<i>Teach Them Science</i> Web Page

The web site is indeed a very welcome development. Ultimately, what needs to be counteracted is the fear that teaching evolution is the same as teaching atheism, and that acceptance of evolution will destroy religion. Heliocentrism certainly didn't wipe out religious beliefs, even though it took the unprecedented step of removing the Earth from the center of the universe. The more religious denominations acknowledge our common ancestry with all life on the planet, the more creationism goes the way of geocentrism.

God and evolution get along just fine.

"The anticreationist cause in the US would be doomed without the help of Christians who are favorably inclined toward the teaching of evolution.”

"God and evolution get along Just fine" is not refuted at all, but refects most of Christianity. I have never heard of Matt Young or Frederick Crews, FL. Please explain yourself. What major Christian groups reject evolution. The Catholic Church is the largest Christian group in the world, they don't reject evolution. What are you talking about? Please explain, FL.

This is a Mel Gabler's (& his wifes') dream come true. They have for years tried to get Texans to basically outlaw, or at least water down, evolution teaching in the schools. They were instrumental in reviewing & censoring textbooks in Texas & knew their actions had national repercussions. Well, if the idiots in charge do vote for this nonsense, expect to see the impact on textbooks elsewhere, as the article states. Remember, book companies are not in the present science business, they're in the make bucks business with little concern as to what their books say.

FL, you lie.

to help Christians near and far to fully understand the falsity of Zimmerman’s plank.

Well FL if you are serious, then please explain the falsity (I found this website very well done and informative), otherwise it is most likely safe to assume you are just trolling for another "15 minutes".

Once again, FL demonstrates that the biggest threat to his own faith isn't atheism - it's us Christians who do accept evolution.

Did you know that a Christian clergyman in the US is more than 100 times more likely to accept evolution than a biologist is to reject it?

I bring this up because a creationist in our community recently stated that the 11,000 signers of the Clergy Letter Statement were insignificant, given that there are about 400,000 clergy in the US according to Census figures.

On the other hand, there are about 3 million scientists in the US. (Source) The Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwinism has 761 signatures as of August 2008.

[crunching numbers . . . ]

11,000/400,000 clergy in the US who overtly accept evolution = 2.75%

761/3,000,000 scientists in the US who signed the DfD = 0.025%

So clergy in the US accept evolution at a much greater rate than biologists reject it.

Thanks, Texas, for providing such a great resource for science teachers! I'll be happy to spread the word . . .

FL said:

God and evolution get along just fine.

That claim can not only be refuted, but refuted specifically, powerfully and compellingly. What is needed now is an ongoing educational effort (print media, online media, churches, schools, colleges) to expose and publicize the fatal weaknesses of this particular plank to the masses, particularly to people of faith.

11,000/400,000 clergy in the US who overtly accept evolution = 2.75% 761/3,000,000 scientists in the US who signed the DfD = 0.025%

— Chetyl Shepherd-Adams

Big questions are being debated here re: Science & Religion, in general.

I see the Teach Them Science site in its Texas context, where religiously motivated elements are engaging in dishonest campaigns and strategies in the revision of the Texas science standards. See, for example, Campaign of Lies in Texas / Dobson group’s letter from TX legislators, at
http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/fmf-lies/ , and Young Earth Creationist Attack on the New Texas Earth and Space Science Course at
http://www.texscience.org/reports/ess-response-yec-2009jan15.htm

FL,

Five lines of evidence are presented on the web site that support the theory of evolution. If you cannot refute the evidence, then claiming that evolution and religion are incompatible is simply telling people that they cannot believe in any religion.

Of course, you might just mean that a certain form of religion is incompatible with evolution. In that case you once again are claiming that one connot believe in that religion unless all of the evidence is conclusively refuted. But then other religions would still be fine.

Either way you are simply arguing against religion, unless of course you can refute the evidence. I see no attempt do so on your part, therefore I conclude that you are simply trying to undermine faith. Either that or you do not value evidence. If that is the case then you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you should not be surprised if those who are familiar with the evidence do not share it. Once again, you are simply telling those people that they are not welcome in your religion. Is that what the Bible says to do?

FL said:

God and evolution get along just fine.

That claim can not only be refuted, but refuted specifically, powerfully and compellingly.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what's happening. The alleged weaknesses with evolution are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution.

FL:

Your twisted version of Christianity is incompatible with observed reality.

Too bad for you.

In FL's religion (not Christian to my understanding) one is given careful instruction on how to sell a daughter as a slave.

Exodus 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a female slave..."

Perhaps we are better off not lining up with FL's twisted understanding of the Bible.

As a home schooling parent I appreciate the Teach Them Science web page.

rog

That is a great site. I just hope the people that NEED to read it will!

Your twisted version of Christianity is incompatible with observed reality.

— fnxtr

That is a great site. I just hope the people that NEED to read it will!

— Mary

That's "25%" of course. I wish it were only 25. Same for the last 20.

Science is our children’s future. If we teach students that science works in ways that it does not, we risk their future in science. We also risk our country’s future in science.

Cheryl Shepherd-Adams said: Once again, FL demonstrates that the biggest threat to his own faith isn't atheism - it's us Christians who do accept evolution. Did you know that a Christian clergyman in the US is more than 100 times more likely to accept evolution than a biologist is to reject it? I bring this up because a creationist in our community recently stated that the 11,000 signers of the Clergy Letter Statement were insignificant, given that there are about 400,000 clergy in the US according to Census figures. On the other hand, there are about 3 million scientists in the US. (Source) The Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwinism has 761 signatures as of August 2008. [crunching numbers . . . ] 11,000/400,000 clergy in the US who overtly accept evolution = 2.75% 761/3,000,000 scientists in the US who signed the DfD = 0.025% So clergy in the US accept evolution at a much greater rate than biologists reject it. Thanks, Texas, for providing such a great resource for science teachers! I'll be happy to spread the word . . .

