Weekend update

PZ Myers said: ...the US is currently deadlocked in the evolution/creationism struggle, and has been for a long time…and that central to the stalemate is our constant abasement to religion. It's time to stop, and the atheists are the ones who are working to break that logjam.

@1: it's really horrifying how PZ is trying to, er, state his point in the course of a free and open debate. You must be all of a flutter at such rudeness.

Here we go again.

Yes, it is a culture war, and I am cheerfully engaged in it. Religion is the enemy. I am in opposition to the creationists, so your attempts to claim equivalence are pathetic and silly.

What you foolishly refuse to recognize is that I do not claim to speak for all atheists, and that you take this particularly stupid stance in response to posts where I plainly say that organizations like the NCSE (that DO NOT share my views) have an important place in the efforts to improve science education.

But go ahead, keep on railing against claims I do not make. And I'll henceforth simply ignore your inanity. Flail away.

The ultimate point, I think, is that we all think the NCSE is a marvelous organization — you should join if you haven't already — but that does not mean it is above criticism...

— PZ Myers

Who made you Culture Czar?

— jfx

PZ Myers said: Yes, it is a culture war, and I am cheerfully engaged in it. Religion is the enemy.

...and the atheists are the ones who are working to break that logjam.

Get over yourself, boy, and take a good look at the people in your trench: we're not all atheists. In fact, even on the pro-science, anti-theocracy side, atheists are still a minority; so quit insulting our intelligence by claiming credit for work you haven't done.

Most, if not all, of the plaintiffs in the mind-bendingly crucial Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial were Christians, not atheists. Judge Jones, author of an opinion that we rightly shout from every housetop, is a Lutheran -- and a Shrub-appointee to boot. Obama is not an atheist, and neither were most of the Founders. And you still haven't backed up your oft-repeated claim that evolution generally leads to atheism.

There is not one single battle for honest education or religious freedom that has been won solely by atheists. You've needed the help of non-extremist persons of faith every step of the way, and you'll continue to need our help well into the foreseeable future. If a Pagan like me, or Selena Fox, can acknowledge the help of conservative evangelical Christians in the cause of religious freedom (yes, some fundies do indeed support religious freedom for Pagans), I really don't see why you can't do the same for people far closer to you ideologically.

PZ Myers said: Yes, it is a culture war, and I am cheerfully engaged in it. Religion is the enemy. I am in opposition to the creationists, so your attempts to claim equivalence are pathetic and silly.

If you want to talk about war, and use war analogies, then let me jon in with a quote from Sun Tsu: "On ground of intersecting highways, join hands with your allies."

There's also lots of good bits about getting good intel and knowing both yourself and your enemy. If you don't care enough to bone up on any of it, then you don't care enough.

If you're calling it a war, then you should treat it like a war, and start fighting smart.

You, and Dawkins for that matter, are starting to sound like George W. Bush: fighting the wrong war for the wrong reasons, with no regard for tactical competence, for no benefit to your allies, acting on prejudice and bad intel, wasting resources that should go to more relevant conflicts, and destroying nothing more thoroughly than your own credibility.

Here we go again.

"We?" Yo, no one's forcing you to keep up this idiotic fight.

...central to the stalemate is our constant abasement to religion.

By seeking union with religious people, and emphasizing that there is no genuine conflict between faith and science, they are making accommodationism not just a tactical position, but a philosophical one. By ignoring the significant dissent in the scientific community about whether religion and science can be reconciled, they imply a unanimity that does not exist.

I shall repeat myself: no one is demanding that the NCSE and NAS go all rabidly atheist, and we can even agree that a neutral position is more productive towards achieving their goals. The problems arise when they get so entangled with the people they should be arguing with that they start adopting some of their views, and suddenly the science is being compromised to achieve a political end.

It's annoying to find myself on the opposite side of P Z Meyers on a debate about science education, because I love his blog and think of him as an excellent science educator, albeit at the university or near-university level of sophistication.

I also agree with a lot of what he has to say about obnoxious implicit pandering to religion in general US society and media. I believe we strongly agree on a vast array of social and political issues.

But I disagree with him here.

P Z Meyers doesn't like it when the NCSE makes the neutral observation that some religious people have no problem with evolution.

He doesn't like that, even though making that neutral observation is the most, if not only, effective, honest way to rebut the common false creationist claim that evolution is essentially identical to atheism, and even though creationists advance that claim solely to disrupt science education at the public or individual level, and it behooves the NCSE to strongly rebut it.

He doesn't like it because a neutral statement about religion is a statement about religion that isn't negative.

He doesn't like people whose views on religion are different from his own.

This emotional bias appears to be sufficient to make him object to neutral, factual statements about religion.

His emotional attitude is "if you can't say something negative and derogatory about 'religion', undifferentiated, you can't say anything about 'religion' at all".

His emotional reaction is sufficient that he wants the NCSE to hamstring itself, and refrain from a particular type of neutral, factual statement about religion, which it is clearly valuable for the NCSE to make. Because a neutral, factual statement isn't negative enough.

While I strongly sympathize that this emotional bias was forged in the oven of obnoxious, discriminatory behavior BY some, indeed many, religious people, I still oppose it.

I also strongly suspect that at some level, he wishes to agree with the creationists that "evolution proves atheism". Because, as an atheist who knows a lot about evolution, this would imply that his own religious views are "scientifically proven". But the creationists are wrong.

In short, for emotional reasons, he wants the NCSE to abandon a neutral stance and pander to him.

He presents this, ironically, as the abandonment of pandering by the NCSE.

He seems to have browbeaten Richard Hoppe into what I perceive as a very ill-advised and fearful retreat from what was an initially logical position. Too bad. It isn't "progress", it's a case of successful application of emotional pressure.

This is my definitive last comment. I've said it all now.

Here's our big problem: we have had no offense at all, and we're never going to make any progress without one. Keeping the other team from scoring is important but doesn't win us any games if we can never carry our arguments forward one.

we're always being told to stop at the point where we are drawing the logical implications of science and evolution

If true,

this means that our so-called allies in this fight are actually not — they don't ultimately want to support science as it actually is, but are instead fishing for scientists willing to use their authority to support the continued dominance of religious thought.

Collaborating with our opponents is not the same as making allies.

And when real allies in the cause of science do show up and try to make a difference, we are misrepresented in order to discredit us.

I've also told them that one factor in my loss of faith was the promulgation of bad interpretations of the Bible that contradicted the evidence of science,

That often seems a more effective and pragmatic approach than pretending they can believe whatever they want and still remain true to science.

Francis Collins and Ken Miller can build reputations as public speakers on pronouncements of their faith, yet somehow the atheists in their audiences don't go running for the doors when they mention god.

I have specifically said that the theistic compatibilitist view can be represented, as long as it isn’t the only view represented ...

Nowhere have I called non-atheists “enemies”.

harold said: He doesn't like that, even though making that neutral observation is the most, if not only, effective, honest way to rebut the common false creationist claim that evolution is essentially identical to atheism, and even though creationists advance that claim solely to disrupt science education at the public or individual level, and it behooves the NCSE to strongly rebut it.

P Z Meyers doesn’t like it when the NCSE makes the neutral observation that some religious people have no problem with evolution.

I am talking about the fight for better science education.

Except when you're saying "Religion is the enemy" on the very same thread where you insist you're only talking about better science education.

Once again, you're stealing Cordova's schtick: say one thing, have your ass handed to you on it, then insist you said something else, and then question OUR honesty. This could be one reason why Sal Cordova himself just explicitly endorsed you on the previous thread. Birds of a feather and all that -- or should I say worms of a tongue?

Actually, I think PZ’s attack has been quite effective. This has been some of the best clarifications of various positions I have seen in years. It is a quite an encouraging “love fest”. :-)

Frame the question, win the arguement.

"Yes, it is a culture war, and I am cheerfully engaged in it. Religion is the enemy."

Congratulations. The Creationists have now framed the question.

PZ Meyers has done wonderful work, and I respect his contributions, and his right to argue his point of view.

I disagree with that point of view. To win the battle for good science education, the question should be

1. evidence vs. lack of evidence

not

2. science vs. religion

To frame the arguement as question 1, we must deny the Creationists the arguement from question 2. We can do so by pointing out that they do not speak for, or represent, 'Religion', but are instead only a well-funded, disingenuously vocal subset, and that the many other religious organizations in the US disagree with them. This undercuts their claim to question 2 - and this is what several science organizations have done by promoting talks and discussion with theists who support the evidence for evolution, thereby allowing us to frame the arguement as question 1.

"Religion is the enemy."

Wow. Johnathan Wells would have PAID Mr. Meyers to make this statement. If I were a spokesman for Creationists, I would take this clip and supply it at every lecture where Mr. Meyers is speaking or is quoted. By conflating a personal crusade - regardless of merit - with evolution, the focus is diluted and the opportunity opened for opponents to reframe the question to their liking.

Mr. Meyers, I wish you success. I share the concern regarding religious extremism. But I suggest (as others have), and it is a suggestion only, that you carefuly reconsider the honest, likely result of having evolution argued from a point such as "Religion is the enemy".

And thank you for your continued contributions to scientific understanding.

- K.

In recap: "to far" should be "too far"

I'll just pop in here to say that if anyone has any doubt that Coyne and PZ's approach is correct, they should rewind the clock about five to ten years and read the posts on this blog where, among other inanities, allegedly serious people who supported science thought the Worst Thing Ever would be to call a creationist a liar or an idiot.

In fact, as many of us maintained at the time, that is exactly what needed to be done and what still needs to be done. Particularly now, when the idea that creationists are lying idiots is being mainstreamed.

P Z Meyers doesn’t like it when the NCSE makes the neutral observation that some religious people have no problem with evolution.

He doesn’t like that, even though making that neutral observation is the most, if not only, effective, honest way to rebut the common false creationist claim that evolution is essentially identical to atheism

The most effective and honest way to rebut the common false creationist claim that evolution is essentially identical to atheism is to point out that the claim is false. The claim is equivalent to saying that erosion is identical to atheism. The only people who make such claims are liars who know nothing of science and are interested in pushing a religious agenda.

Never forget this: creationists and "ID proponents" are anti-science and pro-religion (whatever their religion is). That's it. The two go hand in hand from their perspective. They will tell any lie imaginable if the reaction it produces is perceived by them to be "positive". If they can tell a lie that results in scientists professing their religious beliefs, that is a goal for their side. And just so nobody is confused, I will remind you again: "their side" is anti-science and pro-religion, intertwined.

Those most comfortable with their religious beliefs will readily admit that their religion is merely a mind game that they play with themselves to make their lives more enjoyable, and also something they occasionally exploit for political purposes to the extent the habit is shared by others.

As for those unwilling to make this admission: grow up already.

Even if I were to agree with PZ that "religion is the enemy" (and I do think it necessary to constantly question religion), I would still say that he's fighting an inexcusably incompetent war. For starters, every time he over-generalizes about "religion," he only drives home the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Instead of blindly attacking an amorphous moving target like "religion," he really ought to be focusing attention on specific evil acts of specific religions; and let religious people either try to defend them, or figure out for themselves what such acts imply about their faith and/or mindset.

Treating all "religion" as the same only encourages them to act the same, both in your own mental picture and in their real response. Attacking specific evil acts, OTOH, causess division in the "religion" camp, as people of different beliefs either make excuses, pretend hey don't know what was going on, or try to say "yes, but WE don't do that!" This is a political as well as philosophical conflict, and divide-and-rule is a valid strategy, especially when it's done using the truth.

Again I'll quote Sun Tsu: "The second best way to win a war is by preventing your enemy from joining his forces." The creationists are trying to get other religious people to support their theocratic campaign; and offering to reconcile science and religion helps to divide religious people on the relevant issues, thus preventing the enemies of honest science from assembling a winning coalition.

The real enemy WANTS your culture war.

Yes, I know. Please tell the real enemy to bring it on. It seems to me that we have been winning this war -- and by we I mean those of us who make no attempt to hide our contempt for religious asshattery and all the bigotry and ignorance that inevitably accompanies the asshattery.

You may recall the Republican Party and their engagement in ths "culture war"? How is that working out?

These people are marginalized and wounded. Now is the time to crush them. But instead we've got the same hand-wringers worrying about a "backlash" and other garbage. Get on the offensive. Stop responding to pathological liars and sociopaths like Luskin and his cohorts at the Discovery Institute and start working actively to eliminate the damage they are doing AT THE SOURCE. Destroy the enemey instead of building a wall. I can't think of a better time to do this than right now, frankly.

Raging Bee Treating all “religion” as the same only encourages them to act the same, both in your own mental picture and in their real response.

This is a self-serving lie or an admission that religious people are idiots.

Which is it?

For starters, every time he over-generalizes about “religion,” he only drives home the fact that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Really? Give an example of a religion that isn't a mind game.

PZ Myers said: Yes, it is a culture war, and I am cheerfully engaged in it. Religion is the enemy.

Your average YEC said:Yes, it is a culture war, and I am cheerfully engaged in it. Evolution is the enemy.

gabriel said:

PZ Myers said: Yes, it is a culture war, and I am cheerfully engaged in it. Religion is the enemy.

Coming soon to a creationist powerpoint presentation near you... and they won't even have to quote mine for it. A while back I had an interesting discussion with some commenters on Pharyngula about how how listening to certain atheists reminded me a lot of certain YECs.

Your average YEC said:Yes, it is a culture war, and I am cheerfully engaged in it. Evolution is the enemy.

Nah, must just be my imagination.

gabriel listening to certain atheists reminded me a lot of certain YECs

And listening to certain commenters here reminds me of a lot of certain self-described "centrists" who are always sure that the "extremists" on both sides must be wrong and a "compromise" position is always best.

But more importantly, your statement that certain atheists reminds you of certain YECs demonstrates an amazing oversight on your part: the indisputable fact that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of all YECs are pathological liars and, as far as I can tell, none of the atheists here suffer from that problem.

In my mind, that's a very important distinction that should never be forgotten or trivialized.

But go ahead and forget it and trivialize it because some atheists say things about religion that religious people can't deny but which interferes with their self-therapy.

PZ Myers said: Here we go again. Yes, it is a culture war, and I am cheerfully engaged in it. Religion is the enemy. I am in opposition to the creationists, so your attempts to claim equivalence are pathetic and silly. What you foolishly refuse to recognize is that I do not claim to speak for all atheists, and that you take this particularly stupid stance in response to posts where I plainly say that organizations like the NCSE (that DO NOT share my views) have an important place in the efforts to improve science education. But go ahead, keep on railing against claims I do not make. And I'll henceforth simply ignore your inanity. Flail away.

Registered User said: gabriel listening to certain atheists reminded me a lot of certain YECs But more importantly, your statement that certain atheists reminds you of certain YECs demonstrates an amazing oversight on your part: the indisputable fact that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of all YECs are pathological liars and, as far as I can tell, none of the atheists here suffer from that problem. In my mind, that's a very important distinction that should never be forgotten or trivialized.

How about this. Let's ignore the religion thing for now. Let's go on the offense. Just do more with explaining the science. Ignore the controversy over the accomodations of science and religion, but instead say "here's the science and here's why we find it compelling".

NOVA is a great, great program. But the problem with it is that it's hidden away on PBS, and no one ever sees it. We need programs like it on major networks like ABC. This could be done with hard-hitting science specials. More scientists on talk shows. Just more science.

More talks around the country. Most university talks are, unfortunately, aimed at university students and people who already are on our side. We need to also focus on bringing in more people. Advertise more in the community?

And an Evolution podcast would be a great start too. We already have an excellent AstronomyCast. We should have an "EvolutionCast" too!

We should also focus on getting better science materials, and audio visual stuff into more schools. HHMI has free science dvds for high schools. These should be put into every class room!

It seems to me that we have been winning this war – and by we I mean those of us who make no attempt to hide our contempt for religious asshattery and all the bigotry and ignorance that inevitably accompanies the asshattery.

