By Paul S. Braterman
British Centre for Science Education
Michael Gove, UK Education Secretary, has said in as many words that "teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact." This is progress. The existing curriculum guidelines stated only that creationism and ID should not be taught as science, leaving room for them to be advanced as philosophical or religious doctrines (in the UK, there is no separation of Church and State). In any case, the publicly funded "Free Schools" now being set up are not constrained by the language of the curriculum. Some half-dozen Evangelical church schools with pro-creationism policies have applied for Free School status. We hope, in the light of the Secretary's words, that these applications will now be rejected.
More below the fold...
"The education secretary is crystal clear that teaching creationism is at odds with scientific fact." (Statement from Department for Education, responsible for education in England). This in response to a letter and memorandum here (this material may be freely copied) from the British Centre for Science Education, a collaborative effort but sent to him (with copies to as many other interested parties as we could think of) over my signature.
Why did this simple statement make the headlines of the Guardian? (Note that education is devolved; "England" here is not shorthand for "United Kingdom".) Why was it so difficult to obtain this statement of the obvious, and why is it so important to have done so? For readers in the US in particular to understand this, we need to compare the legal framework governing education, and the very different constitutional approaches to religion, in the two countries.
In the US, education is controlled at a variety of levels. Large numbers of Americans reject evolution in favour of various kinds of Bible-inspired creationism, leading as most readers will know to the political exploitation of this issue, especially by Republicans from Reagan onwards. So we have "teach the controversy" or "academic freedom" bills, the latest in a long line of anti-evolution measures at the local or State level. However, all such measures have been thwarted in the courts by defenders of science, invoking the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment. A string of court cases, from McLean v Arkansas through Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, have established that creationism and its Intelligently Designed offshoots are, as far as the law is concerned, religious in nature, and that as a result they have no place in the publicly funded school system. So the strategy of creationists in the US has been to present their material as science, the counter-strategy has been to emphasise the connections to religion, and the matter is in the last resort one for the courts. This strategy has so far proved formally successful, although the reality is that more than half of all US biology teachers avoid a firm commitment to evolution in the classroom, as a result of their own poor grounding in the subject, and their awareness of religiously motivated opposition (From M. B. Berkman, E. Plutzer. Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom. Science, 2011; 331 (6016): 404).
The situation in the United Kingdom is almost a mirror image of that in the US. Outside Northern Ireland at least, creationism is confined to a small minority of the population. These, however, make no bones about the fact that their creationist beliefs are directly linked to the biblical text, and, even more fundamentally, to a particular evangelical view of the Fall and Redemption of humankind. One particular group of literalist Evangelical churches have established about 40 schools in England, outside the publicly funded system, in which all subjects are taught from a Christian point of view, as these churches understand the term. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of students within these schools come to believe in the historical validity of the Bible, with three-quarters of the students thinking that yes, there really was a worldwide flood, while two thirds of the remainder aren't sure.
The US Constitution was crafted in deliberate contrast to that of the UK, where, so far from there being a separation of church and state, the Church of England is England's established church, with the Sovereign at its head (harking back to Henry VIII; the situation is different in other parts of the UK). Given the nature of our constitutional monarchy, this means that the person with the last word on who should be head of this Church is the Prime Minister of the day, who may of course belong to any faith or none. That last remark is not merely rhetorical. In contrast to the US, religious scepticism is no bar to election, and of the three main parties, two (Labour and the Liberal Democrats) are led by avowed unbelievers, while David Cameron's Christianity is thought to be at best lukewarm. There are further absurdities and paradoxes. No potential heir to the throne is allowed to marry a Catholic (but atheists, pagans, Seventh-day Adventists, and Jedi-worshippers are okay). 26 seats in the House of Lords are reserved for Church of England bishops, with, by custom, representation for other major religious groups, and while the powers of the House of Lords are severely limited, this has led on occasion to the rewording of legislation to suit their Reverences' pleasing.
The Labour administration under Tony Blair established a system of Academies, whose sponsors had to find 10% of initial capital expenses, in return for minimum government interference, and full government funding of running costs. These Academies were, however, required to adhere to the national curriculum. This curriculum required the teaching of evolution, but said nothing about creationism. After a while, it came to light that some schools, sponsored by an evangelically minded used car dealer (I am not making this up), were teaching creationism as the truth, and telling their students that evolution was bogus but had to be studied for exam purposes. In response to the resulting public outcry, the Department for Education issued guidance stating that creationism and Intelligent Design were not scientific theories, and should not be taught as science. Notice, of course, that this left room (and was intended to; Tony Blair described himself as a friend to all "people of faith") for them to be taught as sound philosophical or religious doctrine. Hence the mirror image situation that I described. In the US, the creationists pretend that creationism is science, and keeping them out of the classroom depends on convincing the courts that it is really religion. In the UK, creationism can be kept out of the school labs because of its lack of scientific merit, but, until the ministerial statement, could still be inculcating elsewhere in the school as a matter of religious belief. (Yes, English schools, especially those associated with a particular denomination, are allowed to teach a particular religion as true.)
