Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Paul,

If it wasn’t an “Intellegent Design” who are we going to blame the bad things on?

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2005 07:56 PM

Paul,

Thanks for the ammo. As an add on, your post fits well with the concept of ‘free will’ too.

Posted by: Dave at June 30, 2005 09:21 PM

The subject of the origin of everything is a matter of faith. Science can’t prove it. It can’t be disproved.

I believe that evolutionary theories explain most of the life processes we see today. If anyone grants the process, I don’t care if they say it is the result of intelligent design or of random chance variations. The process is identical in any case and my science does not allow for further investigation.

Intelligent design ideas are not limited to the religious. When I talk to many people about nature, they speak in the same terms. They mention nature’s design, complain about crimes against nature or believe that humans can’t improve natural processes. All these things are evidence of a belief in intelligent design.

So let’s just take a simple line. The world works according to processes best explained by evolutionary theories. That is where the evidence leads us and that is as far as the evidence can take us. Anything beyond that is just a matter of faith that nobody can prove or disprove. We need not fight about this.

Posted by: jack at June 30, 2005 09:24 PM

Intelligent Design: A Form of Idolatry

For every sign of intelligence thrown at me by a fundamentalist, I can throw back several signs of stupidity.

Paul, does this really constitute political discussion? Sounds more like religious flaming to me. Accusation of idolatry to someone not of your religion is mockery, not rational criticism.

If by “fundamentalists” you mean anyone who believes the creation account in Genesis, perhaps you should read through the first two chapters and give some more specific criticisms of evangelical interpretation. But again, my understanding of Watchblog policy is that such posts are outside the scope of the site. Watchblog Manager, could you please clarify.

Posted by: Gandhi at June 30, 2005 09:25 PM

Paul,

I would hardly characterize myself as a true believer with regard to Christianity, but I see a few problems with your ideas. I make the following remarks only with the hope that maybe it will help me out if you further explain.

1. I don’t necessarily see the idolatry in the notion of “intelligent design”. Idolatry refers to veneration of an object that is a representation of a deity as if it were a deity in and of itself. At least, that’s my understanding. Saying that God has human characteristics might be wrongheaded and show a flawed understanding of the divine according toe Christian theological tradition, but hardly constitutes idolatry.

2. I can anticipate a fundamentalist response: the idea of a God who simply set up the parameters, then let things go, is generally called “Deism”, which isn’t Biblical, according to mainstream Christian thought. The Bible, as it is generally interpreted, supports a conception of God as being actively involved in the affairs of man and the world. So if you’re saying evolution dovetails with Christianity, so long as you understand it with a Deist framework, I think you’re going to run into a lot of resistance.

3. I think any time you’re talking about the divine, especially a Christian God who is believed to be omnipotent, omniscient, etc., applying the mundane notions like design and intelligence, especially defining those terms narrowly and according to their common usage is going to make any sort of understanding very difficult.

That said, I feel safe in saying that I agree with the spirit of what you say. I think the fundamentalist Christian understanding of the Bible is pretty pervasively flawed, and I see no reason why evolutionary theory can’t be united with Christianity, rightly understood.

I hope I don’t come across as a detractor.

Posted by: unkind K at June 30, 2005 09:27 PM

God does not do design either. My old dictionary definition for design is:

“to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed); to plan and fashion artistically and skillfully….”
Does God need to prepare sketches? Does he, she or it worry about fashion? Do you believe God has the skill to accomplish something?

I hate to point this out in an otherwise well-written post, even if I don’t see eye to eye with you on the general subject of idolatry (being pagan myself, like the greeks in your examples), but in the dictionary definition you quote, “fashion” is a verb, meaning “To give shape or form to; make”. It is not a noun meaning “style”, as you use it in the follow-up question “Does he, she or it worry about fashion?” So yes, God would design because God would plan and make artistically and skillfully, in their theology.

Posted by: Jarin at June 30, 2005 09:32 PM

Let’s keep this discussion simple and factually based. “Intelligent Design” is nothing more or less than irrational fantasy without any basis in objective fact… something akin to storks delivering babies… ID has no basis in science, no basis in theology… as a scientist and theologian, I find it appalling in 2005 that anyone would take the ID nuts seriously… the day of flat-earthers is long gone, Deo gratia! As St. Thomas Aquinas made clear: what is true in science is true in God; what is true in God is true in science. Period.

Posted by: pgbach at June 30, 2005 10:04 PM

Paul,

The more I read from you, the better I understand where you are coming from. The real conclusion you come to, is that we are all idolaters in one form or another. I choose to worship the GOD of the Bible; you choose to worship yourself and your intelligence. I will give you credit though, the belief you have in evolution and your own intelligence is perhaps a little stronger then mine. But, eventually we’ll all know the answer.

The true beauty of creation lies in the Creator.

Posted by: Cliff at June 30, 2005 10:12 PM

Is this Watchblog, Political News, Opinion & Commentary.?

I cannot find anything political about a piece that seems to invite discussion about GOD and the theory of evolution.

Posted by: steve smith at June 30, 2005 10:45 PM

I feel like Ghandi, that this topic should not be a political discussion. We have freedom to believe whatever we chose about a diety or non-deity in this country. The fact that the neo-cons are trying to force their brand of Christianity down everyone’s throats gives me cause for concern. That they’re trying to appoint Supreme Court Justices to promote as well as rule in favor of their narrow minded beliefs causes me even further concern. It crosses the line of separation of church and state and something all Americans need to be concerned with.

Posted by: Donna at June 30, 2005 10:57 PM

I wouldn’t call it idolatry. I’d call it an underestimation with the best of intention.

I think God’s designs bear no resemblance to ours, the way our power and knowledge bear no resemblance to his.

If there are any idols involved, it is man’s special position in the universe. So many times, when evolution is discussed, the sticking point seems to be that pride in being the special creation. But what is our pride worth before God?

I do believe God always intended the human race to come about, and that his will backs and preserves everything. But I think we are just one part of creation, and we don’t know our place like he does.

I think Evolution, the Big Bang, and 4.5 Billion years of this worlds existence serve as a test of how small we can stand being in the scheme of things. I think they are also a demonstration of the extent of God’s power. If God can be greater than all that, then God is truly worthy of worship, and our questions of what God can mean by our current situation must be considered in an incredibly broader context. The response Job gets in the last part of that book takes on greater significance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2005 11:08 PM

As a Christian I don’t go very far into evolution. I get stuck on the words “In the beginning God.”. I just can’t figure out how something (matter, energy, time, distance etc) can came from nothing. I haven’t seen any science that shows how something came from nothing. I have heard some explainations and theories that seem to be “reaching” or “pressing” the data.

So for me, it makes sense that these basic laws of nature, was created by a designer. That designer I believe was very orderly and intelligent.

From a science point of view, I haven’t heard a body of evidence that is stronger than my faith on this matter. It seems to me that we are all either “in the beginning was God” or “in the beginning was nothing”. In otherwords, we each have origins that we cannot explain.

As an former school board member, whether I approved the science material would all depend on the presentation. The point is science, and not philosophy or religion. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If the curriculum said something like “the very origin of the universe meaning the formation of matter, distance, energy, etc, is an area with very little conclusive data. Some believe matter was created from an intelligent creator, and some believe in a scientific explaination. It is ok for reasonable people to disagree.” I would probably vote to approve it, because there are multitudes of policies in place prohibiting teachers from engaging children with their private religious views.

On the other hand, if the material supported one side or the other, in an effort to diminish the other, I would probably disapprove the material. (Unless one of you bright folk could convince me how something comes from nothing.)

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at June 30, 2005 11:09 PM

Craig -

Evolution doesnt suppose that something came from nothing. It may be worth your time to do a little research.

Posted by: justin at June 30, 2005 11:23 PM

Craig-
How does man understand the mind of God? Think of every wise person you’ve ever known. God’s foolishness is greater than their wisdom.

Intelligent Design seem to me to be a Tower of Babel, built by folks trying to elevate their authority to divine levels to pre-empt other theorists. I mean, if you prove the creators influence, then you have divine knowledge backing your science, raising you above everybody else. They are essentially saying, I can determine whether your authority counts, because I know God’s mind.

How can you determine the right or wrong of an appeal to divine authority? I mean, take a look at the difficult-to-resolve differences that pop up even with the most literal interpreters of the bible.

At least in Science, there are ways to settle disputes and find out if someone or anybody is right. There are meaningful differences between right explanations and wrong ones, and because of the disciplines of science, and the quest for precision and accuracy in measurements of this, our perceptions can become much closer to reality than otherwise possible.

Scientists don’t always agree, but their agreements carry much more conclusive meaning.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2005 11:34 PM

jimmie,

This is a unique post for you. I appreciate your thoughts on a difficult subject and your concepts are stimulating. I can’t help but wonder though, what if you’re wrong?

Posted by: Discerner at June 30, 2005 11:35 PM

I just can’t figure out how something (matter, energy, time, distance etc) can came from nothing.

