One of the standard tools of the evolution denial campaign is to claim improper persecution for one’s personal beliefs (”Expelled”). Mims has been relying on this one for (going on) several decades now, even using it in court. What makes opposing Mims’ assertions imperative is not, of course, a need to attack Mims, but the stated goal of the evolution denial campaign: Subverting the science education of the general public. Mims is a noted member of this campaign that uses misinformation and propaganda to lobby for laws and policies blocking good science education at the federal and state levels, as well as lobbying of individual schools and school districts. Despite setbacks in court, they continue to be increasingly successful at the local level, and gaining support from politicians.

Evolution denial is unique among the science denial of the far right (overpopulation denial, global warming denial, pollution denial, etc), in that it seeks to remove from the general population an understanding of an entire branch of science, biology, at a time when it is critical that the general population understand it. Yes, the other topics are also critical, but in order to remove evolution education science education as a whole is being subverted. It goes well beyond just denying some data on global warming, or oddly claiming that balancing population to available resources isn’t necessary for good quality of life. This is the reason that Scientific American was correct in not renewing Mims’ column, and why Discover is wrong for providing him with notoriety that he doesn’t deserve, and which could have gone to any number of deserving people instead. Both Scientific American and Discover have an obligation to the success of science education, and that is why Discover pretending that Mims’ activities with the Discovery Institute aren’t of any real concern is tragic.

Correspondence is not a research publication, and you will not find correspondence listed in a scientist’s CV. Data and experiments that are actually of interest to the field get published in a paper. There are several varieties of varying size, but they follow standards of scholarship.

No kidding. Especially with those early break-away sects that are hard to keep track of, and some of the doctrinal disputes at their hearts are difficult to grasp. It is amazing how worked up people got (and get) over such esoteric ideas. Interesting, though.

Never, though, say that the Catholic church was really the only Church before the Reformation. The Eastern Orthodox really, really take issue with that idea. That said, in the West, you’re right. The Catholic Church was the only game in town in the West until the Reformation (save for transient groups like the Cathars, of course).

You’re quite right; I completely blew off the Eastern Orthodox Church, and Churches in the East that were (and are) not unified with the Eastern Orthodox (Coptic, Syriac, Ethiopian, Armenian… and probably some others). The history of religion is pretty complex.

That pretty much answers my question. You are completely ignorant of the formation and history of your religion. And you might want to be aware that the Catholic church as it is called is really the primary branch of Western Christendom that emerged as separate and distinct in the great schism between Eastern and Western Christendom that became final in the 11th century (prior to that, there was just “The Church” – the indivisible entity that encompassed all Christianity and grew from the apostles themselves . You might also want to realize that, from the stand point of the Eastern Orthodox, you are Catholic, as you a part of a splinter of a splinter of a splinter that splintered off from the Western Church.

And even if you are one of those who thinks that the Church went astray after Constantine made it the Imperial religion, you might want to recall that Constantine didn’t rule until the fourth century. Tertullian and Irenaeus were both late second and early third century Church fathers, both of whom greatly influenced the development of Christian thought (Irenaeus was one of the originators of the concept of the pre-Millenniumism, for instance). Apollonius was an early and highly regarded apologist and martyr (he was executed by the emperor Commodus in 192). They all lived, incidentally, before the Bible itself was assembled into its current form (in 382 during the Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I), and likely influenced its final assembly.

You really don’t know this stuff? I’m not a Christian, nor even a religious scholar – I just find it interesting. It is not like it is hidden knowledge or anything, after all. There are plenty of books on all of it at any library. There is a great deal on the internet, as well. You might want to learn a bit about your religion before being so arrogant about it. After all, the history of a document can be greatly informing to the understanding of it. If nothing else, such knowledge can help a great deal in avoiding dogmatic false certainty and the evil that comes of that. For that matter, you should probably learn a bit about science before being so judgmental about science, those who accept it, or those who work in it. As it stands, you come across as among the least Christian people with whom I have ever interacted. Indeed, I almost suspect that you are really a strange, bitter atheist who is out to discredit fundamentalist Christianity.

again with the inellectual elitsim? really?

Again with your hypocritical religious elitism? Really?

i’m beginning to suspect that you truly beleive in that you are somehow more complete or superior

Dunno if I’m “superior”, but I certainly know more.

to those who have not had the educational opportunites that you its seems you have been blessed with.

