachers have no problem with new data, unless of course it is keeping up with it. Sunday school teachers who make statements that are falsifed by new scientific evidence are the only ones who even have this problem. Maybe you should be preaching to the choir, or the preacher.

The point that I would like to make is that it is an on-going process and it is foolish for evolutionist to be involved in this constant effort to silence anyone who looks at evidence and draws a different conclusion from their own.

— Observer

Raven rants: “What we are afraid of is that the xian Nihilists will destroy our society, set up a theocracy, and head on back to the Dark Ages. This is their goal and they say exactly this often, read the Wedge on Wikipedia. The Dishonesty Institute itself is a front for a group of evil xian Dominionists Then look at serious god fearing societies like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia.”

.

I too have contempt for or the Islamic theocracies, and the YEC crowd can certainly be annoying at times, but really raven, your paranoia regarding your so-called xian Nihilists destroying our society is laughable----20th century history clearly shows us that that atheism is by far the greater threat to civilization and freedom, that when there are no religious/spiritual values to serve as a mitigating factor against the excesses of state power and human behavior, things tend to get brutal and bloody very quickly.

bigbang said: . . . things tend to get brutal and bloody very quickly.

Richard Simmons asks: “And if atheism leads to degeneracy why are atheists so under-represented in prison?”

.

Not only will most in prison tell they’re not atheists, they’re also tell you they’re not guilty. Hello?

big bang lying: 20th century history clearly shows us that that atheism is by far the greater threat to civilization and freedom, that when there are no religious/spiritual values to serve as a mitigating factor against the excesses of state power and human behavior, things tend to get brutal and bloody very quickly

wikipedia: The Taiping Rebellion or Rebellion of Great Peace was a large-scale revolt against the authority and forces of the Qing Government in China. It was conducted from 1850 to 1864 by an army and civil administration led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan. The Taiping areas were constantly besieged and harassed by Qing forces; the rebellion was eventually put down by the Qing army aided by French and British forces. deleted for length With an estimated death toll of between 20 and 30 million due to warfare and resulting starvation, this civil war ranks as the third bloodiest conflict in history, behind the two world wars.

The Wedge Wikipedia: Mission statement of the Dishonesty Institute: "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Would it be possible if bigbangBigot could produce some examples of modern-day atheists and or atheistic organizations who have the specific intent to degrade and destroy human civilization?

Pray tell Bigbang, give us some examples of the evil atheists.

raven said: Theocracies got a bad name centuries ago as unworkable and malevolent systems of government.

I think we've gone far afield from the original post. Let me ask a couple questions specifcally related to the OP.

********

(1) PvM, St. Augustine believed God created everything INSTANTLY, which would clearly make him a Young-Earth Creationist, period.

Why do you never inform your readers of this fact when you're quoting that one big snippet from him?

********

(2) You also wrote, "Yes, McLeroy surely knows how to make us Christians look foolish."

These days, lots of people call themselves "Christian". You, me, McLeroy, Ken Miller, lots of folks.

But would you take a minute and specifically define the term "Christian"? What's your definition of that term?

********

FL

FL said: But would you take a minute and specifically define the term "Christian"? What's your definition of that term? ******** FL

bigbang said: Not only will most in prison tell they’re not atheists, they’re also tell you they’re not guilty. Hello?

FL said: (1) PvM, St. Augustine believed God created everything INSTANTLY, which would clearly make him a Young-Earth Creationist, period. Why do you never inform your readers of this fact when you're quoting that one big snippet from him?

FL said: (1) PvM, St. Augustine believed God created everything INSTANTLY, which would clearly make him a Young-Earth Creationist, period. Why do you never inform your readers of this fact when you're quoting that one big snippet from him?

(1) PvM, St. Augustine believed God created everything INSTANTLY, which would clearly make him a Young-Earth Creationist, period. Why do you never inform your readers of this fact when you’re quoting that one big snippet from him?

— FL

Raven protests: “the Holocaust was German variant Xianity, heavily influenced by the notorious antisemite Martin Luther.”

.

Although Luther could be a schmuck at times, it’s fairly obvious that Hitler and the Nazis weren’t getting their cues from the teachings of Jesus, but rather they were getting their ideas regarding survival of the fittest and racial superiority from Darwinian thinking of the time, from their understanding of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

The link between Luther and Nazism is quite a bit stronger than any link between Darwinism and Nazism. They did in fact get their ideas from the teachings of Jesus, just like so many creationists now misinterpret the same teachings for their own foolish purposes.

You also wrote, “Yes, McLeroy surely knows how to make us Christians look foolish.” These days, lots of people call themselves “Christian”. You, me, McLeroy, Ken Miller, lots of folks. But would you take a minute and specifically define the term “Christian”? What’s your definition of that term?

Stanton asked for: “examples of modern-day atheists and or atheistic organizations who have the specific intent to degrade and destroy human civilization.”

.

Well, what comes to mind is the brutality and unprecedented mass murder of 20th century atheists and their atheistic regimes, like the USSR and the PRC, where there were no religious/spiritual values to serve as a mitigating factor against the excesses of state power and human behavior.

OTOH, I think history has shown that a nation founded on the conviction that we have all been endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, as our Founding Fathers noted in the Declaration, works much better than regimes founded by atheists upon an atheistic worldview.

What should be obvious to anybody who's studied evolution, is that it implies that species with more variety have a better chance of surviving some kinds of calamities than do species with limited variety. Therefore, somebody who understands evolution (and who favors survival of our species) would favor maintaining variety rather than reducing it.

Henry

bigbang, don't quote mine Darwin will you? You grow more and more disgusting everyday.

The term "races" is used as an alternative for "varieties" and does not carry the modern connotation of human races – the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", and Darwin proceeds to discuss "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_origin_of_species

Martin Luther is one of the most vocal in driving jews from the land and burning down their synagogues. His treatise "On the Jews and their lies" is an inspiration for Mein Kampf.

OTOH, I think history has shown that a nation founded on the conviction that we have all been endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, as our Founding Fathers noted in the Declaration, works much better than regimes founded by atheists upon an atheistic worldview.

bigbang said: Stanton asked for: “examples of modern-day atheists and or atheistic organizations who have the specific intent to degrade and destroy human civilization.” . Well, what comes to mind is the brutality and unprecedented mass murder of 20th century atheists and their atheistic regimes, like the USSR and the PRC, where there were no religious/spiritual values to serve as a mitigating factor against the excesses of state power and human behavior.

OTOH, I think history has shown that a nation founded on the conviction that we have all been endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, as our Founding Fathers noted in the Declaration, works much better than regimes founded by atheists upon an atheistic worldview.

"OTOH, I think history has shown that a nation founded on the conviction that we have all been endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, as our Founding Fathers noted in the Declaration, works much better than regimes founded by atheists upon an atheistic worldview."

Heh.

The United States was not founded as a Christian or even a religious nation. The Declaration of Independence is not the governing document of the United States.

Moreover, the "inalienable rights" mentioned in the DoI seem to have had a fairly limited application through much of US history. From 1880 to 1920, there was an average of one lynching a week. Most of this before the USSR even began!

Smarter trolls, please.

Stanton said: Then how come the Founding Fathers of the United States of America made a big song and dance of separation of Church and State, about how one was not to officially support or infringe upon the other?

PvM said: The link between Luther and Nazism is quite a bit stronger than any link between Darwinism and Nazism. They did in fact get their ideas from the teachings of Jesus, just like so many creationists now misinterpret the same teachings for their own foolish purposes.

"Based on what evidence do you believe the connection is stronger than with Darwinism and Nazism?"

Uh, because Hitler didn't own any books by Darwin. Because there are no references to Darwinism in Nazi writings. Because there is nothing in Darwin's writing that supports antisemitism, ethnic cleansing or murder.

On the other hand, the Nazis made frequent mention of Christianity. Nazi Germany was a majority Christian nation. Luther's anitsemitism was widely known and embraced by Germans during that time.

Hope that helps.

PvM claims: “They [Nazis] did in fact get their ideas from the teachings of Jesus…..”

.

That’s laughable, but I wonder if you believe your own nonsense?
Last I checked, Jesus didn’t teach on things like racial purity----he was more into loving your neighbor, the golden rule, and such.

Michael said:

PvM said: The link between Luther and Nazism is quite a bit stronger than any link between Darwinism and Nazism. They did in fact get their ideas from the teachings of Jesus, just like so many creationists now misinterpret the same teachings for their own foolish purposes.

Oh Really? Based on what evidence do you believe the connection is stronger than with Darwinism and Nazism? By the way, not all of Luther's teachings were from Jesus, in fact, he was trying to reform Catholicism rather than separate from it.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

big bang changing the subject and Making Stuff UP: Although Luther could be a schmuck at times, it’s fairly obvious that Hitler and the Nazis weren’t getting their cues from the teachings of Jesus,

wikipedia Martin Luther: His main works on the Jews were his 60,000-word treatise Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies), and Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (On the Holy Name and the Lineage of Christ) — reprinted five times within his lifetime — both written in 1543, three years before his death.[77] He argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but were "the devil's people." They were "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[78] The synagogue was a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut ..."[79] and Jews were full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[80] He advocated setting synagogues on fire, destroying Jewish prayerbooks, forbidding rabbis from preaching, seizing Jews' property and money, smashing up their homes, and ensuring that these "poisonous envenomed worms" be forced into labor or expelled "for all time."[81] He also seemed to sanction their murder,[82] writing "We are at fault in not slaying them."[83]

bigbang said: PvM claims: “They [Nazis] did in fact get their ideas from the teachings of Jesus…..” . That’s laughable, but I wonder if you believe your own nonsense? Last I checked, Jesus didn’t teach on things like racial purity----he was more into loving your neighbor, the golden rule, and such.

Michael said: Oh Really? Based on what evidence do you believe the connection is stronger than with Darwinism and Nazism? By the way, not all of Luther's teachings were from Jesus, in fact, he was trying to reform Catholicism rather than separate from it.

Adolph Hitler: "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them." - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order

Matthew 15:22-26:

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

28Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour

Yeah, not racist at all. It's just like I can eat in a restaurant if I enter through the "Colored" doorway

harold said: It is interesting to discuss whether otherwise science-accepting, constitutional-rights-respecting Christians are still deluded for being Christian at all, but that discussion is not germane to the topic at hand.

Nomad said: In that it is interesting, the question can be asked whether the writers of this bill would suggest that other scientific disciplines be subjected to the same treatment. Are teachers expected to teach the strengths and weaknesses of Pi? The Bernoulli Equation?

Observer said: A peculiar breed of frog discovered on the island of Borneo seems to have evolved in reverse,

bigbang said: 20th century history clearly shows us that that atheism is by far the greater threat to civilization and freedom,

bigbang said: regimes founded by atheists upon an atheistic worldview.

Raven declares: “Hitler was a devout Catholic who invoked god and Jesus often. Someone did a word count of Mein Kampf. Christian was mentioned 32 times.”

.

Again, I wonder if you people actually believe your own nonsense. I’d suggest you be a bit more skeptical of whatever Hitler declared in the propaganda of his Mein Kampf----he obviously was an opportunist and would invoke anything to perpetuate his racial purity survival of the fittest agenda.

I find Hitler's Table Talk to be more credible when attempting to determine what Hitler (and his Nazis) actually believed and were thinking. Here’s a gem: “The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew.”

And a few more from Hitler: “Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure”; and, “So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.”

bigbang said: Again, I wonder if you people actually believe your own nonsense. I’d suggest you be a bit more skeptical of whatever Hitler declared in the propaganda of his Mein Kampf...

----he obviously was an opportunist and would invoke anything to perpetuate his racial purity survival of the fittest agenda.

Agreed. But PvM opened the subject on a religious discussion by including irrelevant religious material, irrelevant for the subject and irrelevant for the cult in question, as well as specifically discussing whether Christians are foolish or not. I suggest you take it up with him instead.

Big Bang grasping at straws: I find Hitler’s Table Talk to be more credible when attempting to determine what Hitler (and his Nazis) actually believed and were thinking.

wikipedia: Hitler’s private statements about Christianity are largely negative. Hitler’s intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann, report many such statements, although the historical validity of some remarks has been questioned, particularly the collection called Table Talk. Although most historians consider it a useful source, they do not regard it as wholly reliable. Ian Kershaw makes clear the questionable nature of Table Talk as a source;[15] however, although Kershaw recommends treating the work with caution, he does not suggest dispensing with it altogether. Richard Carrier goes further, contending that certain portions of Table Talk, especially those regarding Hitler's hatred of Christianity, are inventions. [16] deleted for length [edit] Positive Christianity In contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or Nazi mysticism, and even ridiculed such beliefs in private and possibly in public.[20] Drawing on higher criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated Positive Christianity, traditional Christianity purged of everything that he found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself,[21] but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews.[22] In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross." Hitler downplayed the idea of Jesus' redemptive suffering, stating in 1927:

bigbang said: OTOH, I think history has shown that a nation founded on the conviction that we have all been endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, as our Founding Fathers noted in the Declaration, works much better than regimes founded by atheists upon an atheistic worldview.

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote: "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

FL said:

Agreed. But PvM opened the subject on a religious discussion by including irrelevant religious material, irrelevant for the subject and irrelevant for the cult in question, as well as specifically discussing whether Christians are foolish or not. I suggest you take it up with him instead.

Thank you for saying this, Torbjorn. I am indeed attempting to do just that, to "take it up" with him. In particular I am still attempting to ask PvM to define exactly what he means when he uses the term "Christian", since he has (1) opened up this avenue of discussion himself and also (2) expanded upon it further by saying something about how he was concerned "as a Christian" about the direction the evangelical right "is taking us in." I am hoping he will be kind enough to offer that definition at this time.

Ahh, the no true Xtian Fallacy again I see. While the authenticity of the table talk has been disputed in recent years (Martin Bormann, the transcriber of Hitler's conversation is very anti-religion, some contents in the book contradicts itself)

Even in Table talk there are some gems for Xtianity.

Luther had the merit of rising against the Pope and the organisation of the Church. It was the first of the great revolutions. And thanks to his translation of the Bible, Luther replaced our dialects by the great German language! -Table-Talk [p. 9]

Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism the destroyer. Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who took up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore-- of a whore and a Roman soldier.

The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galiean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him.
-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 76]

Christ was an Aryan, and St. Paul used his doctrine to mobilise the criminal underworld and thus organise a proto-Bolsevism.
-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 143]

The Nazi party is religiously diverse. Many are protestants, Catholics and a few are Odinists so I don't think it is right to group them under one denomination. However, no matter what individual Nazi believe we can see that they translate their agenda in Christian terms for German Christians to follow (and they blindly do).

Speaking only for myself, If you believe in the content of the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed, You are a Christian.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm

"Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution). -- evolutionist Ernst Mayr, SciAm July 2000

FL said: Notice for example, that the above Nicene statement echoes the Bible's clear position (both Old and New Testament) that God is the necessary explanation, the absolutely required explanation, to explain the origin and existence of plants, animals, and most of all humans on Planet Earth.

Having said that, FL, please explain why you insist on changing the definition of “Christian” to being a person who insists on adhering to a literal interpretation of the Bible, with the exception of some of the rules in the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

any person who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ, and recognizes Him as his or her (spiritual) savior

4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' (directly & literally quoting from Gen. 1:27) 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? (directly & literally quoting from Gen. 2:24)

FL,

The council that drafted the Nicene creed was struggling specifically with the divinity of the Son, the co-equality of the Son with the Father, and whether the Son was of one substance with the Father. Thus, the Nicene creed is about the nature of the Almighty, not about the nature of the world.

More broadly, NONE of the creeds under discussion specify the method by which the Almighty accomplishes the work of creation, and there is nothing in those creeds that implies that the work of creation could not be accomplished through, for example, the processes posited in modern evolutionary theory. The "conflict" is generated when people attempt to constrain the methods by which the Almighty might choose to operate.

Yet, evidence shows that the Genesis account did not literally occur, that humans originated in Africa, and not between the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris, that there was no life-destroying deluge.

So, FL, can you explain why Pope Benedict should not be allowed to call himself a Christian because he accepts both the reality of evolutionary theory and Jesus Christ as his Savior, while regarding the Book of Genesis as allegory?

You refuse to grasp the meaning of Saint Augustine's words. Saint Augustine said that one can not use one's own faith, or the Bible, or one's salvation at the hands of Our Lord Jesus Christ to deny reality. Those who do use their faith, their salvation and the Bible to deny reality are fools who bring shame upon all Christians everywhere.

So then, FL, please explain why Saint Augustine said this, while you, in turn, demand that we must deny the evidence of reality in order to find salvation. Unless, of course, you plan to do what the Pharisees tried to do, and shut the doors of Heaven upon those who do not think like you do.

PvM said: Good questions. In "Mein Kampf" Hitler sees his fight against the Jews as a struggle between good and evil, he states "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Michael said:

PvM said: The link between Luther and Nazism is quite a bit stronger than any link between Darwinism and Nazism. They did in fact get their ideas from the teachings of Jesus, just like so many creationists now misinterpret the same teachings for their own foolish purposes.

Thanks for you reply, Hitler wasn't a "Lutheran" nor was he Christian. Hitler said, "You are either a Christian or a German, you cannot be both." In the Concordat which of course as you might know was an agreement with Hitler's Germany in 1933. In the document it had agreed that the State should have the right of veto power over episcopal nominations; moreover, the bishops had to swear allegiance to the Fuhrer. Even right up to the end of the war Hitler was still giving money to the Vatican because it was agreed upon in the Concordat to give contributions to the 'Catholic Church'. Hitler was a Catholic..."I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." His fruits bare this out. Hitler's influence wasn't coming from Luther. It wasn't coming from the Jesus either. There is only one race, the human race. Even with the difference in colors, the genes are the same. No difference. Even though Hitler stated he was doing the work of the Lord, doesn't mean that he actually was doing the work of the Lord.

