Clergy Letter Project expands to include Imam Letter

Gee, this should have been done several years ago.

As a member of Care2, I ran a group dedicated to defending evolution and promoting proper science education:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/evolution_education

One of my strongest supporters in that group was a Muslim named Woodrow Fields:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/people/profile.html?pid=493791899

I later repaid him by helping him set up and run a group detailing Muslim art:

http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Islamicart

It was I who gave the group its title and specified its agenda and some of its rules, since Woodrow lacked experience in such matters.

http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=7879&pst=379988

Expecting the atheist fanatics to start screaming again about "accomidation" and throwing stones at me for working with Muslims in 5......4......3......2.....1.....

Expecting the atheist fanatics to start screaming again about “accomidation”

Flint said:

Expecting the atheist fanatics to start screaming again about “accomidation”

Or even accommodation, right?

Well, not all of them agree. Here's the Dishonesty Institute's counterpart in Europe:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110516/sc_nm/us_islam_creationism_france

This is long overdue IMHO and sadly, quite timely, in light of a recent British Muslim imam's observation that evolution is a science fact, only to be condemned by his faithful.

DavidK said: Well, not all of them agree. Here's the Dishonesty Institute's counterpart in Europe Turkey: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110516/sc_nm/us_islam_creationism_france

I have misgivings about this. Unlike Christians, Muslims in the West are mostly immigrants, or descendants of comparatively recent immigrants. They have yet to relieve themselves of the "Us vs. Them" mentality. The Imams who have taken part in this project will most likely be seen as conniving hypocrites who are working with the west to destroy Islam. As an inhabitant of the Muslim community(though an atheist myself), I can attest to the fact that most Muslims(regardless of their place of birth or living) believe that there's an ongoing conspiracy to restrain, what is perceived to be, the progression of Islam towards becoming the dominant religion of the world. Not surprisingly, the theory of evolution is seen as an imperialist construct to undermine the Orient. The Imams who will vouch for the scientific authenticity of the theory will be regarded as emissaries of Imperialists. I won't be able to provide any evidence, but this mentality is very much implicit in the community.

But it's a positive step nonetheless.

Prithvi said: As an inhabitant of the Muslim community(though an atheist myself), I can attest to the fact that most Muslims(regardless of their place of birth or living) believe that there's an ongoing conspiracy to restrain, what is perceived to be, the progression of Islam towards becoming the dominant religion of the world. Not surprisingly, the theory of evolution is seen as an imperialist construct to undermine the Orient. The Imams who will vouch for the scientific authenticity of the theory will be regarded as emissaries of Imperialists. I won't be able to provide any evidence, but this mentality is very much implicit in the community. But it's a positive step nonetheless.

Dale Husband said:

DavidK said: Well, not all of them agree. Here's the Dishonesty Institute's counterpart in Europe Turkey: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110516/sc_nm/us_islam_creationism_france

That's Harun Yahya, who lives in Turkey, not Europe, though he may have been touring Europe recently. What's really weird is that he's been getting assistance and advice from Christian Creationists in America.

Dale Husband said: Why SHOULDN'T Islam be stopped from becoming the dominant religion of the entire world? I don't want Christianity to dominate the whole world either, and for the same reason; both religions are hopelessly corrupt and can only be trusted when they are politically disabled. Give either of them political power and we will see death, destruction, and social stagnation, just like 1000 years ago! Besides, Islam itself is an imperialist religion, as its own history shows. Those Muslim bigots are in for a looooooooooooong fight if they don't stop trying to rule the world.

DavidK said: Well, not all of them agree. Here's the Dishonesty Institute's counterpart in Europe: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110516/sc_nm/us_islam_creationism_france

Something is true or it is not, there are no 'forms of truth'.

Adam said: Something is true or it is not, there are no 'forms of truth'.

This is an interesting development to be sure (and not entirely unexpected), but for now, the Christian community is the key demographic. That arena, is where the CLP must be fought and defeated.

One mind, one heart, one life at a time.

FL

FL said: This is an interesting development to be sure (and not entirely unexpected), but for now, the Christian community is the key demographic. That arena, is where the CLP must be fought and defeated. One mind, one heart, one life at a time. FL

are scientists who sign the letter accomodationists ?

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/04/23/a-bright-spot-at-the-chronicle-and-an-open-letter/

Thony C. said: Turkey is officially a European country!

This is an interesting development to be sure (and not entirely unexpected), but for now, the Christian community is the key demographic. That arena, is where the CLP must be fought and defeated. One mind, one heart, one life at a time.

Romans 1 reminds us that men “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” As the Bible teaches us, if one is not for Christ, then that one is against! There is no neutrality in this spiritual battle. People would not react the way they do about what the Bible teaches if it was not a spiritual battle.

Turkey is officially a European country!

