Vertebrate Paleontologists Punked by Creationist Filmmakers

Is Padian a creationist?

Kris said: Is Padian a creationist?

I really think that if possible, scientists should speak to a lawyer before agreeing to be interviewed. Or maybe they should have agents.

I found this review by a homeschooling Christian mom:

http://www.examiner.com/homeschooling-in-denver/homeschool-review-evolution-the-grand-experiment-by-dr-carl-werner

And this sequence of images from the Film:

http://www.examiner.com/homeschooling-in-denver/evolution-the-grand-experimentpicture?slide=19486511#

All the usual creationist/ID claptrap: "Darwin's Enigma: No Ancestors", "An amazing 1,000 Fossil Bats have been discovered, but none of the predicted evolutionary ancestors have been found!", and "Hundreds of thousands of fossil plants have been collected, but plant evolution still remains a 'Mystery'." And they cite the usual polls. Sheesh.

A common tactic, and a common occurrence for Creationist "documentaries" (used in the loosest possible way). If the "Truth" is on their side, then why the deceit in getting qualified scientists on camera, and worse than that, why the quote mining and out of context application of their words? This video is like trying to present "Newtonian Laws vs. God's Upholding Power" as a 'scientific controversy' in the science community today. The saddest part is that this will only feed the Creationist fire on their side, and the homers will eat it up, and scream "SEE!? We TOLD you!". The rest of us will have one more ridiculous piece of creationist material to answer to when in direct conversation with these folks.

What trial is he referring to?

Padian garbled the situation somewhat. Someone from the Louisiana Family Forum was reportedly distributing DVDs of Evolution: The Grand Experiment to members of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education's Textbook/Media/Library Advisory Council after its vote to recommend that BESE approve the high school life science textbooks now under consideration for state adoption.

Thanks for the update, Glenn!
Cheers, Dave

Creationist pricks. They tricked Phil Currie into participating in that idiotic "Voyage that Shook the World" documentary as well.

Honesty is simply beyond them.

Having dealt with the media before a few times, I don't see how come scientists keep falling for it. In my case, they weren't even trying to quote mine or slaughter my words.

It's happened to Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and now a host of new victims.

Something to be said for learning from the past. Scientists never seem to be able to do that.

raven said: Having dealt with the media before a few times, I don't see how come scientists keep falling for it. In my case, they weren't even trying to quote mine or slaughter my words. It's happened to Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and now a host of new victims. Something to be said for learning from the past. Scientists never seem to be able to do that.

Padian a creationist? Hardly. Padian testified for the plaintiffs at the Dover trial.

Those same VPs should get together to shoot a film refuting that creationist drivvel. An argument-by-argument critique would be good. It could even be offered as a free download too.

That would certainly undercut the sales of that creationist video.

Some historians of science were deceived, too:
http://www.hssonline.org/publications/Newsletter2009/July_Perils_Publicity.html

Having dealt with the media before a few times, I don’t see how come scientists keep falling for it.

raven said: Having dealt with the media before a few times, I don't see how come scientists keep falling for it.

The fact is that from the early days of McCready Price 100 years ago creationists have made their case by utter misrepresentation and continue to do so.

One only has to read any creationist or ID literature to find such dishonesty.

Creationists as a group are unwilling to stop this dishonesty.

Further it has crept into almost every church and few leaders are willing or knowledgeable enough to tackle it.

Kris: "Is Padian a creationist?"

Nope. Here's testimony from none other than William A. Dembksi that Padian is not a creationist:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/kevin-padian-the-archie-bunker-professor-of-paleobiology-at-cal-berkeley/

The story is told with all of WAD's well known wit and wisdom.

P.S. Padian is the one on the left.

The fact is that from the early days of McCready Price 100 years ago creationists have made their case by utter misrepresentation and continue to do so.

— Michael Roberts

Dave Mullenix said: Kris: "Is Padian a creationist?" Nope. Here's testimony from none other than William A. Dembksi that Padian is not a creationist: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/kevin-padian-the-archie-bunker-professor-of-paleobiology-at-cal-berkeley/ The story is told with all of WAD's well known wit and wisdom. P.S. Padian is the one on the left.

Further it has crept into almost every church and few leaders are willing or knowledgeable enough to tackle it.

— Michael Roberts

Frank J said:

Further it has crept into almost every church and few leaders are willing or knowledgeable enough to tackle it.

— Michael Roberts

Good point. While many (most?) religious leaders accept evolution, that's not enough. They need to criticize the arguments and tactics of the anti-evolution activists to truly serve their congregation. The closest I have seen to that, and I’m not sure if it was even deliberate, was in Pope John Paul II’s words “convergence, neither sought not fabricated” describing the evidence of evolution. If anything it should alert some of the more intelligent and honest audiences who have bought some anti-evolution propaganda that those who peddle it do nothing but seek and fabricate “evidence.” And even with all that cheating have been unable to force any convergence into a single coherent origins account, let alone anything close to a promising alternate theory.

Scientists should get media training!

(btw, loved the "Rita Skeeter" character from the Harry Potter series.)

Michael Roberts said: Frank I am an Anglican priest and try to bring it to the attention of bishops etc. However they choose to do nothing and then some are either YEC or sympathetic . They cannot conceive of the idea that the snake-oil peddlers are actually dishonest and the sellers are selling that dishonesty under the mistaken idea that it is true.

Michael Roberts said:

Frank J said:

Further it has crept into almost every church and few leaders are willing or knowledgeable enough to tackle it.

— Michael Roberts

Good point. While many (most?) religious leaders accept evolution, that's not enough. They need to criticize the arguments and tactics of the anti-evolution activists to truly serve their congregation. The closest I have seen to that, and I’m not sure if it was even deliberate, was in Pope John Paul II’s words “convergence, neither sought not fabricated” describing the evidence of evolution. If anything it should alert some of the more intelligent and honest audiences who have bought some anti-evolution propaganda that those who peddle it do nothing but seek and fabricate “evidence.” And even with all that cheating have been unable to force any convergence into a single coherent origins account, let alone anything close to a promising alternate theory.

