BS: Evolution as Heresy?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 12:17 PM

Amos -

Fire Sale?

On inferior merchandise that's now irreparably damaged.

Who'd want it?

And with the number of foreign investors who own the businesses that pull the strings on it, how the h..e..l..l would we know who has a clear title to sell?

John

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 12:05 PM

PP:
The Onion is a highly reputable source of parody and invention.

Spoof? Why do you ask??? :>D

Their latest issue reports that Bush is having a fire-sale for the Federal Government which is going out of business. Everything must go!! Buy now!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 10:31 AM

In this morning's newsless rag:

[quote: OCR from scan]

4A THE WICHITA EAGLE
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2006

Calif. district abandons intelligent design class

FRESNO, Calif. —

Under legal pressure, a rural school district Tuesday canceled an elective philosophy course on intelligent design and agreed never to promote the topic in class again.

A group of parents had sued the El Tejon school system last week, accusing it of violating the constitutional separation of church and state with "Philosophy of Design," a high school course taught by a minister's wife that advanced the notion that life is so complex it must have been created by a kind of higher intelligence.

[end quote]

John

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:58 AM

This is a spoof, isn't it Amos?

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: The Shambles
Date: 18 Jan 06 - 05:41 AM

Tenet is defined on Word Web as : A religious doctrine that is proclaimed without proof.

Newton and his fellow scientists are expected not only to predict how the force of gravity will behave but are also expected to explain the force.

The simple religious tenet that some undefined and unproven God is dropping things on us from on high is OK.

Do I see the goalposts being moved here on a rather unlevel playing ground and under a double standard?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 06 - 03:56 PM

From The Onion Issue 41•33:

        Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.


Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power." ...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 11:47 PM

something to read

and something from Darwin himself...
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."   - Charles Darwin








"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm.... that's funny...'.."   - Isaac Asimov

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: frogprince
Date: 30 Dec 05 - 09:53 PM

Picked up a Christian station in Indiana while on our journey to spend Christmas with kin. They announced that it was almost time for a CREATION MOMENT, so I stayed tuned in out of morbid curiousity; so glad I did. I learned of the recent discovery of a mammal which existed at the same time as some dinosaurs. This proves, we were assured, that all animal life was created on the same day, just like the Bible has said all along...
Uhhhh...Oookay....

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 19 Dec 05 - 02:29 AM

Well, now the Doonesbury site has a new cartoon on it so you have to press the "previous" button to see the one about evolution.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 08:41 PM

Bev and Jerry -

That Doonesbury even ran in the local rag here this morning - I'm surprised nobody's started a protest yet.

One of the locals has actually run some great ones on the subject. Fella by the name of Crowson. I don't think he has a website, but he got right to the point in several cartoons - and plays a great banjo. He's been doing a song about "*eyvolushun" that he wrote a couple of years ago. I should see if I can find a couple of his cartoons posted somewhere, but it will have to wait a bit.

* That has to be pronounced in "Fundamentalist Revivalist" tones for effect.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 08:13 PM

Doonesbury

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Dec 05 - 01:13 PM

People may have already seen similar reports, but an article in my morning rag gives a brief bio snatch on U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, and reports that "This week he is expected to issue his decision,... "

My local won't have it on web for linking for a few days, and the article is fairly lengthy; but those interested can possibly find it in any paper subscribing to NY Times service:

Pa.judge preparing to rule on intelligent design (may vary)
BY LAURIE GOODSTEIN
New York Times News Service

A recheck of the ACLU-PA site where transcripts were being posted shows that they've cleaned up the missing and mangled, and you can now look at all 21 days of testimony. It's hard to pick a session that might have significance for those handicapping what the decision may be, but almost any at random is good for a bit of humor.

For convenience: Dover Trial Transcripts

For those who haven't looked, transcripts are .pdf and generally run 100 to 300+ KB per session.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Nov 05 - 08:23 AM

To paraphrase Patrick Henry:

"If Evolution is Heresy, make the most of it."

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 12:21 PM

TIA -

Eight of the Nine school board members were defeated in the election on Tuesday. The Ninth one doesn't come up for election until sometime in the future.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: TIA
Date: 10 Nov 05 - 09:46 AM

The trial was front page in our local paper (Lancaster Intelligencer Journal) right on through.

And, on Tuesday, the entire ID-supporting school board was ousted. Intelligent voters.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 09:59 PM

Looking for information on when a decision may be rendered in the Dover ID trial, I was not amazed that about the only concise report (that Google found) is from the Register in the UK.

Pennsylvania intelligent design trial winds up

The Register says:

"Judge John Jones says he wants to have made his ruling by the end of the year, early January 2006 at the latest."

And additionally:

"Meanwhile on Thursday, the Vatican issued a statement warning against ignoring scientific reason, saying that by doing so, religion risks turning into fundamentalism. Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture said:

"The permanent lesson that the Galileo case represents pushes us to keep alive the dialogue between the various disciplines, and in particular between theology and the natural sciences, if we want to prevent similar episodes from repeating themselves in the future."

"He also argued that religion could act as the conscience of science, citing the atomic bomb and the possibility of human clones as scientific ideas devoid of ethics."

(italics added)

The Register, in a separate story does give some concern that all the nut cases aren't exclusive US property though.

"It seems to me in many respects the cards are stacked against radical, innovative views getting a fair hearing in science these days," he said.

The guy obviously hasn't looked at much modern physics if he can't see radical all over the place ...

John

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 03:12 PM

You go, gal!! LOL!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 02:47 PM

And the Dover, Pennsylvania trial is over (parents sued because the school board inserted ID into the biology curriculum) - I can hardly wait to see the verdict. Here you are:
EVOLUTION
All of the tune and most of the lyrics are shamelessly poached from the Beatles' "Revolution"
What little rewriting and rearrangement I did was to follow an actual (I almost said honest-to-god) Evolution on Trial case, Kitzmiller et al. v. the Dover Area School Board, of which the Alan Bonsell whom I mention is an outspoken member. If you haven't been aware of this case, I envy you unless you have children in the US public school system.

You say we're teaching evolution, well, you know
We all want to feed our head
You say you've read the constitution, well, you know
You better free your mind instead
Cause when you talk about destruction
Of Jefferson's wall, well, you can count me out
Without science it will be(shoobedoo) all night
all night, all night
all night, all night, all night
all night, all night, all night
All…
ID, you say, 's a real solution, well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
Don't ask me for my contribution, well, you know
Let's wait and see the judge's hand
For if you want money from people with minds that think
You better think too or baby your cause will sink
If we can't learn it will be (shoobedoo) all night
all night, all night
all night, all night, all night
all night, all night, all night
All…
You say all change is revolution, well, you know
The Middle Ages weren't so free
You say that in your institution, well, you know
"Because I Heard So" trumps "I see"
But there you go carrying pictures of Allan Bonsell
If I were a Christian I'd say you should go to Hell
If we can't teach it will be (shoobedoo) all night
all night, all night
all night, all night, all night
all night, all night, all night
All…

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 12:28 PM

"from false premises, anything follows."

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Nov 05 - 12:02 AM

The likely implementation is that any course which teaches Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, or any other intimation of evolution will ALSO have to say that the theory is countered by those who can't figure it out. No, no, I mean countered by those who don't "do" math. No, that's not it...um...the teacher will have to also include that in clear spite of math and of evidence, some people are so uncomfortable with the physics that they retreat into puerile tribal beliefs... no, wait... the teacher will have to say that some people think evolution is MUCH too complicated to understand and therefore they posit that Cosmic Awareness must be guiding the unfolding of evolution. Of course these people also believe the spirit of God rides every hydrogen atom and directs its turnings, but, once you cast off reason, any port can be your home, I guess.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 10:47 PM

Sign of the times.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 10:21 PM

So What's going on in Kansas anyway? How is this going to be implemented? Are qualified teachers going to be expected to teach 'Religious Mythology 101', or are community volunteers (we call them Sunday School Teachers) going to just wander in and tell the kids whatever fantasy occurred to them that morning over breakfast?

Will it be examined or assessed? Will it count towards school qualifications? Will Muslims be given equal class time? What about Native Americans?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 09:31 PM

Dang. Yeah.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 09:26 PM

Now wait a minute Peace, that really did happen. I saw it on TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 09:11 PM

Well, Dorothy . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 08:56 PM

In other sad news, the Kansas State Board of Education today voted 6 to 4 to teach creationism -- or, sorry, "intelligent design" alongside of Darwinian evolution. Some of the students currently in their senior year said, "We're glad we're seniors -- we feel sorry for the kids who are going to come after us under these new rules."

The Scopes Trial has just been wasted in the headlong rush back into Medieval times rules by superstitions and authorities, so dearly beloved by those who cannot conceive of a world where free and intelligent discourse defines the course of history, rather than priests and their pet boojums.

I am very disappointed in Kansas and especially the State Board; I am willing to bet none of those 6 is capable of first-order statistical analysis nor could think his way out of a paper bag half full of water. The "too complex to be evolutionary" argument was thrown out of court within Darwin's lifetime, and here these Bible thumpers want to reverse the course of history.

It is disgusting, a paean to ignorance and its elevation to a cultural standard.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 08:11 PM

The system exists only and solely because of its subscribers; my use of the word includes and hinges on the participants, their minds, AND their system -- what else?? You are splitting hairs to no genuine clarification.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 07:49 PM

LOL. Good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST, TBPL
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 07:47 PM

I was just scared Auggie was about to deify Amos and run off and form a religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 07:33 PM

Yeah, OK, I agree that the language needs to be used correctly, but I don't like seeing informative discussions being sidetracked by arguments about the correct use of a word.

...and here I am creating that very monster...Igor! Turn it OFF!

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 06:28 PM

I know exactly what he typed, John. I also know what I think he means. Not the same thing. How can you know that I know what he's saying? I don't know myself half the time ;o)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 05:22 PM

Semantics, BPL.
You know what he's saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 01:31 PM

Science , being amoral, cannot become immoral. A sytem does not have personality.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Auggie
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 01:13 PM

Amos-

"religion tends toward non-rationality and uses that freedom to be easy about irrationality . Science, in turn, being a-moral in its nature, often doesn't mind becoming immoral."

What a poignant, pithy turn of a phrase. Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 11:53 AM

That's right, John, science has NO conscience. Scientists do (usually).

And "was" is not the same as "should be"- the fact that people did "x" 2000 years ago has little bearing on whether "x" is the appropriate thing today. Religion also can be a useful informer, but all to often has not only no scruples, but no memory of what went wrong last time.

Examples:

Good: Sermon on the Mount, Mullah Nasruddin, Zen tales
Utterly neutral: go to church/mosque/synagogue, wear yarmulka or headscarf, food rules applied to yourself
Dodgy: social exclusivity, eye-for-an-eye, sex discrimination
Plain bad: stone the adulterers, smite the Philistines, recover Jerusalem from the Christians/Jews/Moors, enslave the nonbelievers, start an inquisition, kill the XXX people.