FL said: That’s why it is necessary, imo, to ask PvM how he specifically defines the term “Christian.” It’s honestly quite important and quite relevant. is to be used as a science textbook in order to save one's immortal soul, then.

Michael said:

PvM said: Good questions. In "Mein Kampf" Hitler sees his fight against the Jews as a struggle between good and evil, he states "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Michael said:

PvM said: The link between Luther and Nazism is quite a bit stronger than any link between Darwinism and Nazism. They did in fact get their ideas from the teachings of Jesus, just like so many creationists now misinterpret the same teachings for their own foolish purposes.

Thanks for you reply, Hitler wasn't a "Lutheran" nor was he Christian. Hitler said, "You are either a Christian or a German, you cannot be both." In the Concordat which of course as you might know was an agreement with Hitler's Germany in 1933. In the document it had agreed that the State should have the right of veto power over episcopal nominations; moreover, the bishops had to swear allegiance to the Fuhrer. Even right up to the end of the war Hitler was still giving money to the Vatican because it was agreed upon in the Concordat to give contributions to the 'Catholic Church'. Hitler was a Catholic..."I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." His fruits bare this out. Hitler's influence wasn't coming from Luther. It wasn't coming from the Jesus either. There is only one race, the human race. Even with the difference in colors, the genes are the same. No difference. Even though Hitler stated he was doing the work of the Lord, doesn't mean that he actually was doing the work of the Lord.

But there’s the rub Stanton. If you accept and follow your divine Savior Jesus Christ like you said, and hence if you believe in a literal historically accurate Genesis WRT the origin of the first humans, like your divine Savior Jesus Christ believed in a literal historically accurate Genesis WRT the origin of the first humans, then you have rationally arrived at:

Michael said:

PvM said: Good questions. In "Mein Kampf" Hitler sees his fight against the Jews as a struggle between good and evil, he states "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Michael said:

PvM said: The link between Luther and Nazism is quite a bit stronger than any link between Darwinism and Nazism. They did in fact get their ideas from the teachings of Jesus, just like so many creationists now misinterpret the same teachings for their own foolish purposes.

Thanks for you reply, Hitler wasn't a "Lutheran" nor was he Christian. Hitler said, "You are either a Christian or a German, you cannot be both." In the Concordat which of course as you might know was an agreement with Hitler's Germany in 1933. In the document it had agreed that the State should have the right of veto power over episcopal nominations; moreover, the bishops had to swear allegiance to the Fuhrer. Even right up to the end of the war Hitler was still giving money to the Vatican because it was agreed upon in the Concordat to give contributions to the 'Catholic Church'. Hitler was a Catholic..."I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." His fruits bare this out. Hitler's influence wasn't coming from Luther. It wasn't coming from the Jesus either. There is only one race, the human race. Even with the difference in colors, the genes are the same. No difference. Even though Hitler stated he was doing the work of the Lord, doesn't mean that he actually was doing the work of the Lord.

FL,

Religion tells us *why.*.

Science tells us *how.*

There is no necessary contradiction.

FL your quote from the Nicene creed and then from Mayr are not contradictory. You spend a lot of words going on and on about this as some kind of gottcha moment, but it's very basic. One can easily believe in God as an ultimate creator (largely because the concept is so abstract as to encompass a infinite number of possible interpretations) and still accept all of the physical evidence from many different branches of science as to the age of the universe and how it has evolved overtime. Your constant anger blinds you to enjoying this most beautiful of revelations.

I think PBH has been drinking.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: I'm not a biologist, but AFAIU there is no such thing as evolution "in reverse", it is a process with potentially endless possibilities. Unicellular organisms evolved over time into more complex multicellular organisms, but you can also observe evolution to simplified parasites from complex ancestors.

Stacy S. said: I think PBH has been drinking.

PBH: ....will result in everything going according with what everything customarily goes according to.

My vigorous salute knocked down a vase of geraniums and necessitated this delayed entry.

I was somewhat distressed in mind, if not, to quote the Duke of Wellington, "humbugged", to see myself referred to as christian. SEIG HEIL! Confound the geraniums. I went to some expense to repaint a lot of aeroplanes and stuff and flags and so on and do a big sculpture with a device that is a broken .... what? Not a vase, not a geranium stalk. If you need to learn more about my inspiration for believing in absolute war to the end, and the righteousness in only the fittest surviving ... well, look, I survived pretty well, don't you agree - if only the geraniums don't kill me. What I mean is, my motivation was something much deeper than Darwin - yet, somehow, I have a hidden bond with Darwinism. Difficult to define. Definitely off-topic. Some topics should be off-topic, don't you agree - if that isn't off-topic?

Micheal,

How do you explain the Nazis displaying "On the Jews and Their Lies" during Nuremberg rallies?

And that's not the only Anti-Semitic book Luther has written, there is also "Vom Schem Hamphoras", where he equated the Jews with devil even in his second last sermon Luther appended what he called his "final warning" against the Jews.The main point of this short work is that authorities who could expel the Jews from their lands should do so if they would not convert to Christianity.

Read more about your hero and you will see how Luther has contributed greatly to the Anti-Semitic climate that Hitler exploited.

Joel said: FL, Religion tells us *why.*. Science tells us *how.* There is no necessary contradiction.

FL said:

Having said that, FL, please explain why you insist on changing the definition of “Christian” to being a person who insists on adhering to a literal interpretation of the Bible, with the exception of some of the rules in the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy?

First Stanton, sincere thanks for offering your definition of Christianity, as with D.P. Robin likewise. Second, I'm not looking to "change the definition of Christian" but I am looking for one person in particular to offer me his definition, since he opened the discussion-door for this kind of inquiry. Third, I believe your definition was:

any person who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ, and recognizes Him as his or her (spiritual) savior

Okay, okay, that's good, works good (speaking from personal experience of course), so that ain't a bad one. But now, any person who accepts the divinity of Jesus Christ is effectively accepting that Jesus is God, a.k.a. God incarnate. As such, Jesus would be in a singularly uniquely well-placed position to comment with 100 percent accuracy & authority regarding actual human origins in actual Earth history, right? So when Jesus says in Matthew 19:4-5....

4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' (directly & literally quoting from Gen. 1:27) 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? (directly & literally quoting from Gen. 2:24)

...anybody who claimed to accept Jesus's divinity (and hence authority as God) and recogize Jesus as his or her own Savior and Lord, would want to accept and believe the literal historicity of Genesis's creation-of-humans account just as 100% fully as Jesus obviously did, right? But there's the rub Stanton. If you accept and follow your divine Savior Jesus Christ like you said, and hence if you believe in a literal historically accurate Genesis WRT the origin of the first humans, like your divine Savior Jesus Christ believed in a literal historically accurate Genesis WRT the origin of the first humans, then you have rationally arrived at: ANOTHER irreconcilable clash with evolution's claims regarding origins (especially origin of humans)!! Once again, even under YOUR definition Stanton, a clear incompatibility has been established between evolution and Christianity. (Great googly woogly o' boogly!!!) And that's why it's important to sit down and talk about the definition of Christianity in this thread. Sincere thank you again for providing yours, Stanton. FL :)

Most if not all the German lutheran bishops did the heil Hitler bit. None of the Norwegian lutheran bishops did it. They suffered as a result. Church history isn't always pretty. Always, there are good men somewhere who are an example to follow.

Can we call Godwin's Law on Woody now?

BTW, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others would beg to disagree with your viewpoint.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonhoeffer

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/131892/Confessing-Church

dpr

It seems to me that scientist are undermining themselves when they allow for no opposition to their facts and dogma.

And as we all know, religious leaders NEVER make that mistake, do they?

...when there are no religious/spiritual values to serve as a mitigating factor against the excesses of state power and human behavior, things tend to get brutal and bloody very quickly.

And as we all know, such horrible things NEVER happened before atheism reared its ugly head, did they?

Philip Bruce Heywood said: Correct; but right now, Science is lagging badly on the "how" bit. Like, about 500yrs lag. And they're dead skeered o' the newest technology.

I suspect FL may be a young-earth creation chappy - my apologies if otherwise - in which case he should read Genesis 2:4&5 and apply it literally. It is the key that turns the lock.

But he is correct - there cannot by definition in this world or any other ever be a reconciliation between Common Descent Darwinism and mainstream, bible respecting religion. The reasons are self-evident.

Note, I wrote, Common Descent Darwinism. I didn't write, Evolution, meaning, in my usage, an unfolding of life over time. It is certainly possible to create a species and have it appear at a subsequent time.

Regarding the biblical script its reliability - depends on one's approach. From a purely human perspective, the Bible can be torn to shreds. Actually, PZ is reported as having literally torn out a front page, just lately. It happens every day, figuratively. You just don't prove the Bible academically. Nevertheless the 'academics' stack up very nicely. Which is scarcely comforting to the inner man.

Eric said: You make the same mistake as Gould in thinking you can arbitrarly decide what religion in general should and should not say. It's religion when someone claims that God spoke to them and told them the earth is flat and rests on turtles, even if it's a "how" claim.

Larry Boy said: You just don't see scientific morality or empirical laws discovered by revelation.

Raven insists: “What is more salient is why he [Hitler] chose to use xianity….”

.

You’re not thinking this through. Undoubtedly Hitler saw Christianity as being an “invention of the Jew,” and deceitful guy that Hitler was, perhaps he did somehow managed to use this “invention of the Jew” to promote his anti-Semitism; and you, foolishly, seem to be buying it.

But let's be real. The essence of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, his struggle, was Aryan racial purity, a survival of the fittest----his struggle to defend his “Aryan race” from the “Jewish menace.” That agenda clearly fits in much better with the Darwinian survival of the fittest thinking of that time that promoted racism and eugenics, and Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” than with the teachings of Jesus, a Jew, and/or Jesus’s initial followers, all Jews.

If Hitler actually believed in a creator, which seems unlikely at best, that creator would have been some sort of Aryan; and certainly not the creator that Jesus, a Jew, and his disciples, all Jews, believed in.

What Hitler clearly and undeniably believed in was, “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” i.e. his “Aryan race.” Hello?

In conclusion, the NOMA (like P.E.) seems to be an empirical fact of the universe, and not a philosophical position.

"The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle" -- operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat."

Science is lagging badly on the “how” bit. Like, about 500yrs lag. And they’re dead skeered o’ the newest technology.

You mean, the technology that scientists helped invent?

Calling PBH "stone-cold-stupid" would be an insult to stones. And cold things. And I really don't want to get pounced on by a stone, and it's way too hot here to be offending cold things...

So that’s why I like NOMA. It helps to REINFORCE the incompatibility between evolution and Christianity that we’ve already seen in this thread.

Actually, no, it does no such thing. In fact, it erases such incompatibility, by drawing a clear line between matters of the material Universe (like the evolution of life-forms, which science is most competent to address) and matters of spirituality and morality, which are best addressed by other fields of endeavour, such as religion, moral reasoning, literature, etc.

Besides, why would you want to reinfirce any incompatibility? You got a problem with reconciliation?

Bigbang the troll babbling incoherently: You’re not thinking this through. Undoubtedly Hitler saw Christianity as being an “invention of the Jew,” and deceitful guy that Hitler was, perhaps he did somehow managed to use this “invention of the Jew” to promote his anti-Semitism; and you, foolishly, seem to be buying it.

That agenda clearly fits in much better with the Darwinian survival of the fittest thinking of that time that promoted racism and eugenics...

As I've said a zillion times before, racism and eugenics predate both Darwin and Hitler by, oh, a few millenia or so. Ever heard of a place called Sparta? They made a movie about it, the movie starts with a thumbnail description of eugenics in the ancient world, I'm sure you would have heard the buzz. Also, are you at all aware that slavery -- historically one of the vilest manifestations of racism -- also predates Darwin by about the same amount of time?

As a Texas Science teacher I have the solution. If I have to teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution then I have to teach the strengths and weaknesses of ID. I spend 5 days or so on evidence for evolution and then I cover the evidence for ID. Sorry kids there isn't any they don't do expeiments and remember what I always say. If you can't test it it isn't science. Now for the mechanism. I spend another week or so on the mechanism of evolution. Now for the mechanism for ID. the designer did it. We don't know who , we don't know when, we don't know how!!!
Be careful what you ask for You might not like what you get.

What Hitler clearly and undeniably believed in was, “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” i.e. his “Aryan race.” Hello?

So yeah, you can believe in NOMA, but the exact price tag for doing so is that you MUST give up believing in ANY AND ALL MIRACLES in history. Otherwise you’re violating NOMA, just like Gould said. You cannot believe in God supernaturally or miraculously intervening in history, at ANY point, whether Genesis or Gospels. No joke.

Analyzing the previously unexplored religious views of the Nazi elite, Richard Steigmann-Gall argues against the consensus that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it. He demonstrates that many participants in the Nazi movement believed that the contours of their ideology were based on a Christian understanding of Germany’s ills and their cure. A program usually regarded as secular in inspiration - the creation of a racialist ‘people’s community’ embracing antisemitism, antiliberalism and anti-Marxism - was, for these Nazis, conceived in explicitly Christian terms. His examination centers on the concept of ‘positive Christianity,’ a religion espoused by many members of the party leadership. He also explores the struggle the ‘positive Christians’ waged with the party’s paganists - those who rejected Christianity in toto as foreign and corrupting - and demonstrates that this was not just a conflict over religion, but over the very meaning of Nazi ideology itself.

The discovery that so many Nazis considered themselves or their movement to be Christian makes us similarly uncomfortable. But the very unpleasantness of this fact makes it all the more important to look it squarely in the face.(p. 267)

Who said that Jesus was “the true God”, that the goal of his own movement was to “translate the ideals of Christ into deeds”; who said “we are the first to exhume these teachings through us alone, and not until now do these teachings celebrate their resurrection. Mary and Magdalene stood at the empty tomb, for they were seeking the dead man, but we intend to raise the treasures of the living Christ”. Well, you may be surprised to learn that those are the words of Adolf Hitler, quoted in an important new book that challenges the conventional wisdom that Nazism was a neo-pagan movement, and that it was hostile not just to the Christian churches, but to Christianity itself.

bigbang said: Raven insists: “What is more salient is why he [Hitler] chose to use xianity….” If Hitler actually believed in a creator, which seems unlikely at best, that creator would have been some sort of Aryan; and certainly not the creator that Jesus, a Jew, and his disciples, all Jews, believed in. What Hitler clearly and undeniably believed in was, “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” i.e. his “Aryan race.” Hello?

Hey PvM----

Although neo-Darwinism and the view that there is no edge to evolution via RM+NS typically engenders atheism, I know there are also neo-Darwinians, like you, that are also Christians/theists.

Although it might be a bit risky for you, would be willing to explain what, and perhaps why, as a Christian/theist, you believe is/was the creator’s role in creating the universe, and how far you believe that creation/design/intervention extends?----Just up to the BB (and beginning low entropy)? Do you believe the so-called fine tuning is a result of the creation/design/intervention? What about the beginning of life? Do you have a belief on where the line is between natural and supernatural?

As a theist you obviously believe in design, it’s just a matter of where you believe that design/creation/intervention ends and the so-called natural and undirected processes begin. And while I too don’t doubt that RM+NS can explain some things----like the mutations that result in microorganism drug resistance, and the mutations that result in human resistance to malaria----I remain unconvinced that RM+NS can explain most of the complexity of life, or human consciousness.

bigbang

As a Texas Science teacher I have the solution. If I have to teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolution then I have to teach the strengths and weaknesses of ID.

— mariqu

Wow, fine-tuning arguments...what's next? Polonium halos? Chinese charactures showing 8 mouths and an ark?

PvM said: What is so ironic is that the more these creationists repeat the fallacious claims about Nazism and Darwinism, the more they expose their own faith to scrutiny, and expose a time in Christian history where anti-semitism ruled.

Raven says: “It isn’t like the bible isn’t full of ethnic cleansing, mass murder, war, and genocide . . . These subjects take up most of the Old Testament.”

.

Yeah, those ancients could be a brutal bunch. Seems to be something inherent in us humans that throughout our history has often driven us to such brutal behavior.

But then things evolved, or unrolled as it were, as things always do, and Jesus taught a better way, a New Testament----love your neighbor, the golden rule, etc. And as I’ve noted b/f, it’s such religious/spiritual values that serve as a mitigating factor against the excesses of state power and human behavior.

Raven’s militant anti-theism apparently blinds him to the reality that if Hitler actually believed in a creator, it was nothing more than some sort of convenient uber-Aryan; and certainly not the creator that Jesus, a Jew, and his Jewish disciples believed in and taught.

What Hitler clearly and undeniably believed in was, “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” i.e. the preservation of his “Aryan race,” clearly far more a Darwinian concept than anything Jesus ever taught.

Yep bigbang, what Jesus taught was way better than the old testament(Although I don't think his teaching is superior than many other philosophies of that time).

Sadly you don't seem to have learned much from it.

And again you conveniently ignored the points I and others made above. I think we have to stop feeding you now, adios.

bigbang said: Hey PvM---- Although neo-Darwinism and the view that there is no edge to evolution via RM+NS typically engenders atheism, I know there are also neo-Darwinians, like you, that are also Christians/theists.

Although it might be a bit risky for you, would be willing to explain what, and perhaps why, as a Christian/theist, you believe is/was the creator’s role in creating the universe, and how far you believe that creation/design/intervention extends?----Just up to the BB (and beginning low entropy)? Do you believe the so-called fine tuning is a result of the creation/design/intervention? What about the beginning of life? Do you have a belief on where the line is between natural and supernatural?

