Evolution Weekend to focus on environment

Posted 25 June 2010 by Matt Young

I just received a letter from Michael Zimmerman, addressed to "Members and Friends of The Clergy Letter Project." The gist of the letter is that Evolution Weekend will be 11-13 February 2011 and will once again provide religious congregations the opportunity to discuss evolution and how it can be accommodated into their worldview. In addition, congregations are encouraged to discuss "the many environmental threats to the health of both natural and human communities." The relevant part of Professor Zimmerman's letter follows.

This year, Evolution Weekend is being conceived in two ways. As always, it is an opportunity for congregations to discuss the compatibility of religion and science - and to do so in a manner that elevates the quality of the dialogue on this important issue. This can be done in any manner that will be the most helpful and relevant for each congregation. Additionally, this year, we are also encouraging congregations that think it might be useful, to focus on specific environmental issues as they explore the relationship between religion and science. As an evolutionary biologist, I know that knowledge of evolutionary theory is absolutely essential for a robust understanding of how the natural environment functions and how it might be affected by human activities. My contacts within the religious community tell me that addressing ecological issues from within their faith perspective can also be empowering and hopeful, especially for those who are grieving about the ways humankind has harmed the natural world. I've added a resource section to the Evolution Weekend 2011 web page that you may find helpful if you opt to deal with environmental issues. If you have suggestions for resources that should be added, please let me know. So, please sign up now to participate in Evolution Weekend 2011 (11-13 February 2011) and find the way that will be the most productive for you and your congregation. To sign up, simply send me (mz@butler.edu) a note with your name and the name of your congregation and I'll get you added to our growing list. I've not yet publicly released the web page for Evolution Weekend 2011 since it is so early but we already have 98 congregations from 31 states and 8 countries listed. Please join with us this year.

77 Comments

angryindian · 25 June 2010

I wrote to a number of these clergy and asked them some very fundamental questions anyone needs to know to figure out if evolution is real. These people have no clue but they opinions. So no one should pay attention to what they say.

And a while back someone here, I forget who, cited top historian Harvey Klehr who brought out direct evidence that American progressives were directly controlled by the USSR. That means these left leaning pastors who have no clue about anything in science are sock puppets of a failed political theory.

The salient point is not one responder to the guy gave us the name Harvey Klehr as a source either mentoned his many works or the fact they Klehr's microfilm from the KGB files was 100% replicated in the Venona papers.

Evolutionists have no clue who is pulling their strings and somehow think their world view is part of science.

RBH · 26 June 2010

[looking around] Did Monty Python just pass this way?

RBH · 26 June 2010

And it's noteworthy that a search of this site turns up no hits on "Klehr." Too bad, troll.

Dale Husband · 26 June 2010

I've never heard of this person before, but he is real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Klehr Harvey E. Klehr (born December 25, 1945) is a professor of politics and history at Emory University; he is known for his books on the subject of the American Communist movement, and on Soviet espionage in America (many written jointly with John Earl Haynes). He was born in Newark, New Jersey. He received his undergraduate degree from Franklin and Marshall College in 1967, and his doctorate from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1971. He has received a number of awards, including Emory's Thomas Jefferson Award (in 1999). He is a member of the National Council on the Humanities, serving a term that expires in 2010.

But what does Communism have to do with Christian clergy who accept evolution? Nothing that I can see. Sounds like a right-wing extremist smear job.

darvolution proponentsist · 26 June 2010

Evolutionists have no clue who is pulling their strings and somehow think their world view is part of science.

Pardon me, do you have an extra tin-foil hat I might borrow ?

Rolf Aalberg · 26 June 2010

darvolution proponentsist said:
Evolutionists have no clue who is pulling their strings and somehow think their world view is part of science.
Pardon me, do you have an extra tin-foil hat I might borrow ?

No, but I have read this: http://www.angels-light.org/english/svetelna_knihovna/htm/en/en_kniha_flying_saucers_have_landed.htm

Rolf Aalberg · 26 June 2010

Of special interest is the information about the space alien's base on the other side of the moon...

Just Bob · 26 June 2010

And since the USSR and the KGB no longer exist, those puppets are now running loose. Puppet Pastors Gone Wild!

iVORY GIRL · 26 June 2010

Just how do you accomodate TOE into your Christian World View? Just how much mental gymnastics do you have to perform to accomplish this?

Rolf Aalberg · 26 June 2010

From my POW, there isn't any conflict between Christendom and science - up to and including TOE. The cause of conflict is literalism and fundamentalism.

Dale Husband · 26 June 2010

iVORY GIRL said: Just how do you accomodate TOE into your Christian World View? Just how much mental gymnastics do you have to perform to accomplish this?