Dear Frank J,

I've just quickly glanced at the site and I think it's terrific. One of the highlights is indeed the section on "Strengths and Weaknesses", with its usage of the heliocentric theory as an absolutely brilliant example. What I like about the website is that it makes its points in clear, concise and compelling language that's designed not to be offensive to those who are religiously devout and are willing to be persuaded by scientific evidence that evolution is fact, not fiction.

Best regards,

John

My dear FL:

While visiting AMNH (American Museum of Natural History) again yesterday, I made a point to walk through once more its relatively new Hall of Human Origins. One of its concluding panel displays is a video monitor comprised of video clips from one of the final sections in the AMNH-created "Darwin" exhibition, currently on display at the British Museum of Natural History in London. I couldn't help but notice how much devout Christians Francis Collins - formerly the director of the Human Genome Project - and Ken Miller, expressed their recognition that one can be a very good Christian and still accept the scientific validity of evolution.

Last week I heard vertebrate paleobiologist Don Prothero note that more than half of all evolutionary biologists are religiously devout, during a lecture he gave here in New York City. Shouldn't you reconsider your inane observation that only atheists accept evolution as valid science? But then again, what more can I expect from someone such as yourself, whose mind is quite intellectually-challenged?

Continue enjoying your membership in the Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective.

Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

Stanton said: And how come you've never bothered to explain how the birth of Jesus Christ refutes "descent with modification"? To afraid to be called on your blasphemy and bullshit?

It strikes me that the way to approach this is through the textbook companies. States not on the short bus could simply refuse to accept Texas infected books.

midwifetoad said: It strikes me that the way to approach this is through the textbook companies. States not on the short bus could simply refuse to accept Texas infected books.

Richard Simons said: I've never understood why other states feel compelled to follow the larger states when it comes to ordering textbooks. Here in Canada if there is not already a suitable book the prairie provinces get together with a publisher and specify what they want. (In the biology text there is a sizable portion onevolution.) Surely any reasonable-sized state could do the same?

FL said:

God and evolution get along just fine.

That claim can not only be refuted, but refuted specifically, powerfully and compellingly. What is needed now is an ongoing educational effort (print media, online media, churches, schools, colleges) to expose and publicize the fatal weaknesses of this particular plank to the masses, particularly to people of faith.

Mike, interesting thought about Atheists attacking religion through their fight with the anti- evolutionistas. One problem though, I served on the small committee that created the Teach Them Science site and I feel it is important to point out that most if not all the writers/thinkers/creators for this site are what could be aptly labeled Atheists. I can not presume to speak for the others, but judging from the ongoing conversation during the project I feel I can safely draw that conclusion. The Clergy Letter folks were consulted, mostly in the very final stages, seeking their take on the language and site dynamics. Their input on copy and content, while not zero, was negligible You could be correct in suggesting that the site was friendlier to religion because of that association. Don't be so fast to put down thinking individuals that may have come to conclusions about the origins of the Universe and the ever evolving bits of life on this planet that may or may not differ from your own. Our primary concern was the teaching of sound scientific priciples to our children, not spreading screed with those of a very narrow religious world view.

ITT: FL fails

Paxton, your comments about TCLP's input on the site being negligible are dead wrong.

You have been consistently anti-religious throughout this project to the point that we could not involve you with our TCLP collaborations. We have had a separate line of communications with TCLP for last several weeks, and much has been revised. Much new text was added. We have been getting both praise and great suggestions from TCLP clergy members since its launch, and we continue to include their feedback. This site began as an Austin CFI project, but it is no longer just our project.

I'm saddened that you felt the need to pretend to represent us and report from a position of ignorance. You were helpful to us in the early stages of brainstorming, and I do appreciate that.

Everyone else: We really appreciate the comments we've been getting on this blog. We still have a lot of work to do for the SBOE meeting this week, and your encouragement keeps us going. Thank you!

Everyone else: We really appreciate the comments we’ve been getting on this blog.

— Joe Lapp

Claiming that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God is an unfounded assumption. Teaching that as fact, as FL does, is lying. Therefore, anyone who claims this is a liar. Since God is not supposed to be a liar, that makes a fundamental difference between God and FL that means FL is not a beleiver in God at all.

Nobody’s ever logically proved that I was an atheist before!! But Dale has seemingly succeeded; he got me deductively dead to rights.

— FL

Ray Martinez is, even by Darwin-basher standards, one seriously strange guy.

Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

What bothers FL so much might be the probable result of a broadening association between science and religion. It is easy to observe how increasing knowledge based on science has continuously subsumed religious explanations for everyday phenomena. There is every reason to expect that this trend will continue, no matter what, as long as scientific knowledge increases. Something, NB, that religious knowledge does not appear to do.

The potential amelioration of strife between the two camps is a powerful draw to both sides. While such a justification is at best subjective, it certainly has broad appeal. Probably because it is based upon feelings of equal time, reasoned debate, intellectual honesty. Hard to argue there.

The evolutionists get an opportunity to present Darwin's prodigy in the simplest and clearest of terms, unencumbered by want or desire or intent.

The creationists get to reply, "Yes, but, God did it. No matter how it all happened, God did it. But I still can't believe He'd make me out of monkeys and lizards and mud suckers. Yuck! How can I be special with a heritage like that! God wouldn't do that."

What FL correctly perceives is the eventual dissolution of popular public support for the same old stories. Such dissolution may well be accelerated by a closer cooperation between such entities as the Center for Inquiry Austin and The Clergy Letters Project. The success of such those co operations as presently exist may indeed inspire other neighborly associations. Therein lies the threat.

Gaining knowledge seems to be the chief occupation of humanity. Bettering the lives of individuals here and now seems to be the chief result. The priests are locked in the past, in a time before knowledge became widely disseminated.

Religion has been steadily dropping away from the centers of peoples' lives for a few centuries now. We are more often guided through the darkness by knowledge and the confidence it engenders. Does FL fear knowledge, and its widest broadcast?

the anticreationist cause in the US would be doomed without the help of Christians who are favorably inclined toward the teaching of evolution.” It is thus a blessing that the Center for Inquiry and The Clergy Project have put aside their differences, which may at times be considerable, and agreed to collaborate on this important Web site.