And HOW have we been winning this war? By enlisting the support of religious people who share our core values. Has anyone heard Obama saying "religion is the enemy?" Does anyone actually think he would have won if he had?

This is a self-serving lie or an admission that religious people are idiots. Which is it?

An observation of the consequences of various people's actions. Your non-sequitur makes me wonder whether you even understand what I'm talking about.

Really? Give an example of a religion that isn’t a mind game.

Why don't YOU give us some sort of proof that you've actually studied religion? How, exactly, do you know all religions are a "mind game," as you seem to think? I, at least, have spent most of my life hanging with, and hearing from, people who hold a WIDE variety of religious beliefs. Some of them play "mind games," most of them don't -- and no, those who don't aren't all following the same religion.

I happen to know many YECs who are nothing of the sort - they are decent, honest folks

LOL. Decent honest folks who think gay marriage is an assault on their freedums. Right. Got it.

Are these ignorant people willing to admit that they are ignorant of biology? And more importantly, are these ignorant willing to admit WHY they are ignorant of biology?

That's honesty, my friend. I'm guessing your "decent neighbors" aren't capable of this kind of honesty.

In any event, I wasn't talking about ignorant schlubs who sit in their houses and read the Bible and keep to themselves. I was talking about YECs who spew forth YEC nonsense on the Internet, on cable, on the radio, and in print.

But you knew that.

They would be quite willing to admit they are ignorant of biology, sure. The reason is simply that they have never studied it. I have, and for the most part, they are willing to listen, even if they don't like how it sits with their theology.

If “religion is the enemy”, then your other statement that “there are religious people who are even very good scientists, and some who were even extremely influential in formulating the neo-Darwinian synthesis,” cannot be valid.

HOW have we been winning this war? By enlisting the support of religious people who share our core values.

Um, no. Religious people who share my "core values" don't need to be "enlisted" or pandered to in order to help promote science education (and education/de-programming relating to anti-science crap such as creationism). Religious people who share my "core values" participate in this endeavor because it is the right thing to do.

On the other hand, religious people who do NOT share my "core values" tend to demand certain concessions, including an insistence that the anti-scientific (and typically bigotry-promoting aspects) of their religion are left uncriticized.

I, at least, have spent most of my life hanging with, and hearing from, people who hold a WIDE variety of religious beliefs.

So have I and I'm sure I'm older than you because you act like you know everything.

Some of them play “mind games,” most of them don’t

Really? Which one's don't?

Points above. ^^

Let's drop the religion debate. Let's instead focus on how to get the science message out. How do we go on the offense?

They would be quite willing to admit they are ignorant of biology, sure. The reason is simply that they have never studied it. I have, and for the most part, they are willing to listen, even if they don’t like how it sits with their theology.

Can you move the goalpost any farther away? I don't care if they are willing to "sit and listen." Pathological liars like Sal Cordova are willing to sit and listen, as we all know very well.

My point is that if you are ignorant of biology and geology but you are subsequently taught facts about biology and geology but instead of learning the facts that "don't sit with your theology" you instead selectively ignore them so you can play your mind game without worries, then you are a liar, at least in this aspect (but it's hardly *ever* just that one aspect).

I’ll just pop in here to say that if anyone has any doubt that Coyne and PZ’s approach is correct, they should rewind the clock about five to ten years and read the posts on this blog where, among other inanities, allegedly serious people who supported science thought the Worst Thing Ever would be to call a creationist a liar or an idiot.

So some people were wrong in an argument that took place before I started posted here, therefore I'm wrong now? That's a bit like a creationist saying "Science was wrong about something before, therefore it's wrong today."

It seems to me that we have been winning this war – and by we I mean those of us who make no attempt to hide our contempt for religious asshattery and all the bigotry and ignorance that inevitably accompanies the asshattery.

"We" have been winning the war by enlisting the support of religious moderates who share our basic values. I certainly haven't heard Barack Obama saying "religion is the enemy" -- he was able to win without such undirected insults.

Get on the offensive.

Since when was making common cause with others for a common goal NOT "getting on the offensive?"

...the indisputable fact that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of all YECs are pathological liars and, as far as I can tell, none of the atheists here suffer from that problem.

Atheists never lie or say anything stupid? Really? That's about as asinine as a Christian insisting that Christians never lie.

This is a self-serving lie or an admission that religious people are idiots.

That non-sequitur makes me wonder if you have any idea what we're talking about.

Really? Give an example of a religion that isn’t a mind game.

Why don't YOU give us some proof that you actually know enough about various religions to back up your implied assertion that all religions are "mind-games?" I, at least, have spent most of my life hanging with, and hearing from, people of many different religions. Some of them play "mind games," most don't.

Will said: Let's instead focus on how to get the science message out. How do we go on the offense?

In regards to whether YEC are "pathological liars":

I think it's a really unfair generalization. I would say that those who promote that viewpoint tend to be fine with misrepresenting science. However, most people who accept that position have simply been lied to their whole lives. They accept the YEC claims. And, if you accepted them, their claims, then their position is perfectly rational.

So, they're rather normal people who have just been been heavily misinformed.

Raging Bee: Atheists never lie or say anything stupid?

I never said that. Putting words in my mouth and attacking strawmen is a form of lying. Don't do it. You've already lost much credibility. I'd hang on to what's left, if I were you.

I don't see how I'm moving goalposts,unless you expect me to be reading your mind and responding to what you're really thinking instead of what you actually type. You're the one moving posts - "ALL YECs" becomes certain YECs when confronted; "my neighbours are dishonest because they are ignorant of biology" becomes "they are dishonest because they listen and still reject it." Well, which is it?

I have had many conversations with YEC types over the years. Many are willing to admit they are ignorant, listen to what I have to say, and change their minds as a result. Your broad-brush characterizations are unrealistic, sorry.

In regards to whether YEC are "pathological liars":

I think it's a really unfair generalization. I would say that those who promote that viewpoint tend to be fine with misrepresenting science. However, most people who accept that position have simply been lied to their whole lives. They accept the YEC claims. And, if you accepted them, their claims, then their position is perfectly rational.

So, they're rather normal people who have just been been heavily misinformed.

they’re rather normal people who have just been been heavily misinformed

Yes, clearly there is a difference between purely stupid people or people who simply don't care and a person who identifies his or herself as a young earth creationist. I'm talking about the latter, not dumbasses. Dumbasses can be educated, in theory, simply by teaching the facts.

Believers in a young earth are a different story. They don't need to be "educated". They need to be scorned, mocked, and derided, as does the source of their ignorance, i.e., their sick, bankrupt religion.

Exactly!

Let's get the message out in as many ways as possible:

1. An evolution podcast/radio show
2. DVDs and material for High schools
3. More appearances on talk shows (bring fossils and pictures when you appear on them!)
4. Talks aimed at the general public (science talks in churches?)
5. Prime-Time hard hitting Evolution tv specials!

Um, no. Religious people who share my “core values” don’t need to be “enlisted” or pandered to in order to help promote science education (and education/de-programming relating to anti-science crap such as creationism). Religious people who share my “core values” participate in this endeavor because it is the right thing to do.

That doesn't make their support less important, nor does it justify ignorant scatter-shot attacks against "religion" in general.

So now you're admitting that "religion" isn't "the enemy" after all?

Will said: Points above. ^^ Let's drop the religion debate. Let's instead focus on how to get the science message out. How do we go on the offense?

...the indisputable fact that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of all YECs are pathological liars and, as far as I can tell, none of the atheists here suffer from that problem.

Well, we've already caught PZ trying, on several occasions, trying to pretend he didn't say what he's on record as saying. So no, this claim of moral superiority kinda falls flat.

I hope NAS, AAAS, NCSE, et al., continue to address the perceived conflict between religion and science that interferes with public school science education. The grand majority of scientists and educators are extremely grateful for their interests and effort. If any correction needs to be made to it, let it be by extending the effort to include as wide a range of history and opinion as possible while making it clear that the majority of theology does not conflict with the biological sciences, or require an "alternative science". This effort is the province of any science supporting organization concerned with the progress of public school science education in the US. Its unlikely that any other kind of organization has the motivation or ability to do it as well. There is some protest over science organizations presenting information on theology, but theologians and religious leaders aren't as likely to be motivated to promote the discussion.

Will said: How about this. Let's ignore the religion thing for now. Let's go on the offense. Just do more with explaining the science. Ignore the controversy over the accomodations of science and religion, but instead say "here's the science and here's why we find it compelling".

Raging Bee said: Religious people who share my “core values” participate in this endeavor because it is the right thing to do. That doesn't make their support less important

I think most of the posters here that are against PZ's remarks are conflating two issues. All of us here, atheists and theists alike, wish to combat creationism and increase science literacy. In addition to this goal, a fraction of us also wish to combat the greater problem of faith and magical thinking in society, and I count myself a member of that group. Now, we are well aware that not everyone, not even a majority, necessarily supports this second goal. We're okay with that.

But here's the thing, we're not using the evolution issue to promote atheism the way we're being accused. Most of us, like PZ, consider it a totally separate issue. Time and again he goes out of his way to state that religion isn't necessarily a barrier to doing good science, yet time and again critics make the accusation that he's hurting the cause of science by linking it to religion. I have news for you, he isn't. You are. It is possible to commend a man like Ken Miller for the good science he does while also criticizing his religious apologetics. Why? Because they are separate issues. It is those who proclaim that criticism of the latter is an attack on the former who are using science as a weapon in the culture war, and it isn't us "new" atheists.

All Coyne and PZ are asking is for the NCSE and similar organizations to maintain the neutrality they claim to promote. If science and religion are separate issues, then we atheists shouldn't be capable of hurting the cause of promoting science. But that isn't the message we're getting from you folks. We're being told to shut up or risk alienating religious people. So who's really forcing the issue here and picking sides?

Sure, many people can reconcile their religion with the findings of science, and it's fine to point that out. But many people also either find that they can't reconcile the two or feel that they shouldn't even try. Must this fact be kept a dark, dirty secret?

At the end of the day, we all agree on the problem of creationism, but not on the utility of religion in general. We can separate the two issues, but can you? Or will atheists just never be welcomed in this fight? For all your talk of building allies, you're the ones who seem to be objecting to our presence.

Stuart Weinstein said: Exactly right Will. Decouple the battle for better science education from the culture wars.

H.H. We’re being told to shut up or risk alienating religious people.

Indeed.

And let's be clear about an indisputable point: at the same time that the number and influence of visible, outspoken folks such as those of Myers, Coyne, Dawkins has grown, the credibility of creationists has gone DOWN.

Somehow "alienating religious people" seems to be working very well as a strategy for crushing creationism. Perhaps this is because there are increasingly more and more people in America who think that creationists are sick psychotic lying idiots. And where would these people get that idea? Who has been promoting that idea most rigorously in its most pure and unfiltered form? Eugenie Scott? That scientist at Cornell who let a creationist moderate a blog with him? Don't make me laugh.

Let's remember that similar arguments for coddling religious people were floated by similarly self-described "moderate" science education supporters to justify a strategy of NOT fighting creationists in court!!!!! Yes, this actually happened. It was incredibly stupid then, just as this hand-wringing is incredibly stupid now.

How about this. Let’s ignore the religion thing for now. Let’s go on the offense. Just do more with explaining the science. Ignore the controversy over the accomodations of science and religion, but instead say “here’s the science and here’s why we find it compelling”.

— Will

H.H. said: Sure, many people can reconcile their religion with the findings of science, and it's fine to point that out. But many people also either find that they can't reconcile the two or feel that they shouldn't even try. Must this fact be kept a dark, dirty secret?

...time and again critics make the accusation that he’s hurting the cause of science by linking it to religion. I have news for you, he isn’t. You are.

Um, in case you haven't kept up, PZ is indeed linking science to religion, first by explicitly saying that evolution leads to atheism, then by saying "religion is the enemy," without regard to the fact that not all religious people are "the enemy." The accusations you speak of are well supported by quotes from PZ himself, which we have, in fact, quoted on this and earlier threads in support of our accusations.

At the end of the day, we all agree on the problem of creationism, but not on the utility of religion in general. We can separate the two issues, but can you?

We can, and we have. That's why we're being accused of "appeasement" and "accomodation," remember? The NCSE tried to separate the two issues, by stating that religion and science can be compatible; and PZ threw a hissy-fit because of it. That's what all this arguing is about.

And let’s be clear about an indisputable point: at the same time that the number and influence of visible, outspoken folks such as those of Myers, Coyne, Dawkins has grown, the credibility of creationists has gone DOWN.

Let's be even clearer: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is not a valid argument. There are plenty of other things going on here, and plenty of other players helping to take down the creationists. Earlier I mentioned the Christian plaintiffs in the Dover trial, and the Lutheran Republican judge who upheld their claims; and the point was ignored. If you have any comparable accomplishments of your own to brag about, then brag about them already, and stop ignoring those of others.

Raging Bee, you are still confused. Coyne and PZ did not throw "hissy fits" because the NCSE stated that religion and science can be compatible, but because it was the only viewpoint promoted. There are many of us who feel that they aren't compatible. So why is the NCSE discounting our views? They shouldn't be taking sides, remember?

Religion is seen as the root problem to many of us. On that we disagree, clearly. But why are you in favor of using the NCSE to promote your viewpoint over mine? You can try and spin it like PZ and Coyne are the aggressors here all you wish, but it's plain that simply isn't the case. In my personal time, I will continue warn of the dangers of faith. But in this fight, on this issue, I just want the NCSE to remain neutral. It's the only way we can work together. Don't be in the business of telling people that science and religion can co-exist because there's no consensus on that. Just tell them the science. You let them figure out how it jives with their faith, or if it can.

My point is that “enlisting” such people by pandering to their insecurities is, ultimately, counterproductive.

Who, exactly, is "pandering to their insecurities?" And what actions, exactly, are you talking about? The original dispute here was about some innocuous and perfectly truthful statements by the NCSE. Are those the actions you're complaining about? Or some others?

Coyne and PZ did not throw “hissy fits” because the NCSE stated that religion and science can be compatible, but because it was the only viewpoint promoted.

It was the only viewpoint promoted because it was the only viewpoint that squared with observable reality.

So why is the NCSE discounting our views? They shouldn’t be taking sides, remember?

They discounted your views because your views are not in line with their objective, which is to encourage people to reconcile their beliefs with valid science. That's the side they're taking, remember?

...why are you in favor of using the NCSE to promote your viewpoint over mine?

I'm in favor of the NCSE doing what's best to achieve their stated objective. If you have some other objective, that's fine; just don't expect the NCSE to fight your battle, when they're already invested in their own.

Bee, thank you for illustrating my point that it's your side who is co-opting the NCSE for a personal agenda. I especially loved the accusation that I expect the NCSE to fight my battle, when I've done nothing but advocate the exact opposite. Your gross hypocrisy and dishonesty is noted.

Raging Bee said: And let’s be clear about an indisputable point: at the same time that the number and influence of visible, outspoken folks such as those of Myers, Coyne, Dawkins has grown, the credibility of creationists has gone DOWN. Let's be even clearer: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" is not a valid argument.

jkc said:

— Will

I doubt if more and better information on evolution is the principal weapon the NCSE needs to "keep evolution in public school science education" (quote from the NCSE website). This may be useful in some instances, but I'd be willing to bet that information on the compatibility of evolution with religion (or at least offering evidence for the existence of scientists who find them compatible) would be every bit as useful, if not more so.

Raging Bee said: Treating all "religion" as the same only encourages them to act the same, both in your own mental picture and in their real response.

PZ Myers said: So if I said alcoholism was my enemy, but I knew many very good people who were alcoholics, you'd declare that logically invalid? Nice black and white world you live in there, fella.

H.H. said: Bee, thank you for illustrating my point that it's your side who is co-opting the NCSE for a personal agenda. I especially loved the accusation that I expect the NCSE to fight my battle, when I've done nothing but advocate the exact opposite. Your gross hypocrisy and dishonesty is noted.