Frank I am an Anglican priest and try to bring it to the attention of bishops etc. However they choose to do nothing and then some are either YEC or sympathetic . They cannot conceive of the idea that the snake-oil peddlers are actually dishonest and the sellers are selling that dishonesty under the mistaken idea that it is true

RBH said:

Michael Roberts said: Frank I am an Anglican priest and try to bring it to the attention of bishops etc. However they choose to do nothing and then some are either YEC or sympathetic . They cannot conceive of the idea that the snake-oil peddlers are actually dishonest and the sellers are selling that dishonesty under the mistaken idea that it is true.

Bingo, with respect to that last sentence. The BioLogos peoples' attestations that the Reasons to Believe folks and DI folks were earnest and honest in their Christian dissent from evolution at that "Vibrant Dance" conference is a recent case in point. Sooner or later the persistent advocacy of falsehoods in the face of plain evidence that they're false has to be called what it is: Flat out lying.

Karen S. said: Scientists should get media training! (btw, loved the "Rita Skeeter" character from the Harry Potter series.)

John Kwok said: As an Anglican priest, are you aware of the existence of the British Center for Science Education? I don't have their website address handy, but both they and the National Center for Science Education (http://www.ncse.com) could have invaluable resources for you to deal with your colleagues in the clergy who refuse to deal with evolution denialists:

Michael Roberts said:

Frank J said:

Further it has crept into almost every church and few leaders are willing or knowledgeable enough to tackle it.

— Michael Roberts

Good point. While many (most?) religious leaders accept evolution, that's not enough. They need to criticize the arguments and tactics of the anti-evolution activists to truly serve their congregation. The closest I have seen to that, and I’m not sure if it was even deliberate, was in Pope John Paul II’s words “convergence, neither sought not fabricated” describing the evidence of evolution. If anything it should alert some of the more intelligent and honest audiences who have bought some anti-evolution propaganda that those who peddle it do nothing but seek and fabricate “evidence.” And even with all that cheating have been unable to force any convergence into a single coherent origins account, let alone anything close to a promising alternate theory.

Frank I am an Anglican priest and try to bring it to the attention of bishops etc. However they choose to do nothing and then some are either YEC or sympathetic . They cannot conceive of the idea that the snake-oil peddlers are actually dishonest and the sellers are selling that dishonesty under the mistaken idea that it is true

Dave Mullenix said: Kris: "Is Padian a creationist?" Nope. Here's testimony from none other than William A. Dembksi that Padian is not a creationist: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/kevin-padian-the-archie-bunker-professor-of-paleobiology-at-cal-berkeley/ The story is told with all of WAD's well known wit and wisdom. P.S. Padian is the one on the left.

The Founding Mothers said:

raven said: Having dealt with the media before a few times, I don't see how come scientists keep falling for it.

The difficulty is that many scientists see the importance of outreach to a wider community. Given their own limited time, they may be willing to allow someone else to do the grunt work in setting up the cameras, production, editing...

are you aware of the existence of the British Center for Science Education

Recently Professor Dawkins had been made aware of a video tape being circulated in creationist circles, in which he appears, and on the cover of which is his photograph. Titled "From a Frog to a Prince," it is distributed in Australia by Answers in Genesis, of Acacia Ridge, Queensland and in the USA by American Portrait Films, Cleveland, Ohio. Copyright is held by "A.I.G. - I.C.R. - Keziah" and it was produced by "Keziah". AIG, as regular readers will recognise, refers to Answers in Genesis, the new trading name of the Queensland based Creation Science Foundation; ICR is the Institute for Creation Research, a prominent US creationist outfit, and the source for much of what passes for information in such circles; Keziah was then unfamiliar to us. Prof Dawkins was puzzled, and not a little perplexed, to be informed by a Christian contact in the USA that his appearance on the tape included a question being posed to him, whereupon he pauses for 11 seconds, and then answers an entirely different question. His contact, having viewed the tape, and having noticed the long pause and seeming evasion of what was a pretty simple question about evolution, was convinced that it had been a set-up

I asked Phil Bell if this method of securing an interview was "deceptive". He said: "Well, it could be called deceptive. But I think, at the end of the day, I would say that more people are concerned about how we've made a documentary, that's a world-class documentary, clearly with wonderful footage, with excellent interviews, and balanced open discussion." Phil Bell also denied that his organisation had broken the ninth commandment by "bearing false witness" against Professor Bowler and his colleagues. "Nobody was told any lies," he said.

It’s happened to Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and now a host of new victims. Something to be said for learning from the past. Scientists never seem to be able to do that.

YECs really must be getting desperate.

— Peter Henderson

raven said: It must be something about being in an ivory tower and out of contact with reality. I didn't pay much attention to creationists for decades myself, was vaguely aware they existed but thought they were a kook fringe group. It took running into some wild eyed, babbling lunatics and a few death threats to wake me up enough to look around. It was an eye opening, appalling, and ultimately a religion ending experience. I was a life long xian and am now a No Religions.

Don't these folks who are appearing in these movies, etc., have to sign a release? I thought that was SOP for any copyrighted materials.

Which is why I don’t find BioLogos all too helpful since they seem more committed to “coddling” their fellow “Brothers in Christ” than in denouncing them as the unrepentant liars that they are:

"You can screen out most, lets make a film of lies creationists, with a few minutes with google or a few phone calls."

I doubt that would help. It likely isn't too difficult to find people who have little or no Google trail. And shell companies are easy to set up. And if the clips are compiled over many years, they may be filmed by different shell production companies.

They're motivated to deceive the scientists. Even if the scientists catch on to one ploy, the creationists can formulate a new one to evade detection.

About the only solution that comes to mind is for scientists to always demand a written contract giving them final edit, putting a 'use by' date on the footage, approval of any use of the footage filmed, and withholding the right of the producers to transfer the footage to any other production or business entities.

Of course, then Mooneytits would complain that this shows scientists as being uncooperative and suspicious.

(On the other hand, drawing up and evaluating contracts is expensive and time-consuming. I doubt working scientists really want their time wasted with lawyers going over contracts. Yet signing a contract with a party setting out to deceive you really demands extra scrutiny of the contract.)

harold said: Having said that, I appreciate rather than scorn what people like Biologos and Richard Blinne are trying to do. It is perfectly correct that people can observe evangelical Christian religious behaviors without denying evolution.