You mean, like Google? On the Internet that you are using to post this very message?

Really, the internet is thick with seminaries, early Christian writings, different bible translations, theological archives and schools and… lots of stuff. You could, you know, look it up.

I may not be “superior”, but I’m sure as hell not as intellectually lazy as you are.

by “early church” i assume you are referring to the catholic church.

*shrug* While Roman Catholics like to claim that the church’s pedigree really does go back that far, it was not as unified as they claim.

i’m not catholic so, no, i can’t speak with any great detail about its founders, origins, theologies and popular saints.

*sigh* And where did you think your flavor of Christianity, whatever it is, came from? Before the Protestant Reformation, there was pretty much just the Catholic Church — and even Martin Luther (uh, you do know who Martin Luther was?) didn’t think that all of the early theologians were wrong. After the Reformation, well things got a bit messier. I’m guessing that your flavor of Christianity is one of the less historically inclined, though.

But not all Christians are as cut off from their past as you are. I mean, I was arguing with a Calvinist (uh, you do know who John Calvin was?) just the other day, and he did say that he agreed with Augustine.

i’m a Christian which is a pretty broad and loosely used term these days, applied to anything from mormonism to judasim.

Glk. Not by those who are actually Jewish, nor by those who actually know what Judaism is.

Sheesh.

i do not beleive the tenets of those faiths either.

Why not? Do you have any knowledge of what they are, and why they should be wrong, and yours right?

most catholics would call themselves christians, i’m sure, but the gospel of Christ and catholicism are two very different ideas. in fact, each one has nothing to do with the other at all.

You astound me with your ever more profound ignorance of religion in general.

i’m sure, even you would agree that one need not have a phd in religious studies in order to read, comprehend, and apply the bible. even us simple folk can do that much.

Ah, sola scriptura.

But that’s my point, once again: you’re certain that you need no other knowledge. You don’t care about other knowledge. How is your certainty in your tenets of faith different from what Tertullian wrote? Why on earth do you think he was “disparaging” Christians when you agree with his words, and assert that you need nothing else more than the bible?

By the way, you’re still quite wrong. Some of what you wrote is not in the bible. The first line, for example, the doctrine of Trinitarianism was picked up by some and was decided on over other interpretations at the Council of Nicaea , some 300 years after Jesus allegedly died. The third line is a bit iffy as well; it certainly does not appear in Genesis, although Paul pretty much insisted on it, and most, but not all, later Christians decided that Paul was right.

The eighth line is disputed by those who have a doctrine of predestination (such as Calvinists); again, it does not appear in the bible.

And the tenth line is, of course, ridiculous. The bible is not complete, otherwise you would not need doctrines and explanations external to the bible. And the bible is not inerrant, because it is full of statements that contradict itself, directly and indirectly, and statements that contradict, directly and indirectly, reality itself.

by “early church” i assume you are referring to the catholic church. i’m not catholic so, no, i can’t speak with any great detail about its founders, origins, theologies and popular saints. i’m a Christian which is a pretty broad and loosely used term these days, applied to anything from mormonism to judasim. i do not beleive the tenets of those faiths either. most catholics would call themselves christians, i’m sure, but the gospel of Christ and catholicism are two very different ideas. in fact, each one has nothing to do with the other at all. my core beliefs would be:

1. Father, Son, and Spirit are one God. There are no other gods.
2. God created man in His likeness for His pleasure. man being the creation is subject to God’s authority.
3. through adam sin entered the world and thereby all mankind is in bondage to sin.
4. God, being holy, can have no fellowship with sin or a sinner. the wages of sin are death – physical and spiritual.
5. God loves man so much that in mercy he provided that the judgment of sin be transferred from man to another vessel.
6. He sent His Son, Christ to die for us, in our place that we may have life eternal and no be seperated from God.
7. those who willingly aceept this sacrifice will be redeemed, their sins forgiven – those who reject Christ also reject their own salvation from the consequences of sin.
8. man has free will. the choice to accept or deny Christ is not forced.
9. whether redeemed or not, we will be judged according to our deeds by the Father.
10. the Bible plainly explains all of this in great detail. it is complete and inerrant and the actual Word of God, written by man, inspired by the Spirit.

i’m sure, even you would agree that one need not have a phd in religious studies in order to read, comprehend, and apply the bible. even us simple folk can do that much.

sorry, what questions of yours did i not answer?