PZ said:He does not argue that they should go the other way and advance an atheistic position (even though we know that that is the only correct stance), but wants them to back off on the misleading happy religion stuff.

Some god-botherers just CAN'T take anything except unconditional surrender!

If these people do not like Dawkins or PZ, that's fine. It does not make their position on science education one whit better or more reasonable, though, whatever they believe.
Stop insisting it's PZ who's being unreasonable (at worst he is "strident" about a parallel issue, which HE recognises and clearly admits) when it's a certain type of conditional ally; you!

My last words on this thread: I have quickly lost respect for many people whom I basically agree with, and I really, really hate that! It's depressing as hell to see people ruin themselves about nothings.

We interrupt this broadcast to inject this reminder.

In case any creationists are gloating over the discussions going on here, we should probably point out that no blood is being spilled, no heresies are being committed, no one is being excommunicated, and no proliferations of (non)sectarian denominations are taking place.

Please continue, gentlemen.

Kevin B said:

H.H. said: Bee, thank you for illustrating my point that it's your side who is co-opting the NCSE for a personal agenda. I especially loved the accusation that I expect the NCSE to fight my battle, when I've done nothing but advocate the exact opposite. Your gross hypocrisy and dishonesty is noted.

Poppycock! There are many scientists who profess a religious faith.

This forms a reasonable basis for the assertion that "science and religion can be compatible".

To counter this you would need to demonstrate that in most (if not all) cases the espousal of the tenets of science is inimical to the scientist's faith, or vice versa.

In the absence of objective evidence, your demand for "equal time" for your "viewpoint" has as much validity as the position of the (former) Dover Area School Board.

My point is that you are whining like a crybaby about PZ et al. “alienating” religious people because this will somehow “backfire” but the evidence shows that years of relatively high profile mockery and scorn directed at religious idiots by PZ et al. has been accompanied by … decreased credibility and influence of creationists.

I disagree. Compartmentalization is not evidence of “compatibility.” A serial killer can be a loving husband, that doesn’t mean killing people is “compatible” with marriage.

The mission of the NCSE is to promote science. Full stop. It has bugger all to do with how people go about reconciling that science with their faith.

oh ffs, all you whiney fuckers who believe that science and religion are compatible; just GTFO out of science, seriously just GTFO. YOU are the cancer that is killing science education.

JC, PZ and RD and the rest have drawn a line and you're on the wrong side of it. Cry moar noobs and go back to your fucking hugbox.

wad of id said: LOL Isn't it touching how much the atheists care for the theist's mental well-being? As if the atheist knows just how much mental anguish the theist is suffering over evolution. I want to see the scientific evidence for this claim, that religious people "compartmentalize" as a defense mechanism against science.

If science is viewed as anti-religious, how do you propose an organization go about promoting it then? Take stem-cell research. How do you go about promoting stem-cell research without dealing with the religious implications? Take condoms. How do you go about promoting condoms without dealing with the associated religious objections? This assertion betrays a significant ignorance of the role of science in society, as if science is insulated from all other concerns. It also betrays our experience in all the years of "science promotion" that have failed to make a damn bit of difference. We've tried letting people and their pastors figure out how to deal with conflicts. And PSST, I'll let you on a secret: it ain't working.

. The fact of compartmentalization isn’t remotely controversial, as even religious scientists admit they can’t allow their religious beliefs to interfere with their scientific pursuits if they wish to produce sound science.

Look, I was under the impression that the NCSE was all about neutrality, but if you want to hijack it to promote your strategy of appeasement, just be up front about it.

oh ffs, all you whiney fuckers who believe that science and religion are compatible; just GTFO out of science, seriously just GTFO. YOU are the cancer that is killing science education. JC, PZ and RD and the rest have drawn a line and you’re on the wrong side of it. Cry moar noobs and go back to your fucking hugbox.

Kzar said: oh ffs, all you whiney fuckers who believe that science and religion are compatible; just GTFO out of science, seriously just GTFO. YOU are the cancer that is killing science education. JC, PZ and RD and the rest have drawn a line and you're on the wrong side of it. Cry moar noobs and go back to your fucking hugbox.

Registered User said:the evidence shows that years of relatively high profile mockery and scorn directed at religious idiots by PZ et al. has been accompanied by ... decreased credibility and influence of creationists. You whine like a crybaby about how nasty PZ et al. are and how damaging his views and strategy are for science education but you have zilcho evidence to support your view. Only fear and lame anecdotes. Almost like a religious belief. How shocking.

wad of id said: Eh how's that? Religious beliefs interfering with scientific pursuits? How do you know that beliefs always interfere as opposed to motivate scientific pursuits? Read Collins' book. Read Miller's. This is hardly compartmentalization, and it is definitely not a basis for rejecting compatibility.

What is there to be up front about? The elephant in the middle of the room has always been the tension between science and religion in a certain vocal group of individuals. How do you effectively promote something by not addressing the main issue? It is completely nonsensical. You don't like appeasement, fine. What's the alternative. A laissez-faire approach that we have tried for decades? Let the pastors figure it out? Seriously?

gabriel said: Man, this thread is a creationist's dream.

Religious faith is an epistemology in competition with the scientific method.

Actually, those men you mention exemplify the definition if compartmentalization. Religious faith is an epistemology in competition with the scientific method. One says that knowledge can be gained through faith, revelation, and personal reflection, while the other rejects these as valid avenues to knowledge. When doing science, Ken Miller does not make appeals to faith, whatever his motivations for doing science may be. This is because faith and the scientific method are not compatible. A person can engage in both, just never at the same time. This is the definition of compartmentalization.

es, go out and tell people that religion and science are compatible. I’ll go out and continue to argue that they aren’t. But neither one of us should be able to use the NCSE to further our own ends. That’s the thing we should be able to agree on here. If you can’t agree to that much, then I believe that is what will hurt our common cause more than anything.

The mission of the NCSE is to promote science. Full stop. It has bugger all to do with how people go about reconciling that science with their faith.

Not quite true: yes, their mission is to promote science; but they have this important mission because science is under attack from religious advocacy groups, whose assertions about science must therefore be confronted as part of the NCSE's mission. And since the religious bigots and demagogues are getting lots of mileage with the assertion that religion and science are NOT compatible, the NCSE are therefore required, as part of their original mission, to attack this claim. And they can't just say "This claim is wrong" and expect to be believed; they have to SHOW how it's wrong, point out that some religious people have indeed reconciled science and religion, and describe at least one "mechanism" by which reconciliation is indeed possible.

Registered User said:

gabriel said: Man, this thread is a creationist's dream.

Better go change your diapers, then. So scary! We must hurry and "enlist" some religious scientists to put them all at ease before the take over America with their "backlash." You whiners have been going on for years like this. Meanwhile, the Repukkkes and their religious Republican base are getting wiped out. You understand? The zombie's body is lying in the curb. It's time to cut the head off, not wake it up so you can fight it again tomorrow.

jfx said:

I wonder, how would you quantify just how much scorn and mockery, in general, have damaged the creationist cause? I'm sure they have, to some degree. I just don't know how much.

How much damage did scorn and mockery do to Sarah Palin's political aspirations? The fact I even have to force you to acknowledge basic facts about our society and how it changes is quite sad. Good thing I am used to it.

So,

Is pointing out 'theists who support evolution' part of an effective strategy to counter Creationist attempts to undermine science education?

gabriel said: Man, this thread is a creationist's dream. No quote mining needed - there are nuggets lying all over the place: just cut, paste and project.

gabriel said: Man, this thread is a creationist's dream. No quote mining needed - there are nuggets lying all over the place: just cut, paste and project.

LOL. You and what army?

Precisely my point. No army is needed. Just a few good men and women who aren't afraid to tell it like it is.

Compartmentalization is not evidence of “compatibility.” A serial killer can be a loving husband, that doesn’t mean killing people is “compatible” with marriage.

Is pointing out ‘theists who support evolution’ part of an effective strategy to counter Creationist attempts to undermine science education?

Of course not. But it is an effective strategy to keep certain people happy who need to be stroked and comforted and reassured that nothing the NCSE does will do any harm to their beloved religion.

LOL, absolutely delusional

No, competition for ideas should stand on their own merit. The NCSE should be encouraged to try any idea and determine for itself whether it works or not. And we should freely speak out against people like PZ for hurting us. Cleaning up our own house of bigots is as important as helping others remove their bigotry.

At least we seek alliances with other groups. Who do the bigots turn to except other biogts?

Registered User said: Is pointing out ‘theists who support evolution’ part of an effective strategy to counter Creationist attempts to undermine science education? Of course not. But it is an effective strategy to keep certain people happy who need to be stroked and comforted and reassured that nothing the NCSE does will do any harm to their beloved religion.

H.H. said:

gabriel said: Man, this thread is a creationist's dream. No quote mining needed - there are nuggets lying all over the place: just cut, paste and project.

So what? One side, your side, insists we need to present some "unified front" lest the creationists use our division against us. But the fact remains that there are deep divisions between our motivations. Presenting a unified front, therefore, would be an unmaintainable lie.

Registered User said: How much damage did scorn and mockery do to Sarah Palin's political aspirations?

The fact I even have to force you to acknowledge basic facts about our society and how it changes is quite sad. Good thing I am used to it.

wad of id said: At least we seek alliances with other groups. Who do the bigots turn to except other biogts?

Well, I am merely borrowing from your play book. Unlike you, I have no pretense that this is high profile mockery. It is nice of you to admit the group of bigots does exist, however.

Raging Bee said: since the religious bigots and demagogues are getting lots of mileage with the assertion that religion and science are NOT compatible

the NCSE are therefore required, as part of their original mission, to attack this claim. And they can't just say "This claim is wrong" and expect to be believed

jfx The woman has no shame. She formed a political action committee, and will be a major candidate for the nomination in 2012

I'll just bookmark this comment for future laughs.

wad of id said: It is nice of you to admit the group of bigots does exist, however.

Registered User said: I'll just bookmark this comment for future laughs.

Registered User said: jfx The woman has no shame. She formed a political action committee, and will be a major candidate for the nomination in 2012 I'll just bookmark this comment for future laughs.

H.H. said: Raging Bee... said the mission of the NCSE “is to encourage people to reconcile their beliefs with valid science.” The mission of the NCSE is to promote science. Full stop.

gabriel These are mischaracterizations of what science actually is , as well constituting a loaded gun handed to the YEC camp

More diaper wetting. Scroll back a few years and you'll find folks completely convinced that confronting creationists in courts was "throwing gas on the fire" and helping creationists "recruit" more zombies to their cause. In fact, I even remember some doofuses who claimed that it was the behavior of atheists who turned them into fundies! It doesn't get more transparent than that.

Lining up scientists to proclaim their religiosity does not promote science. It promotes religion. The only reason that scientists are compelled to do this in the first place is because the worst religionists out there, the fungelical creotards, forced the issue. Instead of pointing that fungelical creotards are (get ready for this) sick psychopath bigotry-promoting anti-science moronic retards, the scientists instead have instead to chosen to say "Actually we're a lot like you."

Really really really really stupid move. It's bad politics and it's very similar to the bad politics that many Democrats played until progressives on the Internet (aka "radical leftists") began forcing them to do BETTER. That's what's happening here. Scientists need to be become better not at coddling and trying to appease religionist morons, but better at ridiculing them and putting them in their place which is under a rock along with this country's other worst elements (racists and militia types, both of whom also tend to have serious obsessions with a deity).

don’t see what’s so funny. She’s already (practically) running

I hope she does run. I hope she joins up with Mike Huckabee. And I hope she gets the Republican nomination. Seriously. That would be a dream come true.

The appropriate position of the NCSE as an informational resource (and sanctioned by the AAAS and NAS) is to neutrally describe the sci/religion interaction as a matter of controversy, and to outline various significantly-held opinions (it's not as though they are some inaccessible secret) as well as their critiques and objectors, and describe how wide-spread these positions are. More information, not less.

Registered User said: don’t see what’s so funny. She’s already (practically) running I hope she does run. I hope she joins up with Mike Huckabee. And I hope she gets the Republican nomination. Seriously. That would be a dream come true.

It justifies their entire premise: WE ARE UNDER ATTACK AND THIS IS A CULTURE WAR! HELP US SAVE OUR WAY OF LIFE!

Yeah, that "premise" gets a lot of traction these days. It gets so much traction, it's such a great recruiting tool that support for government recognition of gay marriage grows with each passing year.

I'll say it again: these same exact whines were posted here years ago when this blog first started running. It's not scientists who should be frightened by the sound of screaming fundies. It's the screaming fundies who should be frightened. The scientists should be emboldened. And when the Dems have a supermajority, the scientists should be screaming at the Dems to pass some laws that take care of creationism in the public schools (i.e., any school that receives any public funding whatsoever) once and for all.

But let me guess what our religionist-coddling friends will say about that: it would be the worst thing ever and will invite some terrible "backlash."

Please: bring it on.

I make that observation [that some religious people have no problem with evolution] all the time myself, and go further and point out that there are religious people who are even very good scientists, and some who were even extremely influential in formulating the neo-Darwinian synthesis.

When dealing with issues of compatibility, this simple statement should suffice: If you want to know how to reconcile the fact of evolution with your religious faith (or the faith of others), please consult your minister, rabbi, or spiritual counselor.

[The NCSE] completely appropriately points out that there are believers – self identified Christians – who accept that evolution has occurred (it’s a fact) and that the modern theory of evolution is the best available naturalistic explanation of that fact. Moreover, NCSE completely appropriately points to religious organizations that have stated that they accept that.

Registered User said: don’t see what’s so funny. She’s already (practically) running I hope she does run. I hope she joins up with Mike Huckabee. And I hope she gets the Republican nomination. Seriously. That would be a dream come true.

Registered User said: Yeah, that "premise" gets a lot of traction these days. It gets so much traction, it's such a great recruiting tool that support for government recognition of gay marriage grows with each passing year.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the NCSE stating that religion and science can co-exist. What some people fail to release is that many scientific discoveries have been made by religious leaders. Additionally, the Nobel Prize has been won by scientist. By condemning the NCSE for stating the dual relationship between religion and science, only give people like creationist opportunities to re-enforce their position without "quote mining."

Honestly, sometimes people need to get really angry and express their frustration. Then take time to address the issues, before putting "pen to paper."

Registered User:

Here, I will helpfully re-post my questions, so you can have another good look at them, and hopefully respond. I really would like to hear answers to some of these questions. I'm certainly no expert. The questions are embedded in the following long ramble, from about a page ago in this thread:

------------------

Also, I want to say something about the nature of religion, since the sentiment from PZ, et al., is basically that we need to kill it. I also saw it referenced as a “mind game,” and “claptrap”. Not only are these sentiments presumptuous; they are downright unscientific.

I’m not religious, but I must admit, I don’t understand religion. And I don’t mean that as “Religion is just so crazy!” I mean, I don’t exactly understand what it is, in empirical terms. And I don’t think science, in general, really understands it, even though, as a human phenomenon it can, theoretically, be studied through deep empirical means.

Here’s what I mean. Can someone here, preferably one of the culture warriors who wants to crush religion, explain to me in convincing empirical terms what religion actually is? Is it memetic? Or genetic? Or a little of both? Or something else? Elaborate.

Furthermore, let’s suppose for the sake of argument it’s memetic (although memetics itself is problematic, what with that whole “mechanism” thing. Dawkins and Behe do share that singular frustration). Well, is it possible that atheism is memetic? Is it possible that religion’s survivability value, as a useful meme, has been superseded, at least in the West? It is possible the old meme religion is being transcended by a new, particularly virulent and tenacious “mental virus”? Could atheism be such an animal, or at least one very strong contender? And what are the implications for atheism, as a dominant meme, if in the future, some other meme makes demonstrable claims to superior fitness? Should atheists simply be crushed and swept aside for the Awesome New Meme, by the same logic that made it okay to swiftly and completely exterminate religion?

