What? Someone makes a movie arguing against evolution and it turns out they’re a bunch of evil lying frauds? How can such a thing be?
</snark>
It’s true: the makers of the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed have been lying their heads off since square one. I would go into details, but I don’t need to: The National Center for Science Education (Genie Scott’s group) has created a wonderful website which explains very carefully just how evil the Expelled crowd is. The site is called Expelled Exposed, and I highly recommend sending everyone you know there, especially if they may be prone to listen to a propaganda piece like the movie. They more than anybody need to know the truth behind it.
But like any virus for which an innoculation exists, the more people vaccinated by reading Expelled Exposed, the better. But be warned: don’t plan on having a nice, relaxing afternoon after you read it. Your blood will be too busy boiling.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I’ve already seen two different commercials advertising the movie. Geeze, I wish they’d just give me the money they spent on broadcasting one of these. It’d go to better use.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Just when I think the whole damn ID thing has died down a little bit. They come out with this big budget crap-fest that requires me to spend too much of my hate points for the day.
Really, I am a pretty moderate dude when it comes down to it. I don’t have an issue with most people who believe in religious things, for the most part they think they are doing the right thing. But, when they just go against facts and science… it boggles me. Especially in spend this much money and effort to fight against science. I’ve seen too many videos and news reports people have dug up in the past 2 weeks from teachers who have been fired or threatened just because they TEACH kids facts. No wonder why our country is slipping down the charts faster each day. Grrr….
April 15th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Anyone watch that CBS special about The Lord’s Bootcamp? Talk about scary stuff! Children are being brainwashed these days. I am glad I was raised to keep an open mind instead of the “believe what I say or you are going to burn in a bottomless pit of fire!” ways of parenting. Thanks Mom and Dad!
April 15th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
BA, I wish you would stop mischaracterizing the premise of this movie. EXPELLED is NOT about arguing against evolution, it’s about the widespread persecution of teachers and professors who wish to add intelligent design and creationism into the dialog of how we got here. It doesn’t seek to replace evolution at all, but wishes to have a dialog over competing theories.
For someone who prides himself on FACTS and EVIDENCE, you sure do have a problem with getting them straight in this regard. Instead, you’re resorting to character assassination and personal attacks.
And frankly, it’s disappointing.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
The debunking of the movie needs more publicity. Expelled is being advertised between news segments on NPR. Or at least when listening to NPR programs from their site.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Matt Garrett, please go and see the Expelled Exposed website. It is full of well-documented facts that you so clearly crave.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Ignore the troll under the bridge…
April 15th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Derek, why must you “hate” others who believe differently from you do? I find that rather sad considering.
Chapio, if you’re referring to Jesus Camp, many have gone on record to refute the film and how it deliberately painted Christians in a negative light (gee, what a surprise).
As for CBS, this from the same network that FORGED documents of Bush’s National Guard experience? Hardly a reputable source.
I’m not saying ID should be taught on par with evolution, I happen to believe that evolution was how God created the heaven’s and the earth.
But do paint those you don’t agree with by assassinating their character or calling them names doesn’t do anything but show how closed minded and intollerant YOU are.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Darn! I checked the movie listings and it’s not showing in my town, or the neighboring towns either. How can I boycott the movie if it’s not being screened?
…
Wait…
There’s a showing about 20 miles away. It’s a bit far but I’ll try to not make it.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Dear Matt Garrett,
Have you seen the movie?
Regards,
Paul
April 15th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
@ Matt Garrett…
Great… so go have a dialog over any “competing theories” you wish to conjure up in your church, website, or fiction book club… keep it out of the educational system. It ain’t science.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Matt:
What I have read about “Expelled” says one its central premises is that Darwin’s theories are partly responsible for the Holocaust. In what way is that NOT making a (bad and incorrect) argument against evolution?
And “Intelligent Design” is in no way a competing theory against evolution. For one thing, I think you’re confused on the accepted definition of the word “theory” within scientific nomenclature. For a refresher, visit http://www.notjustatheory.com
And what academic standards would apply in an ID-centered biology class? Who decides them, and on what merits? Who or what is the Designer? If your premise is that complexity requires intelligence, then wouldn’t this all powerful Designer of yours need an even greater Designer to precede it?
You may not like the metaphor, but ID is to Science what the Tooth Fairy is to modern dentistry. Seriously, why in the 21st Century do people still believe this stuff? This is silly.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Just a quick, neutral question (please don’t flame me)–has anyone actually seen the movie? BA? Rowsdowser? I might not want to spend any Sacajawea’s on this thing either, but I’m not sure I can level accurate criticism at something I haven’t seen. At least I was able to find “Loose Change” on the Internet.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
@ Matt Garrett
Have you been to the Expelled Exposed website yet? If not, how can you even comment on how their character is being assasinated? If you have, can you point out an instance on the website shows that is in fact an out and out lie? If not, how can you call it a character assassination? A lie is a lie is a lie.
I don’t “hate” the ID movement… I just think it’s pretty clear how shaky the ground they stand on is when you take a closer look at their tactics and pentient for lies and manipulation. Would a group that was convinced in its truth need to resort to such tactics? And additionally, reading about the tactics employed makes me feel like I just walked out of a sleezy used car lot.
Sorry… if you’re here to defend that group OR this movie… you’d better come with some actual facts and not alot of “hater” rhetoric.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I heard Ben Stein talk about that today in an interview. His point wasn’t that evolution caused the holocaust, but that the theory was used as a justification for the holocaust.
As for why do people believe it … that’s simple. Because faith isn’t religion. It’s a relationship with God. It’s an experience. And for many, those experiences are just as factual and dear to their belief system.
I’m not saying that ID should be taught in school. And I wrote a blog post saying it shouldn’t here. But nor do I think that teacher or students who believe as such should be persecuted for it either.
What is so fearful of a conversation? If anything, dialog provides for a learning experience.
And no, I haven’t seen the movie yet. It’s not in my location.
John … kindly show me how I’ve behaved in a trollish manner? I don’t believe I have.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Matt Garrett
I’ll forgive you if you’re new to the whole Evolution vs. ID controversy, but anyone who has been following this for any significant amount of time will know that the discussion you say should happen has in fact already happened.
The creationists, I mean cdesign proponentists, I mean Intelligent Design proponents presented their ideas years ago. The scientific community has already looked at their arguments and found no worth in them. What any intellectually honest person would do in their position is either admit defeat or figure out new arguments and find some real evidence.
Instead of conducting new research, finding new evidence or making new arguments the ID community has decided to merely change their public relations tactics. They went from trying to outright disprove evolution, to “teaching the controversy,” then to “teaching the holes in evolution” and now they’re just claiming academic persecution.
ID is not science, it wasn’t science then, it isn’t science now and it won’t be science until they actually generate some sort of falsifiable hypothesis or find some evidence that isn’t an argument from ignorance (I’m looking at you Irreducible Complexity).
April 15th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
And when presented in a sensationalistic fashion with graphic images in a movie defending ID… the difference to the layman in the audience would be what? Please, Ben Stein… please, gimme a break… and you, Matt Garrett, are smart enough to know extremist propoganda for the sake of eliciting unrelated sympathy when you see it. I know you are. Just admit it.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Hey Matt Garrett – you don’t know the difference between science
and fantasy, do you?
Teachers who peddle fantasy and CRAP like creationism (stop
calling it ID in an attempt to make it look more scientific) deserve
to be tossed out of our schools.
Ever read or see the film version of The Handmaid’s Tale? That
is what the so-called God-loving christians will turn this nation
into if they ever get the chance. Creationism is just the first step.
And look who supported creationism:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/03/godwins-darwin.html
And one more time – Ben Stein used to speech write for Richard Nixon.
Need any more proof?
April 15th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Don’t forget about the nice Harvard video they, uh, recreated almost exactly for their movie but didn’t actually use the Harvard video as a model cause that would be wrong they just made the same mistakes and left out the same things by coincidence.
Seriously, other than fundies, who takes these morons as legitimate anythings? They’re soaked full of lies and deceit, now we add theft and copyright infringement (and a pending lawsuit I’m sure); anyone who is a Christian should distance themselves as far as possible from these creotards.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Matt, science doesn’t care to wax philosophical with you. Where’s the evidence? ID is not science, it is nothing more than superstition repackaged in an attempt to get it into the science classroom as some “alternative” theory to evolution. Let me be very, very clear here: there is no alternate to evolution.
And even if the theory of evolution caused the Holocaust, which it absolutely most certainly did not, it would not make evolution wrong. Clear? Atomic theory is not wrong because it allowed for atomic weapons. Gravitational theory is not wrong because it caused your grandma to fall down the stairs. Application of theory is independent of the validity of the theory itself. Oh, and again, I call Godwin’s Law; evolution had nothing to do with the Holocaust.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I am glad I read this.
I thought it was suppose to be a comedy.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I see that on both sides of the spectrum when trying to prove a point, CE. But considering the context at that time is discussing using evolution as justification for the holocaust, what kind of images should they show, pictures of Teletubbies? Movies are a visual medium.
And yes, Jonathan, I’m new to the whole debate, thanks for understanding. And no, I’m not here to defend the movement. I think some of what they believe is a tad wacked, honestly. But refute it with facts. And if Expelled Exposed does that with sources, then fine. My point is I don’t see much of that HERE. Just name calling, which is why I find it disappointing.
In the end, I see no patience on the part of the pro evolution position (if I may put it that way) for people of faith. We believe in fairy tales, are trolls, and lying frauds. As I said, I’m a Christian who believes that God used evolution as a tool. I’m very comfortable in that.
But I would think that those who call themselves enlightened wouldn’t have to resort to name calling and would welcome every opportunity to engage people to teach them something and perhaps learn why they believe what they believe.
I think that’s called communication.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“Fundies …” See? More name calling. And talk about trying to paint fear? Not all “fundies” or even other Christian advocate turning the US into Jesusland. There are radicals in every belief system. EVERY ONE. Even yours.
And I agree, Richard, it doesn’t invalidate evolution. And I never said it did. Those are very good analogies.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Matt
Please understand that the harsh reactions are generally a result of at least a few years worth of frustrating, pointless debates.
It’s tough to debate with someone, demonstrate how their idea is wrong, then watch them use the same arguments you completely obliterated over and over and over again on national television. Ben Stein made a point on the Glenn Beck show that we evolutionists should just sit back, listen to what they have to say and then “blow them away” with our arguments and evidence. We did that, they continued anyway.
Try not to take any of the accusations or vitriol personally, a lot of us are just sick of ID proponents and sympathizers.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I understand, Jonathan. Likewise, Christians are sick of being ridiculed for what we believe. When we share God’s presence and action in our lives only to be told that we believe in fairy tales. It’s very much a similar issue.
But I do understand where you’re coming from. I rather have a foot in both worlds being a science/space geek and yet, a Christian to boot.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Matt, “fundie” is short for fundamentalist, such as fundamentalist Christian; if you consider that name calling, grow some thicker skin. There is no other side of this spectrum; religion has no place in the science classroom and ID is nothing more than creationism repackaged. And if these moderate Christians are against turning the US into Jesusland, why don’t they speak up and against teaching religion as science? Being quiet about this subject is nothing more than quietly advocating it. ID is not science, be very clear about that. Expelled is a propaganda film. You only need to read the BA’s site and Pharyngula over the last few months to clearly see this. They are liars and now thieves. Nothing they say is true, they distort meaning, quote mine, and use nothing more than propaganda. They don’t even define ID in the movie. It’s not a debate, it’s not an exposure of persecution, it is propaganda.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Newbie Matt G. – you know why creationism isn’t taken seriously by
anyone who has ever cracked open a text book?
Because it is MYTHOLOGY, not science.
Ever read what pro-creation folks say is the key to their belief that
a “higher being” created the universe? That life is just “too complex”
to have happened by chance.
Well, that’s good enough for me. Stop thinking, dump centuries of
acquiring scientific knowledge, and sit back and let a specific wing of
the christian religion tell you what and how to think. Ah, I feel better
already.
Go educate yourself first. If you find some actual scientific proof for
a higher being that made the universe, then come talk to us. Otherwise
I’ll go with the idea that we’re the dream of an Indian god – it’s as good
as any, why don’t you support that?
The real funny part is, if there is a being who created existence, I bet
it is NOTHING like the kind the creationist think and hope it is. Certainly
not something they would want to worship.
But it’s really all about politics and social control, isn’t it? Don’t let
those pesky facts get in the way.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
One more thing – I am SICK of christians whining about how “persecuted”
they are.
That played in ancient Rome, but not any more. Christians dominate a
good part of this world and you have the NERVE to cry bullying??
I bet you’re a white guy, too. Now there’s a real persecuted group.
Bill O’Reilly tries to pull this crap all the time.
Matt, go believe whatever you want. Just keep it away from me and
anyone else with an ounce of rationality in them.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Matt:
In addition to my previous questions, I’d like to add this fuel for thought.
Do a Google image search for “Gott mit uns”. It’s a German phrase which basically means, “God is with us.” You’ll notice the second or third result has that exact phrase emblazoned on a Nazi belt buckle.
The Theory of Evolution had nothing to do with the Holocaust. The Nazis simply drew upon centuries of Antisemitism that existed in Germany well before even Martin Luther, who actually wrote a book entitled “On Jews and Their Lies.” Hitler also made his own views on evolution quite well known. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html
April 15th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“The thought that anyone could herd them together (scientists) to conspire against anything – even intelligent design – is laughable. One may as well conspire to herd a roomful of cats.”
Cat herding! I knew I’d missed my vocation.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Matt Garrett Wrote: “kindly show me how I’ve behaved in a trollish manner? I don’t believe I have.”
I don’t believe it was your intention to behave in a trollish manner, but there are some fundamental misunderstandings that you have of the Intelligent Design versus Evolution debate. You make arguments that have been proven to be false.
Also, even though you accuse and decry others of making ad hominem attacks (attacks on character), you do this yourself, possibly unwittingly.
Those elements are what make you seem like a troll to many of the posters here.
Granted, you are correct that BA is bringing the snark regarding the makers of expelled. Calling them “evil” is definitely mean. However, it’s well-documented that they have lied, and they have been fradulent.
“BA, I wish you would stop mischaracterizing the premise of this movie. EXPELLED is NOT about arguing against evolution, it’s about the widespread persecution of teachers and professors who wish to add intelligent design and creationism into the dialog of how we got here. It doesn’t seek to replace evolution at all, but wishes to have a dialog over competing theories.”
That’s technically true. However, there are no competing theories. Evolution is the best and only theory out there right now. Intelligent Design does not fit the criteria for a theory. You can’t prove or disprove intelligent design. You can’t make predictions about observations using intelligent design. I have included a couple links below.
“Derek, why must you “hate” others who believe differently from you do? I find that rather sad considering.”
I think that this is a mischaracterization of what Derek said. He starts out his post saying that, for the most part, he is tolerant of other belief systems.
“Chapio, if you’re referring to Jesus Camp, many have gone on record to refute the film and how it deliberately painted Christians in a negative light (gee, what a surprise).”
So? People still believed the information presented in Jesus Camp. And, really, when it comes down to it, this is a side issue anyways, and distracts from the heart of the conversation.
“As for CBS, this from the same network that FORGED documents of Bush’s National Guard experience? Hardly a reputable source.”
This is an ad hominem attack on CBS. Individuals at CBS may have made a poor judgement call when they forged documents, but 1. It wasn’t the entire CBS news staff, and 2. One mistake is not enough to condemn a whole network of news individuals. If it were, any paper that ran a “corrections” page should not be trusted. Also, CBS isn’t the only news source that is stating the information. It can be corroborated from several sources, some of which I cite below.
“What is so fearful of a conversation? If anything, dialog provides for a learning experience.”
Agreed. The problem is that you are coming in on the middle of the conversation, with not enough context to try to get what’s going on. This post is not a good one to look at when trying to gather information.
I would strongly suggest two Web sites to you. Here is a good article about the Dover, PA decision, where there was a big legal fight over this very issue. The arguments of both sides were vetted quite thoroughly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
And, of course there is the expelled exposed site that is mentioned in the post at http://www.expelledexposed.com/ and check out the documented, factual information presented there. It is a much more even-handed site, and does not make personal attacks.
This post isself is not meant to explain things. It’s meant to point people over to Expelled Exposed. The BA is more or less “preaching to the choir” here, to borrow a religous term. I can see how the tone of the post might turn one off to wanting to go to the links, but that doesn’t mean the links are of the same ilk.
