While the religious right eats away at the edges of American culture I had thought their influence on education, particularly science education, was confined, primarily to Kansas, where we get to watch the ongoing tug of war for control of the state school board. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this saga, let me fill you in a little.
In 2000, a "creationist" centered school board removed evolution from the state science curriculum. Luckily there was huge public outcry, (even from some Kansas parents) which led to the removal of this creationist minded board who were all up for reelection, and the reinstatement of evolution in the curriculum. But these religious zealots are not easily thwarted. In a laterelection, they won enough seats to get a 6-4 majority.
As Lawrence M. Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University points out, The creationists, with their changing political tactics are an excellent example of evolution at work. Creation science evolved into "intelligent (an oxymoron) design" which then morphed into "teaching the controversy" and after their recent election loss again in Kansas and the loss of a court case in Dover PA, followed by defeats in Ohio, I am sure they will change again until they can find some crack they can ooze through like primordial slime.
But more troubling than their wholesale attack against science, is their shear unadulterated stupiidity. The Chairman of the Kansas school board, Steve Abrams, (who claims to be a veterinarian and goes by "Dr.") has openly stated that he thinks God created the universe 6,500 years ago. This is a denial of essentially ALL modern scientific knowledge. How did such a person become a chairman of a state school board? The age of the earth and the universe is not a matter of religious faith. Just as whether the earth is flat or round is no longer a matter of debate.
If one were to truely believe that the earth is 6,500 years old, as "Dr." Steve esposes would require a complete denial of all the results of modern physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and geology. One would have to think that airplanes fly because of some magic trick, rather than by the laws of physics and modern engineering. But apparently this is the world that not only the Kansas school board lives in, but shockingly it is the world that more than 50% of the American people, and these are adult people, not children, live in.
As reported in this weeks NYTimes, in a survey conducted in 2005 in the United States and 32 European countries, when asked whether the statement "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals" was true or false the United States had the second highest percent of adults who thought the statement was false. Only Turkey expressed more doubts about evoluton than the good old US of A.
The list of countries whose population (in the top 5 it's close to 100%) believes in evolution in far greater numbers than ours is a follows. Read it and weep: Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, France, Japan, Britain, Norway, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Italy (do you BELIEVE! ITALY!), the Netherlands, Hungary, Luxembourg, Ireland (The Catholics and the Protestants are no match for our home grown Creationists), Slovenia, Finland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Portugal, Malta, Switzerland, Slovak Republic, Poland, Austria, Croatia, Romania, Greece, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Latvia, Cyprus, (Then US, followed, by lastly, Turkey).
As the world continues to evolve, we here in America are devolving, back to the dark ages of magical thinking and mysticism.
|
|
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 98 ( 1 removed by Cynthia C. )
It won't be long before scientific advances, leading to useful technology, start coming from other countries, that are not caught up in the current anti-science trend. The coarse will be reversed when a majority of americans recognize that we are falling behind, much they way science and math education got a big boost in the sixties, after the Russians launched Sputnik.
I too feel frustrated by those that exclude the possibility that evolution is a reality, particularly since I myself think it is. BUT; I feel equally frustrated by those that think "intelligent design" is impossible. They are simply not mutually exclusive notions.
For those that think the bible slanders evolution I say: What exactly do you think it is implying by the phrase; "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind...".
And to those that think the notion of a creator is silliness I say; At least wait until someone comes up with something even remotely like a reasonable explanation for the existence of life. We've had many years and vast capability to manipulate matter, and have utterly failed to come up with anything vaguely resembling a created life form, why is it silly to think it is possible that life did not spontaneously result from minerals drifting about in a random soup?
Neither group of "fundamentalists" has a monopoly on obstinacy.
"any means necessary" ?
I hope you don't include becoming ourselves arrogant and dogmatic.
It is unfortunate that the modern "theory of evolution" is so often linked with abiogenesis. Darwin's original work was titled "Origins of the Species" not origins of life on earth. As we work backwards in time from complex to simpler and simpler forms of life it is natural to concude that some simple organism must have been first and to speculate on its origins. Whether the first living organism arose spontaneously in the primordial soup, was placed there by aliens or was conjured up by an Intelligent Designer remains in the realm of speculation and philosophy and does not invalidate those aspects of the principales of evolution that scientists currently regard as fact.
Conversely, intelligent design is pure science since it simply analyzes the complexity of our human body and concludes that there is no way that such an intricate and infinitely complex machine could be created except by design.
The book "Darwinism under the Microscope" by James P. Gills, M.D, and Tom Woodward, Ph.D. does quite a good job of explaining all this in layman's terms.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
The Shi'a want us all back into the seven hundreds, and the Christians don't want to believe there was a stone age, let alone the fact that everyone on earth now at this moment share the DNA from one man that was born in Africa some seventy thousands of years ago.
But so what. They all can say that it's all a lie with their ignorance and that's about it.
The idea that the universe has inherent order and structure doesn't necessarily require intelligence behind that order. Or alternatively the idea of "Intelligent Design" doesn't necessarily require an intelligence that is a self aware being.
Also the idea that the universe is ordered definitely does not require a belief that the account of creation in the first book of the Torah is accurate and historically true.
The problem is when the idea of "Intelligent Design" as a theory of primal origin and the belief in the Torah account of creation as automatically assumed to be a necessary outcome is the fallacy.
If the proponents of "Intelligent Design" honestly were interested in the scientific method they would get a fair hearing by the scientific community.
The trouble those proponents run into is that they want to have not only "Intelligent Design" but additionally the Biblical account of creation as being valid.
What science correctly rejects is the account of Creation as stated in the first book of Torah - it fails as a source text for science.
