However, it is not quite correct that this is a purely Christian idea (that there is a natural hierarchy). In fact, this is a very ancient idea and common to a great many philosophical frameworks.

Yes, I related the recent history for brevity.

I think for example Epicuros said something similar. His teachings was repressed by the early church, but later adopted.

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/9981/creationistlogicsmdo9.jpg

overpopulation – catholicism/mormonism etc.

It’s amazing how Catholicism and the LDS caused overpopulation in India and Bangladesh.

pollution – anti-environmental movement has a xtian-based history in the US

Empty assertion devoid of supporting evidence. Pollution might more accurately go with the Victorian belief in “progress.”

dictatorship – catholocism, hirohito, etc.

“Catholicism.” Is that a dictatorship? I thought it was a religion. And Showa-san didn’t really have much power. It was the democratically elected premier, Tojo Hideki, and his immediate predecessors, who launched the savage attacks on China, Korea, and the USA.

racism – the 3 abrahamic religions, etc.

Again, just restating your belief does nothing to prove it. Judaism tells you “Do not oppress a stranger, you know the heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Christianity says, “There is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus,” and sees “elect from every nation” in heaven. Muslims are white (middle east), black (US, Africa) and yellow (Indonesia, Malaysia).

My original post was an experiment to see what responses I would get for recommending outrageous behavior on the part of a teacher who was anti-ID. I got only a couple of mild rebukes prior to your post. I was pleased to read your post, where I was castigated rather harshly. I think that was a reasonable response.

Correct, and I find that this is one of the most common misunderstandings of evolution: that “survival of the fittest” means that the organisms around today are “more highly evolved”. Truth is, nature doesn’t work with value distinctions. It’s quite binary — you survive or you don’t. At that basic, savage level, nothing else is important. Perhaps some of the more thoughtful creationists find that idea too nihilistic to stomach, but frankly, I think most reject evolution before even getting to that point. (Most, I think, reject evolution because they don’t understand it and are thus more inclined to believe various authorities when told it’s wrong — especially when those authorities add appeals to their egos, such as the ever-popular “if you don’t believe evolution, then you’re bucking the atheistic scientific establishment that doesn’t care about people”.)

However, it is not quite correct that this is a purely Christian idea (that there is a natural hierarchy). In fact, this is a very ancient idea and common to a great many philosophical frameworks. It is essential to many Eastern religions, for instance, and arguably more so than to Christianity. Consider the ideas of karma and reincarnation. A great many people on Earth believe that if you live a good life, you will be reincarnated into a better one. If you live a bad life, you will be reincarnated into a worse one. If you’re lucky, your punishment will be just moving down to a lower caste (perhaps as low as the Untouchables). If you’re really bad, you’ll be reincarnated as an animal, with greater misdeeds in this life leading to reincarnation into lower and lower forms of life.

So it’s not really fair to blame Christians for this thinking. (They just picked it up from existing thinking on the subject, by Jews, Greeks, and Egyptians, the strongest cultural influences on early Christians.) Indeed, this sort of thinking seems to be very common, and is probably a reflection of our human tendency to sort things into categories, our social need to create a hierarchy (hierarchies are common to many social animals, and create a structure suitable for doing the business of keeping a society running), and of course our vast pride. Even atheists aren’t immune to this sort of thinking. All it takes is a little bit too much pride in our species.

(The opposite viewpoint also exists — that there is a hierarchy, but we’re the worst species on Earth. This is less popular, for obvious reasons, and while it is rarely the lynchpin of a major philosophy or religion, it does have a certain appeal at times. Of course, from the perspective of evolution, it’s just as pointless as the idea that humans are the best species, and usually accompanies the same wrongheaded notion that humans are the dominant species on Earth today.)

As far as the OP, I think it’s an excellent summary of the creationist position. And as a person of faith, I did not feel the least bit insulted by it.

[Quote/] “Teachers should be more aggressive in combatting creationism when teaching their classes. Say something like ‘If your parents have raised you to believe in a creator of the universe, then your parents are just plain stupid.’ That’s what many teachers are thinking. Right? Why not say it out loud? Why not be more direct?” [/Quote]

Because it would be incredibly rude, arrogant & insulting.

Plus : Are _many_ teachers thinking that?

I doubt it. Some, perhaps only a handful of the militantly atheist, teachers mightbe I suppose .. But many teachers – like most of the world’s populace _are_ religious. Many feel they have personal communication with a God (or even Gods or Godess’s) themselves.

Assuming logic _is_ with atheism or scientism then there’s no need to be nasty or abusive but it should be enough to let the facts speak for themselves.