May 2010, and the collapse of public confidence in Labour led to the return of a government dominated by a Conservative party with a strong ideological objection to "government interference," even in such matters as the provision of public education, by definition a government responsibility. This has led them to invite proposals to run what they have called "Free Schools". After all, who could object to freedom? These will be completely government funded, subject to inspection, and required to follow a broad and balanced curriculum, but will not require any start-up contribution from their organisers and will not need to follow the national curriculum. One organisation that has applied to run such a school is the Everyday Champions Church. This Church is everything that you might fear from such a name. Evangelical, Pentecostal, talking in tongues, biblical literal infallibility, a social hub with its own Starbucks, the lot. Hard on their heels are around five schools from an organisation calling itself the Christian Schools Trust, which includes 40 or so schools run by a loose coalition of evangelical churches. At present, CST schools are generally very small, and dependent on student fees, but Free School status would remove this financial constraint (small irony; the apostles of market forces will have liberated them from the discipline of the market), as well as, by implication, validating their programs.
What will those programs be like? Regarding Everyday Champions, I cannot do better than quote Pastor Morgan himself: "Creationism will be embodied as a belief at Everyday Champions Academy, but will not be taught in the sciences. Similarly, evolution will be taught as a theory. We believe children should have a broad knowledge of all theories in order that they can make informed choice." In case there is any doubt as to the meaning of "all theories", someone called John Harris (qualifications unknown), who lectures on these matters at the church and runs the website http://www.creationscience.co.uk/, has enlightened us both on his website and in an ongoing discussion thread in the Times Education Supplement. There you will learn that the Grand Canyon was carved out by Noah's flood, that it is an open question when (or indeed if) dinosaurs became extinct, that the flood was able to cover the mountains because the mountains, some 5000 years ago, had not yet attained their present height, and that we have "Uneducated, dogmatic, close minded, humanistic, evolutionists trying to impose their false religion on mankind! What's worse, is that they deceitfully call it SCIENCE. It is nothing but a religious worldview that has NOTHING to offer to science or humanity other than lies." My own contribution to the TES thread drew this no doubt well merited rebuke, "Sorry, I tried to ignore PaulBraterman comments about proof of evolution but I just couldn't. I cannot help not react to LIES! There ought to be a law against those who mislead and deceive other people."
The Christian Schools Trust, we should be clear, is formally committed to the teaching of evolution. Indeed, their statement on how they propose to do this (Sylvia Baker, PhD Thesis in education, Warwick University, 2009, Appendix 3, available here) is a model of how to teach material in such a way that it will not be believed. A false dichotomy is presented between Christianity and evolution, and a parade of prominent pre-Darwinians (including Newton!) presented as Christian creationist role models. The overwhelming pro-evolution consensus among scientists is diminished to "many, perhaps most". Perhaps, indeed. The science itself is misrepresented, although we cannot tell whether this is informed strategy, or simply a failure of understanding. Thus evolution is said to ascribe change to the operation of chance, a demonstrable impossibility, whereas the reality is that selection is what drives change, with chance mutations merely providing fresh material for selection to work on. Evolution is also described in morally repugnant terms, as requiring "the deaths of countless billions of mutants." So it does, since, given the error rate in replication, all of us are mutants, and countless billions have died. Finally, CST prides itself on the fact that its graduates are "surprised at the ignorance, on this topic, of their peers who have been educated in a secular context." This ignorance consists, evidently, in their being unaware of the existence of a non-existent controversy.
