BS: Evolution as Heresy?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 05:50 AM

I made the world. stop worrying. yoou can pick it up thursday.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 05:35 AM

If we start teaching religion in schools, we have to teach all religious beliefs about the beginning of human life. Lets leave that to the churches, O.K.? As a teacher, I hardly have time to teach each and every creation myth. Thats the job of religious teachers, not public school teachers.

Myth is myth and science is science but if you insist, I will begin by teaching the following:

The first people emerged from a gigantic clam shell on the beach at Rose Spit. They got out with the help of Raven, who is the most powerful creature in Haida myth.

If I teach intelligent design, I must refer to it as a Christian myth. I have no objection to teaching mythology as long as it is designated as such. There is a big difference between science and mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 12:09 AM

I beg to differ, nameless one. Dawkins, for example, makes it clear that the miracle of modern analytic biochemistry makes the argument in favor of the evolutionary model even stronger.

One reason is that every living organism surviving today shares the same fundamental alphabet of DNA characters. This seems to point to the existence of an archdtypal common ancestor.

Another is that taxonomy, thanks to molecuylar biology, can establish clearly the difference between species that look similar but are only distantly realted, and those that are closely related, on a reliable basis.

Both of these things support the essential arguments of Darwinian evolution.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 10:07 PM

" Darwin confessed"?? is that more intimidating than 'said' or 'wrote'? And what is irreducible complexity? Nothing is 'irreducible' till you get past the sub-atomic level....and there are ideas about that!

Sorry, oh anonymous one, but being more complex than YOU can figger out doesn't somehow endow a process or thing with mystical qualities. All them eyes and ears & hearts run by totally natural processes which have had over 3 billion years to make themselves confusing to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 10:04 PM

well, whatever the human race couldn't explain it called God, beginning with the Sun. So now we're down to the microscopically microscopic and we still call it God. But that's only because we don't yet fully understand it. When we do, we'll call something else God. The human race is terminally stupid and ultimately doomed, as of course is the planet and the Sun. Relax, enjoy, and let the mystery be.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 09:47 PM

Evolution is heresy. Let's instead adopt Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. Its truth is undeniable.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 05 - 02:37 PM

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world.

Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 07:16 PM

Read the transcripts of the current trial going on in Dover, PA! They are an absolute howl!

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 06:44 PM

well, that is a perfectly reasonable attitude, frogprince! If someone feels the need to attribute existence in general to a 'creator', I sure can't dispute them. Calling Evolution the 'how' does not create serious disputes.....denying obvious evidence does.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: frogprince
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 03:31 PM

"Just because there are creationists who do good works and are nice people doesn't stop them being completely and utterly wrong in their cretinous beliefs."
Gervase, you achieved something remarkable here; you elicited a response from Beardedbruce that I agree with completely.
In my own "cretinous mind", I am at least very inclined to be a "creationist". I also believe that the "theory" of evolution is so well supported by the actual evidence that is hands down the best general explanation of the "how" of creation. I further believe that my own "cretinous" belief in creation is, in fact, a belief, outside the scope of the scientific process and therefore outside the proper scope of a science class,

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 12:12 PM

Yeah Bruce, I would agree with that, since I've never seen or heard of a successful politician who is totally honest.

But my post was a direct response to one particular post about one particular group, and was not a comparative assessment of other groups.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 12:06 PM

Good on them then John!

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 11:54 AM

'cretinous beliefs' are one's own business and a basic right...until you start manipulating the system to impose those beliefs, or implications of them, on ME!

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 09:43 AM

Just because there are X who do good works and are nice people doesn't stop them being completely and utterly wrong in their cretinous beliefs.


Insert your own X

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Auggie
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 09:32 AM

You Know, that's what I have always thought about those who are gullible enough to believe in macro-evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 08:24 AM

Just because there are creationists who do good works and are nice people doesn't stop them being completely and utterly wrong in their cretinous beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 08:23 AM

Don,

Of course the majority of liberal people (progressives; call them what you will) are caring, sharing members of society who do their best to help their fellow man.