FL, May I trust that you have studied the evidence provided at this section of the Teach Them Science webpage?

I see the Creator's plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

We are more often guided through the darkness by knowledge and the confidence it engenders. Does FL fear knowledge, and its widest broadcast?

Peter Henderson said: Atheists attacking TEs only gives YECs the ammunition to say that "there, I told you so. evolution is incompatible with the bible".

Joe,

Thank you for the clarificaton, and for your work not only on the web site but also in preparation for the Texas SBOE meeting. Sam Odgen shared some preparatory materials from the NCSE that thoroughly debunked the YEC/ID claims of the antievolution board members. I suggested that two take-home messages should be kept in mind;

First, ID/creationism is based on supernatural causation and thus falls outside the scope of science. Second, there are roughly 17 million* peer-reviewed scientific papers. None present data that support ID/creationism or refute evolution. In short, ID/creationism has no body of research, which is not surprising given the first point.

(The important corollary to this, I should add, is that to teach creationism as if it were science - or to present nonscientific critiques of evolution - is fraud.)

I also recommended being ready to present the formal repudiation of Stephen Meyer’s paper, which implicates him as party to academic misconduct.

So, thank you and best of luck - don't hesitate to ask for any pointers!

*PubMed database, National Library of Medicine

Good googly woogly, not that Carl Sagan Redux again! His sales-pitch wasn’t compatible with Christianity either!!! FL :)

Actually FL it is your limited reading of the Psalm that is the problem. I see little problem in arguing that the EXACT current state is a lucky accident and the verses sited. There is nothing so rigidly specific demanding that man could have only existed in his present form. Your interpretation of specific ordainment from those passages takes a ridiculously large amount of squinting for a literalist.

(the same boring, stupid, sectarian crap all over again)

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

FL said: And thus notice that that the two respective claims (Miller's and the Bible) are totally irreconcilable.

Crudely Wrott said: What FL correctly perceives is the eventual dissolution of popular public support for the same old stories.

If Christianity and evolution are totally incompatible as you say, FL, then, do you believe in the existence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, or is that something you do not believe in, either?

Furthermore, how come you still refuse to explain how and why the birth of Jesus Christ disproves evolution even though evolution has been observed countless times?

eric said:

Crudely Wrott said: What FL correctly perceives is the eventual dissolution of popular public support for the same old stories.

So I think it is more correct to say that no historical mainstream Christian denomination ever supported FL's literalist interpretation of the same old stories enough to worry about literal belief in them dissolving. If any support is dissolving, its support for what is historically a small, modern fad in Christianity, and not really all that popular a one at all (but one that admittedly has been growing fast in the U.S. in the past few decades. Though not as fast as Mormonism...).

Oh, come on, Stanton, you're asking for evidence of someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word - not, at least, for purposes of argument. And you imply that FL is actually able to explain, or wishes to explain, his assertions. He can't, and anyway he doesn't want to. That's not why he's here.

He's learned that most people here are perplexed and then irritated by gross irrationality and imperviousness to reason. Most of us actually think that reasoned discourse from evidence is sovereign - that it really will succeed in the end. FL is here to demonstrate that ignorance, irrationality and unreason can be invincible.

That is, he's here to annoy, and his babble is for that purpose and that alone. Thus do people like FL assure themselves of their consequence and importance. He does it by asserting the triumph of nonsense, but that is a small price to pay, so far as he's concerned.

Dave Luckett said: Oh, come on, Stanton, you're asking for evidence of someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word - not, at least, for purposes of argument. And you imply that FL is actually able to explain, or wishes to explain, his assertions. He can't, and anyway he doesn't want to. That's not why he's here. He's learned that most people here are perplexed and then irritated by gross irrationality and imperviousness to reason. Most of us actually think that reasoned discourse from evidence is sovereign - that it really will succeed in the end. FL is here to demonstrate that ignorance, irrationality and unreason can be invincible. That is, he's here to annoy, and his babble is for that purpose and that alone. Thus do people like FL assure themselves of their consequence and importance. He does it by asserting the triumph of nonsense, but that is a small price to pay, so far as he's concerned.

Still I’m willing to admit that there could be more than one interpretation of the psalm. Are you?

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

FL, your use of these lovely psalms is appreciated. They do evoke a longing. A sense of belonging.

But how do they differ from the dialog of an "On The Road To"* movie? So what if it sounds lovely? What has that to do with anything that actually happens?

* see Crosby and Hope.

Stanton, you think I'm not for challenging him?

Possibly, in the sense that the challenge will be flatly ignored, and will therefore, in a certain sense, and to a certain mindset, be a failure. It's no use challenging someone like FL with actual, you know, evidence. His hermaneutically-sealed universe cannot be reached by evidence from outside itself.

If you doubt this, consider his "defence" of the idea that scripture is not inerrant. It was to quote scripture and then engage in excruciatingly circular word-games and sophistry, ending with an argument from consequences of stunning obtuseness and downright malice, the whole unencumbered by a single demonstrable fact. I have rarely seen anything so desperately intellectually impoverished, yet presenting itself as rational. It was as if medieval scholasticism had never died, the enlightenment had never happened, and direct observation of evidence from nature had never been thought of. Galileo was familiar with the mind-set, to his vast discomfort. He, too, would have recognised FL, as one of the hooded figures in the background on the day that they showed him the instruments.

So, no, I suppose I'm not much in favour of "challenging" FL. At least not directly. It's pointless. Instead I'm in favour of pointing out his errors, his omissions and his lacunae, but as to a disinterested third party. To him directly I have only scorn and contempt.

Amended to simply, "The Road To" movies.

So honestly? God and evolution ain’t gettin’ along very well AT ALL — and it’s time for Christians to speak up and not let atheist Zimmerman and his friends do ALL the talking on that issue.

FL said: And thus notice that that the two respective claims (Miller's and the Bible) are totally irreconcilable.

Dave Lovell said: Reconciling the irreconcilable is the one area of thought where the religious mindset trumps all others.