Peter Henderson quoted Ken Ham:

There is no neutrality in this spiritual battle.

Dale Husband said:

Prithvi said: As an inhabitant of the Muslim community(though an atheist myself), I can attest to the fact that most Muslims(regardless of their place of birth or living) believe that there's an ongoing conspiracy to restrain, what is perceived to be, the progression of Islam towards becoming the dominant religion of the world. Not surprisingly, the theory of evolution is seen as an imperialist construct to undermine the Orient. The Imams who will vouch for the scientific authenticity of the theory will be regarded as emissaries of Imperialists. I won't be able to provide any evidence, but this mentality is very much implicit in the community. But it's a positive step nonetheless.

Why SHOULDN'T Islam be stopped from becoming the dominant religion of the entire world? I don't want Christianity to dominate the whole world either, and for the same reason; both religions are hopelessly corrupt and can only be trusted when they are politically disabled. Give either of them political power and we will see death, destruction, and social stagnation, just like 1000 years ago! Besides, Islam itself is an imperialist religion, as its own history shows. Those Muslim bigots are in for a looooooooooooong fight if they don't stop trying to rule the world.

Paul Burnett said: The sooner we pro-science / pro-evolution folks admit to ourselves that the anti-science / anti-evolution folks see this as a "battle," the sooner we can fully engage in and win the battle.

mrg said:

Paul Burnett said: The sooner we pro-science / pro-evolution folks admit to ourselves that the anti-science / anti-evolution folks see this as a "battle," the sooner we can fully engage in and win the battle.

Good luck on your crusade. Write us a report when you're done.

Paul Burnett said: It will never be done.

Prithvi said: Perhaps, critics of ID should take Islamic creationism more seriously. People like Harun Yahya(though he seems to be the only notable creationist in the whole of the Muslim world, the rest just quote from his voluminous works) are not very intellectually stimulating, but he has a HUGE following(I've seen publisshing houses translate his books and right-wing student groups distributing them for free). Most academicians may not deign to engage him, but someone has to take out the trash, right?

Peter Henderson said:

Turkey is officially a European country!

Only part of Turkey is in Europe, geographically speaking, and it's not part of the EU (although it's appled for membership). Still, I suppose if it can enter the Eurovision song contest...............

Dale Husband said: Why SHOULDN'T Islam be stopped from becoming the dominant religion of the entire world? I don't want Christianity to dominate the whole world either, and for the same reason; both religions are hopelessly corrupt and can only be trusted when they are politically disabled. Give either of them political power and we will see death, destruction, and social stagnation, just like 1000 years ago! Besides, Islam itself is an imperialist religion, as its own history shows. Those Muslim bigots are in for a looooooooooooong fight if they don't stop trying to rule the world.

Paul Burnett said:

Peter Henderson quoted Ken Ham:

There is no neutrality in this spiritual battle.

Finally - something from Ken Ham that I can agree with! Sounds like he doesn't like accomodationists either. The sooner we pro-science / pro-evolution folks admit to ourselves that the anti-science / anti-evolution folks see this as a "battle," the sooner we can fully engage in and win the battle. Otherwise the forces championing scientific illiteracy and willful ignorance will continue winning. Anybody who thinks accomodationism can win should check in with Neville Chamberlain and see how it worked out for him.

throwing stones at me for working with Muslims

naw, we're too busy throwing boulders at you for all the strawmen you erect.

*tosses large boulder at Dale*

Ichthyic said: throwing stones at me for working with Muslims naw, we're too busy throwing boulders at you for all the strawmen you erect. *tosses large boulder at Dale*

Paul Burnett said:

Peter Henderson quoted Ken Ham:

There is no neutrality in this spiritual battle.

Finally - something from Ken Ham that I can agree with! Sounds like he doesn't like accomodationists either. The sooner we pro-science / pro-evolution folks admit to ourselves that the anti-science / anti-evolution folks see this as a "battle," the sooner we can fully engage in and win the battle. Otherwise the forces championing scientific illiteracy and willful ignorance will continue winning. Anybody who thinks accomodationism can win should check in with Neville Chamberlain and see how it worked out for him.

I always think that Chamberlain could have been much more kindly treated by history. Spike Milligan said that he was (from memory) "some bloke that did Prime Minister impressions". He was better than that. Most of what he was blamed for should really be laid at the door of Stanley Baldwin.

Yes, Chamberlain was the Apostle of Appeasement - but he didn't mean by appeasement giving Hitler whatever he wanted. He meant redressing the clear injustices and impracticalities of the Treaty of Versailles. "In peace, goodwill", said Churchill. Chamberlain was obeying that just dictum.