IMHO, this does not apply to the bevy of political hard men whose cynical claims to be liberals are at best dubious, and at worst outright lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 08:19 AM

P.S I strongly suspect that the creationists you know would be too honest ever to make it in politics which is a great pity, as they might otherwise bring about changes that would make this world a better place to live.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 08:13 AM

John, I read Chief Chaos's comment to mean the kind of creationists that seem to be infesting your government at the moment, whose religious attitudes seem to be directed to justification of their political machinations.

Of course the majority of religious people (creationists; call them what you will) are caring, sharing members of society who do their best to help their fellow man.

IMHO, this does not apply to the bevy of political hard men whose cynical claims to be Christians are at best dubious, and at worst outright lies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John Hardly
Date: 07 Oct 05 - 07:00 AM

"Social Darwinism means that the weak of a society which I shall define as the poor, the impaired, the social unfit, etc. will be weeded out so only the fittest survive"

That may be what "Social Darwinists" believe, but I don't know a creationist who believes that. And the creationists I know are often the ones sacrificing personal comfort to care for "the poor, the impaired, the social unfit".

The creationists I know work with the Salvation Army, send their money there, voluteer their time there.

The creationists I know work in the local jail teaching literacy to those trapped in poverty by their ignorance.

The creationists I know started an in-prison college degree program with professors volunteering their teaching and travelling (the State prison is 90 miles one way from here) time to help inmates get a college degree and be employable when they get out.

The creationists I know have started the local soup kitchen(s).

The creationists I know teach and believe that all mankind is made in the image of God -- and no one is more valuable than another. The creationists I know don't think that the poor or impaired or unfit are inferior.

There is nothing about the creationists that I know that has them believing, as you suggest, that the poor should be "weeded out".

Because the creationists I know don't think of the poor or impaired as inferior to them, they do quite often believe in the capacity of those that society has given up on for regaining their sense of self worth and rejoining functioning society.

They do quite often believe that charity that contains no means of eventually helping individuals rise above their need, even when given with the best of intentions, though sometimes necessary as a stop-gap measure, will lead, not to aid and comfort for the needy, but to more need.

Because they are quite often involved in charity work, they quite often have strong opinions on how charity is most effectively given.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: pdq
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 07:23 PM

And then there was the poor dog who ate a thermometer and died by degrees.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 07:18 PM

Peace...hey! I oughta have a Phd in that "Life Experience" stuff! (you know what Phd means....)

bb...better be sure those Alephs are genuine! Nothing worse than fake infinities to confuse the issue.

"Aleph my heart, in San Francisco"

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 06:44 PM

And then there's this.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 06:40 PM

. . . and university degrees.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 06:38 PM

. . . and as written by Jim Hurt and Tim DuBois


Love in the First Degree

I once thought of love as a prison
a place I didn't want to be.
So long ago I made a decision
to be footloose and fancy free.
But you came I was so tempted
to gamble on love just one time.
I never thought I would get caught.
It seemed like the perfect crime.

Chorus:
Baby, you left me defneseless.
I've only got one plea.
Lock me away inside of your love
and throw away the key.
I'm guilty of love in the first degree.


I thought it would be so simple,
like a thousand times before.
I'd take what I wanted and just walk away,
but I never made it to the door.
Now babe, I'm not beggin' for mercy.
Go ahead and throw the book at me.
If lovin' you's a crime,
I know that I'm as guilty as a man can be.


Chorus:
Oh yeah.
Oh yeah.