Dave Luckett said: Stanton, you think I'm not for challenging him? Possibly, in the sense that the challenge will be flatly ignored, and will therefore, in a certain sense, and to a certain mindset, be a failure. It's no use challenging someone like FL with actual, you know, evidence. His hermaneutically-sealed universe cannot be reached by evidence from outside itself. If you doubt this, consider his "defence" of the idea that scripture is not inerrant. It was to quote scripture and then engage in excruciatingly circular word-games and sophistry, ending with an argument from consequences of stunning obtuseness and downright malice, the whole unencumbered by a single demonstrable fact. I have rarely seen anything so desperately intellectually impoverished, yet presenting itself as rational. It was as if medieval scholasticism had never died, the enlightenment had never happened, and direct observation of evidence from nature had never been thought of. Galileo was familiar with the mind-set, to his vast discomfort. He, too, would have recognised FL, as one of the hooded figures in the background on the day that they showed him the instruments. So, no, I suppose I'm not much in favour of "challenging" FL. At least not directly. It's pointless. Instead I'm in favour of pointing out his errors, his omissions and his lacunae, but as to a disinterested third party. To him directly I have only scorn and contempt.

FL said:

FL, May I trust that you have studied the evidence provided at this section of the Teach Them Science webpage?

I did look at it, Rolf, but honestly that is NOT the correct TTS section to study if a person is going to critically examine and refute the TTS claim of "God and evolution get along just fine." Instead, you should go to this section: http://www.teachthemscience.org/belief That's where the action is. *** They start off by quoting Ken Miller:

I see the Creator's plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe

.....But this is the same Ken Miller who said we humans were "lucky accidents" in his book Finding Darwin's God, suggesting that if the tape of evolution were replayed again, maybe no humans next time. Contrast Miller's "lucky accidents" claim in FDG with Psalm 139's clear claim (verses 14-16) that humans were very specifically "ordained" by God to exist even before the first day of their existence--no "luck" at all, just pure solid teleology by God Himself.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

And thus notice that that the two respective claims (Miller's and the Bible) are totally irreconcilable. So much for Miller's pious-sounding "Creator's plan and purpose" soundbite, hmmm? *** This is just one example. Once you start digging a little underneath the surface rhetoric, you suddenly see these massive incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity that the theistic evolutionists have never reconciled at all. Pretty serious stuff. So honestly? God and evolution ain't gettin' along very well AT ALL --- and it's time for Christians to speak up and not let atheist Zimmerman and his friends do ALL the talking on that issue. *** Observation: FWIW, I find the brief exchange of views between Paxton Williams and Joe Lapp to be very interesting. That's all.

FL said:

FL, May I trust that you have studied the evidence provided at this section of the Teach Them Science webpage?

I did look at it, Rolf, but honestly that is NOT the correct TTS section to study if a person is going to critically examine and refute the TTS claim of "God and evolution get along just fine." Instead, you should go to this section: http://www.teachthemscience.org/belief That's where the action is. *** They start off by quoting Ken Miller:

I see the Creator's plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe

.....But this is the same Ken Miller who said we humans were "lucky accidents" in his book Finding Darwin's God, suggesting that if the tape of evolution were replayed again, maybe no humans next time. Contrast Miller's "lucky accidents" claim in FDG with Psalm 139's clear claim (verses 14-16) that humans were very specifically "ordained" by God to exist even before the first day of their existence--no "luck" at all, just pure solid teleology by God Himself.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

And thus notice that that the two respective claims (Miller's and the Bible) are totally irreconcilable. So much for Miller's pious-sounding "Creator's plan and purpose" soundbite, hmmm? *** This is just one example. Once you start digging a little underneath the surface rhetoric, you suddenly see these massive incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity that the theistic evolutionists have never reconciled at all. Pretty serious stuff. So honestly? God and evolution ain't gettin' along very well AT ALL --- and it's time for Christians to speak up and not let atheist Zimmerman and his friends do ALL the talking on that issue. *** Observation: FWIW, I find the brief exchange of views between Paxton Williams and Joe Lapp to be very interesting. That's all.

So either FL's interpretation of the Bible is wrong or all of the evidence is wrong. That hardly means that religion, or even Christianity, is incompatible with evolution. That only means that FL is incompatible with evolution. There is certainly no argument there, but then again no one cares.

Until FL addresses the evidence, his religious views are irrelevant. If he is unable to address the evidence, then they always will be. He is certainly free to hold any view he cares to hold, but no one else need be constrained by those views. Everyone is free to ignore reality, but that usually doesn't work out so well.

Whatever your religious views, it is always best to know, learn and teach the evidence. To ignore the evidence is merely to demonstrate that your motives are suspect. That's as true for science as it is for CSI. Doesn't the Bible say that the truth shall set you free?

Ken Miller was of course referring to the observation made by Stephen Jay Gould in his “Wonderful Life”, in which Gould employed the “tape of evolution” analogy.

John Kwok said: You have yet to acknowledge that such religiously devout scientists like molecular biologist Francis Collins (an Evangelical Christian), cell biologist Ken Miller (a Roman Catholic), evolutionary geneticist Francisco Ayala (a Roman Catholic), or ecologist Mike Rosenzweig (a Conservative Jew) do not see any conflict at all between their strongly held religious beliefs and their committment towards what is sound science, such as modern evolutionary biology.

eric said:

John Kwok said: You have yet to acknowledge that such religiously devout scientists like molecular biologist Francis Collins (an Evangelical Christian), cell biologist Ken Miller (a Roman Catholic), evolutionary geneticist Francisco Ayala (a Roman Catholic), or ecologist Mike Rosenzweig (a Conservative Jew) do not see any conflict at all between their strongly held religious beliefs and their committment towards what is sound science, such as modern evolutionary biology.