As a theist you obviously believe in design, it’s just a matter of where you believe that design/creation/intervention ends and the so-called natural and undirected processes begin. And while I too don’t doubt that RM+NS can explain some things----like the mutations that result in microorganism drug resistance, and the mutations that result in human resistance to malaria----I remain unconvinced that RM+NS can explain most of the complexity of life, or human consciousness.

What Hitler clearly and undeniably believed in was, “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” i.e. the preservation of his “Aryan race,” clearly far more a Darwinian concept than anything Jesus ever taught.

— bigbang

bigbang lied: What Hitler clearly and undeniably believed in was, “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” i.e. the preservation of his “Aryan race,” clearly far more a Darwinian concept than anything Jesus ever taught.

bigbang said: As a theist you obviously believe in design, it’s just a matter of where you believe that design/creation/intervention ends and the so-called natural and undirected processes begin. bigbang

Definition of a xian? What kind, the cognitive, thinking kind that is not threatened by observations of the natural world, or the kind that has no problem believing Gawed put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith?

I would imagine a great deal of the readership of PT may belong to the former, so I'll define the latter, if you don't mind. The perfect specimen would be my high school biology teacher.

My junior year of high school, 1978, found me taking the bilogy course offered by the school. In Kansas. The superintendant of this school was one of the Kansas BOE brainiacs that later introduced ID into Kansas science curriculum.

The course lasted both semesters of the year. Out of that entire school year, one 45 minute session was devoted to evolution. Or rather, it was devoted to "disproving" evolution. You see, nobody believed in the idea anymore - it was a dead theory. By proof, this learned scholar described a prank pulled by some very enterprising boys (whom I would imagine belonged to the same Jesus camp he went to). Seems they'd taken some goat bones, bathed them in some type of acid, then buried the bones. Then they dug them up and had them carbon dated - sure enough, carbon dating supposedly revealed the bones to be thousands of years old. Thus, any fossil evidence was equally false. Class dismissed.

Thing is, my father was also a biology teacher. The subject fascinated me then as much as it does now. I would spend my evenings helping my father grade his papers. My father taught true science - he taught evolution to his classes based upon the knowledge at the time. And he taught me.

All I remember from that bilogy class was feeling both cheated and humiliated. Cheated, because the teacher having disqualified himself before my eyes had in my mind disqualified all he'd taught. And humiliated, for having someone assume that because I was a child, I was naturally ignorant enough to be spoon-fed that intellectual rot.

Thinking about it now, it makes me just as angry today as it did then.

Xians, do your own thing on your own time. Like the bumper sticker says - I'll stay out of your church if you stay out of my classroom.

Yes, so mad I can't even spell straight.....

It has been explained to you, no less than three times, that the word “races” as used in the title does not mean what you so desperately want it to mean.

Definition of a xian? What kind, the cognitive, thinking kind that is not threatened by observations of the natural world, or the kind that has no problem believing Gawed put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith?

If you must insist on trying to use Darwinian as an insult and continue to some how assert that explicit racism is a Darwinian concept you might want to actually read the Origin of Species. Specifically the part where Charles quite clearly and explicitly denounces using the theory of natural selection to decide on the worth of individuals and other kinds of ethical decisions. It's right in the text some 70+ years before the Nazi's rise to power Darwin says it is a morally repugnant idea. You might demonstrate a complete inability to grasp logic bigbang, however even by the limited "rules" of quote mining your assertions are defeated by Charles' own words. The entire eugenics movement is clearly and demonstrably anti-Darwinian.

I noticed earlier that there was a post of mine that seems to have mistakenly been posted with FL's initials. I'm not sure how that happened, but I do apologize if the mistake was mine.

PvM says: “As a Christian and scientist I have no problems accepting that natural processes of regularity and chance are sufficient to explain the origin and evolution of the universe and life on earth while also believing in a Christian God who set it all in motion…. . I see no reason to limit God’s abilities that He actually has to intervene in His evolving Creation.”

.

Thanks for responding. Your God sounds closer to an indifferent, non-intervening creator of deism rather than the intervening creator of theism/Christianity. Still, it seems that you believe in a first cause creator that caused the so-called “fine tuned” universe that we see today, a universe having the universal physical constants required to make this particular universe and life a possibility, but that the beginning of life and the evolution of life was/is a random, undirected process.

Would it be fair to say that you believe that God caused (designed) the universe and the universal constants that we see today and that reulted in the beginning and evolution of life, although the beginning and evolution of life itself was random/undirected? Or do you view the universal constants themselves as also being the result of some sort of random, undirected process . . . IOW God does little more than play dice?

bigbang said: PvM says: “As a Christian and scientist I have no problems accepting that natural processes of regularity and chance are sufficient to explain the origin and evolution of the universe and life on earth while also believing in a Christian God who set it all in motion…. . I see no reason to limit God’s abilities that He actually has to intervene in His evolving Creation.” . Thanks for responding. Your God sounds closer to an indifferent, non-intervening creator of deism rather than the intervening creator of theism/Christianity. Still, it seems

that you believe in a first cause creator that caused the so-called “fine tuned” universe that we see today, a universe having the universal physical constants required to make this particular universe and life a possibility, but that the beginning of life and the evolution of life was/is a random, undirected process.

Would it be fair to say that you believe that God caused (designed) the universe and the universal constants that we see today and that reulted in the beginning and evolution of life, although the beginning and evolution of life itself was random/undirected? Or do you view the universal constants themselves as also being the result of some sort of random, undirected process . . . IOW God does little more than play dice?

Don't you damn heathen morons get it? It isn't about what the evidence actually indicates, it is about how we interpret the evidence. In bigbang's head only two real museums exist in the country, AiG's and Carl Baugh's.

Phantomreader42 says: “It has been explained to you, no less than three times, that the word “races” as used in the title does not mean what you so desperately want it to mean.”

.

According to talkorigins.org, Darwin’s “favored races” refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. Hmmm, OK, let me check . . . yep, sure enough, within the human species there are various races, although some today would argue that race is merely a social construct. Hell, there are even some religious folk that maintain that we humans are somehow unique, that human life has some sort of inherent value, meaning, and purpose. Go figure.

But Hitler, along with the Darwinian survival of the fittest proponents of that time that promoted racism and eugenics, believed what they believed, and it had little to do with Jesus’s teachings or the sanctity of life, and had everything to do with the Darwinian thinking of that day that promoted racism and eugenics. Clearly and undeniably, Hitler’s Mein Kampf was his and the Nazi’s struggle to maintain the racial purity of his “Aryan race” (or the Aryan variation if you prefer), to rid themselves of the Jewish and various other races (or variations if you prefer) that they perceived as being unfit---their attempt at the “Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

If I were a believer in one god, I'd probably be more comfortable with a god who got it all right the first time, rather than one who has to keep inserting quick-fixes. But if I believed in lots of gods, I think I'd be more entertained watching them fucking and fighting and conniving against one another, occasionally having affairs with mortals, and letting reality as we know it suffer the slings and arrows of not-so-benign indifference (that is, suffer the side-effects of the gods' entertainments and battles, whimsies and vengeances).

And if I did believe in one god who had to keep correcting his errors and oversights, I'd prefer one who was upfront about it, and not trying to sneak stuff in when nobody was looking, requiring us to locate it by means of invalid statistics and illogical arguments.

bigbang said: Phantomreader42 says: “It has been explained to you, no less than three times, that the word “races” as used in the title does not mean what you so desperately want it to mean.” . According to talkorigins.org, Darwin’s “favored races” refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. Hmmm, OK, let me check . . . yep, sure enough,

within the human species there are various races, although some today would argue that race is merely a social construct. Hell, there are even some religious folk that maintain that we humans are somehow unique, that human life has some sort of inherent value, meaning, and purpose. Go figure.

But Hitler, along with the Darwinian survival of the fittest proponents of that time that promoted racism and eugenics, believed what they believed, and it had little to do with Jesus’s teachings or the sanctity of life, and had everything to do with the Darwinian thinking of that day that promoted racism and eugenics. Clearly and undeniably, Hitler’s Mein

Kampf was his and the Nazi’s struggle to maintain the racial purity of his “Aryan race” (or the Aryan variation if you prefer), to rid themselves of the Jewish and various other races (or variations if you prefer) that they perceived as being unfit---their attempt at the “Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

PvM says to bigbang, “You are wrong.”

.

Thanks again, PvM. So then you don’t believe in a first cause creator.

Rather, as you noted previously, you do believe that natural processes of regularity and chance are sufficient to explain the origin and evolution of the universe and of life; but you also believe in a Christian God that doesn’t intervene, and that “set it all in motion,” although it’s not clear what you mean when you say that you believe God “set in all in motion”----what exactly do you believe God set in motion, your so-called natural process of regularity and chance? And since you don’t believe in a first cause creator how exactly did your God manage to “set it all in motion?” (And does such a God have any more meaning or purpose than say a teddy bear?)

bigbang,

You believe in an intervening God who is controlling the details? Your God isn't doing a very good job or isn't very powerful or isn't very loving. Doesn't sound like your God is the god of Jesus.

rog

bigbang said: PvM says to bigbang, “You are wrong.” . Thanks again, PvM. So then you don’t believe in a first cause creator.

Rather, as you noted previously, you do believe that natural processes of regularity and chance are sufficient to explain the origin and evolution of the universe and of life; but you also believe in a Christian God that doesn’t intervene, and that “set it all in motion,” although it’s not clear what you mean when you say that you believe God “set in all in motion”----what exactly do you believe God set in motion, your so-called natural process of regularity and chance? And since you don’t believe in a first cause creator how exactly did your God manage to “set it all in motion?” (And does such a God have any more meaning or purpose than say a teddy bear?)

Why are we even trying to feed the troll? it is obvious that bigbang(bigot) won't listen to us or try to understand any points we made.

As PVM points out, the struggle of the "Aryan" race in Hitler's eye is the fight between good and evil. Read any Nazi literature and you will see that the theyexplicitly said that while other races were created by God(The Aryan Christ, thus white people is to be the master race) the Jews were corrupted by Satan.

They didn't say that the Jews are less evolved, they said the jews come from the devil! Get it?

Go read this children's book by Julius Streicher, the prominent Nazi propagandist

Here are some excerpts just in case you are too lazy

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

At the creation of the world
The Lord God conceived the races:
Red Indians, Negroes, and Chinese,
And Jew-boys, too, the rotten crew.
And we were also on the scene:
We Germans midst this motley medley-
He gave them all a piece of earth
To work with the sweat of their brow.
But the Jew-boy went on strike at once!
For the devil rode him from the first.
Cheating, not working, was his aim;
For lying, he got first prize
In less than no time from the Father of Lies.
Then he wrote it in the Talmud.

From the start the Jew has been
A murderer, said Jesus Christ.
And as Our Lord died on the cross
God the Father knew no other race
To torment His Son to death,
He chose the Jews for this.
That is why the Jews now claim
To be His special proteges.
When Christ the burden of the cross
Too heavy found, He sought to rest
One moment ‘gainst a door.
But from the house a Jew came out
Cursed Him and upbraided Him,
Telling Him to move on further.

And I already told you, even Jesus himself seems racist at times and racial superiority has been here long before Darwin. What book do you think they use to justify slavery?

We can't call Godwin on this thread as that happened days ago.

So I'm calling Freud on bigbang. Y'all are dealing with someone who is mentally unbalanced.

This is common among crackpots in general and so called evolution critics in particular.

What Hitler clearly and undeniably believed in was, “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” i.e. the preservation of his “Aryan race,” clearly far more a Darwinian concept than anything Jesus ever taught.

Why are we even trying to feed the troll? it is obvious that bigbang(bigot) won’t listen to us or try to understand any points we made

FL said: Thank you for saying this, Torbjorn. I am indeed attempting to do just that, to "take it up" with him.

Larry Boy said: I think we can be justified in saying that dogs evolved into a unicellular parasite.

Larry Boy said: First, I don't think Gould was asserting that religion cannot make a how claim, just that in his personal opinion and experience, religion was a lousy way to make how claims. I think you will agree with this unless some (other than PBH or Bigbang) can point out some scientific truths revealed by revelation. So, it is clear to me that religions *how* claims aren't worth much.

Larry Boy said: I'm sure some people have claimed that science can discover the ultimate purpose of the universe, but such claims start to look religious very quickly. In my opinion religion and morality are simply too personal for science to originate claims in these spheres, in the same way as the scientific investigation of literature is likely to be barren.

bigbang said: Just up to the BB (and beginning low entropy)? Do you believe the so-called fine tuning is a result of the creation/design/intervention?

Fixed. You missed a “/” on a “blockquote”. FWIW, I always use the preview anytime I add any formating to a post–I’m just not a good enough editor not to do so.

As for morals, I thought many biologists were comfortable with that biology describes reasons for moral behavior as well as many behaviors themselves. I don't think anyone wants to claim that science should proscribe morality.

Apparently you use a somewhat restricted sense of "why" here, not as a casual description of any causal chain. But even so, science answers the "why" question as regards purpose, namely revealing that we can describe casual chains without having to resort to "purpose" of extraneous agency and more generally that there will be no ghost in the cosmological machine.

PvM says: “You are wrong again, “ and “Since your ‘arguments’ are based on flawed premises that I do not believe in a first cause creator or that I believe in a God who does not intervene, two statements I never made . . .”

.

Regarding my so-called “arguments based on flawed premises,” I’m merely attempting to understand what you yourself believe regarding you Christian God.

So you are now indicating that you do believe in first cause, which I too believe; and you also indicate that God does (or may?) intervene (apparently after the BB), something I myself am less than certain of.

Would you be willing to explain, a bit more coherently, what you mean when you say that you believe God “set in all in motion”----what exactly do you believe God set in motion? Your so-called natural process of regularity and chance? A universe created by a first cause God that didn’t specifically cause/design the space-time universe and universal constants required for the beginning and evolution of life that we see today, but that created some sort of universe having your so-called natural process of regularity and chance that then somehow evolved into the space-time universe having the necessary universal constants required for the beginning and evolution of life that we see today?

Biggie:

Why do you care so much about one man's theology? The facts of biology and evolution are what they are; how we as individuals reconcile our spirituality -- or lack of it -- with those facts is a personal matter.

Regarding my so-called “arguments based on flawed premises,” I’m merely attempting to understand what you yourself believe regarding you Christian God.

bigbang said: Would you be willing to explain, a bit more coherently, what you mean when you say that you believe God “set in all in motion”----what exactly do you believe God set in motion? Your so-called natural process of regularity and chance? A universe created by a first cause God that didn’t specifically cause/design the space-time universe and universal constants required for the beginning and evolution of life that we see today, but that created some sort of universe having your so-called natural process of regularity and chance that then somehow evolved into the space-time universe having the necessary universal constants required for the beginning and evolution of life that we see today?

FL said:

Regarding my so-called “arguments based on flawed premises,” I’m merely attempting to understand what you yourself believe regarding you Christian God.

I hear you. And as for me, I'm still sincerely asking PvM for a specific definition of what he means by the term "Christian."

We've already seen that the inquiry is directly relevant to statements made in the opening post, and that it does have very serious bearing on the overall question of compability.

Obviouly not trying to push it too much, but the question will not go away, can't be ducked. Likewise, your inquiry (quoted above) can't be ducked either. FL

I consider the term Christian to apply to anyone who claims that he/she is a Christian.

PvM says: "Let’s move back to the Big Bang, which, by virtue of the Planck Time constant separates us from what happened. From the Theological and scientific perspective, God can be ‘hidden’ in this permanent gap of ignorance. A universe which was ‘set in motion’ followed by processes of regularity and chance would satisfy both the scientific fact and the theological needs. The concept of mulitverses opens up the possibility that evolution was not limited to life but also to the universes themselves."

.

Thanks again, PvM. Appreciate your time and explanation. I see now what you’re saying----

You believe in some sort of “Christian God” that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance.”

You also believe in a universe which was ‘set in motion’ followed by processes of regularity and chance that would, conveniently, satisfy both the scientific fact and the theological needs; and that the concept of multiverses would meet those needs, plus open up the possibility of evolving universes. (Although, in reality, an infinite, eternal universe/muliverse would make a creator/god utterly unnecessary.)

Additionally, you consider the term “Christian” to apply to anyone that “claims” that he/she is a Christian . . . making it an essentially empty term, but I digress.

.

In a previous post you said: “God, like a Teddy Bear can provide much comfort to the afflicted, support to children and provide a sense of relevance and security. There is nothing wrong with teddy bears.”

.

Such a sentiment suggests that your so-called belief in a “Christian God” is probably little more than lip service; or, at best, a meaningless and nonsensical belief in a, using your terms, ‘permanently hidden,’ cosmic teddy bear. Hard to believe that a blind faith in such nonsense would provide support and a sense or relevance to someone claiming to be a scientist.

In Stein’s Expelled, Dawkins said something to the effect that while there are some Darwinians that will tell you that you can believe the Darwinian view that all of life is a result of evolution by RM+NS and also believe in God, they are not being honest----I’m inclined to agree Dawkins on that point.

FL said:

I consider the term Christian to apply to anyone who claims that he/she is a Christian.

I understand that you don't want to "cast the first stone", and that's a consideration, but I have to say with all sincerity, that you totally avoided giving any actual definition of the term "Christian".

I appreciate the answer you've given and I am willing to leave it at that, but I will briefly point out that D.P. Robin and Stanton were willing to offer a specific definition of the term "Christian", and I don't think they were being judgmental or "stone-casting" in the least.

I think they helped bring additional opportunity for clarity and dialog, by offering their sincere definition. FL

bigbang said: PvM says: "Let’s move back to the Big Bang, which, by virtue of the Planck Time constant separates us from what happened. From the Theological and scientific perspective, God can be ‘hidden’ in this permanent gap of ignorance. A universe which was ‘set in motion’ followed by processes of regularity and chance would satisfy both the scientific fact and the theological needs. The concept of mulitverses opens up the possibility that evolution was not limited to life but also to the universes themselves." . Thanks again, PvM. Appreciate your time and explanation. I see now what you’re saying---- You believe in some sort of “Christian God” that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance.”