First, I'm not convinced that our understanding of the natural universe has progressed to the point that we can say much of anything about our prehistoric past to the certainty that we can say we know precisely how and when the earth and universe were created, and definitely not to the point that we ought to be killing each other and "enslaving" the rest of us over it.
Second, I'm not convinced that we have framed our ancient religious writings in their proper context (that of the knowledge and cultural framework of each individual author) such that our understanding is to the certainty that we can say we know precisely how and when the earth and universe were created, and definitely not to the point that we ought to be killing each other and "enslaving" the rest of us over it. (After all, the vast majority of mankind's original religious texts were written back when the world was still flat, and the sun and moon and all the stars revolved around us....)
Perhaps we should relax and observe as the scientists and the religionists battle it out. There's really not enough accurate information out there yet. And certainly not enough to be killing each other over.
Now, if we could just convince the fundamentalists of all stripes of this....
I love what you say ! I might have offered a wider concept for others to consider, but I am sure mine would have got a lot of argument...your idea is by FAR the BEST solution !!!
My personal beliefs will go unannounced in this comment as it would immediately conjecture doubt on one side or the other.
Lets look at it this way: We have two sides each unwilling to assume the other is correct. Regardless if we are talking about the Yankees and the Redsox or Intelligent Design or Evolution. The subject is moot. Yankee fans end up on one side while the Redsox end up on their turf.
The question, however, is; Should the Yankee and RedSox fans prior to being fans be presented with both options. You can watch old games; research the players; ask your elders; even debate with your friends. Regardless you are still given the option to decide. One team vs. the other.....one theory vs. the other.
This, I believe, is called an intelligent choice......you take the facts presented and make an INTELLIGENT or Educated DECISION.....nothing more nothing less...
Lets all be a little more open-minded....
Ben is probably unaware of a court case where the text book promoting intelligent design contained essentially the same information and sometimes exact copies of the information as a creationist text book the intelligent design book was meant to replace. So ruled by a Kansas court.
Marcus fails to note, creationists require no facts, and rigidly avoid any in conflict with their beliefs.
John Knight, I would have to ask you why is the idea of "creator" needed?
Cynthia, Well written article, but the thoughtless and non-questioning will remain so.
Since when have chemists relied on religious dogma to discover how components in the world of chemistry react?
Since when have creationists developed principles and tools that can be applied to solve concrete, real life problems?
I have heard or read NOTHING in all the appologists for creationism or "intelligent design" based on any process that was grounded in scientific principles that demand proof.
Marcus, what you are talking about is "Opinion". Of course people can have differring "Opinions" about what ball team the like. That was a totally absurd analogy that just demonstrates my point. You have no idea what science is or how scientists operate. You also do not understand the meaning of the word "theory" as it is used by REAL scientists.
I've been saying this for a while now.
Great article, Cythia.
The point is the rest of the developed world all believe in science and evolution over religious belief and dogma. Here in the united states we seem to be falling back into this realm of "magical" thinking. This is part of many so called "primitive" cultures who do not have the tools that science provides them to understand the universe.
However, as soon as folks in the "undeveloped" world find the means to send their children to college, their education and new found knowledge leads them out of the darkness of ignorance and sickness and short life spans that usually accompany a society driven by it's "beliefs" rather by scientific knowledge.
That said, it belies their fundamental belief in science. Someone of faith alone could not do what they do.
And so I guess I have made your point for you. Accomplishments and capabilities we consider civilized are nearly always a result of the advancement of scientific knowledge.
"Fletcher, Would you rather have your heart operated on by an "intelligent design" believing doctor who didn't go to med school or study biology, but got his degree from some divinty school, or one of those right wingy colleges where they mostly teach religious belief."
This is the problem with this discourse today....Why do we have to take it to extremes?
If an objective alien were to come and read this thread with no exposure to either side, our friendly objective alien would have to come to the conclusion that you Cynthia, not the crazy concervative right, is the close minded zealot.
No one in their right mind would prescribe to the idea of going to a minister for heart surgery. Can you remind me where "Intelligent Design" stipulates that?
I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. However, if you were simply reading through these threads one would have to come to the conclusion that your stance is the very one your trying to condemn.
Strange....
1. Dr. Jonathan Wells has done us all- the scientific community, educators and the wider public-- a great service. In the book Icons of Evolution, he has brilliantly exposed the exaggerated claims and deceptions that have persisted in standard textbook discussions of biological origins from many decades, in spite of contrary evidence."
- Dean H. Kenyon, Prfoessor of Biology--San Fran Univ.
Note about Jonathan Wells, he has his Ph.D in Molecular Biology from California Berkley and Ph.D in Religous Studies from Yale.
2. Michael J. Behe - Ph.D Biochemistry-Lehigh University-
Wrote Darwin's Black Box:
Mike Behe....makes an overwhelming case against Darwin on the Biochemical level. No one has done this before.....
- David Berlinski, author of A Tour of Calculus
3. The Book Science and Evidence For Design In The Universe
Written by the following authors:
William A Dembski --Ph.D Mathematics from the University of Chicago, Ph.D in Philosophy from the University of Illinois, M. Div From Princeton
He is the professor of Conceptional Foundations of Science --Baylor University
Stephen C. Meyer-- Ph.D in the History of Science from Cambridge University
4. Michael Denton wrote the book: Evolution a Theory in Crisis
Michael Denton is a Molecular Biologist and MD. and is world renowed for his biological research.....
I don't about everyone else but I am willing to be the house on the fact that when it seems too black and white it always is........
Darwin's Black Box got a scathing review in Scientific American by none other than Martin Gardner
Behe, Dembski, and Wells are all employed (in fact they lead) the Discovery Institute a Seattle based organization with strong ties to Evangelical Christianity.
If these are the only scientists you got in the ID camp, its a pretty weak lot.