Of course, then Mooneytits would complain that this shows scientists as being uncooperative and suspicious.

I think the creationists are so soundly convinced they have a hotline to Truth, that scientists MUST be wrong. The Purpose is to make converts, and one way to do that is to show that scientists are frauds. Which they ARE, since they make claims known to be contrary to Truth. When one is engaged in bringing people to Truth, there can be no deceit. There are only approaches and techniques which seem to work in presenting Truth. It's no sin to lie to scientists because scientists' entire livelihood is based on lies. It MUST be.

So I don't see any real prospect of creationists feeling anything but proud at every attempt to achieve their Purpose. I think it's much more productive to try to penetrate into the scientific community the notion that there is a large, well equipped and relentless army of anti-science zealots willing to do whatever it takes to undermine science in the eyes of those who don't understand it.

The "null PR hypothesis" needs to be that any and all film makers are suspect unless the evidence to the contrary is beyond any reasonable doubt. Scientists need to understand that creationists have mastered arts of PR that scientists don't even know exist.

Flint said: Scientists need to understand that creationists have mastered arts of PR that scientists don't even know exist.

Even watching Glen Beck requires a bit of background knowledge. Otherwise, one might simply be puzzled that Beck can say stuff known to be wrong day after day, without ever being corrected. Scientists, as far as I can tell, tend to be focused on the wrong evidence. They may need a lawyer for interpretation, to understand that Beck's purpose isn't to be right; indeed, he doesn't really care about being right. He cares that his audience is converted to his point of view, whatever he needs to say to accomplish that. Sometimes it even IS right, but so what?

It's the distinction between figuring out the truth (what scientists do) and creating the truth (what salesmen do). The distinction between what's objectively true, and what people wish to believe is objectively true. Very different goals.

Remember when Ralph Nader's book trashed the Corvair? GM didn't respond by fixing the Corvair's problems, they responded by printing up a zillion bumper stickers that said "I love my Corvair" -- and it WORKED. GM understood that customers didn't wish to be told they'd bought a pile of crap. They wished to be stroked. Glen Beck is in the business of stroking people who believe him. It works.

Jon H said: (On the other hand, drawing up and evaluating contracts is expensive and time-consuming. I doubt working scientists really want their time wasted with lawyers going over contracts. Yet signing a contract with a party setting out to deceive you really demands extra scrutiny of the contract.)

Frank I am an Anglican priest and try to bring it to the attention of bishops etc. However they choose to do nothing and then some are either YEC or sympathetic . They cannot conceive of the idea that the snake-oil peddlers are actually dishonest and the sellers are selling that dishonesty under the mistaken idea that it is true.

— Michael Roberts

Flint said: Remember when Ralph Nader's book trashed the Corvair? GM didn't respond by fixing the Corvair's problems, they responded by printing up a zillion bumper stickers that said "I love my Corvair" -- and it WORKED. GM understood that customers didn't wish to be told they'd bought a pile of crap. They wished to be stroked. Glen Beck is in the business of stroking people who believe him. It works.

I think the creationists are so soundly convinced they have a hotline to Truth, that scientists MUST be wrong.

— Flint

But I’m equally unconvinced that any ID peddler believes that the evidence supports either YEC or OEC, and I’m starting to get the same suspicion for some traditional YEC and OEC leaders.

at least some of the snake oil peddlers might honestly think that they’re misleading people for a good cause.

But they only get away with that because most people simply do not understand that (1) even if scientists were wrong about evolution, no “creationist” would necessarily be right,

and (2) at most only some “creationists” would be right because their “theories” are mutually contradictory. I think that most people are capable of understanding that, but just don’t have the time or interest to think it through.

Even people who have difficulty following the science of evolution and the pseudoscience tactics (mining evidence and quotes, defining terms to suit the argument, conflating evolution with abiogenesis, logical fallacies, etc.) of the anti-evolution activists, can understand the curious fact that those who accept evolution belong to nearly every religious and political ideology, while anti-evolution activists nearly all subscribe to a radical authoritarian fundamentalist agenda. Not what one would expect if there really were problems with the science of evolution.

Flint said: ...I have NEVER found a creationist who sees the slightest deceit in what he thinks or writes or does. His entire life is dedicated to God's Truth. Why would he lie?

Mike Elzinga said: In my younger and stupider days I had a 1963 Corvair that I bought new. This was before the stability problems became evident to the public. And I sure found out in a hurry just how unstable the car was in a turn. The over-slung rear engine, the far too light loading on the front wheels, and the poor suspension made the car very tricky to handle. There were a number of other problems, including exhaust coming into the passenger compartment from leaks into the engine cowling and a gear shift linkage that tended to come apart easily.

Here’s a quote from Martin Luther: “What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.” (cited by his secretary)

Gary Hurd said: Ah, the memories. But I did learn to control a skid really fast. But, not one of my later cars or trucks ever went into a skid.

Henry J said: But if that lie drives alert educated people away from the church, how is that useful to the purpose of the church?

Nice one, there is actually some great points on this post some of my associates will find this worthwhile, will send them a link, thanks

If the evolution huggers had made a like film it would be paraded as a cleaver and revealing portrait of the state of thought of the opposition.
Lighten up!
I'm sure this film made great points that stand on their own and welcome comment as to their merits.
Its just another case that what evolutionists say does indeed not work out with other stuff they say.
No excuses. They are responsible for their words.
Everyone should first watch the film and then comment. (except mehere)

Robert Byers said: If the evolution huggers had made a like film it would be paraded as a cleaver and revealing portrait of the state of thought of the opposition.

"Dembski claims that his book was peer reviewed?"

Clearly it was. Scientists are so far beneath him that they can hardly be called his "peers". His true peers are all of the other grand and noble creationists, and since they have reviewed his book it has, by definition, been peer reviewed.

Robert Byers said: Lighten up! I'm sure this film made great points that stand on their own and welcome comment as to their merits. Its just another case that what evolutionists say does indeed not work out with other stuff they say. No excuses. They are responsible for their words. Everyone should first watch the film and then comment. (except mehere)

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: Remember when Ralph Nader's book trashed the Corvair? GM didn't respond by fixing the Corvair's problems, they responded by printing up a zillion bumper stickers that said "I love my Corvair" -- and it WORKED. GM understood that customers didn't wish to be told they'd bought a pile of crap. They wished to be stroked. Glen Beck is in the business of stroking people who believe him. It works.