It is exceedingly difficult to take the high road when arguing, and it’s easy to call people names. To a certain extent, BA’s snarkiness is what makes the site fun to read. Those who agree with his points of view all get to laugh at those silly (insert group here). But, ultimately, there is always well-researched and documented evidence behind BA’s sarcasm and analysis.
And that makes all the difference.
p.s. Please check out the Sarah Connor Cronicles on Fox!
April 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Geez, IRA, you sure have a chip on your shoulder against Christians. So much so I have to wonder if you were wronged by one and as such, spew virtriol to anyone who claims they are one.
You say that creationism is mythology. You are free to believe that. As I am free to believe it isn’t. In the end we’ll see whos right. But if I am, you’re the big loser. If you are, I’ve lost nothing but time.
And I couldn’t help but notice yet another insult that people who believe in God are “uneducated,” when there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. As much as college academia would like to have it so, education does not equal atheism.
Cello, as a student of WWII I am well aware of Hitler’s justification. I didn’t say I agreed with what they said, I merely clarified what they’re position is on the holocaust and evolution.
See, I believe that a conversation is pointless unless you stick to the basic facts of an issue. You don’t have to agree with them, but you shouldn’t skew them to be more colorful either.
Words mean things.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I get the distinct feeling that very few commenters have seen the film, yet there are some definite and scathing opinions about it. I remember when Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ” came out, all the “fundies” (yeah, Richard, it is name calling, and thicker skin or not, it does not advance your side of the argument) came out and boycotted/protested, with great wailing and gnashing of teeth—yet hardly any of them actually saw the movie, much less read the book.
I am not an ID/creationism proponent. I proudly consider myself a skeptic and am certainly against the teaching of essentially religious and philosophical ideas in the science classroom. It is disturbing to see some the comments on this board, esp those relating to Matt. Thanks, Jonathan, for providing a voice of moderation.
As skeptics, we do not help ourselves by rants and name-calling, no matter how frustrated we may be.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Uh oh – here we go. Creationist xians like Newbie Matt G. have nothing
substantial under their belts (meaning FACTS) to go against science,
so they start trotting out the emotional nitpicking.
Yes, Matt, I was once beaten up by Quakers and never forgot it.
Since then I have been on a vendetta against all xians, whoever
you may be and whatever cult – I mean sect – you belong to.
Vengenace will be MINE!
I am glad there are some “educated” xians out there, but sadly most
of the ones I run into have a very narrow education at best. Believing
in a mystical being who lives in another dimension and spends his time
fretting over the to-doings of a bunch of talking monkeys on a tiny
little planet – and then sending them to hell forever if they don’t kiss
his ass sufficiently in their short lifespans – doesn’t strike me as being
an educated person. But hey, what do I know, right?
You want to stick to facts? Then show me some FACTS that a
deity or higher power made the Universe. Saying life is too complex
to have happened by chance is not a fact, it is an opinion – and a
limited one at that.
You get it? PROVIDE FACTS.
Let’s see if Newbie Matt G. tries to present his claims in a rational
and thoughtful way, or will he start slinging barbs back and declaring
how PERSECUTED he is because we won’t let him worship his god
the way he wants to.
You can worship a frikkin piece of steak for all I care, just don’t go
peddling your mythology at me and don’t you DARE cry persecution!
As a member of a religious majority, if you can’t handle a few folks
who think differently than you and dare to say so in public, then
maybe your whole philosophy is a house of cards. Hint, hint.
If anything, Jesus should be really pissed that people took his
overall nice philosophies and turned them into a world-wide
mode for political and social control. But humans are so good
at messing up anything they touch, huh?
April 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Geez, IRA, you sure have a chip on your shoulder against Christians. So much so I have to wonder if you were wronged by one and as such, spew virtriol to anyone who claims they are one.
You say that creationism is mythology. You are free to believe that. As I am free to believe it isn’t. But that mythology has a real presence in a believer’s life. Whether Christian, Catholic, Jew or even Islamist. In the end we’ll see whos right. But if I am, you’re the big loser. If you are, I’ve lost nothing but time.
And WHO CARES if Hitler believed God created man. That doesn’t invalidate the belief at all. It’s merely a sad attempt to demonize the position. Again, there are radicals in every belief system.
And I couldn’t help but notice yet another insult that people who believe in God are “uneducated,” when there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. As much as college academia would like to have it so, education does not equal atheism.
As for the FUNDIES comment. I’ve been around forums and boards long enough to know that is a pejorative remark. Plain and simple. And my skin is quite thick, thank you, otherwise I wouldn’t be enjoying this conversation as I am.
Cello, as a student of WWII I am well aware of Hitler’s justification. I didn’t say I agreed with what they said, I merely clarified what they’re position is on the holocaust and evolution.
See, I believe that a conversation is pointless unless you stick to the basic facts of an issue. You don’t have to agree with them, but you shouldn’t skew them to be more colorful either.
Words mean things.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Matt:
If you’re aware of Hitler’s motives, great. However, many of your fellow Christians continue to make the same “Darwin inspired Hitler” argument that has been proven false time after time, and the “Expelled” movie is taking this meme into mass media. That’s what the problem is here.
Also, could you consider my previous questions for you? Some may want to troll you for being the odd man out, but to me they’re serious questions. Like you say, fostering communication and all that.
Summer Glau:
If that really is you (I doubt it, but just in case): You are all kinds of nerd girl awesome hawtness.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Matt, try to disentangle evolution vs. ID from theist vs. atheist. The former is a strictly objective debate, squarely won by evolution. The latter is a personal choice. The attacks on ID is not an attack on your religion. Also, you can be a good scientist and believe in God, I know quite a few of them.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I wasn’t talking about Jesus Camp, it was another documentary from the producers of Jesus Camp. It was on last Saturday on 48 Hours.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
@Matt
“I heard Ben Stein talk about that today in an interview. His point wasn’t that evolution caused the holocaust, but that the theory was used as a justification for the holocaust.”
Interesting… so, at best, it was a complete non-sequitor (what does evolution as justification for the holocaust have to do with the alleged persecution of religious people?). At worst, it was a disingenuous attempt to link science with Naziism.
Now, judging from how much time I’ve been told they spent on illustrating that link (and, I will confess, I haven’t seen the movie, only read reviews, and so am commenting based on second-hand knowldge), I can only then conclude that either, 1) they wasted a great deal of time filming, editing, and then marketing material that was entirely tangential to their main point, or 2) Ben Stein was essentially lying about their motivations for including that footage. Frankly, I think it more logical to lean toward the latter.
As for the rest, it sounds like you actually have a very moderate approach to your faith and the role religion should play in the public sphere. Good for you! Unfortunately, not every person of faith feels the same way you do, hence such a strong push to include religion in science curriculae. But, do understand, the outrage you sense is directed directed toward those others who would attempt to force their beliefs on myself, my friends, and their children, and not more reasonable individuals such as yourself.
Regarding specific criticisms of the film, one could easily list examples where they misrepresented the position of various scientists that were interviewed, or worse (IMO), misrepresented the circumstances under which the various individuals in the film were allegedly persecuted (such as Guillermo Gonzalez, whose tenure refusal was just as much based on his lack of production, and his inability to draw grant money, as much as it was his unwillingness to keep his religious beliefs out of his scientific work). However, there are plenty of other websites (the one referenced in this very post, included) which discuss these issues, and I invite you to investigate them yourself.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Matt, you wrote: “And WHO CARES if Hitler believed God created man. That doesn’t invalidate the belief at all. It’s merely a sad attempt to demonize the position. Again, there are radicals in every belief system.”
Hang on, in your third post you used this same type argument by proxy (i.e., Ben Stein).
April 15th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Matt, your skin can’t be too thick if you play the persecution card the moment your beliefs are questioned. Yes, you are very free to have any belief system you want, but you have no right to inject that belief system into the science classroom. Once again provide evidence that can only conclude “godditit” and you’ll be welcomed into science with open arms. So far, the clock is ticking at around 2,000 years for said evidence. The only god I even see being argued any more is the god of the gaps, and we know how foolish that is. Sorry, but Expelled is not about persecution, it is about propaganda tactics to create controversy where none exists. That is the only hope of the creationists, for they can win nothing on evidence since, well, they have none. It’s good that you accept evolution, and how you work that into your belief system is beyond me, yet I hold nothing against you for doing so. It is when you advocate the teaching of intelligent design creationism that we are going to disagree…strongly. No one has been outed for their acceptance of ID, yet if I recall someone by the name of Chris Comer was outed due to her forwarding of an email that could have shed negative light on creationism.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Newbie Matt G. is nothing more than a good little soldier/pawn in
the efforts of fundie xians to turn America into a jesusian theocracy,
even if he doesn’t consciously realize this. cretionism is just one
of their devious little methods.
Read Margaret Attwood’s The Handmade’s Tale, folks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid’s_Tale
Blessed be the Bomb and the Holy Fallout….
April 15th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Richard, one could argue that Guillermo Gonzalez was “Expelled” from Iowa state.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Uh Matt, you just contradicted yourself. First you say that you accept evolution and then you say that you don’t think creationism is mythology.
Self contradictory claims like this one is easily one of the biggest mistakes that Christians keep making, and it only adds to our ire. If you accept evolution, then Genesis is mythology, period, end of story. They are mutually exclusive concepts.
Now, if you still want to claim that God is somehow at work in the universe but is undetectable for whatever reason…. hey that’s fine by me. I think it’s kind of a silly statement to make, but if that’s what you believe and you’re not trying to push a position that contradicts observable facts, then I have no qualms with you….at least for the moment.
And please, please, PLEASE don’t try to use Pascal’s wager as an argument for belief, that one has been so thoroughly torn to shreds that it just isn’t worth discussing.
Finally, noone is discounting the importance of the religious mythology to a believer, but that isn’t really the issue. The problem is that some believers can’t tell the difference between the myths of their faith and established fact, and based on your statements, I htink you are bluring this line yourself. Stop doing that, and we’ll all get along a whole lot better.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Quotes from Matt G.:
“You say that creationism is mythology. You are free to believe that. As I am free to believe it isn’t. In the end we’ll see whos right. But if I am, you’re the big loser. If you are, I’ve lost nothing but time.”
And…
“You say that creationism is mythology. You are free to believe that. As I am free to believe it isn’t. But that mythology has a real presence in a believer’s life. Whether Christian, Catholic, Jew or even Islamist. In the end we’ll see whos right. But if I am, you’re the big loser. If you are, I’ve lost nothing but time.”
Pascal’s Wager? *bzzt* Refuted. A Google search will turn up several very good debunkings of the supposed logic of this ancient chestnut, of which the following link is but one.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/wager.html
And the point, dear Matt G., is /no/, the premise that creationism is mythology is not an opinion, it’s a fact, as hard and as solid as any in science. It need not, I trust, be pointed out that there exists hundreds of conflicting and mutually exclusive creation myths from cultures stretching back to the dawn of prehistory. I can make a pretty good guess that you dismiss all but one of them as mythology– what makes the /one/ creation myth you favor so superior to all others? It has no more compelling evidence than any other, each one of which has had (and an many cases still has) devoted followers and intricate justifications to support it.
Turning Pascal’s Wager on its head, just for fun, if even a single one of those other creation myths is correct, then you’re the one who turns out the big loser, huh? Betting on the wrong horse, as it were.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Stein is an ‘excellent’ conman trying to make some bucks. There are too many ignorant people with money eager to spend some in order to fight something that only lives in their twisted minds. Thinking they have a chance, completely missing the point and getting nowhere. Which is of course only because of a worldwide conspiracy orchestrated by anybody, except the fine nice people who always need money and always get nowhere.
People willing to accept stupid claims despite overwhelming evidence and plain common sense will fall for con men very easily. Abandoning stupid claims means admitting to have been horribly wrong. People rather stay where they are.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Lying for Jesus!
Doesn’t surprise me. It’s not possible for any reasonably intelligent adult to be a Christian without intentionally deceiving themselves and usually others.
There’s no such thing as an honest creationist. It’s an oxymoron, like a harmless serial killer, or a decent Republican.
It is a gross mistake to imagine that it’s possible to engage any creationist in debate without the creationist using lies and deception in order to ‘win’.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Matt Garrett said:
> I heard Ben Stein talk about that today in an interview. His point wasn’t that evolution caused the holocaust, but that the theory was used as a justification for the holocaust.
Uh, I don’t see the distinction. I don’t think anyone is claiming that the act of evolution caused the Holocaust. Is your point whether the justification for the Holocaust was claimed pre or post?
IRA said:
> And look who supported creationism:
> http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/03/godwins-darwin.html
Irrelevant point, unless it is to show that Evolution was not motivating Hitler.
> And one more time – Ben Stein used to speech write for Richard Nixon.
Irrelevant ad hominem.
Matt Garrett said:
> In the end, I see no patience on the part of the pro evolution position (if I may put it that way) for people of faith. We believe in fairy tales, are trolls, and lying frauds.
It is a fair observation that a certain segment of the pro-Evolution crowd are atheists/agnostics/religious skeptics, and it is a fair observation that some of them are blunt about their own beliefs to the point of rudeness. However, you seem to be unfairly lumping responses. Specifically, claims of lying apply to the ID proponents who have documented evidence against them of intentionally misrepresenting remarks from scientists to support their own agenda against Evolution. The Kitzmiller decision (i.e. Dover) even indicated that board members lied about their own motivations and knowledge with regards to actions taken in Dover, to further their own religious agenda. That is certainly not a blanket claim that all religious people, christians, or even creationists are liars. It is, however, a fact that many of the vocal Creationist and ID leaders are.
>As I said, I’m a Christian who believes that God used evolution as a tool. I’m very comfortable in that.
Then I suggest you study what ID proponents really say, because they don’t accept Evolution. At most, they allow little bits of evolution along the fringes.
> But I would think that those who call themselves enlightened wouldn’t have to resort to name calling and would welcome every opportunity to engage people to teach them something and perhaps learn why they believe what they believe.
Fair point. It would be easier if the people on the other side of the discussion would actually listen and learn, rather than repeating the same nonsense after being shown why it is wrong. That kind of head-butting leads to frustration that leads to knee-jerk responses.
> I understand, Jonathan. Likewise, Christians are sick of being ridiculed for what we believe. When we share God’s presence and action in our lives only to be told that we believe in fairy tales. It’s very much a similar issue.
While I can accept that the feelings of frustration can be similar, the cases are not completely analogous. The kinds of presence and action you talk about are completely subjective, not available for external replication or confirmation. They are also explainable by other possible means (i.e. psychology). Given these factors, the difference is one of opinion, whereas Evolution is based on replicable evidence, and ID is faulty logic masking a political agenda.
>You say that creationism is mythology. You are free to believe that. As I am free to believe it isn’t. In the end we’ll see whos right. But if I am, you’re the big loser. If you are, I’ve lost nothing but time.
It’s called Pascal’s Wager. It’s faulty logic as well. Which God is it that I’m supposed to believe in just in case? Vishnu? Thor? Quetzecoatl? The God who doesn’t want you to “just believe”, but wants you to think for yourself? Oh, wait, I made that one up.
>And WHO CARES if Hitler believed God created man. That doesn’t invalidate the belief at all. It’s merely a sad attempt to demonize the position. Again, there are radicals in every belief system.
IRONY ALERT!!! A major point of Expelled! is to demonize Evolution by blaming it for the Holocaust.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Jesus said I am the way the truth the life. No one comes to the Father but by me. That’s my faith.
Last time I checked, facts have to be supported by evidence or they’re just theories. You say that creationism is a myth. I say that’s YOUR statement of faith. You can’t prove it isn’t. I can’t prove it is.
As for Pascal’s wager … we’ll see, won’t we?
April 15th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
This statement is nothing but bigoted rhetoric.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Show me, Christian, where I have used lies or deception “to win?” And I can say the same about a decent DEMOCRAT!
April 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Christian X Burnham said:
> Doesn’t surprise me. It’s not possible for any reasonably intelligent adult to be a Christian without intentionally deceiving themselves and usually others.
Unfair and untrue. Perhaps unintentionally deceiving themselves, but the definition of “Christian” is loose enough to cover a lot of ground besides fundamentalists.
>There’s no such thing as an honest creationist.
Wrong. There are plenty of people who have an emotional commitment to beliefs that require them to reject evolution and accept creationism. They are honest – they honestly believe what they believe. They may misrepresent the science by not understanding it, but not all are intentionally doing so.
>It’s an oxymoron, like a harmless serial killer, or a decent Republican.