Shall I start reciting the credentials of the hundreds of thousands of Biologists, Geneticists, Geologists, Paleontologists, Archaelologists and Zoologists who think ID is pretty much garbage?
You wrote: "strong ties to Evangelical Christianity" oh no....God forbid scientists who have a belief in God.....uh oh! As for your attempt to discredit someone based off of their belief system...I assume the "hundreds of thousands" you refer to should be discredited if they are hindu, muslim, agnostic, or athiest?
My only point, since you have once again decided to take it to an extreme, is lets not take things for face value. Do your own research, allow other ideas to infiltrate that wonderous place we call a brain, and make a decision.
Once you make that decision, however, DON'T hold it over someonelse's head, as the premise of the original article we are all responding to so vehmently stands against. That simple.......
I will reiterate for a matter of clarification.....that I do not stand firmly in one camp or the other, but I am definitely willing to see both sides. Which unfortunately seems to be the minority.......
It is a form of mysticism that has been the source of most of the transforming knowledge and wisdom that most take for granted in this world.
It was the mystic that was the prophet of religion, it was the mystic in science that made the greatest breakthroughs in that field.....metaphysics is basically the study of the transcendent realm on a non-personal level, metaphysics was the forerunner of both science and religion. It is metaphysics that was split off into two branches when the world became desirous of more objectivity involving only the 5 senses. Religion speaks of and claims the transcendent, but in actuality, most of it is rather objective.
So it is the realm of the subjective that actually has the most power and ultimate effect upon this world...but the world is ignorant of that...or very misinformed at best.
So learn more about the subjects that you knock, they may just be the source of information you may someday come to cherish and love.........like your politicians, or even religious attitudes, some are far more superior than others..careful that you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater..... Peace, j
If science was anything like the childish imagery you worship, I would not be able to openly defy you to produce a single coherent explanation for any fundamental physical phenomena in the universe. Believing some guy somewhere in a lab coat has got it all figured out, is idol worship. If science possessed such wisdom they would most certainly tell us. But they really and truly don't.
The relentless stream of mindless blather from science worshipers is nauseating. Medical advances are against religion? Have you not noticed the St. prefix in the names of thousands of hospitals? Do you honestly think there are not many thousands of doctors that believe in God? Do you honestly think you are in danger if your surgeon is one of them?
And if you think science has not uncovered mystical qualities in the universe you are sadly mistaken. Quantum physics has revealed that the universe changes as a result of simply being observed. That's right sports fans, your team has scored a point for the mystics. For over a hundred years, intense research and experimentation has strained to figure out why we can not observe the fundamental material of the universe without causing it to become ambiguous. And absolutely no rational explanation has arisen. None.
Sure, you can say, "I bet science is gonna figure out the universe eventually", be my guest. But to think your I.Q. jumps 20 points cause you blindly cheer for science, and deride religion, is petty egotism.
So a sneak peek of what I have on this subject.
Marus, I bet that many of the scientists who believe in evolution, also believe in God, and even are actively religious. Most people, including myself, see no conflict between believing in God and accepting evolution. One is physical and one is metaphysical.
The only people that seem to have a problem are the fundamentalists who take the Bible literally. They are a small minority of religious people who use deceptive tactics and logical fallacies to mislead the public into thinking ID has intellectual merit, when it really doesn't.
And Jerry, you and I are possibly on the same wavelength, just slightly out of phase.
Lets just say I believe that spirituality plays an important role in the evolution of humans... who are still evolving by the way.
"John Knight, I would have to ask you why is the idea of "creator" needed?"
I didn't think I was saying the idea was needed. I'm not sure what your question is asking.
The separation of church and state is one of the most important provisions of our constitution. To see the dangers of mingling religion and politics all we have to do is look at the world's chronic hotspots.
It's high time the IRS started doing its job getting these right wing organizations back in their churches where they can only "dumb" their own kind.
David...
"...It's high time the IRS started doing its job getting these right wing organizations back in their churches where they can only "dumb" their own kind. ..."
I like your suggestion !
He was an atheist as well as a scientist and he took the time to compute the probability of Randomness (Darwin's theory of evolution) creating a single protein molecule. He computed the time required to produce this event as 1.3 trillion years. With the entire universe only 13 billion years old, not enough time has elapsed to create even one protein molecule. Hoyle did not compute the time required to by chance create an entire living organism much less a human being. Hoyle concluded "The probability of life origination at random is so utterly
miniscule as to make it absurd." Although an atheist, he said "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology ... The
numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
He is not the only world renowned-scientist to so conclude, but for a life-long atheist to do so is noteworthy.
For a little more hard facts on this issue take a look at my latest article HERE
For David, separation of church and state is not in the constitution. It was created by the Supreme Court.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
I see no reason that one cannot go with the other, and having to be in one camp only as closed minded. I have always liked the saying "The Lord works in mysterious ways" and perhaps evolution is one of those ways. There is much we do not know the answers to.
I agree that there's really no reason why a belief in God and a "belief" in evolution should be exclusive. God works in mysterious ways, yes? Why not through evolution? The point is that the whole Master Designer issue is a no-brainer, because the existence of a master designer, can never -- BY DEFINITION -- be proven, and science deals only with that which is at least potentially provable. So intelligent design, by definition, falls in the area of faith. That's not a bad thing, by any stretch -- just a different thing. And as someone else pointed out, it's only the fundamentalist Christians, with their literal (and, btw, selective) interpretation of the Bible which must have it be an either/or discussion.