And they are good ------> bad independently of whether they are sanctioned by religion or not. Morality, as you correctly point out, is a matter of humans living together.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John Hardly
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 11:08 AM

"I'd broadly agree, except to add that the religions must show that their moral strictures have better backing than "it says so in a controversially- translated book". "

...and if man wants to live together in peace, and with peace of mind, he cannot infer that what science teaches us is that "can" is the same as "should". Science is a great informer but a lousy conscience.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 10:43 AM

a nice distinction, Amos....but I fear that it's nuances wouldn't/won't be grasped by the ones who need to hear it, and thus the implications never explored.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 08:32 AM

Science and religion can write handily about each other when they are both rational. There may be no counting the number of the mythical Beast, but all kinds of studies are possible about statistical impacts of belief systems, brain-body interactions, sociological tallies of out-of-body experiences, and it is likewise natural to assess the moral and spiritual implications of, for example, nuclear power, DDT, or polcies relating to charity.

But the big issue is that religion tends toward non-rationality (given its nature) and uses that freedom to be easy about irrationality as well. Science, in turn, being a-moral in its nature, often doesn't mind becoming immoral.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 03:44 AM

The Catholic church has had little problem with evolution for many years now. I think they are just staking a claim for some metaphorical core in Genesis, that somehow God really in some mysterious way started it all.

This is more-or-less the leftpondian consensus for the last three-quarters of a century. It's really only the US fundies and their third- world imitators who still stick to the every-word-in-the-Bible line.

Stephen Jay Gould, an excellenty science writer who thought he was superceding Darwinism when he was actually improving it, pushed the idea that science and religion are separate domains, and that religion has nothing to say about science, whereas science has nothing to say in the moral sphere. I'd broadly agree, except to add that the religions must show that their moral strictures have better backing than "it says so in a controversially- translated book".

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 12:50 AM

I did realise that Bill, I just couldn't resist having a bit of a dig.

I don't think there will be much sense coming immediately from the hardcore fundamentalists, but there does seem to be the wiff of consensus in the air at last.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 12:32 AM

I don't think you got my cynical little remark, John...it's "what a wonder that a major theologian managed to admit that evolution IS the process that is at work, whether started by God or not....now let's hear some others agree."

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John O'L
Date: 08 Nov 05 - 12:13 AM

Am I reading you correctly Bill?

"the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

That's OK by you?

Is some kind of consensus just around the corner?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 11:17 PM

will wonders never cease! Now, let's hear Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell say "ditto"!

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 05 - 08:17 PM

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
From:
By Martin Penner

November 07, 2005

THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.

Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.

"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".

This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".

His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.

... (From an Australian new site).

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 12:42 PM

There is no contradiction between the theory of evolution and the existence of a divine spirit. Searching for knowledge, gaining insights to life we stumble and fall, sometimes we find wonderful things. What has been created, does not mean that creation is completed, the creator may very well be creating new things for us to discover even now. Einstein said "I want to know gods thoughts, all else is just detail" As for proof, you are here now, and are your own proof of existence of spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 12:01 PM

Evidence Guest?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 11:54 AM

Since man created and measured time to suit his own purpose time is a man made creation. To the creator, time is not that an important issue and is therefore very subjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 09:42 AM

organised religious belief exists even amongst scientists

It does, but almost always in a form that says religion should be concerned with how we should live our lives, and leaves the how life works to science.

The concept of a Creator starting everything off is one thing, and is just as verfiable as any other explanation for the big bang, but the concept of a Creator who feels the need to tinker with here and there, now and again just doesn't fit the evidence we have.

You have to have a very special kind of faith to, for example, as a Geologist know this rock is 380 million years old, formed over thousands of years, from the scientific evidence, and also know that it was created 6000 years ago in one day.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 08:08 AM

If you study history Pied Piper you will find that the freedom from superstition and brainwashing was hard won by many members of organised religion. Extremists of any ilk are detrimental to all pholosophy and progress; however organised religious belief exists even amongst scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 07:56 AM

This "puppetmaster" nonsense, is just another "Paley's watch" argument, and leads inevitably to an infinite regress of creators and created (philosophy 101)
Our ancestors fought to free themselves from this outmoded medievalist superstition and get at the truth by direct contact with the world, un-filtered by the brain washing of organised religion.
If you think free people are going to role over and let the intellectually lazy snake-handlers and happy-clappers pervert the education of children, you'd better think again.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 07:55 AM

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure." -- Albert Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Hopfolk
Date: 17 Oct 05 - 07:24 AM

Well, I'm an atheist, but we all have to live on the same planet. If the choice put before us is either:
a. Do not compromise, endure religious censure. Lose hundreds of years of science in the face of zealous "thought reforms".
b. Compromise, continue believing evolutionary theory but throw the creationists a bone that might just make evolution more acceptable to them.
I would choose... wait... b.

The seemingly rediculous evolutionary changes I referred to are stuff like the Takahe, a bird with no wings that has to walk, using it's beak to climb over obstacles. The damn thing looks disabled. And yes, before you say "Well it's due to the lack of requirement for flight/long legs" etc etc there are evolutionary dead-ends. Mistakes even. The Lobster people. Genetic aberrations, a by-product of the evolutionary process and some of them do not serve function, even though they may replace a more suitable design. Darwin gets hiccups!

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Stu
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 12:38 PM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John Hardly
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 10:52 AM

The notion of a "puppetmaster" is not provable using scientific method. Especially, perhaps, a specific "puppetmaster". Neither is it in the realm of the "duplicatable", though scientific experimentation, to empircally demonstrate that interdependent complexity can occur by random chance.

By faith, one faction accepts that, because they cannot prove it, they believe in a puppetmaster. By faith, the other faction accepts that, though they cannot prove it, they will continue to interpret data according to their best guess.

The ultimate stalemate.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Stu
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 08:20 AM

I'm sorry CamoJohn, but I don't think there is a mutually acceptable common ground (between scientists and creationists I assume) on the basis that "evolution happens, but maybe there's a puppetmaster". You are asking the scientists to take on board your personal belief in the puppetmaster, when you won't take on board their desire for empirical evidence of that puppetmaster. Of course, if observation and experiment began to show evidence for some supernatural entity controlling our existence, then that would be a different matter.

Scientists don't need some omniscient deity to help them because they don't understand exactly how evolution works, many are busy trying to find out themselves. When I find a dinosaur bone in the rock, my sense of wonder and awe at how it got from being a living, breathing animal to the fossil in my hands is not in anyway diminished because I don't think God, Allah or the Great Pixie was not involved in any way in it's getting there.

"some evolutionary changes seem quite rediculous (sic)"

Such as?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Hopfolk
Date: 14 Oct 05 - 07:19 AM

Stigweard: Nope, I was just suggesting that there IS a mutually acceptable common-ground in that evolution happens, but maybe there's a puppetmaster. Let's face it, some evolutionary changes seem quite rediculous (Even though we can trace them to reproductive grooming or other non-environmental factors.)

Quote of the day: Allah loves wonderous diversity. (The Qu'ran)

CamoJohn

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 06:42 PM

I think we are on to something.

Politicians have evolved from Jane and the Chimp who lived in the garden of Eden with their bi-pal, Tarzan.

That should settle most of the controversy and set things straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 05:21 PM

nawww...I was just kidding
(BTW...Cheetah, the chimp is still living at 67 or so_

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 05:18 PM

the chimp was named for a predator ...Cheetah!

This is him...http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/animals/assets/cheetahchimp.jpg

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 03:39 AM

Pinching the 200th post is heresy.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 13 Oct 05 - 02:01 AM

In the movies I recall, it seemed even to my 8 or 9 year old mind that Tarzan wasn't exactly a great lover. Maybe Jane and the Chimp (can't remember his name?) had a thing going on the side.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 11:25 PM

I don't know, Peace, I'm getting a little confused. Didn't Tarzan and Jane have a baby that looked like an ape? Maybe it was an ape! Maybe apes evolved from Tarzan and Jane drinking too much Jungle Juice. Who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 10:12 PM

So it wasn't Tarzan?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 07:42 PM

JohninKansas, I'm glad you straightened that out.

My idea that apes had evolved from politicians was . . . well . . . only a theory. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 07:35 PM

yep...it's a wonder he has survived in Kansas with those ideas! *grin*...Kansas raised up some purty smart folks, but some of us got out while the gettin' was good!

Once I got away from the University of Wichita and woke up and realized just what the prevailing attitudes in the city were, it sorta scared me. I can't tell you how often I had to bite my tongue in order to work in some places there.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 06:53 PM

JohninKansas is brilliant and witty.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 04:47 PM

No, Don -

Politicians are a devolved - not evolved - form, and it's the obvious result of excessive inbreeding, coupled with the physical destruction of mental capacity that results from rituals involving excessive exposure to addictive substances generically called "money".

It should be noted that Darwin and following theorists were quite clear that you can't "inherit" an injury, so the brain damage caused by access to addictive substances isn't, itself, passed on. The devolution of polititions does quite nicely illustrate the way in which those with a genetic susceptibility to a resource that is not, in itself, beneficial may sequester themselves into isolated "tribes" where social custom protects an otherwise harmful trait that would be visibly harmful in the wider environment.

It was the isolation of the individual populations in the Galapagos that gave Darwin clear insight into the persistence of traits having specific value. Conditions appear to have remained relatively unchanged over a long long period. Something that gave a group added survival value could persist, and would remain of value long enough to evolve unique characteristics in a small population.

In a more cosmopolitan environment, a feature that gives some advantage will often cease to be advantageous when other species intrude. Competing species may, in fact, learn to take advantage of a prosperous group and may learn to take advantage of the unique characteristic(s) possessedd by that group. Hunters may themselves evolve changes making them able to prey on - and sometimes extinguish - any uniquely adapted and sufficiently prosperous group. Hunter populations may, in short, use the unique adaptation of a prey group to enhance their own ability to capture and consume the prey. In this environment, it can be dangerous to be "too different," so evolution must proceed much more slowly.

Darwin clearly understood that the more species there are to interact, and to prey on each other, the less likely that a single trait will survive long enough to completely isolate an individual population, so where there are many competing species everything tends toward an "average."

The "politician group" has reached nearly the status of a distinct species, since interbreeding with other populations seems nearly impossible. Successful entry of an "outsider" into this group now quite obviously demands an extremely strong expression of the "greed gene," and/or some other adaptation that provides a unique ability to acquire the sacred ritual substance "money."