Now before y’all jump up & down I’ll state clearly that I’m an agnostic who does NOT believe in Creationist baloney or think it merits teaching in school – possibly outside of a quick “What is & isn’t science” lecture or good argument in philosophy class. People should be taught tothink properly and, yes, a lot of Creationists are outright liars.

But going out of your way to offend people with shrill simplistic diatribes like that of PD or Dawkins or Hitchens don’t work for me or many others.

Making overblown, over simple insults that blame everything on religion and allow no room for reasonable compromise or to “live & let live” .. is NOT the way to convince others to agree with you, I think. Instead, such attitude and vituperation just polarises things and turns folks off from you & whatever valid points you do have to say.

No disrespect to the militant atheists but lets cool down & agree on good manners over rudeness if nothing else.
———————————————————–
Galileo Galilei : “Science tells us how the heavens go – not how to go to heaven.”

overpopulation – catholicism/mormonism etc.
pollution – anti-environmental movement has a xtian-based history in the US
dictatorship – catholocism, hirohito, etc.
racism – the 3 abrahamic religions, etc.
Yes, these problems, too, often have faith as an underlying cause. If it weren’t for faith, we would at least have discourse.

>Faith is accepting a premise.
Yes regardless of fact and consequence.
>Faith is being loyal.
To a system that produces outcomes, regardless of their truth, value or integrity.
>Faith is sticking to something you know was once proved true despite >emotional urges to repudiate it.
Replace “once” with “never”

Dr. Plait. Thanks for spending a few minutes chatting with a fan. I am now the proud owner of a signed copy of Bad Astronomy. I also enjoyed your talk. Your enthusiasm for critical thinking really shows. Please come back to Texas more often.

Dang, wish that was me… or was it? Nope, I’d remember meeting Phil and I’ve never been to Texas.

Shane – living vicariously through other Shanes

How about: Faith is accepting a premise.
Faith is being loyal.
Faith is sticking to something you know was once proved true despite emotional urges to repudiate it.

I’ll give you that faith is accepting a premise and about being loyal but your third statement about faith is a statement of faith in itself. Take out “was once proved true” bit and you have an accurate definition of faith. If it was proved true it ain’t faith and you just have to show the proof.

Maybe some of the world’s evils aren’t caused by religion? Is that possible?

Absolutely. People do bad s*** and probably always will. Take away the religion and a large amount of (not all) motivation to do bad stuff goes away though. Communism and Nazism are just cults/religion dressed up in secular clothing so at best they’re straw men too.
Probably the best example of a reasonably secular “evil” event was the Terror during the French Revolution.

Yes, faithful ones. Goddidit loves you so much that he wants you to be a mindless thoughtless zombie forever in an imaginary universe of make believe where nothing is real, including you and everybody else. It’s eternal psychosis without hope for salvation. The mother of bad trips. No, really. If you are one of the few to be saved and make it to ‘heaven’ the slightest doubt about right and wrong *ever* will cast you immediately from this divinely proved make believe paradise hell. Then the deepest fear will creep upon you and you will be completely on your own, distrusting everything, even yourself. Your doubt will spread to many of the ones close to you, at least the ones with the slightest bit of common sense. Heaven won’t be for mindless people without the slightest bit of skepticism, would it?

Yes, faithful people, it might be something some ancestors found out in a sense at the point they thought they figured out everything. Goddidit. But not quite. The implication of the thought must have been devastating. And it probably provided the inspiration of some well known stories. Something with a tree for example. Our ancestors were not ignorant or stupid. They just didn’t know what we know now.

An eternal paradise as is promised by some guys in dresses is impossible due to the nature of human kind. Ignorance is an answer, but not the answer. Simply because some people will object believing make believe. Now or whenever. Because reality is different. Harder, more convincing, more beautiful, far more delicate, something to question. It’s our nature.

(..)

The universe is not a mystery but both home and journeys. Logic and reason are not made up but are simply reasonable and logic. Human kind looks for reason and logic. It’s what we are made of and it is what makes us survive. We will find it. ‘When every stone has been turned and nobody is left behind.’

homo spaiens is currently intensely evolving, an evolution that accelerated some 40 ky ago due to population growth (selection then becomes much more effective)

So you’re saying an intelligent designer (a single alien) created the universe? Maybe it’d be more logical to say intelligent designerS.

It is, this is shown by Multiple Designer Theory and was introduced by biologist (AFAIK) Richard B. Hoppe to exemplify a real theory (and mock creationists for not coming up with one).

It is obviously forensic in nature as all natural theories on natural agents, i.e. you identify and distinguish in known classes of designer agents and RBH shows how by validating the method.

Faith is sticking to something you know was once proved true despite emotional urges to repudiate it.