You also believe in a universe which was ‘set in motion’ followed by processes of regularity and chance that would, conveniently, satisfy both the scientific fact and the theological needs; and that the concept of multiverses would meet those needs, plus open up the possibility of evolving universes. (Although, in reality, an infinite, eternal universe/muliverse would make a creator/god utterly unnecessary.)

Additionally, you consider the term “Christian” to apply to anyone that “claims” that he/she is a Christian . . . making it an essentially empty term, but I digress.

In a previous post you said: “God, like a Teddy Bear can provide much comfort to the afflicted, support to children and provide a sense of relevance and security. There is nothing wrong with teddy bears.” . Such a sentiment suggests that your so-called belief in a “Christian God” is probably little more than lip service; or, at best, a meaningless and nonsensical belief in a, using your terms, ‘permanently hidden,’ cosmic teddy bear. Hard to believe that a blind faith in such nonsense would provide support and a sense or relevance to someone claiming to be a scientist.

In Stein’s Expelled, Dawkins said something to the effect that while there are some Darwinians that will tell you that you can believe the Darwinian view that all of life is a result of evolution by RM+NS and also believe in God, they are not being honest----I’m inclined to agree Dawkins on that point.

In other words, FL is still waiting for an opportunity to present his own definition (re: "official definition") of "Christian," which is "any person who accepts Our Lord, Jesus Christ, as his or her savior, ONLY on the condition that every single word in the King James' translation of the Book of Genesis is 100% true, irregardless of any contrary evidence from reality (which is either fallacious and or diabolical), and that anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, heretic or apostate."

Stanton said: In other words, FL is still waiting for an opportunity to present his own definition (re: "official definition") of "Christian," which is "any person who accepts Our Lord, Jesus Christ, as his or her savior, ONLY on the condition that every single word in the King James' translation of the Book of Genesis is 100% true, irregardless of any contrary evidence from reality (which is either fallacious and or diabolical), and that anyone who says otherwise is either a fool, heretic or apostate."

Philip Bruce Heywood said: there cannot by definition in this world or any other ever be a reconciliation between Common Descent Darwinism and mainstream, bible respecting religion.

PvM said: Surely you jest?

PvM ponders: "In other words, you are calling me dishonest?"

.

One of the few things that Dawkins and I would agree on.

Let me reiterate: As Dawkins has observed, those that hold the Darwinian view that all of life is a result of evolution by RM+NS and also claim that they are theists, and/or that one can hold that Darwinian view and also maintain a belief in God, are not being honest.

And the Darwinians here that have at least a modicum of intellectual honesty, the acknowledged atheists, like Dawkins, along with the vast majority of knowledgeable, credentialed neo-Darwinians, know that that is the reality . . . which explains why the vast majority of them are atheists. Hello?

bigbang said: You believe in some sort of “Christian God” that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance.”

From what I have seen of FL, bigbang, Keith Eaton, Philip Bruce Heywood, and some of the other fundamentalist posters, I would not classify them as Christians in any sense of that word. They are the type of people who make a mockery of religion of any type, be it the Christian religion, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever.

These examples strike me as the kinds of people who use the label "Christian" as a cover for sectarian attitudes of a much darker nature, including the subjugation of anyone whom they can intimidate using dogmas threatening eternal damnation. There is no evidence of openness to the wonders of the universe that science has uncovered and continues to uncover. Everything appears to be approached through the eyes of people who see curiosity and wonder as a threat, and who are terrified of what the god of a real universe might have done that does not agree with their sectarian dogma.

By contrast, PvM strikes me as a sincere Christian who is acutely aware of what we know and what may forever elude us, but who trusts nevertheless. The trolls he so patiently endures can never be in his league, and none of them know the mind of any deity.

Just my two cents.

Kudos to you and your patience PVM, in my mind you are a Christian I can respect :)

fnxtr said: Biggie: Why do you care so much about one man's theology? The facts of biology and evolution are what they are; how we as individuals reconcile our spirituality -- or lack of it -- with those facts is a personal matter.

bigbang said: PvM ponders: "In other words, you are calling me dishonest?" . One of the few things that Dawkins and I would agree on. Let me reiterate: As Dawkins has observed, those that hold the Darwinian view that all of life is a result of evolution by RM+NS and also claim that they are theists, and/or that one can hold that Darwinian view and also maintain a belief in God, are not being honest. And the Darwinians here that have at least a modicum of intellectual honesty, the acknowledged atheists, like Dawkins, along with the vast majority of knowledgeable, credentialed neo-Darwinians, know that that is the reality . . . which explains why the vast majority of them are atheists. Hello?

Draconiz said: Kudos to you and your patience PVM, in my mind you are a Christian I can respect :)

Eric said: Or, to misquote the bard, both of their arguments are tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. :)

Hard to believe that a blind faith in such nonsense would provide support and a sense or relevance to someone claiming to be a scientist.

Actually, Stanton, I DID previously comment in a positive, agreement-based manner on **your** definition of "Christian."

I'm sorry you apparently failed to see it. Or, if you saw it, I'm sorry you didn't allow it toinfluence the tone of your most recent post.

I was quite sincere about my level of agreement with your definition, and equally sincere about my explanation of how your definition (which I agreed with) rationally entailed an incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.

I leave it readers and lurkers to (at their own convenience and interest) to review what was said. There is no need for me to comment on your most recent post about me. Thanks for your sincere definition previously given of the term "Christian."

FL

FL said:...my explanation of how your definition (which I agreed with) rationally entailed an incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. ...

Eric said: This is a silly, stupid exercise. Sectarian arguments basically amount to a claim that your (group's) divine revelation trumps their (group's) divine revelation. [...]

FL said: Actually, Stanton, I DID previously comment in a positive, agreement-based manner on **your** definition of "Christian." I'm sorry you apparently failed to see it. Or, if you saw it, I'm sorry you didn't allow it toinfluence the tone of your most recent post. I was quite sincere about my level of agreement with your definition, and equally sincere about my explanation of how your definition (which I agreed with) rationally entailed an incompatibility between evolution and Christianity. I leave it readers and lurkers to (at their own convenience and interest) to review what was said. There is no need for me to comment on your most recent post about me. Thanks for your sincere definition previously given of the term "Christian." FL

Eric Finn said: On the other hand, those kind of conversation at Panda's Thumb do make the most number of the posted comments.

Maybe, it is possible that there are people (not all of them professional trolls) that are genuinely interested to hear what people active in science might have to say?

Eric said:

Eric Finn said: Maybe, it is possible that there are people (not all of them professional trolls) that are genuinely interested to hear what people active in science might have to say?

Absolutely. I totally agree. Discussing and arguing how specific beliefs - Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever - may be consistent/not consistent with science is very relevant to PT. I'd expect lurkers on this page to come to discuss stuff like that. However, "what defines a Christian," is not such a question. [...]

I have to wonder about the thinking those who proclaim an incompatibility between their version of Christianity and acceptance of evolution and related science - have they given thought to the likely result of that claim if it were to actually convince a significant number of people?

A person convinced of that incompatibility would have to make a choice. Some of them would choose one way, and some of them would choose the other. Those that choose religion over science would have been religious anyway, so no gain to the religion. Those that choose science over religion due to influence of this argument will have then been driven away from religion - not by the science itself, but by the arguments of those who are purportedly defending their religion.

Henry

PvM continues to query: “So in other words, you believe that Dawkins is right . . .”

.

Yes, yes, yes. Dawkins is undoubtedly right when he says that those that hold the Darwinian view that all of life is a result of evolution by RM+NS and also claim that they are theists----and/or claim that one can hold that Darwinian view and also maintain a belief in God----are being dishonest; and the vast majority of knowledgeable, credentialed neo-Darwinians acknowledge their own atheism and would agree with Dawkins’s assessment.

And BTW, science (especially physics/cosmology) certainly has not shown that a creator is unnecessary; in fact, BB cosmology and the beginning inexplicably low entropy, not to mention the fine-tuned aspects, imply first cause. It’s only neo-Darwinism----as virtually any credentialed, knowledgeable neo-Darwinian, that also willing acknowledges the atheism that his belief in neo-Darwinism inevitably engenders, will tell you----that finds a creator unnecessary.

The unavoidable conclusion is that, as a Darwinian with the kind of confidence that PvM has in RM+NS, his so-called belief in a “Christian God” (or any God for that matter) is less than honest, or possibly delusional. I find PvM’s dishonesty and/or delusion roughly comparable to that of the typical YEC. (And I suspect that many honest-to-god neo-Darwinian hard-core atheists here might agree, although most probably lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that since PvM is still perceived as an ally of sorts.)

I don't get this question about whether a Creator is necessary or not. Such an entity already either exists or doesn't, irrespective of our thoughts on the matter. If He/She/It exists, accepting evolution won't negate the fact, if not, rejecting evolution won't change that.

Looking at the question another way, saying that theism and evolution are incompatible seems to me to be like saying a Creator couldn't make use of evolution as a process even if He/She/It wanted to. That to me seems to be in contradiction to the very notion of theism.

Henry

bigbang said: PvM continues to query: “So in other words, you believe that Dawkins is right . . .” . Yes, yes, yes. Dawkins is undoubtedly right when he says that those that hold the Darwinian view that all of life is a result of evolution by RM+NS and also claim that they are theists----and/or claim that one can hold that Darwinian view and also maintain a belief in God----are being dishonest; and the vast majority of knowledgeable, credentialed neo-Darwinians acknowledge their own atheism and would agree with Dawkins’s assessment.

And BTW, science (especially physics/cosmology) certainly has not shown that a creator is unnecessary; in fact, BB cosmology and the beginning inexplicably low entropy, not to mention the fine-tuned aspects, imply first cause. It’s only neo-Darwinism----as virtually any credentialed, knowledgeable neo-Darwinian, that also willing acknowledges the atheism that his belief in neo-Darwinism inevitably engenders, will tell you----that finds a creator unnecessary. The unavoidable conclusion is that, as a Darwinian with the kind of confidence that PvM has in RM+NS, his so-called belief in a “Christian God” (or any God for that matter) is less than honest, or possibly delusional. I find PvM’s dishonesty and/or delusion roughly comparable to that of the typical YEC. (And I suspect that many honest-to-god neo-Darwinian hard-core atheists here might agree, although most probably lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that since PvM is still perceived as an ally of sorts.)

Henry J said: I don't get this question about whether a Creator is necessary or not. Such an entity already either exists or doesn't, irrespective of our thoughts on the matter. If He/She/It exists, accepting evolution won't negate the fact, if not, rejecting evolution won't change that. Looking at the question another way, saying that theism and evolution are incompatible seems to me to be like saying a Creator couldn't make use of evolution as a process even if He/She/It wanted to. That to me seems to be in contradiction to the very notion of theism. Henry

bigbang said: Dawkins is undoubtedly right when he says that those that hold the Darwinian view that all of life is a result of evolution by RM+NS and also claim that they are theists----and/or claim that one can hold that Darwinian view and also maintain a belief in God----are being dishonest...

in fact, BB cosmology and the beginning inexplicably low entropy, not to mention the fine-tuned aspects, imply first cause.

bigbang said: Dawkins is undoubtedly right when he says that those that hold the Darwinian view that all of life is a result of evolution by RM+NS and also claim that they are theists—-and/or claim that one can hold that Darwinian view and also maintain a belief in God—-are being dishonest…

PvM prays: “sigh, Lord please have mercy for they don’t know what they are doing…"

.

And so now PvM prays to his Lord, his Christian God that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” in a universe that was “set in motion followed by processes of regularity and chance” to nevertheless intervene and have mercy on those that that PvM has determined don’t know what they are doing.

Hey PvM, let us know how and when your Lord intervenes.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins---a real, credentialed Darwinian with a bit more intellectual honesty and rigor on this particular issue than PvM is employing----explains why Darwinism and the Darwinian understanding of science has determined that a supernatural creator almost certainly doesn’t exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion.

Perhaps the Darwinians and acknowledged atheists here should attempt an intervention of sorts to deliver PvM from his delusion; or perhaps just request a bit more intellectual honesty and consistency from PvM regarding this issue. But they won’t of course b/c, as is rather obvious, regardless of what PvM may or may not actually believe in his own mind, his claimed belief in God, as it were, has no clothes; PvM is an ally of sorts and the only thing he uses his so-called belief in God for is to attack those that he sees as threat to his (and I suppose PT’s) Darwinian worldview, those that he determines “don’t know what they are doing.”

Larry Boy said: We are, though I think we should take evolutionary descriptions of the origin of particular behaviors with a grain of salt (this is true of any empirical claim, so I am being unfair to ethologist here).

Larry Boy said: It is clear to me that emotion and morality have evolutionary origins, but Gould points out that we should not conclude that all emotional or moral behavior has adoptive [sic!] value. It is quite possible for the majority of our moral behavior to be an un-important side consequence of some long forgotten selective pressure.

Larry Boy said: Just to nit-pick, I don't think science reveals that "there will be no ghost in the cosmological machine." Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all.

Religious affiliation is your hobby horse, Biggie. As long as his work stands up to peer review, no-one really gives a rat's *** what God, if any, PvM prays to.

Grow up.

PvM said: Let’s move back to the Big Bang, which, by virtue of the Planck Time constant separates us from what happened.

One of the people in the audience was Chris Lintott, who wrote up a description for the BBC. Admittedly, this is difficult stuff to get all straight the very first time, but I think his article gives the impression that there is a much more direct connection between my arrow-of-time work and our recent paper on the lopsided universe. In particular, there is no necessary connection between the existence of a supermode and the idea that our universe “bubbled off” from a pre-existing spacetime. (There might be a connection, but it is not a necessary one.) If you look through the paper, there’s nothing in there about entropy or the multiverse or any of that; we’re really motivated by trying to explain an interesting feature of the CMB data. Nevertheless, our proposed solution does hint at things that happened before the period of inflation that set up the conditions within our observable patch. These two pieces of research are not of a piece, but they both play a part in a larger story — attempting to understand the low entropy of the early universe suggests the need for something that came before, and it’s good to be reminded that we don’t yet know whether stuff that came before might have left some observable imprint on what we see around us today. Larger stories are what we’re all about.

PvM said: A universe which was 'set in motion' followed by processes of regularity and chance would satisfy [...] the scientific fact.

PvM said: The concept of mulitverses opens up the possibility that evolution was not limited to life but also to the universes themselves.

Okay, I browsed the remaining thread, skirting bigbang's inanities, and I have to add that I admire PvM's patience.

Oh, and I be very suspicious about what a creationist says on Dawkins, Darwin, et cetera. Let him present a reference.

bigbang wrote: In The God Delusion, Dawkins---a real, credentialed Darwinian with a bit more intellectual honesty and rigor on this particular issue than PvM is employing----explains why Darwinism and the Darwinian understanding of science has determined that a supernatural creator almost certainly doesn’t exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion.

bigbang wrote: Perhaps the Darwinians and acknowledged atheists here should attempt an intervention of sorts to deliver PvM from his delusion; or perhaps just request a bit more intellectual honesty and consistency from PvM regarding this issue. ...

bigbang wrote: ... But they won’t of course b/c, as is rather obvious, regardless of what PvM may or may not actually believe in his own mind, his claimed belief in God, as it were, has no clothes; PvM is an ally of sorts and the only thing he uses his so-called belief in God for is to attack those that he sees as threat to his (and I suppose PT’s) Darwinian worldview, those that he determines “don’t know what they are doing.”

Raven says: “Dawkins speaks for himself….”

.

Glad to see raven is still following my posts, although his ad hominem abuses are inappropriate, not to mention childish and fallacious.

Still, I agree that Dawkins and neo-Darwinians speak for themselves----The fact neo-Darwinism typically engenders atheism, and that the vast majority of Darwinians are atheists, and frequently anti-theists, does indeed speak for itself.

And yeah, Dawkins said what he said; but to be sure, raven and others here should see the Expelled flick for themselves---Dawkins and the other neo-Darwinians in the flick were actually quite entertaining, although deadpan Stein was, I suppose, a bit devious when he tricked Dawkins into saying what he said regarding space aliens possibly starting life here on earth.

bigbang said: Raven says: “Dawkins speaks for himself….” . Glad to see raven is still following my posts, although his ad hominem abuses are inappropriate, not to mention childish and fallacious.

Still, I agree that Dawkins and neo-Darwinians speak for themselves----The fact neo-Darwinism typically engenders atheism, and that the vast majority of Darwinians are atheists, and frequently anti-theists, does indeed speak for itself.

And yeah, Dawkins said what he said; but to be sure, raven and others here should see the Expelled flick for themselves---Dawkins and the other neo-Darwinians in the flick were actually quite entertaining, although deadpan Stein was, I suppose, a bit devious when he tricked Dawkins into saying what he said regarding space aliens possibly starting life here on earth.

"Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator." Romans 1:22-25

It seems that all BigBang can do is make assertions and insist they are true and self evident without offering even the slightest bit of evidence in support of them. Not only that but he tries to get himself off the hook for one failed assertion by changing the subject with another fallacious assertion. The only thing I can say, BB, is that Pim is right, you do make Christianity look foolish, at least your particular version of it. You are a masterful troll BB, but I am afraid I can't suffer you any more.

Big bang mentally self destructing: Still, I agree that Dawkins and neo-Darwinians speak for themselves—-The fact neo-Darwinism typically engenders atheism, and that the vast majority of Darwinians are atheists, and frequently anti-theists, does indeed speak for itself.