John, He's acknowledged that some folks don't see conflict. But he doesn't count them as Christian because they aren't biblical literalists. In essence FL's argument amounts to: 'the way I [FL] define Christianity, it is incompatible with Evolution. Because my definition is the only right one, Christianity is therefore incompatible with Evolution.' Its not much of an argument - substitute the variable X for the term "Evolution" and you have the gist of every sectarian squabble over the last 2000 years. This is why I think we (everyone on both sides) should stop making statements about Christianity per se and limit the discussion to specific truth claims. Evolution is incompatible with certain claims made by a subset of the people who call themselves "Christian." It is wrong of FL to claim that Evolution is incompatible with the key religious claims of every Christian, because he doesn't speak for them (and they don't all agree on what those key claims are, anyway). But it is equally wrong of us to claim that Evolution is compatible with all the religious truth claims made by all Christians. FL is has an equal claim to being Christian as any other believer - no more of a claim, even if he thinks he does, but no less either.

FL said:

Ken Miller was of course referring to the observation made by Stephen Jay Gould in his “Wonderful Life”, in which Gould employed the “tape of evolution” analogy.

Of course. You have a copy of FDG, I have a copy of FDG. So, tell me: Did Ken Miller agree or disagree with Gould on that "tape of evolution" analogy? Did Miller agree or disagree that humans were "lucky accidents"?

FL said: ....is that we humans are "lucky accidents" as Ken Miller's book (FDG) claims we are, I'd say that such an interpretation is clearly unsupported and negated by the biblical text on the table.

Evolution and the Bible are compatible...inside the human mind. Human beings have an immense capability to believe mutually contradictory things. I see no problem at all with devoutly religious people accepting evolution, because they do it exactly the same way as everyone else who believes two things that don't quite jibe with each other -- handwave at the parts that make them uncomfortable, and always follow their confirmation bias. It's the same old story -- don't bother me with the facts, I know the truth, and for pity's sake, don't make me reexamine my current beliefs in light of new facts, especially if that's uncomfortable. For a lot of people, giving up religion would be one of the most profoundly uncomfortable things they ever had to do. (I was never religious, and I think having to become so would literally make me insane; I'd wind up faking it.) So it's entirely better from those people's points of view to rationalise, rationalise, rationalise, until the pain goes away and everything's all better.

Of course, a major part of this rationalisation is to continue to insist that religion and science are factually compatible, and blame atheists for the problem in the first place. After all, it's much easier to kick an oppressed group when they're already down, isn't it? That goes exponentially so if they're saying things that make you squeamish. How dare someone like PZ Myers try to move the Overton window to create space in the discourse for atheists who are rightfully pissed off at being denied civil rights due to their atheism, and sick and tired of having to pay deferential lip (on butt) service to religion at all times in public life? Don't do that; that's icky and nasty and rude and impolite and gets in the way of the larger objective! Shut up, sit down, and be a "reasonable moderate," you...

So honestly? God and evolution ain’t gettin’ along very well AT ALL — and it’s time for Christians to speak up and not let atheist Zimmerman and his friends do ALL the talking on that issue.

Interrobang said: Evolution and the Bible are compatible...inside the human mind. ...It's the same old story -- don't bother me with the facts, I know the truth, and for pity's sake, don't make me reexamine my current beliefs in light of new facts, especially if that's uncomfortable.

??? It doesn't take a genius to determine that some of what science has established is not compatible with literal interpretations of certain specific scriptural passages. So it's not that hard to understand that folks like FL who are faced with EITHER a flat contradiction, or the necessity to reinterpret something, are bound to have some problems. Either reality is itself inconsistent, or an enormous number of facts must be discarded arbitrarily, or FL's scriptural interpretation is flawed.

My reading is, FL would likely find these plausible in the order presented. Far more likely that reality is self-contradicting, than that all known facts in some fields are wrong. Far more likely that every fact is wrong, than that FL is wrong. When the need to be certain is vastly more important than the need to be correct, many are willing to die rather than accept the self-evident, seeing these two as basically equivalent.

Re. describing the evolution/creation of humans as "lucky accidents", I don't see why Christians would have a problem with it. It's an "accident" because a whole lot of human biology seems rather arbitrary, meaning that we are just one realization of many scientifically plausible alternatives. But importantly, it's "lucky" because God was controlling the dice. So because we fallible humans can come up with lots of possible evolutionary outcomes, we perceive our actualized divinely inspired evolution as "lucky".

Seems perfectly compatible with for instance Calvinism. In fact, it's heretical to claim to know God's intentions, which is exactly what is implied by so-called Christians when they infer Design (with a capital D) in human beings.

Flint said: ??? It doesn't take a genius to determine that some of what science has established is not compatible with literal interpretations of certain specific scriptural passages.

Is it really "uncompatible"?:
1: There is Creator’s plan and purpose fulfilled in our universe.
2: If we play the tape again and again and it is different, then we humans were "lucky accidents".

Is God really able to create only a totally deterministic world? I believe that many christians believe ex. in "free will", which also destroy determinism: If there is not choises, then there is not choosing between them.

So: I really can't believe that it is unchristian to believe that god creates evolution. Off course, there is allways different wievs. I had a "religion" when I was kid. It was wiew where we humans are transported from space. It gains odd features in time and it grow. It was big and fun story about freezer -looking spaceships and stuff. Think if that is a religion. In theory I have freedom to believe it. But that doesn't mean that if scientist is doing research that falsifies panspermia or "mocks UFO:s", that he is wrong. Perhaps the uncompatibility comes around becouse the wiew of mine is so totally unscientific.

PS: I'm from foreigner country so my language can be amusing. Sorry about that.

Great, I just found that my Texas SBOE member is Cynthia Dunbar, the most religiously fanatical member of the SBOE.

Excerpts from her bio on the "Teach Them Science" web site:

- In her book, One Nation Under God (Onward, 2008), Dunbar (on p. 100) calls public education a “subtly deceptive tool of perversion.” She charges that the establishment of public schools is unconstitutional and even “tyrannical” because it threatens the authority of families, granted by God through Scripture, to direct the instruction of their children (p. 103).(26)

- In 2006, she Strongly Favored this position on Intelligent Design: “Present scientific evidence in our public schools supporting intelligent design, and not just evolution, and treat both theories as viable ones on the origin of life.”(27)

- She co-nominated Stephen Meyer, anti-evolutionist and vice president of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, to the state science curriculum expert review panel in October, 2008.(28)

Truly scary stuff! How do you even begin to engage someone like this? I guess you do it in the voting both.