Interaction with other populations of similar individuals illustrates additionally the hunter/prey interaction, where particular evolved characteristics of a prey are used to advantage by the "hunting" group, as most sustenance for "politicians" is derived from the prey group within which the "idiot gene" is most strongly expressed.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 03:46 PM

Umm . . . apes are a more sophisticated and advanced form of their former state. They evolved from politicians.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 02:34 PM

Tarzan.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Oct 05 - 12:30 AM

...but who created the apes? ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 12:30 PM

That's what happens when you confuse real territory with imaginary metaphorical maps. You end up making dramatic but cockeyed statements to the press as if you knew what you were talking about.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 11 Oct 05 - 11:21 AM

Christians in the twentieth century have been playing defense...What we're trying to do is something entirely different. We're trying to go into ennemy territory, their very center, and blow up the ammunition dump. What is their ammunition dump in this metaphor?. It is their version of creation. (Phillip Johnson, ID activist, Feb 6, 2000)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 10:50 PM

OK. Thanks, Don, Bunnahabhain and Bill. Dang. I always learn something when I visit the 'cat.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 07:53 PM

There is even reverse 'evolution' going on in places as some try to do 'selective breeding' to restore an ancient wild horse in Asia. Selective breeding is hardly more than speeding up natural selection by putting the genetic combinations you want together faster than Nature might.

And remember...of any given species, not all members evolve. "Some" changes happen in one line, and given the right circumstances, may eventually (a VERY long time, in many cases) become a different species. That's sorta why we still have apes and monkeys..etc...Humans seem to be just a chance offshoot of a few chance events in a few individuals a LONG time ago. Anthropologists are still debating which of the relatively few bones we find represent dead ends, and which might be our direct ancestors. There were not many individuals way back then, and very few died where they could be found by us....It's kinda amazing we have found any evidence, and it's a sure bet that details of the theories will change as a few more specimens fill in gaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 07:01 PM

Where are the new creatures?

All around us. We are used to the relativly rapid changes in animals from selective breeding.

Evolution is a process of far more gradual change. It will take thousands of generations for the diffrences between species to become obvious. Assuming, of course, we don't wipe them out first.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 06:57 PM

But perhaps something that should be of more concern to us is that they are also noticing the demise of species that fail to adapt to changing conditions. Nature (of which we are part) is an equal opportunity extincterizer. (Is that a word? Anyway, you get my point.)

Don Fith

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don Firth
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 06:50 PM

Well, actually new species are popping up all the time. I read that a few decades ago, a huge flock of arctic terns had reached some sort of critical mass and split up. One group migrated east around the northern edges of the continents, the other group migrated west. A sufficient enough number of alterations (random mutations, miscellaneous mixtures, etc.) had taken place in their DNA while they were apart that when they met up again, they could mate, but their mating produced no offspring. Also, some of their markings were slightly different. For mating to take place between substantial numbers of the two different flocks without producing offspring is one of the characteristics that indicated they have evolved into closely related but different species.

In the world's oceans, marine biologists are noting the emergence of new species all the time. Evolution is still going on. But it takes awhile for it to become noticeable by those other than the scientists who are keeping close track.

'Tain't that I'm so smart, I just watch a lot of science programs on television and read a fair amount. I'm sort of a science nut. Always have been.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 06:25 PM

Can someone tell me where the new species are? OK, evolution is the thing. BUT, why are there no new 'creatures' popping up? Did evolution just stop one day? Serious question.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 04:45 PM

DaveO -

Darwin never claimed that man was evolved from apes, but rather that man and apes were evolved from a common ancestor.

Your original statement stands as true for any rational test. Saying that man evolved from "european apes" does not say that man evolved from the present european apes. Darwin presumed that while man was evolving to his present state, the apes would also have been evolving, and are not now the same ones that were around when the two lines of change "separated."

Taken in context, his meaning is clear the both "modern" man and "modern" apes appear to have evolved from a common a ancestor which probably was "apelike." To say that man evolved, and apes did not, (as assumed by many anti-evolutionists) is simply another demonstration that they haven't understood Darwin.

Your clarification is apt to the discussion, since many of us here do have only vague knowledge of the complete contexts.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 04:37 PM

Mrr...I started reading them, but what with Getaway weekend, I have only skimmed 2-3....it looks like the .pdfs will be there awhile. It IS slow going in that format to catch up...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 04:07 PM

Something that struck me though is that humans are getting stupider, which only makes sense. We evolved from a limited gene pool so we've been inbreeding for millenia.

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

Is anyone besides me reading the actual trial transcripts?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Stu
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 01:47 PM

"Total and utter lack of compromise seems to be the order of the day"

Er, do you suggest as a palaeontologist I half-agree with every religion and culture that has a creation myth that their deity/deities may be controlling the process of evolution, or did you have a particular dogma in mind?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 01:21 PM

Reading that quote in context makes one realize anew that the disingenuous are amongst us. What were they thinking??

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 12:48 PM

Part of that link is worth quoting here precisely because it summarily contradicts the "watchmaker" argument of complex organs which "must" have had a designer because of their complexity:

Darwin then went on to describe how some simple animals have only "aggregates of pigment-cells...without any nerves ... [which] serve only to distinguish light from darkness." Then, in animals a bit more complex, like "star-fish," there exist "small depressions in the layer of [light-sensitive cells] -- depressions which are "filled ... with transparent gelatinous matter and have a clear outer covering, "like the cornea in the higher animals." These eyes lack a lens, but the fact that the light sensitive pigment lies in a "depression" in the skin makes it possible for the animal to tell more precisely from what direction the light is coming. And the more cup-shaped the depression, the better it helps "focus" the image like a simple "box-camera" may do, even without a lens. Likewise in the human embryo, the eye is formed from a "sack-like fold in the skin."

George Gaylord Simpson in The Meaning of Evolution, points out that the different species of modern snail have every intermediate form of eye from a light-sensitive spot to a full lens-and-retina eye.



Ithink the anti-evolution crowd needs to review mathematics from the ground up in order to correctly appraise the situation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Hopfolk
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 12:48 PM

OI, Ebbie, NO! :-P
(very funny btw)

Total and utter lack of compromise seems to be the order of the day. I mean, If God works in mysterious ways, then surely the divine can influence (or even control) natural selection.

CamoJohn

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 12:34 PM

OK. OK. I have to say it so I can get it out of my system:

'Evaluation as Hearsay"

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 12:10 PM

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. (08 Oct 05 - 02:37)

08 Oct 05 - 02:37 PM, you're good in quoting out of context in order to give a wrong impression.

The quote in the context

That's about as good as the neo creationist movement goes.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 10 Oct 05 - 11:23 AM

I have to shamefacedly apologize, for giving some wrong information, which I believed to be true at the time.

Earlier I stated as a fact that Darwin never claimed that man was evolved from apes, but rather that man and apes were evolved from a common ancestor.

It has come to my attention that in the epigraph to The Descent of Man he says (paraphrasing here) that after the separation of the primates into the new world and old world branches of apes (or monkeys, if you like), some of the old world ones evolved into mankind.

He may have said the same sort of thing elsewhere, but that's what's come to my attention.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:49 PM

How can evolution be heresy? Obviously we have evolved over time. Unfortunately, that evolution has not necessarily improved the quality of our lives. As a teacher, I would rather guide my students to the understanding that wealth does not necessarily mean the accumulation of money and goods.

I'm sure that most people would consider that heresay but to understand how this is the path to peace, you would have to read the writings of Satish Kumar:

http://www.resurgence.org/satish/

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:08 PM

There is a "Theory of Creation"?

My question of this week would be who would that question offend more, scientists or creationists?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 04:27 PM

Are you speaking rhetorically?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 04:22 PM

I can't wait for the "Question of the week" to be..."Are rhetorical questions rubbish?"

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 04:07 PM

The media add their share of confusion. Each week one of the Anchorage Alaska tv stations posit a 'Question of the Week'. Last week's was: Do you agree more with the the theory of evolution or with the theory of creation?"

I didn't post an answer. If they don't realize that the question itself is flawed, any answer will be equally invalid.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 03:27 PM

That comes pretty close to the way it's defined in Pataphysics

"God is the tangential point between zero and infinity."

That narrows it down! :-p

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John Hardly
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 12:41 PM

I disagree. Theology is not even close to limited to explaining the unexplainable. Not even close.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 11:35 AM

That comes pretty close to the way it's defined in Pataphysics

"God is the tangential point between zero and infinity."

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 11:07 AM

GUEST (or one of them) said:


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.

This is a pretty good statement of what is sometimes theologically called "The god of the margins".   The unexplained margins of the world are essentially dismissed, tagged with the word "god". As actual knowlege grows, the margins available to be so relegated grow smaller.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 09:53 AM

"None are so blind as those whose eyes have evolved further than their brains"

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 09 Oct 05 - 06:40 AM

"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."- Darwin, my emphasis.

GUEST seems to think that Darwins word is regarded as some sort of bible-like pronouncement, that can never be argued with or denied, by those who belive in evolution. A mis-understanding of what a scietific theory is ,and of those who accept it as true is the problem here.

I'll join the chorus round here. Go read a Richard Dawkins book. For a very good explanation of the evolution of the eye, see 'Climbing Mount Improbable'

In a very brief summary, it shows how a complex eye can evolve from a simple one, in only gradual changes, all the way back to a cell or patch of cells that can differentiate between light and dark.
BTW, the eye has evolved more than 40, and probably more than 60 times, in nine different main designs

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 06:34 PM

Science is indeed a 'way to think'. It involves determining what CAN be known, and using rational means that must be able to be described and repeated. So such 'other' 'ways to think' such as Astrology, Numerology, Extra-Sensory Perception, Necromancy, Communication with the Dead, and late night talk shows find themselves unduly limited when put to the scientific 'limitations' as mentioned above. But since practitioners of the last named arts seem to find their way to the bank right enough, they have not shed bitter tears over the limited way that science would have them think.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 04:23 PM

Here's the rub. Science IS a "way to think". So to do science, you MUST think this way. If you try to insert other ways of thinking, it's no longer science. (Note that the issue is HOW to think, not WHAT to think). Not shouting btw. Just don't know how to do italics or underline.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 02:54 PM

My last thought for this thread (not that I have contributed much anyway): I don't really care what people choose to believe. That has never been an issue with me in real or cyber life. However, it's the suppression of the right to think that grates my petunias. From either 'side' of this issue. I suppose that what gets everyone is the imposition of 'ways to think' being stated from the top--whatever that means--and then folks having to pick one side or the other. I continue to think that God--define that how you will--made it and Darwin explained it. Hope y'all have a good thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 02:48 PM

All the aforementioned stuff having been said, I fail to see how evolution can be considered heresy. I also fail to see how creationism can be considered heresy either. Or even some not-yet-considered combo of the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 01:52 PM

frogprince, why should anything not scientific be mentioned in science class? That to me is like saying that the physics should be mentioned in German classes.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 12:07 PM

" God made this place and then left it up to mankind to take care of."

maybe...maybe not. The first part of that is just a claim.....and it makes no difference whether it is true", we still have to be careful of what we have.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 11:57 AM

What Carlin said is probably true. What he forgot to take into account is God made this place and then left it up to mankind to take care of. Yes, I am a Diest. And yes, we are doing our best. (to muck it up)

One other thing, I am amazed at how some, particulary an Evolutionist, are so convoluted when it comes to comparing or even thinking about two ideas resulting in a similar outcome. I can do this, not be bothered, and still stay with my original belief.
In Dawkins case, his excitability do help to sell books. Wonder if he is, however, a fearful man? What is the adage? Oh yes, "Methinks he doth protest too much".