Just BEING a Christian requires a lot of mental gymnastics. Are you aware that according to the Gospels, Jesus claimed that some people in his time would still be living when he returned to establish his kingdom? And in the writings of Paul and the book of Revelation, that assumption is also made. Which is why I am 100% certain that Jesus will never return physically to this Earth. Clearly, his claim was either never made, was badly misunderstood, or he lied.

IVORY GIRL · 26 June 2010

If you’re into the accommodationist mind set, reconciliation business, fine, try to harmonize science and religion. At what point though, do you concede when the science overwhelmingly contradicts the scripture? Or do you continue to live in your internal reality, conceiving it to be “of greater value” than objective scientific reality?

Dale Husband · 26 June 2010

IVORY GIRL said: If you’re into the accommodationist mind set, reconciliation business, fine, try to harmonize science and religion. At what point though, do you concede when the science overwhelmingly contradicts the scripture? Or do you continue to live in your internal reality, conceiving it to be “of greater value” than objective scientific reality?

Look like meganfox may have returned! Look, the Bible was written and edited by hundreds of people over 1500 years or so. Just because Genesis has been found by modern science to be entirely a myth doesn't mean that we have to convert straight to atheism. Even the Gospels contain glaring inconsistencies, but it is still possible that there was a real person named Jesus who lived 2000 years ago. Stories about him could have been exaggerated over time with pagan elements, resulting in a religion related to but totally different from Judaism (by all accounts, Jesus was Jewish, not pagan). Now, are you going to pelt us with references to Popper, rabbits in the Cambrian, and other such crap?

MrG · 26 June 2010

Dale Husband said: Now, are you going to pelt us with references to Popper, rabbits in the Cambrian, and other such crap?

We could eventually go on to PYGMIES + DWARVES!

IVORY GIRL · 26 June 2010

I will ignore Dale H’s obtuse comments, (who is meganfox ?) I’m not suggesting that anyone convert to atheism. all we need is the kind of desperate apologetics that some are trying to defend to accomplish that. It also achieves the goal of making believers look pretty disingenuous, at least those who have any respect for their religion
As for the authenticity of Jesus, it’s falls on par with Robin Hood, perhaps we should all go out and rob the rich and give to the poor base on that premise

SLC · 26 June 2010

Dale Husband said:
iVORY GIRL said: Just how do you accomodate TOE into your Christian World View? Just how much mental gymnastics do you have to perform to accomplish this?
Just BEING a Christian requires a lot of mental gymnastics. Are you aware that according to the Gospels, Jesus claimed that some people in his time would still be living when he returned to establish his kingdom? And in the writings of Paul and the book of Revelation, that assumption is also made. Which is why I am 100% certain that Jesus will never return physically to this Earth. Clearly, his claim was either never made, was badly misunderstood, or he lied.

Martin Gardner put it this way. When Yeshua of Nazareth stated that he would return in the lifetime of some of his listeners, the Galilean carpenter turned itinerant preacher was mistaken.

MrG · 26 June 2010

Oh dear, another thread being hijacked into the G*d Wars ... just when the last one fizzled out after running for something like 20 pages.

harold · 26 June 2010

Ivory Girl -

If you’re into the accommodationist mind set, reconciliation business, fine,

I'm "into" the right of every individual in a free society to live and believe as they see fit, with the limitation that they not violate the rights of others. It is a violation of human and (in the US and many other places) legal rights to discriminate in certain ways. I support that. Creationists try to violate my rights, try to mislead other people about science, promote bigotry, and also insult my intelligence and educational achievements. I have a problem with those behaviors.

try to harmonize science and religion.

I don't have to, as I am not personally religious, but it seems that some other people do so, and that is their business.

At what point though, do you concede when the science overwhelmingly contradicts the scripture?

I am not a theologian by any means, but it is my impression that this is only true of certain scriptures, and only if they are "interpreted literally". My understanding is that some religious people interpret some parts of some scriptures as being symbolic or metaphorical. I am not religious myself and don't keep up on these things, but I am pretty sure that they do that.

Or do you continue to live in your internal reality, conceiving it to be “of greater value” than objective scientific reality?

I can't answer this question, not being religious myself. I will comment that in my opinion, human beings are animals (this is not intended as an insult to other animal species) who are mainly dominated by instinctive and emotional drives, and who can apply abstract scientific reasoning, with great concentration, in limited circumstances. Much of human life is emotional and instinctive, even for atheists. Whether anything is of "greater value" than anything else is a purely subjective decision.

Stanton · 26 June 2010

iVORY GIRL said: Just how do you accomodate TOE into your Christian World View? Just how much mental gymnastics do you have to perform to accomplish this?