There's no doubt whatsoever that the Rhinelanders and Sudentenlanders strongly desired to reunite with Germany, and no doubt that most Austrians were all for the Anschluss. The Danzig corridor was an obvious kludge that couldn't work. There's also no doubt that the Treaty had imposed sanctions on the German economy that made it impossible for it to pay the reparations demanded (which were in any case grossly unjust), and the chaos arising out of that had enabled the insane German politics from which Hitler had emerged.

All of that is true. It is also a fact that British rearmament accelerated strongly under Chamberlain, much as he disliked it. For example, the fighter strength vastly increased and the radar chain that was the underlying reason for the defensive success of the Battle of Britain was built.

Chamberlain died in early 1941, having endured his final battle with cancer with stoic courage, and having served under Churchill with efficiency and probity. He went silently to his grave, leaving no memoirs to defend him and no faction to champion his cause. Far worse men than he have been let off far more lightly.

We can argue all we want about what Chamberlain should or should not have done, but we must remember this: Neither he, nor the framers of that vengeful Versailles Treaty, had our advantage of hindsight to know the consequences of their actions in the future. In their minds, they were doing right and seeking peace. After World War II, we corrected most of those mistakes, and that's all we needed to do, then and now.

As for "accomodation", that looks to me like merely a phrase for "accepting that (some) religious people can do science and defend science education just as well as atheists". It's not about saying all religious views are equal. If that was the case, we wouldn't be fighting creationism. Just because you are a theist doesn't mean you are idiotic, anti-science, or evil. I know many intelligent, caring and honorable theists of various types. As long as theists obey the common rules of scientific investigation and education, what's the problem?

Dave Luckett said: I always think that Chamberlain could have been much more kindly treated by history. Spike Milligan said that he was (from memory) "some bloke that did Prime Minister impressions". He was better than that. Most of what he was blamed for should really be laid at the door of Stanley Baldwin. Yes, Chamberlain was the Apostle of Appeasement - but he didn't mean by appeasement giving Hitler whatever he wanted. He meant redressing the clear injustices and impracticalities of the Treaty of Versailles. "In peace, goodwill", said Churchill. Chamberlain was obeying that just dictum. There's no doubt whatsoever that the Rhinelanders and Sudentenlanders strongly desired to reunite with Germany, and no doubt that most Austrians were all for the Anschluss. The Danzig corridor was an obvious kludge that couldn't work. There's also no doubt that the Treaty had imposed sanctions on the German economy that made it impossible for it to pay the reparations demanded (which were in any case grossly unjust), and the chaos arising out of that had enabled the insane German politics from which Hitler had emerged. All of that is true. It is also a fact that British rearmament accelerated strongly under Chamberlain, much as he disliked it. For example, the fighter strength vastly increased and the radar chain that was the underlying reason for the defensive success of the Battle of Britain was built. Chamberlain died in early 1941, having endured his final battle with cancer with stoic courage, and having served under Churchill with efficiency and probity. He went silently to his grave, leaving no memoirs to defend him and no faction to champion his cause. Far worse men than he have been let off far more lightly.

SLC said:

Dave Luckett said: I always think that Chamberlain could have been much more kindly treated by history. Spike Milligan said that he was (from memory) "some bloke that did Prime Minister impressions". He was better than that. Most of what he was blamed for should really be laid at the door of Stanley Baldwin. Yes, Chamberlain was the Apostle of Appeasement - but he didn't mean by appeasement giving Hitler whatever he wanted. He meant redressing the clear injustices and impracticalities of the Treaty of Versailles. "In peace, goodwill", said Churchill. Chamberlain was obeying that just dictum. There's no doubt whatsoever that the Rhinelanders and Sudentenlanders strongly desired to reunite with Germany, and no doubt that most Austrians were all for the Anschluss. The Danzig corridor was an obvious kludge that couldn't work. There's also no doubt that the Treaty had imposed sanctions on the German economy that made it impossible for it to pay the reparations demanded (which were in any case grossly unjust), and the chaos arising out of that had enabled the insane German politics from which Hitler had emerged. All of that is true. It is also a fact that British rearmament accelerated strongly under Chamberlain, much as he disliked it. For example, the fighter strength vastly increased and the radar chain that was the underlying reason for the defensive success of the Battle of Britain was built. Chamberlain died in early 1941, having endured his final battle with cancer with stoic courage, and having served under Churchill with efficiency and probity. He went silently to his grave, leaving no memoirs to defend him and no faction to champion his cause. Far worse men than he have been let off far more lightly.