I suggest reading philosopher Ken Wilbur for a discussion of this very subject -- the separation of the world of science from the world of spirit. They are two different domains of inquiry, each with their own rules and goals and outcomes, and we consistently (and, he argues) incorrectly collapse the two domains, so that we have the kind of "fundamentalism" on both sides which is really counterproductive. I mean, a scientist can't definitely say that there isn't a God, any more than a religionist can say that there definitely IS, because the notion of God exists in the spiritual, not scientific domain. Neither domain is inherently superior -- both have their value in our lives -- but when you collapse the two, mischief ensues.
I must say that most of the conversations I've read about the Bible baffle me. If we were talking any other religion, we would look at their holy books, their stories about gods and goddesses and demons, and understand that they are myths, powerful stories that primitive people told to help them understand the world. That they have their value as fables (stories with a moral), that as literature, some of them are beautiful, but they are basically myths. But as they say, a fish can't see the water it swims in, and some Christians have the most remarkable ability to avoid any rational thought when it comes to the Bible.
Much of what you say makes sense, but some clearly does not...
"because the existence of a master designer, can never -- BY DEFINITION -- be proven,"
...uh, not quite true. If there is a God, "BY DEFINITION" he can prove it whenever he wishes.
And again, If there is a God, "BY DEFINITION" the stories in any book are not constrained to myth.
Those that do not believe in God tend to assume more than is logical
So has God "proven" to us he exists? This a circular argument. Some folks "see" God in a grill cheese sandwich, or a chemical condensation on the inside of a window. Then when this "evidence" is spotted more believers congregate to "witness" the "evidence". TADA! see! God exists.
Well, you've just proved how completely *ignorant* you are on the subject of evolution because it is NOT about "Randomness."
Species evolve in reaction to external stimuli. A key point in the theory of evolution is the concept of "survival of the fittest," meaning those mutations in a species that better support its survival will inevitably result in more offspring, thus encouraging more of the same trait to become predominant in a species.
For example, a bug that is normally brown gets eaten a lot by a certain bird. But, perhaps certain bug offspring are a lighter brown than the other bugs. These lighter brown offspring are harder to see, and so get eaten less. They reproduce more and more, and maybe some of those offspring start to develop different colors, like green or something. The green ones blend in with the foliage more, making them even harder to see, which means they get eaten less and survive more. Over generations, the bug that was initially brown becomes green.
THAT'S what evolution says. There is absolutely nothing RANDOM about it. It simply states that those genetic traits that support maximum survival are the ones that drive the species forward. Those genetic traits that do not support survival automatically wither away as those animals die because of the weaker traits.
It's really a simple concept and has NOTHING TO DO WITH how the first protein came about on the planet.
Anyway, it is a vital concept and every effort should be extended to prevent the right wing from eroding it one iota.
...uh, not quite true. If there is a God, "BY DEFINITION" he can prove it whenever he wishes.>>
Let me be more clear, John. The ONLY way that the existence of God can be proven IS by God revealing him/her/itself. If God decides not to be revealed absolutely and unquestionably, then no amount of scientific research is going to "discover" God, since God is superior by definition in power. So he can't be discovered by scientific method. And if God DOES decide to reveal itself, then that will be an act of revelation that occurs outside the realm of human reason. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the existence of God can't be proven scientifically, or with human arguments. So any conversation that includes God belongs in the realm of faith, not science.
<<And again, If there is a God, "BY DEFINITION" the stories in any book are not constrained to myth.>>
That's a big leap, there. If there are different stories about God, and there is only one God, then only one story can be accurate. But in any case, I wasn't arguing for a logical (as in philosophical) case that the Bible is full of myths. I'm arguing that from a plain old-fashioned common sense point of view. Look, there are things that are a matter of faith (was Jesus the son of God? That's a matter of faith, not of fact), and while I might not share them, I have no problem with someone who believes something (like Jesus' divinity) as a matter of FAITH. What I do have a problem with is people trying to seriously argue that the world is only 5,000 years old, that there actually were two first people called Adam and Eve, that Noah built an ark and put two of every species on it -- like that.
<<Those that do not believe in God tend to assume more than is logical.>>
I hope you're not directing that comment at ME, bub! ;-) You're making a big leap by assuming that I do not believe in God. See, that's one of the leaps of the "religious" -- that anyone who disagrees with their point of view is an atheist.
Let's just say that we have a different perception of the "deity" for lack of a better word.
I have known many atheists, and I'll tell you two things about them. One, they have their own moral code, not one that has been thrust upon them. Generally, this code is of a high order. And two, they don't break their code because there is no "higher being" to forgive them and tell them "it's okay, just try not to do it again."
If you are ever in a foxhole, you should pray that the soldier beside you is an atheist.
You present a perfect example of the desperate urge that non-believers tend to have to try just about anything to make themselves feel superior. Of course I never said or thought anything of the kind, and it is a wee bit worrisome that you so easily navigate such a circle without hesitation. Can't you see how different my words are to that crap? Speak to me please, not your fantasy images.
Much good reasoning again, I only caution care in using absolutes, i.e.
"So any conversation that includes God belongs in the realm of faith, not science".
This might be true but for the need to impose some moral standards at times on those that bet a bit carried away with "scientific" boundaries. As you said, the Books are a valuable source of perspective.
As for the number of truly inspired Holy books? Could be 0, could be 10, or ? The existence of one such Book would neither preclude nor require the existence of more than one. People write things all the time.
As regards Faith, again we must be careful of our words;
"Look, there are things that are a matter of faith (was Jesus the son of God? That's a matter of faith, not of fact),"
Here again, no, He was either the son of God or He was not, a matter of fact. But, yes, our acceptance of such a statement is clearly a matter of faith.
Many such "smudgings" of logic have been forced into common thinking by those who wish to turn belief in God into an embarrassing thing. I did not mean to imply you originated such logical obscurity, only that you should be wary it.
You make a strong charge with no evidence, why would you do such a thing?
Do you think it was the people that believe in God that introduced these obfustifications?