So where does god come from? If the complexity of the universe implies a creator, what does the complexity of a creator imply?

“Something from nothing” is time-based cause and effect thinking that can only exist within a universe. Time is created by the existence of the universe. There was nothing “before” the universe because the concept of “before” is time-based. Besides, in the quantum realm, it is possible for elementary particles to be created “from nothing,” interact for a short period of time and then annihilate into the void. This happens everywhere, all the time. If energy and matter can spontaneously emerge with varying degrees of inflationary force, it would only take one such instance with enough force to create the universe that we know; certainly it is one very unlikely instance but given infinity, the chances of this happening seem much more favorable than some alien entity fabricating the universe.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at June 30, 2005 11:42 PM

Paul said: “Religious fundamentalists don’t like evolution because it seems to them that evolution is contrary to what the Bible says. “

There is a more basic reason, Paul. Creationism requires all students accept God and Divine Intervention if they accept creationism. Evolution has no such requirement. That is why they oppose evolution. God is not required. Although, science, even up to and including string theory fail to answer the ontological question of infinity, which can only be reasonable explained by a creator.

But divine intervention is the goal here. For if one accepts divine intervention, one can declare divine mandate for one’s actions and justify literally any action whatsoever, and therein lies potential power over people and money, which the religion has lusted after since the beginning of human time.

Make no mistake, money and power are what the fundamentalist leadership is about, whether they be Christian or Islamic. Fundamentalists are minorities. Money and power are the underlying motivations and tools for their fundamentalism and achieving majority status by any means necessary is their goal.

Humanity can never move forward until fundamentalist religiosity is exposed once and for all to be a path toward divisiveness, war, and autocratic control over others. Peace can never reign as long as fundamentalism flourishes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 30, 2005 11:46 PM

Joe Briggs, Anslem I believe answered your argument directly and logically. Creation is defined by a creator. A creator is defined by the creation. If either is infinite, both are infinite.

Quantum phsyics states particles appear and disappear from these dimensions were perceive. Quantum physics however, does not exlude the possibility of appearance and disappearance from another dimension/s, which is a concept developed in string theory. So, quantum physics does not preclude an infinite number of universes existing in different dimensions including and beyond those which our senses are capable of perceiving. In fact, it begs the question where those particles came from and disappear to. Conservation of energy and matter are still a prime premise of physics and no proof can be devised to deny that conservation.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 30, 2005 11:53 PM

Craig’s comment: “As an former school board member, whether I approved the science material would all depend on the presentation……” raises a serious issue. Why do you allow persons of little or no education to serve on school boards? Contrary to Craig’s baseless assertion, the scientific evidence is quite clear… when we speak of science, we speak of science and not of religion…. the fact that uneducated evangelicals cannot grasp science IS proof of the failure of providing sound science education in the schools and of regligious fanantics putting their noses where they don’t belong… keep church in the church and out of our laboratories, classrooms, and the public square…. the discussion here seems to support the line of thinking: religion is the opium of the people… intelligent designers could not be more out of touch of objective fact than a heroin addict…

Posted by: pgbach at July 1, 2005 12:11 AM

jimmie,

That was exquisite. I, for one, look forward to more.

Posted by: Rocky at July 1, 2005 12:17 AM

There’s a weird idea based on the ideas of Stanford physicist Andrei Linde which appeared in Slate.

“Among the many curious implications of Linde’s theory, one stands out for our present purposes: It doesn’t take all that much to create a universe. Resources on a cosmic scale are not required. It might even be possible for someone in a not terribly advanced civilization to cook up a new universe in a laboratory. Which leads to an arresting thought: Could that be how our universe came into being?”

Posted by: Reed Sanders at July 1, 2005 12:19 AM

jimmie, great quotes. Thanks. Guess there is a bit of the pantheist in myself, as well.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 1, 2005 01:59 AM

Is there some problem with the posting? I can’t see my posts.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 02:40 AM

Some of the previous comments question why this topic is being brought up on WatchBlog. I think the answer is found in the President’s policies towards science and learning. Generally, this administration is hostile towards scientific principles, at least insofar as those principles lead to conclusions that run contrary to administration policy.

Hence, an understanding of the roles of intelligent design and science is appropriate, at least as far as understanding part of the context of our current political climate.

Now, as to the relative value of intelligent design: it doesn’t have any. A poor replacement for creationism, it fails to understand that which it attacks.

First, it is inappropriate to teach intelligent design in the context of a science classroom just as it is inappropriate to teach American literature in a biology classroom; these are inherently different subjects that approach the world from completely different contexts. I wouldn’t mind a comparative religion class, where similar theories are investigated with similar parameters (the objection here being that intelligent design is supposed to be inclusive of various faiths and their respective approaches towards creation; but that’s the point, and I don’t believe it is state sponsored religion when you aren’t looking at any one specific faith and you are studying it in a historical perspective without any particular bend).

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, any creationist theory that fails to admit the evolution of the universe as an accepted, working theory, simply needs to examine its place in the modern world: these creationist or intelligent design promoters will gladly say that evolution is a fraud while at the same time are quite willing to use their personal computers to post a comment on the Internet. Are the same principles of science that permitted the growth of technology in the modern era somehow completely flawed when looking at things such as the fossil record, background radiation, soil horizon’s, etc.? I’m not sure I understand this stance. This may be a complete misinterpretation of the position of intelligent design, but it appears that they want to have all of the modern conveniences without also having to admit the very great possibility that evolution is correct (practically speaking, evolution is accepted as true; but, for the purposes of technical accuracy, it is still a theory and therefore subject to being disproved at some unlikely time in the future).

Posted by: ant at July 1, 2005 03:20 AM

David,

Anslem I believe answered your argument directly and logically. Creation is defined by a creator. A creator is defined by the creation. If either is infinite, both are infinite.

Actually, this doesn’t address my argument at all. The basic premise of ID is that because the universe is so complex, it must therefore have been created by an intelligent entity. Here, ID proponents stop thinking rationally. Now they have a set of two items: a complex universe and a creator of the universe. The system has now become more complex. So given this new set of a universe and a creator and its inherent complexity, what “logical” conclusion must be made about it? If the fact that something is complex implies a creator, then adding a creator to the equation expands the complexity and must therefore imply another creator (given such logic), ad infinitum. Just saying the universe and the creator are infinite does not address this implication. It’s a cop out. All it is saying is the universe is infinite (and has a creator), therefore the creator is infinite (but doesn’t have a creator).

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 07:11 AM

ant,

Why is evolution still a theory and not a scientific law?

jimmie,

I don’t think we can be “good” enough. If so, how good does one have to be? Are there degrees of badness? Do you qualify into eternity based on the bell curve? It doesn’t seem logical.

Posted by: Discerner at July 1, 2005 08:26 AM

Discerner,

Evolution is a theory and not a law because it is so complex.

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

[source]

Further:

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

By definition, evolution could never be a Law, no matter how well proven. Individual components of evolution could be Laws.

Posted by: LawnBoy at July 1, 2005 08:40 AM

Interestingly, all of us will receive the answer to all of these questions someday.

Belief in GOD as the creator of man and all life and, is the architect of nature’s wonders requires unwavering FAITH. Belief to the contrary requires one to have confidence that science will prove otherwise.

Why are children born with deformities, why are millions homeless and sick in Africa and other places? Even the most devout Christians accept those things as GOD’s will. Said another way, we don’t know. Moreover, NOBODY does.

Posted by: steve smith at July 1, 2005 09:22 AM

I’m not sure why both views cannot be correct.

This planet could have been identified as having the ability to sustain “life” and then it was “seeded”

Perhaps the “garden” of Eden has more truth to it than you believe.

It is true that many have died in the name of religion. God didn’t create religion, man did. God didn’t create the pursuit of knowledge (science), man did. Many lives have ended in the name of religion. I predict the entire planet will one day end in the name of science.

If, we are an accident, then all concepts of philosophy, religion and morality, even government and laws are irrelevant, else, there is a reason for life.

Posted by: James at July 1, 2005 09:27 AM

Sorry, but ID is a great big load of BS.

The old arguments against evolution from the church were founded on the “fact” that all species ever created are now present so there can be no extinction. Since the “no extinction” fallacy has failed miserably, they’ve had to move on. What I’ve noticed is the recent arguments of ID supporters surround weaknesses in evolutionary theory and the questions that are engendered. But isn’t that what science is all about? Questions about mutation rates, how long would it take to randomly string the first 2000 amino pairs together, etc… are just that, Questions. Those questions challenge scientists to improve and expound on evolution. The basics of evolution; survival of the fittest, adaptation to environment, change of species, etc… are observable everyday and are unquestionably supported by physical evidence. I.e. The hypothesis that Evolution=False is unproven. We can state that “Evolution”=”True”.