Unnecessary irrelevant ad hominem.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
I’ve taken to presenting CS/IDers with a simple example of why it doesn’t work. Oddly, I’ve yet to see any of them acknowledge it, much less answer it.
It goes simply like this. The biggest problem of ID is the nature of the designer. Your options are pretty limited.
Either
1) The designer is god (your choice). In which case, you’re arguing religion – go back to church.
2) The designer was designed, in which case you’re merely deferring the question, and sooner or later have to deal with #1 or #3.
3) The designer evolved. In which case, why couldn’t humans have done the same?
April 15th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
About these claims of scientists being threating ID supporters, how about when the scientists were threatened for doing research into stds or stem cells.
One thing you should watch Matt is the Nova episode about the Dover case, you can even watch it online so excuses Matt.
The people who started needing evidence over belief were poeple like Newton, Kepler and many others centuries befroe Darwian. Kepler even had reject his own idea about the orbits of the planets, but the evidence convinced that orbits were ellipses not circles.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
My point about Kepler was that Darwain is just an extension to of what Kepler began just into the area of biology. IDers want to pin want to blame evulotion on people using evidence and logic and belief on Darwain, but it started long before him, and probably would of came about by someone at sometime. Plus I wish somedays we could take all the technology that was brought about by science from people who want fight against it. Know how to start a fire with only your beliefs Matt.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
But you’re clumping everyone together, David. Just because people believe in God doesn’t mean they don’t respect science. You can do both.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Matt: here’s something that ISN’T “bigoted rhetoric” – it’s the collection of the sustained work of millions of people, exploring the real world around us.
NIST and
CHEMNETbase
These things are literally impossible to reconcile with the ID world. They shouldn’t be. ID is based on a fallacy – that any premise of the Bible must be “correct”. Please look up “fallacy tutorial” in your favorite search engine. You don’t get a “do over” if you allow a fallacy into your argument. A fallacy is fatal to it.
And Summer: thank you for the great joy that such performances as yours are possible! I missed you at Dragoncon 2006, and hope you’ll return in ‘08!
April 15th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
No I am not, expelled is, they claim all scientist are atheists, I have know catholics, jews and muslims who are scientists.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Evidence? Easy. Genesis says some specific things. For instance, a worldwide flood wiped out all land animals on Earth recently. Such a flood would have caused very specific and easily-identifiable effects on the Earth. Those do not exist, therefor the flood could not have happened. All animals are descended from a single pair of animals at that time. That would mean the genomes of all organisms would have suffered a total population bottleneck recently. No such bottleneck exists. It gives two different but specific orders in which organisms appeared. Neither order comes close to matching the order in which they really appeared. It says that organisms appear suddenly in their present form, and that no organisms went extinct. The fossil record shows that a great many organisms went extinct, and a large number of lines of evidence shows that organisms did not appear in their present form. In fact there are observed cases of organisms changing their form within modern times.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
>>>”Just because people believe in God doesn’t mean they don’t respect science. You can do both.”
Says the creationist? roflmao…
April 15th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
This is off topic, but I do need to correct something whenever I see it:
Matt mentioned that CBS “forged” documents about Bush’s desertion. The thing that (amazingly) gets consistently ignored is that most of the witnesses who were there at the time say the information in those documents is quite true. In other words, the much larger story—that Bush was indeed a deserter from the US armed forces—was lost in the brouhaha over the documents themselves.
Carry on.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Matt Garrett said:
—Jesus said I am the way the truth the life. No one comes to the Father but by me. That’s my faith.
Neat. That’s not what we are attacking. We don’t care. We only care if people try to infiltrate the government and build public policy based on forcing non-factualy beliefs on everyone else, beliefs which put lives at risk due to their hindrance on biological sciences.
—Last time I checked, facts have to be supported by evidence or they’re just theories. You say that creationism is a myth. I say that’s YOUR statement of faith. You can’t prove it isn’t. I can’t prove it is.
Evolution is only a theory. You know what else is only a theory? GRAVITY. Science teaches that you can never, ever, ever, be one hundred percent certain of anything, that you can never stop asking questions and building on old knowledge, refuting it every time new evidence arises. Because of this, there are no scientific facts, because there is a .000000. . . . .000000001% chance that gravity will work differently tomorrow and we’ll need to revise the theory. This has never happened, but the mere fact that we can imagine it happening means we need to be sure of everything.
Evolution is the same way. We have transitional fossils by the truckload, we have genetic evidence, we have logical family trees, we have evolution viewed both in nature and in labs (think dog breeds), we have everything you could possibly ask short of god burning the words “I DID IT WITH EVOLUTION” into the sky in million mile tall letters, and yet you use a misunderstanding of the word theory to attack us for not having proof.
Hitler burned Darwin’s book. He thanked god in his speeches. I can not even imagine why anyone who knows what they’re talking about would think we need to have a debate about this without a whole lot of new proof.
Another forum, antievolution.org, had a quote I find particularly endearing: “Arguing with creationists is like boxing with a baby, and having millions of people insist the baby won.”
April 15th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I must say I am very disappointed with many of the posters here. It makes me sad to see so many fellow skeptics becoming nothing more than the atheist version of a fundamentalist Christian and resort to name calling, immaturity and pride.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Matt Garrett: “As for CBS, this from the same network that FORGED documents of Bush’s National Guard experience? Hardly a reputable source.”
Perhaps a look at the Wikipedia data (use “Dan Rather” in the search window, or try http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/.09/21/rather.lkl/index.html) will offer you some cause to wonder about the Rather firing, or at least raise some skeptical notions in your absolutist thinking. (CBS didn’t forge the documents, for example; that was a charge made by Bush supporters about the document supplied to Rather by a former Texas National Guardsman who served with Bush. And the charges made in the document have yet to be refuted.) You should have had a doubt, anyway, given Mr. Rather’s 40 plus years as a respected reporter with an unblemished record for CBS news – the station which once had a reputation as a hard-hitting news organization which had Edward R. Murrow, among other highly-regarded reporters, working for it – in what has increasingly become a corporate-dominated environment concerned only with the bottom line. At one time, CBS was a leader in exposing the corruption, chicanery, cheating, and chiseling prevalent amongst the mighty who live above us “common folk.” Dismissing Rather was most likely a sop to the brass at Viacom, the “new” owners of CBS and an entertainment industry giant which had no prior experience at news gathering, and apparently either didn’t give a rat’s ass about Rather’s integrity or didn’t know the history of CBS.
My guess is both.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
There is a large collection of people, people who don’t think too hard, who are probably going to watch ‘Expelled’, not due to the fact it has been advertised, (in Australia it is virtually unknown) but due to the hype surrounding the debunking of it.
I have seen it, and yes, I laughed my arse off. So full of crap. But I wonder how many people will see it due to hearing about it because of the hype surrounding its debunking? Many of these people will watch it (because watching a movie is easy) but will not go and visit sites debunking points in the film (because reading debunking sites is not as easy ) and get a one sided view.
Basically what I am suggesting, is that if ‘we’ keep going on about it, rather than just ignoring it (its been debunked already) and letting it die a cold lonely death, will it lead to more people with a lack of strong critical thinking ability to view it and believe it at face value?
It’s just a thought, and I may be wrong, but sometimes garbage needs to be put in the bin and forgotten, for the benefit of everyone. The expression; ‘Negative advertising is still advertising’ comes to mind.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Irishman:
Religion is an exercise in magical thinking. In order to believe, some self-deception is necessary. Any reasonably intelligent adult can easily find the numerous reasons why religion is incompatible with our current knowledge of the universe. It is not possible for a truly honest person to also embrace religion.
I’m of course not referring to ‘cultural Christians’. Those who appreciate that the Bible is a book of myth, and yet find value in some of its stories. However, I don’t regard such people as religious. They’re no more religious than people who enjoy reading Alice in Wonderland.
If truly honest Christians do exist, then I have to wonder where are they? I’ve never encountered a Christian who expresses an interest in questioning the numerous obvious falsities in the Bible, or one who challenges the ridiculous absurdities spouted by their religious leaders.
Even someone like Karen Armstrong, a respected scholar who writes books on the history of Religion has to resort to ridiculously transparent rationalizations in order to defend her personal religious belief. In any other context, her rationalizations would seem absurd by contemporary intellectual standards.
And of course, ALL creationists are out and out liars of the most blatant kind. I don’t for a second imagine that anyone at the discovery institute has a genuine interest in finding out how the universe really works. Do you?
April 15th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
As an atheist, I actually agree. There is frequently a lot of rancor in here against Christians (and other religions as well) that goes well beyond fair and reasoned and becomes more a matter of atheist fundamentalism. I think it behooves us to strive to be better than that. (Not because we’re superior, but because everyone should.) I know many Christians who are intelligent, reasoning people who don’t accept everything in the Bible (or that their religious leaders tell them) without a lot of critical thought and without comparing it to the available evidence. I was actually raised Catholic (although it failed to stick starting at age ~10 years) and I can honestly say that most Catholic I personally know do not accept the Bible or the Church’s word as literal and prefer to negotiate their own understanding. Most accept that the evidence points strongly to evolution. We need to recognize that many such people exist (in many faiths) and ally ourselves with them, not against them.
That said, it’s also important to note that the atheists who launch such attacks are probably in the minority and the points against ID still stand, in spite of the (irrelevant) vitriol against theists.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I’m surprised I was the only one who really got the Summer Glau joke.
for the record, here: http://xkcd.com/406/
April 15th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Blackcat: Great example! Again, it’s easy to see that it’s only possible to be a creationist if you choose to dismiss all of modern science as a fiction.
Religious people who make use of the benefits of modern science, whilst trying to undermine the teaching of science in schools are the worst kind of hypocrites. I have no respect for such people, but they’d be less hypocritical if they denied themselves all the benefits of modern science.
April 15th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
themadchemist, John Wiess, I also agree with that line of reasoning.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
John:
I come from a Catholic country- Ireland. I’ve read too many stories of young girls dying because of access to legal abortion (a simple medical procedure).
I’ve read too much about the institutionalized child abuse in the Irish Catholic church.
The Catholics even wanted to curtail the selling of condoms- a cheap and simple product which can prevent an agonizing death from AIDS.
I’ve met too many people who have been scarred or life by a Catholic upbringing. My mother is one of those people. You never get over it.
I’ve had it with Catholics. They’re a blight on Western civilization. They’re nasty little people who would prefer to see others die than challenge their own ridiculous religious agenda.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Holy crap, I can’t believe I missed that XKCD reference. Thanks Ken.
This is getting way too heavy, and I think the guy who we were debunking left in disgust.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Looks like Expelled Exposed is being swamped.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
I can’t get on the site!
April 15th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
@ Christian X Burnham
Actually, there’s a very logical reason for that, and I’m a living example. Once an ‘honest’ Christian begins qustioning those obvious falsities, in my experience, one of two things happens:
Either, you become a moderate “I don’t take the Bible literally, but I still believe in God” Christian… (we have several of those on this site… and although I personally still believe they are deluding themselves, that’s just my opinion and I still respect their ability to think critically).
Or, you become an ex-Chrsitian… which is what happened in my case.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
I can’t get on the site!
…and now I’m having trouble leaving a comment here!
April 15th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I have to say I feel a little bad about the tone that was taken with Matt Garret in some of these posts. I think Matt may perhaps have been a fence-sitter on the issue (maybe not… I was trying to read his “virtual body-language” and I had a hard time getting a feel for his complete point of view)… and I fear that he felt attacked.
And when you represent a side of an issue and approach a fence-sitter in an aggressive, attacking manner, you can actually serve to drive the person to defend the other side of the issue.
Perhaps a bit more temperence could be a benefit when dealing with people like Matt… people new to the argument but at least willing to display on some level that he’d be willing to CONSIDER the other side of the issue.
I think once you identify that a person is open to the discussion, it’s time for firm explanation based around respectful discussion.
I understand completely the tendency to react with frustration and dismissal (I’m guilty of it myself from time to time), but we are probably hurting our cause to educate people.
Humbly submitted for your consideration…
April 15th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Same problem here…says the website can’t be displayed. Server overload? Maybe the word is getting out?
April 15th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Harold can’t get to the Expelled Exposed site, and my own experience was a very limited success. It appears that the site is grossly overloaded. That’s GOOD! It means that lots of folks are being exposed to this excellent rebuttal. The Expelled Exposed folks may need to find a better Web host though, as the traffic may continue to increase.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Well in general the people who try to claim science is a conspiracy, or does not belive it are the ones I feel like taking back to the stone age, not just the beleivers of religion or another.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
@ Davidlpf
… totally agree…
April 15th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Connection timed out.
Hmm . . . I wonder how many have linked to the site?
April 15th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Christian X Burnham:
Not all Catholics oppose abortions. Note that Ireland is rather unique in Western Europe (last I knew) in it’s legal stance on abortion in spite of the fact that it’s not the only Catholic country. I’m going to come right out and say that the evidence strongly suggests that you’re painting Catholic with much too broad a brush.
And you’re saying that this is due to religion or that it’s due to the fact that it’s a large, power organization that can protect its own effectively? If the former, I can point to certain scandals in the US congress and military (and the Boy Scouts… and in various college and professional sports teams… the list goes on) which suggest that a particular religion isn’t required.
True, a lot of Catholics (and a lot of non-Catholics!) oppose birth-control and they’re doing a lot of harm and we should oppose their efforts. But, again, many don’t. I know plenty who ignore the Church’s rulings on these matters and go with their own reasoning. More, in fact, than I know who heel to the rules.
Odd, I seem to have recovered nicely. So has my brother and about a dozen friends of mine. I also know, anecdotally, of dozens more who are “friends of friends”. I’m going to suggest that your sample set is either biased or too limited. (Granted, one could suggest mine is, but let’s apply common sense and ask if it’s really credible that most former Catholics are emotionally scarred for life. I’d say that that qualifies as an extraordinary claim and needs some serious evidence.) I suppose one must also admit the possibility that the Irish Church and culture around it is sufficiently different from the US that we’re simple drawing from different populations. But that being the case, you’re still accusing all Catholics much too broadly, right?
Honestly, you’re sounding like a fairly nasty person who doesn’t like having his world-view challenged. I’m not saying you are, I’m saying your post has that tone to it, too. It might be time to step back and consider if you’re becoming the very thing you’re decrying. (See above where you suggested that people who don’t believe in evolution should forgo modern medical treatments. Sounds a lot like wishing harm upon them because of your own agenda.)
I’m not saying that the Catholic Church is a perfect bunch of folks who only do good; they aren’t and they don’t. I’ve had my bad experiences with Catholics, but they’re a minority of my interactions. Catholics, including the Church as an organization, are a very human and the Church is just as prone to the problems with such large, powerful organizations as anyone else. You’ve clearly had a lot of bad experiences with the Church and I can understand anger towards it, but I’m saying that if you’re going to decry all Catholics as monsters and mindless zombies (and not worthy of kind treatment as individuals), you’re both alienating a lot of allies in the practical matters you’re fighting for (abortion, birth-control, evolution, etc.) — in which case, aren’t you sacrificing lives for your agenda against Catholics? — and you risk becoming just as dogmatic and hate-driven as the worst of the people you’re mad at.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I just saw an ad for this movie on the same cable channel that plays the Mythbusters show… there’s just something not right about that.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Oh, I’d like to add:
I heard and ad for Expelled on NPR’s online stream for “Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me!” I was so sad. I need to write an email complaining.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
John: I’m sorry if I sound like a ‘nasty person’ for being against a medievalist organization who teach that not even women who have been raped should have access to abortions, and that not even people who live in AIDS ridden countries should have access to condoms, and who promote bigotry against homosexuals and women and who petition to end stem-cell research, which has the chance of helping people with Parkinson’s and other illnesses.
Maybe not all Catholics can be blamed for the sins of their organization. Just those who don’t speak out against its pernicious effect on the world. Catholics who openly criticize the church and rally against their church’s dangerous and murderous dogma are exempt from my criticisms.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
@ken
It’s too bad that the Summer Glau post was only a joke because I was going to ask her to marry me. Beauty and brains. Wow what a combination!
Oh well I doubt that my Mrs. would appreciate me trying to marry Summer seeing as how I am already married to her and we don’t live in Utah. One smart and beautiful woman is probably all I can handle anyway.
In another life Summer…
April 15th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
You don’t sound nasty for being against such a group, that’s a straw-man interpretation of what I pretty clearly said. I think that you sound nasty for the depth of your vehemence and your wishing of ill upon them, which is rather a different matter, isn’t it?