Why would mental gymnastics be necessary? Contrary to what creationists rant about, Jesus Christ never asked or demanded that His followers to deny reality or deny evolution or deny any other sciences, or to read the (King James Translation of) the Bible literally. All He asked, from what I was told, was that His followers accept Him as their Savior.

stevaroni · 26 June 2010

angryindian said: And a while back someone here, I forget who, cited top historian Harvey Klehr who brought out direct evidence that American progressives were directly controlled by the USSR.

Waitwaitwait.... I thought progressives were secretely controlled by the Reptaloids under contract with the Masons? When did things change? How come nobody ever tells me these things?

MrG · 26 June 2010

stevaroni said: When did things change? How come nobody ever tells me these things?

Ah! It's the mind control beams, man! Whenever there's a leak, they saturate the public and make them forget! Reminds me, I gotta put another layer of tinfoil in my hat.

Frank J · 26 June 2010

iVORY GIRL said: Just how do you accomodate TOE into your Christian World View? Just how much mental gymnastics do you have to perform to accomplish this?

The only "mental gymnastics" required is to obey the Commandment that forbids bearing false witness.

IVORYGIRL · 26 June 2010

Rather than "instigate another round of the science v religion war"
(sorry guys, science won that years ago) I will bow out of the thread.
I will leave with one thought.If,as suggested by people in other posts, some scriptures are to be taken only as allegory,yet others must be taken as absolute,who's authority on this prevails.Who makes that decision you,me,the guy who delivers your pizza? Are virgin births any more likely than talking snakes,or resurected gods than creation stories?

MrG · 26 June 2010

IVORYGIRL said: I will leave with one thought ...

Take a thought with you: believe it or not, there are people out there who care not in the least whether there's a G*d or not, and find what side people take on the matter about as interesting as whether they prefer Pepsi or Coke.

darvolution proponentsist · 26 June 2010

Rolf Aalberg said: No, but I have read this: http://www.angels-light.org/english/svetelna_knihovna/htm/en/en_kniha_flying_saucers_have_landed.htm

Very nice, and I see they've gone with the classic TimeCube Lite™ graphics scheme for the site. That's always a sure sign you're getting the straight poop.

MrG · 26 June 2010

darvolution proponentsist said: Very nice, and I see they've gone with the classic TimeCube Lite™ graphics scheme for the site. That's always a sure sign you're getting the straight poop.

"TimeCube Lite"?! Ah ... variable-sized colored fonts with (of course) centering

Dale Husband · 26 June 2010

IVORY GIRL said: I will ignore Dale H’s obtuse comments, (who is meganfox ?) I’m not suggesting that anyone convert to atheism. all we need is the kind of desperate apologetics that some are trying to defend to accomplish that. It also achieves the goal of making believers look pretty disingenuous, at least those who have any respect for their religion As for the authenticity of Jesus, it’s falls on par with Robin Hood, perhaps we should all go out and rob the rich and give to the poor base on that premise

Good, then you will not mind if the rest of us ignore you in return. Have a nice day!

Dale Husband · 26 June 2010

SLC said:
Dale Husband said:
iVORY GIRL said: Just how do you accomodate TOE into your Christian World View? Just how much mental gymnastics do you have to perform to accomplish this?
Just BEING a Christian requires a lot of mental gymnastics. Are you aware that according to the Gospels, Jesus claimed that some people in his time would still be living when he returned to establish his kingdom? And in the writings of Paul and the book of Revelation, that assumption is also made. Which is why I am 100% certain that Jesus will never return physically to this Earth. Clearly, his claim was either never made, was badly misunderstood, or he lied.
Martin Gardner put it this way. When Yeshua of Nazareth stated that he would return in the lifetime of some of his listeners, the Galilean carpenter turned itinerant preacher was mistaken.

Martin Gardner was himself a theist, which in the eyes of some atheists, would also make him DELUSIONAL! Nevermind that he was also a dedicated skeptic in everything else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. Psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, stupidity, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception.

To call something a delusion, you must first establish that is indeed FALSE, not that it is merely unproven. That's what I was trying to explain to the atheists in the other thread, but I guess they were too busy insulting anyone different from them to listen. And yes, that is the last I will say on that subject. Back to the main topic, shall we?

Richiyaado · 26 June 2010

You are all wrong. The American progressive clergy are not controlled by Commies or pythons or P&G (makers of Ivory soap). No. They are secretly in cahoots with the movement to establish the Flying Spaghetti Monster (BBUHNA) as the creator of all things. I should know. I've been a clandestine operative in the movement for years.

Skeptics beware... our time is coming!

Henry J · 27 June 2010

So basically, what you're saying is pasta la vista?

James F · 27 June 2010

Dale Husband said: Look like meganfox may have returned!

Dale, if this is Ivory Girl from the Florida Citizens for Science Board, I can vouch for her; she's legit. I'm going to sidestep further religion discussions here as well. Carry on and be well.