The only thing I can say, BB, is that Pim is right, you do make Christianity look foolish, at least your particular version of it.

Let me reiterate: As Dawkins has observed, those that hold the Darwinian view that all of life is a result of evolution by RM+NS and also claim that they are theists, and/or that one can hold that Darwinian view and also maintain a belief in God, are not being honest.

As long as you're "reiterating," why don't you make a little extra effort and EXPLAIN why this is dishonest. Why is it not possible, for example, to honestly believe that the evolution we observe is a process that the Creator is allowing to take its course?

Or are you just another moronic simpleton who thinks that every idea he can't fit into his worldview is "dishonest?"

And a creationist using an atheistic scientist as an authority? That's a classic example of opposite extremes ganging up on the center. Talk about "dishonest"...

Mike Elzinga wrote:

I suspect it is because these sectarians are totally incapable of grasping the big picture. They are far too preoccupied with their nagging gonads and their tiny, guilt-producing thoughts to notice anything else that is going on in the universe.

I have to wonder about the thinking those who proclaim an incompatibility between their version of Christianity and acceptance of evolution and related science - have they given thought to the likely result of that claim if it were to actually convince a significant number of people?

A person convinced of that incompatibility would have to make a choice. Some of them would choose one way, and some of them would choose the other.

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

....(A) central tenet of Christian theology: Human beings were designed and created in the image of God. Darwinism denies this. Jonathan Wells, Yale Daily News, Jan. 2007

"Evolution and the brain"------ With all deference to the sensibilities of religious people, the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside. --Nature, June 2007

Looking at the question another way, saying that theism and evolution are incompatible seems to me to be like saying a Creator couldn’t make use of evolution as a process even if He/She/It wanted to.

FL said: ...Even if you arbitrarily declare all of Genesis to be non-historical, the irreconcilable clash remains clearly visible. A person claiming to be a Christian, would threefore have a serious unavoidable rational choice to make, between evolution and Christianity.

Evolutionary theory: NON-TELEOLOGICAL at ALL points of the evolutionary process, including the point where humans are originated in actual Earth history. Christianity: CHOCK-FULL of TELEOLOGY from Genesis to Revelation, especially at the point where humans are originated in actual Earth history. Even if you arbitrarily declare all of Genesis to be non-historical, the irreconcilable clash remains clearly visible. A person claiming to be a Christian, would threefore have a serious unavoidable rational choice to make, between evolution and Christianity.

So, then, if my claim that you define “Christian” as being “a person who accepts the divinity of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, only on the condition that every single word of the Book of Genesis is true, or else” is fallacious, then, please tell me why you make statements like this?

I hope that is clear by now. But if you claim to be a Christian (under the original definition that you yourself provided for me), I ALSO would call upon you to please tell me how those clear, specific, supported, sincere, and detailed areas of clash and irreconciliation between evolution and Christianity, can actually be rationally reconciled.

evolutionary theory is hardly non-teleological,

FL said: I call for nobody's ex-communication. I hope that is clear by now.

But if you claim to be a Christian (under the original definition that you yourself provided for me), I ALSO would call upon you to please tell me how those clear, specific, supported, sincere, and detailed areas of clash and irreconciliation between evolution and Christianity, can actually be rationally reconciled.

I think that is fair enough, no? FL

PvM said: I argue that there are no clear and sincere clashes between science (evolution) and faith. False premise, false conclusions.

But if you claim to be a Christian (under the original definition that you yourself provided for me), I ALSO would call upon you to please tell me how those clear, specific, supported, sincere, and detailed areas of clash and irreconciliation between evolution and Christianity, can actually be rationally reconciled.

That's easy:

a) The Bible is clearly not a literal document like a newspaper or science textbook.

b) The Bible is clearly not meant to be anything more or less than a guide to SPIRITUAL truth, which is not expressed in literal terms. Most Bible stories are clearly nothing less than allegorical/metaphorical representations of larger transcendent truths; and if you read them literally, you miss about 90% of the point they're trying to make. (This point is reinforced by my observation that the most literalistic Christians are invariably the least intelligent.)

c) The main subject matter of the Bible is Man's relationship to God. It is not meant to be a definitive source of information on any other subject. Expecting the Bible to be a source of insight on the age of the Earth is no less idiotic than expecting it to be a source of insight on current affairs in Iraq.

Any questions, FL?

FL said:

evolutionary theory is hardly non-teleological,

I dunno PvM. The evolutionary biology textbook outright direct says that evolutionary theory itself admits "NO Conscious Forethought." None. That (along with with rest of the quotation) just plain HAS to mean no teleology, not even a couple dollars worth.

Is calling someone or something Xian a way round to calling it christian with a small 'C' ? Or does Xian mean any fundamentalist ??

Romartus said: Is calling someone or something Xian a way round to calling it christian with a small 'C' ? Or does Xian mean any fundamentalist ??

Stanton said:

Romartus said: Is calling someone or something Xian a way round to calling it christian with a small 'C' ? Or does Xian mean any fundamentalist ??

"Xian" is shorthand of typing "Christian," in that the "X" in "Xian" is actually the Greek letter Chi.

How familiar are you with Mayr?

Romartus said:

Stanton said:

Romartus said: Is calling someone or something Xian a way round to calling it christian with a small 'C' ? Or does Xian mean any fundamentalist ??

"Xian" is shorthand of typing "Christian," in that the "X" in "Xian" is actually the Greek letter Chi.

Thanks for that as I wasn't quite sure why there was the constant use of 'Xian' in the blogs.

FL said:

How familiar are you with Mayr?

Oh, did I forget to mention Mayr? He said "No Teleology" too, just like Futuyma's evolutionary biology textbook does. In fact, not only did Mayr write that all seemingly teleological phenomena are explicable by purely material processes, but he even wrote in SciAm that this particular "principle" along with seven or either others, together constituted "Darwin's greatest contribution."

Any questions, FL?

I wonder how FL would deal with teleology in physics. A catenary is the curve that minimizes the potential energy of a hanging cable. Light travels a path through media that minimizes the time of travel from Point A to Point B. Water seeks the lowest level. The principle of least action. The Euler-Lagrange equations. And so on.

Modern teleological statements of scientific ideas do not necessarily imply purpose in the way that religions and ancient philosophical ideas understood purpose. Just like many other physics problems, evolutionary ideas can be expressed in teleological terms without actually implying purpose or a conscious drive to reach a particular outcome or state.

Why do I have the feeling that FL is purposefully seeking to make his sectarian views appear superior (in his own mind) by condemning the “heresies” of others? This appears to be the mind of a vicious sectarian bigot at work.

I think FL asks an excellent question. Clearly, if one can swallow one camel, there's good reason to expect one can swallow another.

FL said: And if you DO happen to believe and trust the historical claims of the New Testament as literal accurate history, (specifically Jesus's miracles that he performed, Jesus's literal death and atonement for all of our sins on the Cross, and his subsequent literal resurrection from the dead, as reported in the New Testament in which each item there is reported as a literal historical event), then exactly how is it that you can disbelieve and reject the historical claims of Genesis as literal accurate history while simultaneously believing and accepting the Gospels' historical claims as literal accurate history? FL

So you do understand that evolutionary processes can be teleological even though they may have proximate rather than final causes?

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

Perhaps the most revealing question in the poll asked the respondent to choose the letter that most closely represented where her views belonged on a ternary diagram. The great majority of the evolutionists polled (78 percent) chose A, billing themselves as pure naturalists. Only two out of 149 described themselves as full theists (F), two as more theist than naturalist (D) and three as theistic naturalists (B). Taken together, the advocacy of any degree of theism is the lowest percentage measured in any poll of biologists' beliefs so far (4.7 percent).

FL said: ...And if you DO happen to believe and trust the historical claims of the New Testament as literal accurate history... then exactly how is it that you can disbelieve and reject the historical claims of Genesis as literal accurate history... FL

FL said: Evolution honestly isn't compatible with Christianity. FL

FL said:

So you do understand that evolutionary processes can be teleological even though they may have proximate rather than final causes?

That's not what Futuyma's evolutionary biology textbook 3rd edition said. Absolutely not. What you've just suggested, that **Conscious Forethought** (presumably by God) could somehow be involved anyway as a "final cause", is exactly, specifically, what evolutionary theory DOES NOT ADMIT, according to evolutionary theory itself. Evolutionary theory does not admit (period, no exceptions given) conscious anticipation of the future.

No qualifiers, no exceptions, no wiggle-outs.

BTW, that's not what Mayr said either, in SciAm. In fact, just to MAKE SURE nobody would wiggle out of the denial of teleology, Mayr pointed out that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically.

Therefore if, as a theistic evolutionist, you even ATTEMPT to argue that "God" could be the "final" cause but undirected naturalistic evolution as currently taught is the "proximate" cause, Mayr has shot you down already, seven ways to Sunday.

See how difficult it is to rationally reconcile evolution with Christianity when you have to deal with all those non-negotiable no-compromise evolution claims that your own fellow evolutionists have already published and taught to everybody?

Just some food for thought there. Evolution honestly isn't compatible with Christianity.

First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution). Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible and the origin accounts of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any aspect of the natural world. Every aspect of the "wonderful design" so admired by the natural theologians could be explained by natural selection. (A closer look also reveals that design is often not so wonderful - see "Evolution and the Qrigins of Disease," by Randolph M. Nesse and George C. Williams; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, November 1998.) Eliminating God from science made room for strictly scientific explanations of all natural phenomena; it gave rise to positivism; it produced a powerful intellectual and spiritual revolution, the effects of which have lasted to this day.

And if you DO happen to believe and trust the historical claims of the New Testament as literal accurate history, (specifically Jesus’s miracles that he performed, Jesus’s literal death and atonement for all of our sins on the Cross, and his subsequent literal resurrection from the dead, as reported in the New Testament in which each item there is reported as a literal historical event), then exactly how is it that you can disbelieve and reject the historical claims of Genesis as literal accurate history while simultaneously believing and accepting the Gospels’ historical claims as literal accurate history?

bigbang said: Glad to see raven is still following my posts, although his ad hominem abuses are ... fallacious.

FL said: As Wells pointed out in his article, it doesn't even matter whether you believe human origins took merely one day or millions of years. People of faith from both "young earth" and "old earth" camps believe that God at least created humans in his image---and this particular claim is clearly denied by evolution.

FL said: Evolution honestly isn't compatible with Christianity.

Dan said:

FL said: Evolution honestly isn't compatible with Christianity.

FL has settled the age-old question "Is the Pope Catholic?" According to FL, the Pope isn't even Christian.

PvM provides the full Mayr quote for FL: “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause]. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer. (Although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)….”

.

Thanks for the full quote PvM. It’s now clear that you don’t believe in first cause God after all----since Mayr’s, and obviously your, Darwinism does indeed reject all supernatural phenomena and causation, which of course would include first cause; although Mayr nevertheless still allows that one (schizophrenically perhaps?) is free to believe in some sort of “God,” albeit not the first cause God that the genuine monotheistic religions believe in. Which better explains your belief in that so-called “Christian God” that you claim, and that is supposedly “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” which, let’s be honest, is a god that is about as meaningful as an invisible cosmic teddy bear.

Still, I can now see that it must take a huge amount of blind faith, probably far more faith than someone like FL has, to believe in such a thing; although, frankly, I’m afraid I’d have to agree with Dawkins and his God Delusion that such a belief would certainly qualify as a delusion, especially for a Darwinian such as yourself.

bigbangBigot, please explain why you can not accept the fact that PvM both accepts the facts of evolution and accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior?

I mean, you have failed miserably in convincing anyone of anything beyond the fact that you are a perfidious bigot whose sole purpose here on this blog is to disrupt threads.

Is this your position also?

Actually, yes, and it's the position of a lot of Christians more enlightned than either of us as well. The Bible is a guide to Man's relationship with God, not a history text. It is possible to strive towrd, and achieve, oneness with God(s) without even reading Genesis, let alone believing any of it; and it is also possible to be one with God(s) without taking every word of the New Teatament as literal historical truth. How do I know this? Because I've met, and heard of, people who radiate spirit out of every pore without getting bogged down in literalistic word-games.

And if you refuse to believe that merely because it doesn't fit your literalistic worldview, that's your loss...

bigbang said: PvM provides the full Mayr quote for FL: “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause]. The theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diversity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator or designer. (Although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution)….” . Thanks for the full quote PvM. It’s now clear that you don’t believe in first cause God after all----since Mayr’s, and obviously your, Darwinism does indeed reject all supernatural phenomena and causation, which of course would include first cause; although Mayr nevertheless still allows that one (schizophrenically perhaps?) is free to believe in some sort of “God,” albeit not the first cause God that the genuine monotheistic religions believe in.

Which better explains your belief in that so-called “Christian God” that you claim, and that is supposedly “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” which, let’s be honest, is a god that is about as meaningful as an invisible cosmic teddy bear.

Still, I can now see that it must take a huge amount of blind faith, probably far more faith than someone like FL has, to believe in such a thing; although, frankly, I’m afraid I’d have to agree with Dawkins and his God Delusion that such a belief would certainly qualify as a delusion, especially for a Darwinian such as yourself.

Stanton said: bigbangBigot, please explain why you can not accept the fact that PvM both accepts the facts of evolution and accepts Jesus Christ as his Savior? I mean, you have failed miserably in convincing anyone of anything beyond the fact that you are a perfidious bigot whose sole purpose here on this blog is to disrupt threads.

I refer to bigbang as a bigot because everything he communicates is garbled, and the only message he is capable of making clear is his hate. I mean, why else would he go to such lengths to lie, evade every single question put to him, and distort what anyone says in order to degrade all of the other commenters?

I have said this before, PvM, and I will say it again: I admire your superhuman patience and tolerance of these trolls, I'm almost envious, even.

Flint said: I think FL asks an excellent question. Clearly, if one can swallow one camel, there's good reason to expect one can swallow another.

It no longer requires God as creator or designer (although one is certainly still free to believe in God even if one accepts evolution.)

FL has settled the age-old question “Is the Pope Catholic?” According to FL, the Pope isn’t even Christian.

It is completely possible to believe that God created humans in his image using the tool of evolution.

This was actually one of the issues I brought up earlier, one of the reasons why evolution is incompatible with Christianity: In Christianity, from Genesis to Revelation, God is the absolutely necessary, required explanation for origins of plants, animals, and humans, while evolution specifically takes the position that God is NOT a required explanation at all.

FL said:

It is completely possible to believe that God created humans in his image using the tool of evolution.

Perhaps you will write a letter to the editor of Nature magazine soon, informing them of specifically why you believe this, so that they can retract their very clear public statement calling on you and I and everybody else to "set aside" the belief that God created humans in his image. FL

Are you sure you wanted to bring up the “full context” of Mayr’s statement? After all, referring to evolution, Mayr did say:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justic, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." (Matthew 23:23-24)

Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin." (Luke 17:1-2)

I thought you might find this interesting - a fellow named Karl Priest got a letter published in the NYT in response to the article. Ever heard of 'em?

"Before I retired, I was a full-time math teacher. With the full knowledge and dismay of state and county school officials, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics, using statistics, probability and number magnitude, proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolution is nonsense.

The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are intelligent designs, and that intelligent design is science.

I always let the students figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts, which evolutionary extremists want to censor from the minds of public-school students."

FL said:

Dan said: It is completely possible to believe that God created humans in his image using the tool of evolution.

Perhaps you will write a letter to the editor of Nature magazine soon, informing them of specifically why you believe this, so that they can retract their very clear public statement calling on you and I and everybody else to "set aside" the belief that God created humans in his image. FL

Eric said: Methodological naturalists think that science has nothing to say about metaphysics one way or the other.

Eric said: Dawkins is right only if one agrees with him that the rules of evidence of science should apply to theology and metaphysics too.

Eric said: If so, that means you think the only good reasons to believe in God are empirical evidence and repeatable experiments.

PvM says: “One is indeed free to believe in a First Cause God and still accept the science of evolution. Mayr is quite clear here.”

.

Although, Mayr (quoted by PvM) clearly states: “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause, duh].”

So it’s quite clear that the Darwinian PvM’s faith----in the so-called “Christian God” that he claims, that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance,” that is obviously not a first cause God in any real sense, and is about as meaningful as an invisible cosmic teddy bear----is, well, truly unbelievable. Little wonder that someone like Stanton claims to admire and even envy PvM.

Still, I appreciate PvM making his delusion and/or dishonesty on this issue, his lack of intellectual honesty and/or rigor, so utterly transparent.

Eric said: Low entropy is explicitely, mathematically expected based on our observations.

Still, I appreciate PvM making his delusion and/or dishonesty on this issue, his lack of intellectual honesty and/or rigor, so utterly transparent.

bigbang said: In The God Delusion, Dawkins---a real, credentialed Darwinian with a bit more intellectual honesty and rigor on this particular issue than PvM is employing----explains why Darwinism and the Darwinian understanding of science has determined that a supernatural creator almost certainly doesn’t exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion.

neo-anti-luddite said: Since science is by its very definition incapable of establishing either the existence or non-existence of god (or gods, both big “G” and small), Dawkins’ opinion on the matter is just that: an opinion.

neo-anti-luddite said: Or did I miss the part where he offered some empirical evidence that god(s) doesn’t exist?

PvM said: Actually, evolutionary theory is hardly non-teleological, which helps understand why some ID Creationists see God's hand in the origin and evolution of life. Selection processes are inherently teleological but not necessarily a final cause form of teleology.

I should have read a little bit further; Mike Elzingha explains why biology or physics isn't teleological (but can be confused with such a description).

FL said: In Christianity, from Genesis to Revelation, God is the absolutely necessary, required explanation for origins of plants, animals, and humans, while evolution specifically takes the position that God is NOT a required explanation at all.