I remember it well. In my younger and stupider days I had a 1963 Corvair that I bought new. This was before the stability problems became evident to the public. And I sure found out in a hurry just how unstable the car was in a turn. The over-slung rear engine, the far too light loading on the front wheels, and the poor suspension made the car very tricky to handle. There were a number of other problems, including exhaust coming into the passenger compartment from leaks into the engine cowling and a gear shift linkage that tended to come apart easily. I also remember GM’s public campaign after Ralph Nader’s critique. GM made some cheap “fixes” to the rear suspension and “upgraded” the car to “sporty” by introducing the Spyder. “Fun to drive!” Yeah; if you liked staring Death in the face from time to time. As you pointed out, it was an effective campaign of manipulating public perception.

Robert Byers said: If the evolution huggers had made a like film it would be paraded as a cleaver and revealing portrait of the state of thought of the opposition. Lighten up! I'm sure this film made great points that stand on their own and welcome comment as to their merits. Its just another case that what evolutionists say does indeed not work out with other stuff they say. No excuses. They are responsible for their words. Everyone should first watch the film and then comment. (except mehere)

People involved in the scientific enterprise are highly curious and for the most part honest people. They are surrounded, day in and day out, by people who are just as curious and just as honest. When someone comes knocking and asks questions about their work, the tendency is to assume that these are also curious and honest people. There is a certain amount of naivety at play here, as creationists are anything BUT curious and honest. As many have already said, they know the TRUTH, and therefore that science is wrong, and anything is justified to get the TRUTH out.

Paul Burnett said: Here's a quote from Martin Luther: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." (cited by his secretary)

I’m sure you could substitute “committed a murder” for “told a lie” and many (most?) Christians would embrace it just as readily.

I think the creationists are so soundly convinced they have a hotline to Truth, that scientists MUST be wrong. The Purpose is to make converts, and one way to do that is to show that scientists are frauds. Which they ARE, since they make claims known to be contrary to Truth.

Byers,

You can lighten up if you want to, but the fact is that if those interviewed were lied to then any contract they signed would be tossed out in a court of law. They could then sue anyone who tried to show the film. If there were any legitimate point to be made, why use lies and deceit? WHy do you think it is that evolutionary biologists never stoop to this level of hypocricy? Exactly what great point do you think that the film is making? That people can be lied to and their words taken out of context without their knowledge? What a great point to make. No one has to lie to creationists to show the that are divorced from reality. They spout all sorts of insane nonsense all on their own. All you have to do is quote them accurately in order to show them up as the liars and hypocrites that they are. If you disagree, then how about this quote from your own words:

If the evolution had made a like film it would be as a cleaver and portrait of the state of thought of the opposition. Its just another case that what evolutionists say does indeed work out with other stuff they say.

See, you wrote that. It just required a little creative editing to show what you really meant. If I were you I would go the the vet and be checked for fleas, unless of course you don't believe that lying down with dogs gives you fleas. It's just one big conspiracy against you, right?

Matt G said:

Paul Burnett said: Here's a quote from Martin Luther: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie...

I'm sure you could substitute "committed a murder" for "told a lie" and many (most?) Christians would embrace it just as readily.

Matt G said:

Paul Burnett said: Here's a quote from Martin Luther: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." (cited by his secretary)

I'm sure you could substitute "committed a murder" for "told a lie" and many (most?) Christians would embrace it just as readily. When you're defending TRUTH, anything is justified. How many deaths is the Catholic/Christian Church responsible for...?

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: Scientists need to understand that creationists have mastered arts of PR that scientists don't even know exist.

Maybe scientists should be encouraged to spend a few minutes a day watching Glen Beck.

Well, which audience are you talking about here? Surely not the devout creationists. To them, science has it WRONG. It really doesn’t matter who agrees with the scientists, they’re all wrong. Now, if you’re talking about non-creationists who know nothing about the science and (in all ignorance) feel obliged to pick a preferred authority, this is a good argument. And of course, creationists recognize that this is a good argument, which is why they work hard (as this film does) to portray science as confused, conflicting, and uncertain. Lousy authorities, compared to those who have Truth and never doubt.

— Flint

I’m sure you could substitute “committed a murder” for “told a lie” and many (most?) Christians would embrace it just as readily.

I wouldn’t assume that.

Beck is apparently a master at deception.

raven said:

Beck is apparently a master at deception.

I wouldn't say that. His audience are masters at believing that whatever they want to be true, is true.

DavidK said: Beck is apparently a master at deception.

So why then, in your opinion, do some people accept scientific reality, and some people claim to accept creationism? It seems to me that by this logic, everyone in western society should still be a creationist. After all, creationism was a rational default position in 1010. That’s the view every educated person was always taught for many centuries. If the characteristic of all creationists is always this absolute certainty, how did anyone ever not become a creationist?

Also, it seems that many if not all of the trolls here express cognitive dissonance. It seems that a constant, ongoing effort is invested into denying evolution, both personally and to a greater audience, by almost all active creationists. Yet why do they bother, if as you say, they are so unequivocally sure of their convictions? How can they experience cognitive dissonance? According to your profile, this should be impossible.

Also, how can it correlate so closely with seeming unrelated, say, economic beliefs or ideals? If creationist claims are a purely independent and sincere conviction in every case, then shouldn’t one see more variability with respect to co-existing claims?

Robert Byers said: If the evolution huggers had made a like film it would be paraded as a cleaver and revealing portrait of the state of thought of the opposition.

it says a lot when a religion must rely on lies. I also enjoy when theists display their evident disbelief in their own religion by their cavalier consideration of their "immortal soul" when they lie about such things and their disregard for a supposed god who hates lies, especially those supposedly told for 'his' benefit (Romans 3).