Ultimately, making this debate about religion plays right into the Creationists hands. They want to frame the debate this way because they know that they have the numbers, if they can make it about religion, to win. Pretty easily, too. We have to keep our eyes on the ball and not fall into their trap: this is about science versus anti-science. Our personal opinions of religion are irrelevant to the discussion and bring them up (even when cleverly prompted by our opponents) weakens our position.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
No problem Sandswipe. But it was so well done it made me wonder if it was really the cartoonist doing it. I mean, am I the only BAer who reads XKCD? Sheesh!
Quite liked the Sarah Conner Chronicles, BTW. Surprisingly good. I mean it wasn’t Doctor Who or BSG, but for Monday night fare, it was pretty good. Better than T3 anyway.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
@geomaniac
Hey who knows? Maybe Summer gave him the idea for the cartoon with a post of hers.
One can always keep hope in their hearts. Pray for the eventual technological takeover of the human race… Summer might be visiting you!
April 15th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Back on topic…
my absolute favorite quote from the reviews I’ve read on the movie so far comes from Time’s Jeffrey Kluger:
Out-freakin-standing…
Yes, I will be stealing that last line.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
JW: I’m not about to change my opinions because they might upset sensitive ears. I’m not out to convert anyone or to win people’s hearts and minds.
You should note though, that unlike you, I haven’t accused anyone of hatred and vehemence and I try to refrain from insulting people on the BA board.
Yes, I called Catholics ‘nasty little people’, but that pertains to their actions as a group. I don’t doubt that individual Catholics can be as full of human kindness as the rest of us. What I’m challenging is the aims of their organization and the actions of their group as a whole.
We wouldn’t be having this conversation if I had referred to people who vote a particular way as being ‘nasty’. I’m ‘ethnically’ half-Catholic, so I feel pretty confident in claiming that my criticisms were not meant to disparage Catholics as an ethnic group (if such a thing exists).
My personal opinions may be ‘irrelevant’, but they are *mine* and I have a right to discuss them. I don’t expect anyone to agree with them, but I did back up my arguments with specific examples.
My personal opinion is that anyone who belongs to a group whose main activities include fighting contraception and abortion, and stem-cell research is a fool, and furthermore is in part morally culpable for the lives that are lost because of their group’s actions. The fact that this individual organization is also responsible for thousands of child-abuse cases world-wide does not do anything more to endear me to them.
I repeat, Catholics are dangerous people, who have a pernicious effect on society. Same goes for pretty much all Christians who want to control other people’s personal lives (including us who do not belong to their ‘faith’.)
Should I lie and play nice? Should I claim that religion is a harmless affectation, which brings nothing but joy and peace, even if I don’t believe this to be the case? It seems you’d prefer I kept my mouth shut, for the ‘greater good’, because I’m ‘playing into the hands of creationists’. Well, I won’t. Sorry.
BTW what ill did I wish on anyone?
April 15th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
“I repeat, Catholics are dangerous people, who have a pernicious effect on society. Same goes for pretty much all Christians who want to control other people’s personal lives (including us who do not belong to their ‘faith’.)”
I would amend that to any dogmatic faith.
Say what you like about their beliefs…at least Buddhists make good neighbors.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Hey, Matt, thanks for proving to me and the world what
an ignorant and yet still dangerous threat you and all
religious fanatics are to the truly civilized world.
So Jesus said he is the way the truth and the light.
They guy did circular reasoning at best, and his cult
followers use threats and lies to back up their power
grip on the world.
What is the difference between an xian and a muslim -
different colored headbands, I think.
Wake up, rational people, before you find yourselves
having to bow before an idol five times a day and see
your wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters executed
for not wearing a burka, or daring to get rid of an
unwanted pregnancy in a world already overburdened
with humans.
Light a candle against the darkness of the ignorant
and superstitious mythmakers.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Daffy: I’d join *any* religion you start up!
Buddhists make good neighbors in part because they don’t have much of an interest in policing other people’s personal lives. They’re also not known for telling universities and schools what they should and shouldn’t be teaching.
I’ve even been known to like the odd Christian or Muslim, as long as they refrain from telling me what I should and shouldn’t be doing in order to curry favor with their imaginary sky-god.
As I’ve said before- American Jews are also largely exempt from my (brilliant) criticisms. Unfortunately, I now have to cross Ben Stein off that list, but the vast majority of American Jews seem to me to value intellectual achievement above all else. That counts for something in my book!
April 15th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Matt Garret said:
“I heard Ben Stein talk about that today in an interview. His point wasn’t that evolution caused the holocaust, but that the theory was used as a justification for the holocaust.”
Hammers have been used to kill lots of people and break lots of things. Are you likewise afraid and dismissive of carpenters?
Matt, think carefully before you answer. I am a carpenter.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Christian, you’ve done nothing BUT insult Christians on this board. What an utter load of tripe. You say we’re delusional. That we can’t be intelligent if we believe. And a host of other flowery insults that only show your bigotry towards people of faith.
You make assertions about Christians, but you offer no proof. And you know you can’t because faith is faith. And you are threatened by it.
Crudely, so was Jesus, for that matter. And I’m not afraid of dismissive of evolution. Too bad I can’t say the same for others on this board about Christianity.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Christian XBurnham wrote :
“As I’ve said before- American Jews are also largely exempt from my (brilliant) criticisms. Unfortunately, I now have to cross Ben Stein off that list, but the vast majority of American Jews seem to me to value intellectual achievement above all else. That counts for something in my book!”
No they value Israel & its iollegal occupationof Palestien & persecutionof the Palestineans above all else.
The very worst, most tribalist, racist and ugly parts of both Christianity & Islam come mainly – if not exclusively – from the Old Testament or jewish Torah/ Talmud & mishrash.
You know like the bits where God tells a tribe or twelve that they’re “Chosen People” (Uber-race?) and have been given a “Promised land” – that, unfortuantely, a whole lot of other peoples (Canaanites, Moabites, Amalekites, Jebusites, Philisitines, etc …) already live in!
Oh & so Yahweh then not only tells ‘em its okay to committ genocide, he actually commands they do so … eg. Saul was robbed of Kingship for daring to spare the life of the Amalekite King against Gods command for a total Canaanite Holocaust.
Oh & then there’s stuff like “Thou shalt NOT suffer a witch to live!”
& “Thou shalt multilate the genitals of all males” & a whole long string of silly rules on what folks can and can’t eat and do based on .. well no real good reasons really ..
Oh yeah & you get killed for doing anything useful on a Saturday – even collecting firewood – hence the “Man in the Moon” by Jewish legend. (He gathered firewod on the sabbath, was caught & condemmend to death and his ghost was then transported – to eternal exile on the moon where he can still be seen as the Lunar Mares.)
In short, of all the three Abrhamic religions Judiaism is the most primitive, most cruel, least egalitarian and tehonly one where hereditary not belief makes you “a jew.” Indeed Judaism is largely a form of racism in itself.
Not that _anything_ ever justifies persecuting others but Judaism is probably the single worst religion for tolerance and peace & treating others (ie. the goyim or gentiles ie. anyone NOT Jewish) decently.
Yet the way they carry on they’re the only folks whoever had a hard time in all human history – yes the Shoah (Jewish Holocaust) happened – and yes a lot of European Jews were killed – as were many non-jews incl. dissenting Germans, blacks, gypsies, homosexuals, communists adnausem -it wasn’t even just them whichsems alltoooft forgotten. And no just because you’ve suffered does NOT mean you get the right to take over some-one elses nation and treat them badly in revenge! Especially not folks like the Palestineans who had nothing to do with what happened to you – if anyone had to lose to create “Israel” it should ‘ve been Germany.
Plus Israel is one of the main reasons – if not the only one – for the illegal invasion, occupation and quagmire we’ve got in Iraq.
Plus the whole Western World – Islamic World conflict.
No Judiasm is NOT great.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
[...] Phil Plait — davidkirkpatrick @ 12:49 am Phil Plait over at Bad Astronomy has some antidote for the new film by proponents of “intelligent design” — Expelled: N… (Oh whither hast thou gone, Ben [...]
April 16th, 2008 at 12:05 am
All this debate is well and good.
I find great issue with this statement made by
Celloman: “You may not like the metaphor, but ID is to Science what the Tooth Fairy is to modern dentistry. Seriously, why in the 21st Century do people still believe this stuff? This is silly.”
If the Tooth Fairy isn’t real, then where do the shiny half-dollars under my pillow come from? Answer that with your science!
April 16th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Sabra: I sympathize, but I wasn’t counting the Israeli ‘mess’.
I agree that there are significant problems concerning many American Jews’ attitudes to Israel, and that many (but certainly not all) are often too willing to overlook the humanitarian situation of Palestinians.
That’s perhaps a discussion we should have at another time. I say this, because I’m not sure I can do this issue justice in a thread which wasn’t intended to start off a discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Also, the Jewish people I’m acquainted with are almost uniformly in opposition to the sometimes brutal treatment of the Palestinians, and are unafraid to speak up in favor of human rights.
My rather throwaway comment was intended to remark on the fact that American Jews as a whole do not appear to contribute to the anti-intellectual climate which has been embraced by so many Christians. They also do not as a whole seem interested in obtaining converts or policing others’ private lives.
I totally agree that their *religion* is just as dumb as the rest of them, but many many Jews are only culturally and ethnically Jewish, who do no more than pay lip-service to religious traditions.
I find it much harder to criticize Jewish people, because their ‘Jewishness’ is not uniquely determined by an adherence to their religion- it’s just as much a part of their ethnic and cultural identity.
I feel on pretty safe ground in making a distinction between the Irish (for example) and the Catholic religion of the majority of Irish people. I’m quite happy to criticize Catholicism, whilst reserving my respect for the Irish people. Unfortunately, it’s much more difficult for me to criticize the Judaic religion without also insulting their cultural heritage or ethnic identity.
I suppose I’m often guilty of insulting the cultural traditions of Christians in my comments, but I am the product of a Christian society, and so know something of what I speak.
Rightly or wrongly- I also feel on somewhat rockier ground when debating Islam. It worries me that some criticism of Islamic society by some of us atheists can veer dangerously close to racism, if only because we just don’t know enough about Islamic society and traditions to appreciate when we’re (accidently) insulting their cultural heritage (as opposed to their religion- which is fair-game).
April 16th, 2008 at 1:58 am
Islam gets so much abuse in the blogosphere that we atheist don’t really need to pile on. We need to object to the sexism and homophobia and rock-ribbed conservatism of America’s staunchest allies and enemies in the middle east, but our disdain for the religion itself should be taken as given and probably doesn’t merit emphasis.
(I read Reza Aslan’s “No God but God” and could not make head nor tail of the chapter on Sufism. Truly weird stuff. It made me worry that Omar Khayyam, poet and astronomer, was merely waxing mystical with his verses on wine and women. Not to fear, the guy was serious about his jug of shiraz.)
April 16th, 2008 at 3:22 am
Totally off topic: But please don’t call humans “talking monkeys”! That is horrifically insulting!
Monkeys are, for the most part, fine, upstanding citizens of the natural world. Whereas humans are actually part of the ape family. And even most apes, such as gorillas and bonobos, make really fine neighbours.
It’s really just the humans and the chimpanzees that are the real thugs. They’re ugly, brutal, violent, and achieve nothing but the lowering of the property values of any area in which they settle.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:24 am
OK, so it looks like I’m late to the party again…
Matt Garrett said:
“BA, I wish you would stop mischaracterizing the premise of this movie. EXPELLED is NOT about arguing against evolution, it’s about the widespread persecution of teachers and professors who wish to add intelligent design and creationism into the dialog of how we got here. It doesn’t seek to replace evolution at all, but wishes to have a dialog over competing theories.
For someone who prides himself on FACTS and EVIDENCE, you sure do have a problem with getting them straight in this regard. Instead, you’re resorting to character assassination and personal attacks.
And frankly, it’s disappointing.”
Matt, this is sophistry and you know it. Expelled is full of lies from the very beginning. No scientists have been “persecuted” for claiming that evolution is rubbish. The very few examples that Ben Stein presents largely ignore the facts. For example, Gonzalez failed to earn tenure because he was not bringing in grant money, not because he published a book supporting ID (having said that, he asked the tenure committee to consider his book as part of his application).
There is no alternative theory of evolution. ID has no theory.
IDC and other forms of creationism require the evidence to be set aside, because they are directly contradicted by a logical and objective evaluation of the evidence.
Also, whose character is Phil supposed to be trying to assassinate, hmm? As far as I can tell, the worst thing he says is that the Expelled producers have been lying since day one. Which is factual, not a personal attack.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:27 am
Matt Garrett said:
“Derek, why must you “hate” others who believe differently from you do? I find that rather sad considering.”
Why do you assume that Derek hates the people, when my interpretation of his words is that he hates the lying, underhanded and rhetorical tactics they use to try to get their religious agenda considered in the field of science?
Perhaps it is you who are hateful?
April 16th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Matt Garrett said:
“I happen to believe that evolution was how God created the heaven’s and the earth.”
Which goes to show that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
Evolution is a theory about the origin of biological diversity. It has no comment to make about the origin of the Earth or of the Universe. These are dealt with in cosmology and astrophysics.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Matt Garrett said:
“I heard Ben Stein talk about that today in an interview. His point wasn’t that evolution caused the holocaust, but that the theory was used as a justification for the holocaust. ”
Well, then, you heard Ben Stein lying to you. Hitler relied more on Protestant rhetoric than evolutionary theory when justifying the “final solution”.
Plus, Ben Stein may pretend that evolutionary theory was just “used” to justify the holocaust, but what message do you think the film is actually intended to convey?
Hmmm, let’s think:
“Nasty evolutionist conspiracy persecuting ID-believers” juxtaposed with “Oh, the holocaust was justified using evolution”. The message could not be clearer: evolution leads to holocaust.
Ironically, the film-makers have been downright immoral in their production of the film. Or have you not heard that they lied to PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins to obtain interviews. Have you not heard that they stole an animation produced by XVIVO for Harvard?
April 16th, 2008 at 5:41 am
CXB: I applaud your comments (in particular your reponse to “Irishman”). Some excellent points you raised there.
“It is not possible for a truly honest person to also embrace religion.” – indeed. The point here I think is that religious people manage to fool themselves so completely that they blind themselves to the inconsistencies within their own beliefs. You have to be 100% honest with yourself, which is nowhere near as easy as it sounds. I speak from experience here; it took me over 20 years to be “honest” with myself and see my own 2nd hand beliefs for what they really were.
“I’ve never encountered a Christian who expresses an interest in questioning the numerous obvious falsities in the Bible…” – well, I did, for one. And that is why I’m now an atheist. But as I mentioned above, it wasn’t an overnight “revelation”. It took years of critical thinking. But if I can do it, then it proves that it can be done. Most people I think just can’t summon up the effort required for such a world-view change – especially when surrounded by religious friends & family.
“And of course, ALL creationists are out and out liars of the most blatant kind. I don’t for a second imagine that anyone at the discovery institute has a genuine interest in finding out how the universe really works.” – Well of course not. All they are interested in doing is throwing metaphorical spanners into the works of Science, which to me is nothing short of vandalism on a colossal scale. Science is the engine that powers the progress of the modern world. Creationism attacks what it doesn’t understand and wants to replace it with comfortable mythology, all with a veneer of self-satisfying smugness to boot. Well I’ve got news for them; don’t bother trying to tell me I’m going to hell. If anyone is, they are.
And one more thing; my response to Pascal’s Wager: if I am wrong and god exists, when called to account for my life I will answer, “Well, god, I came to the conclusion, using the brain YOU gave me, that you didn’t exist. You can’t blame me for that – it was a perfectly HONEST opinion. If I am damned for being honest, then so be it. But if that’s the case, then you are not a god worthy of being worshipped in the first place. Screw you!”
April 16th, 2008 at 5:42 am
Matt Garrett said:
“I’m not saying that ID should be taught in school. And I wrote a blog post saying it shouldn’t here. But nor do I think that teacher or students who believe as such should be persecuted for it either.
What is so fearful of a conversation? If anything, dialog provides for a learning experience.”
Teachers and students are not being persecuted for believing in ID. However, ID simply is not science and has no place in a science class. What should be taught in science class is top-quality science, of which evolutionary theory is a good example.
What is your opinion of situations where teachers have been and are being persecuted for teaching evolution?