In Christianity, from Genesis to Revelation, God is the absolutely necessary, required explanation for origins of plants, animals, and humans, while evolution specifically takes the position that God is NOT a required explanation at all.

In order to see how stupid, childlike, and counterproductive this position is, let's apply it to the field of criminal justice, rather than biology:

"In Christianity, from Genesis to Revelation, God is the absolutely necessary, required explanation for all of the actions that take place in his Universe, while CSI specifically takes the position that God is NOT a required explanation at all." Would you trust a detective who said that to you over the body of a murdered friend or relative?

By the way, FL, you still haven't explained how it's "dishonest" to be a Christian and accept evolution at the same time. You also haven't explained why it's possible for you to disagree with an atheist like Dawkins and still use him as an "authority" to "prove" we're being "dishonest." Can't support your opinions without your enemies' help, can you?

It looks to me like FL feels that worshipping words written by men is more Christian than understanding the universe which may have been created by his God.

I thought you might find this interesting - a fellow named Karl Priest got a letter published in the NYT in response to the article. Ever heard of ‘em?

"I always let the students figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts, which evolutionary extremists want to censor from the minds of public-school students.”

Torbjörn Larsson, OM said: AFAIU there is another possibility that agrees with Dawkins position, perhaps better; that one agrees with the position that those rules is the only validated way to get to knowledge. I.e. claiming that theology and metaphysics are games that don't involve actual knowledge.

from PZ Myers blog: PZ: Ask Tom Willis, an utterly insane creationist (who is also, scarily, active in Kansas politics): [Ted Willis]: The arrogance displayed by the evolutionist class is totally unwarrented. The facts warrent the violent expulsion of all evolutionists from civilized society. I am quite serious that their danger to society is so great that, in a sane society, they would be, at a minimum, denied a vote in the administration of the society, as well as any job where they might influence immature humans, e.g., scout, or youth, leader, teacher and, obviously, professor. Oh, by the way… What is the chance evolutionists will vote or teach in the Kingdom of God?

FL asks PvM: “Are you sure you wanted to bring up the “full context” of Mayr’s statement?”

Mayr (quoted by PvM,) states: “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause, duh].”

.

Wake up FL. PvM has made his lack of intellectual honesty and/or rigor, or possibly his delusion, on this issue utterly transparent.

PvM’s so-called belief in the so-called “Christian God” that he claims----a god that, using his words, is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance”----is a god that is about as meaningful as an invisible cosmic teddy bear. PvM’s god is certainly not any kind of meaningful, genuine theistic or deistic first cause God . . . since such a first-cause God can’t possibly, in any intellectually honest/rigorous way, be reconciled to his (and Mayr’s) Darwinism.

I doubt anyone here, having a modicum of discernment, takes PvM seriously on this issue----his “belief” in his so-called “Christian God” that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance is obviously a big joke, or a delusion.

Regarding the Catholics and the Pope, genuine theists, their understanding of evolution would obviously not concur with Mayr’s Darwinism that stipulates the rejection of all supernatural phenomena and causations (which obviously would include first cause).

PvM and his Darwinian comrades here seem to get pleasure from jerking your chain, FL, especially since you seem to be rather sincere and genuine regarding your faith. Imagine that.

Larsson claims: But Dawkins isn’t a supporter of “Darwinism”, as there is no such thing.

.

No such thing as “Darwinism”? Hmmm, read the above Mayr quote. Hello?

By the way, FL, you still haven’t explained how it’s “dishonest” to be a Christian and accept evolution at the same time. You also haven’t explained why it’s possible for you to disagree with an atheist like Dawkins and still use him as an “authority” to “prove” we’re being “dishonest.”

Raven rants: “Many of them are just christofascists.”

.

Guess you guys really pissed off that Willis fellow. I have few YEC acquaintances, and I suppose they can be a bit overbearing and irritating at times, not to mention shortsighted. But frankly, raven, I find your paranoia regarding your christofascists rather silly.

OTOH, raven, you might want to consider being a bit more civil when responding to those that don’t see things the way that you think they should see them. Or don’t respond to them at all. That’s what I do. Works great and I don’t get all flustered like you seem to.

And BTW, PvM is not really trying to deal with creo extremists (like FL) so much, but rather he’s simply being intellectually dishonest, and jerking their chain, as it were, when he says that Mayr’s Darwinism and belief in his so-called “Christian [first cause] God” is rational/reasonable; or possibly PvM really is delusional.

Torbjörn Larsson, OM wrote:

neo-anti-luddite said: Since science is by its very definition incapable of establishing either the existence or non-existence of god (or gods, both big “G” and small), Dawkins’ opinion on the matter is just that: an opinion.

Is there a definition of science? I thought philosophers, of all people, have been struggling with that question without being able to resolve it. There is a more or less verifiable description, but AFAIK there is no model of exactly which predictions science will or will not make. And wouldn't it be rather boring to know that?

Torbjörn Larsson, OM wrote:

neo-anti-luddite said: Or did I miss the part where he offered some empirical evidence that god(s) doesn’t exist?

Yes.

PvM and his Darwinian comrades here seem to get pleasure from jerking your chain, FL, especially since you seem to be rather sincere and genuine regarding your faith. Imagine that.

bigbangBigot said: And BTW, PvM is not really trying to deal with creo extremists (like FL) so much, but rather he’s simply being intellectually dishonest, and jerking their chain, as it were, when he says that Mayr’s Darwinism and belief in his so-called “Christian [first cause] God” is rational/reasonable; or possibly PvM really is delusional.

bigbangBigot said: And BTW, PvM is not really trying to deal with creo extremists (like FL) so much, but rather he’s simply being intellectually dishonest, and jerking their chain, as it were, when he says that Mayr’s Darwinism and belief in his so-called “Christian [first cause] God” is rational/reasonable; or possibly PvM really is delusional.

FL said: ... but at least I know how I'm trying to respond to things. FL

bigbang said: FL asks PvM: “Are you sure you wanted to bring up the “full context” of Mayr’s statement?” Mayr (quoted by PvM,) states: “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause, duh].” . Wake up FL. PvM has made his lack of intellectual honesty and/or rigor, or possibly his delusion, on this issue utterly transparent.

PvM and his Darwinian comrades here seem to get pleasure from jerking your chain, FL, especially since you seem to be rather sincere and genuine regarding your faith. Imagine that.

but at the end of the day, the list of incompatibilities remain, they just sit there waiting quietly, calmly. And nobody, no evolutionist, no Christian, none of us, seems to be seriously able to actually specifically RECONCILE these current clashes.

Why is accepting the situation of reality without feeling the need to compromise either one’s spirituality or intellect “intellectually dishonest” or “delusional”?

But frankly, raven, I find your paranoia regarding your christofascists rather silly.

Dan said:

FL said: Evolution honestly isn't compatible with Christianity.

FL has settled the age-old question "Is the Pope Catholic?" According to FL, the Pope isn't even Christian.

bigbang said: And BTW, PvM is not really trying to deal with creo extremists (like FL) so much, but rather he’s simply being intellectually dishonest, and jerking their chain, as it were, when he says that Mayr’s Darwinism and belief in his so-called “Christian [first cause] God” is rational/reasonable; or possibly PvM really is delusional.

PvM says: “As a Christian I find it important that others see that Christianity is not irreconcilable with science”

.

Obviously first cause is not irreconcilable with any currently available actual science and evidence (although various interpretations/aspects of Christianity may be).

What is clearly irreconcilable is Mayr’s (and your) Darwinism that “rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause]” . . . and, pay attention, first cause. Got that? Hello?

As a deist and a realist, holding a view similar to that of Einstein’s----who perceived a “spirit manifest in the laws of the Universe; a spirit vastly superior to that of man”----I find your Christianity, your so-called belief in your so-called “Christian God,” unbelievable, or possibly, as Dawkins would almost certainly conclude, delusional.

Really PM, I think most people here readily see through your nonsense your charade, on this issue (although disingenuous clowns like Stanton will claim to admire and even envy your so-called Christianity/religiosity/whatever).

bigbang said: PvM says: “As a Christian I find it important that others see that Christianity is not irreconcilable with science” . Obviously first cause is not irreconcilable with any currently available actual science and evidence (although various interpretations/aspects of Christianity may be). What is clearly irreconcilable is Mayr’s (and your) Darwinism that “rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause]” . . . and, pay attention, first cause. Got that? Hello?

As a deist and a realist, holding a view similar to that of Einstein’s----who perceived a “spirit manifest in the laws of the Universe; a spirit vastly superior to that of man”----I find your Christianity, your so-called belief in your so-called “Christian God,” unbelievable, or possibly, as Dawkins would almost certainly conclude, delusional. Really PM, I think most people here readily see through your nonsense your charade, on this issue (although disingenuous clowns like Stanton will claim to admire and even envy your so-called Christianity/religiosity/whatever).

But frankly, raven, I find your paranoia regarding your christofascists rather silly.

http://www.kingdomnow.org/95Theses.html "Thus, it is with great sadness that the endorsers of this document humbly plead with our churches to join us in repentance, turning from the United States' twisted notions of liberty, democracy and justice, from the historical misconceptions of its "Christian heritage" and from the ubiquitous greed that drives our nation."

When my son was three years old, he'd ask for something unreasonable, say unrestricted access to candy, and I'd tell him "No" and explain why it was unreasonable. (Bad for your teeth, bad for your body, bad for your self-control.)

He'd come back and say "But why can't I have as much candy as I want?"

So I'd again tell him why his request was unreasonable.

He'd come back and say "But why can't I have as much candy as I want?"

Eventually I figured out that when he said "But why can't I have as much candy as I want?" he didn't mean that at all ... he just meant "Give me candy or I'll whine and make your life miserable."

The good news is that by the time he reached the age of four years he'd figured out that constantly repeating the same question, even after it had been answered, was intellectually dishonest.

The bad news is that bigbang hasn't yet reached that stage of intellectual development.

FL has since asked for more information about the Pope’s position on evolution.

FL, it does not really matter whether you asked for clarification or not, the posting shows that millions of Christians have no problem reconciling what you describe as irreconcilable.

That's a fact.

FL said:

Dan said: FL has since asked for more information about the Pope’s position on evolution.

This is getting a little weird, Dan. Exactly which post of mine did I ask for this "more information", as you are oddly claiming? Please point it out for me. FL

The bad news is that bigbang hasn’t yet reached that stage of intellectual development.

Neither has FL, despite having been trolling here a LOT longer than bigotybangity. All they've done is repeat the same long-debunked assertions they came here with, and completely ignore every comment in which they are refuted.

Dan is right to compare these trolls' behavior to that of little children: theirs is a childlike mentality, a childlike religion, and a child's refusal -- or inability -- to think and reason like an adult. The only way they can prevail in any debate is by dumbing it down and infantilizing it. Or, in the case of that denialist "teacher" they now idolize, force-feeding lies to innocent kids and pretending they're "encouraging critical thinking." (No I'll know what to call it when I try to sell crack to your kids, eh? Hey, they gotta experience BOTH soberiety and brain-damage before they can "think critically" about drugs, right? Gotta teach the controversy!)

FL has since asked for more information about the Pope’s position on evolution.

You asked this of me on June 12, 2008, when you asked me to “take time to more specifically explain and support whatever claims you yourself wish to establish or make.”

FL said:

FL has since asked for more information about the Pope’s position on evolution.

You asked this of me on June 12, 2008, when you asked me to “take time to more specifically explain and support whatever claims you yourself wish to establish or make.”

Oooooooo-kay. Thanks for the clarification Dan. FL

PvM says: “If you refuse to understand this in context . . .”

.

Yeah, right, context. Please.

But I’m feeling magnanimous today, so I’ll suggest several loopholes that you and your Darwinian comrades apparently haven’t quite figured out yet.

You could claim that, although Mayr’s Darwinism "rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations," your own Darwinism, conveniently, does not perceive a first cause God as being a “supernatural phenomena or causation”; and/or that a first cause God is not really a supernatural phenomena or causation b/c you, unlike Mayr, are convinced that a first cause God is actually real and natural.

But probably the best way to deal with this issue, especially for someone like you that feels he has to verify his belief in a Christian God to anyone who’s not an atheist and/or Darwinian, would be to claim that you’ve rejected Darwinism and that you’ve adopted the Pope’s position on, pay attention PvM, NOT Darwinism, but rather “natural evolution,”: “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis."

...and that you’ve adopted the Pope’s position on, pay attention PvM, NOT Darwinism, but rather “natural evolution,”: “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis.”

Who are you quoting there, bigbang? A specific citation, preferably a URL, or at least a name we could google for verification, would go a long way toward demonstrating some intellectual integrity on your part.

Oh, and what's the difference between "Darwinism" and "natural evolution?" This is a standard talking-point of creationist liars, and it never stands up under scrutiny.

PS: I love it when a creationist loses an argument, can't even pretend to address any of the refutations of his arguments, and then tries to tell us how to "deal with the issue." Get a job, you pompous loser.

bigbang said: PvM says: “If you refuse to understand this in context . . .” . Yeah, right, context. Please. But I’m feeling magnanimous today, so I’ll suggest several loopholes that you and your Darwinian comrades apparently haven’t quite figured out yet.

You could claim that, although Mayr’s Darwinism "rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations," your own Darwinism, conveniently, does not perceive a first cause God as being a “supernatural phenomena or causation”; and/or that a first cause God is not really a supernatural phenomena or causation b/c you, unlike Mayr, are convinced that a first cause God is actually real and natural. But probably the best way to deal with this issue, especially for someone like you that feels he has to verify his belief in a Christian God to anyone who’s not an atheist and/or Darwinian, would be to claim that you’ve rejected Darwinism and that you’ve adopted the Pope’s position on, pay attention PvM, NOT Darwinism, but rather “natural evolution,”: “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis."

bigbang said: You could claim that, although Mayr’s Darwinism "rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations,"

Our responsibility as Christians is to deal seriously with the theories and findings of all scientific endeavors, evolution included, and to enter into open dialogue with responsible persons involved in scientific tasks about the achievement, failures and limits of their activities and of ours. The truth or falsity of the theory of evolution is not the question at issue and certainly not a question which lies within the competence of the Permanent Theological Committee. The real and only issue is whether there exists clear incompatibility between evolution and the Biblical doctrine of Creation. Unless it is clearly necessary to uphold a basic Biblical doctrine, the Church is not called upon and should carefully refrain from either affirming or denying the theory of evolution. We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church.

Then can you answer, for once, whether or not you regard Popes Pius, John Paul and Benedict as being Christians even though they accept the reality of evolution, FL?

FL said: ...the specific points of irreconciliation that have been listed...

FL said:

Then can you answer, for once, whether or not you regard Popes Pius, John Paul and Benedict as being Christians even though they accept the reality of evolution, FL?

Sure. I consider them both Christians, based on their particular statements of faith. But as you already know, (1) Both of them have stated specific limits as to how far they "accept evolution", as you put it. (2) Neither one of them have offered a single reconciliation or solution for ANY of the specific points of irreconciliation that have been listed and discussed in this thread. Yes, I've checked (and you have too), and we both know that's true. FL

chuck said:

FL said: ...the specific points of irreconciliation that have been listed...

I haven't seen such a list. Would you summarize? (using short words please)

OK children, one last time, so please pay very close attention----

.

First, Pope John Paul II’s (1986) statement: “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis."

.

And second, Mayr’s Darwinism: “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause divine causation, duh].”

.

Hopefully you all now see the blatantly obvious distinction. For those who still don’t, well, I’d like an order of fries with that.

Yet, bigbangBigot refuses to realize that the last three Popes accept evolution because of the evidence, and that "descent with modification" poses absolutely no threat to their faith and spirituality, AND bigbangBigot refuses to admit that he has been caught quotemining Mayr, in that the only reason why "Darwinism" rejects supernatural phenomena because science can not study supernatural phenomena. bigbangBigot apparently can not or refuses to comprehend that there is a distinct and dramatic difference between "unable to study" and "being in fierce opposition to."

bigbang said: OK children, one last time, so please pay very close attention---- . First, Pope John Paul II’s (1986) statement: “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis." . And second, Mayr’s Darwinism: “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause divine causation, duh].” . Hopefully you all now see the blatantly obvious distinction. For those who still don’t, well, I’d like an order of fries with that.

I am simply amazed that FL and bigbang apparently believe there are limits to how the Almighty might choose to do the work of creation. It is sad that, as noted a couple of pages earlier, the net ultimate outcome of their flawed argumentation will likely be to drive people away from faith.

bigbang said: OK children, one last time...

Here are mesmerizing stories of people raised as creationists. A recurring theme is that once they found that young earth creationism is inconsistent with the facts of geology, they felt they had to reject all faith whatsoever. What a horrible fate! It is cruel to tell people that evolution and faith are inconsistent, because then when they study the evidence for evolution, they are likely to fall into despair.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/creationists.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct03.html

Stanton protests: “Darwinism rejects supernatural phenomena because science can not study supernatural phenomena.”

.

Back in the 1930s when Lemaitre, a priest and physicist, determined that the universe was expanding (inferred from Einstein’s general relativity equations and other evidence), and suggested therefore that at some time in past the universe was a single point, a primeval atom, a point in time before which time and space did not exist, Hoyle found the idea of the universe having a beginning to be philosophically troubling (being an atheist at the time), and along with many others argued that a beginning implies a cause, a creator, and derisively referred to Lamaitre’s idea as his big bang idea. Nevertheless, science discovered more and more evidence substantiating the BB model, and today it’s pretty much accepted (and BTW, Hoyle eventually rejected his atheism).

Since science has been able to study and discover evidence relating to a universe that had a beginning----a universe that many scientists in the early 20th century found philosophically troubling b/c a beginning implied a cause, a creator----there’s no logical, convincing reason to rule out the possibility that science will eventually be able to discover and study the cause of the universe.