Flint said: Harold:

So why then, in your opinion, do some people accept scientific reality, and some people claim to accept creationism? It seems to me that by this logic, everyone in western society should still be a creationist. After all, creationism was a rational default position in 1010. That’s the view every educated person was always taught for many centuries. If the characteristic of all creationists is always this absolute certainty, how did anyone ever not become a creationist?

Well, I can offer my speculations. I regard the scientific approach to the world as decidedly an acquired taste, requiring a great deal of training. Teleology is what comes naturally, and is damn hard to overcome. And I believe that nearly everyone in western society DOES see their world in teleological terms, taking "final cause" for granted. Science's first steps were halting, and often misguided. But science has one critical advantage, in that it works. Scientific explanations are cumulative, consiliant, and technologically useful. The way I see it, science plays the role in western society today that gods play in nonindustrial societies (and in the west, long ago). That is, something dimly understood at best, with a priesthood that seems to understand, and which produces miracles by magic (that is, does stuff we can't understand unless we belong to the priesthood). Do you understand how your computer works, at every level? Few do.

Also, it seems that many if not all of the trolls here express cognitive dissonance. It seems that a constant, ongoing effort is invested into denying evolution, both personally and to a greater audience, by almost all active creationists. Yet why do they bother, if as you say, they are so unequivocally sure of their convictions? How can they experience cognitive dissonance? According to your profile, this should be impossible.

What cognative dissonance? The dissonance YOU would experience, should you try to internalize their claims? Why do we bother to teach ANYTHING in public school, if we are so sure it's true? I think some people are born proselytizers, whether they be Gould or Byers here. When we agree with them, they are educators. When we don't, they are fanatics suffering cognitive dissonance. Using reality (that is, observational evidence) as arbiter is a recent development.

Also, how can it correlate so closely with seeming unrelated, say, economic beliefs or ideals? If creationist claims are a purely independent and sincere conviction in every case, then shouldn’t one see more variability with respect to co-existing claims?

I don't know. I observe that nearly every contributor to PT seems politically liberal - and shows a certain disrespect for the few who are not. When I suggested once that, just maybe, some fully qualified experts might legitimately disagree with our Official Political Truth about global warming, quite a few people here rose up to castigate me for violating the sanctity of their convictions. So I think economic, politcal, and religious beliefs are part of a peer group package, related not by subject matter but by social acceptance or rejection. The remainder of your post seems to be supporting a claim that SOME creationists, being troubled and disturbed individuals (according to traits you characterize that way) must somehow be less sincere. There seem to be two groups of "harold-creationists" - those poor ignorant rural hicks victimized by their parents and community who never had a chance for enlightenment, and those more privileged and educated folks who turned to creationism due to mental and psychological pathology, the sickos. I regard this taxonomy as a bit harsh - and I don't understand why the sickos are therefore less sincere, either.

If so, then it wouldn’t explain the political philanthropy...

Flint said:

If so, then it wouldn’t explain the political philanthropy...

Certainly these associations are not 100% exclusive. Every now and then, one of the religious and political right wing actually notices that his sales taxes are rising to pay for tax cuts for those who make 10 times what he ever will, etc. And it's fairly common for the bogglingly rich (billionaires) to come out publicly recommending political policy that will place more burden on themselves as part of the proposal. If I had a few billion, I might be willing to contribute one of them toward stem cell research, you know? My sense, which may be wrong, is that cohorts of lower education, stronger religious faith, less sophistication, typically more rural tend to be more socially coherent than the very wealthy. I've suspected that money buys social acceptance that must otherwise be purchased with conformity and mutual opinion-reinforcement.

Well, I can offer my speculations. I regard the scientific approach to the world as decidedly an acquired taste, requiring a great deal of training. Teleology is what comes naturally, and is damn hard to overcome. And I believe that nearly everyone in western society DOES see their world in teleological terms, taking “final cause” for granted. Science’s first steps were halting, and often misguided.

But science has one critical advantage, in that it works... Do you understand how your computer works, at every level? Few do.

What cognative dissonance? The dissonance YOU would experience, should you try to internalize their claims?

Why do we bother to teach ANYTHING in public school, if we are so sure it’s true?

I think some people are born proselytizers, whether they be Gould or Byers here.

When we agree with them, they are educators. When we don’t, they are fanatics suffering cognitive dissonance.

Using reality (that is, observational evidence) as arbiter is a recent development.

I don’t know. I observe that nearly every contributor to PT seems politically liberal - and shows a certain disrespect for the few who are not.

When I suggested once that, just maybe, some fully qualified experts might legitimately disagree with our Official Political Truth about global warming, quite a few people here rose up to castigate me for violating the sanctity of their convictions.

So I think economic, politcal, and religious beliefs are part of a peer group package, related not by subject matter but by social acceptance or rejection.

The remainder of your post seems to be supporting a claim that SOME creationists, being troubled and disturbed individuals (according to traits you characterize that way) must somehow be less sincere.

There seem to be two groups of “harold-creationists” - those poor ignorant rural hicks victimized by their parents and community who never had a chance for enlightenment, and those more privileged and educated folks who turned to creationism due to mental and psychological pathology, the sickos.

I regard this taxonomy as a bit harsh - and I don’t understand why the sickos are therefore less sincere, either.

However, creationists repeat false arguments over and over again, obsessively and ritualistically, to people they know have heard them before.

Byers returns over and over again to a venue where he knows no-one is receptive to his views, and rituallistically repeats his propaganda.

That is not how I decide the difference. People who initially disagree with me, but who respect and use rational thought, and empirical evidence where available, can educate me or be educated by me. That is exactly why I like science.

Poor, persecuted conservatives.

No, that is not what happened. You made some factually wrong statements about climatologists and climate research.

Not exactly. The point I am trying to make is that the ilk of Dembski and O’Donnell, who I do indeed characterize as “troubled and disturbed”, are attracted to the overall right wing/fundamentalist ideology for purely emotional and scheming reasons.

I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution.

Flint said: So we see people who are authoritarian, and who are comfortable within an authoritarian context. And yes, I agree that people like Ted Haggard and Eddie Long are "troubled" in the sense that their religious beliefs reject their physical orientations, and neither one can be changed. But that doesn't mean Long or Haggard are selling snake oil.