CST is politically savvy and well-connected. One of its leading spirits, Sylvia Baker, even serves on the body that examines faith schools on behalf of the schools inspectorate. We strongly suspect that CST is also responsible for a website, The World Around Us, that describes itself, with no mention of creationism, as an educational resource. Students using this resource will indeed learn about evolution and, at the same time, geology. They will learn about polonium halos as evidence for sudden creation, Baumgardner's background carbon-14 as proof of the youthfulness of coal deposits, flash floods as evidence of catastrophism, the cross-linked web of life as proof of its very opposite, separate creation, the lot. (Don't take my word for it, visit the site, but remember to take your blood pressure medication first.) This site claims to be presenting the latest scientific developments, and of course does not mention its own creationist nature. Nonetheless, it is impossible to conceal the connections between the CST schools and the churches who run them, biblical literalists all of them, adhering to a theodicy that blames human sinfulness for the loss of the Edenic paradise. This, even more strongly than the plain word of Genesis, requires belief in the historicity of Noah's flood, Adam's rib, and a lost golden age. A time when the glory of God's work was still untarnished, when human disobedience had not yet brought sin and death into the world, and when lions were vegetarians.
Such are the doctrines of the would-be organisers of this round of Free Schools. So, for this reason, even more importance may attach to the second sentence of the ministerial statement, than to the first, with which I opened this piece : "Ministers have said they will not accept any proposal where there are concerns about the people behind the project."
158 Comments
Mike Elzinga · 31 March 2011
One of the instructional techniques I have used over the years in order to disabuse people of ID/creationist “concepts in science” is to contrast those "concepts" with what science actually says.
If there is any kind of “bright side” to having to deal with ID/creationist misconceptions, it might be their use as a foil against which to clarify the real concepts in science.
I would hasten to say, however, that I would not do this unless prompted by a student’s misconceptions that have been derived from ID/creationism. One can teach scientific concepts and iron out misconceptions without having to ship in all that crap from the ID/creationists.
But I have often suspected that the influence of ID/creationism on any school curriculum is a sort of “canary in a coalmine” warning that the real science is not very well taught in the school system.
That has implications not only for hiring practices, the availability of quality teachers, and the general working conditions for teachers in any particular community, but it may also suggest that misconceptions are not being addressed adequately in the college and university courses that prepare students to teach.
The best antidote to ID/creationist junk science is a solid conceptual understanding of real science. That contrast with ID/creationism makes the ID/creationists and their political activities look that much stupider.
Henry J · 31 March 2011
Good grief.
Robin · 31 March 2011
Cue FL's "Christianity is
nincompoopableincompatible with evolution" in 3...2...1...FL · 31 March 2011
Stanton · 31 March 2011
Dave Luckett · 31 March 2011
Once again, FL: "incompatibility" between Christianity and evolution exists only in your mind and those of a few others, all of them fundamentalist bibliolators.
That "incompatibility" consists of your delusion that your personal list of the metaphors in Genesis is the only acceptable one; that you know perfectly the mind of God and the minds of the people who wrote it.
That is, you believe you have perfect knowledge, and that your authority is absolute. That's it. That's all of it. There's nothing more.
Of course, to believe that, your hubris has to be monumental. In your own terms, you have grievously blasphemed by abrogating to yourself the attributes of God Almighty. If I were like you, a sectarian loon, I'd fear (unctuously, with secret rejoicing) for your soul.
Not even hubris like that will damn you in your own sense, unless God's a monster. But it damns you (metaphorically!) here.
But by all means march on, FL. Demonstrate your towering arrogance for everyone to see. If there's a God, and if He has purposes, it might be that you are fulfilling His for you: to act as a bad example.
Dale Husband · 31 March 2011
Dale Husband · 31 March 2011
mrg · 31 March 2011
DH, you take him too seriously. He's silly.
Stanton · 31 March 2011
Stanton · 31 March 2011
Stanton · 31 March 2011
Robert Byers · 31 March 2011
That's his opinion. let the people hear the facts and attacks on the facts and the processes of investigation and creationism will be content.
Creationism can do in the schools what it does in the public right now.
We make a case based on the same principals of investigation, save for YEC with a Genesis presumption, that any one does in anything.
We say evolution is not a fact or proven fact and take it on.
Just saying its a settled matter doesn't make it so.
Again there is no such thing as a science.
Science is just a word to indicate investigation of a high standard and so a high confidence in its conclusions.
The investigation itself and its conclusions are challenged , very well, by creationism(s).
Words don't prove anything.
If evolution etc is a fact then why the fear of questioning it in public education like in the public period???
Its good that once again the increasing pressure, even in Britannia , forces a establishment to dig its heels.
This is making a great movie.
Stanton · 31 March 2011
Robert Byers, there are no facts that support Creationism, and you are a moron to claim that "there is no such thing as a science."
By what process do you think the Internet or plastic were invented through? Magic?
And it is totally unreasonable to challenge the teaching of science simply because you are a religious bigot who worships stupidity.