Chorus:
Oh yeah.
Love in the first degree.
Love in the first degree.
Love in the first degree.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 06:35 PM

. . . and the Nth degree.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 06:35 PM

. . . and the third degree.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 06:34 PM

. . . and adjectives of degree.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 06:33 PM

And, FYI, there are degrees of temperature, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 01:48 PM

BillD,

"LOTS of infinity" is a category error..*grin* "


Actually, I learned calculas using infinitesimals rather than epsilon- deltas. There ARE degrees of infinity- Aleph null, Aleph one, etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 01:14 PM

It's an abstract statement I guess.
I equate "creationists" to be of a strongly religeous bent. From this I infer (with at least some degree of error to be sure) people like those in the Christian Coalition (or the religeous right if you prefer) which is linked for the most part to the Republicans.

Social Darwinism means that the weak of a society which I shall define as the poor, the impaired, the social unfit, etc. will be weeded out so only the fittest survive.

The Liberals embrace the touchy feely social programs that help keep the weak of society from going under (barely) and which they believe equalize us all in society. The Republicans are against these types of programs (welfare, food stamps, affirmative action, etc.)preferring to believe that we are all responsible for our own destiny and that if we can't pull ourselves up then we deserve the position we're in.

Summing it up:

Creationists=Social Darwinism

This is my opinion of course and you are quite entitled to disagree!
One of the great things about America!

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:51 PM

"LOTS of infinity" is a category error..*grin* like 'kinda pregnant'....but I get it...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John Hardly
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 12:45 PM

Sorry, CC, I don't see creationists embracing "social Darwinism".

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:12 AM

There is LOTS of infinity on either side of that equation.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 11:05 AM

Chief Chaos, you have put your finger on a most perplexing illogic. It's a variant of the NIH (not invented here) syndrome, perhaps -- yet creationists believe the whole universe was NIH!!! Or at least, not "here" in the normal sense of the word. Hmmmmmmm.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 10:52 AM

thank you, Uncle Dave and Paul, for helping me note the carelessness of 'guests' when they are more concerned with put-downs and sarcasm than truth and clarity.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 Oct 05 - 06:02 AM

Depends whether he meant ape colloquially or scientifically. Colloquially, 'ape' includes everything from monkeys and lemurs through to orang-utans and gorillas, and we certainly are descended from animals of that sort. Scientifically, it just means Pongidae, and we share an ancestry with them, a fairly recent one too, in geological and evolutionary terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 06:47 PM

GUEST, in usual GUEST unwisdom, said:

Darwins theory that we evolved from the apes is contested.

But Darwin never claimed that we evolved from apes. This canard was dredged up against him in his own day (as a sort of dirty-trick rhetorical gesture), and has never quite died away.

What Darwin said was that it appeared that man evolved from some ancient animal which, in a separate but somewhat parallel line, into the other primates, such as the apes.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 03:59 PM

"Darwins theory that we evolved from the apes is contested. Modern science now believes we could be a seperate species with similarites to the apes."

WHO contests it? That guy in Cincinnatti with the anti-evolution musuem?

And 'modern science' as a generalization does not believe any such thing! You can find two members of ANY group who will swear to almost anything. Almost ALL reasoned research now accepts that apes and man had common ancestors and is just trying to work out the precise order and placement.

If anyone really wants to dig deeply into how evolution fits into the study of the Earth's past, and be astounded at some of the precursors too, try reading "The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History" by Stephen Jay Gould.

By focusing on the very most ancient fossils known, the essential arguments of evolution are highlighted. Be warned...this is not something you skim for 30 minutes and dismiss...or accept. It requires thinking and sorting to grasp the relationships being considered.

(Note...the Burgess Shale is but a short distance from Bruce (Peace)...on the Alberta/British Columbia border. It is probably the most significant fossil record on the planet: more important than even the primate finds. I wish I had an excuse to go there and just look.)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 02:02 PM

I've always wondered why creationists have such a problem with evolution (Darwinism)and yet most of the time they seem to embrace Social Darwinism.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 01:57 PM

COntested by whom, twerp? On what basis? The issue isnot whether homo sapiens descended from apes, or whethe rboth apes and homo sap (or neanderthalis) descended from as common ancenstor a niche earlier than proto-apes. From what I know so far, which is precious little, it is more likely that we descended from an early ape ancestor, but I think the lines are too fuzzy to define definitely. I don't care; it has little to do with the validity of the mechanism.