I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true. Carl Sagan

Ham isn’t the only one that leaves the distinct impression that there is a lucrative business being pushed in the tax-free, regulation-free safe haven of religious freedom. There is big money to be made in that venue; and we often see jealous turf wars among the big egos attempting to exploit those markets.

science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.

Flint said: No question about it. But I can't tell if you think that Ham's religious faith is insincere because he takes advantage of tax benefits to make money. Doing that is not only a long-standing practice, but in fact tax benefits are frequently created to engineer target behaviors. I don't think making money necessarily renders anyone a crook or a cheat. After all, you could consider the entire enterprise of religion to be parasitic on peoples' insecurities. And it provides a living for a very large number of people, and for some of them an excellent living. I wonder how many, if any, of these people regards passing the collection plate as "fleecing the suckers".

Mike Elzinga said:

DavidK said: Beck is apparently a master at deception.

What I find most disturbing about Beck, (and Fox Noise in general), Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and the rest of these loons is not that they are such masters of deception; they aren’t,

Flint said:

science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.

I'm reminded of a Far Side cartoon where the shaman is looking in his book and saying "Oh, wait, it's three steps to the left and THEN two to the right. I wonder what dance I was doing." And there are eggbeaters falling around them.

My understanding is, this is how “evolutionists” sound to them - repeating over and over the same claims which MUST be false. We do this for the same reason they do - to try to penetrate OUR truth through a filter that rejects it. We have science, reality, empirical evidence. They have scripture written by their god. Both sides claim the higher authority.

And I note that the same people spend impressive amounts of time trying to correct the same creationists, year after year. I note that threads where no creationists chime in (on this and several other boards) get half a dozen short comments.

Yes, obviously so. You are convinced by people who see things the way you do, use the same approach to draw conclusions, etc. But you must have noticed that devout religious people respect those who adhere to scripture, who trot out God and Jesus on every occasion, who in short use those techniques THEY find persuasive. And this is why we and creationists talk past each other.

I only pointed out that there is a community political view here - and your snide swipe at those of a different political view only emphasizes the point I made.

I see this failure to communicate running fairly strongly in these discussions. According to OUR orientation, what they are saying is clearly, demonstrably, empirically WRONG. Only the veriest dunce could fail to see this. Therefore they CANNOT be sincere, they MUST know better. They MUST be scheming, manipulative, and dishonest. How ELSE could someone say such things, according to our lights? And just like them, we are comfortable hanging out with and talking to people who see things our way.

I assume the people interviewed had to sign a release for their interview to be used in the film.

Why can't the people who defend science come up with their own release form for the producers of the film to sign? The release should state the interview can not be used in a production which doubts the TOE (or something like that).

I will bother to answer you for the sake of third party readers.

I’m not sure why everyone else is sitting around letting this kind of grotesque false equivalence go uncorrected.

I’ve worked with devoutly religious people who also didn’t deny science many times.

Science is not a command from authority.

It is what you end up with if you admit the basic assumptions that almost everyone instinctively makes about the physical world, and use the logic that almost everyone intuitively grasps is correct.

No-one is trying to set Stever P or Ibelieveingod themselves straight.

Again, the false equivalence and false dichotomy.

In fact, there is no “political community” view here.

The reason I think that many leading creationists are scheming, manipulative and dishonest is because they exhibit schemining, manipulative, and dishonest behaviors.

alicejohn said: Why can't the people who defend science come up with their own release form for the producers of the film to sign? The release should state the interview can not be used in a production which doubts the TOE (or something like that).

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: No question about it. But I can't tell if you think that Ham's religious faith is insincere because he takes advantage of tax benefits to make money. Doing that is not only a long-standing practice, but in fact tax benefits are frequently created to engineer target behaviors. I don't think making money necessarily renders anyone a crook or a cheat. After all, you could consider the entire enterprise of religion to be parasitic on peoples' insecurities. And it provides a living for a very large number of people, and for some of them an excellent living. I wonder how many, if any, of these people regards passing the collection plate as "fleecing the suckers".

As one who has done a lot of genealogy and has dug back into various church records going back into the 1500s, I have no doubt about the historical importance of churches in keeping records and providing a unifying community of help and services when there was no particular secular government in place to do any of that. You can easily see that role of the churches in the early days of Quebec, and in many frontier communities across the US and Canada. And one can also track genealogies in church records going way back in Europe; all this is well known.

henry said: Were these churches in the mainline denominations?

Flint -

It is interesting to note that you are the absolute and quintessential example of a "concern troll".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: Were these churches in the mainline denominations?

Not necessarily; the Mormons keep excellent records, for religious reasons.

Flint -

Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving.

It is interesting to note that you are the absolute and quintessential example of a “concern troll”.

harold said: Flint - It is interesting to note that you are the absolute and quintessential example of a "concern troll". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll

eric said:

alicejohn said: Why can't the people who defend science come up with their own release form for the producers of the film to sign? The release should state the interview can not be used in a production which doubts the TOE (or something like that).

They could do that...and the producers would go elsewhere. Folks like Hawking or David Attenborogh can probably set conditions on their appearance in a documentary, because the public knows who they are. No offense to Padian et al., but its unlikely they have that sort of name-pull. If Prof. Padian insisted on review/editorial control over his appearance in a documentary, the producers would probably just find another paleontologist.

In such a battle, it makes a good deal of sense to let your tactics be guided by truthful concepts of how one’s opponents really do think, and not by false notions of how one believes one’s opponents think.

I was interested to note that the deception of the creators of the film goes yet further- the director has posted an Amazon review *of his own work*, giving it five stars. As a regular Amazon reviewer, I find this rather offensive. Amazon's rules are rather clear- you don't get to review your own work; you don't get to increase the star rating artificially. Now that Amazon is a much bigger player in the market, this leads to a substantial financial payout for those who do this, which amounts to financial and legal fraud, pure and simple.

Jedidiah Palosaari said: I was interested to note that the deception of the creators of the film goes yet further- the director has posted an Amazon review *of his own work*, giving it five stars. As a regular Amazon reviewer, I find this rather offensive. Amazon's rules are rather clear- you don't get to review your own work; you don't get to increase the star rating artificially. Now that Amazon is a much bigger player in the market, this leads to a substantial financial payout for those who do this, which amounts to financial and legal fraud, pure and simple.