DS · 31 March 2011
2.3
Paul Burnett · 31 March 2011
Stanton · 31 March 2011
Paul Burnett · 31 March 2011
mplavcan · 31 March 2011
Dave Luckett · 31 March 2011
Paul Braterman · 1 April 2011
FL wants chapter and verse on my claim that Dr. Baker presents evolution as incompatible with Christianity. It would be more accurate to say that she presents it wherever it occurs in her thesis as incompatible with her own brand of Christianity, as taught in the group of schools that she is studying (and helped found and direct). See for example the discussion of theodicy on page 168, the schools' teaching (P170) on Noah's flood, the Fall, and (in the schools' policy on teaching evolution, P354 on, which Dr. Baker as scientific adviser presumably helped draft) the intervention of “the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God who came to save both them and all of creation from the devastating effects of rebellion against God”, and the subsequent parading of various worthies (including Newton!) as examples of Christian creationists.
John Kwok · 1 April 2011
Stanton · 1 April 2011
Stanton · 1 April 2011
Paul Burnett · 1 April 2011
Science Avenger · 1 April 2011
Stanton · 1 April 2011
eric · 1 April 2011
mrg · 1 April 2011
Oh, people trying to argue with RB again.
He comes to PT because this is likely the only place in the world where people actually pay him enough mind to argue with him.
John Kwok · 1 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Dale Husband · 1 April 2011
FL · 1 April 2011
mrg · 1 April 2011
Stanton · 1 April 2011
Dale Husband · 1 April 2011
Dale Husband · 1 April 2011
mrg · 1 April 2011
FL · 1 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 1 April 2011
Again we see evidence of the inability to make distinctions because of the inability to understand concepts.
The theory of evolution is not Social Darwinism.
mrg · 1 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 1 April 2011
Stanton · 1 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 1 April 2011
mrg · 1 April 2011
FL · 1 April 2011
mrg · 1 April 2011
Stanton · 1 April 2011
Stanton · 1 April 2011
FL · 1 April 2011
mrg · 1 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 1 April 2011
FL · 1 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 1 April 2011
Good Grief! I knew he belonged to a cult.
Self lobotomies don't correct for past evils, even if one doesn't know any history.
The inability to grasp concepts and make distinctions is another indicator of arrested cognitive development.
FL · 1 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 1 April 2011
Stanton · 1 April 2011
Stanton · 1 April 2011
mrg · 1 April 2011
Indeed, Identity Christians hardly sound like admirers of Chuck D -- ah, the good Reverend Butler, a source of vast amusement to the public in the North Idaho region until he finally took a dirt nap.
I will admit that it would be preposterous to say that even typical fundy operations are comparable to Identity Christians. But drawing any parallels between them and the evo science community would be even more of a stretch.
Stanton · 1 April 2011
John Kwok · 1 April 2011
Dale Husband · 1 April 2011
John Kwok · 1 April 2011
Dave Luckett · 1 April 2011
FL asks "how do you know this?", "this" being that "Jesus did not die because an ancient couple ate something forbidden".
There are, of course, two answers. I'll give only the theological one, because historically reasoned responses from observed fact do not interest FL.
I know that Jesus did not die over an ancient couple eating a forbidden fruit, because Jesus did not die for something so petty, and I know that because God is just. Do you really think that God is that tiny-minded, that tyrannical? If you thought He were, why would you ever worship Him?
Fear? Not enough. It would take abject, gibbering, shivering, loosening-of-the-bowels terror to worship such a thing in the face of that belief. As I have remarked before, FL, it must be a dreadful thing to live in your head.
No, it won't do. Original sin exists in Christian doctrine, but it means the sin of all humans, the sins that exist despite our best wishes for ourselves, and all the shame that Adam first felt in the story. We cannot save ourselves from it, because we cannot know perfectly, cannot judge perfectly, cannot confess perfectly, and cannot expiate perfectly - and we cannot do those things because we can do nothing perfectly. It was Adam's sin, metaphorically, because he represents the gaining of self-awareness and the beginnings of shame; but in that fact we all share, because Adam represents us all. "In Adam's fall, we share all." Jesus died that we might be redeemed from this.
Now, FL, it doesn't matter that you still think that God got into a rage because our ancestors ate a fruit He said not to. What I have provided is a reasonable defence of a completely metaphorical reading of that story in Genesis, and yet one that is completely consistent with the doctrine of the Redemption and the vicarious sacrifice of Jesus.
All you are left with now is an intransigent insistence that only your reading of Genesis is correct. You have no reason in Christian doctrine to say that, any more than you have reason in material evidence. All you have is your faith in your own infallibility to interpret the Scripture. But FL, if you think you're infallible in anything, then you have actually rejected the reason for Jesus's death, and that means you have rejected Him.