The fact is that the German General Staff, terrified by what they considered Hitlers' recklessness, was planning a coup as Chamberlain was meeting with him in Munich. When Chamberlain caved in to Hitlers demands for the Sudetenland, the coup died stillborn. The excuse that Britain and France were unprepared for war in 1938 overlooks the fact that Germany was even more unprepared, which was why the German General Staff considered Hitler to be a reckless adventurer. Unfortunately, Germany made much better use of the time in between Munich and the Polish invasion then did the British, helped along greatly by the acquisition of the Skoda armament plants which they acquired after Czechoslovakia was overrun. A substantial number of the tanks that Germany deployed on the Western Front and that won the Battle of France were manufactured in those Skoda plants. By allowing Germany to acquire them without firing a shot, Chamberlain shot himself in the foot.

Turkey is officially a European country!

Turkey is 90% in Asia and Turks came from Turkistan, which is 100% in Asia!

May we, and may nobody our respective nations elect, ever be confronted with the situation or presented with the choices Neville Chamberlain had before him in October 1938 or March 1939.

Dale Husband said: We can argue all we want about what Chamberlain should or should not have done, but we must remember this: Neither he, nor the framers of that vengeful Versailles Treaty, had our advantage of hindsight to know the consequences of their actions in the future. In their minds, they were doing right and seeking peace. After World War II, we corrected most of those mistakes, and that's all we needed to do, then and now. As for "accomodation", that looks to me like merely a phrase for "accepting that (some) religious people can do science and defend science education just as well as atheists". It's not about saying all religious views are equal. If that was the case, we wouldn't be fighting creationism. Just because you are a theist doesn't mean you are idiotic, anti-science, or evil. I know many intelligent, caring and honorable theists of various types. As long as theists obey the common rules of scientific investigation and education, what's the problem?

This is not the place to discuss history, Herr Hellnick, but just to satisfy my curiosity, can you say if these understandings of the events of the summer of 1914 are the ones generally taught in Germany?

Dale expects that some atheists will castigate him for working to convince Muslims that their religion is not invalidated by the Theory of Evolution. Since this is exactly what happens when the same is attempted with Christians (by him or by others), I think it is a perfectly reasonable expectation, and no straw man.

Woodrow Wilson, from his "Peace without Victory" address:
"Victory would mean peace forced upon the loser, a victor's terms imposed upon the vanquished. It would be accepted in humiliation, under duress, at an intolerable sacrifice, and would leave a sting, a resentment, a bitter memory upon which terms of peace would rest, not permanently but only as upon quicksand. Only a peace between equals can last. Only a peace the very principle of which is equality and a common participation in a common benefit. The right state of mind, the right feeling between nations, is as necessary for a lasting peace as is the just settlement of vexed questions of territory or of racial and national allegiance."
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww15.htm

A timeline is on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_World_War_I
It details what I had said, although Russia's involvement is merely referred to as "mobilizing against" Austria-Hungary.

As for what is taught in German schools, I do not know, as I was mostly schooled in the U.S.A.

Woodrow Wilson was, of course, right about the Treaty of Versailles.

As to the immediate and proximate events that precipitated the Great War, I can only remark that my understanding of the fact differs.

Klaus Hellnick said:

Dale Husband said: We can argue all we want about what Chamberlain should or should not have done, but we must remember this: Neither he, nor the framers of that vengeful Versailles Treaty, had our advantage of hindsight to know the consequences of their actions in the future. In their minds, they were doing right and seeking peace. After World War II, we corrected most of those mistakes, and that's all we needed to do, then and now. As for "accomodation", that looks to me like merely a phrase for "accepting that (some) religious people can do science and defend science education just as well as atheists". It's not about saying all religious views are equal. If that was the case, we wouldn't be fighting creationism. Just because you are a theist doesn't mean you are idiotic, anti-science, or evil. I know many intelligent, caring and honorable theists of various types. As long as theists obey the common rules of scientific investigation and education, what's the problem?

President Wilson and many others knew FULL WELL how unjust the treaty of Versailles was, and that it would lead to another world war. It was the French and Russians (who actually started WW1)who demanded the right to pillage and starve Germany. For those unfamiliar with the history of WW1, the Serbs assassinated the leader of the Austro-Hungarian empire, to which they belonged. When the Austrians started reprisals (an internal matter), Russia declared war on Austria. This triggered a defense treaty with Germany, which then declared war on Russia, to defend Austria. The rest of Europe polarized and the US and England ended up siding with the PEOPLE WHO STARTED THE WAR!

I apologize - I didn't really mean to derail the thread by bringing up Neville Chamberlain and his folly (admittedly in retrospect) of appeasement.

I was just surprised by Ken Ham's quote which seemed to oppose accomodationism. Most theists - particularly the fundagelicals - are all for it, as it legitimizes their un-scientific / anti-scientific views of creationism as being a "theory" co-equal with evolution. This is the folly of accomodationism.

Many creationists - particularly the fundagelicals - think of "creationism versus evolution" as a battle. Pro-evolution accomodationists who don't see the controversy as a battle can't win the battle, because they don't even realize they're involved in a battle.