On the other hand, there is no evidentiary proof of ID. It was recently constructed as pseudoscience by an evangelical group as an attempt to inject creationism into science classrooms. If you believe in creationism, then you promote ID because it substantiates your faith. You must fight against evolution because, as has been stated before, it does not “require” God. ID is neither science nor religion, it is a tool. It does not in any realistic sense survive even the smallest test of scientific investigation. It’s not based on teachings of the bible. It’s just a circular logic that says “This universe is too complex to have happened by itself.” and provides a mantra for use on and by the inculcated. I.e. the hyptohesis the “ID” = “True” is unsupported.
I.e. “ID” = “BS”. QED.

Posted by: Dave at July 1, 2005 09:39 AM

Interesting post James. I honestly believe that the polar opposites in the GOD vs Theory of Evolution/Science will never be convinced by the other to waiver one iota from their positions.

That is why I was very surprised to see this topic on a political forum.

Posted by: steve smith at July 1, 2005 09:42 AM

James,

If, we are an accident, then all concepts of philosophy, religion and morality, even government and laws are irrelevant, else, there is a reason for life.

Please, explain to me how lack of a god makes morality and law irrelevant? Evolution clearly implies that arbitrarily killing your children is a bad thing. Evolution clearly implies that since we are a social critter, cooperation with your neighbor is a good thing. And on and on. Yours is simply a failure of imagination.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 09:44 AM

Joseph,

To understand James’ post, read up on Nihilism.

Posted by: Dave at July 1, 2005 09:52 AM

Leave it to a liberal to tell people of faith what they *should* believe. It’s not enough to say you disagree with Christians, you have to inform us that we are misreading our own texts and that all our august philosophers and theologians - from Moses to Augustine to Pascal to Pasteur to Schaeffer - are out to lunch.

Could you write a post explaining to Hindus why the caste system is wrong, based in Hinduism? Or perhaps one explaining to Jews why temple animal sacrifice was never really what God intended? How about a post to explain to Christian Scientists that - based on their own writings - diseases really do exist?

Posted by: Chops at July 1, 2005 10:05 AM

Dave, I understand what nihilism is. I just don’t see the logical progression from not believing in a god to an absolute absence of meaning, value, morality, and law. There is no certain line from the former to the latter. Not believing in god does not inherently make you a nihilist.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 10:14 AM

Chops,

Could you write a post explaining to Hindus why the caste system is wrong, based in Hinduism? Or perhaps one explaining to Jews why temple animal sacrifice was never really what God intended?

When these groups try to make these practices and beliefs a part of the public education curriculum, I’d be glad to.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 10:16 AM

You can argue this all day long, but I still don’t understand what it has to do with politics, although ant claims that it is warranted because of the administration’s bias against scientific principles. Isn’t the beginning post just as biased in the opposite way? Does anyone here remember that the former pope claimed that both creationism and evolution could both exist and be believed in. If someone choses to believe in any theory, isn’t that their right? Because Bush and his neo-cons try and push their beliefs on the country, does it make it any more right for anyone else to push their opposite beliefs in this forum?

Posted by: Donna at July 1, 2005 10:24 AM

Joseph,

If life has no greater purpose, then it has no greater value.

If a virus eventually proves to be a superior being over humans, then why stop it? It’s only evolution!

Why have government and laws, those are artificial and hamper the true meaning of evolution. If evolution is right, then the laws of evolution should stand supreme. Survival of the fittest, fastest, strongest, smartest is ALL that should matter.

It should be an evolutionist’s mandate to immediately explore the genome and identify every flaw that humans have and eliminate all humans who have those flaws. Eliminate all of the existing humans and all future humans that could corrupt the race and corrupt evolution.

or

Maybe evolution isn’t everything, but is just one of many things.

Posted by: James at July 1, 2005 10:25 AM

James,

If life has no greater purpose, then it has no greater value.

Your concept of “greater” is arbitrary. I personally feel Yahweh’s “purpose” is genocidal and therefore far from “greater.” Also, why the need for “greater” value? What’s wrong with the value we’ve got? Why do you covet more?

If a virus eventually proves to be a superior being over humans, then why stop it? It’s only evolution!

Evolution doesn’t work by critters laying down and giving up.

Why have government and laws, those are artificial and hamper the true meaning of evolution. If evolution is right, then the laws of evolution should stand supreme. Survival of the fittest, fastest, strongest, smartest is ALL that should matter.

“Survival of the fittest” is a poorly conceived common understanding of evolution that has very little to do with the actual process. The process is about adaptation to environmental circumstance; survival of the fittest is merely a byproduct and one that does not always play out. Also, fastest, strongest, and smartest do not inherently imbue fitness.

It should be an evolutionist’s mandate to immediately explore the genome and identify every flaw that humans have and eliminate all humans who have those flaws. Eliminate all of the existing humans and all future humans that could corrupt the race and corrupt evolution.

You are being specious, I imagine. This slippery slope fallacy assumes that materialists have no ethics or regard for human decency. I always suspect those who insist life without god would be debauched and bereft of value are themselves secretly debauched and bereft and are merely clutching at some fantasy to keep themselves in line. If this is the case, then please, keep believing in god.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 10:58 AM

Regarding the questions about the “bad” things that occur in life, who’se to say that they’re not part of the evoultionary process themselves?

Remember, everything, everyone, mutates in one form or another over many years. That’s the theory behind evolution. If this is true, then it is only logical that one would have “bad” things occur in life, as well as “good”.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Highlandangel at July 1, 2005 11:35 AM

Covet more ? Joseph, why attack me?

By no greater value I mean that a human life has the “same” value, in the whole scheme of things, as say…an ant, a blade of grass or even a ROCK.

decency? There is no decency or indecency in evolution.

By your reasoning, isn’t it just as likely that those who do not believe are doing so, to nullify their debauchery? If there is no God, then no sin, I’m ok you’re ok?

Proving one thing, does not disprove everything.

Einstein said the presence of a greater being is the only logical solution.

He also believed that both creationism and evolutionism can coexist. So, do I.

It’s usually pride or the lack of humility that leads man to start believing that he is the greatest the going.

You got a good dose of that going on right now huh?

Posted by: James at July 1, 2005 11:40 AM

Joseph Briggs — lots of great replies!
You wrote:
“I just don’t see the logical progression from not believing in a god to an absolute absence of meaning, value, morality, and law. There is no certain line from the former to the latter. Not believing in god does not inherently make you a nihilist.”

Well said.
Neither does being Agnostic. I find it remarkably presumptuous how often “the faithful” immediately jump to conclusions about those whose beliefs aren’t anchored to an historical godhead.

Steve:
“Said another way, we don’t know. Moreover, NOBODY does.”

Exactly. This is why I am Agnostic. When people claim they know for certain that God does exist — or doesn’t exist, I immediately know they are only guessing.
Those who try to act completely sure, and who are most adamant in promoting their guess are not only attempting to fool themselves, but everyone around them.
Science is the way we try to understand ourselves, our world, and the cosmos. I look at those who insist that ID is a valid scientific concept as people who are trying to throw a giant monkey wrench into a logical intellectual endeavor.

jimmie:
“To believe mankind is causing global warming is in my mind giving man way to much credit; nature has released more ozone depleting gases in one volcanic eruption than the entire history of mankind. We are here to live our lives no different than the ants on the ground or the birds in the sky.”

If we lived our lives doing no harm to nature as the ants and the birds do, I wouldn’t disagree with you. But we don’t. Mankind does have as much of an ability to harm nature, as nature has to harm mankind. You say volcano. My reply — the internal combustion engine running on petroleum. You say tsunami’s. My reply — nuclear bomb. You say forest fire. My reply — the disappearance of giant buffalo herds on the American prairie. I could go on and on giving examples and counter examples here.

Mankind, if we used our brains, would try to live much more like the ants and the birds, but our greed and lust for power seems to get in the way. A philosophy of respect for our planet needs to be promoted. But instead, we have a huge number of greedy, power mad people working hard to disprove what our science is discovering, and who are actually promoting disrespect for our planet as something commonplace and perfectly acceptable.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 1, 2005 12:01 PM

Covet more ? Joseph, why attack me?

By no greater value I mean that a human life has the “same” value, in the whole scheme of things, as say…an ant, a blade of grass or even a ROCK.

What attack? Humans do have the same value as a rock or an ant or a blade of grass. Why do you need to prop humans up on some pedestal? We’re not anything more important than anything else in the universe. So? This doesn’t devalue life. This doesn’t mean it’s okay to be morally bankrupt.

decency? There is no decency or indecency in evolution.

Who cares? Do you need a scientific theory to dictate decency to you? I don’t. Is this it? Do religious folk just need the rules of the universe stapled to their foreheads? Is that what this is all about? If it’s not clearly defined by some perceived authority, then it’s a free-for-all?

By your reasoning, isn’t it just as likely that those who do not believe are doing so, to nullify their debauchery? If there is no God, then no sin, I’m ok you’re ok?

I’ve done nothing but argue that without a god, there is still adequate reason for ethics, morals, decency, value, and law. I don’t believe that without some divine code of behavior, humans will fall apart. You seem to imply without some divine code, we will.