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 11:55 AM

100. I thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 11:55 AM

That's what I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 11:53 AM

Look, if it hadn't worked out, we wouldn't be here arguing about it.

No need for intelligence to make it work.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 11:46 AM

The question of intelligence is profound and confounding one.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 11:28 AM

We don't like having stuff too big and scary and complicated to understand, so it comes as no surprise that stories get invented to simplify it all!
"Thunder and lightning and birth and death and illness and recovery...wow! Great unseen spirts & powers must be at work!"

After many thousands of years, we even think we know what we MEAN by all those metaphysical terms.
   Once all the images, statues, legends, edifices and organizations to codify and organize the beliefs are in place and entrenched, it is awkward and unthinkable for many to allow some presumptuous little ideas like 'evolution' and 'scientific method' and 'physics' and 'astronomy' and 'anthropology' to come along and suggest that all those revered stories and institutions might need a little reevaluation.

So, we have a museum in Cincinnati that says the Earth IS only 6000 years old.

once more, my story about my favorite cartoon:

There is a cartoon strip called "Hagar the Horrible", about a silly Viking type with very modern problems. One Sunday saw him visiting the local wizard, Dr. Zook, who had a huge stone ring leaning against the wall, like that 'money' on Yap Island.

"What's this?", asks Hagar.
"That's my new scientific measuring device." replys Dr. Zook, "Step in!"
....so Hagar squirms into the center of the stone ring....

"More...hunch down...squeeze tighter..." Zook says, as Hagar tries to cram himself into the tight space. Finally, he is in, awkwardly peering out at the pleased wizard.

"There!", says Dr. Zook with authority, "You are exactly 5 feet tall!"

I don't suppose Bishop Usher would get the joke....

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 11:03 AM

If we think that there was 'intelligent design' involved just because soemthing worked out, we must needs return to what we think is the definition of intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: mooman
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 10:26 AM

Donuel said:

It matters little since intelligent design is just religion...(in a lab coat as Firth says)

Not even in a lab coat! Just religion.

Peace

moo
(working biologist for the past 37 years)

P.S. I certainly agree with Dawkin's view that there is a valid debate to be had in evolutionary biology but it certainly doesn't include ID)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Stu
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 10:01 AM

An excellent article by Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne on ID can be found here.

Recommended reading for all interested in the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Seiri Omaar
Date: 03 Oct 05 - 09:56 AM

I personally think God had it right with Lilith.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 03:16 PM

Which came first? Evolution or the egg. It matters little since intelligent design is just religion...(in a lab coat as Firth says)

However I have to disagree with the Joseph Campbell quote that certainty destroys spiritual possibilities. I have had both.

A brief religious tract:
George Carlin on religion


When it comes to bullshit, big-time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe of the all-time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. No contest. No contest. Religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more. Now, you talk about a good bullshit story. Holy Shit!

But I want you to know something, this is sincere, I want you to know, when it comes to believing in God, I really tried. I really, really tried. I tried to believe that there is a God, who created each of us in His own image and likeness, loves us very much, and keeps a close eye on things. I really tried to believe that, but I gotta tell you, the longer you live, the more you look around, the more you realize, something is fucked up.

Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being. This is the kind of shit you'd expect from an office temp with a bad attitude. And just between you and me, in any decently-run universe, this guy would've been out on his all-powerful ass a long time ago. And by the way, I say "this guy", because I firmly believe, looking at these results, that if there is a God, it has to be a man.

No woman could or would ever fuck things up like this. So, if there is a God, I think most reasonable people might agree that he's at least incompetent, and maybe, just maybe, doesn't give a shit. Doesn't give a shit, which I admire in a person, and which would explain a lot of these bad results.

So rather than be just another mindless religious robot, mindlessly and aimlessly and blindly believing that all of this is in the hands of some spooky incompetent father figure who doesn't give a shit, I decided to look around for something else to worship. Something I could really count on.

And immediately, I thought of the sun. Happened like that. Overnight I became a sun-worshipper. Well, not overnight, you can't see the sun at night. But first thing the next morning, I became a sun-worshipper. Several reasons. First of all, I can see the sun, okay? Unlike some other gods I could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that. If I can see something, I don't know, it kind of helps the credibility along, you know? So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us.

Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells me I'm unworthy. Doesn't tell me I'm a bad person who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word. Treats me fine. So, I worship the sun. But, I don't pray to the sun. Know why? I wouldn't presume on our friendship. It's not polite.

I've often thought people treat God rather rudely, don't you? Asking trillions and trillions of prayers every day. Asking and pleading and begging for favors. Do this, gimme that, I need a new car, I want a better job. And most of this praying takes place on Sunday His day off. It's not nice. And it's no way to treat a friend.

But people do pray, and they pray for a lot of different things, you know, your sister needs an operation on her crotch, your brother was arrested for defecating in a mall. But most of all, you'd really like to fuck that hot little redhead down at the convenience store. You know, the one with the eyepatch and the clubfoot? Can you pray for that? I think you'd have to. And I say, fine. Pray for anything you want. Pray for anything, but what about the Divine Plan?

Remember that? The Divine Plan. Long time ago, God made a Divine Plan. Gave it a lot of thought, decided it was a good plan, put it into practice. And for billions and billions of years, the Divine Plan has been doing just fine. Now, you come along, and pray for something. Well suppose the thing you want isn't in God's Divine Plan? What do you want Him to do? Change His plan? Just for you? Doesn't it seem a little arrogant? It's a Divine Plan. What's the use of being God if every run-down shmuck with a two-dollar prayerbook can come along and fuck up Your Plan?

And here's something else, another problem you might have: Suppose your prayers aren't answered. What do you say? "Well, it's God's will." "Thy Will Be Done." Fine, but if it's God's will, and He's going to do what He wants to anyway, why the fuck bother praying in the first place? Seems like a big waste of time to me! Couldn't you just skip the praying part and go right to His Will? It's all very confusing.

So to get around a lot of this, I decided to worship the sun. But, as I said, I don't pray to the sun. You know who I pray to? Joe Pesci. Two reasons: First of all, I think he's a good actor, okay? To me, that counts. Second, he looks like a guy who can get things done. Joe Pesci doesn't fuck around. In fact, Joe Pesci came through on a couple of things that God was having trouble with.

For years I asked God to do something about my noisy neighbor with the barking dog, Joe Pesci straightened that cocksucker out with one visit. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a simple baseball bat.

So I've been praying to Joe for about a year now. And I noticed something. I noticed that all the prayers I used to offer to God, and all the prayers I now offer to Joe Pesci, are being answered at about the same 50% rate. Half the time I get what I want, half the time I don't. Same as God, 50-50. Same as the four-leaf clover and the horseshoe, the wishing well and the rabbit's foot, same as the Mojo Man, same as the Voodoo Lady who tells you your fortune by squeezing the goat's testicles, it's all the same: 50-50. So just pick your superstition, sit back, make a wish, and enjoy yourself.

And for those of you who look to The Bible for moral lessons and literary qualities, I might suggest a couple of other stories for you. You might want to look at the Three Little Pigs, that's a good one. Has a nice happy ending, I'm sure you'll like that. Then there's Little Red Riding Hood, although it does have that X-rated part where the Big Bad Wolf actually eats the grandmother. Which I didn't care for, by the way. And finally, I've always drawn a great deal of moral comfort from Humpty Dumpty. The part I like the best? "All the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again." That's because there is no Humpty Dumpty, and there is no God. None, not one, no God, never was. In fact, I'm gonna put it this way. If there is a God, may he strike this audience dead! See? Nothing happened. Nothing happened? Everybody's okay? All right, tell you what, I'll raise the stakes a little bit. If there is a God, may he strike me dead. See? Nothing happened, oh, wait, I've got a little cramp in my leg. And my balls hurt. Plus, I'm blind. I'm blind, oh, now I'm okay again, must have been Joe Pesci, huh? God Bless Joe Pesci. Thank you all very much. Joe Bless You!

(Copyright 1999 by George Carlin. Printed without permission.)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 01:51 PM

Well . . . actually, I don't know how many attempts God made with the female of the species, but it turns out that between Adam and Eve, He made Eve first.

She was designed to have three breasts rather than the current two. When He breathed life into Eve, she checked herself out, and said "Well, I guess redundancy is a good thing in most cases, but I really think three breasts is a bit excessive. I could probably make do with just two."

So God removed one of Eve's breasts, and she went off to check out the layout of the Garden.

God stood there with the one breast in His hand and mused, "Now, I wonder what I can do with a useless boob?"

Then God made Man.

Don Firth

P. S. (At least, that's what a couple of my female friends tell me. . . .)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 Oct 05 - 01:59 AM

No direspect, God, but you stickin' to yer story that you created womenz in a day??? Got any evidence???

There are scriptures that say it took God three tries to make Eve. The first one (Lilith) ran off 'cause she wouldn't take Adam lordin' it over her. Adam said the second one was so repulsive she made him sick (they don't say how she disappeared). God used deceit, deception, and disguises to make Eve (the third try) look really attractive to Adam so he'd be happy with her




... for a little while.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 10:51 PM

I hear that, Amos.

BTW, you were one of the folks I was referring to.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 10:48 PM

I bet 3-to-5 they don't define it the same way as those who do not!! :)

There are some very fine reasons for believing in....some Infinite; but dressing him up like a septuagenarian Ken doll is not exactly rational.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 10:30 PM

As a BTW, two of the most reasoned and intelligent folks I know do not believe in God. And two of the most reasoned and intelligent folks I know do.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 10:28 PM

"Anytime humans get to thinking they are 'all that', it is prudent to remember that the mosguito was made before us in the divine order."

It is also important to remember that the Bible was written by humans. There is as much political background to 'The Book' as there is to science in its myriad forms.

It is not important to me at all to believe that God made the universe, etc. It is enough for me that God exists. It is not important to me that anyone else believes in God. My 'reality' does not depend on the views of 'the guy next door'.

It is easy not to believe in God--whatever form that God takes. I have been there and done that. I may return to that belief. I may not.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 10:15 PM

Well, gol danged....

I used to think that maybe Darwin was on to somethin' so I went to the National Zoo down in DC and went into the "monkey" buildin' and had me a good look 'round...

Well, yeah, lotta them critters remind me of some folks I used to know back in Wes Ginny but then I was thinkin, "Hey, Bobert, these danged critters ain't half as bad ill-behaved as them folks back in Wes Ginny so I ruled the entire Darwin thing out...

But...

...hey, this 7 day story is tad hard to handle, too. I mean, yeah, God coulda handled all the heavens and earth and beats and man in, off, 'bout 15 minutes but creatin woman??? Hey, now I'z good God lovin' man but I'z been 'round a few womenz in my day and there's no way the God could just ripped this off the drawin' board in a day, or two, ot two thousand... This took some carefuill desigin'... I mean, you look at 'um and thet look pefrect but unner them perfect looks they go wiring schematics that prolly make the space shuttle's look like some football play drawed up in the dirt...