The foaming-at-the-mouth creationists see accomodations - such as the Clergy Project - with more reasonable theists as a victory in their "battle." The forces of scientific illiteracy such as the Dishonesty Institute welcome every such accomodation, which they see as another admission of weakness - thereby implying their side has become stronger. They see accomodationists as "useful idiots".

Paul Burnett said: I was just surprised by Ken Ham's quote which seemed to oppose accomodationism. ... The foaming-at-the-mouth creationists see accomodations - such as the Clergy Project - with more reasonable theists as a victory in their "battle."

Dave Luckett said: Dale expects that some atheists will castigate him for working to convince Muslims that their religion is not invalidated by the Theory of Evolution. Since this is exactly what happens when the same is attempted with Christians (by him or by others), I think it is a perfectly reasonable expectation, and no straw man.

Prithvi: "I can attest to the fact that most Muslims(regardless of their place of birth or living) believe ...."

Not likely. There are over 1.5 billion Muslims on earth, living in nearly all countries. Indonesia and India are among the countries with the most Muslims. It is not likely that you can attest to generalities about them except that they are Muslims.

Pete Dunkelberg said: Prithvi: "I can attest to the fact that most Muslims(regardless of their place of birth or living) believe ...." Not likely. There are over 1.5 billion Muslims on earth, living in nearly all countries. Indonesia and India are among the countries with the most Muslims. It is not likely that you can attest to generalities about them except that they are Muslims.

Take FL, one of our resident mouthpieces of standard fundy soundbites. One eventually grows tired of repetition of the same stuff over and over again and tunes him out....

I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen. -- R. Dawkins

By "debate", FL means he'll throw down all of his worn out soundbites and copypasta from the mouthbreather sites, toss in a few taunts and his idiotic "folksy" schtick, and keep what passes for his mind firmly sealed shut.

Yawn.

Dale Husband said: Exactly. Odd that Ichthyic and other atheists would be more tolerant of Islam than of Christianity. Or is that another "strawman"?

Dale Husband said: Just because you are a theist doesn't mean you are idiotic, anti-science...

Dale Husband: "You missed the part...."

Actually I didn't. But if you think sufficient foundation was given for the generalization, that's fine. We can disagree.
Perhaps Prithvi will give it a bit more thought, perhaps not.

Cheers.

Wolfhound said: By "debate", FL means he'll throw down all of his worn out soundbites and copypasta from the mouthbreather sites, toss in a few taunts and his idiotic "folksy" schtick, and keep what passes for his mind firmly sealed shut. Yawn.

Stanton said: Don't forget he also fails to present any evidence to support his tired inanity, as well as refuse to explain why his bigoted opinions, lies and inanity are even relevant.

FL said: But, you do bring up an issue that's very topical to the Clergy Letter Project in particular. The CLP been around for years now, but exactly WHAT have they accomplished, what have they actually DONE all these years, to rationally overcome the huge, specific, longstanding, and multiple roadblocks that make Evolution incompatible with Christianity? Nothing, it seems.

The CLP clergy don't appear to have moved the discussion forward at all, nor displaced any of the problems facing their compromise-position. They just do the same ole canned message, the same ole stale "CLP letter", the same ole boring "Evolution Sunday" media gig once a year, and they've never broke any real ground. They're like cheerleaders, harem-girls for Evolution. And it's like atheist Zimmermann usually does all the thinking for them when it comes to the CLP project.

It's like they're merely tools or dupes wearing nice clergy-collars, who somehow got sucked into supporting atheist Michael Zimmerman's little agenda.

Worse yet, as Peter Henderson pointed out, the CLP clergy are not even making headway regarding "compatibility" with the secular evolutionists like Richard Dawkins. If anything, it's gone the other way.

I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realized that about the age of sixteen. -- R. Dawkins

So are the CLP clergy convincing their secular evolutionists allies that evolution is compatible with Christianity? NO.

And nobody dares talk about it, but after all these years, exactly what effect have all these compromising CLP clergy had upon founder Michael Zimmermann's own atheist beliefs? NONE. Go figure.

Like I said, this clearly shows that the CLP clergy are just a bunch of dupes, tools, and sockpuppets. And I know that sounds rough, because after all these are hard-working pastors and ministers otherwise. They've got a lot of responsibility, a lot of education, and are probably helping a lot of people--in OTHER areas. But this CLP Project DOES actually make them look like useful idiots, (and 25-cent harem-girls too) for both Evolution and Atheism. I would like to see one of those CLP clergy show up in this PandasThumb forum and do a little debating. I really would. Where art thou? FL

Anytime, anywhere the dishonesty institute spouts out that they have 700 signators from "scientists" stating their objections to evolution, one needs only counter it with the CLP and the multitude of signators from the religious side stating their support for evolution. BTW, I haven't recently checked lately to see if the di has purged their 700 of dead people, i.e., people from the grave communicating with the di staff.