Prove it.
This might be true but for the need to impose some moral standards at times on those that bet a bit carried away with "scientific" boundaries. As you said, the Books are a valuable source of perspective.>>
I think I'm not making my point clearly. There is no "moral standard" implied in what I've said. I'm speaking to the nature of science as a method of research, and what it can deal with and what it cannot. Science cannot prove the existence of God (since God would always win at "hide and seek"), so God is not an appropriate object for study, using scientific inquiry. They're just two different fields. It's like trying to say fix your car with the skills you use in a dancing class. This is not to imply that there might not be a Final Creator at the end of the road; just that science cannot discover it and is limited to what it CAN discover, just as faith, properly understood, is limited in what it can speak to.
<<The existence of one such Book would neither preclude nor require the existence of more than one. People write things all the time.>>
Exactly. PEOPLE write things all the time. But if you think your holy book is THE word of God, and someone has a book that contradicts yours, you are in the position of saying that their book is false. But if you understand that people write things all the time, that they attempt to make sense of the world in their books, then there is room for innumerable books.
<<"Look, there are things that are a matter of faith (was Jesus the son of God? That's a matter of faith, not of fact),"
Here again, no, He was either the son of God or He was not, a matter of fact. But, yes, our acceptance of such a statement is clearly a matter of faith.>>
Sorry, it's a matter of fact insofar as you cannot KNOW if Jesus is the son of God until you die and all questions are, presumably, answered. Until that moment, you can only "believe," not "know." Again, there's nothing wrong with belief, but the constant collapsing of the domains of faith and knowledge by both religionists and atheists is what causes all the mischief.
Many such "smudgings" of logic have been forced into common thinking by those who wish to turn belief in God into an embarrassing thing. I did not mean to imply you originated such logical obscurity, only that you should be wary it.
Natural selection sounds great, but how could natural selection produce the miracle of sight? Sight is made up of literally hundreds of pieces and processes. all of which must be present before any animal or human could see? The answer is that the pieces would be created by randomness, but none would be usable until they all were present. Thus natural selection could not have created sight.
I stand accused of being ignorant. I admit that I feel honored.
For David, there are no blessings for us with the separation of church and state doctrine created by the Supreme Court. The constitution was intended to stop the federal government from creating or supporting a religion. It also intended to protect our individual rights to practice religion. The separation of church and state doctrine has been used to limit our rights to practice our religion or even to recognize that there is a God. We have lost the one right regarding religion that the Constitution tried hard to protect.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
No, it's just that you are completely missing the point.
First off, you erroneously assume that just because someone believes in the theory of evolution, this means they do not believe in God. This does not follow whatsoever.
There are plenty of people who believe God used the method of evolution to create the species we currently have here on the planet.
Second, you continue to attempt to deny ALL parts of evolutionary theory based on your "irreducible" paradigm, as if that magically meant everything Darwin said was wrong.
This is false reasoning.
The fact is, natural selection is observable in nature and does exist. It can be, however, part of a GREATER whole. It is not the end all and be all explanation of life on earth. It is one aspect of how life works here. It does not need to explain every aspect of how an eyeball developed...because in the LEAST you must acknowledge that natural selection does play a small part of life here.
As I said on your article, we can observe "survival of the fittest" happening TODAY when we see strains of bacteria becoming resistent to antiobiotics. We also see it when bugs become resistent to pesticides. This wasn't God's direct hand coming in and changing the species! This was *natural selection* happening. It is OBSERVABLE. It is REAL.
And you don't need to be an atheist to believe in it. It can ALSO be a part of God's plan.
As for this comment:
"The separation of church and state doctrine has been used to limit our rights to practice our religion or even to recognize that there is a God."
That is the biggest load of crap ever. Public schools are not here to teach YOUR PERSONAL BELIEFS that are not based in scientific fact. If it teaches YOUR beliefs, then the school will have to teach ALL religious beliefs.
How would you like it if the school taught Scientology doctine? Their idea (I believe) is that humans were put here by aliens. Hell, that makes just as much sense, so why don't we teach that too?
I certainly agree with much of what you say, my problem as I've said, was with statements that are absolutist in nature. I wasn't trying to argue your basic point, but to resist the "slippery slope"effect.
The concept of a supreme being is a profound one, with truly vast ramifications. If God does indeed exist, many statements that seem perfectly sensible without taking into account the far reaching consequences of that existence loose meaning. For example;
"But if you understand that people write things all the time, that they attempt to make sense of the world in their books, then there is room for innumerable books."
If there is in FACT a God, he might very well have inspired writing of sacred text, it's well within his power, by definition. If he did so, those particular writings are unique, by definition. Other books, which He did not inspire, would not be equivalent or belong in the same class of objects. So while one may personally find "room for innumerable books", the very concept that all are equivalent, is a subtle denial that God inspired the writing of sacred text at all.
The fact that you or I cannot prove he inspired sacred text is obvious, but when speaking on such matters, some care is needed to avoid reducing the concept of God to the concept of a belief in God.
Again, you can see the subtle denial effect in your statement about Christ;
"Look, there are things that are a matter of faith (was Jesus the son of God? That's a matter of faith, not of fact),"
If there is a God, it is well within his power, by definition, to produce a unique human being particularly close in relation to Himself. Jesus either was, or was not, such a being. To imply that our inability to prove he was unique, is equivalent to a factual statement that he was not, is to subtly deny the concept of God, and once again replace it with the concept of a belief in God.
If God exists he is, by definition, independent of our belief in him. The fact that we have doubts about him, would not mean his existence was diminished. The fact that various people hold different views of his nature, would not mean he didn't roughly match one, or none, of those views.