As for knowing everything,you are being ridiculous. I know how to think with the data that I have and am always open to new data (not mindless assertions about science without references.) But I sure don't know a patch of everything, so I think you must be speaking from your lower GI.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 01:41 PM

I remember doing a paper on comparative religion, specifically origin myths (creation myths) for a high schol philosophy class (in French school which is mostly Catholic, in a mostly Moslem country); I compared the ancient Greeks, the ancient Egyptians, and the judeo-christian-islamic myths. The paper was very well received by teh teacher, but she then got in trouble for receiving it well, and the non-animists in the class were fine until I got to that last one... *sigh* why is it that only OTHER people's superstitions are silly?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 10:00 AM

I agree with Don that comparative religion is the way to go. However, parents in most religions do not want their children exposed to other 'truths'. The the religions in schools could fight for their percentage of coverage and slant that is put on it all. Mess if you ask me--which you haven't.

I guess this gets us to Dr Jonnson's adage: "Much can be made of a Scotsman--if caught while young."

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Oct 05 - 07:28 AM

I don't know how it's done in the US, but over here (UK) if any religious content is included in school activities, Jehovah Witness children are (at the insistence of their parents) not allowed to attend.

This removes them from assemblies, Christmas plays, etc. There is a rota for teachers, which includes the duty of looking after JWs during such activities.

Imagine the state of THEIR education, if religion were introduced into academic subjects.

IMHO, everything has its place, and the place for religion is in a comparative religious class, in a multi-cultural society such as ours.

I can't help wondering why Jehovah Witnesses should feel that learning about other religions is wrong, but that is essentially their business. Educators have to deal with what is, not what might, or ought, to be.

This would still exclude JWs, but only from that subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 08:18 PM

Ah, frogprince, but one makes as much sense as another! ID is fine to talk to kids about - just not in a science class. How about the parents?

Love EOWilson.

There is a great "column" on Fresh Air on NPR today about this whole thing - very interesting, go to npr.org and look around for Fresh Air.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John Hardly
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 04:18 PM

"I continue to think that God--define that how you will--made it and Darwin explained it. Hope y'all have a good thread."

I could go along with this'n. I might change it a mite to say that I think God created it and Darwin made an interesting, though flawed attempt to explain.

I could especially go along with the "Hope y'all have a good thread" part.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 04:03 PM

Amos, it must be awesome to know everything about everything, how do you do it? Darwins theory that we evolved from the apes is contested. Modern science now believes we could be a seperate species with similarites to the apes. How many genetic markers seperate us from Orangutangs? two? three? Be open to new ideas.
You are sometimes so full of shit it amazes me.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Oct 05 - 06:33 AM

I've heard Dawkins over the radio. Great voice, great presence, good humor and good science. I believe he knows E.O. Wilson the great ant biographer, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 10:37 PM

I've read two of Dawkins' major works. He protesteth very little in the worls I have read -- he analyzes, presents data, provides a little humor -- not much, especially considering the imbalance in fair speech and careful thought which his antagonists offer. It would upset any normal person to have his words so twisted about.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: frogprince
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 09:06 PM

Guest Mrr: I'm not up for spending any real effort grinding an axe over this; my "paragraph or less" of mention is a suggestion, not anything I want written into the required lesson plan.   

I'm just thinking that a good share of the kids in the class a. have heard some of the stink raised about this, but b. haven't had a chance yet to hear or develop an objective perspective on why they do or don't hear about creationism or "I.D." in class.

   No one (to my knowledge) has been telling the kids that their foreign language teacher is an un-american-commie-pinko-demon worshiper because he hasn't been teaching physics.