No direspect, God, but you stickin' to yer story that you created womenz in a day??? Got any evidence???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 10:14 PM

As I see it, it's important to distinguish among three expressions that are relevant here:

"Evolution"

"The Theory of Evolution"

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution"

To say, "I don't believe in evolution" is to assert a disbelief that species can change over long periods of time, perhaps giving rise to new species. To say this kind of thing is to fly in the face of huge amounts of data, gathered both from paleontological evidence and historical evidence of what has happened.

To say, "I don't believe in The theory of Evolution" is to utter a statement which is meaningless, as well as ignorant, because there are a number of theories of evolution. To be meaningful, the statement needs to make clear what theory of evolution is referred to, or perhaps to negate them all by saying, "I don't believe in any of the theories of evolution."

Now we get down to Darwin. But first one should understand what a theory--any theory--is. A theory is AN ATTEMPT at formulating a rational and logical explanation of a given phenomenon. Thus, loosely, "theory of flight", "theory of the law", "theory of gravitation", and so on, including of course "theory of evolution".

Darwin put forth his attempt at a logical explanation of the observed process and evidence of evolution. Others had other theories, and in some respects Darwin's has been subsequently modified because of later studies, but still his theory as stated was a monumental intellectual jump forward, and is exceedingly widely accepted pretty much as he put it forward, and the theories of his predecessors and contemporaries have gone by the boards, so much that many people don't even remember that they existed.

If you want to say, "I don't believe Darwin's theory of the origin of species," that's your privilege, I guess. But evolution itself is not a theory; it's a set of factual observations. The theory we ordinarily speak of is Darwin's.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:59 PM

By the way . . .

Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: frogprince
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:46 PM

'scuse me, Bruce-Peace, but I guess I'm not "evolved" enough to know what a BTW is without a hint. Just can't remember hearing that one.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:23 PM

I am with you guys on evolution. I am twice blessed. I believe that science holds many answers. In my reality I believe that God does also. As a BTW, I am not religious in any sense of the term.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 09:20 PM

Actually, I would say that evolution is just a mathematical description of a pattern of change, not even a process in any rigid sense. That is, the interactions that yield development in organisms are not scripted, but the follow certain laws of probability just like electrons hitting a crystal do. And they survive or do not survive depending on how those changes equip them.

I don't think the story of neo-Darwinism is complete by any means. But it is the most elegant description out there that accounts for the known data.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 07:22 PM

True about that, Bill D. Well said.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 07:20 PM

I recommend folks read Robomatic's post above again...and if you have only skimmed so far, read it carefully the first time. He alludes to a point that is hard to make, but quite important.

Evolution is a process, and ONLY a process. It is not a 'design' and it does not play favorites. It is one part of a complex interrelation of physical laws which produce localized patterns, some of which temporarily support complexity, and some of which promote entropy.

We humans are in a funny place in that process, in that we are, as far as we can tell, the only localized pattern that is complex enough to reflect ON the process and our own place in it! That ability to reflect on our own self-awareness then becomes an integral part of the complex of patterns. When we look about and observe that we seem 'more advanced' than other forms of consciousness, it is easy to construct theories that grant ourselves some sort of meta-position in the hierarchy of being......as in:

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth"

Possibly the most dangerous religious verse ever! If a species that can intrude on and dominate other species through its more complex brain also believes that it SHOULD, and has some sort of 'right' to ignore the fact that it is merely a part of the overall pattern, it sows the seeds of its own destruction.
   (shorthand translation: 'The universe does not care whether we survive or not. A large brain with "intelligence" is only one more trait, like being big and having sharp teeth, that can be useful in a context, but can cause strange things to happen when used carelessly.')

Of course we evolved! Whether we continue to do so indefinitely depends on whether we get a grip on the reality of what our own place in the complex process really is! We cannot keep doing some of the things we are doing (burning rain forests, over-fishing, polluting, over-populating...etc), without discovering that those physical laws we often ignore are immutable and omnipresent. We are here because some of those laws accidently allowed us to get to this strange self-aware status! But we are not immune to those laws just because we are able to hold the concept of being above them. "God" is not gonna provide either a Heavenly FEMA (or an Ark) if "Hurricane Homosapiens" floods its own little corner of the Galactic Mississippi Delta.....

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 06:15 PM

Intelligent Design can also be interpreted as the result of the various physical 'laws' having been enacted or accomplished. I happen to believe in God. However, there is sufficient room in my 'philosophical' stance to accommodate all that science has to offer. God can take care of my 'spiritual' side. The physical sciences can handle the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 06:02 PM

"Intelligent Design" is nothing more than Creationism in a lab coat.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: HuwG
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 04:55 PM

As far as I can tell, Intelligent Design (in one form at least) accepts all the propositions and arguments of evolution of life, and the astronomical, geological and geomorphological origins of the Earth (including its generally accepted age of ~4.5 Billion years), and so on. It then puts a sticker on top saying that "God's intervention is required for all this".

I believe that in other threads I have frothed at the mouth at what I see is the intellectual dishonesty of some creationists. Their argument can run, "You say the Earth is round ? Clearly it isn't. There are mountains and ocean depths. Since it isn't round, it must be flat." Intelligent Design clearly doesn't belong in the same category of sophistication, but still fails the test of observation and prediction.

In my opinion, which doesn't necessarily count for much, Intelligent Design can be summarised in the one sentence I highlighted above. It can be introduced in the first five seconds of any earth science or biology course, or appended at the end of the last lecture.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,clogger
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 02:20 PM

I heard a discussion on radio 4 (BBC) that went along the lines of:-
our ancestor monkeys deployed from the savana to the shoreline. This allowed a new foodsource to be exploited,in shellfish crabs seaweed and the like. This new foodsource was rich in iodine which the savana lacked. Iodine allowed the natural propensity to grow large brains (and use them). This "theory" (because we can not prove it yet) is called the "AQUATIC APE THEORY" and has progressed from ridicule to virtual acceptance in the last 30 years.(another form of evolution)
Now onto the Heresy bit,
I seem to rercall that The Bible lists the order of the creation of the universe in fairly accurate order, is this then religious evidence for Evolution? 8¬)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 02:17 PM

I think a person is somewhat 'uneducated' if he/she is not able to discuss both Creationism and Evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 02:14 PM

"The Tax statutes used by the Inland Revenue Service"

Interesting aside: The various tax services in government do not understand their own tax laws and the applications of those laws. The Taxation Department will not insure--in writing--that the correctionsthey make to your tax return are ACCURATE. That's a real balls up now, in'it?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 01:30 PM

To paraphase the great guru Wiley Miller (who dispenses his musings in Non Sequitur):

The Tax statutes used by the Inland Revenue Service cannot be explained by any known accountancy theory.

This proves that they must have been created through that process known as Intelligent Design.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 10:51 AM

"Biologists aren't alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they're alarmed because intelligent design is junk science. Meanwhile, more than eighty per cent of Americans say that God either created human beings in their present form or guided their development. As a succession of intelligent-design proponents appeared before the Kansas State Board of Education earlier this month, it was possible to wonder whether the movement's scientific coherence was beside the point. Intelligent design has come this far by faith. "

From the New Yorker article cited above.

I recommend "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins, to actually understand the problems with the ID approach.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,Lighter at work
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 10:17 AM

Check this out and decide (whatever your beliefs) whether you want ID taught in *science classes* as an important *scientific* challenge to Daewin :

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

"Intelligent design" (the basis for just about every religion) has been a topic in *comparative religion* classes since forever. It's this insistence that it's really science that's new and disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 07:53 AM

Evolution turned out to be as capable of mis-use as Marxism or religion. Concepts of what constitutes a 'superior' human have been used to justify mass slaughter, or simply class structure.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: robomatic
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 07:49 AM

First a little bit o' housekeeping:

Evolution is a fact. This is simply the observation that the structure of life has changed over time.

There have been several explanations for how the process of evolution could bring about the observed relationships of obvious 'families' of species that have distinct commonalities. One notable failure was Lamarckian Evolution which theorized that animals strived to change some aspect of their makeup, (e.g. the giraffe trying to reach yet higher leaves on the trees) and somehow this was passed along to their offspring.

The big religious hoo-haw over it all is whether the underlying process can be delineated as clearly 'not' the work of God. Most scientists do not involve God one way or the other. Some religiously motivated folk insist on intruding God into the science. One of the early popular arguments was that 'the existence of a watch necessitated the existence of a watch-maker'. While puerile, there are those who yet regard this as an argument with merit.

Charles Darwin was a very bright fellow and wrote some fine books. A lot of almost as bright people have followed up on his work, lending a lot of valid criticism and some refinements to the basic theory, which is simple to state "survival of the fittest". Not to mention that the work of Gregor Mendel leant a convincing mechanism to the passing on of characteristics, and the recent discovery and work with DNA and RNA have pretty much established the smoking gun of this mechanism.

Intelligent Design has none of the critically constructed scientific background to be taken as a valid alternative to Darwin's Theory of Inherited Characteristics. It could be mentioned in an educational environment as a subset of the fairly mild detractors to the current understanding. But it is as devoid of scientific merit as Lysenko was when he threw Soviet biology into the toilet in the 1930's with similar thoughts, sanctioned by the state.

As for the 'sudden' development of intelligence, there is a lot to be said, and a lot of intelligent things were said and written by Saint Chuck.
It is important to make another point that is often misrepresented by evolutionists themselves. There is often an erroneous concept that evolution has led to 'higher' forms of life. All that the theory really says is that the processes at work lead to the 'surviving' forms of life. Too often human judgement dispenses with impartiality and states that a crocodile is somehow lower or simpler than, say, a cheetah, because it is identical with relatives a hundred million years older than anything that has hair on it. It is more likely that the crocodile is evidence of a 'superior' design based on the facts.

Personally, I think of 'intelligence' as one of the more recent experiments being conducted by nature to see if it has advantages. The sea has carried more life for longer than the earth, and intelligent dolphins have co-existed with sharks for a long time, with neither side dispossessing the other of their environmental niches.

Whether or not the walking talking monkey can be impartially determined to be a 'winner' over the chimp or gorilla is a debating point, but in destructive ability I do not think there is a doubt. Whether or not the primate with a god is a more successful fellow creature than the ant, or likely to last as long as a species is another case entirely. Judging by the statistics, I think the ant is way ahead.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 07:44 AM

Cognitive-entropy, nice concept Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 07:38 AM

Sorry Les, you've got to be accurate when dealing with this field. It means people only argue over the facts, rather than mistakes.

The Genus Homo is found from 2 Ma B.P. ( million years before present), starting with Homo Habilis

Homo sapiens neaderthalensis is known from 200 ka B.P., and sapiens sapiens from 90 ka B.P. ( thousand years before present)

And Boab, what about the range of tools, of increasing refinement, made by all members of our Genus? What about the burial of the dead, with ceremony, by neaderthals? What about the apperance of art, from at least 40 ka B.P.?