Frank J · 27 June 2010

MrG said: Oh dear, another thread being hijacked into the G*d Wars ... just when the last one fizzled out after running for something like 20 pages.

Unfortunately I have to blame fellow "Darwinists" for the hijacking. And yes I too am occasionally part of the problem. But I mostly try to avoid the temptation to "feed" evolution "challengers," and instead ask them questions about their "theory," particularly "what happened when" questions, and whether they agree with anti-evolutionists who accept common descent. In the rare cases that they do provide a coherent answer, I ask follow-up questions. After 2-3 rounds they invariably go away looking for someone else to "feed" them.

Dale Husband · 27 June 2010

James F said:
Dale Husband said: Look like meganfox may have returned!
Dale, if this is Ivory Girl from the Florida Citizens for Science Board, I can vouch for her; she's legit. I'm going to sidestep further religion discussions here as well. Carry on and be well.

Thank you, James.

harold · 27 June 2010

One final comment. Ivory Girl - Your questions are quite reasonable, as questions to direct toward a theologian who is expert in a particular religious doctrine. The point of the Clergy Project is merely to show that the clergy who signed do not consider evolution denial to be a requirement for those who follow their particular faith. It does not advance a claim of legitimacy for any particular religion, but rather, merely rebuts the frequent creationist claim that evolution denial is a necessary part of the observation of certain religions. MrG -

Take a thought with you: believe it or not, there are people out there who care not in the least whether there’s a G*d or not, and find what side people take on the matter about as interesting as whether they prefer Pepsi or Coke.

Amen, my brother in apatheism. Dale Husband -

A delusion, in everyday language, is a fixed belief that is either false, fanciful, or derived from deception. Psychiatry defines the term more specifically as a belief that is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process). As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, dogma, stupidity, apperception, illusion, or other effects of perception.

Another important element of a delusion, in clinical practice, is that a belief which is entirely a broadly accepted cultural belief for the person in question is not a delusion, either. Note, though, that delusions often incorporate cultural elements. Belief that Jesus saves souls is not, clinically, a delusion, in the context of societies in which Christianity has been a traditional religion. Ideas about Jesus may often form part of a system of delusional systems held by Western people, though - just having Jesus in it doesn't mean it's not a delusion. In my subjective but educated opinion... A fair number of the creationists who post here show obsessive compulsive traits. Some come close to "delusions of grandeur", often anchored by the delusion that they are "greater geniuses" than actual scientists and can see that science is wrong without even knowing anything about science, due to their inherent genius. They will wave DI propaganda or their own invented "genius-y sounding" illogical word games about for hours, and can't let go. Other creationists are simply hell bent on advancing what they perceive to be the interests of a cynical, authoritarian cult in which they feel membership. Whether this is delusional or not is unclear. The behavior of these individuals seldom fits into the paradigm of traditional Christianity, which, whatever its anachronistic and brutal characteristics, also emphasized honesty, humility, full and open statements of belief rather than weasel words, and so on. On the other hand, these individuals often behave in what could be perceived as an exceptionally nihilistic way to promote what they perceive as their own self-interest. This is unpleasant but not delusional. They have defined it as being in the interest of their cult to eliminate, replace, and/or distort the teaching of evolution (and a variety of other things, not all science) in public schools. Their sound bites are invariably "legalistic sounding" attacks on the theory of evolution. They falsely accuse materials that treat evolution of being "fraud", claim that "evolution is a religion, too", etc. As Judge Jones noted with aggravation, they never present a testable alternative. They have used every possible tactic - try to teach YEC as science (early), try to merely exclude evolution (Kansas 1999), try to teach "ID" weasel words as science (Dover, 2005), and of course, simply try to sneak creationism in under the radar (Freshwater case, ongoing, and probably many more). The only unifying theme is "anything to get rid of the teaching of evolution". Their attitude is clearly "we win if the teaching of evolution in a public school is compromised and we will do anything to achieve that goal".

Frank J · 27 June 2010

The point of the Clergy Project is merely to show that the clergy who signed do not consider evolution denial to be a requirement for those who follow their particular faith.
— harold

In fact evolution acceptance is a requirement of any religion that preaches "thou shalt not bear false witness." I understand that they can't make that clear without alienating alienating much (most?) of the congregation. It's the same Catch-22 that the media faces when the subject of flying reindeer come up. It's simply politically incorrect to deny it even if one does.

FL · 27 June 2010

In fact evolution acceptance is a requirement of any religion that preaches “thou shalt not bear false witness.”

Or at least any religion that rejects the Bible. Unfortunately, Christianity is not one of those religions.

FL · 27 June 2010

Think about it, folks. Does the Bible support the evolutionist claim of human origins? Nope. It directly opposes that claim, and does so in such a sharp, comprehensive way that one must either reject the Bible or reject evolution, period.