It’s usually pride or the lack of humility that leads man to start believing that he is the greatest the going.

You got a good dose of that going on right now huh?

I’m not the one who needs humanity to have some “special” purpose and “greater” value. I don’t place humans any higher than anything else in this universe. I’m not the one who implies that humans are worth more than ants, rocks, and grass.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 12:08 PM

This is my post (with some additions) that WB ate earlier; I had to remove links due to some weird errors, so I will have to try this with passage references instead. I was hoping for the Watchblog manager to clarify the limits of appropriate discussion. However, since it seems no one is enforcing this, I will go ahead and make some rebuttals, and degenerate this discussion into a theological one.

David:

Creationism requires all students accept God and Divine Intervention if they accept creationism.

If you mean “divine intervention” in the present form, then this statement is incorrect. Creationism requires students to believe in “God was”, and perhaps, “God is”. Yet I know many Christians and others who believe in Creation while simultaneously believing that God stepped back from the laws he had created after Creation was complete.

I think that what you’re describing as the symptoms of “fundamentalist religiosity” is in fact the innate desire for humans to exert control over one another. See this link from Freestar Media. Very Ayn-Randish but I think you’ll agree with much of it. The point is, a theory of macro evolution is itself a religion, and should not be given a place in the public education system without balance from other ideas. ID presents an alternative in abstract form, without reference to a specific religion.

[Numbering added] 1) Creation is defined by a creator. 2) A creator is defined by the creation. 3) If either is infinite, both are infinite.

#1 is a correct statement. #2 is clearly not; simple logic dictates that the converse of a phrase is not the same as the original phrase. We might say that a creator is EXHIBITED THROUGH his creation, but a creator is always greater than the creation. By the same logic, #3 is true only for an infinite creation, which doesn’t exist as far as we know; perhaps string theory can proove otherwise though :)

Paul:

Do you believe God has the skill to accomplish something? People design considering various constraints. What constraint does God have? It makes no sense. People design. An all-powerful supreme being does not do design.

I beg to differ on that last sentence. Genesis 1:27 states that mankind was created in God’s image (since the case for ID has generally been made from the Bible, it seems fair for me to start citing it). Just as a great composer’s work is considered great because he created within a limited framework of rules, so God himself also accepts the limitations of his own rules when he “intervenes” in his creation. Christ’s intervention into this limited framework (Philippians 2:5-11) was a far more impressive feat than God’s deciding to “cut loose” and do whatever he wanted (Matthew 4:1-7).

Most Christians, Moslems, and Jews believe the six-day account of creation (though opinions differ widely on relative timescale - I’ve seen reasonable theories that combine microevolution here on Watchblog). Paul seems to be getting at this idea when he recognizes that God could have created everything instantly, but didn’t. But for anyone who accepts the Bible, some adherence to a concept of literal creation is a must; I’ve yet to see anyone explain Genesis 2:21-22 (the “creation”, or “ID”, of Eve) away as non-literal. And you’re telling me that this doesn’t provide an example of “intelligent design”?

If such beliefs construe fundamentalism, then it seems you have a problem on your hands. Because such fundamentals seem to be mainstream.

Design: to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed); to plan and fashion artistically and skillfully… An all-powerful supreme being does not do design

Why are you using dual definitions that contradict each other, and then using that contradiction to point out contradictions in the opposing camp? This is intellectual BS. Pick your definition and clarify it.

And who are you to suppose what God can/cannot, or would/would not do? Now you’re telling me that your “religion” - your view of God - is superior to mine. This is precisely why I am calling on the Watchblog manager to moderate this discussion. I am disappointed by his lack of clarification on flaming.

I challenge any of you to debate me on the merits or knowledge of my own relgious text, since that seems to be what some of you are intent on doing. I’ve yet to meet a liberal on Watchblog who can make good use of scripture in an argument.

This slippery slope fallacy assumes that materialists have no ethics or regard for human decency.

For the atheist and the evolutionist, for the individualist, the only role for ethics is within utilitarianism. Let the world erupt into chaos, let structures of society be undone, and see who still hold on to his ethics.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 12:24 PM

For the atheist and the evolutionist, for the individualist, the only role for ethics is within utilitarianism. Let the world erupt into chaos, let structures of society be undone, and see who still hold on to his ethics.

A materialist would since, as you say, it is the utilitarian thing to do. The lack of rule of law and civilization would not alter the basic precepts of ethics, or the need for them.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 12:36 PM

Humans do have the same value as a rock or an ant or a blade of grass. Why do you need to prop humans up on some pedestal? We’re not anything more important than anything else in the universe. So? This doesn’t devalue life. This doesn’t mean it’s okay to be morally bankrupt.

Joseph, I think you’re going to run into a fundamental problem here… where to you, equality implies that rocks and ants and blades of grass should be preserved and valued equally with humanity, to the people you are arguing with, equality implies that humanity should be destroyed with just as little regard as they would destroy a rock, an ant, or a blade of grass.

Posted by: Jarin at July 1, 2005 12:49 PM

Ghandi,

Thanks for continuing to ask for a Watchblog manager throughout this thread. I also implore one to take action and end this futile arguing about creation vs. evolution and further to set guidelines as to what is acceptable for discussion. I, for one, am more concerned right now with Justice O’Connor’s retiring and who Bush may appoint in her place. I am also upset that some (in this thread) have implied that others are “stupid” if they don’t believe as they do. Isn’t that the same thing the neo-cons do?

Posted by: Donna at July 1, 2005 12:59 PM

The lack of rule of law and civilization would not alter the basic precepts of ethics, or the need for them.

Ah, but who founded ethics? I think that it was not the materialist, nor the atheist. For utilitarianism to work, there is implicit belief that some others will do likewise. “To go where no man has gone before”? Star Trek would never have brought a Utilitarian on board the Enterprise. The Utilitarian is a follower of principles, not a founder of them (although he may still found smaller ideas in the path of persuing his logic). I suppose Scotty might have been a Utilitarian.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 01:06 PM

What does ethics have to do with creationism? Ethics are contemporary and local. Commonality between places is an effect of environment, not some universal constant. Here is the logic of an abraxal pantheist (me) who does not believe in the good or evil of the universe, just of good and evil in the universe:

If God created the universe, he created the universe with laws. The laws of physics, gravity, etc…
The more man studies these laws, the more man understands.
The more of the universe man understands, the more he understands of God.
The more he understands God, the closer he is to God
When man studies these laws, he uses science. The more he knows of science, the more he knows of the universe, and the more he knows of God.
Evolution is science. ID is not science.
Evolution takes us closer to God. ID takes us away from God.

Donna, to discuss O’conner, go to the 3rd party page. Also isn’t your statement “I am also upset that some (in this thread) have implied that others are “stupid” if they don’t believe as they do. Isn’t that the same thing the neo-cons do?” a backhand slap?

Posted by: Dave at July 1, 2005 01:12 PM

Whoops, I believe that was actually “to boldly go”. The point is that great leaders are not principally governed by Utilitarian principles. Although a leader may recognize utility in analyzing his own beliefs, I never met a leader who was a Utilitarian first. Leaders emerge from grand principles; it doesn’t matter so much whether they succeed or fail, but moreso, whether they stayed faithful to their principles. The world cannot progress without leaders, and society will unravel without them.

Higher principles can only come from belief in a higher being. As a Christian, I find macro evolution and belief in God to be incompatible. As a logical consequence then, belief in macro evolution robs us of higher principles. Re-read my previous paragraph to see where my logic is headed.

Micro evolution is scientific. Macro evolution is a religious belief, and (in my opinion) not a very good one.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 01:20 PM

Dave, nice train of thinking, but you left out two crucial ingredients in your logic. I understand this logic to be your relgion, so I will counter with my own, and address the two parts that I think you’re missing.

1) God created man as the crowning part of his work, and ALSO created man in his own image (Genesis 1:27). Therefore (persuing your logic) for man to critically study himself would in fact bring him closer to God than would studying other parts of creation.

2) God gave man free will. It was in fact the persuit of knowledge, coupled with disobedience, that separated man from God - not the other way around, as you suppose.

3) Ethics, or law, only came after man disobeyed God and, in doing so, separated from Him. There was no need for ethics before man was separated from God.

I believe that my view of God is bigger than yours. I believe that the divide between man and God is far bigger, in fact, unsurmountable without Christ. The capacity of man to do evil is only exceeded by the capacity of God to do good. God cannot be found if we search for him. Only by acknowledging how far we are from God can be begin to discover him. And such discovery only has basis in the historical and present personification of Christ. That’s my religion. And once again, this isn’t supposed to be a religious forum, and am protesting this discussion on Watchblog.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 01:34 PM

Sorry, one final clarification. I said that “God cannot be found if we search for him.” This is incorrect, and should say the following:

If our means of searching for God is to assume our equality with him, then we will never find him. But Christ said that those who are pure of heart (or “humble”) will see God.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 01:43 PM

Ah, but who founded ethics? I think that it was not the materialist, nor the atheist.