The fossil record of our genus is very poor. It is only in the very recent past we have become an abundunt species. It is my opinion that evidence of early human thought is so rare due to the paucity of the fossil record. What could have been produced that proves complex though, and will suvive for us to find? Not speech, Not writing or art, unless it's on a deep cave wall.

Many skeletons are only know through the skull, and a few of the more robust bones. This is why stone tools are so useful, as they suvive very well. If you don't think those count, try and make one.


Agree time for a new thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 04:39 AM

Time for a fresh thread Boab?

The evidence (genes, fossils, language etc) strongly suggests Homo Sapiens Sapiens, us, all of us, evolved in Africa around 2,000,000 years ago. Those people, our ancestors, were on average as intelligent or otherwise as we are.

The change in intelligence had been evolving from way back and many current studies explore what caused that change. Lots of good popular but scientifically sound books can be found through Amazon or big book stores.

I will go and see what I have but I bet others will chip in here soon.

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 01 Oct 05 - 02:11 AM

I don't particularly wish to be embroiled in any argy-bargy involving "I.D." and Evolution. All I'd say is there are false assumptions being put forward by both sides [er===more by one side than the other-----?] .Something I would like to put on the page however; much has been made of physical evolution, and rightly so---it has certainly been progressing over millions of years--[and I'm still not taking sides---]; what has seemingly been ignored is the NON-EVOLUTIONARY apparent explosion of human INTELLIGENCE. There almost certainly were many eons of human existence which threw up very little in the way of a brainpower which showed marked superiority over other mammals. Even the ancient Chinese civilisations are very recent in the long, long journey from ape to man. It was in those times that mankind SUDDENLY displayed a propensity for reasoned thinking, and inventiveness. You may think Archimedes, Aristotle et al. were figures in the distant past. So, why were those members of humanity so well developed mentally that they could come up with the foundations of, say, mathematics? How many humans today, starting from the same base of s[parse knowledge, would be likely to do exactly as they did? That, as far as I can see,puts the intelligence of human populations of some thousands of years ago practically on a par with those of the present day. Before men like these appeared--and in the timescale of "evolution" it was just yesterday---technological progress seemed to be almost invisible. If there was, thus, a sudden upsurge in human intelligence and subsequent knowledge, what triggered it, and why?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 11:27 PM

Sure. And in rare cases even keeping them from mashing into each other -- there's the rub. The very young, the woefully untrained and the sad-sack, plain old stupid of this world have a hard time holding two concepts apart and mush 'em up into one haphazard impression. That's where you get scheisskopf propositions like "Evolution is only a theory" (meaning on a par with my cousin Bill-Bob's theory that beer prevents cancer). It is so dumb it looks like it HAS to be scurrilous, but in fact it is just plain ole human ignorance working hard to take over the world, the cognitive equivalent of entropy.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:01 PM

One would think that the human brain is capable of holding two whole concepts simultaneously, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 04:49 PM

All of which has nothing to do with science.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 04:19 PM

.....and one is still going quite strong.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,Heretic
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:50 PM

Well, I've paralleled the 'certainty' between Communists and Christians for much of the last century. Both claim complete utterly self-consistent philosophies from their founding texts to the point of destroying everyone else's texts. Both have killed off many many 'un' believers. Both bathed in self-certainty and being uncomfortable with doubters within the ranks.

And both were anti-Darwinian.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 03:21 PM

"Uncertainty is the driving force of modern science" Incisively put, GUEST,DB. Uncertainty is the driving force behind all human progress.

Certainty leads to stagnation. Or, at least, the claim of certainly allows one to close one's eyes to things one doesn't want to see.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 02:06 PM

Personally, I suspect that science is too 'difficult' for many 'modern' people - even highly intelligent ones. Until recently I worked in a R&D department in which a good proportion of my colleagues had PhDs in scientific subjects - I can't think of one of them who thought like a scientist. If they started out as scientists they were soon corrupted by the people in Marketing (who treated them like 'technical gophers'). I soon realised that what the marketing community required of their technical vassals was to confirm their preconceptions and, if possible, take responsibility for them.
I'm sure that I will be accused of arrogance but the fact is that none of the above people could deal with uncertainty - in their eyes the greatest crime that anyone could commit was to say 'I don't know' or 'I'm not sure'. Everyone had to pretend to be 100% certain about everything all the time - exhausting!
Uncertainty is the driving force of modern science - it's only by constant questioning that one finds out anything worth knowing.
Of course, religious fundamentalists hate uncertainty as much as the marketing people. I suspect that there's a strong link between the mindset of modern capitalism and the rise of religious fundamentalism - at least they make very good bedfellows!

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,G
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 01:43 PM

A very interesting and respectful discussion.
My little bit of personal observation over many, many years;
I studied science in elementary school while at the same time getting the Creation concept from Sunday School. I don' remeber any conflict.

I did a vague partime study on linking Creation and the Scientific concept for close to thirty years and I think I got an extra few points for 'Intelligent Design". I have to admit that in the last few years I have become a Deist. Remember, in my coming up years the New Testament was the hot hand book but in the last few years of born agains getting their boxers in a wad sometimes makes me wonder if they do not have as strong a belief system as I do. I speak to the Ministers, preachers, etc., as being the boxers in a wad group.

I have a good friend who is a scientist and basically embraces both concepts, or tries to. The running joke being what caused the 'Big Bang' with the answer being God.
He worked on the 'Big Bang' Theory as part of his involvement with a major University and was privileged to attend the final conference (summit meeting) what, 10 years ago? He presented a 5 minute paper that he described as not really proving anything.
He was, however, at the front of the auditorium after most reporters had left and was standing nearby when about the last remaining and very dubious reporter ask the conference leader "Well, this is sure difficult for me to accept this concept, it is way beyond my imagination.      ( paraphrased)

And the conference leader, probably out of gas by this time and wanting to leave, said, in a firm voice, "well, you gotta have faith".

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 12:59 PM

We are following you Pied Piper and the FSM. The best writer on these and related issues is the Mighty, and sadly late, Stephen Jay Gould.

The Mismeasure of Man is good starting point but all his books are brilliant.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Pied Piper
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 11:46 AM

As a kid I collected fossils and travelled all over the UK to do it.
I no longer "Collect" but if I'm in a fossiliferous area I'll gather a few to give friends. The sense of wonder that inspired me to collect has not abated. You take a rock, break it open and you are the first entity in the universe to see the remains of an organism that died millions of years ago, the past lives again in your imagination.

PP

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: TIA
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:57 AM

Oh, and gaps-shmaps.

I wish I could remember who the law is named after, but it goes something like;

...every new transitional fossil that fills a "gap" creates two new gaps...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: TIA
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:52 AM

"Yup. And that's why there is a demand that schoolteachers stop teaching "science" as though it does disprove a creation (or creator)."

Where are the schoolteachers who are doing this? I think it is quite the opposite. I've got my kids in Catholic school because that is where they will get a good science education. Teachers in the local public schools are afraid to talk about evolution because of the irate calls from parents (and their attorneys) that they will get. However, thanks to Pope John Paul II, the Catholic school science teachers have been specifically given permission to teach about evolution. And I'm quite sure the Catholic school science teachers are not telling kids that science disproves God -- I think we might hear about that at PTA meetings.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Stu
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:42 AM

"Paleontology puts me to sleep"

No way! Don't you love them old dinosaurs Joe?

Palaeontology and geology are subjects I find endlessly facinating, and I was taking a degree until the lack of money and the pressure of running my own business forced me to stop, though I am ploughing on in an amateur capacity.

This brief taste of learning and the instruction on interpreting and recording observations in a scientific manner changed the way I look at life (I am a mature student - in age at least!). The constant questioning of existing scientific models and the encouragement to develop your own opinions was quite refreshing and not what I expected at all for some reason, and this is what creationism lacks, being far more dogmatic than convestional science.

I think you have the right idea Joe, and though one or two of your teams are doubting and perhaps even getting slightly flustered by you teachings, you can bet they are thinking about it and that can't be a bad thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 10:08 AM

As a matter of fact, Bryan won the case--Scopes was found guilty and fined (as I recall) one dollar. The negative publicity, though, gave the Fundamentalists a hit from which many thought they'd never recover. Sadly, the have seemed to.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Edain
Date: 30 Sep 05 - 09:50 AM

One thing that muct be kept in mind in this debate is that if ID is to be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom, will other creation theories? Surely if ID is taught in the class room then theories such as FSM should be taught there as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:09 PM

Joe, please, please be careful. You're teaching into the teeth of some hot buttons, to mix a metaphor. Can you say "Hemmmmmmmmlooooooooock"????



A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 10:43 PM

Puts you to sleep? Joe, I'm disappointed! For thirty years I was with a paleontology research group associated with what is now Exxon. Evolutionary patterns were a big part of the work. My source of bread and butter (and song books).

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Lighter
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 10:30 PM

Joe, most people *everywhere* prefer propaganda. It's easy to remember and allows more time to snooze.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 10:05 PM

On the occasions when I am asked my opinion by students, I tell them. Otherwise, I don't bring the subject up at all. Science teaches evolution, natural selection, etc. Religion teaches about spiritual beliefs. There is room in the world for both. And schools that allow only one opinion are not schools--they are brain-washing institutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 10:03 PM

I guess you're right there, Dick - Paleontology puts me to sleep. It's hard for me to get excited about defending any position on the subject of the origins of humankind. There are too many opinions that are just too tedious.
But I do have to say that there are some darn good folktales about the origin of the species.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 10:02 PM

However, Clarence Darrow beat him, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Susan of DT
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 09:29 PM

(dick greenhaus here)
The late William Jennings Bryan summed it up neatly during the ludicrous Scopes Trial:

"I am more intereted in the Rock of Ages than in the age of rocks!"

So much for dating schemes.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: frogprince
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:27 PM

The issue of "intelligent design" should probably be mentioned
in biology class, and dealt with in a paragraph or less; explain to the students that it is a matter of religious faith, that can be neither proven or proven by the scientific method, and as such is simply outside the proper scope of a science class.

   Unfortunately, that will never appease the hopelessly brainwashed among their parents and community leaders. I hope (and quite literally hope to God) that education in America does not ultimately fall into these peoples hands, but I'm not making any bets.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 07:59 PM

Critical thinking? Jeri, you're talking like a Jesuit.

I'm trying to teach critical thinking to my Catholicism class, but it's difficult. I think Americans tend to think that critial thinking is heretical or subversive - same with abstract thinking, for that matter. Americans are far more comfortable with propaganda.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 05:43 PM

God made it. Darwin explained it.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 05:39 PM

I had a nice, long reply about the independently observable vs. the 'truth' that requires someone to tell you what it is and the power went out for a couple of hours. Now, I just feel like saying something succinct.