That alone is enough to make clear that evolution and Christianity is incompatible.

FL · 27 June 2010

Hmm. Jacques Monod just came to mind. Let us see what he says.

Monod: Namely, (natural) selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms... TV interviewer Laurie John: Cruel? Monod: The more cruel because it is a process of elimination, of destruction. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution. --TV Interview, 10 June 1976, Australiang Broadcasting Commission Science Unit, reprinted by AIG

Monod's right, and the Clergy Letter Project is wrong. There you go! FL

Dave Luckett · 27 June 2010

FL said: Think about it, folks. Does the Bible support the evolutionist claim of human origins? Nope. It directly opposes that claim, and does so in such a sharp, comprehensive way that one must either reject the Bible or reject evolution, period. That alone is enough to make clear that evolution and Christianity is incompatible.

Here we go again. FL returns, like a dog to its vomit, to a foolish assertion that was comprehensively debunked long ago. Christianity is fully compatible with a view that the Bible was written by people ignorant of science. It may be inspired, but it is not inerrant in matters of mundane observed fact, and no educated Christian ever thought it was until the rise of modern literalism, which is itself a blasphemous heresy - bibiolatry. In fact, no educated Christian thinks so today. Only the blindly ignorant do that.

FL · 27 June 2010

Just how do you accomodate TOE into your Christian World View?

Good question, but the usual answer is simply parrot the old standby line "Millions of Christians accept evolution", and avoid talking specifics at all costs. If you decide to talk specifics, then not even the Clergy Letter Project can salvage any such accomodation. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Dave Luckett · 27 June 2010

Jacques Monod says evolution is no respecter of human ethical positions. No, oddly enough, it isn't, since it is not a product or an implication of any human ethical position, and is to human ethics as Britney Spears is to matrix algebra.

FL again embraces the ludicrously inept idea that because nature is thus, we must be thus. One wonders what he thinks a social conscience is. Perhaps it's because he hasn't got one.

Stanton · 27 June 2010

FL said:
Just how do you accomodate TOE into your Christian World View?
Good question, but the usual answer is simply parrot the old standby line "Millions of Christians accept evolution", and avoid talking specifics at all costs. If you decide to talk specifics, then not even the Clergy Letter Project can salvage any such accomodation. Evolution is incompatible with Christianity.

Then why do you hypocritically continue to eat food, use medicines, use plastics and petroleum products and come into contact with plants, animals and microorganisms that were all developed utilizing evolution? Furthermore, why do you consider yourself some sort of "authority" who can decide what other Christians can and can not believe in when you maliciously disregard what Jesus said about His followers not engaging in evil deeds like lying, slandering or meddling in other people's relationships with Jesus?

Stanton · 27 June 2010

Dave Luckett said: FL again embraces the ludicrously inept idea that because nature is thus, we must be thus. One wonders what he thinks a social conscience is. Perhaps it's because he hasn't got one.

Of course FL doesn't have a conscience. If he did, he would have probably felt guilty about the hundreds of times he's lied to us, and tried to bully and manipulate us into worshiping him as God's mouthpiece.

Dale Husband · 28 June 2010

FL said:
In fact evolution acceptance is a requirement of any religion that preaches “thou shalt not bear false witness.”
Or at least any religion that rejects the Bible. Unfortunately, Christianity is not one of those religions. Think about it, folks. Does the Bible support the evolutionist claim of human origins? Nope. It directly opposes that claim, and does so in such a sharp, comprehensive way that one must either reject the Bible or reject evolution, period. That alone is enough to make clear that evolution and Christianity is incompatible.

You know nothing about what the Bible really says or where it really came from, except what your bigoted arrogant propaganda ministers have told you. And most of us can see with our own eyes that most of them are outright liars. I already addressed this issue. Did you not read it?

Just BEING a Christian requires a lot of mental gymnastics. Are you aware that according to the Gospels, Jesus claimed that some people in his time would still be living when he returned to establish his kingdom? And in the writings of Paul and the book of Revelation, that assumption is also made. Which is why I am 100% certain that Jesus will never return physically to this Earth. Clearly, his claim was either never made, was badly misunderstood, or he lied. Look, the Bible was written and edited by hundreds of people over 1500 years or so. Just because Genesis has been found by modern science to be entirely a myth doesn’t mean that we have to convert straight to atheism. Even the Gospels contain glaring inconsistencies, but it is still possible that there was a real person named Jesus who lived 2000 years ago. Stories about him could have been exaggerated over time with pagan elements, resulting in a religion related to but totally different from Judaism (by all accounts, Jesus was Jewish, not pagan).

You need to grow and learn to live with reality. And stop lying to all of us here.