Um, capital ‘E’ ethics; so what? The precepts of ethical behavior can be justified by evolutionary psychology just as easily as it can because of some god. Besides, Hammurabi may have been the first to codify laws into written form but he certainly wasn’t the first to think to impose law. And this was long before Yahweh or Jesus. And Hammurabi was long after Catal Huyuk. I seriously doubt any city could form without some established basis of ethics. And Catal Huyuk was over 100,000 years after humans first developed; I also doubt that we could have made it so long without some form of social code. So regardless of whomever you want to blame for codifying some formal practice of Ethics, it doesn’t matter. We are a social species, this entails a certain level of inherent ethics.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 02:02 PM

Joseph: ethics is nothing more than law codifying human interactions in a society, so of course you’re correct. If human nature wasn’t seriously flawed, then we wouldn’t need ethics. Nor would the last living man on earth have any use for law or ethics. (BTW you didn’t capitalize all your uses of “ethics” in the above post so I see no need to do so.)

The point is that anyone creates laws (or ethics) realizes that humans are far from being perfect, and far from God, and hence why I say that atheists didn’t create ethics because they have no use for such a concept. This is the inherent contradiction in any idealist communist society; human nature is perfect, yet we still have to have laws so that people act perfectly.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 02:17 PM

I reason for using “intelligent design” is to discredit our intelligence not God’s. To break down the term rather than the evidence is just plan ignorant.

Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2005 02:41 PM

The reason for using “intelligent design” is to discredit our intelligence not God’s. To break down the term rather than the evidence is just plain ignorant.

Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2005 02:42 PM

To Donna:

“Thanks for continuing to ask for a Watchblog manager throughout this thread. I also implore one to take action and end this futile arguing about creation vs. evolution and further to set guidelines as to what is acceptable for discussion. (snip) I am also upset that some (in this thread) have implied that others are “stupid” if they don’t believe as they do. Isn’t that the same thing the neo-cons do?”

Have you read the other topics? This one is quite civil in comparison. I feel it is a valuable and well thought out topic and I appreciate the ideas and thoughts that have been posted.

Posted by: Ruth at July 1, 2005 02:50 PM

First I’d like to say that I did not intend to attack or question anybody’s religion. I apologize to anyone who feels slighted by what I posted.

I believe in the separation of church and state and that anyone can follow his religion without interference from anyone else - including the government.

I posted this article because many Republicans are pushing Intelligent Design as a way to counter Democrats, whom they call atheists. They are also busy trying to install judges who want to force their religious principles on the rest of us. This is wrong.

Again, I’m sorry if I offended anyone.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 1, 2005 02:53 PM

I was just curious as to what principles the right is trying to force on you?

Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2005 02:59 PM

We are not asking intelligent design to be forced on you, you can believe what ever you want to believe, we simply want both to be taught. There is a significant amount of evidence for both, one can not yet discredit the other.

Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2005 03:03 PM

(BTW you didn’t capitalize all your uses of “ethics” in the above post so I see no need to do so.)

I didn’t capitalize ethics because I was never speaking of some formal practice. By asking who founded ethics, I thought you were going to delve into the foundations of some formal institution of ethical philosophy.

The point is that anyone creates laws (or ethics) realizes that humans are far from being perfect, and far from God, and hence why I say that atheists didn’t create ethics because they have no use for such a concept.

These are all assumptions on your part. First of all, you assume that “perfect” has anything to do with this. Second you assume that our concept of perfection is related in any way to a god. Third, you assume atheists have no use for ethics.

The last mistake you make here is this monotheistic concept, which, compared to the existence of humans, came late in the game. What came before the myriad gods and goddesses of Sumeria, Akkadia, Babylon, and Egypt are, for the most part, unknowable, but since Akhenaton was the first historical monotheist, one could safely assume that this idea of one perfect god ruling over all the universe was not a part of early human philosophy.

I’d also like to note that this whole argument of who “came up with ethics” is not at all related to the matter at hand and has no bearing on whether or not materialists, atheists, or agnostics can and do engage in ethical behavior today. It seems all you want to do with this point is denigrate these groups as somehow incapable of forming their own ethical code. Obviously, this can only be self-righteous speculation on your part.

Look: The reason I don’t rape people has nothing to do with the law or god. The reason I don’t murder people has nothing to do with the law or god. Same with stealing. Same with destruction of property. Same with assault and battery. If these laws were abolished tomorrow, I wouldn’t start. I don’t think I’m alone in these attitudes.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 03:09 PM

Paul, I really don’t see ID/creationism vs. evolution as a Republican vs. Democrat issue. Mayble it’s a classic conservative vs. liberal issue. But most Republicans, and many nominal Christians, reject all validity of the creation account in Genesis. Christians who don’t believe in macro evolution and atheists who hold tightly to evolution apart from a concept of God probably consist of less than 10% of their respective parties (if indeed there is high correlation between party loyalties and those two platforms; I doubt that such a correlation is so clear as one might think).

If ID has enough support out west to get supported for public funding, then perhaps that support comes from general discomfort with the agenda of macro evolution, rather than the pushing of a specific religious agenda. After all, ID isn’t specific to any particular religion, and there are plenty of other ID stories other than the one in the Bible.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 03:11 PM

It’s not the Political association that brings doubt, it’s the evidence presented to them. Evolution as it is now runs on a complete tautology. Natural Selection. This doesn’t disprove it, but it reminds us it theory, not fact. There is enough on both sides to be presented in schools.

Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2005 03:17 PM

Justin

Craig -

Evolution doesnt suppose that something came from nothing. It may be worth your time to do a little research.

Evolution can either be with God or without God involved. But those who determine that it is without God need to answer the question of the origin of the universe without God. Where did the matter come from that caused evolution??

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 1, 2005 03:30 PM

And those who determine that it is with god need to answer the question of the origin of god. Where did this god come from that caused the universe?

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 03:35 PM

Joseph:

It seems all you want to do with this point is denigrate these groups as somehow incapable of forming their own ethical code.

Not at all. What I’m saying is that all law (including ethics) is Utilitarian, and the limits of its usefulness end apart from society. Should laws be abolished, you might choose to act according to those laws because of your conditioning. But by yourself (apart from society) laws governing rape, murder, or anything else become irrelevant, and ethics - even man himself - has no purpose. Hence the need for belief in something higher: God.

From a Biblical position, I disagree with you that polytheism preempted monotheism. Yes, the Bible may have been written later than some of these other books, but the historical account begins at the beginning, before anyone except God was around. And Biblically, law and ethics begins where human nature falls into sin.

First of all, you assume that “perfect” has anything to do with [ethics or the law].

If one could attain full adherence to the law, then one would be perfect. But this would be impossible to achieve without a greater purpose from a broader perspective for existence. According to Christianity, the only person that ever did this was Christ.

Second you assume that our concept of perfection is related in any way to a god.

Yes. The law came only because man fell away relationship with God.

Third, you assume atheists have no use for ethics.

Perhaps I should qualify that by saying that “outside Utilitarianism” the atheist has no use for ethics. Ethics are irrelevent outside society, but leaders must have defined their purpose outside of society (for a Christian, this purpose would have to do with relationship towards God). And my subtle connotation from an earlier post was that an atheist cannot lead other people well, becuase he has defined little direction for himself outside Utilitarianism.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 03:35 PM

Stephen:

Thanks for the reply:

Intelligent Design seem to me to be a Tower of Babel, built by folks trying to elevate their authority to divine levels to pre-empt other theorists. I mean, if you prove the creators influence, then you have divine knowledge backing your science, raising you above everybody else. They are essentially saying, I can determine whether your authority counts, because I know God’s mind.

That may be, but for ME, I find no solution in science to MY most basic question, which is, Where did the matter that makes up myself come from? I don’t see how science can possibly answer that question. I understand there are theories, but so far they seem weak to me.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 1, 2005 03:39 PM

And those who determine that it is with god need to answer the question of the origin of god. Where did this god come from that caused the universe?

That is beyond the scope of human understanding. It’s essentially the same question as “what caused the Big Bang”. (After all, the Big Bang is the god of the evolutionist).

Genesis 1:1 - “In the beginning GOD”. Nothing preempts God. That’s why He’s God. If anything had preceeded Him, then He wouldn’t be God, and whatever preceeded Him would be God instead. Thus, God presented himself to Moses with the name “I AM”.