Forget teaching only evolution or only creationism. Teach kids how to think critically and independently, teach them the difference between fact and faith, present them with different scientific theories and religious dogmas and let them decide what to believe.

Personally, I don't think religious beliefs should be taught in public schools, and if it weren't for religion, creationism would not exist. Let churches and religious private schools teach it - your kid's atheist or Muslim or Jewish science teacher might not present it the way you'd like anyway. I think turtles ougtht to be included, and then there's Gaia whise story makes some sense, and isn't there one with an otter? Personally, I'm rather enjoying Dave Carter's song "Gentle Arms of Eden" these days:

on a sleepy endless ocean when the world lay in a dream
there was rhythm in the splash and roll, but not a voice to sing
so the moon shone on the breakers and the morning warmed the waves
till a single cell did jump and hum for joy as though to say

this is my home, this is my only home
this is the only sacred ground that i have ever known
and should i stray in th dark night alone
rock me goddess in the gentle arms of eden

I also think there's no higher form of teaching than to help a child learn how to think critically. Scientific theories may contain errors, lack a bit of information or be flat-out, 100% wrong, and the ones who let others tell them what to believe are never the ones who irritate humankind into moving further down the road. Moldy old farts and crazy people: somewhere in the middle is growth, and it wouldn't happen without either extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 05:05 PM

The first world was one of darkness, with abstract, potential forms, animated by the holy wind (all creatures have breath, the holy wind) and spirits. These air-spirit people were forced into exile by disharmonious acts, and they climbed upwards through a hole (or magic reed) into the next world. Four worlds, each lighter, more variance. Insect-people in first world. animals in the next (theories-myths vary but all are evolution-based). First man was made in the east from the meeting of white and black clouds. First woman was made in the west from the joining of the yellow and blue clouds (Alternate myth-theory, First Man and First Woman created from corn). They have children. The genders become estranged, monsters are created. Protopeople climb to the next level, the last world. The Diné people are created by Changing Woman (personification of earth, she lives in the west, her husband the sun). Hozho, unity and balance. A unifing force in both animate and inanimate objects. Emphasis on relationship to natural world.




They were beings from the First or Black World. Spider woman, who taught the Diné how to weave. From three previous underworlds, the people moved through a magic reed into this, the fourth or Glittering World. The first people were different from those of today. They were animals, insects or masked spirits (or abstract potential forms).
The first world was one of darkness. The proto-people

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 04:51 PM

Did I say something wrong, BigPinkLad. Have I been excommunicated?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,Mrr
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 04:47 PM

Of course it's heresy. It's also right, as was, was it Galileo or Copernicus? Or both? What's wrong with heresy in the real world?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:51 PM

Joe, oh dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:45 PM

Man created God in his own image...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,Wondering
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:44 PM

If God created everything, who created God?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:39 PM

I can't remember exactly how he put it, but Joseph Campbell once said something like, "Uncertainty—mystery—leaves open the possibility of having a religious experience. Certainty eliminates that possibility."

There are questions to which we will never know the answers, no matter how vociferously we try to claim that we do know. I can live with that. In fact, it assures me that there will continue to be the enjoyment of learning new things. I think I know a helluva lot, but if I knew absolutely everything—if there were nothing new to learn—then I'm not sure there would be much point in continuing to live.

I just can't understand the mind-set of people who have to have everything spelled out in tedious detail, and can't seem to feel secure unless they have their copy of the Boy Scout Manual (or its spiritual equivalent) constantly at hand, and believe everything it tells them without question, and reject any new information that doesn't necessarily square with what they think they already know. There is no possibility here for growth. And without growth, there is no life.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:38 PM

Oh, one other thing - my troubled elder team member said that once there's absolute proof of evolution, then the Catholic church will come out with a declaration about it. I said no, that the Catholic Church has decided to get of of the business of antropology and paleontology. I'm not sure she's ready to accept that, either.

And I really like the turtle theory. It's one of the most colorful creation theories I've heard. There's extraordinary folklore to be found in all of this - and there is profound truth to be found in it if you look deep enough. Sometimes I wonder why folkies aren't more interested in it. I think they're afraid of being politically incorrect.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:24 PM

I love that 'Turtles al the way down' story.

It seems that people who are religious can believe anything they want, and often do. L Ron Hubbard invented a whole religion - Scientology. That's ok if they keep it to themselves.

The problem about the denial of evolution is about like talking to people who accept the existance of English, French, Spanish and so on but deny the existance of Greek. It's not a rational argument and we should not get involved in it or allow these people near children's education.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,PeteBoom (at work)
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:18 PM

Joe - That's similar to what the parish priest said when I was a wee fellow... longer ago than I want to consider. To put it another way, a book I read has a discussion on the origin of life. One fella was talking about different theories on how life began Another fella interrupts him saying it was all nonsense and that everyone knew GOd started life. The first one looks at him and said something like "No doubt about it. The problem is that none of the accounts say precisely HOW God did it." Seems to me, that pretty well sums it up. Ticked off one of the parental units of two of my granddaughters (a "good" Christian - by inference I'm a bad one) using the same basic logic in that exchange. The accounts are a little vague. No sense of humor in that one.

When folks get all wrapped up in what the Bible "says" I blink and say I did not realize they could read ancient Hebrew (as opposed to modern). THAT gets some folks downright testy! ;-)

Pete

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 03:18 PM

God said " Let there be light" and      E   equalled   mc²


DC

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Elmer Fudd
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:41 PM

I rather like the woman who explained to Stephen Hawkings that the world did indeed rest on the back of a turtle. When he inquired on what the turtle stood, she indignantly replied,

"It's turtles, young man, all the way down!"

Elmer

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:39 PM

I just started teaching a weekly class for people who want to become Roman Catholics (which is the main reason why I can't make it to the Getaway this year). It's an interesting challenge, because I want to be very careful not to create a bunch of fundamentalists who think they know all the answers. I'm trying to encourage people to explore the questions of the mysteries of life and death and love and God - and to be satisfied NOT to have complete answers. This is making some of my students and team members a bit uncomfortable. Who knows - maybe by the end of the course, I'll be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail...

This week, we covered creation and evolution. I started the class by reading the first of the two creation stories in Genesis, Genesis 1:1-2:3 (the second story is Genesis 2:4-3:24). The second story is good, but the first one is an absolute gem - it's the seven-day creation story, and each day ends with "And God saw that it was good." It's a colorful, poetic, profound story that's a real pleasure to read aloud.

After the reading, I tried to get the class to draw the meaning out of the story. As I see it, the message of the story is that God has been intimately involved with the world, with creation, since the very beginning - and that God sees creation as good and wonderful, as something to be loved. I think that's something that can be understood only through the eyes of faith, so it certainly shouldn't be taught in public schools. The basic Catholic teaching is that God created, and that God loved that creation. Catholics are free to believe in a literal interpretation of the seven-day creation story, but they are also free to believe in evolution. I tell my classes that I think that God created through the wonderful, miraculous, NATURAL process we call evolution.

I think my class is ready to accept that, but they got a little uneasy when I told them not to be too doctrinaire about the concept of "soul." One older member of my team said that the idea of evolution is OK, but that we must remember that God intervened in the process and gave humans a soul. She got a bit distressed when I asked her not to get too definitive about this "soul" business, because the idea of soul comes from Aristotelian philosophy, a school of thinking we don't completely understand nowadays.

So, we left it at that. We'll see if they've got the tar boiling for next week's class.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Grab
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:28 PM

As for "theory", I quote from Wikipedia:-

"In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them. "

I'm not an expert, I just keep up with NewScientist and other publications. But that website contains incorrect statements. If *I* with my limited knowledge can discredit it, it's in a pretty poor state!

"A severe problem for evolutionists is the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. ... The opposite is true - no continuum! When fossils are examined they form records of existing and extinct organisms with clearly defined gaps, or missing transitional forms, consistent with a creationist's view of origins."

Incorrect. Archaeology clearly cannot show every specimen of every variant of every species - you're reliant on it dying in the right place at the right time! What you get instead is a series of snapshots - so rather than a full video of a ball being thrown and caught, you get a snapshot of the ball with the thrower, snapshots of the ball in flight, and a snapshot of the ball with the catcher. And every new discovery fills in another snapshot along the way. In fact there are many clear examples of transitional forms: the transition from land animals to whales has at least two transitional forms as proto-whales lost vestigial legs; and a recent specimen of a feathered and winged but flightless dinosaur provides a transitional form on the way to birds.

"Natural selection (the evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order"."

Nice try, but define "higher-order". Is more intelligence a "higher order" if it means you're more vulnerable to predators (as humans clearly are)? You could argue that elephants, lions and blue whales are the highest order of being on the planet, since no creature exists which is capable of preying on them using its own physical attributes. This assumes that natural selection has a target it's aiming at, which is untrue.

"The simplest organism capable of independent life, the prokargote bacterial cell, is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity which makes a spaceship seem rather low-tech."

Except that research into the likely consistency of seawater at the time makes it clear that much of this complexity was unnecessary. A cell requires protection (a cell wall), a means of reproducing, a means of acquiring food and a means of expelling waste. The most recent hypothesis (not a theory, because it has not been confirmed with evidence, and likely will never be) is that the chemical make-up of the seas was such that all the chemicals existed to enable reproduction via simple RNA, the proto-organism would be essentially swimming in food so it wouldn't need any way of feeding, or of expelling waste since any waste products would be washed away, and no protection would be needed since the whole place was a suitable environment without threats.

Remember that even the most primitive bacterium today has had all those billions of years of evolution. To generalise, where creationists most commonly go wrong is assuming "higher" and "lower" orders of creatures, and assuming that evolution-supporters think "lower" orders are "less evolved". This guy falls into the same trap: "In fact, since the environment is constant, it must be asked, `Why did some species evolve and not others?' and `Why did lesser forms survive and more developed ones die off?'" That's an argument from someone who doesn't understand evolution. *ALL* creatures evolved. Some acquired mutations into forms that led them to dominate certain niches, or to dominate generally (eg. humans). Some acquired mutations that did nothing, or didn't change them significantly (eg. sharks, crocodiles). And some acquired mutations which hindered their ability to reach to changing circumstance (eg. dinosaurs) or which put them in direct competition with other creatures in which they lost the competition (eg. sabre-tooth tigers).

That's just a few things.

As a religious belief, you're welcome to ID. As indeed you're welcome to the old Hindu belief that we all live on the back of a turtle, or to the Flying Spaghetti Monster school of thought (look it up on Google). None of them match the evidence, therefore they must all be considered disproved hypotheses. And therefore they shouldn't be taught in science classes, except as an example of how *NOT* to do science.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 02:05 PM

The first couple of lines of WIlder Smiths arguments are flawed. The origins of the coded programs in the biological cell are attributed to chance attributed to chance and the autoorganization of inorganic material. As shown later in this text, this supposition is categorically untenable according to the tenets of modern information theory.