Your reasoning about how the concept of God ought to be treated by a diverse society, and it's science, make perfect sense to me, but extending our logic to absolutist statements about God, his nature, his doings, or his writings is in my opinion presumptuous. I for one hesitate to presume.
Did you ever see the episode of "Friends" where Phoebe pulls Ross's chain by claiming she didn't believe in evolution? VERY funny!
Where did you see that Ben stipulated you couldn't believe in God and still believe in Evolution? I must have missed that in his comments.....actually I take that back, I don't think its there...
And for everyone else that is moaning about not enough separation between church and state. Here is a news flash....the reason we can write to gather, criticise our president, practice whatever religion we so choose, do all the things we do on a daily basis is due to our forefathers' willingness to fight for that right. Guess what folks, those gents back in 1700's America weren't muslims, scientologists, or athiests, they were good old fashioned Christians. Moreover, that little document they wrote (the constitution) its a Christian document based off of Christian values, norms and mores. So like it or not, believe in it or not, want your children to hear or not, this is a Christian country. Deal with.....
"Those that do not believe in God tend to assume more than is logical."
But, of course, your statement is unsupportable, as is all bigotry....
I must commend you on your careful logic and use of terms. I think that if Ben takes the time to consider your words with equal care, as I hope he does, he will be able to see that there is no need to defend God against evolution.
It is well within reason to think that whatever role God might play in the existence of various life forms, he might have very wisely provided for changing environmental circumstances. Genetics itself would bare witness to such an intent.
You have proved, in my mind, both your ability to reason well, and your ability to consider the reasoning of another. I am honored to be held in agreement by such a one, thank you.
This does not speak to my own religious beliefs but it might help to highlight that this should not be an argument about religion or belief in God versus evolution. Rather that there is evidence of narrow mindedness on the part of Intelligent Design in that it ignores this concept of evolution being a part of something bigger by focusing on a very literal interpretation of the bible.
Scary stuff.
Asking me to prove that it is those that do not believe in God, that have introduced language that belittles those that believe, is so utterly unnecessary as to be a silly proposition. It is also akin to demanding a woman who was raped to prove she didn't ask for it.
Such language is so prevalent that I can easily grab something as handy as the conclusion or the article we comment on now;
"As the world continues to evolve, we here in America are devolving, back to the dark ages of magical thinking and mysticism."
You perhaps see this as a simple, matter of fact statement of truth. Such is your right. But I could easily produce an article that points out the pillage and mutilation of our planet and it's people, and the murder of hundreds of millions, by Godless monsters that feel no restraint to their greed and lust for power. Would I be justified in saying this is what results from the abandonment of a belief in God? Would I be right if I blamed all atheists, and took it upon myself to accuse them of plunging the world into rudderless chaos?
First of all, you've changed your statement.....the old bait and switch we've seen many times here on Gather. I don't recall you saying anything about belittling anyone in the statement I asked you to support - and somehow this now relates to a woman who's been raped....???? Your logic seems a little warped, although that's a nifty move to cloak yourself as the savior of victimized women.
Frankly, I see America moving towards the dark ages of religious thinking with a bunch of John Knights leading the charge, and that is a very dangerous path.
His entire premise of "irreducible complexity" is based on the notion that complex physical structures such as DNA or a brain could not exist without the hand of God behind them.
Of course, if one follows that line of logic, one must then look beyond God and wonder how such a complex, omnipotent being came about in the first place...at some point, SOMETHING came from NOTHING, which is totally bizarre when you think about it.
"Guess what folks, those gents back in 1700's America weren't muslims, scientologists, or athiests, they were good old fashioned Christians. Moreover, that little document they wrote (the constitution) its a Christian document based off of Christian values, norms and mores. So like it or not, believe in it or not, want your children to hear or not, this is a Christian country. Deal with....."
Here's a newsflash for YOU, Marus. Just because our forefathers were Christian, this does not mean America is a theocratic Christian nation. They specifically created a *secular* nation because of the religious tyranny they left in England, which was a theocractic state with a state-sanctioned religion.
Our forefathers were *opposed* to state-sanctioned religion on principle.
So get a clue. America is NOT a Christian nation. It is a secular nation with diverse religious beliefs. DEAL WITH IT.
I have not so much as ventured a personal opinion on the matter of God's existence, much less called for a march on anything, save perhaps irrational ranting.
"at some point, SOMETHING came from NOTHING, which is totally bizarre when you think about it"
Quite true, one way or the other, we are faced with a bizarre reality, and those on any side of this conundrum would be wise to dispel any notion they may have ideas or allegiances that raise them above the mysteries, or the ignorance.
Guess what, Marus, a good many of them weren't Christians either. That's just one of those myths that people like you use to justify your attempts to create a theocracy in this country.
MOST of the founding fathers were, in fact, deists, NOT Christians. They believed in "The Divine Clockmaker," a deity who created the world and then left it alone to run on its own. They were men of the Enlightenment, The Age of Reason. They respect intellect and reasoning, not religious tyrannny. They designed a Constitution to specifically protect the people against the religious tyranny that fundamentalist Christians are attempting to create today.
Ever heard of The Jefferson Bible? Thomas Jefferson took a copy of the New Testament and deleted all references to anything "miraculous" or "supernatural" so that what was left was the philosophy of Jesus, his teachings. That may be a person who respected Jesus, but that's not a "Christian."
The Founding Fathers were far from perfect. The fact that many of them were slave owners is as dramatic an example of that as you'll ever need. We are no more bound to their supposed "Christianity" than we are to their notions of white or male superiority. What the Founding Fathers did in their personal lives is irrelevant to what is stated in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution specifically states that the government shall not establish a state religion -- not even a de facto state religion, sorry.