Science Wimp drooled:

Dale Husband said: Exactly. Odd that Ichthyic and other atheists would be more tolerant of Islam than of Christianity. Or is that another "strawman"?

Yep. Islam will be a bigger issue for many of us when it becomes as big a pain in the ass personally as Christianity is. Now you might question the wisdom of such a social/political strategy, but at least be honest about what it is when you do so.

Dale Husband said: Just because you are a theist doesn't mean you are idiotic, anti-science...

Perhaps, but being a Christian, I'm sorry to go all militant on you here, does. The story is fucking absurd in multiple dimensions. We can argue about compartmentalization all day, but on that subject, idiotic and anti-science is exactly what they are being. To say otherwise is simply intellectually dishonest. I'd wager that many atheists you'd label "militant" would gladly forever refrain from criticizing theists if the rest of you would forever refrain from pussyfooting around the absurdities that are all the Abrahamic religions. I'm certain at least one would.

DavidK said: Anytime, anywhere the dishonesty institute spouts out that they have 700 signators from "scientists" stating their objections to evolution, one needs only counter it with the CLP and the multitude of signators from the religious side stating their support for evolution. BTW, I haven't recently checked lately to see if the di has purged their 700 of dead people, i.e., people from the grave communicating with the di staff.

Paul Burnett said: I was just surprised by Ken Ham's quote which seemed to oppose accomodationism. Most theists - particularly the fundagelicals - are all for it, as it legitimizes their un-scientific / anti-scientific views of creationism as being a "theory" co-equal with evolution. This is the folly of accomodationism.

Stanton said: I mean, he constantly spews about how Christianity and Evolution are incompatible, yet, refuses to tell us where in the Bible Jesus specifically said that.

John Kwok said: Dale has made some valid points which you seem incapable of appreciating, relying instead on ad hominem attacks on him.

John Kwok said: Islam HAS BECOME AS BIG OF A PAIN IN THE ASS to us, and this started back in 1983 when Muslim terrorists killed United States marines in Beirut. Not to mention the bombing of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole, and the two World Trade Center attacks. Unfortunately you and some of your fellow atheists refuse to recognize this. Dale has made some valid points which you seem incapable of appreciating, relying instead on ad hominem attacks on him.

Dornier Pfeil said: Kwok, Actually it started way back after the First World War when the victorious powers divvied up the middle east for its oil resources instead of letting the very sensible plans of Lawrence take place. The West has it's own sordid history of corporate imperialism to be ashamed of. The Arabs plans even included an offer of accepting Jews into Palestine. If you want to lay blame you should get to the very roots of the problem.

Science Wimp barfed:

John Kwok said: Dale has made some valid points which you seem incapable of appreciating, relying instead on ad hominem attacks on him.

Isn't it cute when Kwok hits the wrong button on his canned replies list? Either that or his understanding of the phrase "ad hominem" is no better than his understanding of the word "personally". Oh, the mendacity!

Dornier Pfeil said: Kwok, Actually it started way back after the First World War when the victorious powers divvied up the middle east for its oil resources instead of letting the very sensible plans of Lawrence take place. The West has it's own sordid history of corporate imperialism to be ashamed of. The Arabs plans even included an offer of accepting Jews into Palestine. If you want to lay blame you should get to the very roots of the problem.

John Kwok said: Islam HAS BECOME AS BIG OF A PAIN IN THE ASS to us, and this started back in 1983 when Muslim terrorists killed United States marines in Beirut. Not to mention the bombing of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole, and the two World Trade Center attacks. Unfortunately you and some of your fellow atheists refuse to recognize this. Dale has made some valid points which you seem incapable of appreciating, relying instead on ad hominem attacks on him.

Mike Elzinga said:

Dornier Pfeil said: Kwok, Actually it started way back after the First World War when the victorious powers divvied up the middle east for its oil resources instead of letting the very sensible plans of Lawrence take place. The West has it's own sordid history of corporate imperialism to be ashamed of. The Arabs plans even included an offer of accepting Jews into Palestine. If you want to lay blame you should get to the very roots of the problem.

This is an often overlooked point that is hidden in the pettifoggery of patriotism and nationalism. Behind the economic engine that has made this country has been the acquisition and exploitation of strategic resources from around the entire globe. That requires armies, navies, and “negotiations” to protect “interests” and distribution systems. And unfortunately, too many of the “interests” have been those of some pretty ruthless industrialists who have had the means of keeping their ruthlessness out of the spotlight.

John Kwok said: I have better things to do with my time than react to a delusional GNU like yourself, but your observations about Dale are completely out of line, moron.