There is no conversation to be had between ID and evolutionary theory, because “ID theory” has no content. It is based on speculation and wishful thinking, and the only arguments that have been proposed to support it constitute feeble strawman attacks on evolutionary theory, coupled to a false dichotomy.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:47 am
Matt Garrett said:
“!I see that on both sides of the spectrum when trying to prove a point, CE. But considering the context at that time is discussing using evolution as justification for the holocaust, what kind of images should they show, pictures of Teletubbies? Movies are a visual medium.”
Oh, come on, surely you cannot be this naive?
Since the film is supposed to be about some big-science conspiracy to silence ID, why the hell is the holocaust even mentioned, if not to associate evolution with the murder of 6,000,000 Jews?
April 16th, 2008 at 5:50 am
Matt Garrett said:
“But refute it with facts. And if Expelled Exposed does that with sources, then fine. My point is I don’t see much of that HERE.”
What, you mean you posted your accusation of Phil before you had even followed the link?
Have you followed the link? Have you read about the deviousness of the film’s producers? Have you done any independent online research to find out if what Ben Stein says in his interviews is actually true?
If not, then why the blazes did you start out accusing Phil of character assassination?
April 16th, 2008 at 5:50 am
(Apologies in advance for using the word “screw” there – I hope I didn’t violate Phil’s decency rules. I generally never use strong language anywhere online for the simple reason that I prefer eloquence to crudeness, but that one slipped out!)
April 16th, 2008 at 5:56 am
Matt Garrett said:
“In the end, I see no patience on the part of the pro evolution position (if I may put it that way) for people of faith.”
Well, you have obviously not looked very far.
Go to The Panda’s Thumb (Phil has a link there in the side-bar).
One of the site administrators (Pim van Meurs) is a staunch Christian.
Science is extraordinarily tolerant of people of faith. But when some of those people of faith start trying to tell the public that the scientists are all wrong, then the scientists will not be patient. I have lost all tolerance for supporters of IDC over the last couple of years, because I have seen nothing from them but negativity – lies, accusations, distortions, misrepresentations and more.
IDC suporters have no interest in engaging in an academic debate. They have no genuine interest in academic freedom. They have no interest in learning about the science. Their interest stems from a Christian Dominionist agenda, with the ultimate aim of turning the USA into a theocracy (go to Wikipedia and look up the Wedge Document). This is why they have started with public schools – because theirs is a political approach, not a scientific one.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Matt Garrett said:
“But I would think that those who call themselves enlightened wouldn’t have to resort to name calling and would welcome every opportunity to engage people to teach them something and perhaps learn why they believe what they believe.”
Oh, how I wish that this were so.
Sadly, the fundies I have encountered on the web have no interest in learning. They have no interest in facts. They have no interest in sharing why they believe what they do (some of them even refuse to respond to a polite inquiry into exactly what it is they believe). At the end of the day, too many of the anti-science crowd have no interest in participating in any kind of civilised debate. Faced with this kind of disruptive dishonesty, can you at least understand the temptation to become irate with them?
April 16th, 2008 at 6:27 am
I think we should stop feeding the concern troll.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:41 am
@ Summer Glau
“p.s. Please check out the Sarah Connor Cronicles on Fox!”
Awesome reference.
P.P.S. I can kill you with my brain
April 16th, 2008 at 6:45 am
There was an ad for this movie on the Science channel of all places.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Christian: “Daffy: I’d join *any* religion you start up!”
LOL! Thanks, Christian…if I did start one it would probably involve dressing everyone up in feathers or something. Probably best I don’t.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Just a quick comment regarding Buddhists not being interested in politics or not pushing their beliefs. Do some research on Soka Gakkai. Although generally well-meaning (like the majority of believers in various faiths), I have experienced how pushy they can be, trying to convert someone who is not of their faith. They also use cult-like tactics similar to some of the evangelical Christians I’ve known (and been). Further, in Japan, SG has a political party.
This is just one example, and it is not representative of the entirety of the SG members, but it does illustrate that Buddhists, too, have their bad apples.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Well Nigel, I think your statement is a misnomer. I am not anti-Science and I think you’re painting Christians as anti-Science is unfair. I, for one, am more than happy to share what and why I believe. All you need to do is ask.
But as Jesus never truly argued with people about belief. I will not argue the point of science vs. faith. God reaches people according to where they’re at, not brow-beating them in some sort of argumentative cage match.
Thanks for the heads up about Panda’s Thumb. Will check it out.
And since I’m new to the boards, I was merely pointing to the name calling. I expect more from Phil, that’s all.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:05 am
TheBlackCat: Evidence? Easy. Genesis says some specific things. For instance, a worldwide flood wiped out all land animals on Earth recently.
Depending on how you read. Look at Genesis 8:5 and 8:9 carefully.
See a problem with the “worldwide flood” interpretation? (Hint: How could the mountaintops be uncovered and yet water cover “all the earth”?)
Some respond to this by saying that the Bible is so messed up that it can’t even get its own stories straight. Others look deeper and point out that if one investigates the original language and its usage, not only does “all the earth” not refer to the entire planet, but the word for “mountains” is a vague term and is more often translated “hills” (and things usually fall apart quickly after that). Not exactly parsimonious, but there you go.
Also, “recently” is up for grabs. As are many of the claims that follow from the idea of a worldwide flood (e.g., that all animals are descended from a single pair of animals in Noah’s time).
In any event, there’s a good deal more squish room in there than that, as one might expect from a text used to define religious belief.
Christian X Burnham: I’ve never encountered a Christian who expresses an interest in questioning the numerous obvious falsities in the Bible, or one who challenges the ridiculous absurdities spouted by their religious leaders.
-= raises hand =-
I welcome new facts, since they cause me to examine what I believe and why. I like to know what I’ve been accepting as true that isn’t, even implicitly. Yes, even the holes in Scripture (like why Moses would ban the consumption of coneys because they’re ruminants, when they clearly aren’t).
And I recently got it a little bit of hot water for calling a somewhat well-respected (by some Christians, anyway) leader out on the carpet by name in a sermon for speaking and behaving in a despicable manner. (I would hope that the fact that I give sermons is an indication of my devotion to the faith, since actions tend to speak louder than words; after all, “faith without works is dead”, right?)
It may not be a face-to-face encounter, but you can at least count one.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Matt, I call ‘em like I see ‘em. Ben Stein and the producers of this movie have lied, repeatedly and with forethought, since the beginning of all this. It’s been documented, it’s clear, and it’s also clear this movie is one long string of lies and misdirections.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Being @ lunch I didn’t have time to read every single one of these.
That said; I am torn between wanting to see this to see for myself how slanted, twisted or… it is, but, don’t want to pay anything to support it.
conundrum for sure.
I kinda like the fact that there are so many beliefs at odds w/ one another dwelling in the mins of humankind, I think it makes living on this ball more interesting.
we all need a bit of comedy
Peace all,
April 16th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I came across this interview with Ben Stein on the “Christianity Today” website:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/interviews/benstein.html
I think it’s pretty enlightening. Mr. Stein makes his religious biases abundantly clear. He also makes it clear that he didn’t know much of anything about “Intelligent Design” until after he was roped into this project.
April 16th, 2008 at 10:53 am
One final comment:
“You have to be a little bit crazy to believe,,,”
GAry 7
April 16th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Nigel:
If you want to know what we fundies believe, may I recommend Hershel Hobb’s “Fundamentals of Our Faith.” You might also browse through Billy Graham’s website or read his book “Peace with God.” Be aware that Fundamentalist Christianity is a huge classification that extends across political and denominational lines and has numerous subsets.
Your observation about fundies on the web also holds true for secularists that show up on Christian sites. Perhaps it’s a common denominator of those who feel they must play the role of unwanted gadfly. While it’s true that many Christians have not given what they believe serious thought, the percentage of secularists who don’t examine their own are about the same. FWIW I think all of us should examine not only what we believe but why we believe it.
Shrug. Some have made up their minds that we fundies are anti-Science and nothing will change that. Even though a lot of us enjoyed watching the lunar eclipse a few weeks back and most of my Sunday School class got up early to watch that Sunday meteor shower several years ago. Sometimes I fear they’ll make me turn in my telescope.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Matt,
You appear to come here with a reasoned approach… but when presented with the opportunity to easily agther the evidence you asked for regarding the underhanded and just plain wrong tactics fo the the producers, director, and even stars of Expelled you seem to have not doen so. This is disingenious at best. Please, go look for yourslef at what the folks responsible for Expelled have done to make their movie – they have earned the titles they are given by Phil many times over.
You have told people here that cannot disprove creationism… that’s kinda the point. It’s known as being an unfalsifiable idea and it’s what defines it as not science. To be science it must make a falsifiable claim. Example : I will drop this appple and it will fall at a specific and measurable speed. There are several testable (falsifiable) items in there. They are : the apple will, it will do so at a specific speed and that that speed is measurable. It’s a pretty simple concept isn’t it? Unfortunately ID, creationsim, or any of it’s other names makes not even 1 falsifiable claim to be tested. Not one.
No test = No science. No science = Not taught in science class. It’s that simple. It really is.
It does not matter that there are “holes” in evolutionary theory – it makes falsifiable claims that can be tested. Those “holes” are what are known as questions and it’s from them that progress is made. Over the last 158 years hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of falsifiable claims related to evoltuion have been made. Some failed and were tossed out and some were confirmed. Others then looked at the same data, did similar tests of their own and came to the same conclusions. Thousands of other, tens of thousands even. Modern biology is completely underpinned by evolution as is medicine and many other disciplines. The simple fact of the matter is that the theory (meaning it’s predicitons) works. It works every time. Medicines are based on it, food crops are based on it, thousands of things you take for granted are based on it.
This is how all scinece works. From thermodynamics to astrophysics to stem cell research. All of it.
If you want to teach about ID or creationism in a comparative religion class then by all means do so… but don’t try to teach it as science. It simply isn’t.
Expelled tries to argue that ID is science and should have equal academic footing with other science. They are wrong.
April 16th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Stark, creationism does make fasifiable claims, and indeed it is falsified!
April 16th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
I just laugh when I see christians whining about being persecuted because rational people won’t allow ID to be taught in science class.
You people don’t know what persecution is.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Pieter,
While I have seen fasifications of creationism they have all been based to my eye on assumed statements that Creationism would make beyond the “God did it” argument that is the centeral idea in creationsim. None of the falsifications I have seen use anything I can find froma an “official” source on creationism. This would b largely due to the fact that there is no “official” source – which the cynic in me suspects is a deliberate move. The most common item I see falsified is the idea of irreducible complexity – debunking that is much like shooting fish in barrel – but I don’t believe that you will find this idea as a major part of the average persons understanding of ID or creationism. I certainly haven’t. When I’ve asked the questions of creationists/ID’ists as to what they believe I invariably get “God designed it all. Garden of Edend, adam and Eve, etc.” I’ve never been presented with “The flagellum is irreducibly complex” from an average person – even when I’ve primed them for the response.
So, perhaps bad wording on my part, I should have said: The base tenant of ID and creationism is not falsifiable. The statement “God did it.” (or some other all powerful designer…ahem) cannot be tested because it makes no prediciton.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Apologies for the gross typos in my preceding post – I was in hurry and failed to proof read prior to posting!
April 16th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Stark, there is an important difference between old-skool creationists and ID proponents: Genesis makes very explicit predictions, which are all falsified. ID mostly tries to put a road sign up with “until here and no further”, and indeed there is not much to fasify about that. The arguments why we should take ID seriously, on the other hand, have been thoroughly refuted.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Beelzebud: You people don’t know what persecution is.
Right. Insults are not attacks. Criticism is not persecution. Arguments are not evidence. Repeat this until the blood gets to your brain.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
MattFunke, my sarcasm detector (that really useful invention) just went ?!?!?
April 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Elwood: Thanks for the comments.
I agree! There do exist Christians who examine their religion in a critical manner- which invariably leads them to atheism. The question is, is it possible to remain a Christian after such a critical analysis? I doubt it.
I also agree that it’s not as easy as I implied to be 100% honest about our belief systems. All of us carry around various personal beliefs which we avoid challenging because it might be too painful. For instance, the vast majority of us consider ourselves to be above average drivers, and we also tend to rate ourselves highly in self-assessments of kindness and intellect. Even murderous dictators think that they’re doing things for the greater good.
So, I should point out that whilst I still believe that it’s only possible to be a Christian if you’re willing to lie to yourself, Christians are by no means unique in their capacity for self-deception. I’m not even certain that I’m any more honest with myself than most Christians.
Creationists however are blatant liars on an altogether different scale. They’re religious sociopaths who willingly and consciously deceive in order to promote their worldview.
The BA had it *exactly* right when he referred to the producers of ‘Expelled’ as ‘evil lying frauds’.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Christian, religious belief is an emotion, rather than an intellectual position. If you experience the emotion, it is tempting to rationalize it (”there really is something out there”), and that’s where we seem to get the most heated debates. It is also why theism-atheism debates are always so pointless: you are not going to convince somebody with arguments that his emotions are not real. That’s like trying to convince Romeo that love does not exist.
April 16th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Pieter Kok: MattFunke, my sarcasm detector (that really useful invention) just went ?!?!?
It’s simple. I’m Christian. I don’t think I’m persecuted. I think many Christians who claim to be persecuted are not being persecuted — they’re merely being insulted, or criticized, or argued with.
Christian X Burnham: I agree! There do exist Christians who examine their religion in a critical manner- which invariably leads them to atheism. The question is, is it possible to remain a Christian after such a critical analysis? I doubt it.
I’m still a Christian. Though I must admit that I find atheism awfully tempting from time to time — after all, if you honestly believe that coming to God is a matter of faith, then God is doomed to fail every Occam’s Razor test you put Him to, and I really like parsimony — it seems a trifle unfair to make such a blanket statement.
I would agree that it is impossible to honestly examine one’s Christian beliefs critically and come away with the idea that one is holding those beliefs based on logic or reason. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s impossible to honestly examine them and no longer hold onto anything resembling them (in a sense broad enough to be covered by the term “Christian”).
April 16th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Ug, I can’t believe what a cesspit this place turns into when religion comes up. Are you guys all really proud of the things you write here? For so many people who claim to have been critical of their own views, there’s a lot of pride-filled name calling. When so-called “rational” and “critical” evolution supporters are frothing at the mouth and bringing out logical fallacy after logical fallacy, it creates exactly the kind of environment in which ID can thrive.
You’re hurting your own side. Knock it off and respond with critical and rational analysis, the things you claim to have.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
IRA writes:
I understand they drink the blood of babies, too.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Richard Wolford writes:
What do you think the books by Ken Miller or Brian Dalrymple were about? Why do you think I’ve spent ten years on AOL arguing for evolution on message boards? The moderate Christians ARE speaking up against teaching religion as science, and have been for some time, only people like you keep repeating the lie that we’re “silent.” Like the way they said Muslims haven’t spoken up against terrorism. Same example of either lying or gross ignorance.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
IRA rants:
And Christians in a good part of this world (China, North Korea, the middle east, much of Africa) wind up in labor camps or jails for worshipping or for teaching their religion. You might just want to subscribe to something by Amnesty International for a while, so you don’t perpetrate falsehoods about who is and isn’t persecuted.
And the fact that Christians aren’t generally victimized in the US the way they are in Saudi Arabia doesn’t mean a particular blog can’t feature a bunch of Christian-haters like you, and it doesn’t take away our free speech rights to answer haters like you. Deal with it, pal.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Pieter: Once again, my aim is not to convert people to atheism. I’m constantly criticized for poor strategy, but I’m not trying to win over the people on the other side. I’m only concerned with explaining my opinion of the truth of the situation.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
IRA posts:
But Matt G. explicitly said he believed in evolution, and in fact he has said so on several threads, so why do you post a lie like this? If it isn’t a deliberate lie, it seems to spring from a worldview that stereotypes all Christians as creationists. I’m a Christian and I believe in creation; I don’t believe in creationism. Do you understand the difference?
April 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
IRA posts:
This is exactly the same type of “reasoning” the John Birch Society used to prove that Dwight D. Eisenhower was a Communist.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
CXD posts:
If you can’t imagine someone honestly disagreeing with you on an issue, and have to insist that they must secretly agree and be lying, it’s a sure sign that you don’t understand the issue in the first place.
Sure there is, I’ve known several.
Darn that Jacob Javits, and Lowell Weicker, and Dwight Eisenhower, and Gerry Ford! What a bunch of depraved evildoers!