Our founding fathers knew that without inner restraints and inner virtues, people cannot prevent themselves from pandering to their darker instincts. They also knew that the doctrine of original sin was the only philosophy validated by 3500 years of human history and that without a shared set of values our republic could not stand. So, while they protected us against government interference of religion, they knew that belief in a higher power was absolutely necessary.
For Stephanie, thanks for demonstrating that your rejection of the truth of irreducible complexity has no substance. I was hoping that someone would attempt to disprove it factually, but no one has even attempted such an endeavor.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Ben, there is no proving or disproving your theory since it is a theory that has no means of validation through scientific analysis. I don't even object to the idea that there's intelligence behind the universe, since that's what I believe!
What I DO object to is using your theory to discount evolution. I also object to the ridculous anti-scientific notions fundamentalists push based on the Bible, including the most asinine belief that the planet has only been here 5,000 years despite fossils and rock formations that show otherwise.
I believe in "God" as some form of universal consciousness and intelligence. I do not believe in the fairy tales and creation myths that are presented by Christianity and other world religions and sects. I believe that God manifests via science.
And people who insist God works through human-devised creation myths just make themselves look like idiots and also mock God by doing so, in my opinion.
Well, if it's not in the Constitution, it's not a part of our government. So get over it.
NEWSFLASH: WE DO NOT LIVE IN A CHRISTIAN THEOCRACY. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
Now why'd ya have to go and cross the line like that?
Wouldn't it have been far less pompous, (and potentially blasphemous) to say;
"I do not believe in [what appear to me to be] the fairy tales and creation myths..."
How can you expect your "opponents" to restrain there judgmental-ism if you, the supposedly fact based one, do not? You legitimize all presumption if you claim your own is legitimate.
It boggles my mind that some Christians will cling to the literal version of the Bible so much, that they'll deny their own eyes and logic.
We can show them proof the earth has existed for billions of years in the form of fossils, erosion, and sedimentation, and they'll go to ridiculous lengths to deny these things...saying, for example, that God purposefully put fossils on the planet to test the faithful.
God would be a truly bored and petty God if he had to purposefully confuse people by placing false fossils around the planet to test people's faith.
Science is not inherently a negation of God. But Biblical literalism is an inherent negation of science, which is dangerous. Science has done more to save lives and improve our quality of life than any discipline on the planet.
We need science and Christians would behoove themselves to honor the beauty that God HAS put here by recognizing it instead of trying to deny it based on ancient texts that were written a time when science couldn't explain how things worked.
check out; GOD... RE-DEFINED ...by metaphor.
by Jerry K. published on Aug 22, 2006
"Our founding fathers knew that without inner restraints and inner virtues, people cannot prevent themselves from pandering to their darker instincts. They also knew that the doctrine of original sin was the only philosophy validated by 3500 years of human history and that without a shared set of values our republic could not stand. So, while they protected us against government interference of religion, they knew that belief in a higher power was absolutely necessary."
I think what we have to be thankful for is that Ben and John have nothing to do with the running of our country.
Our so-called founding fathers did not know the words and opinions that you have made false claim to, Ben. What they did know, as Stephanie has very effectively pointed out, is that religion should be kept very separate from the running of the government, as was not the case in the England from which they had fled.
An England, incidentally, that injected itself into the Irish political system, backing the minority protestants, and creating one of the world's nastiest long term problems.
This might be news to you, Ben, but it is not only perfectly legal and acceptable to believe in any religion in this country, it is also perfectly legal and acceptable to believe in no organized religion today, and there is no requirement or official suggestion anywhere that belief in a higher power is necessary.
In even saying so, you give the impression that you are looking down your royal nose at the teeming populace that, in your opinion, cannot function within our society without the restraints imposed by organized religion. That is an absolutely ridiculous and antediluvian point of view, but it is obviously yours....
I assure you had you actually said, "I believe Genesis is an allegory and a myth, not fact", I would not have spoken up.
You said; "I do not believe the fairy tales and myths that are presented by Christians and other..."
I see a small but clear difference, one asserts beliefs, the other asserts those beliefs are facts.
I thought it was that line being crossed that you yourself objected to. So I pointed out that you appeared to be moving into the realm of hypocrisy, which I assumed you did not want to do. If I was mistaken I apologize. But it means you will be hypocritical whenever you object to religious folk asserting their beliefs as facts. I personally would rather they not do so, and therefor try to keep myself in a position to make a legitimate case for tolerance of other's views.
BTW blasphemy is a nondenominational term, meaning to speak impiously of God.
I have to agree with David, you took some reasonable concepts, that most anyone could agree with, and laced them so heavily with absolutes and extrapolations that they look like preaching.
Why not state your thoughts in a way that will appeal to virtually anyone? Who could disagree that men should be inwardly moral? Or humble in their dealings with others? Or aware of the folly of prideful men in history?
Surely these concepts could be stated in a philosophical way, without causing insult to God.
I said;
"Those that do not believe in God tend to assume more than is logical"
I could have said;
Human beings tend to assume more than is logical.
But I did not feel my point would have been clear. If you really believe being atheist gives you a leg up on believers, say so, and perhaps we will discuss bigotry. Unless that is the case, I ask that you examine the actual statements I make, and I would welcome any advice on how to uplift myself.
Our founding fathers believed that man is not good and that a limited form of government could not succeed unless the populace operated with a set of shared values. These values equip one with inner restraints and inner virtues that can prevent us from pandering to our darker instincts.
So, however much you may disagree with the concept, that was the understanding of the founders of our "limited" government. You may reject their reasoning, but it was their reasoning though certainly one with which I agree most wholeheartedly.
I was not looking down my nose at anyone and on re-reading what I wrote cannot find any such inference. I was merely relating one of the more important underpinnings of our country.