I seem to have given you fresh reason to fear. Well, so be it.
FL · 2 April 2011
mrg · 2 April 2011
I have to admit it was a mistake yesterday to actually bother reading FL's comments ... there's nothing there but repetitive assertions presented as facts, heavily dosed with badmouthing.
On the positive side, having recognized this I am well less likely to pay any further attention in the future.
It is also certainly encouraging to know that, for all my many personal limitations, there's people who are doing a lot worse for themselves (and worse, don't care) ... and given the obvious lack of capability of these folks, there's no great worry that they will ever accomplish much other making persistent nuisances of themselves. Admittedly, that's all they honestly seem to be trying to do.
I was intrigued enough by the SJ Gould quote to track it down -- it's a "standard item" on creationist sites, and as is par for such it appears to be cited out of context. I think I found the book it's from, the local library has it, I'll pick it up on my Tuesday library run, write up some notes, and place them here.
Mike Elzinga · 2 April 2011
Stanton · 2 April 2011
Stanton · 2 April 2011
mrg · 2 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 2 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 2 April 2011
Scott F · 2 April 2011
Dale Husband · 2 April 2011
This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.
Dave Luckett · 3 April 2011
Henry J · 3 April 2011
Dale Husband · 3 April 2011
DS · 3 April 2011
FL the lying, racist bigot wrote:
"(Keep in mind that evolutionary theory’s “common ancestor” claim of human evolution DOES allow for the possibility of different sets of humans evolving at different rates from the apelike ancestor. Evolutionists never really refuted this argument on its own terms. Even now, the best you evos can do is to deflect the issue by pointing to modern genetic studies and saying “See there? All the races are equal, case closed,” as a way to avoid getting cornered in debate.)"
Another blatant lie. Sorry to break it to you Floyd, but modern evolutionary theory and modern genetic data all demonstrate conclusively that you are dead wrong here. "Different sets of humans" did not "evolve at different rates from the apelike ancestor." We have known this for about forty years now. The argument is not refuted based on theory, it is refuted by the evidence. Based on the evidence, all the races are "equal" in a very specific sense. It's funny that you think that you are entitled to an opinion on the matter without ever having examined the evidence. But then agin, I guess that's how bigotry works isn't it?
If you don't like it, that's too bad. All you have to do is get in the lab and do some research to get some data to support your bigotry. But you won't will you? Ignorance is your business. All you can do is hope that everyone remains ignorant of the real evidence. Meanwhile you can around spouting your hatred of those who happen to be just slightly different from you.
David Fickett-Wilbar · 3 April 2011
DS · 3 April 2011
If anyone is interested in human genetics, here are a few references on the subject. They demonstrate conclusively that FL is just plain wrong, again.
Lewontin (1972) Evolutionary Biology 6:381-398.
Nei and Roychoudhary (1982) Evolutionary Biology 14:1-59
Templeton (1999) American Anthropologist 100(3):632-650
Stanton · 3 April 2011
Paul Braterman · 3 April 2011
harold · 3 April 2011
SWT · 3 April 2011
If FL is going to discuss the arguments that were used to perpetuate the vile institution of slavery, he should perhaps start by addressing the arguments used by some 18th and 19th century American Christians in support of slavery. A plain, literal reading of the Bible (you know, the sort he says we must use for the creation narrative) does not condemn slavery; to the contrary, the Hebrew scriptures regulate slavery rather than abolishing it and the New Testament does not require slave owners to release their slaves.
Stanton · 3 April 2011
DS · 4 April 2011
Stanton wrote:
"Thirdly, FL would need to learn how to think rationally."
That doesn't seem likely. After all, here is the argument he used to try to persuade people not to believe in the theory of evolution:
According to the theory of gravity, there is absolutely nothing preventing the earth from falling into the sun. Therefore you should not believe in the theory of gravity. Instead you should put your trust in an all knowing, all loving god who has already destroyed almost the entire human species and almost every other living thing on the earth, just to punish two people who fell for the set up he tricked them into.
See, you shouldn't believe in the theory of evolution, because there is the theoretical possibility that that could provide a biological basis for racism. Never mind that the actual scientific evidence completely disproves this nonsense. Never mind that it is consistently the religious zealots who display the most hateful and racist behavior, not scientists. Never mind that the person who is trying to persuade you is a pathological liar. No wonder he claims that evolution is incompatible with religion, it won't give him an excuse to be racist, that's the real problem.