CXB, your anti-Christianism is morally equivalent to anti-semitism. Same moral value exactly, same mindset, same usage.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Christian X:
CS Lewis moved from atheism to Christianity. Anyone who’s read his non-fiction can hardly claim he did not examine his faith. The assertion that no Christian who has examined their faith has remained a Christian does not hold up. And there are Christians who came to their belief because they examined the faith and concluded it was valid.
Yet would be as much an error to say that no atheist who has seriously examined their belief has remained an atheist. That most people, Christian or Atheist, don’t seriously examine their belief is, I think, part of human nature.
This is not lost in Christian circles. An acquaintance seriously wonders if he would have become a Christian had he grown up in a Muslim environment. Knowing how he came to be a Christian I don’t think that would have much of a bearing on him. Yet a good many people go to church and say and do the expected things simply because that’s how they were raised. That holds true for any ideology.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I didn’t read all the replies, so someone else might have already posted this, but …
PZ Myers is spearheading a googlebomb over at pharyngula, for those who are so inclined.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
TheBlackCat writes:
On the other hand, there’s very good evidence for massive episodes of flooding around the Mediterranean basin area around 4000, 2400, and 1600 BC. That would have been “all the world” to whoever wrote Genesis. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if there really was a Noah/Utnapishtim/Deucalion. If somebody did survive something like that by building a floating structure, the story would be around a long time. On the other hand, if it were proved the story was just a story, it would still be useful as such though not as history.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
CXB writes:
It is not possible for a truly honest person to also embrace atheism. It is not possible for a truly honest person to also embrace evolution. It is not possible for a truly honest person to also embrace democracy. Want me to go on?
Your statement — not you, goodness knows, but your statement — is garbage of the purest ray serene. Arrogant self-promotion and vilification of the hated other.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
CXB posts:
Your white sheets are back from the cleaners. The hood got a little damaged, though.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
KC: C.S. Lewis’s arguments for coming to Christianity were pretty naive and would not pass muster in any other academic field (other than theology).
He tried an analogue of his argument for God in ‘The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe’ in which the professor figure claims that the little girl who entered into a magical kingdom inside a wardrobe must have been telling the truth, because she was not known to be a congenital liar and she was not insane.
By those standards, we would have to believe any UFO report in the media made by a witness who was neither insane or a pathological liar. Of course, we don’t, because we realize that it’s possible for honest people to be genuinely mistaken. (A possibility apparently never considered by Lewis.)
April 16th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
CXB posts:
Phil, would you allow comments like this on your blog if they were about Jews or black people or gays? I’d like a direct answer, please.
If it were my blog, CXB would be gone. Period.
April 16th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Sabra writes:
Hey, nice place your blog is becoming, Phil. Do you want to cross-post this stuff on Stormfront, or just let the individual posters do that?
April 16th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Finally! Got into the site and at last discovered a rational review of “Expelled.” I have some quibbles, but they’re *factual* quibbles. There was none of the strident rhetoric that has up to this point characterized objections to “Expelled.”
“Expelled Exposed” didn’t mention some of the comments Sternberg received. Basically they presented a counter argument, but then, that’s the stated purpose of the site. From what I’ve heard, the situation wasn’t quite as rosy for Sternberg as “Expelled Exposed” maintains, and that shades one or two of their other rebuttals of the “Expelled.”
The bit on atheism in science looks interesting because I’ve encountered it before in the few Young Earth Creationists I’ve met in person. There’s a strong misconception that the entire reason that science says the earth is billions of years old is to give time for evolution. They don’t realize that different fields have looked at different evidence and reached the same conclusions. On this I think “Expelled Exposed” is likely correct.
They’re not quite accurate in their section on Hitler and Eugenics. Eugenic supporters did use the theory of Evolution as justification. It’s easy for a reader to get the impression that support for Eugenics was fading rapidly in the West. Not quite. Eugenics in the U.S. didn’t really come into disfavor until the Nazi rhetoric of a “Master Race.” By WWII, Eugenics was pretty much on the skids (Spike Jones and the City Slickers did quite a number on it in “Der Furher’s Face” and Disney used the lyrics to good effect in the hilarious Donald Duck cartoon by the same name).
All in all it didn’t set my “blood boiling” because it’s at least a rational response. Not perfect, but much better than a shrill diatribe. And it gives a starting point for more research into both the claims and the rebuttals.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
This will be my first time responding to my personal troll, BPL.
i) You’ve been warned twice now by the Bad Astronomer not to make accusations of racism/anti-semitism/comparison to Nazis/comparison to KKK members. The fact that you continue to ignore his warnings indicates to me that you have little respect for this blog.
ii) If you had read my posts you will note that I went to great lengths to explain that my criticisms of Catholicism should not be construed as attacks on their ‘ethnicity’. I am criticizing Catholicism, and other religions solely on their religious dogma. I also mentioned that I am ‘ethnically’ half-Catholic. I was born in Ireland.
I also went to great lengths to explain my respect for Jewish people, so your charges of anti-semitism are ridiculous.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to lie about my posts by taking a couple of lines out of context. I find it quite offensive that you do so.
I have personally emailed the Bad Astronomer twice now to ask that you be banned from this forum. I am fed up with your personal attacks against myself and other posters, which do nothing to further the discussions we have. Others should note that I have not once attacked BPL in print (or until now, even responded to his remarks).
April 16th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Christian X Burnham, you are a disgrace to humanity. You are a complete and total idiot.
Am I allowed to call people idiots on this blog? If not, I won’t again, but in this case I don’t consider this to be a personal attack, merely a statement of fact. Some people are, in fact, idiots.
I’m just gonna quote you a few times and point out your total lack of logic and reason. And call you an idiot.
“Doesn’t surprise me. It’s not possible for any reasonably intelligent adult to be a Christian without intentionally deceiving themselves and usually others.”
Completely unprovable statement made from your own prejudices and stereotypes. You are an idiot.
Side step to mention something TheBlackCat said real quick: “For instance, a worldwide flood wiped out all land animals on Earth recently. Such a flood would have caused very specific and easily-identifiable effects on the Earth. Those do not exist, therefor the flood could not have happened.”
That is not logical. I would be happy to get into why later.
“I’ve never encountered a Christian who expresses an interest in questioning the numerous obvious falsities in the Bible,”
Nothing in the Bible can be proven false (or true!). You are an idiot. Also, this is a purely anecdotal and stereotypical example you use.
“I come from a Catholic country- Ireland. I’ve read too many stories of young girls dying because of access to legal abortion (a simple medical procedure).”
Did you mean a lack of? Although, Ron Paul would argue that in over 4,000 babies he delivered and women treated, 0 required an abortion to save their lives. Perhaps you were reading some propaganda?
“and who promote bigotry against homosexuals and women and who petition to end stem-cell research, which has the chance of helping people with Parkinson’s and other illnesses.”
A couple things here: 1) Catholic people view homosexuality as a personal choice and therefore they can’t be bigoted against it anymore than a person is bigoted against shoplifting, 2) Catholic people may be against embryonic stem-cell research, which is not the same as stem-cell research. You are an idiot.
“Buddhists make good neighbors in part because they don’t have much of an interest in policing other people’s personal lives.”
I’ve never had a problem with any neighbors regardless of their religions, but I’m not using that as an argument for any religion. Your anecdotal, stereotyping arguments are just horrible.
“I agree! There do exist Christians who examine their religion in a critical manner- which invariably leads them to atheism. The question is, is it possible to remain a Christian after such a critical analysis? I doubt it.”
What??? I think this is the dumbest thing you’ve said. Lots of people examine one faith and instead of becoming atheists, switch to another religion they think is better.
I would argue against atheism simply because of the unprovable nature of god. (Not being religious I don’t use the capital G.) You can’t say there is no god with certainty; it’s not logical because it requires you to assume things about the concept of god which don’t make sense. (That’s also why TheBlackCat’s statement i quoted is logically false.)
I’d be happy to explain my thoughts on this, but I’m hoping Christian X Burnham starts flaming me.
If you’re 17 dude, I take back everything I said. You aren’t totally lost to the world. But if you’re an adult, wow.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Dear ol’ BPL! What thread here at BA would be complete without your knee-jerk apologism and ad-hominens? You are the living embodiment of Godwin’s Law.
As I am currently hopped up on cold meds, and thus not in possession of all of my mental faculties, let me respond to just the simplest and most easily refuted examples of your never-ending torrent of bovine excreta.
I think it was pretty darned clear that the discussion about the persecution of Christians was in the context of the Western world. So what the heck does the persecution of Christians in some Muslim countries have to do with anything?
And yes, I’m sure your friend would have come to Christianity anyway, even if he’d been born into a Muslim family in a Muslim country, and had never been exposed to Christianity until adulthood. Because, after all, Christianity is right, and Islam and atheism are wrong, and anybody can see that, if they just look at it honestly!
Your invisible sky-fairy is the only real invisible sky-fairy!!!
And as for Rand:
If you’d actually read the whole thread you’d have seen several explanations why “evolution supporters” (Do we belong to a supporters’ union like football fans?) have very good reasons for reacting uncharitably at the umpteenth repeat of the same tired arguments.
Why the **** should we respond with calm, rational analysis? That clearly didn’t work the first four thousand times!
And please list the logical fallacies you claim were committed against the poor, oppressed, persecuted Christians.
And to all of you (mainly American) theists playing the persecution card: How can you claim to be persecuted, when the majority of Americans swear they would never vote for an atheist president, regardless of policy, experience, intelligence, charisma, good looks, or family connections?
Call me childish, but if we do “hate” you (or in reality, just get impatient with you, which wounds your sensitive feelings) it’s only because the majority of you long ago decided to hate us!
April 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
BPL says : It is not possible for a truly honest person to also embrace atheism. It is not possible for a truly honest person to also embrace evolution. It is not possible for a truly honest person to also embrace democracy. Want me to go on?
Well, no, I don’t want you to go on but I do want you to explain your statements.
How does evoultion require self deception?
Democracy is a system that has known and accepted flaws. I know of no one who purports it to be perfect… so what self deception is required to practice it?
I’ll give you atheism – it makes an assumption of the absolute non-existence of a deity… a prospect which by the very definition of a deity is unkowable (how convenient for religion) so I’ll conced that non-belief where the pure logical choice would be no opinion could be seen as self decpetion.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Robbie,
Personal attacks are indeed frowned upon. And no matter how you couch it calling someone an idiot is a personal attack.
As for the rest of your statements – Christian is more than capable of defending himself should he choose to do so… but I will comment on your snippet form BlackCat. Specifically: “For instance, a worldwide flood wiped out all land animals on Earth recently. Such a flood would have caused very specific and easily-identifiable effects on the Earth. Those do not exist, therefor the flood could not have happened.”
You later say: You can’t say there is no god with certainty; it’s not logical because it requires you to assume things about the concept of god which don’t make sense. (That’s also why TheBlackCat’s statement i quoted is logically false.)
Holy non-sequitur Batman! The quote you pulled from BlackCat says <b nothing about god at all. It talks about a described event from the bible that is unsupported by the physical evidence. His statement is indeed logically consistent but your analysis is not.
As for “Nothing in the Bible can be proven false (or true!). ” What? Really? How did you come to that conclusion? The places in the bible can certainly be verified… as can some of the people – a certain Roman emperor springs quickly to mind. As for false information in the bible – well that’s even easier. It is self contradictory in a number of places – logically this automatically means that at least one item is false. For a quick example you can look at the 2 different and contradictory creation accounts in the bible… they can’t both be right now can they?
April 16th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I have not read most the last hundred or so entries. My views on God is if there is one it is not a women or man in white robes, it is more like the universe itself. I do believe in humanity and its ability to reason how the universe works. I also dislike the term fundie because there is region on the planet called the bay of fundy where I live.
There are extremists in every crowd but the majority are more moderate. I think Christian X Burnham and others are pointing that out clearly. Christian yes there are deaths because of the lack of abortion in some places, and in some places in the states people are being threatened for performing abortions. But calling people names for their beliefs is just sinking down to their level. If the people want to convert to their beliefs stop using the tactics such as going to hell etc. If the movie was about how some teachers are being fired for teaching ID in science classes well they should be it is not science.
Science is not a debate it is looking at all the evidence and figuring out what is going or what has happened. ID has no proof of outside intelligent being directing life into the forms they are now. As stated before on another thread unless this intelligent designer comes down creates a life form from nothing there won’t be any proof. There is ton of evidence for evulotion and more has been found then there was during Darwains time.
People have every right to believe what they want in their own homes churches and hearts but in the arena of science it is the evidence is what counts. For the people who think they are christians reread the bible there are phrases such judge not let the be judged etc, plus I have it actions not words that matter.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Phil Plait has emailed me to ask me to stop posting on his blog. I will respect his wishes.
I do not think I have broken the forum rules, but he thought my comments were not ‘civilized’ and that I’m guilty of ‘ad-hominem’ attacks. That’s a subjective thing, and it’s his blog, but I don’t see that I’ve made personal attacks against others.
I’d also like to note that I’ve been a long time and consistent supporter of this blog. I regularly submit BA stories to ‘Reddit’ and I’ve written untold posts in support of Phil’s comments.
I appreciate that I take a very different tack to Phil when it comes to religion. I wholeheartedly support his brilliant anti-creationist posts, but I’m much more willing to cast my net a little wider in criticizing religion in general. I don’t expect Phil to agree with my posts, but they are *my* opinions, which I try to present without attacking others. I was under the impression that such dialogue was allowed.
Anyway, even if I disagree with his decision, I have enormous respect for his blog and wish Phil Plait and the posters here the best of luck.
April 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I don’t think what I said in reference to TheBlackCat’s statement is related to what I said later about proving or disproving the existence of god. A position we are in agreement on.
As per my statement about proving or disproving something from the Bible, my point was that it’s merely logically impossible. It’s not terribly difficult to raise reasonable doubt about something the Bible says. Nor is it terribly difficult to find reason to think that the Bible is correct about something. Your examples illustrated both points perfectly.
But I don’t think that’s what TheBlackCat said. Reading his quote, he says “the flood could not have happened.” Well, to me, it cannot be clearly be shown that the flood could not have happened, but it can be reasonably shown that the flood did not happen. That’s super nit-picking, but I really only find arguing the logic or lack of in the Bible interesting, not the events themselves. If you don’t accept the premise of the Bible it’s pretty useless to seriously debate the events it describes, I think.
If someone is legally retarded and I say that he’s retarded, is that a personal attack? No. That’s analogous to what I think about Christian X Burnham.
I suppose saying he’s a disgrace to the human race is a personal attack though. My bad!
April 16th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Robbie: “Nothing in the Bible can be proven false (or true!). You are an idiot. Also, this is a purely anecdotal and stereotypical example you use.”
Robbie, the Bible gives the value of pi as 3.0. And that is only one example; there are lots and lots of things in the Bible that can be proven wrong. Clearly you have never read it.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I’m obviously not being clear about this. I’m just pointing out that were God to have set the value of pi at 3.0 in the past and then changed that and all of the laws of the universe, that is in his power and isn’t subject to proof or disproof. Yes, it is not reasonable that human beings base their lives on such concepts and ideas, or to base science on the unknowable, but it is possible nonetheless. If you’re God you can do whatever you want.
I know, that’s silly, but like I said, I treat the Bible as a thought experiment and thinking about the logic of a truly all-powerful god is fun to me.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
One of the great ironies about religious discussion is that no matter how stridently it is claimed that a deity is worshipped, the discussion devolves instantly to talking about and combat between people.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Robbie -
Regardless of how you attempt to frame it or mask it, your repeated use of resorting to calling anyone an “idiot”, (one of many needless insults you spewed forth), regardless of your reasoning or rationalization, just shows a lack of respect. Do better than that.
Well, it really depends on the delivery. If you are physician and are decribing his/her condition as “mentally retarded”, then it’s probably fine. If you’re just some blowhard on the sidelines pointing at him and calling him a ‘retard’, then you’re just a jerk.
And I’d have to say right at this moment I question your delivery.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
oh… and Robbie…
The value of Pi was something OTHER than 3.0 long before the Bble was ever written. The ancient Egyptians certainly knew it, as did the ancient Greeks.
You’re really reaching by trying to make the argument that perhaps God just “changed the value” from what it was written in the Bible at some point. REALLY reaching.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
@Christian X-
Won’t take the time to read the whole thread that led to the problem, but I’ve usually found your posts to be pretty balanced. If you see this and would like to talk about it, please email me directly. Contact info is on my site.
April 16th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I plainly admitted it was reaching and being silly, but I was merely debating the provability. Not how reasonable it was. I did say at least once it was not a reasonable position for humans to take.