Frank J · 28 June 2010

FL said:
In fact evolution acceptance is a requirement of any religion that preaches “thou shalt not bear false witness.”
Or at least any religion that rejects the Bible. Unfortunately, Christianity is not one of those religions.

I notice that you are careful to say "at least" and not "only." Last I heard, Chritianity accepts the Bible, at least as moral guide, if not a science text. As you know, a devout Christian and anti-evolution activist named Michael Behe said that the Bible should not be read as a science text. As you also know, he accepts billions of years of life and common descent, thus a lot of death before that Fall that you think happened and that he didn't. But unless you want to play word games (what ID/creationist doesn't?) and define "Christian" to exclude both "evolutionists" and anti-evolutionists who disagree with you, many devout Christians who accept the Bible and God's Command not to bear false witness reject ID/creationism.

raven · 28 June 2010

1. Just how do you accomodate TOE into your Christian World View? 2. Just how much mental gymnastics do you have to perform to accomplish this?

1. Very easy. God can do anything. God invented evolution. 2. None. I was a xian up until a few years ago and a scientist. The amount of time I spent in total reconciling science and religion was less than 1 second total. It never even occurred to me that there was a conflict. My sect doesn't have a problem with science or evolution. They looked at evolution early in the 20th century and decided that it was a great idea and never worried about it again. Evolution is a scientific theory and has nothing to do with religion.

raven · 28 June 2010

The majority of xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution. This includes the Mormons, Catholics, and mainline protestants.

Anyone who excommunicates xians who don't have a problem with science just reduced the religion from 2 billion people to a few tens of millions of morons based in the south central USA.

Suicide is a strategy but it isn't a good strategy.

raven · 28 June 2010

Jacques Monod says evolution is no respecter of human ethical positions. No, oddly enough, it isn’t, since it is not a product or an implication of any human ethical position, and is to human ethics as Britney Spears is to matrix algebra.

True. Evolution has nothing to say about human ethics or morality. It also has nothing to say about where socks in the laundry disappear to after doing the wash or whether it will rain next week. Why should it? Evolution is a biological theory of why and how life changes through time. It is not about missing socks, weather reports, or how you should live your life.

MrG · 28 June 2010

There's a certain game that lunatic fringers like to play that I'm trying to figure out a good name for. It's the conversational equivalent of driving into a busy interection to then remain there -- going nowhere, just shifting from reverse to forward -- obstructing traffic while mooning at people honking at them.

I call it "roadblocK" for want of a better term.

DS · 28 June 2010

FL wrote (again):

"Evolution is incompatible with Christianity."

Right. We have established that your version of christianity is incompatible with reality. Therefore, you have only two choices, you can give up your version of christianity, or you can give up reality. What you cannot do is force others to accept your version of christianity in defiance of reality.

If you choose to modify your preconceived religious notions in order to incorporate verifiable aspects of objective reality, you can still be religious and even a christian. The term used for such people is enlightened. If you choose to ignore scientific findings and deny reality for some contrived set of inconsistent religious beliefs, that is your choice. The term for such people is delusional or schizophrenic. Your continued ranting here suggests that your are having difficulty making this choice. Please choose wisely Floyd, someone might care.

Frank J · 29 June 2010

Good question, but the usual answer is simply parrot the old standby line “Millions of Christians accept evolution”, and avoid talking specifics at all costs. If you decide to talk specifics, then not even the Clergy Letter Project can salvage any such accomodation.
— FL

Speaking of accommodation, it is evolution deniers/misrepresenters like you who increasingly avoid discussing specifics of their “theory.” The Clergy Letter signers would be glad to state what they think God did and when with respect to the origin of species. The ultimate “accommodation” is the increasing “anything but ‘Darwinism,’” strategy among evolution deniers/misrepresenters.

Ray Martinez · 29 June 2010

"Christian" Clergy and their congregations embracing the Atheist explanation of life and nature while forsaking the Biblical explanation?

We can offer no better evidence supporting the existence of invisible Deceiver.

This is why we have faith: good or bad whatever the Bible says is true.

Ray Martinez · 29 June 2010

FL said: Think about it, folks. Does the Bible support the evolutionist claim of human origins? Nope. It directly opposes that claim, and does so in such a sharp, comprehensive way that one must either reject the Bible or reject evolution, period. That alone is enough to make clear that evolution and Christianity is incompatible.

Very well said.

Ray Martinez · 29 June 2010

Wesley Elsberry once told me that he rests the entire compatibility of ToE and his Christianity on the fact that his denomination says its okay!

The Bible assumes and explicitly says that all biological production is caused by God (supernatural agency). Evolution specifically says that supernatural agency is absent from nature, that all biological production is accomplished by natural or material agencies. The same is the antithesis of a minor claim, but epitomizes a major claim.