Time to ban FL to the bathroom wall for good, along with IBIGOT and Byers. Their willful ignorance and blatant dishonesty taints all that they come in contact with. Let them rant and rave in a more appropriate venue, segregated from decent society.
FL · 4 April 2011
DS · 4 April 2011
FL,
Speaking of checking things out, did you read the papers I recommended? They demonstrate conclusively that you are dead wrong about human races. Now, are you going to admit that you were wrong? Are you gong to admit that there is no scientific basis for racism? If you don't, everyone will see that you are fundamentally dishonest and emotionally incapable of admitting error.
mrg · 4 April 2011
SWT · 4 April 2011
ben · 4 April 2011
SWT · 4 April 2011
DS · 4 April 2011
When given evidence from the scientific literature demonstrating conclusively that they are entirely wrong, 99.9999% of all creationists refuse to read the papers presented and still refuse to admit that they were wrong.
SWT · 4 April 2011
mrg · 4 April 2011
I find they often read documents, but only to skim over them in hopes of finding something to throw back at them.
I was going around on Physorg with a global-warming denier who trotted out the paper that claimed trees emit methane. When I pointed out that the author himself never claimed it was a real problem, that the methane emitted by a tree might reduce the effect of the carbon sequestered by a few percent, he just ignored me and continued to claim there was a problem.
Mike Elzinga · 4 April 2011
Mary H · 4 April 2011
“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”
pg 127 "Ontogeny and Phylogeny" (1977)
Let's fill in the rest of the paragraph shall we FL?
"...but the data were worthless. We never have had, and still do not have, any unambiguous data on the innate mental capacities of different human groups--a meaningless notion." He goes on to say that such racism was not due to the data but due to "an a priori belief in universal progress among apolitical but chauvinistic scientists or to an explicit desire to construct a rational for imperialism"
The point being (but so often missed by the true believers)the data leads eventually to an understanding of the truth but sometimes has to wade through a lot of preconceived notions that cloud the view. Europeans were pretty sure they were the top of the heap and used what ever they could lay their hands on to keep it that way. sometimes it was the misuse of evolution and sometimes like the pro-slavery preachers of the old south it was the bible.
Will you hold the source as wrong because it is misused by its messengers? This would, you understand, take out the bible along with evolution. The theory of evolution is not at fault for the evils perpetrated in its name. It is after all a scientific theory not a philosophy of life.
One could make as strong an argument that religion causes bigotry because so many of the religious evidence bigotry even if it is only against other belief systems.
mrg · 4 April 2011
DS · 4 April 2011
Mary wrote:
"Will you hold the source as wrong because it is misused by its messengers? This would, you understand, take out the bible along with evolution. The theory of evolution is not at fault for the evils perpetrated in its name. It is after all a scientific theory not a philosophy of life. One could make as strong an argument that religion causes bigotry because so many of the religious evidence bigotry even if it is only against other belief systems."
Exactly. If you condemn evolution because in theory it could be used to justify racism, then by the same criteria, you must condemn all of religion as well. Not only can it be used to justify racism in theory, but it has actually been used to do so in many specific instances. How hypocritical do you have to be to condemn something that disproves racism and yet cling to something that promotes and justifies racism?
Still waitin FL. Are you going to read those papers or not? Are you going to admit that you were wrong or not?
raven · 4 April 2011
SWT · 4 April 2011
Indeed, I suggested yesterday that FL should address the use of the scriptural arguments to justify slavery. He's posted in this thread once since them; it will be interesting to read his response. It will be telling if he chooses not to respond.
Stanton · 4 April 2011
Stanton · 4 April 2011
Capt. Haddock · 5 April 2011
mrg · 5 April 2011
Stanton · 5 April 2011
FL · 5 April 2011
DS · 5 April 2011
So that would be a NO, you haver no intention of ever learning any science or ever admitting that you were wrong. All you care about is telling stories about bible stuff that no one cares about. You don't care about honesty. You don't care about logic. You don't care about evidence. You don't care about reality. All you have is ignorance and fear. Go away.
FL · 5 April 2011
FL · 5 April 2011
FL · 5 April 2011
FL · 5 April 2011
Dave Thomas · 5 April 2011
J. Biggs · 5 April 2011
So tell me FL would you want your daughter to marry and have children with a person diagnosed with Huntington's?
DS · 5 April 2011
FL,
I can't make this any more clear. There is no scientific basis for racism, none. Any quotes, personal opinions, suggestions, statements, etc. are irrelevant. Deal with the evidence or shut the fudge up and go away. No one cares about your bible, your myths, your prejudice, your love of slavery, your racism or your hypocricy. Read the references, admit you were wrong. Then go away.