John Kwok said: Amazon has consistently bent over backwards to support creationists. Don't ask me why, but they do

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Amazon has consistently bent over backwards to support creationists. Don't ask me why, but they do

Money, duh. Money is also the real reason why Amazon was so protective of that handbook for pedophiles for a few weeks.

harold said: Flint - It is interesting to note that you are the absolute and quintessential example of a "concern troll". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concern_troll#Concern_troll

John Kwok said: Amazon has consistantly bent over backwards to support creationists. Don't ask me why, but they do:

Jedidiah Palosaari said: I was interested to note that the deception of the creators of the film goes yet further- the director has posted an Amazon review *of his own work*, giving it five stars. As a regular Amazon reviewer, I find this rather offensive. Amazon's rules are rather clear- you don't get to review your own work; you don't get to increase the star rating artificially. Now that Amazon is a much bigger player in the market, this leads to a substantial financial payout for those who do this, which amounts to financial and legal fraud, pure and simple.

We can return the favor by asking everyone on PT to vote in favor of mine, Stanton's and other PT posters here. You can also file a complaint with Amazon online at the director's review, indicating that his review is inappropriate.

John Kwok said: Unfortunately that is true, but you think they would be more willing to listen to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller, not David Marshall (a Seattle, WA-based creo who writes creo literature) or Bill Dembski:

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Amazon has consistently bent over backwards to support creationists. Don't ask me why, but they do

Money, duh. Money is also the real reason why Amazon was so protective of that handbook for pedophiles for a few weeks.

I think that Flint is making a great deal of sense.

In fact, your responses are evidence that he is right. You are showing yourself unable to comprehend what it would be like to have a different point of view.

Flint seems to me to be saying that neither side does understand the other side because they are operating with different assumptions,

but that they are, on another level, ooperating with the same human principles.

I think we should listen to people like Flint; if we want to convince others, we need to know where they are coming from.

Except that doesn’t describe me at all. The point I’ve been trying to make is that creationists sincerely believe the most arrant nonsense. They do not see themselves as scheming or deceitful.

Jedidiah Palosaari said:

John Kwok said: Unfortunately that is true, but you think they would be more willing to listen to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller, not David Marshall (a Seattle, WA-based creo who writes creo literature) or Bill Dembski:

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Amazon has consistently bent over backwards to support creationists. Don't ask me why, but they do

Money, duh. Money is also the real reason why Amazon was so protective of that handbook for pedophiles for a few weeks.

Sadly, I think there's more money to be made with Gish than there is with Miller or even Dawkins, when looking at an American audience. It would be interesting to see what the bias or perceived bias of Amazon.uk and Amazon.fr or even Amazon.ca might be.

John Kwok said: Since they are all branches of Amazon, they are the same. As for Ken Miller, and especially, Richard Dawkins, their sales have been far more profitable than any of the creationist mendacious intellectual pornography offered for sale at Amazon:

Jedidiah Palosaari said:

John Kwok said: Unfortunately that is true, but you think they would be more willing to listen to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller, not David Marshall (a Seattle, WA-based creo who writes creo literature) or Bill Dembski:

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Amazon has consistently bent over backwards to support creationists. Don't ask me why, but they do

Money, duh. Money is also the real reason why Amazon was so protective of that handbook for pedophiles for a few weeks.

Sadly, I think there's more money to be made with Gish than there is with Miller or even Dawkins, when looking at an American audience. It would be interesting to see what the bias or perceived bias of Amazon.uk and Amazon.fr or even Amazon.ca might be.

John Kwok -

Actually, I believe that you are correct. However, some numbers would be nice.

I noticed some years ago that there are vast numbers of creationist books written. But the vast majority appear to be extremely obscure.

There are also vast numbers of popularizing of science books written, most of which are also very obscure. Popularization of science books as a whole would vastly outsell creationist books, but that's not really a fair comparison, because, despite a huge over-representation of physics, the former can be on any topic in science, whereas creationist books are limited in potential scope.

However, there seem to be occasional large breakthroughs on the valid science side - Hawkings, Dawkins, Miller, etc. Usually the breakthrough books include philosophical musings or implications, but they still present valid science.

It would be interesting to know US sales figures (presented in a valid way for comparisons, of course) for, say, the top ten science versus top 10 creationist titles, the top 100 science versus creationist titles, etc. It would also be interesting to know that sales of books that directly mention and dispute creationism (I would actually expect that to be a significant proportion of science book sales overall due to Dawkins and Miller alone) versus creationist books.

I'm not sure what all of this means, but it would be interesting.

The release should state the interview can not be used in a production which doubts the TOE (or something like that).

— alicejohn

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group. --Wikipedia

Jedidiah Palosaari said:

John Kwok said: Since they are all branches of Amazon, they are the same. As for Ken Miller, and especially, Richard Dawkins, their sales have been far more profitable than any of the creationist mendacious intellectual pornography offered for sale at Amazon:

Jedidiah Palosaari said:

John Kwok said: Unfortunately that is true, but you think they would be more willing to listen to the likes of Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller, not David Marshall (a Seattle, WA-based creo who writes creo literature) or Bill Dembski:

Stanton said:

John Kwok said: Amazon has consistently bent over backwards to support creationists. Don't ask me why, but they do

Money, duh. Money is also the real reason why Amazon was so protective of that handbook for pedophiles for a few weeks.

Sadly, I think there's more money to be made with Gish than there is with Miller or even Dawkins, when looking at an American audience. It would be interesting to see what the bias or perceived bias of Amazon.uk and Amazon.fr or even Amazon.ca might be.

Is this true for all Amazons? Yes, they are the same company, but because they are trying to make more money, much like Google, I would think they try to change how they promote their goods. In a society that respects science, like Britain, I would expect them to really promote Dawkins. In a society that rejects science, like the United States, I would expect Dawkins' sales to be lower, or, if not, Amazon not want to turn away the rather large market of conservative evangelicals, and therefore not to aggressively promote Dawkins but instead try to sale Literal Creationist craptrap.