The first remark is disingenuous. The origins of the coded information in the genetic structure are not attributed to "chance" on the whole. They are attributed to cumulative reinforcement of a very large number of small changes some of which, retained under survival pressure, start another iteration merely through the dint of surviving, others of which for one reason or another fall by the wayside.


The theory of evolution does not call on the autoorganization of non-organic material, except in a very large-scale sense. Crystals, clay-beds, and many other structures in the material universe, fall into various kinds of anti-entropic order as a result of the natural interaction of their molecules and their environmental circumstances. The effort to make normal processes sound mystical by using terminolgy like "autoorganizing" is also disingenuous. I don't think Dr Wilder knows his subject very well.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 01:27 PM

Hear, hear, Don!

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 01:21 PM

When one considers that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, contains billions upon billions of galaxies, each of which contains hundreds of millions if not billions of stars, and not only is it more immense than most people imagine, it is more immense than the human mind is able to imagine, it is perhaps understandable that some people are made uncomfortable by this, and feel they need something a bit more "cozy." It is truly awe-inspiring and difficult to grasp. And furthermore, we all live in this place! It's open! It's huge! And to some, it's scary!

I do not know how the universe came about. Nor does anyone else.

Not only is it difficult to grasp the enormity of the universe, it is even more difficult to grasp the nature of a deity who could create such a thing.

I do not know if such an entity exists. Neither does anyone else.

But assuming that such an entity does exist—an entity that could have created all of this—there is no inconsistency with scientific theories such as the Big Bang or evolution. These scientific theories merely describe how this entity did it. Anybody have a problem with that?

The Book of Genesis is mythology. It is only one of a large number of books from various beliefs and religions in the world that attempt to offer an explanation of how and why the world came to be. [Now understand this:   to say that something is mythological does not necessarily mean that it is not true. Mythology is a way of attempting to explain something for which we do not have an explanation. Our ancestors did not know how (because they did not have the methods and the tools) to develop scientific theories, so they made up stories—myths—as to how they thought things might have happened. That the world was created and that humans now exist on that world is not in doubt. That, not the minute details, is what is important here. After all, no one was there taking notes, not even the person who wrote the Book of Genesis.] The Creation story and the making of Adam and Eve is myth and metaphor, not historical fact. The idea that the earth (and presumably the rest of the universe as well) was created a mere six thousand years ago is ludicrous. I don't see how thinking people can ignore the overwhelming quantity and quality of scientific evidence and actually believe something like that.

But obviously many people do. All I can say is that, compared to what modern science tells us about the Cosmos, how it was created, and the way life came about—to believe in a god who made the earth a mere six thousand years ago, then modeled Adam from clay and Eve from one of Adam's ribs, and finally scattered all sorts of fossil bones around for humans to find merely for the purpose of trying to confuse them, is just a pathetic little wizard with a mean streak. Your God is too small!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 01:18 PM

when future historians in say a hundred years look at the emergence of china and india, they will also note that the decline of the US goes hand in hand with coming to power of the religious right (as shown by the anti-science- Bush govt view on global warming, stem cells, pollution, the lack of funding for the Hubble telescope etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 01:08 PM

Yup. And that's why there is a demand that schoolteachers stop teaching "science" as though it does disprove a creation (or creator).

And while we're at it can we get you to stop dancing naked around trees and howling at the moon?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 12:57 PM

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ns.htm

This site and associated articles that Guest (who are you Guest?) refers to is not really a science site at all as far as I can tell.

I think the case for excluding ID from science lessons is well made above.

It is essential that ID is opposed. People who support it want to tell lies to children and that is not good.

Opposition is not simple. Arguing the detail of Darwinian evolution is not going to work, creationists, like most of us, don't understand it.

Perhaps the big picture is easier to paint. All of science is coherent, their are no contradictios between the various branches. In fact very much the opposite, knowledge and understanding in chemistry and physics help to further understanding in life sciences and vice verca.

The only disputes are at the frontiers of science where knowledge is few, new or odd. Their is simply far to much evidence, coherent with the rest of science, for Darwinian evolution to not be the best bet, and that's basically what science explanations are.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 12:20 PM

"I read science journals (both popular and obscure)daily, and see no movement of scientists pushing the notion that science can disprove God or creation. Okay, Richard Dawkins often says that there is no scientific evidence of a creator, but he would also be the first to say that science *cannot disprove* the existence of one"

Yup. And that's why there is a demand that schoolteachers stop teaching "science" as though it does disprove a creation (or creator).

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 12:20 PM

Amos, You may be closer to the truth than others here LOL.

Don et al. Read this clip from one of my sources, a small part of what I have read and studied. I have no desire to belittle anyone, or compete head to head with members of this forum. I have participated in several studies in anthropometry, but hold no specific qualifications in this area of science.

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ns.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:58 AM

Guest:

Evolution is also a questionable theory and not proven as some people think.

No, it is not a dubious theory, as you imply. It is the most coherent framework available for the known data. And it predicts new findings which when found, conform to its predictions.

No-one who understands treats any thery as proven fact. it is not in the nature of theories to be facts or to be proven; they are supported to the degree they explain existing data and predict new data. When they fail to do so, they get overhauled.

Part of this problem is that the ID folks insist on using the word theory in its lay sense (an unfounded speculative explanation) as though they were using it in a scientific sense.

Evolution is a theory, in the scientific sense, that has survived because it fits the observed data and other scientific requirements.

As for your assertions about scientific data which doesn't fit the theory, I'd like to know specifically what you are talking about.

Mind you, I believe in intelligent design by wayfaring extraterrestrials, myself...that's my theory and it fits ALL the facts.

LOL!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:53 AM

I'm glad we agree on the right place for religious tuition, but I had a scientific education, starting my working life as an analytical chemist, and I can assure you that, unless things have changed vastly in the field of science, science teachers never claim that anything is the definitive fact.

All the tutors I ever had contact with have presented the latest thinking on the subject, together with the evidence on which that thinking is based.

None has, in my hearing at least, clamed to have the last word on the subject, and none has claimed as proven fact anything that I could not verify with my own senses (e.g. There is a sun, about which this Earth revolves).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:53 AM

Guest - your careless use of the words "theory" and "fact" in your posts show that you do not understand science and the language of science well enough to understand the results of DNA or skeletal studies. Just remember: gravity is just a theory too. Oops, I dropped my pencil.




(and what happened to it?)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:39 AM

Don. I guess you neither read nor watch television much? Discoveries in DNA, Skeletal remains,in more than one country, and from more than one source, I am not inclined to do research for you. However I agree with your teach religion as religion", but also do not teach scientific theory as proven fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 11:19 AM

Guest 09:53 am.

Which recent discoveries support your case? You cannot expect to be taken seriously if you do not support your assertion with evidence as to the source.

From extensive research, I have not found any instance of scientists denying the ID scenario outright. They have merely stated that there is no scientific necessity for the existence of a supreme being.

ID can neither be scientifically proved, nor disproved, relying as it does on faith. There are millions of people around the world who believe implicitly in astrology. Is it your contention that astrology should be taught in school as a science subject?

If so, where do YOU draw the line?

Little green men from Mars, perhaps?

BTW, before you jump all over me in righteous wrath, I DO believe in God. I am not, however, so besotted with that fact as to insist that there is any scientific evidence for my faith. There is not!

Teach religion by all means, but AS religion, not as science.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 10:43 AM

Weighing the known facts...

C'mon, be serious. Physical creation by a God - and only one of the thousands who are credited with it in different places? For that there is NO evidence. Evolution may not be irrebutably proved, but there is evidence for it.   Should every other theory for which there is NO evidence be taught as science too? It's a no-brainer.

I am, frankly, reminded of the Catholic theologians in the late C16th who argued that since as a matter of doctrine the Earth was the centre of the universe, if theories of magnetism were not consistent with that doctrine(but in stead with the theory that the earth revolved around the sun) then the theories of magnetism were wrong. We now know that magnetism is not the cause, but that is not the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 09:53 AM

Evolution is also a questionable theory and not proven as some people think. While it may have merit as a theory it is still just that,
some recent discoveries put in question the evolution of man from ape.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods." Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:54 AM

I read science journals (both popular and obscure)daily, and see no movement of scientists pushing the notion that science can disprove God or creation. Okay, Richard Dawkins often says that there is no scientific evidence of a creator, but he would also be the first to say that science *cannot disprove* the existence of one.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:43 AM

I think that if "Science" (that being -- University-trained secondary education teachers) weren't so insistant upon the notion that "Science" disproved the existance of a creation, there would be little push from the religious for some kind of "equal time".

Unfortunately, there is such an insistance.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:10 AM

This is a great step in the march of human ignorance.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 08:08 AM

to answer the question in the way it was asked.....Evolution is much nore than just an alternate theory. It is repeatedly confirmed and demonstrated. If some people want to claim that, no matter what the process, I still believe God started and planned it all, fine! Understanding and accepting the is not necessarily inconsistent with religion, but the evidence of the PROCESS should be taught!!!!! And part OF that teaching should be that "no one can show or prove or demonstrate how the process got started, and if you have a strong faith in a Supreme Creator who planned the process we are learning about, it is hard to argue.

from yesterday's Washington Post:

New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory
Pa. Trial Will Ask Whether 'Alternatives' Can Pass as Science

By Rick Weiss and David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 26, 2005; Page A08

When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96 percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans' closest cousins.

But decoding chimpanzees' DNA allowed scientists to do more than just refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests.

more of the article including this:

"...Evolution's repeated power to predict the unexpected goes a long way toward explaining why so many scientists and others are practically apoplectic over the recent decision by a Pennsylvania school board to treat evolution as an unproven hypothesis, on par with "alternative" explanations such as Intelligent Design (ID), the proposition that life as we know it could not have arisen without the helping hand of some mysterious intelligent force.

Today, in a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pa., a federal judge will begin to hear a case that asks whether ID or other alternative explanations deserve to be taught in a biology class. But the plaintiffs, who are parents opposed to teaching ID as science, will do more than merely argue that those alternatives are weaker than the theory of evolution.

They will make the case -- plain to most scientists but poorly understood by many others -- that these alternatives are not scientific theories at all.

"What makes evolution a scientific explanation is that it makes testable predictions," Lander said. "You only believe theories when they make non-obvious predictions that are confirmed by scientific evidence."

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 07:49 AM

what we are up against in the US ...and eventually, everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Stu
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 07:39 AM

The problem is in teaching creationism (or I.D.) as scientific theory is all wrong. Theories are testable hypothesis and are open to question and scrutiny, and I.D. patently isn't testable.

Teaching it in RE is fine though, as long as it is balanced by other non-christian creationist theories too.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 07:38 AM

You can not avoid the question of where we come from.
It would not be education.

Subject: BS: Evolution as Heresy?
From: Hopfolk
Date: 29 Sep 05 - 07:21 AM

With regards to the debate about re-introducing creationist theory to schools in America (and soon Britain, no doubt!), My 2-cents would opt for not teaching anything about the origins of everything and allowing the parents to brainwash their own kids - either way.

Anyone else?