I started with: Gee, this should have been done several years ago. As a member of Care2, I ran a group dedicated to defending evolution and promoting proper science education: http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/evolution_education One of my strongest supporters in that group was a Muslim named Woodrow Fields: http://www.care2.com/c2c/people/profile.html?pid=493791899 I later repaid him by helping him set up and run a group detailing Muslim art: http://www.care2.com/c2c/group/Islamicart It was I who gave the group its title and specified its agenda and some of its rules, since Woodrow lacked experience in such matters. http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=7879&pst=379988 Expecting the atheist fanatics to start screaming again about "accomodation" and throwing stones at me for working with Muslims in 5......4......3......2.....1.....

My next point was: Why SHOULDN'T Islam be stopped from becoming the dominant religion of the entire world? I don't want Christianity to dominate the whole world either, and for the same reason; both religions are hopelessly corrupt and can only be trusted when they are politically disabled. Give either of them political power and we will see death, destruction, and social stagnation, just like 1000 years ago! Besides, Islam itself is an imperialist religion, as its own history shows. Those Muslim bigots are in for a looooooooooooong fight if they don't stop trying to rule the world.

Then I continued with: As for "accomodation", that looks to me like merely a phrase for "accepting that (some) religious people can do science and defend science education just as well as atheists". It's not about saying all religious views are equal. If that was the case, we wouldn't be fighting creationism. Just because you are a theist doesn't mean you are idiotic, anti-science, or evil. I know many intelligent, caring and honorable theists of various types. As long as theists obey the common rules of scientific investigation and education, what's the problem?

My next comment was: Odd that Ichthyic and other atheists would be more tolerant of Islam than of Christianity. Or is that another "strawman"?

Next, I had to deal with FL's stupidity: Sure, naturalistic evolution is incompatible with fundamentalist Christianity, but your assuming and repeating endlessly a claim based on only one understanding of evolution and one understanding of Christianity is bogus crap. Always was, always will be. Are you expecting the Christian clearly to all lie about evolution like you do? Saying that are serving the interests of atheists is like saying we were serving Joseph Stalin when we conquered Nazi Germany in World War II. How about we lock you and Dawkins together in a cell and see which one comes out alive the next day. [Note: I think FL is too cowardly to deal with someone like Dawkins directly, which is why he comes here instead.] It's not the intention of those clergy to convert people from atheism to Christianity, of course. People of all religious or non-religious views just need to be true to themselves, not hypocrites. And if Zimmerman converted to Christianity while still being an evolutionist, wouldn't you attack him anyway as a compromiser? What a nice chunk of libel FL spat out. Hey, if he really thinks the Bible is infallible, why isn't he a geocentrist?

Mike Elzinga said: Behind the economic engine that has made this country has been the acquisition and exploitation of strategic resources from around the entire globe. That requires armies, navies, and “negotiations” to protect “interests” and distribution systems.

I was just surprised by Ken Ham’s quote which seemed to oppose accomodationism. Most theists - particularly the fundagelicals - are all for it, as it legitimizes their un-scientific / anti-scientific views of creationism as being a “theory” co-equal with evolution. This is the folly of accomodationism.

John Kwok said: I have better things to do with my time than react to a delusional GNU like yourself...

John Kwok said: ...your observations about Dale are completely out of line, moron.

John Kwok said: Dornier, do you honestly think that the Allies would listen to a Royal Army captain who had spent his early career as a clerk in Alexandria? You must be kidding.

John Kwok said: As for the real start of our "Islam problem", I would point to the pivotal year of 1979 when these events happened: 1) Islamic Revolution in Iran which forced the Shah from power, his replacement by Ayatollah Khomeini and the birth of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

John Kwok said: 2) Storming of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Salafist Sunni Muslim terrorists who objected to the al-Saud's dynastic rule of Saudi Arabia and its overtures to the West.

John Kwok said: 3) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which began a neverending cycle of foreign invasion and civil war. In each of these cases, we are still living with their repercussions.

Dornier Pfeil said:

John Kwok said: Dornier, do you honestly think that the Allies would listen to a Royal Army captain who had spent his early career as a clerk in Alexandria? You must be kidding.

The astonishing ignorance demonstrated by this statement puts it on an equally competitive footing with "breathtaking inanity". I don't know if it deserves heaps of abuse or careful parsing but I am sure I would annoy Matt Young if I chose the former path. And there is, like a broken clock, a small grain of factualness to it. So... Heavens no. Politicians. Bureaucrats. Businessmen*. Diplomats. They are very good at creating the messes they then frequently have to toss in the laps of the military**. But then, when the problem has been solved, they shove the military aside and act like they actually deserve to recreate the problems all over again. Heaven forbid they should have followed the advice of the Lieutenant-Colonel who was an undisputed subject matter expert of the middle east and good enough to win their war for them, especially after Churchill's fiasco, but not good enough to tell them how to achieve a lasting peace in the region. It had nothing to do with any alleged shortcomings of a man who was a great deal more than a clerk and everything to do with the arrogance of a wrathful political/diplomatic corps. And Lawrence was not alone. Wilson was equally aware that not giving freedom to the middle east would have continuing, lingering, bad consequences.