I do believe that without a belief in God, in deism at the least, absolute truth and the ethics of right and wrong have no basis. If there is no God, the only reason to do one thing or another is heroic individualism, making whatever choices suit you, the get whatever you can however you can mode of living.
Are you, David and John, being super-sensitive because of your own belief system?
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
The tone of this statement is far more digestible, I thank you for your tempered expression of your view of history, and of your faith.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that some of the make up of the founding fathers was Deist oriented. Of these "Deists" Thomas Jefferson was the most notable. He prescribed to the Unitarian belief system. Which at the time still today in some sects, believed in a God and that Jesus was divinely inspired. They rejected the trinity. Their over-all moral belief system, however, followed very closely to Christinan principles.
If you reasearch further outside of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson you WILL find that the main players in forming our country were Christians. Please find only a modicum of that evidence below.
"The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God."
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson
"We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!"
[April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in "the name of George the Sovereign King of England." ]
• "[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty."
[letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress]
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
James Madison Wrote:
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
In 1788, Madison stated:
"The belief in God all powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it."
In Madison's personal Bible, his hand written notes appear in the margin of Chapter 19 of the Book of Acts:
Believers who are in a state of grace, have need of the Word of God for their edification and building up therefore implies a possibility of falling. v. 32.
Grace, it is the free gift of God. Luke. 12. 32-v.32.
Giver more blessed than the receiver. v. 35.
To neglect the means for our own preservation is to tempt God: and to trust to them is to neglect Him. v. 3 & Ch. 27. v. 31.
Point of Note:
James Madison was offended by the exclusivity of Denominations and the Puritanical movement of the time. He was for Religious Freedom for both Believers and Non-Believers.
Alexander Hamilton:
For my own part, I sincerely esteem it a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests.
He also wrote about the important connection between political freedom and Christianity:
In my opinion, the present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banner bona fide must we combat our political foes, reflecting all changes but through the channel itself provided for amendments. By these general views of the subject have my reflections been guided.
I now offer you the outline of the plan they have suggested. Let an association be formed to be denominated 'The Christian Constitutional Society,' its object to be First: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.
Alexander Hamilton further argued:
I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man.
Wendy:
Again, I agree with you that the make up was varyied amongst our founding fathers. I think you will find, however, through closer analysis that the differences were found in their belief system regarding "The Church" not the moral foundations that very clearly structured our constitution,independence, and laws from the very beginning.
Thank you for your very informed and intelligent response! I look forward to hearing more from you!
I want to reiterate that I don't think anyone has yet espoused a religous state proposition. Or atleast I haven't seen one.
The way this began was with Cynthia's article regarding whether or not the "Creation Theory" or "ID Theory" should be presented in schools. There seems to be a vehement opinion against that notion. From that, there were assertions made that this country is not bound by any religous thought or influence or created by any such criteria.
A. That is simply not the case
B. Its those very principles that allows for this type of discourse
I would ask that all of us take our comments in context.
Thanks to everyone for this great discussion.
Wow, now that's how you say it. Thank you for bringing in the real stuff.
This is the key to the arguments by religionists, the notion that one cannot be moral without having a deity. To which I respond, who says? Because you are so morally infantile that you can't manage to be good without Dad standing over your head with a big stick, doesn't mean that it's the only way to engage with the world.
Situation ethics were very big when I was a kid, and I think that's a perfect example of a moral system which doesn't require a deity.
What the founding fathers had in their heads when they created the Constitution is irrelevant. The founding fathers were human and, therefore, far from perfect. (I doubt very much that they shared a deep belief in "original sin" however, a perfectly despicable concept, I think. I much prefer the whole "tabula rasa" thing.) The Founding Fathers wrote "We find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." yet they owned slaves. All men were created equal, but women obviously weren't, since it took almost two centuries for us to win the right to vote. If we organized our culture around what the founding fathers would have thought was necessary and appropriate, we would -- ironically enough -- have a very "UnAmerican" country indeed.
But what they did do was create a brilliant Constitution, and in that Constitution there are prohibitions against the establishment of a state religion. It does seem to me that many rightwing religious people are disingenuous when they say they're not trying to establish a theocracy because in fact, that's exactly what they want to do -- they want to use the dogma of the Christian church to inform and validate whatever rules and laws are passed. Attempting to alter state or local law to force the teaching of "creationism" is a pretty clear-cut attempt to establish a state religion. More frightening is the fact that it is also anti-intellectual, relying as it does on belief for its power and not actual evidence.
And about the views of our Founding Fathers... you will never find an evangelical type rightwinger that will ever mention that one should read the writings of our own;
Thomas Paine...do a Google on that name folks if you want to know what our documents were really all about !
Go see, but allow some time, the material is extensive.
The writing of our own Thomas Paine?
Thomas Paine didn't even come to America until he was in his forties. What gives?
I think this conversation has gotten very consumed by other philosophical arguements:
You wrote:
"MOST of the founding fathers were, in fact, deists, NOT Christians. They believed in "The Divine Clockmaker," a deity who created the world and then left it alone to run on its own. They were men of the Enlightenment, The Age of Reason. They respect intellect and reasoning, not religious tyrannny. They designed a Constitution to specifically protect the people against the religious tyranny that fundamentalist Christians are attempting to create today."
I am not debating whether or not The Founding Fathers were good or bad. Or whether or not you can have morality without a God. (I think that is a very different philosophical subject and one worth tackling) What I don't like, however, is when false or misleading statements are put out their in support of whatever you are arguing for.
What you wrote above was both misleading and not factually the case.
Wendy you also wrote:
"Because you are so morally infantile that you can't manage to be good without Dad standing over your head with a big stick, doesn't mean that it's the only way to engage with the world."
These type of inflamatory statements completely ruin a very well thought out response. Its too bad.....