Celtic_Evolution, I am a doctor. Thanks.
(Not really.)
April 16th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
OK… and I’m trying to tell you that it is quite easy to point out the provability of something that was recorded erroneously AFTER the accurate knowledge was already displayed elsewhere.
And if you are admittedly reaching and being silly… well then i have to ask… why?
April 16th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Well TheBlackCat was speaking absolute terms so I was too. Both being equally silly.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I would debate the “equally” part.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
He said that you can disprove things in the Bible. My point was that if you assume God did the things in the Bible, they can not be disproven starting with that assumption. Now, anything, no matter how false, can be proven if you start with a false premise. But you can’t prove or disprove the premise that God did everything in the Bible. I hope my point is now logically clear.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Robbie: “He said that you can disprove things in the Bible. My point was that if you assume God did the things in the Bible, they can not be disproven starting with that assumption. Now, anything, no matter how false, can be proven if you start with a false premise. But you can’t prove or disprove the premise that God did everything in the Bible. I hope my point is now logically clear.”
Forgive me but, are you making the claim that God changed the value of pi? Or are you merely making the point that someone could, if they wanted, make that claim?
If the former, then I can only reply that if God is going to contradict his own Bible, then he should send out an addendum to let people know which parts have been rescinded…rather than rely on science (irony writ large!) to point out the errors for Him.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“Or are you merely making the point that someone could, if they wanted, make that claim?”
That.
April 16th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Gotcha. Thanks!
April 16th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Yes… and they could also make the claim that if they jump off a 60 story building, God can change the laws of physics at that moment and they will gently float to the ground unharmed.
Good luck with that one too.
Me, I think I’m done arguing the absurd now.
April 16th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Well if it’s your religious belief to believe that God and the universe don’t behave that way you’re more than welcome to, but I prefer to keep my religious beliefs big and broad. You could, after all, randomly quantum jump to the moon. What’s the difference?
April 16th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
OK:
In the interest of accuracy, the whole “Bible says Pi is 3″ comes from the description of the basin constructed for the First Temple. This is found in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2. In these verses it describes the basin as being ten cubits from brim to brim and thirty cubits in circumference. Most read these two verses and go no further. But reading on, we discover something interesting about the basin: It was a handbreadth thick and the brim was made like the brim of a cup. In other words, the top was likely flared. The diameter of a flared brim would be greater than the diameter of the top of the basin itself. Thus we cannot infer that pi = 3 is found in the Bible.
Something else interesting: The difference between the calculated diameter and the stated diameter is about 0.45 cubits. Divide that by two and we have 0.225 cubits. That works out to about a handbreadth in the cubits used at that time.
Which is probably more than anyone wanted to know about the basin in the First Temple . . .
April 17th, 2008 at 2:47 am
Christian X Burnham, that is a shame. I think you went over the top at times in this thread, but in general I find your comments well thought through and worth reading.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:57 am
Well I have to admit that’s a new one on me : Argument from Absurdity. I also have to say that it is pointless and invalid as relates to debates between believers and non believers and issues of self deception in religion. If you believe in the bible you aren’t merely saying god can do what he pleases (your source of Absurdity) you are saying that the bible contains the word of god and lays out his infallible rules for existence. Those rules may be arbitrary and self contradicting but that is what is being said by belief in the bible. For god to then go and change his mind and change the value of Pi or the details of creation would then be to make the bible a fallible source… and therefore not the word of god. It either is the word of god and thus infallible… or it isn’t.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Thanks for the clarification, KC… I wasn’t all that familiar with the derivation of the pi=3 biblical reference, and was taking the point at face value. I learned something today!
Stark – agreed whole-heartedly, which is why I decided to disengage from the argument with one who is looking to make arguments “ad absurdiem”. Nothing can really be advanced, learned or gained from that perspective. It just becomes a game of who can make the most absurd non-sequitor analogy. And as much as I enjoy a good farce, I lost interest.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:13 am
I am torn to either see this move or not. By going you are supporting the makers of this film but by not, you really can’t argue if the movie is a real problem. (No I have not seen it.) But that is why I love science. You hear about a problem. Analyze the problem for yourself and see if you get the same answers that others did. I know that opinion is not the same as facts. But the process is very similar.
I think religion and science are both looking at the glass with water problem. Half full,half empty. Religion would say that (depending on if they want it to sound good) “I believe that glass is half full.” If they want it to sound bad,”half empty.” Science would tell you how much water the glass can hold. How much water is in the glass. The temperature of the water and how much is water and/or other materials suspended in it. Science would also tell you if you freeze it, the water you take up more volume, if you boil it, you will take up less. But in the end science doesn’t really care if it’s half empty OR full. But the best part of science is you can TEST IT! Prove it wrong and tell others how you did it. Religion is stuck with a “I’m right, you are wrong.” problem. If that’s how you want children to be taught fine. But not with my tax money! I want all children to be able to think and solve problems. Not use religion as a crutch to explain things. I laugh when people say “It’s Gods Will.” You must really hate your God to blame Him for things YOU don’t understand or agree with.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:21 am
KC, so at best you are saying God can’t write a simple, declarative, mathematical description?
I just read the verses you described…it says nothing about the brim being flared.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Daffy -
KC’s point, I think, is that the scripture states that the brim was made like the brim of a cup… and therefor one could infer that it could very well be flared, but as it is not stated definitively one way or the other, it would be irresponsibe to assume it is or isn’t, and therefor deriving an inference for pi from that text is going to be difficult in terms of being accurate. And I can accept that explanation.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Brett, buy a ticket to another movie that is showing at the same time in the same cinema, and then just switch screens.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:35 am
@ Pieter Kok…
BRILLIANT!
April 17th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Matt Garrett said:
“Well Nigel, I think your statement is a misnomer. I am not anti-Science and I think you’re painting Christians as anti-Science is unfair. ”
Well, you obviously did not read what I have posted. Scroll up and read it again. At no point have I ever said that Christians are antiscience (quite the opposite is true, in fact, i.e. many Christians are pro-science).
What I DID do was to report my own experience with the anti-evolutionists.
Matt Garrett again:
“And since I’m new to the boards, I was merely pointing to the name calling. I expect more from Phil, that’s all.”
You have still not actually provided any evidence of name-calling. The link that Phil supplied contains plenty of evidence that these people have lied, and that is all that Phil called them – liars. Which is a statement of fact, not name-calling.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Celtic_Evolution has hit the nail on the head. No, it doesn’t specifically say the brim was flared. It only says it was formed like the brim of a cup. That raises the possibility that it *could have been* flared. We can’t rule that out.
Since the difference between the calculated and stated diameters is about a handsbreadth and the stated thickness is a handsbreadth, we could be dealing with a classic case of internal verse external measurements – internal circumference with an external diameter to a non-flared rim.
To me, from the reading it doesn’t seem as likely as the possibility that the brim was flared. Yet this matches precisely if the circumference is internal and the diameter is external, so I think it should be mentioned.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:06 am
KC said:
“Your observation about fundies on the web also holds true for secularists that show up on Christian sites. Perhaps it’s a common denominator of those who feel they must play the role of unwanted gadfly. While it’s true that many Christians have not given what they believe serious thought, the percentage of secularists who don’t examine their own are about the same. FWIW I think all of us should examine not only what we believe but why we believe it.”
What I believe is for me to know, and to share very occasionally with people I trust. What I believe does not matter to reality. Reality is what it is no matter how many people believe crazy things.
What matters, especially when Christian fundies (exemplified by Answers in Genesis) are attacking science, is what we can conclude from the evidence. What we can conclude from the evidence is that the mainstream science is correct, to the best of our ability to check it.
I do not think your comparison is justified, because what I have seen is Christian fundies coming along to discussions of science news and making outrageous claims, and then refusing to back them up, or refusing to respond in any way to commenters that address their posts. This may indeed be a vocal minority, but I have never seen any reference to Christian leaders censuring them, or ever heard of such a thing.
Looking at the opposite situation, where vocal “secularists” visit a site about discussions of faith, I cannot comment as I have no experience of such a thing. However, there are so many things that a vocal secularist could say that are actually backed up by evidence, that I do not consider there to be a parallel. What I can say for certain is that you do not find “secularists” trying to decide what can be taught in Sunday school. You do not have scientists demanding equal time for evolution in sermons. You do not have secularists campaigning politically to have religion suppressed because it clashes with their beliefs, or to get the Bible printed with disclaimers.
Yet we see organised religious fundies campaigning to have evolution not taught at all (I have read reports that there are parts of the US where biology teachers are actually afraid to teach evolution!!); we see the DI repackaging all of the old creation science arguments in new terminology and trying to have it given equal time in classrooms; we see insidious bills going through the legislative processes in Florida to allow teachers and students to put whatever they want into the biology curriculum where evolution should be.
No, KC, there is no parallel.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:18 am
KC said:
“They’re not quite accurate in their section on Hitler and Eugenics. Eugenic supporters did use the theory of Evolution as justification.”
It depends exactly to what you refer here, KC.
If you are referring to the claims in Expelled, that Darwin’s theory contributed to the holocaust, then I disagree.
Evolutionary theory was one of dozens of sources used to justify the holocaust. If you wade through some of Hitler’s rhetoric, you will find many references to God, but very few to Darwin or evolution. The movie Expelled is, by all accounts, depicting evolutionary theory as a major factor in causing the holocaust. In reality, it was a minor bit-player. Hitler’s interpretation of Chrstianity was used more extensively to justify the holocaust. But does this mean that Christianity caused the holocaust? No, of course not. Hitler used whatever rhetorical tools he could get his hands on. Evolutionary theory was one of them, but a minor one.
This aspect of Expelled is deliberately misleading.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Good point, Nigel…
KC, it is important to note that the main contention here is the film’s gratuitous use of portraying Nazism as being built largely on an Evolutionist foundation. This is not only erroneous but completely disingenuous. From what I’ve read, the film makes no attempt to break the discussion down to the level of Eugeneics (disclosure again… I have not seen the film). And I’d argue that proponants of Eugenics base their justification more from Social Darwinism, which was a twisting of Darwin’s theories that he never intended, and have nothing to do with the science of evolution.
As has been discussed on this board a few times before, Hitler was notorious for saying one thing in public and something totally contradictory in private. And as stated before, the only justification Hitler needed for his actions were his own personal demons… I quote Jeffrey Kluger from Time in his review of Expelled:
Exactly.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Celtic Evolution,
Fundamentalists insist that the Bible be taken literally. It does not mention the brim being flared, therefore by their definition it was not.
Of course, in reality, they change the rules for whatever will make the Bible seem correct. I know that…still the “flared” bit seems a little like weaseling, wouldn’t you say? What else shall we infer that isn’t there?
April 17th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I certainly haven’t taken the time to read all of the replies because time doesn’t allow it, so I apologize if someone has made this point. The Holocaust can no more be “blamed” on the theory of evolution than some of the hypocrisy in the world can be blamed on Jesus. The common denominator here is the misconduct of human beings. Hitler made horrible, inconceivable choices just as some Christians misrepresent the grace of Jesus Christ. To any of you who have been hurt, misled, or neglected by a Christian… please blame it on the behavior of the individual–not Jesus. I am human and make mistakes, but would never want my mistakes to hinder anyone from seeing the power of God.
All of this debate about creation vs. evolution is simply Satan’s distraction to keep unbelievers from seeking the Truth about what really matters. I am not anti-science. As a matter of fact, I find it to be fascinating. God created science so He probably shakes His head at all of the debate considering His ways to be in opposition to science. I believe that adaptation to one’s environment over time is necessary based on geographic location, climate, etc. That, too, is something that is handled without any of our manipulation. If evolution were to be fact, that would suggest that some apes have chosen to remain apes or they, too, would have evolved. I don’t think certain ones could manipulate/cease the evolution of their descendants. I don’t know why people can give that type of credit to an ape and refuse to give it to an Almighty God who has raised the dead, healed the lame and allowed the blind to see.
I am a Christian and I believe in creation because I serve The risen Savior. He is capable of everything and I find security in knowing that I am not equal with Him. I would hate to think that my hope and eternity rested in anyone/anything less than God. My finite mind does not have to be capable of grasping exactly how He managed what could seem to be impossible. My God is just that cool and I wish that you knew Him. At any rate, my salvation isn’t given to me because of my understanding of what took place in the beginning; my salvation is founded on my acceptance that He died because of my sins and that He arose on the 3rd day. Quite powerful to say the least! The gift of salvation is available for all. Salvation is a free gift; no one can earn it. He doesn’t require it. He’s too loving and merciful for that. Thankfully, God is just that awesome.
My understanding is that Darwin admitted that even he was not sold on his own theory. Undoubtedly, he was an extremely bright man.
2 Corinthians 4:4 “The god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” I know that some of you will scoff at the power of God as evidenced by the above scripture. There may be one, however, who is at the end of his rope and tired of trying to make it all on his own. To that one, know that He is reaching for you. Seek and you will find. It’s really so simple.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Daffy -
I understand what you’r getting at… and in truth, that’s the problem, as I’ve stated before, with trying to argue for or against “facts” derived from Biblical scripture. It’s hard to do without the correct point of reference… and frankly, the only correct point of reference died with the original authors.
To a biblical literalist, you’re right, there is no argument… but even to a Biblical literalist, this particular example is an inference, not a direct statement. As KC points out, the Bible does not state directly that “pi=3″… instead the inference is made based on the references of measurement given… the problem, among others, is in trying to define the author’s intent. It is unlikely that the author here is in fact a mathemetician or an engineer… and is likely simply trying to make a description of an item of importance. Getting the dimensions exactly right aren’t necessarily important to the description, or to the story… Even if you were to take the position of “well, if these were words inspired by God, are God’s words, how can they be in any way mis-interpreted?”. Well, if you’re going to take that position, you are going to have a real hard time defending about 90% of what’s in the Bible. So there’s little point in even trying to have an intelligent debate with a person who takes that stand.
So, as a rule, I like to try to only directly question those things that are stated directly and do not need to be inferred, as the definition of pi is inferred in this case. That’s why I accepted KC’s argument and decided not to try to continue to use that particular example to show the erroneous nature of the Bible.
Besides… there are lots of other examples I can use.
April 17th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Hough -
I respect your post, but I would answer most of what you said in the following way:
There are those of us who choose to simply accept what we are told without question.
And there are those of us who choose to actually look for answers ourselves.
I was raised to be part of the former, I am now a member of the latter… and I’ve never regretted any decision in my life less.
Peace to you.
April 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Celtic_Evolution -
Thank you for your kind response.
Please, in no way, think that I accept everything without question. (If that were true, I could have found myself worshipping an inanimate object!) I have looked for answers, too and I found Jesus Christ. Others have done the same and written books about it. (i.e. The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus by Lee Strobel, an ATHEIST who set out to disprove Christianity and accepted Christ after his research.) I am at a point where I don’t feel the need to challenge Him because He’s proven enough. I understand that some people need more proof than I and that tells me that when they find out, their reinforced faith will be incredibly strong.
There are real miracles in the lives of people today, including my own. I trust God because He has proven Himself to be omnipotent in so many other ways, that I don’t doubt Him. I find joy in not having to search continuously. I am not always faithful to Him because sometimes I let other things in life get in the way, but He always remains faithful. I want to grow closer because He gave His all for me and you and everyone else. Life is hard and He lightens the load.
I never want to force my faith on anyone, but it’s kind of like knowing where infinitely many free trunks can be found holding $1,000,000,000 and NOT sharing that information with anyone. I want everyone to know what I know. I’m sorry if my words seem insufficient.
Some may wonder how this all has to do with creation and evolution, but God is more powerful than the mind can imagine. When that is understood, the question is answered.
Friend, I wish peace for you, as well.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Celtic_Evolution,
I enjoyed reading your last post…and, on one hand I kind of agree with you. On the other hand, fundamentalists want to take over the ruling of my country…and they claim the Bible is the LITERAL word of God. With that in mind, I think it is perfectly right and appropriate to continue to point out that their Word of God has serious flaws. Especially for a book “divinely inspired.”
And the pi issue may indeed be debatable for a book written by men. For a book written by God such ambiguity is inexcusable.
April 17th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Hough, I respect your religious beliefs, I really do. But quite a few people (most of them assembled here, I believe) do not wish to be exposed to it (it is sometimes succinctly called “freedom from religion”).