I don’t think answering a purported self-serving strawman with an actual self-serving strawman conflation between factual theories and religious faiths is an argument.

but it still worries me that in a million years, or whatever it’s supposed to be, I will have evolved into an animal that requires little sun-light, even less water and precious little food….right?…..I mean, there is no such thing as reverse-evolution…or evidence of it….is there?

This is severely confused.

First, evolution is about populations, not individuals as you depict it. It can be defined as common descent or hereditary change over time for populations.

Second, homo sapiens is currently intensely evolving, an evolution that accelerated some 40 ky ago due to population growth (selection then becomes much more effective). It is probably then the fastest evolving large animal (larger than a rat ) at this point. IIRC it is mainly immuno-response and sexual characteristics that are observed to change.

Third, as already noted, there isn’t any set direction for evolution. That there is a hierarchical ‘natural order’ is an old christian idea called “chain of being” or “scala naturae”. It was replaced by “the ladder of progress” in the teleological idea of “theistic evolution”.

Both descriptions are debunked by evolution, which has no teleology nor accumulating complexity. Parasites are famous for sometimes simplifying drastically when their environment in a host become externally tightly regulated, or sometimes develop hugely complex life cycles for procreation and transfer between series of hosts.

So evolution is both “forward” and “reverse” for any measure you care to define, and there is plenty of evidence for this.

This question is obviously for those who claim that they know it all!

Nobody knows it all, and scientists know this better than most. But some questions have been answered long ago, while others as in the link above has just been started to be researched.

Some people think that schools are teaching believes. 1+1=2 is only true if you believe that, they seem to think. Never mind, that’s why these people want their believes to be taught. They crash when they are asked for scientific arguments. They don’t have a clue what science is about and come up with complete nonsense.

Too bad for them that other disciplines are too complicated for them. Quantum mechanics is far more dangerous to ignorant religious ideas. Quantum mechanics work and prohibit clever entities stirring and directing. That is, if you know what QM is about. No one can deny nuclear facilities and nuclear weapons. QM works and we know why.

For the real ignorants it is not important. They already easily deny biotechnology and medicine production while these things exist only because of evolution. “No, it is design! People are designing!”, they will shout.

Sigh.

I think that spoils it, since a halo is a graphical depiction of virtue, and by putting it in the cartoon, that quality is being ascribed.

perhaps a big black bible dripping with blood, would be better.

Faith = Supersition

Is that where you try to site too many building projects in the same area?

I take it you don’t have faith that the sidewalk will support your weight, and therefore don’t venture out of your house? Or have you made careful empirical tests of the concrete?

Say something like ‘If your parents have raised you to believe in a creator of the universe, then your parents are just plain stupid.’ That’s what many teachers are thinking. Right? Why not say it out loud? Why not be more direct?

Because it would violate separation of church and state, which court decisions have held mandates that a teacher not be able to indoctrinate his pupils with his worldview?

Probably because “faith” essentially means convincing yourself that you belief in something that’s patently untrue or impossible and then sticking it to it regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

Talk about your self-serving straw-man definitions.

How about: Faith is accepting a premise.
Faith is being loyal.
Faith is sticking to something you know was once proved true despite emotional urges to repudiate it.

It’s immoral and causes the majority of problems in the world that the rest of us are then stuck with solving and paying for.

This is where the militant atheist goes off the rails. I was an atheist most of my life, and I was embarrassed by atheists like Jeffersonian, who have the idiotic belief that religion causes most of the world’s problems. How about overpopulation? Pollution? Dictatorship? Racism? All attributable to religion? Then why was the USSR, which was militantly atheist, such a horrible place, promoting births (Stalin banned abortion in 1937), polluting the hell out of eastern Europe, killing millions and consigning millions more to concentration camps, and so anti-Chinese they nearly launched a nuclear war on the PRC in 1971?

Maybe some of the world’s evils aren’t caused by religion? Is that possible?

Matt Garrett: Dude, your hatred of people of faith is causing you to lose all reason. For someone who prides himself on providing E.V.I.D.E.N.C.E. in a debate, one has to wonder why you are resorting to personal attacks?

But I don’t see (sorry if I missed it) where anyone address the basic point here. No, Matt, it’s not an ad hominem attack on Creationists. It’s very much an attack on their logic. It must be noted that just because a counter-argument against your reasoning makes you look stupid does not a personal attack make. If you feel like you were personally attacked, it probably means you should consider your own argument again to see why you looked a fool.

That said, trying to turn this into an ad hominem argument rather than sticking to the logic (which Phil definitely did in this case) is a pretty low way to try to deflect an argument you’re losing. Don’t do that, it only makes your case look weaker.