I asked a lot of questions, and implied many more. Why don’t you start with the explicit ones, though?

was it the one about jerusalem and athens?

*Sigh.* I really thought you would have some basic familiarity with your own religion, at the very least. That one was a famous quote from Tertullian; more famous than the bit that I cited explicitly that comes after it, and he was being rhetorical, as was I. If you don’t know that, or what he meant by the question… then never mind. Just skip that one. Just forget it.

and its not necessary for me to defend God, Christ, or the Bible.

Then why are you even here? Almost everything you’ve been posting up until now has been an apology; an apology is a defense.

by the way, thanks for the snarky remark about being certain of my level of education. i always enjoy a little inetllectual elitism before bed.

Utter hypocrisy, from the one demonstrating religious elitism.

I am certain that you don’t know much about science, though, because you have demonstrated no knowledge of science, and plenty of ignorance.

was this terullian dude a christian? if he wasn’t he shouldn’t be speaking in the first person as if he were – sounds to me that maybe he didn’t like Christians. now why would someone say something disparaging about a group of people he didn’t particularly like? thats really bad manners. ditto that for augustine of hippo.

I really have no response to this. It’s like seeing an American not knowing who Thomas Jefferson was, or Alexander Hamilton, or Benjamin Franklin.

Uh, you do know who Paul of Tarsus, doubting Thomas, and Pilate were, yes? Are you aware that the bible was not originally in English?

Have you even read the bible, for that matter? Or do you just spout off about it?

and i was hoping for some possible answers to those questions from you fine gents.

Nonsense. You didn’t start off with honest questions; you started off with several rants about how evolution is just a lie and everyone deserves to burn in hell.

Tell you what, you retract those rants, and we’ll see what happens. Otherwise, we’re back to you putting religious dogma before everything else.

it would only be a false science if its conclusions contradict the fact that there is a Creator. otherwise it sounds like a good gig to have. by the way, thanks for the snarky remark about being certain of my level of education. i always enjoy a little inetllectual elitism before bed.

was this terullian dude a christian? if he wasn’t he shouldn’t be speaking in the first person as if he were – sounds to me that maybe he didn’t like Christians. now why would someone say something disparaging about a group of people he didn’t particularly like? thats really bad manners. ditto that for augustine of hippo.

mel – you are indeed correct. i’m not religious.

and i was hoping for some possible answers to those questions from you fine gents. afterall, it was you that i asked.

That’s a little like asking what the Christian position on tofu is. There is no such thing. You could, possibly, ask a large number of people from the group in question what THEIR position is on it, and if you received the same answer from a large number of people in the group, you might mistakenly think that you are getting “the” position of the group — but the group is defined by beliefs, and those beliefs do not have any relevance to the ‘group position’ you are trying in theory to ascertain.

Evolution is the explanation for how complex forms of life came from other, simpler forms of life. Are there scientific hypotheses for how the earliest, simplest forms of life came from non-life? Yes, there are, but those hypotheses are not part of the theory of evolution.

i noticed you sidestepped all of those questions.

And I noticed that you ignored all of my questions; you sidestepped every point that I raised about your religion.

That’s my point: You cannot discuss your religion rationally. Indeed, all you can do is make assertions, and ignore any questions or problems or contradictions that are pointed out about those assertions.

And I certainly cannot make science fit with your insane theology. All I can do is point at the evidence that exists, and that which can be inferred from current evidence, and the science that is being done to find the evidence that is still unknown. Such as for example, this:

  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/

But how does my offering that link help? I’m certain that you don’t have the knowledge of organic chemistry to criticize it. All you can do is spout religious gibberish, like calling organic chemistry “false science” or “a lie – seeded in the minds of men by a vile creature”.

We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after enjoying the gospel! With our faith, we desire no further belief. — Tertullian

See? That’s your position, laid out proudly centuries ago. Even if I had the time and inclination to get down to the basics of science; of what is known and how it is that we know it, you simply do not really care. You just bring up questions about science so that you can smack down your ravings about what God wants, after ignoring everything said anyway.