I honestly don’t know. These are questions for deep science, and I would prefer that they be given serious consideration before we once and for all take up our pitchforks and march out to slay religion. I have a feeling that religion is much more complicated, AND much more worthy of respect and scrutiny, wholly on scientific grounds, than some of its more voracious opponents will ever give it credit for. It does seem like we should come to a reliable, methodologically naturalistic consensus about what religion really is before torching it.

---------------------

Thanks-
jfx

Anthony said: Honestly, sometimes people need to get really angry and express their frustration. Then take time to address the issues, before putting "pen to paper."

James F said:

Registered User said: don’t see what’s so funny. She’s already (practically) running I hope she does run. I hope she joins up with Mike Huckabee. And I hope she gets the Republican nomination. Seriously. That would be a dream come true.

*shudder* Be careful of what you wish for....

jfk In other words, it is being fought as a legal issue, bloodlessly, instead of your messy culture war.

It's being fought as a legal issue, numbnuts, because it is a legal issue.

Whether and how a religious person can "accept" evolution is not a legal issue. Rather, it's a BOGUS red herring of an issue foisted on science educators and scientists by fundies as part of an ongoing effort by fundies cause a minority group of deeply ignorant people to fear that a solid science education is part of a liberal plot to ban religion.

And that's the key: the number of people who believe that tripe is not changed by trotting out scientists who profess to believe in evolution and religion. The number of people who profess to believe such twaddle *is* changed by continually identifying believers and mocking the flipping crap out of them until they are shamed into shutting up. Eventually creotards are in the same harmless -- but closely watched -- box with their brothers and sisters in enlightenment, i.e., this country's hardcore racists, bigots, xenophobics and other worthless paranoid delusionals. Will they continue to be politically relevant in their sick little Appalachian squats? Sure. It's America. Let freedumb ring.

As for the "questions" that you posed, please flush them down the nearest toilet. They are more than uninteresting to me. Thank you.

Instead of pointing that fungelical creotards are (get ready for this) sick psychopath bigotry-promoting anti-science moronic retards, the scientists instead have instead to chosen to say “Actually we’re a lot like you.”

Actually, no, the scientists -- more specifically, the political activists who are trying to gain support for science and science education -- are talking to the ordinary people the creotards are trying to con, not the creotards themselves.

Really really really really stupid move.

Not nearly as stupid as your total inability to understand who the NCSE are talking to and trying to persuade.

Registered User said: As for the "questions" that you posed, please flush them down the nearest toilet. They are more than uninteresting to me. Thank you.

I've seen a sort of pseudo-Stockholm Syndrome at work in some quarters of the Defenders Against Creotards camp. Specifically, the danger of attempting to engage in "civilized" discourse with the well-known degenerate creeps at the Discovery Institute and elsewhere can become a bad habit, like sleeping with a pet python. One night you dream too deeply about a breakthrough in your relationship and the next thing you know you are curled up in a stomach with a half-digested rabbit and rotten rat bones.

The impression is left in certain quarters that both sides of this battle need each other, specifically that the creotards are somehow "offering" something of merit that shouldn't be casually dismissed and therefore it would be uncouth for scientists to go for the throat when the opportunity presents itself. This is a weakness and a mistake in politically strategy.

Every time that the creatards are kicked in the shins, they need to be kicked in the stomach, too, and thrown in the dumpster before they regain consciousness. Rhetorically speaking, of course. The idiocy, the sick lying idiocy, the warped bigoted ignorance-embracing agenda, it must be brought up and put out into the open at every opportunity. It will take time but constant ridicule and scorn will ensure that eventually more and more people will "get it."

But the lame pandering and the condescending "Try science -- it goes great with religion!" has got to stop. It's puke-worthy and transparent and makes us look as shallow and craven as the creotards who tell kids to "get high on Jesus."

The view is nice up here from the high road.

oh ffs, all you whiney fuckers who believe that science and religion are compatible; just GTFO out of science, seriously just GTFO. YOU are the cancer that is killing science education. JC, PZ and RD and the rest have drawn a line and you’re on the wrong side of it. Cry moar noobs and go back to your fucking hugbox.

I don’t intend to relinquish it because you find yourself unable to make a reasoned argument.

Bee, thank you for illustrating my point that it’s your side who is co-opting the NCSE for a personal agenda.

"My side?" Who are "my side," exactly? And by what unexplained sorcery have we "coopted" an organization with which I've never been remotely affiliated? They never call, they never write, so how am I supposed to be a part of some "cooptation" campaign? Your paranoia is somewhere between ridiculous and flattering.

Is pointing out ‘theists who support evolution’ part of an effective strategy to counter Creationist attempts to undermine science education?

Well, given that many states and localities have seen creationist candidates defeated, and given that there aren't enough atheists in said jurisdictions -- or anywhere in the US, for that matter -- to defeat the creos on their own, then I'd say yes, it is rather effective. Not the whole picture, of course, but a major part of it. I certainly haven't seen any overtly religion-bashing atheists winning any elections. (Jesse Ventura got politically screwed for making far milder remarks about "religion" than I've read here.)

Just wanted to put this bizarre statement out there again. It speaks volumes.

And your apparent inability to address the statement speaks even more.

the political activists who are trying to gain support for science and science education

I'd love to send them lots of $$$ but they need to turn up the heat first. There's a lot of money out there to be had but I think a large fraction of the most dedicated anti-creationists don't want their money spent preaching to religious people that "science is just another rewarding part of life." I want creationists and their dominionist agenda to be knee-capped. I want their museums bankrupted and torn down or converted into bowling alleys or legitimate operations. I want to see creationists cry and kick and scream.

I don't see why the NCSE can't be part of that. Creationists are the worst enemy of science, next to the stooges who want to see the public school system completely dismantled.

You don’t want to be concerned with religion as a thing in the real world, to be examined and studied and measured and calculated and debated.

Not necessarily. I just think that answering your dumbass questions would be a waste of threadspace.

an organization with which I’ve never been remotely affiliated?

And that’s the key: the number of people who believe that tripe is not changed by trotting out scientists who profess to believe in evolution and religion. The number of people who profess to believe such twaddle *is* changed by continually identifying believers and mocking the flipping crap out of them until they are shamed into shutting up.

Got any actual evidence to support that assertion?

As for the “questions” that you posed, please flush them down the nearest toilet. They are more than uninteresting to me. Thank you.

Well, now we know how you feel about actual scientific inquiry.

I’ve seen a sort of pseudo-Stockholm Syndrome at work in some quarters of the Defenders Against Creotards camp.

"Seen," or "imagined?" Again, do you have any actual evidence here? Or is actual evidence and reasoning "more than uninteresting" to you?

I’d love to send them lots of $$$ but they need to turn up the heat first.

Why not send the money to another organization that you think would be more effective, and see what sort of results they get?

Registered User said: Whether and how a religious person can "accept" evolution is not a legal issue. Rather, it's a BOGUS red herring of an issue foisted on science educators and scientists by fundies as part of an ongoing effort by fundies cause a minority group of deeply ignorant people to fear that a solid science education is part of a liberal plot to ban religion.

Raging Bee, stuff it.

You're done commenting in this thread. I'll let you back after you've sent in your check to the NCSE. Until then...your hypocrisy is intolerable.

Registered User said: I want to see creationists cry and kick and scream. I don't see why the NCSE can't be part of that.

I just think that answering your dumbass questions would be a waste of threadspace.

PZ Myers said: Raging Bee, stuff it. You're done commenting in this thread. I'll let you back after you've sent in your check to the NCSE. Until then...your hypocrisy is intolerable.

Raging Bee's persistent shrieking over this issue implies that he or she thinks the NCSE is very important. That he or she won't even plunk down a few dollars in support of the organization is a rather stark contrast -- no, you don't have to be a member of the organization to post here. But throwing hissy fits on behalf of an organization that obviously means so little is hypocritical and offensive. Raging Bee is out of this discussion for being a dishonest fraud.

And what about you, O Hysterical Defender of the NCSE? Are you a member, too?

This discussion has spiraled out of control. I'm done with it.

The irrational, emotional, tribalistic behavior of the "movement atheists" (and not exclusively atheists, of course) on this thread (and many other threads) is strong evidence for evolution.

"Intelligently designed" "rational atheists" would be expected to make precise, specific, and measurable claims, respond to challenges dispassionately, acknowledge points on which others were correct, and so on.

However, at the end of the day, we're all just a bunch of shaved apes, wearing a very thin frontal cortex and a few tiny language centers over a brain which shares much homology with the shark, the snapping turtle, the wretched trembling shrew, the beady-eyed sewer rat, the snarling leopard, and of course, our fellow primates, especially our chimp cousins. Please not that my use of the pronoun "we" indicates that I am also including myself here.

"Intelligent Design" fails to explain the behavior exhibited on PT over the past few days.

The theory of evolution explains it beautifully.

PZ Myers said: Raging Bee's persistent shrieking over this issue implies that he or she thinks the NCSE is very important. That he or she won't even plunk down a few dollars in support of the organization is a rather stark contrast -- no, you don't have to be a member of the organization to post here. But throwing hissy fits on behalf of an organization that obviously means so little is hypocritical and offensive. Raging Bee is out of this discussion for being a dishonest fraud. And what about you, O Hysterical Defender of the NCSE? Are you a member, too?

Engage a discussion? Are you nuts? Your mind is made up, and you've mainly been involved in mischaracterizing the positions of the people you're 'criticizing'. There are no grounds for discussion with you.

Raging Bee is gone. You called it: "Authoritarian jackass" and "god of the blogosphere", remember. That's your "discussion".

If science and religion can co-exist how does one explain President Bush's stance (and veto) of funding for embryonic stem cell research? Does anyone think that was for reasons other than religious? I would be interested to hear what a devout Catholic biologist's position would be on areas of research that are potentially beneficial to the human race but proscribed by Pontifical decree.

Raging Bee was making good points, very civilly, and did not deserve to be eliminated from the discussion.

Actually, even if he or she was making poorly reasoned, illogical points, the "banning" would still have been unjustified.

But, as I said, Intelligent Design fails to explain this sort of thing, whereas the theory of evolution does a wonderful job of explaining it.

PZ Myers said: Engage a discussion? Are you nuts? Your mind is made up, and you've mainly been involved in mischaracterizing the positions of the people you're 'criticizing'. There are no grounds for discussion with you. Raging Bee is gone. You called it: "Authoritarian jackass" and "god of the blogosphere", remember. That's your "discussion".

If science and religion can co-exist how does one explain President Bush’s stance (and veto) of funding for embryonic stem cell research? Does anyone think that was for reasons other than religious?

I would be interested to hear what a devout Catholic biologist’s position would be on areas of research that are potentially beneficial to the human race but proscribed by Pontifical decree.

Damn, double post.

I swear I just previewed and submitted it once. PZ or anyone else feel free to delete one.

Damn, double post.

I swear I just previewed and submitted it once. PZ or anyone else feel free to delete one.

Damn, double post.

I swear I just previewed and submitted it once. PZ or anyone else feel free to delete one.

Very well, then. You "win". In the course of this thread, I have asked questions in the scientific domain that neither you nor Registered User have any heart to take up. Under the mantle of "scientist", you wish to foment a culture war, but when someone asks scientific questions, you dismiss the questions, and the questioner, as inane or tiresome. Is this a preview of your strategy to defend science education on a national scale? By avoiding a scientific conversation, and simply demonizing religion? Good luck with all that. Good night, culture warrior uber mod. You are now the last man standing, king of this rhetorical dung pile.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Agreed.

If you did not alread exist, Creationists would design you just as you are. For in your zealotry to defeat the fanatics, you have become their mirror image.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Good night, gentlemen.

- K.

Harold,

I think I see your point though I would respectfully submit that the hair is rather finely split between what constitutes President Bush's reason for veto. At the bottom lurks religious belief and influence in executive decision making. I would agree that there are ethical questions in many areas of research that science undertakes but in an ideal world I would hope for debate and decision free of reference to any deity. That's probably enough out of me anyway. I'm neither scientist nor philosopher!

Cheers!

jfx wrote to registered user: You prefer a caricature of religion. This is easier for you. It makes an easier target. If you can avoid acknowledging religion as a complex, naturalistic phenomenon, with perhaps historical, physical, forensically detectable and maybe even heritable components, it becomes something that can be conveniently demonized, scorned, and crushed.

Religions are among the most powerful natural phenomena on the planet, and we need to understand them better if we are to make informed and just political decisions. Although there are risks and discomforts involved, we should brace ourselves and set aside our traditional reluctance to investigate religious phenomena scientifically, so that we can come to understand how and why religions inspire such devotion, and figure out how we should deal with them all in the twenty first century. Daniel Dennett Breaking of the Spell page 28.

Religions might turn out to be a species of cultural symbionts that manage to thrive by leaping from human host to human host. They may be mutualists -- enhancing human fitness and even making human life possible just as the bacteria in our gut do. Or Commensals--neutral, neither good for us nor bad for us, but along for the ride. Or they might be parasites: deleterious replicators that we would be better off without--at least so far as our genetic interests are concerned--but that would be hard to eliminate, since they have evolved so well to counter our defenses and enhance their own propagation. We can expect that cultural parasites, like microbial prasites, exploit whatever preexisting sytems come in handy. The sneezing reflex, for instance, is in the first place an adaptation for ridding the nasal passages of foreign irritants, but when a germ provokes sneezing, it is typically not the sneezer but the germ that is the principal beneficiery, getting a high-energy launching into a neighborhood where other potential hosts can take it in. Spreading germs and spreading memes may exploit similar mechanisms, such as irresistible urges to impart stories or other items of information to others, enhanced by traditions that heighten the length, intensity, and frequency of encounters with others who might be likely hosts... When we look at religion from this perspective...its is not our fitness (as reproducing members of the species Homo sapiens) that is presumed to be enhanced by religion, but it is fitness (as a reproducing--self-replicating--member of the symbiont genus Cultus religiousus)...it may thrive as a parasite even thought it oppresses its hosts with a virulent affliction that leaves them worse off but too weak to combat its spread. Daniel Dennett

Strength is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours. The Borg Star Trek

I happen to know many YECs who are nothing of the sort - they are decent, honest folks who you would be very happy to have as a neighbour.

Salvador T. Cordova said: Thus, natural selection favors the persistence of creationists.

I have expressed my feelings on the banning of Raging Bee at the bathroom wall.

Theistically Confident Make More Babies Natural selection in the human race has not stopped. Blogger Audacious Epigone uncovers an interesting pattern in General Social Survey data. Those with firm belief in God and those with firm belief God doesn't exist make more babies. My take: the genes for doubt and skepticism are getting selected against. .... From GSS data, I looked at the reported ideal family size* and the actual number of children had, by theistic confidence, among those who had essentially completed their total fertility (age 40-100): Theistic confidence Desired Actual Don't believe 2.26 2.23 No way to find out 2.25 1.95 Some higher power 2.18 1.98 Believe sometimes 2.37 2.34 Believe with doubts 2.34 2.31 Know God exists 2.58 2.64 The more theistic, the greater the number of ideal children for a completed family to contain. It tracks almost identically with the actual number of children given birth to. That's not too surprising, since people are probably biased towards defining their actual family size as the ideal family size. Granted, those who believe in God surpass the atheists in fertility. But the biggest doubters have the lowest fertility levels. Either the feeling of certainty boosts fertility or some factor causes both certainty and higher fertility. As long time readers know one of my interests in the future has to do with which way will human evolution go? The DNA sequencing evidence already points int the direction that human evolution has already accelerated by orders of magnitude in the last 10,000 years and we aren't the same humans as those who walked the Earth even a few thousand years ago. An excellent recent book, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, explores these findings in greater detail. --Future Pundit Blog

Salvador T. Cordova said: So whether religion enhances human reproductive fitness or whether religion is a highly successful parasitic meme, natural seleciton will prevail, and empirical evidence suggests what evolution has perfected through the process of natural selection will remain, namely religion. Thus, natural selection favors the persistence of creationists.