Jeff

I suspect FL is just another in a long line of word-gamers who love to show off to their audiences in their churches.

Whether it has been the quad preachers on college and university campuses over the decades, or Duane Gish, or Philip Johnson, or Ken Ham, or any of the other babbling sectarian firebrands who pretend to knowledge, the game is always the same; keep babbling as though one has great generalized knowledge and can hold one’s own debating the best scientists on the planet. If the game can be played against multiple “enemies”, then so much the better and the more impressive it is to the rubes who witness the spectacle.

It makes no difference to these word-gamers if they are babbling complete gibberish. As long as their intended audience of rubes is impressed, they win among their own peers. We are just practice for them.

One of the latest incarnations of this stereotypical behavior is “Pastor” Bob Enyart who tried to pop into a discussion of Dan Styer’s paper on Entropy and Evolution and bait people over to his agonizing word-game shtick. The purpose is for Enyart to rack-up “victories” over any scientist with name-recognition by distorting concepts and stacking the deck in his own rap-ups of the “debate” on his web site and radio program.

I don’t recall any exceptions to this shtick in the nearly 40 years I have been observing this phenomenon. The result produces an army of rubes who aspire to this type of gab, and who remain completely and shamelessly ignorant of the science. There has been a blast of this crap recently in our local newspaper (the local newspaper is run by evangelicals sympathetic to this mentality).

As to their being “Christians”, I suspect many of them don’t really give a damn. It’s the demagoguery, the ego trip, the personal glory and the money they receive from it that drives them. If they really cared about knowledge and truth, they would hesitate before making complete fools of themselves; yet none of them ever pause and consider the larger consequences of their self-gratifying behaviors.

I think we will be seeing a lot more of this crap in the coming years. Court decisions that go against anti-evolutionists simply inflame the receptive base to which these demagogues pander.

- In 2006, she Strongly Favored this position on Intelligent Design: “Present scientific evidence in our public schools supporting intelligent design, and not just evolution, and treat both theories as viable ones on the origin of life.”(27)

So Fl has proven that his intrepretation of the Bible is incompatible with evolution. Still no reason to prefer his interpretation over any other. Still no reason to choose the Bible over science. Still no reason not to teach them science. Still no attempt to look at evidence. Just more reasons to keep preachers in church and science in science classrooms.

stevaroni said: If, in all her wisdom, she did manage to get a specific plank into the standards to "Teach intelligent design" it would instantly run directly into a court challenge, which it would undoubtedly loose (Edwards v. Aguillard has already been there).

FL said:

Still I’m willing to admit that there could be more than one interpretation of the psalm. Are you?

I dunno, Mike. If your interpretation of....

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. 15 My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.

....is that we humans are "lucky accidents" as Ken Miller's book (FDG) claims we are, I'd say that such an interpretation is clearly unsupported and negated by the biblical text on the table. In contrast, an interpretation that humans are teleologically, purposefully created by God is far far far better supported by the actual text and wording of Ps 139:14-16.

Mike said:

Flint said: ??? It doesn't take a genius to determine that some of what science has established is not compatible with literal interpretations of certain specific scriptural passages.

I feel safe in predicting that there are few, or no, other aspects of life in which you would insist on only one way of doing everything. I myself am in full support of replacing all lawyers with research scientists. We're a much more reasonable and caring bunch, and you really don't need all that law, precedent, and arbitrarily complicated language anyway. Science is not the universal hammer. Every problem is not a nail. There is a practical problem here that requires all of us to be pragmatic in the age of Obama.

Understanding how science works helps us with everyday decisions: When an advertisement claims that something has been “scientifically tested” what does that mean? When do you believe the statement “scientifically proven?” When medical research says that a drug has a percentage chance of helping you or hurting you, what does that percentage number mean? How does it apply to you in particular? If someone makes a claim about what is true, whether about a money-making scheme or an herbal remedy or the toxicity of a pesticide, should you believe it? How do you decide for yourself whether it's accurate or not?

David Fickett-Wilbar said, "Your theology is too limited, FL. You are trying to box God into a container made by man."

One of life's little pleasures is when someone makes a couple of simple statements that so thoroughly distill my recent, discordant thoughts.

David Fickett-Wilbar just did it. As far as I can tell, the container argument is applicable in all cases of reputedly "received" wisdom and other styles of "spiritual" insight. Only it never occurred to me to reduce my thoughts to such elegant directness. But now, it has!

Thanks for the boost, David. You've saved me hours of internal editing.

Thanks for the boost, David. You’ve saved me hours of internal editing.

Perhaps from the point of view of God we were always ordained, and we got there via a series of lucky accidents. Perhaps God uses luck as well as fiat in His work. If God is omnipotent, can even luck withstand His ultimate goals? Your theology is too limited, FL. You are trying to box God into a container made by man.

Not bad.

But it's a little ideological. However, I think all efforts at educating the public mind are tainted by ideology. Cases in point: Kenneth Miller and Richard Dawkins, not to mention the egregious case of William Lane Craig.

So I guess all in all I would agree with most commenting here that this website is a welcome development.

NS
http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

...from the website of "notedscholar" (no and no)

Charles Darwin, the founding father of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, famously observed that the woman’s brain is innately inferior to the man’s brain. Of course, he didn’t distinguish between general averages and necessary rules of nature, but we can forgive him for that.

...etc., further drivelling not quoted

You are an idiot.

FL said:

Claiming that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God is an unfounded assumption. Teaching that as fact, as FL does, is lying. Therefore, anyone who claims this is a liar. Since God is not supposed to be a liar, that makes a fundamental difference between God and FL that means FL is not a beleiver in God at all.