FL said: Hmmm. Never thought I'd see Flint attacked as a troll, (even as a "concern troll"), but I'm learning that anything can happen when the Pandas street-gang is in session. Oh-well. Happy holidays anyway (at least after you remove the turkey-forks from each other's backs!!).

A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group. --Wikipedia

FL

harold said: John Kwok - Actually, I believe that you are correct. However, some numbers would be nice. I noticed some years ago that there are vast numbers of creationist books written. But the vast majority appear to be extremely obscure. There are also vast numbers of popularizing of science books written, most of which are also very obscure. Popularization of science books as a whole would vastly outsell creationist books, but that's not really a fair comparison, because, despite a huge over-representation of physics, the former can be on any topic in science, whereas creationist books are limited in potential scope. However, there seem to be occasional large breakthroughs on the valid science side - Hawkings, Dawkins, Miller, etc. Usually the breakthrough books include philosophical musings or implications, but they still present valid science. It would be interesting to know US sales figures (presented in a valid way for comparisons, of course) for, say, the top ten science versus top 10 creationist titles, the top 100 science versus creationist titles, etc. It would also be interesting to know that sales of books that directly mention and dispute creationism (I would actually expect that to be a significant proportion of science book sales overall due to Dawkins and Miller alone) versus creationist books. I'm not sure what all of this means, but it would be interesting.

This is a common creationist argument, of course - “my ideas are just as valid as yours, we just have different assumptions”. I’m sure we both disagree with it.

If you haven't already noticed, when the Dishonesty Institute's site touts its "books" on its home page, it links directly in to Amazon if you select one of their books/videos/etc. A cozy relationship perhaps, though I don't suspect any of them are big money makers.

Stanton said:

Mike Elzinga said:

henry said: Sorry this reply is so late. Many genealogists have found, to their sorrow, that the Mormon records may be complete and accurate, but a lot of their contents are not. You might want to see the book by Donald Harman Akenson, "Some Family," which discusses the history and accuracy of this information. Were these churches in the mainline denominations?

Not necessarily; the Mormons keep excellent records, for religious reasons.

The Mormons' immaculate records provide stark contrast to the way Creationists shamelessly, dogmatically, and routinely rewrite history in order to slander Evolutionary Biology, placing blame on it for everything from murder and racism to Hitler and gays being in the army.

This part of my reply did not go through:

Sorry this reply is so late. Many genealogists have found, to their sorrow, that the Mormon records may be complete and accurate, but a lot of their contents are not. You might want to see the book by Donald Harman Akenson, "Some Family," which discusses the history and accuracy of this information.

Were these churches in the mainline denominations?

Not necessarily; the Mormons keep excellent records, for religious reasons.

The Mormons' immaculate records provide stark contrast to the way Creationists shamelessly, dogmatically, and routinely rewrite history in order to slander Evolutionary Biology, placing blame on it for everything from murder and racism to Hitler and gays being in the army.

clerihew said: This part of my reply did not go through: Sorry this reply is so late. Many genealogists have found, to their sorrow, that the Mormon records may be complete and accurate, but a lot of their contents are not. You might want to see the book by Donald Harman Akenson, "Some Family," which discusses the history and accuracy of this information.

clerihew said: Sorry this reply is so late. Many genealogists have found, to their sorrow, that the Mormon records may be complete and accurate, but a lot of their contents are not. You might want to see the book by Donald Harman Akenson, "Some Family," which discusses the history and accuracy of this information.

Official data can be wrong too.

Fanny Middleton Biddulph i.e Fanny Mostyn Owen Darwin's first girl friend , always under-estimated here age in 19th century census returns.

Just a warning

The author fo the book that the video inspired is one Carl Werner, MD. He makes some rather obvious and blatantly stupid claims and extapolations in his books, some of which are documented here at Amazon.com.

He and his acolytes seem to think that 'years of study' and visintg lots of museums makes one an expert.

It is clear to me that the definition of science I learned from a highly esteemed Philosophy 101 course is completed incomprehensible to evolutionist so I won’t bother to repeat it. I personally feel cheated by a scientific community that rejects all self evident truths from which any other truth is discovered. Their minds are closed to all but the mechanical.

Chris,

1) It is indeed possible that you were duped by an unscrupulous philosopher.

2) Why would you feel "cheated" because some scientist refuses to believe something? Why would you care if they accept "self evident truths" or not?

3) If you think that scientific minds are "closed to all but the mechanical", then by all means, just ask them about the "mechanical". Feel free to ignore anything else.

See, the only thing that science is closed to is that for which there is no evidence. You, on the other hand, are perfectly free to believe whatever nonsense you wish, regardless of the evidence or lack thereof. Why would you care what anyone else believes?

If you feel that you have access to "self evident truths from which other truth is discovered", then all you have to do is use your special knowledge to discover things that science cannot. Once you have the evidence, then everyone will be convinced. Until then, all you've got is a bad case of science envy.

Now, you got any on-topic comments? Do you defend the actions of the lying and deceitful film makers? You don't want to be considered just a troll now do you?

Mike Elzinga said:

clerihew said: Sorry this reply is so late. Many genealogists have found, to their sorrow, that the Mormon records may be complete and accurate, but a lot of their contents are not. You might want to see the book by Donald Harman Akenson, "Some Family," which discusses the history and accuracy of this information.

One of the first things anyone doing genealogy learns in a hurry is to crosscheck everything; and check them by multiple ways wherever possible. Much of what you find on any ancestor or ancestry tree has been done by people who make mistakes, or who get names mixed up, or who have not done sufficient verification, or stopped checking when wishful thinking appeared to have been met. And many official records and census data have been lost to various natural and man-made disasters.

henry said: What do you think about the genealogies in the Bible, especially of Jesus Christ?

Dave Thomas said:

henry said: What do you think about the genealogies in the Bible, especially of Jesus Christ?

The most interesting thing about the first chapter of Matthew is the elaborate genealogy from Abraham to Jesus, via Joseph. The intent is to make the reader see that Jesus had Abraham as a direct ancestor. But, we all know that the actual father of Jesus was supposedly Jahweh himself, and not Joseph, who was said to have played no role in siring Jesus. ("Virgin Birth" - remember?) So, is Jesus in the line of Abraham, or not? Depends on how you play out the "Who's your daddy" game.