Salvador T. Cordova said: Now look at what empirical science has to say about supporting religion: And then he gives us some out of nowhere statistics that could have been made up.

As I have said elsewhere, for the sake of retaining their valued support for science education organisations like the NCSE, I'd be willing (not that I have any say whatsoever, nor should have one) to go far to address the concerns of militant atheists. I'd examine carefully the language that science education organisations use, with a view to removing any implication (unexceptionable to me and many others, but objectionable to some atheists), that science and (some forms of) religion are compatible.

I take it, from his use of the word "neutral" and other statements, that Professor Myers would not require a statement that science and any or all religious faiths are not rigorously compatible, even though that is his own understanding. (Perhaps he or other atheists would care to comment on that assumption.) I would accept Dr Coyne's formula for a response to an enquiry about the compatibility of scientifically accepted fact and religious faith.

For tactical reasons, I would want some statement to the effect that many scientists profess a religious faith and most religious people and mainstream religious leaders accept the findings of science. It need be no more than that, a concise statement of what is no more than fact, backed up with off-site references. If Professor Myers says as much himself, it would seem to follow that he would have no objection to the NCSE saying it; but perhaps such a statement would still be unacceptable to him or others, as being accommodationist. Perhaps he, or they, would be good enough to indicate.

If making those changes would redress the grievances raised by Professor Myers and others, then I would suggest that they should be fairly considered by the NCSE and other stakeholders. Please note: I wrote "considered", which does not necessarily imply adoption. If there are objections, they must be heard, amendments proposed and debated, and so on.

Yes, I realise that I am proposing a political arrangement. I make no apology for that. Although this is an issue over which it is plainly possible for reasonable people to differ sharply, the outcome must be a policy. And policy is necessarily the province of politics and the outcome of a political process. Let that process be one of negotiation, then. The alternatives are immensely worse.

gabriel said:

Registered User said: gabriel listening to certain atheists reminded me a lot of certain YECs But more importantly, your statement that certain atheists reminds you of certain YECs demonstrates an amazing oversight on your part: the indisputable fact that ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of all YECs are pathological liars and, as far as I can tell, none of the atheists here suffer from that problem. In my mind, that's a very important distinction that should never be forgotten or trivialized.

I happen to know many YECs who are nothing of the sort - they are decent, honest folks who you would be very happy to have as a neighbour. Ignorant of biology, yes - willing to listen to science, possibly - hindered in their acceptance of science by the likes of Myers who would claim atheism as the only logical consequence of evolution, absolutely.

Wow, step out for a minute and all heck breaks loose. Since when did financially supporting the NCSE (or not) become a criterion for commenting on PT? RB seemed no less uncivil or on topic than anyone else on this rapidly degenerating thread...

This might be the only time I've ever agreed with FL - it's been an interesting read. 'Nite all.

You must know your credibility around here is ZERO, right?

That’s a truly ignorant thing to say, since religious belief, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with genetic traits that can be passed on from parent to offspring.

Rilke's Granddaughter said: If they are YEC, then they have already abandoned (or been 'educated' out of) any understanding of science. All creationists of the YEC persuasion are scientific illiterates incapable of using facts and logical arguments to reach a conclusion. Now, there are many theists who can be reached, but virtually no YEC. A tiny handful of bright ones will see the problems themselves (e.g. Glenn Morton). The rest remain ignorant for their entire lives.

But religious beliefs are a form of epigenetic inheritances which could be influential to selection.

gabriel said: This might be the only time I've ever agreed with FL -

gabriel said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: If they are YEC, then they have already abandoned (or been 'educated' out of) any understanding of science. All creationists of the YEC persuasion are scientific illiterates incapable of using facts and logical arguments to reach a conclusion. Now, there are many theists who can be reached, but virtually no YEC. A tiny handful of bright ones will see the problems themselves (e.g. Glenn Morton). The rest remain ignorant for their entire lives.

I know what you mean, but you'd be amazed at how many have adopted a YEC view as a sort of default state - simply based on what they have gleaned from the pulpit, etc. A good many of these folks can be readily shifted from this position to one favourable to evolution (Theistic Evolution) if someone takes the time to show them the evidence in a non-threatening way. The YECs you encounter online are hardened already- but for every YEC online there are hundreds more in the pew that are not in this hardened state, and are ready to be shifted based on evidence. A non-theist doesn't have ready access to this group, but those of us who are co-religionists do. This is why YEC leaders hate us so much...

Rilke's Granddaughter said: So your point is that some of these folks can be reached? Interestin'

gabriel said: I know what you mean, but you'd be amazed at how many have adopted a YEC view as a sort of default state - simply based on what they have gleaned from the pulpit, etc. A good many of these folks can be readily shifted from this position to one favourable to evolution (Theistic Evolution) if someone takes the time to show them the evidence in a non-threatening way. The YECs you encounter online are hardened already- but for every YEC online there are hundreds more in the pew that are not in this hardened state, and are ready to be shifted based on evidence. A non-theist doesn't have ready access to this group, but those of us who are co-religionists do. This is why YEC leaders hate us so much...

Mike Elzinga said: I’ll vouch for this. I’ve seen it done. Those of us who are tone deaf to religious beliefs can have only limited effectiveness with these groups because we tend to be blunt and threatening to believers no matter how carefully we try not to be. But those who know the territory do much better.

Salvador T. Cordova said: But religious beliefs are a form of epigenetic inheritances which could be influential to selection. That is exactly what Dennett, David Sloan Wilson explore. Do you understand that what epigenetic inheritance is or do I have to explain it to you? The concept of natural selection influencing "memes" is not far from issues pertaining to epigenetic inheritance. Not to mention there is active research into the "God Genes". Kind of embarrassing, wouldn't you say, that you've been one-upped by a creationist. If you expect to consistently defeat us in public debate, you might want to brush up on your own literature. :-)

gabriel said: It's an ingroup / outgroup thing, yes. Now, we're not going to make PZ completely happy, of course - we're shifting folks to a theistic view of evolution, after all - but I would proffer that even from an atheistic viewpoint a TE is highly preferable to an antievolutionist when it comes to science education issues. I recognize that some may disagree and say we're not pure laine (as evidenced from this thread) - but seriously, who would you rather deal with at the local level?

My own philosophy on this, despite my own non-religiousness, is to simply assume the each individual has his or her own journey to make on their own time schedule. It’s not for me to tell them where they should end up. I would simply prefer that they also understand the beauties of scientific understanding without having to distort it to fit dogma.

Is it ok to say amen on PT? :)

I think we take a similar approach. I'm driven on this issue because I don't like seeing those within my faith community tie their faith to easily falsifiable ideas. I also think that evolution is a beautiful, elegant field of science that should be appreciated and not denigrated.

I've had plenty of bad experiences too - I don't want to give a false impression that it's all rosy and painless for everyone I talk to. Several have written me off, yes - but I keep smiling and working within the church alongside them and they realize the demonization they've heard from the YEC organizations just isn't realistic. Still, most listen, and take what I have to say seriously. For some, I start them on the journey; for others, I help them along; and for others, they're just relieved to find someone else who has arrived where they are already.

I think that we've had significant movement on this issue in evangelical circles in the last three years. Collins' book (flawed though it is) has had an impact. I expect the influence of the YEC movement to diminish in the overall evangelical sphere in the coming years, even as certain groups become more stridently YEC (but are diminished in their influence on evangelicalism as a whole). Here's hoping, at least.

I should clarify that while the ability to establish and maintain cultural traits may be passed on from one generation to another (since that requires intelligence, which genes can code for), the specific cultural traits need not be. Thus, Salvador's claim that religion itself has a selective advantage is nonsense. Social behavior has a selective advantage, and religion is one element of social behavior. To confuse the two as Salvador does is a non-sequintur.

Rilke's Granddaughter said:

gabriel said:

Rilke's Granddaughter said: If they are YEC, then they have already abandoned (or been 'educated' out of) any understanding of science. All creationists of the YEC persuasion are scientific illiterates incapable of using facts and logical arguments to reach a conclusion. Now, there are many theists who can be reached, but virtually no YEC. A tiny handful of bright ones will see the problems themselves (e.g. Glenn Morton). The rest remain ignorant for their entire lives.

I know what you mean, but you'd be amazed at how many have adopted a YEC view as a sort of default state - simply based on what they have gleaned from the pulpit, etc. A good many of these folks can be readily shifted from this position to one favourable to evolution (Theistic Evolution) if someone takes the time to show them the evidence in a non-threatening way. The YECs you encounter online are hardened already- but for every YEC online there are hundreds more in the pew that are not in this hardened state, and are ready to be shifted based on evidence. A non-theist doesn't have ready access to this group, but those of us who are co-religionists do. This is why YEC leaders hate us so much...

So your point is that some of these folks can be reached? Interestin'

I think that we’ve had significant movement on this issue in evangelical circles in the last three years. Collins’ book (flawed though it is) has had an impact. I expect the influence of the YEC movement to diminish in the overall evangelical sphere in the coming years, even as certain groups become more stridently YEC (but are diminished in their influence on evangelicalism as a whole). Here’s hoping, at least.

— gabriel

Pale Ale said: If science and religion can co-exist how does one explain President Bush's stance (and veto) of funding for embryonic stem cell research?

I wholeheartedly agree with the earlier posts by Dave Luckett and James F. If you think the public messages that NCSE puts out are skewed, present better alternatives and lets talk about them.

I'd personally favor something along the lines of: There are many scientists that find evolution (and other science) to be completely compatible with religious faith. Not all do - there are some scientists who think that religion and science are fundamentally irreconciliable. Some specific religious claims about the world (such as the claim that the earth is less than 10,000 years old) conflict with scientific conclusions. In these cases we think that good science education demands that students be taught scientific reasoning and conclusions in science classes, and not the conflicting, non-scientific claims of different religious faiths.

*****

Dave's: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/04/weekend-update.html#comment-184902

James': http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/04/weekend-update.html#comment-184833

But those who know the territory do much better.

Epigenetic marks can pass from parent to offspring in a way that completely bypasses egg or sperm, thus avoiding the epigenetic purging that happens during early development. Most of us were taught that our traits are hard-coded in the DNA that passes from parent to offspring. Emerging information about epigenetics may lead us to a new understanding of just what inheritance is. Nurturing behavior in rats Rat pups who receive high or low nurturing from their mothers develop epigenetic differences that affect their response to stress later in life. When the female pups become mothers themselves, the ones that received high quality care become high nurturing mothers. And the ones that received low quality care become low nurturing mothers. The nurturing behavior itself transmits epigenetic information onto the pups’ DNA, without passing through egg or sperm.

Systematics and The Origin of Species: On Ernst Mayr’s 100th Anniversary Population-wide environmental induction and genetic accommodation sometimes occur when populations colonize islands, where new environmental stimuli and opportunities repeatedly induce novel phenotypes, such as learned foraging techniques, which then subject the population to selection on associated morphology, behaviors, and diet-associated physiology (Price et al., 2003; West-Eberhard, 2003) and when habitat change forces dietary change in ingested carotenoids, with effects on the plumage colors and associated evolved biochemistry of birds (Price et al., 2003). Mary Jane West-Ebberhard Developmental Plasticity

An animal's behavior tends to maximize the survival of the genes for that behavior, Richard Dawkins Extended Phenotype

I've read your site and your comments before, Sal. That you think you can deplore the state of science education only makes sense if you are recognizing your own remarkable deficiencies, because I have rarely encountered a more ignorant creationist than yourself.

Salvador T. Cordova babbled: As far as Dale Husband and Rilke's Granddaughter, they better brush up on their understanding of epigenetic inheritance. Books like Developmental Plasticity by Mary Jane West-Eberhard indicates that behaviors are heritable and thus are potentially selectable epigenetic characteristics. Dale Husband and Rilke's Granddaughter only demonstrate the need to improve science education since they obviously show less understanding of evolutionary biology than a YEC: (Quote mined references that indicate parent to offspring teaching, common among mammals) That only underscores the need for better science education, especially since PT "defenders of science" like Dale Husband and Rilke's Granddaughter are not showing much more astuteness about evolutionary theory than I. :-)

Man; every time I read a comment by Sal of Several Shallow Degrees or by FL, the first thing that pops into my mind is Ferengi.

And there is no evidence that behavior changes genes themselves. References to such things must be misinterpretations of what’s happening, since there is no physical mechanism for behavior to directly alter genes.

Salvador Cordova -

It's conceivable that some genetic trait that is correlated with some aspect of religious behavior could be selected for. So what?

Your implication, and you do imply this, that the culturally specific, science-denying, authoritarian cult you belong to is an inherited trait, is ludicrous.

Religious behavior does persist in humans across time and space, although there is some drop-off in educated societies, but it takes very diverse forms. Your particular cult is merely a rather dysfunctional modern variation, within the vast diversity of religious behavior. And in fact, most indicators suggest that the type of religious behavior you approve of is dropping slowly in the US.

I'll also note that, in my extensive personal experience, science-denying fundamentalists have a tremendously LOW rate of passing on their own religion to their descendants. While the people I know of Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Hindu, and Mormon descent tend to at least retain some religious traditions, people of fundamentalist background are highly likely not to.

You also overlook a major confounding variable that impacts on your birth statistics - in very wealthy modern societies, impoverished people have more surviving children (this is true only in very wealthy modern societies). Impoverished people are less likely to be educated, a feature that correlates with claims of believing in a science-denying religious position. However, social mobility tends to be high in very wealthy modern societies, indicating that impoverished state is usually overwhelmingly the result of environmental factors. The rare exception would be people who rely on social assistance because their health is impacted by a definitive genetic disorder. I'll note that this is entirely congruent with what I said above about retention of religious behaviors across generations. Less educated, poorer ancestors accept YEC and have larger families, but then the descendants become more educated and less poor, and reject YEC.

Furthermore, even in the outrageously unlikely event that YEC fundamentalists could "take over" by having vast numbers of children and forcing all their descendants to also be fecund YEC fundamentalists, the fact that YEC fundamentalist beliefs are contradicted by scientific reality still remains.

Lastly, and most comically of all, you totally contradict yourself. On one hand you argue that your "side" will "win" because some sort of "gene for religion" will be selected for. Yet you make this argument in the context of denial of evolution. Bwahahahahahahahahaha.

Sal Cordova still posts here? Hey, Sal, are you still working your magic on those young, impressionable kids? I read somewhere that a nice back rub loosens them up so it's easier for them to accept Jesus.

I was at least mildly amused by the claim that religious people produce more offspring than nonreligious people. It roughly parallels another claim that I occasionally hear: that religious people are more healthy than nonreligious people. Even if both claims are true, they demonstrate absolutely nothing without further investigation. (1) Maybe religious people have decided to ignore the transparent fact that the earth is overpopulated and irresponsibly produce more offspring because, say, they think God will provide or because they misunderstand and misinterpret Genesis 1:28 or 9:1. (2) Maybe healthy people are more apt to be religious, because unhealthy people conclude that religious belief does them no good.

The claim that religious belief can be inherited is not wholly without merit, however. Richard Dawkins somewhere suggested that credulity could be a heritable trait: children that were not credulous enough ran out into the woods and got eaten by sabertooth tigers, so to speak, and failed to pass on their genes. Inheriting credulity is not exactly the same as inheriting religious belief, but it certainly has properties in common, and selection for credulity could certainly manifest itself as religious belief. Additionally, though I think Dawkins would not agree, religious behavior could be adaptive and inherited by group selection.

Flint said:

And there is no evidence that behavior changes genes themselves. References to such things must be misinterpretations of what’s happening, since there is no physical mechanism for behavior to directly alter genes.