John Kwok said: As for the real start of our "Islam problem", I would point to the pivotal year of 1979 when these events happened: 1) Islamic Revolution in Iran which forced the Shah from power, his replacement by Ayatollah Khomeini and the birth of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

And who do you think put the Shah into power? Do you even know what blowback is? If you expect love and respect from Iranians, who were perfectly aware that their democratically elected government had been overthrown by the U.S., to preserve British oil access and oil revenues, and replaced by a dictator, you are being too simplistic. And that was not the first instance of western interference in Iran. Only a decade earlier than the CIA overthrow, the allies violated Iran's neutrality so they could gain rail access to the USSR.

John Kwok said: 2) Storming of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Salafist Sunni Muslim terrorists who objected to the al-Saud's dynastic rule of Saudi Arabia and its overtures to the West.

Overtures to the West? That is rather mild. Again, who do you think had been supporting the Saud's ever since 1915 when they needed a counterweight to the Ottoman Turks? There were many claimants to power on the Arabian peninsula prior to WWI and the Sauds succeeded precisely because the British sided with them during WWI. Only a generation later the US took up the mantle of supporting a dictator in Arabia. If you take sides in a religious dispute, that is literally centuries old, supporting a dictatorship, expect to be hated by the oppressed peoples.

John Kwok said: 3) Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which began a neverending cycle of foreign invasion and civil war. In each of these cases, we are still living with their repercussions.

And after we used the Afghan people in our cold war, we dropped them like hot rocks. A little help to the people who had earned their freedom from soviet domination would have been a good thing. Another American mistake. Or do you think we should have abandoned the Afghanis to the Soviets because the are all just a bunch of militiant Islamofascists. Even your little thumbnail history for when WWI began is too simplistic. Recounting the details of who declared first and who marched when and which domino fell on which domino ignores the entire context of the international system that had been created bit by bit by the dominant powers over the period stretching from the end of the Seven's Years War till the end of the Napoleonic Wars. A system that was used to frustrate the minor powers throughout the 19th century. A system that could only end in war. A war that was enthusiastically and cheerfully prosecuted by all the participants from the highest leaders to the lowest privates. A war that no one wanted to stop no matter which side they were on. To pick just a single example, the French were still nursing their grudge over the defeat of 1871. My suggestion still stands. Pick up Niall Ferguson's "The War of the World" Science has often been metaphorically described as a wall with the scientists of each generation laying the bricks that form the foundation for later generations of scientist to stand on. History is no less a metaphorical wall. The decisions of the leaders of every generation are the bricks that form the wall the leaders of successive generations have to stand on. The sooner you moralising nationalist Islamophobes learn this the sooner we can get our economy and politics out of the oil fields of the middle east. But you can't because people like you think the U.S. is immaculate. Suggest to people like you that the opening shots of the Pacific half of WWII were fired in July 1853, in Tokyo Bay, by an American instead of on Dec 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor, by the Japanese and you go all ape about blaming the victim. *And I am quite happy, in this case, to be able to say- businessMEN. **The most recent example--GWB invades Iraq against the advice of his military, doesn't use as much force as they tell him to, and then turns to them when it all goes wrong.

I might add Dornier, that the Saudi "overtures to the West" did not begin in earnest until American and British geologists and oil companies discovered the Saudi oil fields around the time of World War II, and that the Americans and British were able to establish expartriate communities on Saudi Arabian territory; both of which irritated the more extreme Wahabbist Sunni Muslims who would become the Saudi Arabian contingent of the Salafi Islamofascist movement that arose in Egypt via the Muslim Brotherhood.

As for the Shah of Iran, his rule was relatively benign in stark contrast to the theocratic totalitarian dictatorship led by Ayatollah Khomeini; since you doubt this, then read that history, which has become a most fertile ground of source material for nonfiction books and novels.

As for Niall Ferguson, he's one of my favorite historians and I enjoyed reading the "War of the World", in which he does make a persuasive case that World War I and World War II were different phases of the same war (But that is true IF and ONLY IF you contend that the governments involved were quite similar for the major powers involved; I believe one could argue persuasively that Ferguson is incorrect, simply because one of the most important reasons for World War II was the Nazi totalitarian dictatorship in Germany. Had that been neutralized either internally or externally at or before the time of the Munich Agreement,there's a reasonably good chance that the only major conflict might have been an Anglo-American war against the Japanese Empire.).

testing