I think that’s about the closest we can come of understanding a “beginning” for ourselves. We can’t remember anything before our own births, so by faith we accept the testimony of others as information on our origin. All questions of original necessitate faith. So should the public school system decide that it wants to teach a belief system on human origins, it would do well to balance and qualify such teaching as much as possible. Maybe it shouldn’t teach it at all, but then we’d have to throw out history. Given the choice, I’d favor throwing out the public education system :)

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 03:45 PM

pgbach:

Craig’s comment: “As an former school board member, whether I approved the science material would all depend on the presentation……” raises a serious issue. Why do you allow persons of little or no education to serve on school boards? Contrary to Craig’s baseless assertion, the scientific evidence is quite clear… when we speak of science, we speak of science and not of religion…. the fact that uneducated evangelicals cannot grasp science IS proof of the failure of providing sound science education in the schools and of regligious fanantics putting their noses where they don’t belong… keep church in the church and out of our laboratories, classrooms, and the public square…. the discussion here seems to support the line of thinking: religion is the opium of the people… intelligent designers could not be more out of touch of objective fact than a heroin addict…

You are making a few assumptions:

1. That I am uneducated.

2. That I cannot understand science.

3. That as an evangelical I would vote for my interest over against the interest of those who elected me.

I am certainly movable on the point of intelligent design to be included in curriculum. I think in education it is important to see how the curriculum fits into the state mandates for learning. This issue is a tiny tiny portion of science. In 10 years on the School Board, it was never an issue. Never was it brought before us from the public. It is nice to discuss it here away from reality a bit!!

Could you explain to me from a scientific point of view where matter came from?

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 1, 2005 03:47 PM

Intelligent Design seem to me to be a Tower of Babel, built by folks trying to elevate their authority to divine levels to pre-empt other theorists.

Stephen, funny that you use a story from the very book you’re admitedly trying to discredit to make your point. I see it quite the other way: evolutionists think they can become God by figuring out how to re-create themselves with science.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 03:49 PM

There appears to be the underlining idea that the push for intelligent design is a move to discredit everything else. I see it as a defense against an easily disputed theory that is taught as science in our schools, without any contradiction.

Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2005 04:27 PM

“So what am I?”

Who cares!

Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2005 04:50 PM

Evolution and the existence of a god are not mutually exclusive.
They do not need to be in conflict with each other.
Evidence of evolution does exist, and it does not refute the existence of a god.

It may refute some writings in some bibles, but those books were written by people a long long time ago, and people make mistakes. Also, people back then didn’t even have a concept of evolution. There is ample evidence of evolution in fossil records and genetic records. To argue that there is no such thing as evolution is to completely ignore the facts. Why do that? There’s nothing to be afraid of. Evolution does not refute the existence of a god, and it’s not likely anyone can ever prove whether a god exists or not.
It is fascinating and disturbing that some people are unable to accept other’s religious beliefs, feel threatened by those that believe otherwise, feel compelled to force their religious beliefs on others. Should we become like Saudi Arabia and only allow, by law, one religion? Is that what some people in the U.S. want? Do you want government to advocate one or more religions and/or ban all other religions? Is that what you wish for? That’s the way it is in Saudi Arabia. How long do you think that will last? And, all for something no one can prove. It’s OK to have faith, and believe. But, is it necessary to force it onto others?

At any rate, no matter how hard some try, it is futile (in the long run) to make laws for or against any religion. History shows that it often leads to war. Some people almost always use and abuse religion to use and abuse and control other people.

To force one’s religious beliefs onto others is a form of tyranny (like in Saudi Arabia and many middle eastern regions), and it should be rejected.

You’d think that sort of thinking would be rare in the United States. Hopefully, it is. But, we have to seriously question the morality and sanity of anyone who believes they have the duty and/or right to force their religious beliefs onto others, because that is the mind of a very backwards thinking, closed-minded, evil tyrant.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 1, 2005 05:07 PM

d.a.n.,

Your problem is you lack complete understand of the bible. To a Christian it is the inherent word of God, meaning there can be no mistakes because he wrote. I’m not saying this makes it right but they must be taught seperatly because they are mutually exclusive. I only ask both to be taught.

Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2005 05:18 PM

It may refute some writings in some bibles, but those books were written by people a long long time ago, and people make mistakes.

Don’t try and tell me that people writing the Bible made mistakes. I’ll decide that for myself. Keep your religion to yourself, lest you become the “very backwards thinking, closed-minded, evil tyrant” that you accuse others of being.

Micro evolution and Biblical creationism may be compatible. Macro evolution and Biblical creationism are absolutely in conflict with each other.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 05:40 PM

Intelligent Design is by no means a Christian only concept. Many NON-Christians doubt the theory or evolution and lean towards or overtly support ID. Most recently Antony Flew, a lifetime ardent atheist professor, “conceded” that the evidence supports some type of ID. He goes on to state he does not beleive in the Judeo/Christian cocept of God but he agrees that evolution is not supported by the evidence.

I suspect that folks would be much more willing to acknowledge the gaps in evolutionary theory IF the “only other option” was not a “religious based theory”. But they fear THAT theory MORE than they fear the flaws in Darwinism.

Posted by: jwl at July 1, 2005 05:49 PM

There is a significant amount of evidence for both, one can not yet discredit the other.

Actually, there is no evidence for ID. The principle behind ID is that the universe is too complex to have been the result of chance, so there much be an intelligent creator. That’s not evidence. That’s just a personal impression.

Another way of looking at it is that ID is not disprovable. If it were actually science, then there would be provable or disprovable elements to it. There aren’t any. There are no repeatable experiments; there are no laws to be challenged; there are no results to be verified.

Thus, by definition, it’s not science.

So, ID shouldn’t be part of science curricula.

Micro evolution is scientific. Macro evolution is a religious belief, and (in my opinion) not a very good one.

The distinction between micro and macro evolution is a fairly arbitrary distinction made to be able to deny the implications of evolutions without having to deny that we see it happening every day.

Both are the same science, which is as well proved as any theory in science. Calling one part of evolution a religion just because you don’t want to accept it it’s valid.

Posted by: LawnBoy at July 1, 2005 06:03 PM

“Actually, there is no evidence for ID.”

The evidence used for ID is usually to structure of a carbohydrate, a cell, or a protein. The structures are so complex that to sciences’ standards it would be impossible to create by chance. You see there is no proof for either. The structure of a protein is more complex than anything man has ever created, creating serious doubt for the chance theory.

Natural selection is your proof. The strongest will survive because the strongest have survived. We have trouble with this because you can’t define something with itself. It’s a tautology or a circle.

You see again neither can be disproved or proved which is why we cling to faith.

Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2005 06:41 PM

You also argued against yourself by saying science must have repeatable experiments. There are none for evolution.

Posted by: Tony at July 1, 2005 06:43 PM

Gandhi,

What I’m saying is that all law (including ethics) is Utilitarian, and the limits of its usefulness end apart from society. Should laws be abolished, you might choose to act according to those laws because of your conditioning.

This is just so false. Absent society, there is more pressure to behave in some ethical and respectful manner, not less. How do you think tribes and civilization came about in the first place? Do you believe in some literal interpretation of the Bible and that after Eden and a bunch of incest, Adam et al just found a bunch of cities laying about?

But by yourself (apart from society) laws governing rape, murder, or anything else become irrelevant, and ethics - even man himself - has no purpose. Hence the need for belief in something higher: God.

This is just sad. It’s no wonder you feel compelled to believe in a god.

And what’s wrong with no purpose? Have you ever considered living life for the sake of living? That’s what my dog does. My cat, too. They love it. And so do I.

First of all, you assume that “perfect” has anything to do with [ethics or the law].

If one could attain full adherence to the law, then one would be perfect.

So if I abstain from making illegal contributions to the Democratic Party, I will be closer to this “perfection” of which you speak? If I maintain highway speeds greater than the minimum speed limit but no greater than the maximum speed limit, I will be closer to perfection?

But this would be impossible to achieve without a greater purpose from a broader perspective for existence.

More sadness. I can only conclude this is a limitation of your own imagination and respect for life. I find no such limitations. First of all because I don’t believe in perfection. Second, I do believe in bettering myself; I try to every day. I don’t need some greater purpose to do it either. The fact that, as far as I’m concerned, I will simply rot in the ground after I die does not prevent me from making the most of what little time I have enjoying this wondrous phenomenon of life.

Third, you assume atheists have no use for ethics.

Perhaps I should qualify that by saying that “outside Utilitarianism” the atheist has no use for ethics. Ethics are irrelevant outside society, but leaders must have defined their purpose outside of society (for a Christian, this purpose would have to do with relationship towards God).

Again: I can only assume you do not believe that humans have existed for about 160,000 years. Or I am misinterpreting what you mean by “society” or “outside utilitarianism.”

Let’s say I were living on my own with a woman I happened to hit over the head with a stick and drag back to my cave by her hair (it’s a metaphor). If I behave unethically toward her, she might leave before we had a chance to procreate thus lessening my chances of perpetuating my genes. If we do procreate but I behave unethically toward my child, he might not survive to adulthood thus lessening my chances of perpetuating my genes. If I, and my family, behave unethically toward whatever neighbors we might have about, we might starve during rough times or fall prey to nomadic bandits who don’t care for ethics. But if I treat them with respect and share resources and help fight off the occasional bear, we all benefit and all have a greater chance of perpetuating our genes. As I said, absent civilization, there is much greater pressure on the individual to behave with some sort of ethical philosophy. Not everyone is cut out for banditry.