First, sincere thanks to all who responded. Wasn't expecting all that, quite honestly --- in fact I wrote my post as more of a personal reflection, thinking about things, "preaching to myself", as it were. I'm quoting Dale Husband's response here because it's so, well, unusual. Nobody's ever logically proved that I was an atheist before!! But Dale has seemingly succeeded; he got me deductively dead to rights. (I'll have to break the news to the Bishop gently, of course. Also have to walk into church next Sunday with a paper bag over my head. Alas, the shame!!) FL

kc said: ...from the website of "notedscholar" (no and no) Charles Darwin, the founding father of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, famously observed that the woman’s brain is innately inferior to the man’s brain. Of course, he didn’t distinguish between general averages and necessary rules of nature, but we can forgive him for that. ...etc., further drivelling not quoted You are an idiot.

NS, allow me to explain it to you. Kc is not suggesting anything about Darwin at all. Rather, s/he is telling you directly and specifically that you're an idiot, an opinion in which I do not concur. Idiots can't help it.

I've had a look at your blog, too. It is, like you, a piece of work.

I’ve had a look at your blog, too. It is, like you, a piece of work.

— Dave Luckett

Legitimate commentators like nutritionist Kevin Trudeau, and complete quacks like Denise O’Leary.

For anyone who still thinks that we don't have a problem outside of some southern states, and that the courts can handle it, an example from a suburban town in Ohio:
http://tinyurl.com/7ucs38
Its only a theory.

notedscholar said:

kc said: ...from the website of "notedscholar" (no and no) Charles Darwin, the founding father of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, famously observed that the woman’s brain is innately inferior to the man’s brain. Of course, he didn’t distinguish between general averages and necessary rules of nature, but we can forgive him for that. ...etc., further drivelling not quoted You are an idiot.

Are you suggesting that Darwin did not believe this?

Dave Luckett said: NS, allow me to explain it to you. Kc is not suggesting anything about Darwin at all. Rather, s/he is telling you directly and specifically that you're an idiot, an opinion in which I do not concur. Idiots can't help it. I've had a look at your blog, too. It is, like you, a piece of work.

NotedScholar, ironically, asks

Are you suggesting that Darwin did not believe this? Do I seriously have to do your research for you?

Why would we expect any serious research from you?

PS: You are missing the point.

Mike said: For anyone who still thinks that we don't have a problem outside of some southern states, and that the courts can handle it, an example from a suburban town in Ohio: http://tinyurl.com/7ucs38 Its only a theory.

Mike said: For anyone who still thinks that we don't have a problem outside of some southern states, and that the courts can handle it, an example from a suburban town in Ohio: http://tinyurl.com/7ucs38 Its only a theory.

Councilwoman Jacquelyn Thompson said the city needs to write a policy promoting religious inclusion. It would clarify that, although the creche, or nativity display, is a tradition, other religions are welcome in the city, she said.

Dave Luckett said: NS, allow me to explain it to you. Kc is not suggesting anything about Darwin at all. Rather, s/he is telling you directly and specifically that you're an idiot, an opinion in which I do not concur. Idiots can't help it. I've had a look at your blog, too. It is, like you, a piece of work.

Dan said:

notedscholar said:

kc said: ...from the website of "notedscholar" (no and no) Charles Darwin, the founding father of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, famously observed that the woman’s brain is innately inferior to the man’s brain. Of course, he didn’t distinguish between general averages and necessary rules of nature, but we can forgive him for that. ...etc., further drivelling not quoted You are an idiot.

Are you suggesting that Darwin did not believe this?

On the contrary, kc's point is that notedscholar's drivel is irrelevant. The implicit reasoning of notedscholar is: "By today's standards, Charles Darwin (the founding father of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis) would be considered a misogynist. Thus the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is incorrect." To see how fallacious this "reasoning" is, compare it to: "By today's standards, George Washington (the founding father of the United States) would be considered a misogynist. Thus the United States does not exist."

PvM said: NotedScholar, ironically, asks Are you suggesting that Darwin did not believe this? Do I seriously have to do your research for you? Why would we expect any serious research from you? PS: You are missing the point.

notedscholar said:

PvM said: NotedScholar, ironically, asks Are you suggesting that Darwin did not believe this? Do I seriously have to do your research for you? Why would we expect any serious research from you? PS: You are missing the point.

Good job being mean. [snip]

notedscholar said:

PvM said: NotedScholar, ironically, asks Are you suggesting that Darwin did not believe this? Do I seriously have to do your research for you? Why would we expect any serious research from you? PS: You are missing the point.

Good job being mean. But to answer your question as if it was serious and worth discussing, you should expect serious research from me because I do it all the time, in my job and out of it (on the blogosphere). For example, my claim about Darwin is correct. And to answer some other people on these comments, Darwin's quote does not make him a misogynist. It's actually a credit to his intellectual honesty that despite the political currents, he followed the evidence where it lead and concluded that women were marginally inferior in intellectual capacity to men. NS

notedscholar said: But to answer your question as if it was serious and worth discussing, you should expect serious research from me because I do it all the time, in my job and out of it (on the blogosphere). For example, my claim about Darwin is correct.

KP said: says let "Whitehall take care of Whitehall" when antibiotic-resistant bacteria take over since they don't want any of "this Science [Month]."

eric said:

notedscholar said: But to answer your question as if it was serious and worth discussing, you should expect serious research from me because I do it all the time, in my job and out of it (on the blogosphere). For example, my claim about Darwin is correct.

You write an essay which includes the statement about Darwin's belief: that essay includes no reference to any primary Darwin source. When queried, you cite a secondary source. And not an authoritative historian or Darwin scholar secondary source, but a web piece by Answers in Genesis. But wait! It gets worse. Because the AiG piece isn't even primarily about Darwin. In the very first sentence the AiG piece mentions that the focus of their article is the views of 19th century biologists who wrote about Darwin. So they are talking about other people's analysis of Darwin's views. I don't do a lot of research any more - but I do pay people to do research for me. I wouldn't pay for yours. It doesn't matter whether you're correct in your claim about Darwin the man. Your "research" (and I use those scare quotes intentionally) appears to consist of one non-peer-reviewed web article from a religious organization known to oppose Evolution on religious grounds, that article is itself derivative instead of original research, on top of which you even seemed to have missed the point that its derivative.