I offer this analogy to your trunks story: I have the body of a God (Buddha), and find it so beautiful that I wish to share it with everybody. So I will stride naked through shopping centres and try to attract the attention of the unsuspecting public to my body. If you find this distasteful or wrong in any way, you can imagine how many people react to overt displays of religiosity.
April 17th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
We hit 200 comments!
April 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Celtic_Evolution,
You said “Even if you were to take the position of “well, if these were words inspired by God, are God’s words, how can they be in any way mis-interpreted?”. Well, if you’re going to take that position, you are going to have a real hard time defending about 90% of what’s in the Bible. So there’s little point in even trying to have an intelligent debate with a person who takes that stand.”
Huh? Ok, so we’de have a tough time defending 90% of what is in the bible… but that IS the debate. The bible is held up, at a minimum, as a god inspired and guided work and at a maximum as his literal word. So which parts are we to take as inspired (and potentialy flawed) and which parts as literal? I’ve read several versions of the bible and there is no disclaimer at any point in any of them that says : “The following is divinely inspired and may not be 100% accurate due to human error” or “The following is the literal word of god, obey or face the consequences.”
I do agree with you about inferred versus explicitaly stated items in the bible…but I still can’t simply dismiss the inferences as human error becasue I’ve got no road map as to where I can expect the infallible word of god versus some shmoe who wanted his story in the book. Neither can anyone else and that’s where the problem comes in and the inconsistencies mount .
Hough… I’ve got little quarrel with you but feel the need to correct some misguided statements you have made.
“My understanding is that Darwin admitted that even he was not sold on his own theory. Undoubtedly, he was an extremely bright man.”
Your understanding is incorrect – Darwin was quite certain of his theory by the time of his death. He did not however see it as incompatible with christian religious belief (and indeed it isn’t if you don’t insist that genesis is a literal account). He was an extremely bright man though.
“If evolution were to be fact, that would suggest that some apes have chosen to remain apes or they, too, would have evolved.”
This statement demonstrates that you, the same as most people, do not have an accurate grasp of evolution. This parrots the idea that we evolved from an ape. This is incorrect. The actual statement should be that apes and human share a common ancestor. This ancestor was neither human nor ape. Both human and apes evolved after a split of populations of this common ancestor which, last time I looked, the current evidence points to occuring around 13 million years ago. Apes are every bit as “evolved” as humans. This seems counterintuitive as apes are clearly inferior in mental ability to humans (though many of them exhibit physical capabilities far beyond those of humans)… but thats only because people think evolution automatically leads towards improvement. It doesn’t. Evolutionary change results in extinciton of a particular species as often as it leads to better adaptation. It’s not a guided process and has no goals – that would be design, not evolution.
Please, take some time read any of the hundreds of excellent books on evolution to gain an understanding of what it actually says before you dismiss it based on reasons that do not actually apply. Decisions made on bad information are almost invariably bad decisions!
I would suggest “The Top Ten Myths About Evolution” by Cameron Smith and Charles Sullivan as a good starting book. It’s approachable, clear, and not too technical. Amazon link for you convenience http://tinyurl.com/6jchaw (tiny url’d for spaces sake). It’s also probably available through your local library system.
April 17th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Celtic, Pieter & Stark. What the heck are you doing? We’re supposed to be intolerant name callers here. When you have polite rational discourse with a proselytiser you can’t be accused of insulting christians and they won’t want to come here any more to be offended.
The whole Pi thing is amusing. I’m with Celtic_Evolution in that the whole argument is absurd – whether the brim is flared or not that is and whether or not you can infer Pi from that. Just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Using that book to rationalise any argument is definitely argumentum ad absurdum.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Thank you, Stark for your information about the book. As I have mentioned, I do believe in the concept of adaptation and know that God enables His creatures to survive in their changing surroundings.
Hey guys…I promise that I haven’t wanted to start any type of argument because, believe me, that’s not at all what I’m about. I have compassion and REALLY care about people–each and every one of you even though I will never know you. I do understand that many on this site are very concerned with his/her origin. I hope that everyone will be as concerned about his eternity because the latter is of great significance to you personally whether you choose to care or not. Maybe you have never faced true adversity/struggles/tragedy in life, but when you do, I hope that what I have said will surface in your memory.
Pieter, I’m sorry that I’ve offended you. I do not apologize for the message, though. IF SOMEHOW YOU GENUINELY BELIEVED that exposure of your naked body would bring hope to a dying world, I suppose that I would be grateful that you cared.
As Forrest Gump said, “That’s all I have to say about that.” I will not be posting anymore, because my intent is only to help and I do not wish to do anything to the contrary, as mentioned by Pieter.
God bless you all.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Stark and Daffy -
I agree with both of you, in that in the case where Biblical literalists insist that the Bible is the word of God Himself, even the slightest inferred error is inexcusable. In that you will get no argument from me.
And I guess that is where I’m trying to draw my line… I guess what I’m saying is that once I’ve realized that I am trying to debate with a Biblical realist, I know any rationality or reason has already been thrown out the window, and I simply refuse to engage in any further debate.
My example of “pi” and not using it as an instance of error would be more for the case of the “rational Christian”… one whom believes in God and Jesus but is willing to look at the Bible as something other than literal… We have a few on this site who fall into that category I think.
But I can certainly respect your position that we, as scientists, need not make that distinction, and I agree that it is fair to look at any Biblicalreferences, both direct and inferred, with a skeptical eye. I simply choose to make the distinction depending on the person with whom I am having the discussion / debate.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Hough -
Your decision to post or not post here any further is certainly up to you. I may disagree wholly with your beliefs and thoughts on evolution and science, but I have no issue at all with your willingness to engage in the debate and present your side as strongly as you wish… you did so in a respectful and polite manner, and I will always return that approach similarly.
Good luck to you and I truly do hope you take some time to educate yourself on evolution and scientific method in general. A better understanding of the natural world and a scientific approach opens your mind up to wonderous possibilities. This site is a prime example. Just take some time to peruse some of the incredible images and science on display here. It has always blown me away, and I don’t think you have to completely abandon your faith in order to appreciate it.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Stark,
I think your explanation of Hough’s misunderstanding of evolution is also a little off the mark. There wasn’t a common ancestor of humans and apes because humans *are* apes. There was a common ancestor of humans and chimps, and of humans, chimps and gorillas, and of all apes, including humans, among many sub-branches of the tree of life. Also, the notion of “choice” plays no role in evolution, at least in the sense of “choice of direction”. (Of course, choice does play an important role in such things as sexual selection, and when a group of animals decides to go over that hill to the next valley to see if there is more food over there, versus staying put or going off in another direction, or trying to eat roots instead of fruits, or the billions of other events that make up the conditions for differential survival that lead to evolution.)
Some apes (actually, human/chimp ancestors) didn’t decide to remain apes while others decided to become humans. Rather, the human/chimp ancestors living in one environment where more likely to survive and produce more descendants if they were more chimp-like, and those in another environment were more likely to survive if they were more human (or australopithecine.) The environment differences might have been quite small, e.g. one area had lots of trees with scattered grasslands, whereas the other area had fewer trees and more grass. In the grassy areas, taller, thinner animals who were better at scampering between clumps of trees while holding stuff (food, infants, rocks & sticks) in their arms had a survival advantage whereas in the more forested areas, the ones who were better tree climbers had an advantage. (This is speculation, but is the kind of thing that leads, over many generations, to species diverging.)
Salt with a few random mutations that help one group or the other, and a few more that have no real effect, but cause genetic differences, and in a million years, there are two species, one a chimp/bonobo ancestor and the other a human ancestor. Along the way, most likely, several other groups diverge, form new species, and then go extinct. If we are extremely lucky, we might find some fossils of some of them.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Buzz,
You’ll get no argument from me!
I used ape in the colloquial sense rather than taxonomic – in my experience I’ve found that to the average person who has a flawed understanding of evolution ape is a word that covers everything from monkeys to gorillas. If I can get them to pick up a book on the subject then my fudging of the terms will be cleared up soon enough. After all, no need to fog up an already complex subject by confusing somebody on terminology that, while technically incorrect, is at least mutually understood.
Hough,
You’re certainly not causing any arguments around here! The gracious host of this site has dedicated much of his life to scientific education – so I feel that when I contribute to the forum I should be doing the same. You came here with a clear willingness to listen to what was being said and that is always welcome and frankly refreshing considering some of the visitor who pop in now and again. I do hope you take the time to become better educated on the subject as it is one of increasing importance to our society. If you choose to post again I would be happy to see you do so but I understand if you choose not to.
Oh, and Shane… sorry to dissapoint!
I’ll try to be more offensive next time!
April 18th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Oh yes, almost forgot… Celtic : I get what you are saying now – and it makes sense to me.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:10 am
There is an interesting article in Scientific American
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know
April 20th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Slandered Barton Paul Levenson on 16 Apr 2008 at 2:44 pm :
“Sabra [Actually BPL its Sabra & Chatilla's Ghosts - I suggest you go
learn some history * & try to understand why I've chosen that tag] writes:
In short, of all the three Abrhamic religions Judiaism is the most primitive, most cruel, least egalitarian and the only one where birth not belief makes you “a jew.” Indeed Judaism is largely a form of racism in itself.
[To which BLP rants] Hey, nice place your blog is becoming, Phil. Do you want to cross-post this stuff on Stormfront, or just let the individual posters do that?”
So BPL is it impossible for you to understand that criticism of Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestineans can come from anyone other than a
racist – or perhaps aself-hating Jew?
These after all are the only possibilities the Jewish / Israeli apologist / raving neo-con XN Wrong offers people.
Actaully, criticism of Israel is NOT anti-Semitic but based on the reality of the truly horrendous, appalling, sickeningly brutal acts of Israel’s aggression against the Palestineans & Muslim world. (Or even non-Jewish – Goyim -Gentile world in general)
That you or anyone else can even for a second fall for such nonsense is a testament to the ruthless, deceitful efficency of the Jewish fundamentalist extremist /pro-Israel anti-humanity lobby and its well-oiled, well-funded and *very* well practiced liars and spinners.
Its a skeptical website BPL – do try & think independently and fairly
for once …
——————————
* Ok you can research & verify this for yourself but Sabra & Chatilla are thename sof two Palestinean refugee camps in Lebanon where over 800 innocent Palestinean children, men & women were murdered in 1982 in a
massacre for which Ariel Sharon ex-PM of Israel was convicted of responsibility – even by his own legal court!
April 20th, 2008 at 12:43 am
Oh & BPL try to read a whole post & quote in context before you defame others online.
I posted my well-founded opinion of Judaism together with the
very sound and legitimate reasons why I’ve come to those conclusions. Quoting only my conclusions without my accompanying evidence and explanation was a deceptive act on your part.
I could well ascribe such low tactics to Islamophobia & anti-Palestinean
racism on your part and Iamy wellbe right about that. Am I Mr BPL?
How much do you really know and understand about the plight of the
Palestineans?
How much do you really know about what Israel has done and continues doing to them?
Got any Palestinaneans or non-Muslim or non-Jewish /XN friends have you?
Oh & for all apologists of Israel here – just a quick question :
What act of unspeakable evil must Israel committ before you finally
wake up & realise they’re NOT the “good guys” here?
Israel occupies illegally another people’s land, murders, tortures, assassinates its political dissidents and resistence leaders, uses government terrorism and bombings against civilians, allows babies to
die because of their race, imposes instititutional and legal racism, is based
on fundamentalist theocracy thatinsist only two survivingtribe sout of all Humanity areGods Chosen volk, imprisons resistence leaders, invades and attacks itsneighbours and thretens to do so continually, uses collective punishment, violates international law and human rights & tehGneebva Convention, ad nauseam …
When, when when, will the world esp. the Western world say to Israel : ENOUGH!
When will you?
Please try to make it before the last Palestinean has been murdered by them …
————–
As for the Jewish Holocaust (or the Shoah as they call it) the Jewish lobby are quite simply dishonouring and befouling the victims of the Nzais by acting like Nazis themselves. There maybe no gas chambers – yet – but their mindsets all too similar.
Plus incidentally a whole heap of Non-Jews died at the hands of Nazi’s too & no, despite their propaganda otherwise, the Jews are NOT the only people in history to suffer atrocities and persecution – in fact about half the time the Jews are the ones comitting such crimes against humanity! Never again? Well stop blinking doing it then Jews!
April 20th, 2008 at 1:08 am
Here are the stark, undeniable facts :
***
The 1947 UN partition plan granted 55 % of the Mandate to Israel. By 1970 they had occupied all of it. (& more.) Gaza & the West bank compose 22% of Mandate of Palestine. (Gilbert, 1993 & Reinhart, 2002.)
Palestinian casualties = 3,049
Israeli casualties = 905
(As of 5th July 2004.) Source : ‘Middle East Policy Council website, 6-7-2004.
When Israel launched the aerial attack to assassinate a single Hamas leader, Salah Shehadeh, they also murdered 14 others mostly innocent bystanders incl. children. Can “evil” be fought with “evil”?
Under Israeli rule the following practices are carried out :
- Religio-racial discrimination whereby only one group has certain rights
(Eg. Right of return, Jewish only roads etc..)
- Collective punishment eg. Curfews, humiliating “security” searches, deportations, home demolitions, etc…
- Legalised use of torture.
- Destruction of infrastructure to stall possible implementation of peace provisions. (“De-development”)
- Ethnic cleansing – both historical (1948) & suggested for the future.
- “Ghettoisation / Cantonisation” of certain ethnic populations – the Palestinian “Bantustans” & Sharon’s wall across the West Bank.
Since the creation of Israel in 1948 :
200,000 Palestinians have been killed.
5,000,000 refugees have been created.
21,000 square kilometres of land has been annexed.
385 towns and villages have been destroyed.
300 billion military dollars have been spent.
100 plus WMD’s have been manufactured.
65 UN resolutions have been ignored.
Source : ‘Row over anti-Israel art display’ in ‘The Age’ [Australian newspaper] , 4-5-2004.
***
& three questions for ya’ll :
1) If Israel has a “right to exist” & a “right to self defence” why then don’t the Palestineans have the same rights?
2) Seeing as Israel has the Nuclear Bomb & other WMD’s then why shouldn’t Iran or even the Palestineans have it too? Shouldn’t they too be allowed a deterrent against attack and to be on an equal footing?
&
3) Why is it so goish-durned hard for the West (esp. jews & USA-ite ‘Amercians’ to accept that Palestineans are humans too with the same inalienable human rights and the same needs for love, revenge and fair treatment?
April 20th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Stark at: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/04/15/expelled-exposed/#comment-169030
says, “I’ll give you atheism – it makes an assumption of the absolute non-existence of a deity… a prospect which by the very definition of a deity is unknowable (how convenient for religion) so I’ll concede that non-belief where the pure logical choice would be no opinion could be seen as self deception.”
BZZT!! I’m sorry that’s incorrect…
Atheism does not say, “I believe there is no God.” Atheism says, “I don’t believe there is a God.”
A-theism: without theistic belief. A lack of belief, not a belief itself.
I would also say that ‘no opinion’ is not the pure logical choice. The pure logical choice in the face of an absence of evidence is disbelief. (When people said that there was no such thing as a black swan, because no-one had ever seen one, they were right to say so at the time. There was no known evidence for black swans so why ‘believe in’ them? Where they went wrong was in further assuming that a black swan Could Not exist – that closed them to the possibility of further evidence.)
April 21st, 2008 at 10:17 am
Hmm? I didn’t say that Atheism is beilieving there is no god. I am well aware of the difference between belief and a lack of belief. I myself have an abudance of lack of belief (which is itself an impossiblity – but is fun to say nonetheless).
However, atheism does make an assumption – namely that there would be evidence of a deity on which to base some belief if one actually existed. This is a perefectly valid and logical assumption based upon every other experience we have – but it technically is still an assumption and could be construed as an act of self deception… if you tried really hard. Yeah, it’s thin. Real thin.
Mostly what my choice of not arguing that point was about was avoiding spiraling into an endless and fruitless debate of theism/atheism – something I’ve seen happen all too often to want to be a part of anymore – and instead focus on more potentially fruitful discussion.
April 23rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Here’s info on a suit filed by Yoko over the unauthorized use of “Imagine”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080423/film_nm/lennon_film_dc_1
J/P=?
April 25th, 2008 at 4:04 am
Charles Petzold just did a very nice write-up about this whole affair, interesting read indeed:
http://www.charlespetzold.com/blog/2008/04/Old-Design-Argument-Now-Politicized.html
April 25th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Nice write-up. It’s interesting to see a little more of the background behind the whole design idea.