Ethics is a simple fact of being a social upper primate. No more, no less.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 08:39 PM

Ghandi-
Your assumption is that this particular liberal is not a Christian. I’m a Catholic who was fully confirmed into the faith following college. I’m also a firm believer in the scientific view of nature. What I believe is that natural laws are a result of a divine supernatural order that we as creatures of natures laws, are mostly incapable of perceiving, except by God’s grace. With that in mind, I believe God can change the laws of the natural world at will, but we are incapable of telling the difference.

To everyone-
Evolution is what you could call an emergent phenomena. It is the result of the laws of nature interacting in a way not immediately obvious from a picture of those laws alone.

Natural selection is merely mutation acted upon by a real world that has certain non-random conditions in it. For example, regardless of how creative the mutations get in an animal that lives in the snowy mountains, an animal without traits to deal with the cold simply will not survive. But environments are rarely that simple. Animals must deal with the creatures around them, the weather, the soil, the water, etc, etc.

Macroevolutions simply says that the small scale evolution, acted upon by the diverse environments and niches of the world, will give rise to new species.

Does that mean there’s no place for God? Well, god created the natural laws, and with his greater wisdom, could create all the emergent effects of them, from matter, to the stars, to galaxies, and of course, planets. He could arrange the elements to where they had certain affinities and aversions, and with his awesomely complex mind create the vast sweep of life with no problem.

But why use such imperfect means? I think it’s choice, and not just earthly but spiritual choice. I called ID a Tower of Babel, but also underlying my sense of Intelligent Design is the notion that God does not want us to believe in him because worldly evidence tells us to. He wants us to believe by faith. The Intelligent Design people would have us be the Doubting Thomases, who only come to believe because we’ve stuck our hands in creation’s side, and our fingers in it’s wrists.

I think our faith should not be based on the documentary truth of a text. That’s putting too much trust in words that can be mistranslated, misinterpreted even when correct. Our faith should be based on our experience of God’s grace. Everything else? Well, truth cannot deny truth.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 1, 2005 08:44 PM

Gandhi wrote: Don’t try and tell me that people writing the Bible made mistakes. I’ll decide that for myself. Keep your religion to yourself, lest you become the “very backwards thinking, closed-minded, evil tyrant” that you accuse others of being.

Ghandi,
First of all. Please calm down. Thank you for making my point. Secondly, you may believe what ever you want. And I may say what ever I want here. It’s that simple.

What I wrote was:

d.a.n wrote:
To force one’s religious beliefs onto others is a form of tyranny (like in Saudi Arabia and many middle eastern regions), and it should be rejected.
You’d think that sort of thinking would be rare in the United States. Hopefully, it is. But, we have to seriously question the morality and sanity of anyone who believes they have the duty and/or right to force their religious beliefs onto others, because that is the mind of a very backwards thinking, closed-minded, evil tyrant.

Ghandi,
Are you saying someone should have the right to force their religion on someone?

Here’s what I wrote:

d.a.n wrote:
Evolution…..It may refute some writings in some bibles, but those books were written by people a long long time ago, and people make mistakes.

Ghandi,
I was merely trying to point out that evolution was not know about way back when some bibles were written. I don’t know if any bible has any or no errors. It was not my intention to denigrate any bible or religion. But it’s interesting that some want to jump at any opportunity to be confrontational.

Ghandi,
I said people make mistakes. Your arguing that people don’t make mistakes is really grasping for straws, and blatantly seeking confrontation. What’s there to be so angry about?

Tony wrote: d.a.n., Your problem is you lack complete understand of the bible. To a Christian it is the inherent word of God, meaning there can be no mistakes because he wrote. I’m not saying this makes it right but they must be taught seperatly because they are mutually exclusive. I only ask both to be taught.

Tony, are you saying you want religion taught in public schools? If so, which religion? All of them? Posted by: d.a.n at July 1, 2005 08:45 PM

From a Biblical position, I disagree with you that polytheism preempted monotheism. Yes, the Bible may have been written later than some of these other books, but the historical account begins at the beginning, before anyone except God was around.

I would enjoy discussing the roots of Semetic mythology and the henotheistic accommodations of early Judaism before the Second Isaiah but we are already far afield of the subject and it would require too much time and space that I am willing to put into it. Unless you start throwing around more self-righteous and demeaning rhetoric. Then I’ll have to. ;)

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 08:50 PM

Gandi,

Science is not my religion. Your attempt to relate the two is the losers argument. Religion is based solely on faith Science is based solely on evidence. Attempting to weaken science by comparison to religion only shows how weak the religious argument is.
ID is bullcrap. The only “evidence” you’ve presented for it is that it’s not likely that life created spontaneously. It’s a really really big universe. The 1E12years:1 shot for the first 2000 pair bacteria vs actual of 4E8years only says that 1 in 2500 earth type planets are likely to spawn life within 4E8 years after formation.
Unfortunately, there is little common ground in this discussion. Theocratic discussions are based on false premises. You have faith based on nothing but a book and will see proof whenever you want to. It is a definition of insanity. God may exist but how he made the universe is being described by science, and that includes evolution.

Posted by: Dave at July 1, 2005 09:04 PM

Is it just me, or are no hyperlinks allowed any more?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 1, 2005 09:26 PM

Geez, lots of rebuttals to field by Americans who can’t spell “Gandhi” correctly. I will take them one at a time and go backwards.

Dave said:

Religion is based solely on faith Science is based solely on evidence.

So tell me then: which tbeories of evolution are more scientific than others? Is it the pig’s tooth that was the “link” for one theory of human evolution? Was it the monkey skeleton? Which one was it?

What evidence do you have for the Big Bang? Do you know anything about the Big Bang? Or is it your god, which you accept to be true based on what other people have told you? How much of evolution’s “scientific evidence” have you observed for yourself to be true, vs. what you have chosen to believe from others?

If you are honest with yourself, I think you will find that your belief in “science” demands just as much faith, perhaps more, than does my faith in the Bible. The Bible has stayed consistent for the last 1900 years or so. That’s better than can be said for theories of evolution of the species.

ID is bullcrap? Do you even know what ID is? Try reading up at www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org for a start.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 1, 2005 11:00 PM

What evidence do you have for the Big Bang? Do you know anything about the Big Bang?

The doppler shift demonstrating an expanding universe is a good start. Cosmic microwave background radiation is pretty good. These would seem to demonstrate that it, in fact, takes less faith to believe in science than it does to believe in some god. A static religious text does not lend credibility to religious faith. An ever shifting landscape of scientific theory demonstrates a genuine attempt to understand and admit when mistakes and oversights are made. Again: less faith for science.

Posted by: Joseph Briggs at July 1, 2005 11:34 PM

I still don’t see why some people are so resistant, fearful, and in denial of scientific discoveries. The important thing is that faith in a god and science do not have to be in conflict. That is, not unless you choose to believe every thing literally and exactly as it is written in some bibles written by men thousands of years ago. Personally, most of the people I know that have faith, do not believe every thing in the bible happened literally and exactly as the bible states. But, that does not shake their faith. Their faith is stronger than that, and I respect that. And, I’m not saying the Bible has mistakes in it. I can’t prove it, and don’t care to try. But, regardless of what anyone believes, we should respect each others’ beliefs. What I do not respect though are those that force their religion (or atheism) onto others. Thus, to me, teaching religion in public school is wrong. For one thing, which religion will it be? The very 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution addressed this. I’m still amazed that some still don’t understand and respect the wisdom of what it says. Because, to reject it, is to embrace a form of tyranny, and to disrespect the differnt beliefs of other people.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 2, 2005 12:06 AM

jimmie,
Ah….yes. Infinite time and space. That’s a tough concept for many to grasp, and how it can make many things probable.
Still, I’m not questioning the existence of a god.
The important thing, no matter what you currently believe, is to keep an open mind, and respect others’ religious beliefs, but reject and be wary of those that try to force their religious beliefs onto others, because that is a red flag, and it is telling you that there is something fundamentally wrong with that person.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 2, 2005 12:16 AM

Gandhi:
“I suppose Scotty might have been a Utilitarian.”

I disagree. In my opinion, Scotty was either a strict Calvinist, or a Single Maltist.
The former, as you’ve probably heard, is a longstanding (and rather miserable) Scots tradition. The latter is much less well known, but no less traditional among the Scottish people — and the congregation is one hell of a lot more fun.
Single Maltists are known for their worshipping of fine single malt (never blended) whisky* or, as it’s known in the gaelic, Uisgebeatha (uisge-water, beatha-life, or Water of Life. In Latin, Aqua-Vitae) made in small batches, then aged in oaken casks for at least 15 years.

*In Scotland, for some reason, you must always leave out the “e” in whiskey.