If the universe is indeed a result of first cause, and I’m persuaded that the currently available science and evidence points in that direction, then first cause would be something that is real. And if first cause is something that is real, there’s no logical, convincing reason to stipulate that it is something beyond what science may one day be able to discover and study.

However Stanton, since first cause would fall into the Darwinian supernatural phenomena and causations category, you guys would have to reject it. Too bad you guys aren’t scientists rather than Darwinians. Hey Stanton, how about an order of onion rings too.

bigbang said: Stanton protests: “Darwinism rejects supernatural phenomena because science can not study supernatural phenomena.” . If the universe is indeed a result of first cause, and I’m persuaded that the currently available science and evidence points in that direction, then first cause would be something that is real. And if first cause is something that is real, there’s no logical, convincing reason to stipulate that it is something beyond what science may one day be able to discover and study.

However Stanton, since first cause would fall into the Darwinian supernatural phenomena and causations category, you guys would have to reject it. Too bad you guys aren’t scientists rather than Darwinians. Hey Stanton, how about an order of onion rings too.

bigbangBigot said: Stanton protests: “Darwinism rejects supernatural phenomena because science can not study supernatural phenomena.”

Back in the 1930s when Lemaitre, a priest and physicist, determined that the universe was expanding (inferred from Einstein’s general relativity equations and other evidence), and suggested therefore that at some time in past the universe was a single point, a primeval atom, a point in time before which time and space did not exist, Hoyle found the idea of the universe having a beginning to be philosophically troubling (being an atheist at the time), and along with many others argued that a beginning implies a cause, a creator, and derisively referred to Lamaitre’s idea as his big bang idea. Nevertheless, science discovered more and more evidence substantiating the BB model, and today it’s pretty much accepted (and BTW, Hoyle eventually rejected his atheism).

Since science has been able to study and discover evidence relating to a universe that had a beginning----a universe that many scientists in the early 20th century found philosophically troubling b/c a beginning implied a cause, a creator----there’s no logical, convincing reason to rule out the possibility that science will eventually be able to discover and study the cause of the universe. If the universe is indeed a result of first cause, and I’m persuaded that the currently available science and evidence points in that direction, then first cause would be something that is real. And if first cause is something that is real, there’s no logical, convincing reason to stipulate that it is something beyond what science may one day be able to discover and study.

However Stanton, since first cause would fall into the Darwinian supernatural phenomena and causations category, you guys would have to reject it. Too bad you guys aren’t scientists rather than Darwinians. Hey Stanton, how about an order of onion rings too.

Furthermore, bigbangBigot, since you do not regard Darwinism

Furthermore, bigbangBigot, since you do not regard Darwinism Evolutionary Biology as a science, then, don't you think it's hypocritical of you to continue through your life utilizing its products, including all farmed grains, vegetables and meats, pharmaceuticals, and pets?

Stanton said: Furthermore, bigbangBigot, since you do not regard Darwinism Evolutionary Biology as a science, then, don't you think it's hypocritical of you to continue through your life utilizing its products, including all farmed grains, vegetables and meats, pharmaceuticals, and pets?

bigbang said: Back in the 1930s when Lemaitre, a priest and physicist, determined that the universe was expanding (inferred from Einstein’s general relativity equations and other evidence), and suggested therefore that at some time in past the universe was a single point, a primeval atom, a point in time before which time and space did not exist, Hoyle found the idea of the universe having a beginning to be philosophically troubling (being an atheist at the time), and along with many others argued that a beginning implies a cause, a creator, and derisively referred to Lamaitre’s idea as his big bang idea. Nevertheless, science discovered more and more evidence substantiating the BB model, and today it’s pretty much accepted (and BTW, Hoyle eventually rejected his atheism).

Neither one of them have offered a single reconciliation or solution for ANY of the specific points of irreconciliation that have been listed and discussed in this thread.

FL, you're a damn liar. Their specific reconciliations, and ours, were clearly stated, in plain English; and you never even attempted to address a single one of them. Now all you can do is pretend the points were never made. You're as pathetic as you always are.

bigotybangity: your quote from one Pope does not specifically demand a LITERAL interpretation of the Genesis creation story, nor does it demand any rejection of any bit of objective evidence, big or small, for any reason. As you would know if you had even the slightest education in Christian doctrines, it is widely understood -- and has been for centuries -- that not all parts of the Bible are supposed to be taken as literal truth. Furthermore, the RCC position on science vs. faith is far more complex than you seem to understand, and you're only exposing your own stupidity and dishonesty by trying to misrepresent it.

bigbang said: Back in the 1930s when Lemaitre, a priest and physicist, determined that the universe was expanding (inferred from Einstein’s general relativity equations and other evidence), and suggested therefore that at some time in past the universe was a single point, a primeval atom, a point in time before which time and space did not exist, Hoyle found the idea of the universe having a beginning to be philosophically troubling (being an atheist at the time), and along with many others argued that a beginning implies a cause, a creator, and derisively referred to Lamaitre’s idea as his big bang idea. Nevertheless, science discovered more and more evidence substantiating the BB model, and today it’s pretty much accepted (and BTW, Hoyle eventually rejected his atheism).

I have to say, I'm finding the entire FL & BB vs. PvM war weirdly fascinating.

In this corner, there's BB & FL, two Christians that seem to be trying to deny evolution using essentially an atheist debate tactic: get the theist to declare their beliefs and then pounce on any contradiction. The problem is that they're claiming to be making a rational argument and thus IF Christianity really IS incompatible with evolution, they are compelled (if they're being intellectually honest) to land on the side of the belief with the most evidence behind it, and that would be evolution. Even if they win, they lose.

And in this corner, there's PvM. A Christian and a staunch defender of science and evolution, someone who fights against the Intelligent Design crowd. His tactic? The same one the Intelligent Design crowd: don't declare in any concrete way what your beliefs are; keep your argument content free and vacuous and that way no one can prove you wrong. He is using the tactic of the enemy.

It's like we're in bizarro land. "I will defend my position with the argument of my opponent". I honestly can't tell if any of them are sincere or if this all just debatery (yes I just made that word up). In any case, I'm getting some popcorn.

DJD said: I have to say, I'm finding the entire FL & BB vs. PvM war weirdly fascinating. In this corner, there's BB & FL, two Christians that seem to be trying to deny evolution using essentially an atheist debate tactic: get the theist to declare their beliefs and then pounce on any contradiction. The problem is that they're claiming to be making a rational argument and thus IF Christianity really IS incompatible with evolution, they are compelled (if they're being intellectually honest) to land on the side of the belief with the most evidence behind it, and that would be evolution. Even if they win, they lose.

And in this corner, there's PvM. A Christian and a staunch defender of science and evolution, someone who fights against the Intelligent Design crowd. His tactic? The same one the Intelligent Design crowd: don't declare in any concrete way what your beliefs are; keep your argument content free and vacuous and that way no one can prove you wrong. He is using the tactic of the enemy.

It's like we're in bizarro land. "I will defend my position with the argument of my opponent". I honestly can't tell if any of them are sincere or if this all just debatery (yes I just made that word up). In any case, I'm getting some popcorn.

And in this corner, there’s PvM. A Christian and a staunch defender of science and evolution, someone who fights against the Intelligent Design crowd. His tactic? The same one the Intelligent Design crowd: don’t declare in any concrete way what your beliefs are; keep your argument content free and vacuous and that way no one can prove you wrong. He is using the tactic of the enemy.

Stanton said: Do realize that FL and bigbangBigot are fighting a losing battle with a paradox...

Please realize that PvM’s faith and spiritual beliefs are, ultimately, his own personal matters, and what he chooses to divulge is up to him, and him alone (barring any divine commands to the contrary).

I strongly disagree with your judgment that FL’s gimmick of presenting a false dilemma that would excommunicate the last three Popes from Christianity, or bigbangBigot’s habit of making outrageous, insulting lies and obvious quotemines while refusing to admit that he’s been caught redhanded in his perfidy are the sort of tactics actual scientists would use in arguments.

“My beliefs as a Christian are perfectly compatible with my beliefs on evolution.”, and someone asks you “Well, what are your beliefs as a Christian?” it is a little disingenuous to play the “that’s private and personal” card. PvM kind of walked into that one.

PvM said:

And in this corner, there’s PvM. A Christian and a staunch defender of science and evolution, someone who fights against the Intelligent Design crowd. His tactic? The same one the Intelligent Design crowd: don’t declare in any concrete way what your beliefs are; keep your argument content free and vacuous and that way no one can prove you wrong. He is using the tactic of the enemy.

Wow, I am honored and hurt at the same time :-) As to my beliefs, they are simply that as a Christian I have no problem separating the how, as revealed to us by our God given capabilities to do science from the why. My argument is with those Christians who foolishly reject science or who reject their fellow Christians as un- or non-christian. As a Christian I refuse to define who are or are not Christians, even though I will gladly and loudly speak out against Christians who make foolish comments, especially about science or morality. I feel no need to judge their level of commitment as a Christian when there is a far more relevant Judge who will take care of that part. We Christians come in all shapes or forms, not unlike atheists, Budhist, agnostics, etc etc. We have our good sides and our dark sides, our lighter sides and our more serious sides. On this note, let me express my thanks to those faithful 5 who restored "Habeas Corpus" as a constitutionally protected and God Given right. I take science very seriously and refuse to have our (God given) ability to explore our world and the world beyond, destroyed by (lack of) religious faith. That I do not have to present much of an argument somehow seems to reflect poorly not on me but far more on my fellow Christians' (in)abilities to present their case in a logical manner. So far I have heard them claim, without much evidence of logic or argument, that evolution and Christianity are irreconcilable, that since some atheists agree, they are willing to further the atheist argument as further evidence, and when faced with a Christian who denies their claims and presents a more logically defensible position, they refer to name calling and other tactics. Perhaps that's a novel interpretation of Christianity but it's certainly not my flavor. Yes I am sincere but what better way to disprove them by letting them do all the hard work? And man, are they good at it too, I'd almost be tempted to guess that practice made perfect. All during these exchanges I have opened my arms and would welcome my Christian friends in my circle. But alas somehow the atheist corner seems to be far more popular recently, even amongst Christians.

I consider the term Christian to apply to anyone who claims that he/she is a Christian.

Oddly enough if they’re trying to hit you with “the Christian belief set, literal biblical interpretation or not, clearly says things at odds with evolution”, that the debate didn’t go straight to scripture: “What about this passage?”, “If this isn’t literal than how do you interpret it?” I mean, if that’s the argument, make it. I wonder why they didn’t?

Regaring PvM’s “accepting both the facts of evolution and Jesus Christ as Savior without having any brain-melting nervous breakdown”----

.

Undoubtedly life evolves. Whether Jesus is “Savior” is a matter of religious faith----yet PvM sees both things as “facts.” That PvM doesn’t see or make a distinction is telling. And explains why he and many other Darwinians don’t grasp, or refuse to acknowledge, the blatantly obvious difference between----

.

Mayr’s (and PvM’s) Darwinism: “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause divine causation, duh],”

And the Pope’s “natural evolution”: “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis."

.

You Darwinians are doggedly faithful to your Darwinian philosophy.

DJD quotes PvM: “I consider the term Christian to apply to anyone who claims that he/she is a Christian.”

.

And DJD tells PvM: “that sounded like a dodge.”

.

Congratulations DJD. You’re the only Darwinian here that actually picked up on, and/or acknowledged, PvM’s blatantly obvious intellectual dishonesty and/or lack of rigor; or possibly delusion as uber-Darwinian Dawkins might suggest.

Perhaps DJD will even be capable of discerning the difference between Mayr’s Darwinism (that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations) and the Pope’s “natural evolution” (that does not exclude divine causality)? Focus DJD, you can do it.

bangingbigot: you are repeatedly quoting a single sentence by Pope JP-II, just one of MANY sentences he's produced on the subject of evolution; and your quote is so far out of context -- as proven by other quotes offered by other respondents here -- that you once again prove your dishonesty, cowardice, and total inability to deal with adult issues as an adult.

Give it up, Skippy, you're out of your depth and can't pretend otherwise.

CORRECTION----

In my above post I indicated that PvM said “accepting both the facts of evolution and Jesus Christ as Savior without having any brain-melting nervous breakdown,” but in fact it was Stanton that said that in his response to DJD.

Nevertheless, the point remains essentially the same since Stanton and PvM, and virtually all Darwinians here, are pretty much reading from the same Darwinian hymn book, as it were.

Bigot said: CORRECTION---- In my above post I indicated that PvM said “accepting both the facts of evolution and Jesus Christ as Savior without having any brain-melting nervous breakdown,” but in fact it was Stanton that said that in his response to DJD. Nevertheless, the point remains essentially the same since Stanton and PvM, and virtually all Darwinians here, are pretty much reading from the same Darwinian hymn book, as it were.

Note to Raging Bee----

When you engage in childish name-calling, that, alas, is so typical here, you drastically reduce what little credibility you have. Keep in mind the old saying, Raging Bee: You can catch more bees with honey than vinegar. That’s more or less been PvM’s approach and look how successful he’s been in selling his Dawinism that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations and concurrent belief in a “Christian God” that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance----I mean all the Darwinians and atheists here are buying into it, although, admittedly, a more discerning Darwinian/atheist like Dawkins would probably see it for the delusion and/or dishonesty that it is.

What does "Darwinist" mean?

The word "Darwinist," like most words, has many meanings. Here are some of them:

1. Someone who adheres to the concepts promulgated by Charles Darwin and summarized by the final sentence of the final edition of his most famous work, Origin of Species: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

2. Someone who tentatively holds to the concepts of modern evolutionary as the best explanation for the evidence we have on hand today, but who is ready to change or even abandon those concepts as new evidence and explanations accumulate. These concepts include common descent, lateral gene transfer, endosymbiosis, random mutation, guiding natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, and allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric speciation, most of which were unknown to Charles Darwin.

3. Someone who dogmatically believes the concepts of modern evolutionary theory as described in definition 2.

4. Someone who dogmatically believes the concepts of modern evolutionary theory and, recognizing that these concepts don't include a divine Creator, believes also that no divinity exists.

A Darwinist by definition 1 must believe in a capital-C Creator, because it's right there in the definition. A Darwinist by definition 4 must not believe in any divinity, again because it's right there in the definition.

A Darwinist by definition 2 might or might not believe in a divinity. God does not appear in the modern theory of evolution, just as God does not appear in Newtonian Mechanics, and God does not appear in the practice of plumbing. Yet many students of mechanics (including Newton) and many plumbers (including the one I hire) believe in God. In the framework of definition 2, the question "Does God exist?" is just one of innumerable questions (including "What is the character of true justice?", "Who should I marry?". "What should I cook for dinner?", and "What is my favorite color?") that cannot be answered by reasoning from observation and experiment, and which hence fall outside the domain of science.

Can a Darwinist by definition 3 believe in God? It's hard for me to say, because I don't know anyone in that category. Everyone I know thinks that our understanding of evolution is incomplete. (Darwin himself certainly was not a Darwinist by definition 3 -- on page 4 of the sixth edition of Origin of Species he expresses the very opposite of dogma: "Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, ... I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive, means of modification.") This definition seems to me to be a creationist strawman.

This is not the end of possible meanings of "Darwinist":

5. Someone of type 2 who emphasizes the slow and steady candace of evolutionary change. (This concerns tempo, not mechanism.)

Examples of scientists who are type 2 Darwinists but not type 5 Darwinists: Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould (punctuated equilibrium).

6. Someone of type 2 who emphasizes the mechanism of natural selection in evolution. (This concerns mechanism, not tempo.)

Examples of scientists who are type 2 Darwinists but not type 6 Darwinists: Lynn Margulis, Thomas Henry Huxley ("Darwin's Bulldog").

7. Someone of type 2 who emphasizes the importance of adaptation over contingency or random variation.

Examples of scientists who are type 2 Darwinists but not type 7 Darwinists: Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin ("The Spandrels of San Marco"). (Gould and Lewontin argue that Charles Darwin was not a type 7 Darwinist, either.)

I wish I could stop here, but I know of even more definitions of "Darwinist":

8. Social Darwinist: someone who believes that it's good that the rich (or the strong or the smart or the faithful) oppress the poor (or the weak or the dumb or the faithless).

This is a particularly galling use of Charles Darwin's name, because the ideas misnamed "Social Darwinism" sprang from the mind of Herbert Spencer. Spencer in turn was relying on the biological ideas of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, and Darwin did more than anyone to show that these ideas are incorrect. In fact, Spencer's major work "Progress: Its Law and Cause" came out two years before "Origin of Species". (See, for example, Peter J. Bowler, "Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design" (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007) pages 114-119.)

Charles Darwin was most emphatically not a Darwinist by definition 8. From The Descent of Man (page 168): "The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature."

See also the many quotes from Charles Darwin at

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Darwin_himself_was_racist

Finally, I heard creationist John Sanford give this strange definition:

9. A Darwinist is a nihilist.

I invite you to read the wonderful essay "Why I'm Happy I Evolved" by the type 2 Darwinist Olivia Judson

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/opinion/01judson.html

to see how remarkably far outside definition 9 Olivia Judson falls.

Stanton asks why it’s “so terrifying” that a genuine belief in Christianity could be reconciled with a genuine belief in Mayr’s Darwinism that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.

Well Stanton, it’s not “terrifying” at all, and I’m sorry if you yourself find it terrifying. It’s simply intellectually dishonest and/or inconsistent, and/or it’s delusional. Between you and me, I don’t find PvM’s laughable inconsistency on this terrifying at all; it’s merely, well, laughable. Regarding what you guys should call you Darwinism (that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations) hymn book, well, I’d call it: The Darwinism That Rejects All Supernatural Phenomena and Causations, Including First Cause, Hymn Book.