Is this entirely true? Does it depend on what a behavior is, since instinctive behavior is STILL behavior, and is inherited. So it might be possible to have some feedback effect, where a tendency to behave a certain way on the part of some subpopulation, might lead to isolation and thus the reinforcement of that tendency. What I'm thinking is, this is how instincts develop. From something only barely genetic, into something largely genetic. Now, whether non-heritable beneficial learned behavior might cause selection among individuals who learn it best, which might in turn reinforce some genetic pattern, I don't know. Doesn't sound unreasonable. But if Sal is saying his particular anti-evidence religious delusions are biological, I doubt it's the case beyond learned (and thus physically altered) neural connections. Not heritable, thankfully.

Let me explain it further, Flint. Genes can be altered that code for instinctive behavior, which is passed on from parent to offspring even if the two never see each other. But learned behavior can also be passed on from parent to offspring, but through one brain teaching another, not through genes. A chimp raised by humans would express chimp instincts, but human learned behavior.

Mattt Young said: I was at least mildly amused by the claim that religious people produce more offspring than nonreligious people. It roughly parallels another claim that I occasionally hear: that religious people are more healthy than nonreligious people. Even if both claims are true, they demonstrate absolutely nothing without further investigation.

Mike Elzinga said: very time I read a comment by Sal...

...the fact that YEC fundamentalist beliefs are contradicted by scientific reality still remains.

— harold

PZ Myers: He does not argue that they should go the other way and advance an atheistic position (even though we know that that is the only correct stance)

Eric's hypotheses are completely plausible. I did not mean to imply that the claims about religious people were not correct. They are simply factoids with no intellectual merit unless they are evaluated carefully. Careful evaluation, unfortunately, is too much to ask of a creationist.

Harold said: the fact that YEC fundamentalist beliefs are contradicted by scientific reality still remains.

Gabriel said: Yes, absolutely. I've shifted a few personally within the last month alone. I make no bones about being a dedicated evangelical Christian and being a fully convinced evolutionary biologist. I participate in the full range of activities at my church - bible studies, teach sunday school, etc. Whenever possible and prudent, I help folks along on this issue. In short, I'm Ken Ham's worst nightmare. :)

harold said:

BUT some underlying predisposition to general aspects of religious behavior could have a genetic component... ...Some of these things may be affected by genetics to some degree.

PZ Myers said: Here we go again. Yes, it is a culture war, and I am cheerfully engaged in it. Religion is the enemy. I am in opposition to the creationists....

jfx I wonder if extreme religiosity and extreme atheism might even have a common predispositional root that is an actual heritable entity, some sort of genetic cocktail for fanaticism.

How about the gene for being a self-absorbed wanker? Donate some skin cells to your nearest university, jfx, so they can get a headstart on this "fascinating" research. Plus it'll be about YOU, the most interesting person on the planet.

This is what particularly interests me

Yes, we know that already.

This is what particularly interests me

Yes, jfx. We know that.

This is what particularly interests me

So we heard.

Ray Martinez said:

Gabriel said: Yes, absolutely. I've shifted a few personally within the last month alone. I make no bones about being a dedicated evangelical Christian and being a fully convinced evolutionary biologist. I participate in the full range of activities at my church - bible studies, teach sunday school, etc. Whenever possible and prudent, I help folks along on this issue. In short, I'm Ken Ham's worst nightmare. :)

The fact that you accept the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins accepts is evidence that you are not a real Christian. The only thing in need of explanation is why you think that you are a Christian? Judas the Betrayer thought he was a real follower of Christ too. But the Bible explains Judas to be under the direct control of Satan. If Satan is allowed to deceive an original Apostle then how much more ordinary "Christians" like yourself? The point is that like Judas, we have an explanation as to why you think that you are a Christian while accepting the exact same life explanation theory that all Atheists accept.

Raging Bee said: "The fact that you accept the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins accepts is evidence that you are not a real Christian" [Ray Martinez]. Ray: The fact that YOU do not follow the actual teachings of Jesus, is evidence that YOU are not a real Christian. You're nothing but a bigot, a hatemonger, and a crybaby, using Christ's name as a flag-of-convenience.

Stanton said:

Ray Martinez said:

Gabriel said: Yes, absolutely. I've shifted a few personally within the last month alone. I make no bones about being a dedicated evangelical Christian and being a fully convinced evolutionary biologist. I participate in the full range of activities at my church - bible studies, teach sunday school, etc. Whenever possible and prudent, I help folks along on this issue. In short, I'm Ken Ham's worst nightmare. :)

The fact that you accept the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins accepts is evidence that you are not a real Christian. The only thing in need of explanation is why you think that you are a Christian? Judas the Betrayer thought he was a real follower of Christ too. But the Bible explains Judas to be under the direct control of Satan. If Satan is allowed to deceive an original Apostle then how much more ordinary "Christians" like yourself? The point is that like Judas, we have an explanation as to why you think that you are a Christian while accepting the exact same life explanation theory that all Atheists accept.

So please explain to us why you say that the current and 2 previous Popes, along with the vast majority of Christians, are "false" Christians like Judas the Betrayer.

Ray Martinez said:

PZ Myers said: Here we go again. Yes, it is a culture war, and I am cheerfully engaged in it. Religion is the enemy. I am in opposition to the creationists....

Evolution is Naturalism-Materialism. It (evolution) says biological production always originates from material nature itself, and never from vertical-Divine-Intelligent agency.

These pro-Atheism, basic and fundamental facts concerning evolution, expose and render all so called Christian evolutionists to be fools and buffoons for accepting a biological production theory that says their God is absent from nature.

This is WHY very many Evolutionists deny and obfuscate the basic and fundamental facts (to protect Christian evolutionists from being seen as fools and buffoons for accepting the same life explanation theory that all Atheists accept). They also deny and obfuscate the facts in order to deceive naive Christians into accepting evolution.

Registered User said: How about the gene for being a self-absorbed wanker? Donate some skin cells to your nearest university, jfx, so they can get a headstart on this "fascinating" research. Plus it'll be about YOU, the most interesting person on the planet.

Ray Martinez said:

Raging Bee said: "The fact that you accept the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins accepts is evidence that you are not a real Christian" [Ray Martinez]. Ray: The fact that YOU do not follow the actual teachings of Jesus, is evidence that YOU are not a real Christian. You're nothing but a bigot, a hatemonger, and a crybaby, using Christ's name as a flag-of-convenience.

The above comments correspond to virulent rejection. They prove that I am indeed a real Christian because Atheists would never approve of a real Christian. The fact that Atheists approve of Judge Jones and Ken Miller and Wesley Elsberry is invulnerable evidence that these so called Christians are not real Christians because, like I said, Atheists would never approve of a real Christian.

Ray wrote:

"Evolution is Naturalism-Materialism. It (evolution) says biological production always originates from material nature itself, and never from vertical-Divine-Intelligent agency."

Really. Got a reference for that, or did you just make it up? Why on earth would anyone presume that no life could ever be produced by any intelligent agency? As far as I know, many scientists are working on doing just that already. Of course there is the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that this has ever actually occurred - yet.

By the way Ray, you better hope that no atheist ever approves of you, that would mean you were no longer a true Christian, right?

DS said: By the way Ray, you better hope that no atheist ever approves of you, that would mean you were no longer a true Christian, right?

Ray Martinez said: And I did explain why all Christian evolutionists are false Christians. Simply substitute Gabriel for any so called Christian evolutionist (= oxymoron).

Raging Bee said: This is just getting sillier by the hour. PZ flames out and shows the whole world that he can't support his own arguments, or hold his own on his own thread, and kicks me off his thread based on a hastily-made-up rule; and almost immediately, Sal Cordova pops back after a year's absence, demanding that PZ be the one to lead the charge against creationists. I guess PZ's intemperate censorship must have made Sal feel at home here, just as he felt at home on Uncommon Descent. And as if Sal's cynical attempt to choose only the safest opponent wasn't enough, along come two other transparent liars, FL and Ray Martinez, all three on the same day, triumphantly using PZ's ravings to bolster their case against honest science. So how's that campaign to discredit religion through insults and mockery going, PZ? Now we know what happens when people like PZ try to "represent" atheism to the world.

do you have anything to say about the science of heritable neurological predisposition

Yes I do, but it's off-topic. That's why I derided your first attempt to change the subject and why I will continue to do so. Enjoy.

Ray wrote:

"Why do Christians accept evolution?
Why do Christians accept a theory that says design is absent from nature?
Why do Christians accept a theory that says Intelligence is absent from nature?
Why do Christians accept a theory that says the power of the Father of their Savior is absent from nature?
Why do Christians accept mankind to have originated from apes (= blasphemy)?"

Answer: the evidence.

How about the gene for being a self-absorbed wanker?

Ray Martinez said: The underlying and unspoken point seen in the above comments is that the life explanation theory that all Atheists accept is perfectly compatible with Theism-Christianity. In other words the point insults intelligence. Atheists and Christians do not accept the same life explanation theory because one party accepts the existence of God and the other does not. Atheists accept evolution because evolution says Genesis 1 and 2 is false. Why do Christians accept evolution? Why do Christians accept a theory that says design is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept a theory that says Intelligence is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept a theory that says the power of the Father of their Savior is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept mankind to have originated from apes (= blasphemy)? Answer: The lies of Ken Miller, Wesley Elsberry, Francis Collins, etc.etc. (all double agents misrepresenting the pro-Atheism claims of evolution while claiming to be "Christians"), that's why.

Why do Christians accept mankind to have originated from apes (= blasphemy)?

Apes? Please. I'm descended from SLAVE-OWNERS. Why should I have a problem with the apes?

DS said: Ray wrote: "Evolution is Naturalism-Materialism. It (evolution) says biological production always originates from material nature itself, and never from vertical-Divine-Intelligent agency." [DS responds:] Really. Got a reference for that, or did you just make it up?....

Ray Martinez said: [snip] The fact that Atheists approve of Judge Jones and Ken Miller and Wesley Elsberry is invulnerable evidence that these so called Christians are not real Christians because, like I said, Atheists would never approve of a real Christian.

Ray Martinez said: [snip] The fact that Atheists approve of Judge Jones and Ken Miller and Wesley Elsberry is invulnerable evidence that these so called Christians are not real Christians because, like I said, Atheists would never approve of a real Christian.

So, Ray Martinez, how does debunking the Genesis creation myths, which themselves make God look silly and narrow minded, and replacing them with the grandure of the scientific perspective promote atheism? That would only make sense if the existence of God was ruled out entirely by evolution. But that is a falsehood. Just because something does not prove God exists, that does not mean it attempts to DISPROVE God's existence. That is the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Raging Bee said: So...the Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist, is now talking about the cncept [sic] of "vertical-Divine-Intelligent agency." So why can't life come from "horizontal-Divine-Intelligent agency?" In my experience, most intelligent acts that create life are done horizontally, ifyouknowwhatimean... Or maybe the "Divine-Intelligent agency" has to be vertical in order to make contact with the Timecube? A mystery, to be sure...

Stanton said:

Ray Martinez said:

Raging Bee said: "The fact that you accept the same biological production theory that Richard Dawkins accepts is evidence that you are not a real Christian" [Ray Martinez]. Ray: The fact that YOU do not follow the actual teachings of Jesus, is evidence that YOU are not a real Christian. You're nothing but a bigot, a hatemonger, and a crybaby, using Christ's name as a flag-of-convenience.

The above comments correspond to virulent rejection. They prove that I am indeed a real Christian because Atheists would never approve of a real Christian. The fact that Atheists approve of Judge Jones and Ken Miller and Wesley Elsberry is invulnerable evidence that these so called Christians are not real Christians because, like I said, Atheists would never approve of a real Christian.

And tell us when Jesus told you that you could determine who can and can not be a Christian in His place, without anyone's permission?

Dale Husband said: [SNIP....] No, Ray, you are the liar. Your very post above is full of bogus crap. The Bible does not reveal reality. Science does, because science involves studying the universe God supposedly made. Anyone could have made up those creation myths in Genesis. You cannot make up the universe and all its clues. The Bible is NOT the word of God. The universe itself is. GROW UP!

Raging Bee said: Why do Christians accept mankind to have originated from apes (= blasphemy)? Apes? Please. I'm descended from SLAVE-OWNERS. Why should I have a problem with the apes?

Raging Bee said: Why do Christians accept mankind to have originated from apes (= blasphemy)? Apes? Please. I'm descended from SLAVE-OWNERS. Why should I have a problem with the apes?

Ray Martinez said:

Raging Bee said: Why do Christians accept mankind to have originated from apes (= blasphemy)? Apes? Please. I'm descended from SLAVE-OWNERS. Why should I have a problem with the apes?

Typical Darwinian gutter racism.

DS said: Ray wrote: "Why do Christians accept evolution? Why do Christians accept a theory that says design is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept a theory that says Intelligence is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept a theory that says the power of the Father of their Savior is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept mankind to have originated from apes (= blasphemy)?" Answer: the evidence.

It is clear here what Ray, FL and Sal are doing. The discussions going on here are extremely frightening to them because any followers in their sects who get wind of any honesty about the relationship between religion and science will begin to see through these predators.

Therefore these predators prance around flashing their genitals and try to derail any such conversation by directing all attention to themselves.

To any of the victims of these predators who may be lurking on these discussions, please be advised that your slave owners are hollow beings who would keep you chained in their dungeons forever in order to enhance their own egos.

Get out from under their influence and explore the universe on your own. Trust your abilities to learn and decide for yourselves. There are many religious and non-religious people who have done just that.

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray wrote: "Why do Christians accept evolution? Why do Christians accept a theory that says design is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept a theory that says Intelligence is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept a theory that says the power of the Father of their Savior is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept mankind to have originated from apes (= blasphemy)?" Answer: the evidence.

The answer given does not contest the rhetorical facts seen in each question. Each of these facts supports the fact that these Christians are not real Christians. They are deluded and/or deceived----just like original Apostle Judas. Or they are Atheists hiding in sheeps clothing. Either way they are explained.

“Atheist” is an epithet roughly on par (and sometimes equivalent with) “Fag” for a large number of Americans (do you agree, Ray?). Hence the need for advocacy and engagement in the culture war. That some of these culture warriors also happen to advocate for good science education is apparently a problem.

If you click "submit", then notice that you forgot to sign your post, then sign and click "submit" again, you subsequently end up with a double post.

Derogatory comments about the intelligence of one who would do that multiple times (and there's only one of us here) are acknowledged, in advance, to probably be accurate.

Registered User said: do you have anything to say about the science of heritable neurological predisposition Yes I do, but it's off-topic. That's why I derided your first attempt to change the subject and why I will continue to do so. Enjoy.

phantomreader42 said:

Ray Martinez said:

DS said: Ray wrote: "Why do Christians accept evolution? Why do Christians accept a theory that says design is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept a theory that says Intelligence is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept a theory that says the power of the Father of their Savior is absent from nature? Why do Christians accept mankind to have originated from apes (= blasphemy)?" Answer: the evidence.

The answer given does not contest the rhetorical facts seen in each question. Each of these facts supports the fact that these Christians are not real Christians. They are deluded and/or deceived----just like original Apostle Judas. Or they are Atheists hiding in sheeps clothing. Either way they are explained.

So, Ray, the defining characteristic for a "real christian" in your delusional mind, is a determination to deny reality, hide from evidence, and reject all inconvenient facts? The heart and soul of your religion is self-delusion, and you admit it without the slightest qualm. You can't bring yourself to see any problem with denying reality.

jfx, perhaps you might have better luck generating a discussion of the questions you've raised on this thread--Religion as a byproduct of useful cognitive processes:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/religion_as_byproduct_of_usefu.php

Mike Elzinga said: It is clear here what Ray, FL and Sal are doing. The discussions going on here are extremely frightening to them because any followers in their sects who get wind of any honesty about the relationship between religion and science will begin to see through these predators.

Therefore these predators prance around flashing their genitals and try to derail any such conversation by directing all attention to themselves. To any of the victims of these predators who may be lurking on these discussions, please be advised that your slave owners are hollow beings who would keep you chained in their dungeons forever in order to enhance their own egos. Get out from under their influence and explore the universe on your own. Trust your abilities to learn and decide for yourselves. There are many religious and non-religious people who have done just that.