Wesley and his denomination have no source for their belief that God "created" by evolution (which is the position of Deism). Christians are Theists.

The point is rather obvious: "Christian" evolutionists have (to use Biblical terminology) bowed their knee to Baal.

FL · 29 June 2010

You gonna stir up big trouble with these wild and wooly Pandas, Mr. Martinez.

(But thanks for your kind response there!).

Stanton · 29 June 2010

FL said: You gonna stir up big trouble with these wild and wooly Pandas, Mr. Martinez. (But thanks for your kind response there!). FL

In other words, you and Ray Martinez have granted yourselves the power to meddle with other people's spiritual relationships with the specific intent to deny other Christians salvation in Christ if they do not bow down to you.

Stanton · 29 June 2010

FL said: You gonna stir up big trouble with these wild and wooly Pandas, Mr. Martinez. (But thanks for your kind response there!). FL

On the other hand, FL, why should anyone take Ray Martinez seriously, given as how he is a babbling, hate-filled bigot who cares crap about understanding Biology? Then again, FL, it's fitting that you would trust an incoherent bigot, given as how you are an incoherent bigot, yourself. Like the time you lied about PvM being run out of Panda's Thumb because he was a Christian, or all the times how you masturbated to the idea of God coming down from Heaven in order to destroy all the evidence of Evolution with fire before sending us all to Hell to continue burning forever.

Rob · 29 June 2010

Ray,

FL is on record that:

1) God is all powerful.

2) God is unconditionally loving and ethical.

3) A literal/plain reading of the bible is completely consistent with (1) and (2).

Do you agree?

fnxtr · 29 June 2010

Oh, jeez. Here we go again.

Was there a real prodigal son? Is He a lamp? Is He a door? Et cetera... ad nauseam.

FL · 29 June 2010

For Rob: I can't speak for Mr. Martinez, but just speaking for myself only, a literal/plain reading of John 3:16 effectively covers all three bases you mentioned. Think about it amigo!

***

For Stanton: I'm not ignoring your posts or anything. But I gotta admit, I've never seen a Panda poster with such a vivid imagination! (Kinda scary, imo!)

Rob · 29 June 2010

So, that is the only part of the Bible that you take literally/plainly. I am relieved:)

FL said: For Rob: I can't speak for Mr. Martinez, but just speaking for myself only, a literal/plain reading of John 3:16 effectively covers all three bases you mentioned. Think about it amigo! *** For Stanton: I'm not ignoring your posts or anything. But I gotta admit, I've never seen a Panda poster with such a vivid imagination! (Kinda scary, imo!) FL

Stanton · 29 June 2010

FL said: For Rob: I can't speak for Mr. Martinez, but just speaking for myself only, a literal/plain reading of John 3:16 effectively covers all three bases you mentioned. Think about it amigo! *** For Stanton: I'm not ignoring your posts or anything. But I gotta admit, I've never seen a Panda poster with such a vivid imagination! (Kinda scary, imo!) FL

Who's imagining? You did falsely accuse us of running PvM out of Panda's Thumb because he's a Christian, never mind that a good portion of posters here are Christian, and you did state that you can't wait until God comes down from Heaven to destroy Evolution, and send us to Hell to burn.

Stanton · 29 June 2010

Rob said: So, that is the only part of the Bible that you take literally/plainly. I am relieved:)

What about the time FL said that we have to assume that "windows of Heaven" were also metaphorical in nature, but, the flooding of the world, and the drowning of all life, human, animal, and plant, outside of Noah's Ark, was not. Though, I still do not understand how murdering all life, simply on account of humans being too noisy and annoying, is supposed to be an example of God being all-merciful. Wouldn't that be like claiming that setting the house on fire with everyone locked in their bedrooms is an example of parental love?

Matt Young · 29 June 2010

Oh, jeez. Here we go again.

My sentiment exactly. Please do not feed the FL troll or the Ray Martinez troll -- or take their bait, whichever metaphor you prefer. I will send further pointless comments to the Bathroom Wall.

Stanton · 29 June 2010

Matt Young said:
Oh, jeez. Here we go again.
My sentiment exactly. Please do not feed the FL troll or the Ray Martinez troll -- or take their bait, whichever metaphor you prefer. I will send further pointless comments to the Bathroom Wall.

Yes, please, thank you.

Dave Luckett · 29 June 2010

FL: I have thought about John 3:16, bach, and it doesn't say anything about any of the "bases" you mention, or answer any of Rob's questions. It says nothing about God's power, nothing about His ethics (only that He loved the world). It certainly says nothing about how we are to reconcile, say, Genesis 6:5-7, or Deuteronomy 20:12-14, or Joshua 6:21, or 2 Kings:23-25 or Matthew 7:14 (to name only a few) with the idea of an unconditionally loving and ethical God. The God described in those passages is neither.