Bigot said: Note to Raging Bee---- When you engage in childish name-calling, that, alas, is so typical here, you drastically reduce what little credibility you have.

Bigot said: Well Stanton, it’s not “terrifying” at all, and I’m sorry if you yourself find it terrifying. It’s simply intellectually dishonest and/or inconsistent, and/or it’s delusional. Between you and me, I don’t find PvM’s laughable inconsistency on this terrifying at all; it’s merely, well, laughable.

Regarding what you guys should call you Darwinism (that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations) hymn book, well, I’d call it: The Darwinism That Rejects All Supernatural Phenomena and Causations, Including First Cause, Hymn Book.

bigbang said: Undoubtedly life evolves. Whether Jesus is “Savior” is a matter of religious faith

What is clearly irreconcilable is Mayr’s (and your) Darwinism that “rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause]” … and, pay attention, first cause. Got that? Hello?

Dan | June 13, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply What does “Darwinist” mean? The word “Darwinist,” like most words, has many meanings. Here are some of them:

Keep in mind the old saying, Raging Bee: You can catch more bees with honey than vinegar. That’s more or less been PvM’s approach and look how successful he’s been in selling his Dawinism that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations and concurrent belief in a “Christian God” that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance—-I mean all the Darwinians and atheists here are buying into it, although, admittedly, a more discerning Darwinian/atheist like Dawkins would probably see it for the delusion and/or dishonesty that it is.

bigbang said: You Darwinians are doggedly faithful to your Darwinian philosophy.

bigbang said: DJD quotes PvM: “I consider the term Christian to apply to anyone who claims that he/she is a Christian.” . And DJD tells PvM: “that sounded like a dodge.” . Congratulations DJD. You’re the only Darwinian here that actually picked up on, and/or acknowledged, PvM’s blatantly obvious intellectual dishonesty and/or lack of rigor; or possibly delusion as uber-Darwinian Dawkins might suggest. Perhaps DJD will even be capable of discerning the difference between Mayr’s Darwinism (that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations) and the Pope’s “natural evolution” (that does not exclude divine causality)? Focus DJD, you can do it.

So Bigbang, why do you reject that which God is revealing to us through science namely that evolution (and more specifically Darwinian evolution) is how He has created life on our planet? What makes you foolishly misinterpret (quote mine) statements by Mayr?

bigbang said: I mean all the Darwinians and atheists here are buying into it

bigbang said: Stanton asks why it’s “so terrifying” that a genuine belief in Christianity could be reconciled with a genuine belief in Mayr’s Darwinism that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. Well Stanton, it’s not “terrifying” at all, and I’m sorry if you yourself find it terrifying. It’s simply intellectually dishonest and/or inconsistent, and/or it’s delusional. Between you and me, I don’t find PvM’s laughable inconsistency on this terrifying at all; it’s merely, well, laughable. Regarding what you guys should call you Darwinism (that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations) hymn book, well, I’d call it: The Darwinism That Rejects All Supernatural Phenomena and Causations, Including First Cause, Hymn Book.

Typical creationist dodge: make glaringly idiotic, uninformed, illogical and flat-out dishonest assertions; get criticized for your idiocy, ignorance, illogic and dishonesty; then completely ignore the substance of the criticism, while smugly pretending we're all such "uncivil" inferior beasts, doing absolutely nothing but name-calling, and how can we expect anyone to listen to us etc. etc. Demagogues and con-artists of the far right have spent more than eight years hiding behind this diversionary nonsense; and no one is fooled anymore, except for others on the far right who would rather choose to be fooled than face a reality they never even bothered to understand.

And on top of all that, banging bigot, you're a hypocrite: you've done nothing here but spout lies and call us "dishonest" without backing up any of your assertions. That doesn't strike me as an example of "honey instead of vinegar." Hell, even vinegar is more pleasant -- and more useful -- than the shite you dump here.

PvM said:

bigbang said: Stanton asks why it’s “so terrifying” that a genuine belief in Christianity could be reconciled with a genuine belief in Mayr’s Darwinism that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. Well Stanton, it’s not “terrifying” at all, and I’m sorry if you yourself find it terrifying. It’s simply intellectually dishonest and/or inconsistent, and/or it’s delusional. Between you and me, I don’t find PvM’s laughable inconsistency on this terrifying at all; it’s merely, well, laughable. Regarding what you guys should call you Darwinism (that rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations) hymn book, well, I’d call it: The Darwinism That Rejects All Supernatural Phenomena and Causations, Including First Cause, Hymn Book.

Bigbang still fails to understand Mayr's statement in context. There is nothing dishonest or delusional about my position. Any science rejects supernatural phenomena since they fall outside the view of science. That is why any science is fully reconcilable with faith in principle at least. Mayr is not saying that Darwinism disproves the existence of a God, in fact he is very clear that even though Darwinian theory replaced, and rightly so, an appeal to the supernatural, it does not prove/disprove the supernatural. What is so hard to understand here? 1. Science removes the supernatural as a valid scientific explanation since it lacks explanatory power and replaces it with an explanation of 'how', 'when', 'what' and 'where' 2. Science does not remove the supernatural as a legitimate philosophical position since science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God. The Pope and Mayr would surely get along quite nicely since they say essentially the same thing.

Seems to me that BigBang is elevating “Darwism” to a status of ‘Overarching Philosophy Concerning ALL Things’ rather than its more modest (and actual) status of theory governing life’s development and common ancestry.

bigot's first post in this thread: 20th century history clearly shows us that that atheism is by far the greater threat to civilization and freedom, that when there are no religious/spiritual values to serve as a mitigating factor against the excesses of state power and human behavior, things tend to get brutal and bloody very quickly.

bigot wrote: Although Luther could be a schmuck at times, it’s fairly obvious that Hitler and the Nazis weren’t getting their cues from the teachings of Jesus, but rather they were getting their ideas regarding survival of the fittest and racial superiority from Darwinian thinking of the time, from their understanding of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

bigot's first post in this thread: 20th century history clearly shows us that that atheism is by far the greater threat to civilization and freedom, that when there are no religious/spiritual values to serve as a mitigating factor against the excesses of state power and human behavior, things tend to get brutal and bloody very quickly.

bigot wrote: Although Luther could be a schmuck at times, it’s fairly obvious that Hitler and the Nazis weren’t getting their cues from the teachings of Jesus, but rather they were getting their ideas regarding survival of the fittest and racial superiority from Darwinian thinking of the time, from their understanding of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

bigbang said: Regaring PvM’s “accepting both the facts of evolution and Jesus Christ as Savior without having any brain-melting nervous breakdown”---- . Undoubtedly life evolves. Whether Jesus is “Savior” is a matter of religious faith----yet PvM sees both things as “facts.” That PvM doesn’t see or make a distinction is telling. And explains why he and many other Darwinians don’t grasp, or refuse to acknowledge, the blatantly obvious difference between---- .

Mayr’s (and PvM’s) Darwinism: “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [including, obviously, first cause divine causation, duh],” And the Pope’s “natural evolution”: “the theory of natural evolution, understood in a sense which does not exclude divine causality, is not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the book of Genesis." . You Darwinians are doggedly faithful to your Darwinian philosophy.

Stanton asks: "Why is keeping one’s personal faith separate from one’s intellect laughable?"

.

That’s like asking why a lack of intellectual honesty, rigor, and consistency is laughable. It’s been said that there are no dumb questions, Stanton, but I think you’ve disproved that. Sweet dreams.

And kudos to PvM----you seem to have convinced Stanton, and apparently other Darwinians here, that your intellectual suicide and/or delusion is somehow not laughable, although DJD seems to have seen through your nonsense.

And although, PvM, I find your (delusional) belief in your so-called “Christian God” to be little more than a belief in an inconsequential, cosmic teddy bear, I suppose it’s an improvement over the militant atheism/anti-theism of uber-Darwinian Dawkins and his disciples.

bigbang said: Stanton asks: "Why is keeping one’s personal faith separate from one’s intellect laughable?" . That’s like asking why a lack of intellectual honesty, rigor, and consistency is laughable.

bigbang said: Stanton asks: "Why is keeping one’s personal faith separate from one’s intellect laughable?" . That’s like asking why a lack of intellectual honesty, rigor, and consistency is laughable. It’s been said that there are no dumb questions, Stanton, but I think you’ve disproved that. Sweet dreams. And kudos to PvM----you seem to have convinced Stanton, and apparently other Darwinians here, that your intellectual suicide and/or delusion is somehow not laughable, although DJD seems to have seen through your nonsense. And although, PvM, I find your (delusional) belief in your so-called “Christian God” to be little more than a belief in an inconsequential, cosmic teddy bear, I suppose it’s an improvement over the militant atheism/anti-theism of uber-Darwinian Dawkins and his disciples.

PvM said: What is so hard to understand here? 1. Science removes the supernatural as a valid scientific explanation since it lacks explanatory power and replaces it with an explanation of 'how', 'when', 'what' and 'where' 2. Science does not remove the supernatural as a legitimate philosophical position since science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God.

Bigot said: Stanton asks: "Why is keeping one’s personal faith separate from one’s intellect laughable?" . That’s like asking why a lack of intellectual honesty, rigor, and consistency is laughable. It’s been said that there are no dumb questions, Stanton, but I think you’ve disproved that. Sweet dreams.

And kudos to PvM----you seem to have convinced Stanton, and apparently other Darwinians here, that your intellectual suicide and/or delusion is somehow not laughable, although DJD seems to have seen through your nonsense.

And although, PvM, I find your (delusional) belief in your so-called “Christian God” to be little more than a belief in an inconsequential, cosmic teddy bear, I suppose it’s an improvement over the militant atheism/anti-theism of uber-Darwinian Dawkins and his disciples.

Kevin B declares: “science cannot prove that God exists.”

.

Neither you nor anyone knows what science can, or will eventually, “prove,” discover, provide evidence for.

Science currently provides convincing evidence that the universe had a beginning, having inexplicably low entropy----a universe that Hoyle (an atheist) and various other scientists in the first half of the 20th century found philosophically troubling b/c it implied a cause, a creator; and yet today science provides much evidence for the BB model.

Will science eventually be able to determine, study, and provide evidence for the cause of the universe? I think so, since causes are real and exist (or existed), even if that cause happens to be first cause; which you Darwinians, unfortunately, would have to reject, b/c, as Mayr states: “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [which includes, obviously and unfortunately, first cause].”

Why would low entropy right after the big bang be considered inexplicable? Presumably entropy has been increasing since then, so just from that consideration we'd expect it to have been a lot less then than it is now.

Henry

"First, we had God . . . making Adam and making every creature with his hands, plucking the rib from Adam and making Eve from that rib. Then we trade that God in for the God who sets evolution in motion. And then you say you don't even need that God--the lawgiver--because if we take these ideas from cosmology seriously then there are other places and other laws and life evolves where it can. So now we no longer have God the lawfinder or God the lawgiver, but just God the master of ceremonies. When God is the master of ceremonies and doesn't actually play any role anymore in the universe, he's sort of diminished and no longer intervenes in any way." ----Daniel Dennett

bigbang said: Kevin B declares: “science cannot prove that God exists.” Will science eventually be able to determine, study, and provide evidence for the cause of the universe? I think so, since causes are real and exist (or existed), even if that cause happens to be first cause; which you Darwinians, unfortunately, would have to reject, b/c, as Mayr states: “First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations [which includes, obviously and unfortunately, first cause].”

Here’s the deal: evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Jesus accepted and even quoted the literal Genesis claims about God creating Adam and Eve the first humans, evolutionists REJECT those claims. The Bible says the Fall happened in actual literal history, but theistic evolutionist Jerry Korsmeyer says the Fall NEVER happened in actual literal history.

PvM declares: “science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a God.”

.

I agree that science, nor anything else for that matter, will ever prove, discover, or find PvM’s so-called “Christian God” that is “hidden” in a “permanent gap of ignorance, which is essentially nothing more than PvM’s private, imaginary cosmic teddy bear, a delusion.

But will science eventually be able to determine and study the cause of the universe, the BB? I think so, since causes are real and exist (or existed), even if that cause happens to be first cause.

Neither PvM nor anyone knows what science can, or will eventually, “prove,” discover, provide evidence for. A hundred years ago most scientists would have laughed at the idea that our universe had a beginning, from a point, and that there would be a lot of evidence supporting that model.

Page 4 June 8 10:05 pm..........incompatibility between evolution and Christianity based on DP Robin's definition of Christianity Page 4 June 8 10:38 pm..........same thing, based on Stanton's definition of Christianity (Hence showing that incompatibilities exist across more than one definition of Christianity). Continuing: Page 5, June 9 10:31 am..........NOMA's first commandment as dictated directly from His Materialistic Majesty SJ Gould. (A response to Joel, demonstrating that NOMA reinforces the incompatibility between evolution and Christianity.) Page 8, June 11 1:27............extended response to Henry; giving important example(s) of incompatibility June 11th, two more responses to PvM, and one response to Raging Bee (a very important question which shows why these incompatibilities are a serious matter for Christians.)

Well let me state clearly that there are no known incompatibilities between science and Christianity, unless one takes a faith based position that is clearly at odds with facts and science. As such it is safe to state that millions of Christians have no problem reconciling the two and that thus any claims that the two are irreconcilable have been shown fallacious.

It's really that simple.

Bigot said: But will science eventually be able to determine and study the cause of the universe, the BB? I think so, since causes are real and exist (or existed), even if that cause happens to be first cause.

Neither PvM nor anyone knows what science can, or will eventually, “prove,” discover, provide evidence for. A hundred years ago most scientists would have laughed at the idea that our universe had a beginning, from a point, and that there would be a lot of evidence supporting that model.

And yet, FL has yet to explain why 3 Popes have been able to reconcile their faith with evolution, even though FL loves making the false dilemma of having to choose between accepting evolution, and accepting Jesus Christ as Savior.

It makes one wonder if FL is lying about when he claimed that he is not out to excommunicate those Christians, including the last three Popes, who accept both Jesus Christ and evolution, or if he's simply out to tempt people into committing apostasy.

After all, FL has repeatedly stated, with great glee, even, that a Christian has to choose between accepting Jesus or evolution, and yet, still claims to consider the last 3 Popes, all of whom made song and and dance out of accepting the facts of evolution, as being Christians, too.

So, is FL a liar, a hypocrite, or an instigator of apostasy?

bigbang said: Science currently provides convincing evidence that the universe had a beginning, having inexplicably low entropy----a universe that Hoyle (an atheist) and various other scientists in the first half of the 20th century found philosophically troubling b/c it implied a cause, a creator; and yet today science provides much evidence for the BB model.

Since both interpretations are valid interpretations of the Bible....

FL said:

Since both interpretations are valid interpretations of the Bible....

Really? You honestly believe that Korsmeyer's claim that the Fall never happened in actual literal Earth history, is JUST AS VALID as the extremely clear and foundational claim of both the Old and New Testaments, that the Fall did actually literally happen in Earth history?

From the intro Korsmeyer's book

In contemporary theology, the relationship between religion and science remains one of the more contentious subjects. Korsmeyer (God-Creature-Revelation, Univ. Pr. of America, 1994) bravely and successfully tackles one of the thorniest issues--evolution and theology--offering a theological reintepretation of the Catholic doctrine of original sin in light of evolutionary scientific evidence. The Church's acceptance of the literal truth of the story of humanity's fall in Genesis provides the starting point for this discussion. Korsmeyer uses a combination of historical, philosophical, theological, scriptural, scientific, and magisterial ideas in his reinterpretation of original sin. In the final chapter, Korsmeyer bases his reinterpretation on a neoclassical evolutionary understanding of the cosmos and humanity and their developing relationship to God. This book makes a significant contribution to our theological understanding of original sin and helps to bridge the gap between theology and science.

You will disagree with my position, but your paragraph just re-affirms in an unexpected way that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Again you are sounding foolish because I have shown that this is not true.

bigbangbigot, after being defeated on his prior point that Darwin==>Hitler resort to character assassination without admitting his mistakes or apologizing for his bigoted remarks.

Who is more Christ-like here? PVM or biggangbang?

I concede nothing. I know what I believe and why I believe it. That position i s clearly stated in this thread. I can't help the incredulity of FL, bigbang, etc. In fact, any further discussion on these lines seems to me to be futile, and certainly outside the scope of Panda's Thumb.

With all due respect, I'd like to ask you, PvM, to end comments. We've flatlined and the plug needs to be pulled.

dpr

PvM said:

FL said:

Since both interpretations are valid interpretations of the Bible....

Really? You honestly believe that Korsmeyer's claim that the Fall never happened in actual literal Earth history, is JUST AS VALID as the extremely clear and foundational claim of both the Old and New Testaments, that the Fall did actually literally happen in Earth history?

From the intro Korsmeyer's book

In contemporary theology, the relationship between religion and science remains one of the more contentious subjects. Korsmeyer (God-Creature-Revelation, Univ. Pr. of America, 1994) bravely and successfully tackles one of the thorniest issues--evolution and theology--offering a theological reintepretation of the Catholic doctrine of original sin in light of evolutionary scientific evidence. The Church's acceptance of the literal truth of the story of humanity's fall in Genesis provides the starting point for this discussion. Korsmeyer uses a combination of historical, philosophical, theological, scriptural, scientific, and magisterial ideas in his reinterpretation of original sin. In the final chapter, Korsmeyer bases his reinterpretation on a neoclassical evolutionary understanding of the cosmos and humanity and their developing relationship to God. This book makes a significant contribution to our theological understanding of original sin and helps to bridge the gap between theology and science.

You will disagree with my position, but your paragraph just re-affirms in an unexpected way that evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Again you are sounding foolish because I have shown that this is not true.