Ray Martinez said: The point is that so called Christian evolutionists are not real Christians because real Christians accept the facts of science which correspond to the facts reported in the Bible.

Ray Martinez said:

Mike Elzinga said: It is clear here what Ray, FL and Sal are doing. The discussions going on here are extremely frightening to them because any followers in their sects who get wind of any honesty about the relationship between religion and science will begin to see through these predators.

Science has always proven the Bible---only Darwinists deny.

H.H. said: jfx, perhaps you might have better luck generating a discussion of the questions you've raised on this thread--Religion as a byproduct of useful cognitive processes: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/religion_as_byproduct_of_usefu.php

Ray Martinez said: General audience: Ask yourself: Why do all Atheists fanatically promote evolution? Blah blah blah.

jfx A concise statement was made, by the OP, and seconded by you and some others, that religion is the enemy

I don't recall "seconding" that statement.

Perhaps it is an uncomfortable thing to think that organized theism and organized atheism could share a common predispositional ancestor buried in the genome.

What's uncomfortable is that douchebags like you think that it's interesting to discuss or (*guffaw*) "study" the possible existence of a "common predispositional ancestor" to BEING A GULLIBLE DUMBSHXT. It's the sort of pointless wanking that makes "parallel universe" bloviators sound like reasonable people.

Take your overbaked grant proposal down to the tattoo parlor and have it inked into your pimply buttcheeks.

jfx organized atheism

BEWWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

I missed that the first time. Better trolls, please.

jfx the most militant strains of religiosity and irreligiosity eerily resemble each other

Right. Except militant religious people invariably organize themselves in groups according to a collection of stupid easily disproven lies or unprovable imaginary "gods", interpreted by "preachers" and "clerics", and believe that other religions and non-believers are evil and damned, wherease irreligious people tend not to organize at all, attempt to use reason to understand the world, and are militant only to the extent that religious people are foisting their imaginary made up bullcrap on children and anyone else they can get their claws into.

But other than that, yeah, they "eerily resemble" each other. Sure they do, jfx.

You're an idiot.

Ray Martinez said: Science has always proven the Bible---only Darwinists deny.

Registered User said: whereas irreligious people tend not to organize at all, attempt to use reason to understand the world, and are militant only to the extent that religious people are foisting their imaginary made up bullcrap on children and anyone else they can get their claws into.

Ray Martinez said: Science has always proven the Bible---only Darwinists deny.

Are you really in such total denial that irreligious people do occasionally organize

And thus the creationist troll was stripped and stood naked before us. What other garbage from the Answers in Genesis playbook are you going to be reciting next, jfx?

The answer to your question, of course, is no. But you are attacking a strawman. Again. Because you're an idiot.

jfx Who’s the gullible dumbshit?

That would be you.

What do I win?

In response to the last para in the post above, (and certain other events), I am glad to report that my status as a foreigner does not prevent me from joining the NCSE (as I thought it might), and that I have now joined. I would have done so before now, if it had not been for that misapprehension.

I, too, was troubled by the thought that I was commenting upon issues where I had no standing.

Ray Martinez said: The Atheist has no choice but to accept evolution. The Christian does. Why do many Christians reject the Bible and accept the theory that Atheists have no choice but to accept?

Ray Martinez said: The whole point of evolution since Darwin 1859 is to say that God (= Intelligence or Mind) is not seen or involved in nature. This is a basic and fundamental 101 claim of fact concerning evolution.

jfx wrote: I’m assuming that the cataloging of predispositional genes in humans…genes that may form neurological predispositions for certain skills or behavioral traits (harold elucidated the language predisposition phenomenon, which is one of the most excellent examples)…is happening somewhere? Who’s doing it? I’d think musical ability would make another good model.

The modern usage of the word [epigentics] is more narrow, referring to heritable traits (over rounds of cell division and sometimes transgenerationally) that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence. The Greek prefix epi- in epigenetics implies features that are "on top of" or "in addition to" genetics; thus epigenetic traits exist on top of or in addition to the traditional molecular basis for inheritance.

Dawkins argues that the only thing that genes control directly is the synthesis of proteins. He points to the arbitrariness of restricting the idea of the phenotype to apply only to the phenotypic expression of an organism's genes in its own body. .... An animal's behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes "for" that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it

Registered User said: And thus the creationist troll was stripped and stood naked before us. What other garbage from the Answers in Genesis playbook are you going to be reciting next, jfx?

Registered User said:

irreligious people tend not to organize at all, attempt to use reason to understand the world, and are militant only to the extent that religious people are foisting their imaginary made up bullcrap on children and anyone else they can get their claws into.

Salvador T. Cordova said: It's not just genes. The heritable characteristics of the phenotype are no longer viewed to be constrained soley by genes. That is whole point of EPIgenetics, meaning beyond the genes... ...One does not need to establish that the inclination toward religion is purely genetic (I think it is paritially genetic). It can be the learned behaviors themselves that lead to reproductive success. And these behaviors themselves can be subject to selection... ...Some have argued that since Darwin accepted the notion of acquired characteristics, that incorporating behaviors and heritable epigenetic characteristics as part of what selection selects, that some modern views of inheritance are closer to Darwin's original view than neo-Darwinism. Thus, even granting that the inclination toward religion is selectively advantaged possibly because of genetic factors, the behaviors themselves can lead to reproductive success independent of the genes involved...

I'm one of the few that actually suggested we use evolutionary science to help resolve the debate at hand. I'm glad you put the question to science rather than politics.

jfx I pointed out that irreligious people are just as capable of riding right off the cliff, and taking millions of innocent lives right along with them, as religious wingnuts."

Wow, you mean there are irreligious psychopaths AND religious psychopaths? So fascinating. Unfortunately for you: also so irrelevant.

Your claim was to some "eerie" similarity between militant atheists and militant religious people. But now it seems that the "eerie similarity" is just the fact that some communists once killed a bunch of people. Perhaps you meant to say that militant communists and militant religionists have "eerie similarities"? You might have a boring thesis there but at least it would make some sense.

Otherwise I must continue to conclude that you are nothing more than an appeasing wanker overflowing with self-righteous bullcrap.

Humans are humans.

Thanks, Dad.

jfx But I think the more good, hard science we have, and the more we respect complex phenomena we don’t really understand, and get our asses in gear doing the science on those phenomena (instead of just killing something because we don’t like it), the easier the politics will be over time.

Meanwhile there are some bridges and levies to repair. Spending money to identify the "ancestral" genes that make Sal Cordova a lying pile of caramelized jockstraps seems like a waste.

Registered User said: Meanwhile there are some bridges and levies to repair. Spending money to identify the "ancestral" genes that make Sal Cordova a lying pile of caramelized jockstraps seems like a waste.

jfx wrote: But is there any physical evidence of that, with respect to a more complex social phenomenon like religion? How are we accounting for all of the selective pressures that bear upon behavior? And with regard to epigenetic inheritance, do we have any hard data that can be applied to human behavior, with respect to something like religion, going back, oh, well, however far we CAN go back, since we are talking about a forensic record housed in human tissue?

How about the new atheism of our day? I wish I could report otherwise, but it has all the hallmarks of a stealth religion, including a polarized belief system that represents everything as good, good, good or bad, bad, bad ("how religion poisons everything"), the unquestioned authority of its leaders, and even the portrayal of bad ideas as like demons (parasitic memes) that need to be cast out ("breaking the spell"). One purpose of this blog is to act as a portal for those who like to roll up their sleeves and get dirty with the details. Both I and Michael Shermer, the intrepid editor of Skeptic magazine, have written about Ayn Rand as a stealth-religious zealot in our respective books, Evolution for Everyone and Why People Believe Weird Things. I have critiqued two books by the new atheists (Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell and Richard Dawkins The God Delusion) at length elsewhere. I am also involved in the establishment of evolutionary religious studies as an authentic scientific discipline. One reason that I am passionate about exposing the new atheism as a stealth religion is because it distracts attention from something far more important and interesting--the proper study of religion and all forms of human mentality from an evolutionary perspective. David Sloan Wilson

jfx said:

Registered User said: whereas irreligious people tend not to organize at all, attempt to use reason to understand the world, and are militant only to the extent that religious people are foisting their imaginary made up bullcrap on children and anyone else they can get their claws into.

Then you'll have to explain a few things to me, like the French Revolution / Reign of Terror. And I'll need you to explain Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Communism, Nazism, etc., etc.

Salvador Cordova said: *nonsense snipped* So we have the question of whether religion is: 1. a selectively advantaged trait 2. a disease 3. possibly both #1 and #2 (recall sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, are both a diseases, yet in some contexts selectively favored).

David Sloan Wilson, went so far as to suggest, from an evolutionary perspective, Atheism is a stealth religion (whether what someone believes is true is less important than whether it is reproductively advantageous.) Atheism will probably need it's heroes to worship, and prophets and messaiah's to perpetuate the culture, not to mention holidays and rituals to infuse the meme.

It is clear here what Ray, FL and Sal are doing. The discussions going on here are extremely frightening to them....

Ray,

I can assure you that I am a Christian. I know to whom I belong. You don't get to decide who is in and who is out - that job is significantly above your pay scale. You should also be more careful about flinging words like fool around if you truly want to follow Jesus' teachings (not that I lay claim to be a perfect follower - far from it).

Let me ask you a question: do you accept heliocentric theory? If yes, are you aware that all atheists also accept it? Why is it you accept a theory that has no room in it for God's actions?

There are more and more Christians who are willing to look at the evidence and as a result ignore the invective coming from the YEC camp. If you want to see the future of the antievolution movement, just check out modern geocentrism - this will eventually be your fate, be it in 20 or 200 years. The day is coming when the church will wonder why it ever lost sleep over this issue. We're 400 years after Galileo, and 150 after Darwin. Time and truth are on our side.

FL said:

It is clear here what Ray, FL and Sal are doing. The discussions going on here are extremely frightening to them....

Hey, speak for yourself, Mike Elzinga. I'm having FUN reading all these posts!! FL :)

Stanton said: Just to nitpick, but, the only people who claim that the Nazis were atheists are maliciously moronic creationists who are wholly incapable of explaining why an atheistic government would bother to stamp Gott Mitt Und on the buckles of all their soldiers and plagiarize Martin Luther's genocidal piety.

As for the others, well, um, did you know that if someone commits an atrocity, but does not immediately use God as the primary excuse/justification, that does not necessarily mean that that person used atheism as the primary excuse/justification? Where did Lenin, Stalin and Mao specifically state that their purges and horrific mismanagement were due to rejection of God, and not, say, removing their enemies and their enemies' allies in order to solidify their own power bases and maintain fanatical adherence to the party dogma?

As for the Reign of Terror, well, if you saw that the Church was being used as a willing accomplice and instrument in maintain a hopelessly corrupt monarchy for literally centuries, as well as to aid this same corrupt monarchy to keep the populace enslaved, wouldn't you want to do something drastic, too?

Science has always proven the Bible---only Darwinists deny.

General audience: Ask yourself: Why do all Atheists fanatically promote evolution? Answer: Because evolution **presupposes** Atheism ideology to be true (that is, the idea that God does not exist).

gabriel said: Ray, I can assure you that I am a Christian. I know to whom I belong. You don't get to decide who is in and who is out - that job is significantly above your pay scale. You should also be more careful about flinging words like fool around if you truly want to follow Jesus' teachings (not that I lay claim to be a perfect follower - far from it).

Let me ask you a question: do you accept heliocentric theory? If yes, are you aware that all atheists also accept it? Why is it you accept a theory that has no room in it for God's actions?

There are more and more Christians who are willing to look at the evidence and as a result ignore the invective coming from the YEC camp. If you want to see the future of the antievolution movement, just check out modern geocentrism - this will eventually be your fate, be it in 20 or 200 years. The day is coming when the church will wonder why it ever lost sleep over this issue. We're 400 years after Galileo, and 150 after Darwin. Time and truth are on our side.

Ray Martinez said:

Dale Husband said: [SNIP....] No, Ray, you are the liar. Your very post above is full of bogus crap. The Bible does not reveal reality. Science does, because science involves studying the universe God supposedly made. Anyone could have made up those creation myths in Genesis. You cannot make up the universe and all its clues. The Bible is NOT the word of God. The universe itself is. GROW UP!

Ordinary Atheism ideology, also known as evolutionism.

jfx said: Yeah, my main point was the fanatical and often murderous organization of the power base, under an actual dogma that was not in any way religious. Thus, irreligious. Not overtly "atheist" in credo or label...but still, the roots of that entire line - Lenin, Stalin, Mao - grew from an explicitly anti-religious Marxism, and the censorship, repression, and outright butchering of those who would worship some God, in some way, is well documented.

Hell, we went to war in Vietnam to try and prop up a Catholic minority against "godless" Communism, even though the majority of the peasantry didn't want anything to do with the asshole Catholic regime squatting in Saigon. What a mess.

As for the Reign of Terror, well, if you saw that the Church was being used as a willing accomplice and instrument in maintain a hopelessly corrupt monarchy for literally centuries, as well as to aid this same corrupt monarchy to keep the populace enslaved, wouldn't you want to do something drastic, too?

Well, hey, hindsight's 20/20. I don't know that I would advocate chopping off everyone's head. But under enough stress, and jacked up on enough adrenaline, perhaps I could be persuaded to guillotine everyone who looks at me funny. Especially if the alternative was to be guillotined myself, as a traitor. I am sure, though, that after all the baskets are full of severed heads, it is very hard for anyone with a head left on their neck to look around and say, with a straight face, "Behold the Enlightenment! Reason has triumphed!"

Stanton said: As far as I recall, religion didn't come up in the Vietnam War, since it was essentially a war-by-proxy against the Chinese government, who were supporting the Viet Cong.

So, are you saying that actual baskets full of actual decapitated heads are what atheists want out of this alleged war between religion and science?

Unfortunately, creationists like Ray or FL don’t care that only Jesus/God has the authority do determine who gets to have a relationship with Him, or not.

"That evolution erodes religious belief seems almost too obvious to require argument. It destroyed the faith of Darwin himself, who moved from Christianity to agnosticism as a result of his discoveries and was immediately recognized as a huge threat by his reverent contemporaries."

"Post-Darwinian evolutionary theory, which can explain the emergence of the first bacteria, doesn't even leave much room for a deist God whose minimal role might have been to flick the first switch."

jfx said:

Stanton said: As far as I recall, religion didn't come up in the Vietnam War, since it was essentially a war-by-proxy against the Chinese government, who were supporting the Viet Cong.

Nah. The Chinese supported Ho's VietMinh/VietCong/NVA off and on, mainly through the supply of weapons and advisers, but remember, at the end of World War II, the VietMinh and USA were allies who had fought together to repel Japanese imperialist invaders. But there was a problem after WWII. The French. Their colonial "claim" to Vietnam was reinstated, and the Vietminh resisted. To make a long story short, the Vietminh whipped the French. The US had been financing the French war against the Vietminh, ostensibly to prevent "Communism" from taking over Southeast Asia. And the US went in to take up where the French left off. But the Vietminh/VietCong were nationalists first, who used communism as an organizational and resource apparatus cleverly, but always with the goal of true Vietnamense independence. People often don't realize that the Vietnamese have been resisting and repelling Chinese meddling for over a thousand years. They argued and squabbled with the Chinese and the Soviets during the entire "Vietnam War" era, but the US had this clunky mindset that the whole thing was one monolithic red Communist bloc. Not so. In fact, many people don't realize that after the US pulled out of Vietnam, the freakin' Chinese invaded. And the Vietnamese repelled them. What does this have to do with religion? Well, it's messy. There was an agreement in 1954 that Vietnam would have a reunification vote. Ho Chi Minh was wildly popular back home, because of his resistance as a freedom fighter against the Japanese in the war, and his resistance against the French colonialist enterprise all along. He would have won a democratic election in a landslide. That scared many of the Catholics in the north who had been complicit with the French occupation. They fled south. There was a ton of revenge killing both ways. The NVA/VietCong regime in the North murdered many Catholics, and the Catholic regime in the South murdered many peasants. Can anyone say for sure which side was acting rationally?