These faithful are very fond of live music and dancing, as well as amusing stories, songs, and jokes which they take turns telling to each other, or reciting/singing aloud for the assembled. If you join them in their worship, you must definitely be prepared to provide a bit of entertainment during the course of the evening — yet it’s always good idea to leave before the service takes a violent, tearful, or overtly maudlin turn.
If pressed to name their religion, they’ll often give you a piercing but amused look, then lie straight through their teeth telling you all about the other church they attend.

But, come to think of it, Scotty had a Glaswegian accent and seemed extremely tense a great deal of the time, so chances are good that he was indeed a Calvinist — but with perhaps, a rather unholy penchant for fooling with the anti-matter…
:^)

Joseph Briggs, I admire your intellectual persistence.
If I wasn’t already happily married, I’d probably want to knock you over the head and drag you back to my cave. And once there, no doubt I’d treat you to something more than mere ethics! ;^)

Ah, don’t mind me. Deep-dish philosophical discussions about God and the Nature of the Universe always seem to bring out the smartass in me!

Posted by: Adrienne at July 2, 2005 12:18 AM

Ghandi-
Faith in science? I don’t have to put faith in science. Science demands we look for evidence. Faith requires that we believe in something we can’t rationally prove.

The big bang is pretty easy. Just turn on your TV. part of that static is the 3K background radiation that shows up everywhere you point a radio telescope. Scientific principles tell you that you can’t get that kind of energy from nowhere. The Expanding universe has already been confirmed by Hubble, who did it by measuring the spectrums of heavenly bodies of a standard brightness, the Cepheids. He saw that their lines were shifted towards the red, meaning they were heading away at high speed.

Where does faith enter into it?

I simply say truth cannot contradict truth. I believe in God, and have nothing to fear from science that seems to contradict the literal text of the bible. Why? Because it wasn’t meant to be taken as documentary fact. It was mean to relate a story that had deeper meanings. I believe the bible to be divinely inspired, and that those deeper meanings relate that.

As for biblical consistency, that’s not the wagon to hitch yourself to. the canon of biblical books has not been constant. Plus, evolution is an idea only so old. It’s comparing apples and oranges in terms of age.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2005 12:41 AM

The evidence used for ID is usually to structure of a carbohydrate, a cell, or a protein. The structures are so complex that to sciences’ standards it would be impossible to create by chance.

Not really. The vast majority of scientists have no problem accepting that unlikely things happen. Science has no problem with rare occurances. 100 consecutive heads on a fair coin would be notably bizarre, but not outside the realm of science.

So, the premise of ID is based on a false idea.

Here’s one quote about the issue:

…the odds against DNA assembling by chance are 10^40,000 to one [according to Fred Hoyle, Evolution from Space,1981]. This is true, but highly misleading. DNA did not assemble purely by chance. It assembled by a combination of chance and the laws of physics. Without the laws of physics as we know them, life on earth as we know it would not have evolved in the short span of six billion years. The nuclear force was needed to bind protons and neutrons in the nuclei of atoms; electromagnetism was needed to keep atoms and molecules together; and gravity was needed to keep the resulting ingredients for life stuck to the surface of the earth.

Victor J. Stenger (the whole link is worth reading)

You see there is no proof for either.

That’s just not true. There’s a lot of proof for evolution. How can one say otherwise? There is copious proof of evolution. It’s in many fields of science. It’s in medicine. It’s in…

Natural selection is your proof. The strongest will survive because the strongest have survived. We have trouble with this because you can’t define something with itself. It’s a tautology or a circle.

Huh? No, the proof is in the biogeography, paleontology, embryology, and morphology. The proof is in the science.

You also argued against yourself by saying science must have repeatable experiments. There are none for evolution.

That is absolutely not true. There are many repeatable experiments. Mendel’s genetics experiments. Drug testing studies. Animal husbandry. Fruit fly mutation studies. The list goes on.

Sure, we haven’t recreated specific mutations that were necessary to create life, but there’s no requirement to do that, but that’s not a requirement. There’s a difference between repeatable experiments and being able to repeat history. The first is a requirement for a valid theory, the second is impossible. Evolution satisfies the requirements. ID doesn’t.

Posted by: LawnBoy at July 2, 2005 01:49 AM

The question of complexity in terms of probability is a false one, I think, because certain properties of chemistry make certain complex configurations more likely or easier to produce than others. Given the right catalysts, substrates or other conditions (say like the surface area of certain Kaolinite clays), what is improbable under current conditions is probable now.

We also have to realize that the world has changed over time because of life. There is a section of rock that is rust stained because the archaebacteria put so much oxygen in the atmosphere that it oxidized the iron. Look in your garden, and you will see plants preventing erosion by their roots, and Earthworms aerating the soil. And right now, we are debating global Warming, which is a result of our constant burning of the remains of ancient creatures.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2005 09:37 AM

What is improbable under current conditions, may have been probable before.

Sorry.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 2, 2005 09:39 AM

Joseph & Stephen, I was asking Dave what HE knew about the Big Bang, not you guys. But since you both answered, answer me this: why would huge mass concentrated at an infinitesimally small point explode? Why would the law of gravity reverse itself? Or were the laws all “created” at the Big Bang?

If your answer is the latter, then you must answer to who created those laws.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 2, 2005 11:00 AM

A static religious text does not lend credibility to religious faith. An ever shifting landscape of scientific theory demonstrates a genuine attempt to understand and admit when mistakes and oversights are made.

If that is true, then why did Bush won in 2004? His message was consistent; Kerry adapted.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 2, 2005 11:03 AM

Dan said:

I said people make mistakes. Your arguing that people don’t make mistakes is really grasping for straws, and blatantly seeking confrontation. What’s there to be so angry about?

It may refute some writings in some bibles, but those books were written by people a long long time ago, and people make mistakes. Also, people back then didn’t even have a concept of evolution.

I still don’t see why some people are so resistant, fearful, and in denial of scientific discoveries.

You’re making a number of assumptions here.

#1: You assume that because people make mistakes, the Bible has mistakes in it. I am not a strong supporter of “Biblical infallibility”, as I haven’t done enough study to confirm it for myself. However, if you’ve read through the Bible - even with the premise that “evolution and God are not mutually exclusive” - you would have to throw out many core books. Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Mark, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, Revelation. We’re not talking about the minor prophets here.

#2: You assume that aspects of faith need revisiting in light of scientific “discoveries”. To do so is to assume that your belief system is superior to theirs.

#3: You assume that anyone who believes in this stuff is intellectually inferior to you, that we’re incapable of “objective discovery”, that in fact we are driven by fear. I would suggest that those who live in the greatest fear are the evolutionists who have created hoax after hoax for the “missing links” to their theories. We’re not afraid of scientific discovery. We’re not so excited about scientific theories with a strong agenda. That’s not science.

Posted by: Gandhi at July 2, 2005 11:25 AM

Ghandi:

I am close to where you are I think. Neither the Big Bang Theory or Evolution is a big deal philosophically. It may be in the science world, but in trying to justify aethism, and then say “I have a scientific view of the world”, or “I base my life on the objective” not like people of faith is pure hogwash.

EVERY LOGICAL SYSTEM HAS ASSUMPTIONS. For instance, in Euclidian Geometry, there are postulates. One of them is that the shortest distance between two points is a line. Or that two parallel lines never intersect.

Science has it’s own set of “belief’s” taken on faith. One of these is that matter just exists. The existance of the basic laws of nature like gravity are “postulates” if you will of science. They are ASSUMED.

If we get behind those assumptions and expose them there is no answer. It is like asking a Euclidian Geometry teacher to prove that two parallel lines do not exist. They cannot because it is a postulate. It is assumed.

In the end, from a philisophical basis science and the faith’s of the world are are philisophical equals. One side is just in denial about their own assumptions.

Just watch if you debate where the matter from the big bang came from!! Or like you pointed out, where the gravity came from. Or the energy came from!!!

This thread however is about curriculum and science. Students need to know and study what the latest conclusions are in this area of study. The courses in High School are not on philosophy, although there should be some!! Students should know that every life philosophy is based on assumptions, so choose your assumptions well!!

Of course as a Christian, the first “postulate” of my “philosophy” is the first four words of Genesis. “In the beginning God”. I accept that on faith as a beginning point to build a life concept on. I believe I am in the majority viewpoint in this country.

In terms of intelligent design in science curriculum, that is another question that I would need ponder. Students need exposure to current scientific thought. My thought right now would be to make sure and discus the assumptions that science in based on. To say that there are basic assumptions that cannot currently be proven that science is based on seems very honest.

Unless we have someone here that can explain to you where the gravaty came from that held the material together in the “Big Bang”. Or more basic yet, where did the material in the big bang come from?

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 2, 2005 11:43 AM

Gandhi, … answer me this: why would huge mass concentrated at an infinitesimally small point explode? Why would the law of gravity reverse itself? Or were the laws all “created” at the Big Bang?

Gandhi,
Nobody knows for certain if a big bang actually occurred, or what caused it, if it did. Also, a big bang does not mean gravity reversed itself. That conclusion is non-sequitur. The current evidence and an expanding unive