You don't actually know much about Scripture, do you, FL.

Dave Luckett · 29 June 2010

Sorry, I posted before I read Matt Young's ruling. I apologise.

Dale Husband · 30 June 2010

Blasphemy and stupidity are not worth responding to, anyway, Matt.

Matt Young said:
Oh, jeez. Here we go again.
My sentiment exactly. Please do not feed the FL troll or the Ray Martinez troll -- or take their bait, whichever metaphor you prefer. I will send further pointless comments to the Bathroom Wall.

Robin · 30 June 2010

Matt, I understand and respect your request not to feed the trolls. I would like to address this reference from FL, however, since I believe it speaks directly to the topic of this thread:

FL said: Hmm. Jacques Monod just came to mind. Let us see what he says.
Monod: Namely, (natural) selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms... TV interviewer Laurie John: Cruel? Monod: The more cruel because it is a process of elimination, of destruction. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution. --TV Interview, 10 June 1976, Australiang Broadcasting Commission Science Unit, reprinted by AIG
Monod's right, and the Clergy Letter Project is wrong. There you go! FL

Jacques Monod, like so many other folks - particularly apologetic Christians, demonstrates a distinct misunderstanding about evolution here. There is nothing inherent in evolution, the process or the theory, concerning the elimination of the weak. Many people, but apologists in particular, misunderstand what Darwin meant when he referenced natural selection and what Spencer meant (in reference to Darwin's concept) by survival of the fittest. The concept is NOT that only the strong survive (and by inference that the weak die off), but rather that ALL those who are FIT ENOUGH have offspring who inherit those 'fit enough' characteristics. The "weak" (a relative concept anyway) are in many cases fit enough and certainly what passes for "weak" in human society is a questionable characteristic at best. Do we mean literally weak in terms of physical strength? Clearly not. Weak in terms of societal power? Again, clearly not. Weak in terms of economic status? Nah. So what then is Monod railing against? Answer - clearly a strawman based on ignorance.

DS · 30 June 2010

You cannot use the argument that god would not be cruel, therefore evolution cannot be true. Cruelty exists, it exists in nature and it exists in human societies. So, either god created or god allows cruelty. If god could not allow evolution to produce cruelty, she must have created it herself. If god allows cruelty, then god would have no problem with evolution. The problem is assuming that god and human societies are constrained to be like nature, that is a logical fallacy.

Robin · 30 June 2010

DS said: You cannot use the argument that god would not be cruel, therefore evolution cannot be true. Cruelty exists, it exists in nature and it exists in human societies. So, either god created or god allows cruelty. If god could not allow evolution to produce cruelty, she must have created it herself. If god allows cruelty, then god would have no problem with evolution. The problem is assuming that god and human societies are constrained to be like nature, that is a logical fallacy.

I would argue that nature is not - cannot be - cruel. The term cruel includes the concept of intent - an intention to inflict pain and/or suffering. But nothing in nature, at least nothing of which I'm aware, intends to inflict pain and suffering on anything else. Certainly some elements of nature lead to pain and suffering, but I do not see such as a product of cruelty. A god otoh could "logically" (assuming a god exists) be cruel.

fnxtr · 30 June 2010

Nature merely appears to us to be cruel because most of us don't wish pain, suffering, and death on others. Please avoid the obvious finger-pointing. Thank you.

Henry J · 30 June 2010

Clean-up on aisle number, uh, well, pretty much all of them...

Frank J · 1 July 2010

FL said: You gonna stir up big trouble with these wild and wooly Pandas, Mr. Martinez. (But thanks for your kind response there!). FL

Ray and FL on the same thread! So will we be treated to a debate on the age of the Earth (Ray says old, FL says young), whether "microevolution" happens (Ray says no, FL says yes, I think), or both?

MrG · 1 July 2010

Frank J said: Ray and FL on the same thread!

And if Byers shows up, we get ... Moe, Larry, & Curley. "Woo woo woo! Nyuk nyuk nyuk!"

SWT · 1 July 2010

Frank J said: Ray and FL on the same thread! So will we be treated to a debate on the age of the Earth (Ray says old, FL says young), whether "microevolution" happens (Ray says no, FL says yes, I think), or both?

I think we should refuse to engage either of them until they resolve these issues, which are critical to any scientific discussion of evolutionary biology. They're both willing to discuss these issues at length with others, so surely they will be honest enough to debate each other. So Ray, FL -- have at it! I think we'll all be interested in seeing who prevails ... I know I will be.

Matt Young · 1 July 2010

So Ray, FL – have at it!

They may have at it, but they will do so on the Bathroom Wall.