FL · 5 April 2011
Dave Thomas · 5 April 2011
SWT · 5 April 2011
John Vanko · 5 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 5 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 5 April 2011
DS · 5 April 2011
FL,
No one give a rat's ass how many slaves your holy book commands you to beat. Read the papers. Admit you were wrong. Then go away. Or you could skip the first two steps, as long as you get to the third one.
The fact that you refuse to admit your error is contrary to the principles set out in your holy book. Or don't you really care about that?
Dale Husband · 5 April 2011
Dave Luckett · 6 April 2011
It should, of course, be blatantly obvious that I never treated the actual inception of original sin as petty. On the contrary, I gave it very great weight. FL's problem is that he is insisting that original sin consisted of one only actual literal physical act: eating a forbidden fruit. It is that act and his interpretation which is plainly and clearly petty; as it is also plainly and clearly obvious that vicarious punishment of all humanity for such an act would be hideously, grotesquely, monstrously unjust.
But original sin does not consist of one only physical act. It consists of the knowledge of good and evil, which humans acquired at some point, and our inability to act perfectly on that knowledge. The act of eating the fruit is a metaphor, and a neat one, for that. We at once acquired the knowledge and the ability to reflect on, and to feel shame for, our own actions.
But we did not acquire that knowledge perfectly - for no knowledge is perfect, not even of ourselves - nor are we able to act perfectly on it, even if we would have it so. Those shortcomings constitute original sin. They apply to all of us. They were not inherited from a story, but are the consequences of fact.
Now, why does FL insist that there was an actual fruit and an actual prohibition with condign punishment for breaking it by God, not a metaphorical treatment in narrative of our acquisition of self-awareness and empathy and their consequences, given our imperfection? The former is picayune and shallow, the latter universal and profound. The former makes God out to be a monstrous tyrant of revolting injustice and cruelty; the latter understands Him as knowing us perfectly and of offering merciful justice despite our constant falling-away from perfection. Why on Earth would anyone prefer the former?
But even if we leave that to one side as an unanswerable conundrum, we are left with the fact that FL's is one interpretation. It's not a reasonable one, but he insists on it anyway. We can only shrug. Who knows why he thinks this?
But that's not all he's doing. He also insists that his is not just one interpretation, but that it's the only possible one for Christians.
Here we pass from the morass of FL's credulous superstition to the precipice of his overwheening hubris. It is a hubris so monumental that it provides in itself a terribly sobering lesson. It is the log in FL's own eye that he cannot see, hastening as he does to the speck in the eyes of others. It is the camel that he swallows while straining at a gnat. It is everything Jesus railed against - and FL still can't see it, although everyone around him does.
What can't I see? What things have I done, not done, said, not said, thought, not thought, that I cannot see? I can only hope for charity and mercy for them - and reflect that it has mostly been forthcoming, from my fellow human beings. If there is a God at all, how can He be less?
Stanton · 6 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 6 April 2011
Dave Luckett · 6 April 2011
Dave Luckett · 6 April 2011
Robert Byers · 6 April 2011
Capt. Haddock · 6 April 2011
Mike Elzinga said:
Metaphor and allegory are bridges from the tiny places where you are to those large, expansive places you would like to be.
....But the stunted intellectual development that takes such lessons literally and never crosses the bridge is, apparently, never outgrown in fundamentalist circles.
Mike, I couldn't agree more with your last couple of posts.
Robert, FL, others, I'm sure many of us with scientific training find that important aspects of human experience (love, loss, art, etc) seem to be best thought about using concepts and language different from those we use to make our models of the physical world. For many, religion is part of those other toolkits of thought. It seems to me the error of the extremist - whether in religion, politics or natural science - is to maintain that one single toolkit of thought is somehow "The Answer", which can make sense of everything we experience, in all dimensions of our lives.
The toolkits aren't flawless. The models made by science are frequently adapted and sometimes dramatically overthrown or revised, to better approximate reality. Ancient religious texts are not immune from the culture and history of the time in which they were written, and have always needed interpretation. And yes, the march of science has taken away from religion whatever role it once had in describing the order in nature, forcing further reinterpretation. But the main religious denominations have always done this.
It seems to me that religious people who refuse to interpret the bible in the light of other knowledge are doomed to end up in increasingly contorted and untenable positions, Creationism and ID being glaring examples.