John Kwok said: eric, If notedscholar was genuinely serious about conducting online "research", then he should have known that Darwin's correspondence has been digitized and posted elsewhere online

eric said: Yep. The true irony here is that his (NS') claim about Darwin being sexist was, I thought, fairly noncontroversial. Completely irrelevant,

I know worse things about Darwin than a Darwin-basher could tell me:

DARWIN, HITLER, & MARX: http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin_05.html#m3

Is this the best these people can do?

Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

mrg (iml8) said: I know worse things about Darwin than a Darwin-basher could tell me: DARWIN, HITLER, & MARX: http://www.vectorsite.net/tadarwin_05.html#m3 Is this the best these people can do? Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

Is this the best these people can do?

— mrg(iml8)

John Kwok said: Regrettably Klinghoffer is, like Jindal, a fellow alumnus of my Ivy League undergraduate alma mater.

mrg (iml8) said:

John Kwok said: Regrettably Klinghoffer is, like Jindal, a fellow alumnus of my Ivy League undergraduate alma mater.

I'm familiar with Klinghoffer -- another who makes my eyes glaze over after reading the first paragraph. "Deja moo -- I have seen this BS before." Cheers -- MrG / http://gvgpd.proboards.com

notedscholar said: And to answer some other people on these comments, Darwin's quote does not make him a misogynist. It's actually a credit to his intellectual honesty that despite the political currents, he followed the evidence where it lead and concluded that women were marginally inferior in intellectual capacity to men. NS

notedscholar said: The “one thing he was right about,” as I (with some humorous exaggeration) say in the title.

But misrepresenting science and the scientific community - that’s dishonest, and hopefully something that a believer in a higher power wouldn’t do.

FL has previously said that his God faked the entire fossil record and every other bit of physical evidence that supports evolution. And since he has admitted to worshipping a deceiver-god, he therefore cannot be trusted to be honest himself, on any subject; so there's really no use in trying to reason with him. His religion, and his understanding of religion in in general, are poisoned by insanity.

FL said:

.….But this is the same Ken Miller who said we humans were “lucky accidents” in his book Finding Darwin’s God, suggesting that if the tape of evolution were replayed again, maybe no humans next time. Contrast Miller’s “lucky accidents” claim in FDG with Psalm 139’s clear claim (verses 14-16) that humans were very specifically “ordained” by God to exist even before the first day of their existence–no “luck” at all, just pure solid teleology by God Himself.

FL said: This is just one example. Once you start digging a little underneath the surface rhetoric, you suddenly see these massive incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity that the theistic evolutionists have never reconciled at all. Pretty serious stuff. So honestly? God and evolution ain't gettin' along very well AT ALL --- and it's time for Christians to speak up and not let atheist Zimmerman and his friends do ALL the talking on that issue.

JimmyJ said: age. If you don't think so I recommend a reading of the old testament, while keeping in mind that jesus confirmed several times that the old rules still apply, and always will apply. So love your neighbor, but if he builds a fire to cook on sunday, you better be ready to stone him. oh, the wisdom of a perfectly good, all knowing god is astounding, no? =)

I'm sorry, but rational tolerant Christians don't take the bible literally, let alone use it as an excuse to retard our already lagging science education.

We can read about David and Goliath and view it as a metaphor for overcoming the impossible, We can read about Cain and Abel and view it as a metaphor about the dangers of jealousy, and we can even view the whole book as a keen insight on the human condition - Jesus knew just how powerful a parable was, and anyone familiar with the bible should know that.

It is perfectly acceptable, then, to assume that not everything in the bible was meant to be taken literally, and should be used (as most Christians can agree) as a series of parables with underlining moral themes, mixed in with the history of a desert people's struggle to survive in a harsh, bronze age era.

Dan said: "By today's standards, George Washington (the founding father of the United States) would be considered a misogynist. Thus the United States does not exist."

As an anthropologist living in Texas, I've found that some people want to know if I "believe" in the theory of evolution before they know my name. I've gotten to the point of asking them if they "believe" in the theory of gravity after I tell them my name.

What a vicious circle. Students who are not exposed to science will not understand what science is, making them even more susceptible to strategies such as the "strength and weaknesses" ploy of late. I think appealing to the economic implications of being seen as scientifically ignorant by those who could bring science biz would work here. I've seen a lot of "strong moral values" go like cheap real estate on other issues.

I used to complain to my intro classes that (with notable and heroic exceptions) biologists put anthropologists on the point position to take the heat from creationists because we dealt with human evolution. I am glad to see that frightening reality of what it means for people with a medieval mentality to be writing checks for education, research, etc has now motivated a much broader group to stand up to this nonsense.

And as practicing Christian and Sunday school teacher, I must confess that in my meaner moments I imagine these idiots finally getting through the gates of heaven to find a giant laboratory managed by an exceptionally intelligent early human, maybe one with a significant protruding brow.
JCR

JimmyJ said: I'm sorry, but rational tolerant Christians don't take the bible literally, let alone use it as an excuse to retard our already lagging science education.

JimmyJ said: We can read about Cain and Abel and view it as a metaphor about the dangers of jealousy

eric said: Jealousy? Blasphemy! Cain offered veggies, Abel offered meat. The veggies were inferior in God's eyes. I shouldn't have to draw you a picture - the meaning of this story is perfectly clear.

God really wants me to eat that hamburger. :)

Just reminded me of the hospital cafeteria...

Whoever is the chef likes to feed us boiled veggies and pasta. No matter how much I eat, I still feel like I'm starving to death.

At this point, I can fully understand God telling Cain to buzz-off with his veggies. God probably looked at him and said the Yiddish equivalent of "where's the beef?"

G-dash-d does not speak Yiddish. She speaks Hebrew.