So, are you saying that actual baskets full of actual decapitated heads are what atheists want out of this alleged war between religion and science?

No, I'm saying that people who perceive themselves to be acting rationally and in the "best interest of the community" sometimes get caught up in the passion of the historical moment, and when the dust settles they look around and realize they've chopped off a bunch of heads in the name of "progress". At some point, if people get frustrated enough that religion just won't die like they want it to, they may escalate, and rationalize, and escalate, and rationalize. What's the old saying? The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

FL said:

Unfortunately, creationists like Ray or FL don’t care that only Jesus/God has the authority do determine who gets to have a relationship with Him, or not.

Sure, Stanton, only Jesus/God has that authority.

(No diss, but it's kinda Odd to hear you talking about Jesus/God having any authority at all. What, are you thinking of becoming a Christian or something? I believe you denied that you were a Christian in a previous discussion some time ago.)

But the fact remains that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, for multiple reasons. That's the reality you are unable to rationally refute.

That's where things stand today, Stanton. Oil and water, sand and ice, evolution and Christianity, just don't mix. FL :)

Hi FL,

Why do see evolution and Christianity as so incompatible but not other theories? Atomic theory and heliocentric theory are equally mechanistic and devoid of a role for God in the details. Why single out evolution for special treatment?

Also, I'd be interested to see you defend heliocentrism Biblically , straight from your Bible, in the same way you've repeatedly asked for TEs to do for evolution. You're the one that thinks the Bible is readily transferrable to modern science, so let's see your rationale for Biblical heliocentrism.

I'm well aware that folks with your views are spreading them within the church. It's par for the course - but I'm not concerned. Folks know when a message has the ring of truth to it. Jesus said that we will know the truth, and the truth will set us free. Science is a God-given enterprise that points us towards truth about God's creation - and evolution is part of that truth. The truth about evolution sets people free from the shackles of your way of thinking about Scripture and God and opens them up to the beauty of what Genesis is really about.

You're fighting a losing battle. You should take Gamaliel's advice.

I guess FL, Ray Martinez, and Salvador Cordova won't bother to answer why they insult God by taking the claims of the Genesis creation myths, which MEN wrote, over what we find when we look at the actual universe that God supposedly created.

BTW, at the Creation Museum, Man's reason is constantly contrasted with "God's Word". This is also blasphemous, since I have already stated that if there is such a thing as God's Word, it could never be in any book written by men. Why? Because men's reason made it. God's word is found in the Cosmos, period.

Dale Husband said: I guess FL, Ray Martinez, and Salvador Cordova won't bother to answer why they insult God by taking the claims of the Genesis creation myths, which MEN wrote, over what we find when we look at the actual universe that God supposedly created. BTW, at the Creation Museum, Man's reason is constantly contrasted with "God's Word". This is also blasphemous, since I have already stated that if there is such a thing as God's Word, it could never be in any book written by men. Why? Because men's reason made it. God's word is found in the Cosmos, period.

gabriel said:

Dale Husband said: I guess FL, Ray Martinez, and Salvador Cordova won't bother to answer why they insult God by taking the claims of the Genesis creation myths, which MEN wrote, over what we find when we look at the actual universe that God supposedly created. BTW, at the Creation Museum, Man's reason is constantly contrasted with "God's Word". This is also blasphemous, since I have already stated that if there is such a thing as God's Word, it could never be in any book written by men. Why? Because men's reason made it. God's word is found in the Cosmos, period.

I would say that as a creation story for a bronze-age tribe, it functions pretty well. Trying to stretch the details into modern science is a contradiction in terms. Regarding your view that something written by people cannot be God's word: the Judeo-Christian view is that it's both God speaking and human, enculturated words on the page. Nowhere is there the notion of the Bible dropping out of the sky (in King James English, perhaps?) within the Judeo-Christian tradition. Multiple authours, redaction, etc were never seen as a threat to inspiration until recently. One needs to be careful not to import modern concerns onto ancient texts both for science and for exegesis.

gabriel said: Hi FL, Why do see evolution and Christianity as so incompatible but not other theories? Atomic theory and heliocentric theory are equally mechanistic and devoid of a role for God in the details. Why single out evolution for special treatment?

You’re fighting a losing battle. You should take Gamaliel’s advice.

Ray Martinez said:

Harold said: the fact that YEC fundamentalist beliefs are contradicted by scientific reality still remains.

Including their belief in microevolution and natural selection to exist in nature----beliefs which all Atheists accept too. LOL! Ray

Stanton said: And tell me again exactly how the Vietnam War is supposed to be all the atheists' fault?

So is this to say that you would prefer that the atheists keep their big mouths shut while more religiously inclined people continue doing what they were doing, including little things like trying to wreck the United States' educational system and scientific community in order to make the Bible the science/history/law textbook of the land under pain of death and or persecute minorities that offend their religious sensibilities?

jfx said:

So is this to say that you would prefer that the atheists keep their big mouths shut while more religiously inclined people continue doing what they were doing, including little things like trying to wreck the United States' educational system and scientific community in order to make the Bible the science/history/law textbook of the land under pain of death and or persecute minorities that offend their religious sensibilities?

Of course not. I would like all people to keep talking, even if they do it loudly. But let's keep the eye on the ball. Religion itself is not the enemy. I'm more worried about intolerant absolutist fanaticism, which manifests itself across the entire human spectrum both within and without religion. If our common creationist enemy has been trying for decades to get us to frame the battle as "science vs. religion", in intolerant absolutist terms, it seems incredibly obtuse to enthusiastically hand them that victory.

Mike Elzinga said: FL has been prancing and taunting around here for a few years now. In all that time he has never made an effort to learn any science. However, he will not hesitate to quote-mine, with no comprehension whatsoever, any science or pseudo-science source that will generate an obfuscating word salad as a taunting “rebuttal”.

Dan said: You'll also find that FL will never give reasoning to support his claim that Christianity and evolution are incompatible. Instead, he will quote atheists who hold this position, while ignoring religious folk (like the Pope) who hold that Christianity and evolution are compatible. Why does FL quote atheists as if they were God?

Why does FL quote atheists as if they were God?

— Dan

Raging Bee, PZ has the ability to put an automatic filter on your posts. No point trying to beat it.

Stanton said: But the thing is, when you say things like "Nazis were atheists" and "Communists lived only to persecute religious people," one gets the impression that you are concern-trolling in order to shame or bully the local atheists and other sympathetic people into silence so the religious bigots can continue what they're doing without further interference.

jfx The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And the road to progress is paved with hand-wringers like you, jfx.

jfx I’m more worried about intolerant absolutist fanaticism

Keep backpedaling, jfx. You'll get there eventually.

Registered User said: Keep backpedaling, jfx. You'll get there eventually.

jfx atheistic tribalism

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Gabriel said: Ray, I can assure you that I am a Christian.

I know to whom I belong.

You don't get to decide who is in and who is out - that job is significantly above your pay scale.

You should also be more careful about flinging words like fool around if you truly want to follow Jesus' teachings (not that I lay claim to be a perfect follower - far from it).

Let me ask you a question: do you accept heliocentric theory? If yes, are you aware that all atheists also accept it? Why is it you accept a theory that has no room in it for God's actions?

There are more and more Christians who are willing to look at the evidence and as a result ignore the invective coming from the YEC camp.

[SNIP....] We're 400 years after Galileo, and 150 after Darwin. Time and truth are on our side.

harold said: It's annoying to find myself on the opposite side of P Z Myers on a debate about science education, because I love his blog and think of him as an excellent science educator, albeit at the university or near-university level of sophistication. (Actually a plus IMO, but then that's me. --D) ... But I disagree with him here. P Z Myers doesn't like it when the NCSE makes the neutral observation that some religious people have no problem with evolution. He doesn't like that, even though making that neutral observation is the most, if not only, effective, honest way to rebut the common false creationist claim that evolution is essentially identical to atheism, and even though creationists advance that claim solely to disrupt science education at the public or individual level, and it behooves the NCSE to strongly rebut it. He doesn't like it because a neutral statement about religion is a statement about religion that isn't negative. ...

And Mike from Ottawa…even wronger. When you say “It is clear by “this fight” that you mean the fight against religion” you’ve completely distorted my meaning: I am talking about the fight for better science education. When you people keep sticking your weird-ass interpretations into the premises, you come out with utter garbage – and you don’t even notice, or care.

Here's our big problem: we have had no offense at all, and we're never going to make any progress without one. Keeping the other team from scoring is important but doesn't win us any games if we can never carry our arguments forward — we're always being told to stop at the point where we are drawing the logical implications of science and evolution and told to back off…it might alienate the other team.

Sorry Ray, the Bible disagrees with you, therefore, you are not a true Christian.

Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist and smarmy, dishonest, hypocritical arbiter of who is and is not a True Christian

Dave in CA said: Perhaps the most important issue between religion and science is the "origin" problem: "Why is the Universe here?" (Not to mention, intelligent life forms.) Religion's inclination is to say "Goddidit", as if that explains anything. The First Cause continues to evade and recede. My view is that "God" is an emergent property rather than a cause -- created by us rather than the other way around. But that is not to deny that there may be something there, something ineffable, something metaphysical shared, with possibly unknown or surprising properties. On that issue, I am agnostic.

Ray, it matters not a whit whether you think me a believer or not, because what you think has no bearing on my membership in God's covenant community. The evidence that I am a Christian is the indwelling Holy Spirit, who bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God (see Romans 8), and the fruit of my works (see Matthew 7).

In short, you say that because I accept a extremely well-tested and supported theory that undergirds all of my chosen field of study that I am apostate.

The reason I accept evolution is because of (a) the evidence, and (b) because I take natural revelation seriously. God reveals Himself in nature; the study of nature is no less a sacred task than theology. What we learn about God's creation in nature through science is a form of revelation.

To hold a view that orthodox Christian faith requires rejecting well-tested science would be humorous if it weren't so dangerous to the faith. You would have us all check our brains at the church door, and deny the evidence in favour of your preferred reading of Genesis: and when someone dares question your view you wield the cry of "Apostate!" with ease and vigor.

Well, not so. To my own Master I stand or fall, as it is with you. You might ask Him why you deny His works as revealed in His creation. You are a pot declaring to its Maker: "You may not make me thus!"

Flail as you will, your days of influence are numbered.

gabriel said: The reason I accept evolution is because of (a) the evidence, and (b) because I take natural revelation seriously. God reveals Himself in nature; the study of nature is no less a sacred task than theology. What we learn about God's creation in nature through science is a form of revelation.

Ray Martinez said: Why are most adults anti-evolution? Answer: Because there is no evidence of evolution. Evolutionists are recognized to be liars. Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical, Old Earth-Young Biosphere Creationist-species immutabilist, Paleyan Designist and pathological liar and lunatic.

Dale Husband said: Why should we believe YOU when you claim to be a Christian? Your constantly equating evolution with atheism is funny, considering that the Bible also teaches that the Earth is flat, and all Atheists believe the Earth is a sphere. Therefore, I can deny your being a Christian too.

Dave in CA said: Perhaps the most important issue between religion and science is the "origin" problem: "Why is the Universe here?" (Not to mention, intelligent life forms.) Religion's inclination is to say "Goddidit", as if that explains anything. The First Cause continues to evade and recede. My view is that "God" is an emergent property rather than a cause -- created by us rather than the other way around. But that is not to deny that there may be something there, something ineffable, something metaphysical shared, with possibly unknown or surprising properties. On that issue, I am agnostic.

gabriel said: Ray, it matters not a whit whether you think me a believer or not, because what you think has no bearing on my membership in God's covenant community. The evidence that I am a Christian is the indwelling Holy Spirit, who bears witness with my spirit that I am a child of God (see Romans 8), and the fruit of my works (see Matthew 7). In short, you say that because I accept a extremely well-tested and supported theory that undergirds all of my chosen field of study that I am apostate. The reason I accept evolution is because of (a) the evidence, and (b) because I take natural revelation seriously. God reveals Himself in nature; the study of nature is no less a sacred task than theology. What we learn about God's creation in nature through science is a form of revelation. To hold a view that orthodox Christian faith requires rejecting well-tested science would be humorous if it weren't so dangerous to the faith. You would have us all check our brains at the church door, and deny the evidence in favour of your preferred reading of Genesis: and when someone dares question your view you wield the cry of "Apostate!" with ease and vigor. Well, not so. To my own Master I stand or fall, as it is with you. You might ask Him why you deny His works as revealed in His creation. You are a pot declaring to its Maker: "You may not make me thus!" Flail as you will, your days of influence are numbered.

Out of curiosity, why are Raging Bee's comments consigned to the Bathroom Wall because he simply played Devil's Advocate too much, while Ray Martinez is allowed to repost the exact, same old, very tired fire and brimstone nonsense with impudence?

A very unfair double standard, yes?

jfx said: In that boundary region between all the relative knowledge we have about the universe, and absolute understanding of the universe's true nature, we have this extremely volatile patch of metaphysical ambiguity. And since most humans do not have much stomach for metaphysical ambiguity, we are always going to have this or that non-rational ideology aggressively squirming out of that patch.

Dave Luckett said: Can I follow this logic - which seems to me to be solid - one further step? If that last deduction stands, then it would follow that its conclusion must be admitted as possible. Not confirmed, not by any means, but admitted as possible. And if it be admitted as possible, then theism is possible. Not affirmed. Admitted as possible.

Ray Martinez said: The only question is: why did Gabriel completely ignore everything said, failing to quote and answer anything? All honest, objective and intelligent persons know that this indicates the inability to address and refute. General Reader: please see for yourself. Here is the link to my message to Gabriel: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/04/weekend-update.html#comment-185232 Please compare with his "reply" above. The general conclusion is: When put on the spot the "Christian" evolutionist is exposed to not have a leg to stand on. They are speechless.

Dave in CA said: The late Oriana Fallaci (one of the greatest heroines of our time IMO) had an interview with Pope Benedict. She remarked afterward, surprised, how deep the understanding and agreement were between herself (an atheist) and the Pope.

Stanton's usual lies. The Bible (which isn'y true, btw) doesn't say the earth is flat or stationary.

Senyor Martinez - s/he also wants me to be banned. You get used to her/his lies.

novparl moron with poor reading comprehension said: Stanton's usual lies. The Bible (which isn'y true, btw) doesn't say the earth is flat or stationary. Senyor Martinez - s/he also wants me to be banned. You get used to her/his lies.

Dave in CA said:

Dave Luckett said: Can I follow this logic - which seems to me to be solid - one further step? If that last deduction stands, then it would follow that its conclusion must be admitted as possible. Not confirmed, not by any means, but admitted as possible. And if it be admitted as possible, then theism is possible. Not affirmed. Admitted as possible.

...snip... One point that Terence Witt argues in his book, Our Undiscovered Universe, is that every point in the Universe is a hologram of the Whole, and that this is necessary for the universality of physical laws. I wonder whether consciousness participates in that somehow? ...snip...

Dave in CA said:

Dave Luckett said: Can I follow this logic - which seems to me to be solid - one further step? If that last deduction stands, then it would follow that its conclusion must be admitted as possible. Not confirmed, not by any means, but admitted as possible. And if it be admitted as possible, then theism is possible. Not affirmed. Admitted as possible.

...snip... One point that Terence Witt argues in his book, Our Undiscovered Universe, is that every point in the Universe is a hologram of the Whole, and that this is necessary for the universality of physical laws. I wonder whether consciousness participates in that somehow? ...snip...

* Using the high school description of a neutron as a proton plus an electron and not realizing that this is just his atomic model!