DS · 6 April 2011
FL,
Still haven't read the papers? Not surprising. All of your semantics and blustering about exactly how to beat your slaves isn't going to help you. You use your holy book to justify racism and slavery and then you misrepresent and condemn the science that cannot be used to justify either. You are doomed to a life of ignorance and bigotry.
DS · 6 April 2011
Byers,
1.2 Try harder.
There is no such thing as science as you describe it. Since you are not a scientist, have never done any science, don't understand science and refuse to accept the findings of science, you really haven't earned the right to an opinion on the subject. You can spout nonsense all you want to, but no one has to care in the least.
mrg · 6 April 2011
Stanton · 6 April 2011
mrg · 6 April 2011
Just Bob · 6 April 2011
mrg · 6 April 2011
Kevin B · 6 April 2011
John Vanko · 6 April 2011
Dave Luckett · 7 April 2011
The more I think about this, the crazier it gets. FL is actually saying that I should read as literal history a story featuring a fruit that gives knowledge, a talking snake, and God out for a walk in the cool of the day, not knowing what had happened until He deduced it from the fact that Adam had realised that he was naked.
FL's actually saying that. He's saying this is not metaphor, because it doesn't say it's metaphor. No, he's saying more. He's saying it can't be read as metaphor, on peril of your immortal soul.
But not only are there trees with knowledge-fruit and snakes that talk - oh, no. From a theological point of view, that's the least of it.
For we have a snake that not only talks, it tempts to people to sin. That can't be good. But the Bible says (Genesis 1:31) that God saw all that He had made, and it was very good. What, so God didn't make the snake, then? Well, who did?
And the snake did this without God's knowledge. God has to ask whodunnit, and only after Adam tells Him does He curse the snake. What, so God's knowledge is limited?
No, that's crazy talk. On the obvious, straightforward face of it, this must be metaphor. It can't be taken literally, this side of sanity.
So FL's crazy. I thought before that he might be deluded, or silly, or malignant, or puffed up with measureless pride. But now I know he's actually crazy.
DS · 7 April 2011
John Kwok · 7 April 2011
Robin · 7 April 2011
Just Bob · 7 April 2011
Henry J · 7 April 2011
But, the snake spokethed with forked tongue!!111!!eleven!!
Just Bob · 7 April 2011
Tho what?
Mike Elzinga · 7 April 2011
mrg · 7 April 2011
Scott F · 8 April 2011
Dale Husband · 8 April 2011
Mike Elzinga · 8 April 2011
mrg · 8 April 2011
Eh, study the politics of the past and it looks much the same in terms of quality. I've learned a lot about the FDR administration over the past few years and the political environment was much the same tune, just with slightly different lyrics. Think of Father Coughlin or Lindbergh (who people are STILL trying to apologize for).
SWT · 8 April 2011
SWT · 8 April 2011
Meh ... "leadership and/or influence" ...
Dale Husband · 8 April 2011
DS · 8 April 2011
Well I suppose when you ignore all of the evidence your beliefs can easily be divorced from reality. FL refuses to read even one scientific paper. He spouts nonsense that is obviously wrong in order to condemn evolution, all the while ignoring the hypocricy and blatant dishonesty of his illogical position. He and his flock of sheep are free to believe anything they want to about whatever fairy tales strike their fancy. They are even free to reject anyone who doesn't agree to go along with the routine if they so choose. What they are not free to do is lie to everybody else and think they can get away with it.
Anyone can easily determine that FL is willfully ignorant and expects everyone else to just go along with it. How else can you explain his absolute refusal to confront the evidence? How else can you explain his dishonest representation of science? He better hope is is wrong about the existence of such a vengeful and petty god, otherwise he is in big trouble.
If FL shows up again with yet another irrelevant drive-by barrage of ignorance, it's time he was banished to the bathroom wall. He can threaten everyone with hellfire there.
John Kwok · 8 April 2011
John Vanko · 10 April 2011
John Kwok · 10 April 2011
John Vanko,
Thanks for reposting Dave Luckett's comment. I concur. It is the most profound, most eloquent, assessment not only of IBIG and FL, but of those as different as William Dembski and Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya) who seek comfort from the chaotic, often never stable, aspects of Modernity by relying instead on their own parochial visions of Jehovah(Allah). Indeed, this is a most apt assessment that can describe best the very thoughts of all creationists, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish or of some other faith; all have embraced their own fundamentalist visions of the Deity(ies) and of Nature in which all of Creation can be seen as the act(s) of some kind of Divine Providence acting willfully without any regard for some kind of Natural Law(s).