Did you know that it is assumed that if you are a Christian and a teacher, that you oppose the teaching of evolution and want to introduce creationism into the classroom?
Did you know that people purporting to represent you will be going before state legislatures and telling your representatives that creationism is the Christian perspective?
Did you know that people are collecting stories about getting slapped down for teaching nonsense in science class, and are telling politicians that it’s because they are Christian?
You know, I think Christianity is awfully foolish anyway, but I’m a goddamned atheist. You don’t care what I think. But I would think the concerted and largely successful effort in our culture to equate Christianity with the idiocy of belief in a 6000 year old world or a god who meddles in trivialities or denying the facts of a natural world would piss you off. Unless it’s true, that is, that you don’t mind having your religious beliefs associated with flaming anti-scientific lunacy.
Maybe you should try squawking a little louder. You could start by writing to David Bracklin and letting him know that stupidity isn’t supposed to be a Christian sacrament.
Unless it is, of course. I wouldn’t know. Atheist, remember? All I know is what I see, the stuff the loudest of you bray out in public, and boy, you Christians sure seem to hate good science.
oh, what tangled webs we weave…..
It’s always circular logic with these people. They say or do something totally ignorant or insensitive and then claim that the reason they were such a jerk is because they are Christians. Then they start screaming about how persecuted they are for being Christian, not that they were wrong for being a jerk. Sally Kern comes to mind, but there are plenty of others.
Another “Lying for Jesus” martyrdom manufacturer. I think of all the brave Christians who’ve died for their their beliefs rather than change and I see his whiny petition…
I wonder if they realize how craven and pussinillous they sound? They’re not going to the inquisition. They’re not being fed to the Lions. They’re not being burned at the stake. Or being hung.
Nope, they’re devoting, at most, two-weeks of a HS sophomore biology class to something that has nothing to directly do with rebutting their religion. And is, frankly, far, far less contradictory of their religion than a good middle-eastern, bronze-age history class where the mythologies that are Judaism and Christianity get explained.
They’re just fucking babies. No way around it. Gutless, wimpy babies who totally lack the faith they proclaim. They make Doubting Thomas look positively faithful.
Of course, they seem to have given up all pretense then that “creationism” is about “alternate scientific views”?
I mean, if being anti-creationist is the same as anti-christian, that means that creationism = christianity? (Or at least a religious position)
They want to eat their cake and have it, too. They cry that it isn’t religious, and it is about science. But when the science gets squashed, it means that they are being persecuted for their religion.
Alas, the title Christian is something these so-called Christians bestow based upon how closely you align to their particular set of beliefs. Mormons, for example, have never been Christian to them, even though Mormons believe in and worship Christ. (And yes, Mormonism is pretty silly too.) BUT the point is that as soon as these other Christians let on that they don’t mind evolution and science being taught, Christians, who are creationist, will merely take this as proof that the Devile has led these poor folk astray, and they aren’t even properly Christian any more. They also subscribe to the persecution fallacy, wherein the more opposition they get, the righter they must be.
You make a good point. The fundies dismiss non-fundamentalists as “Cafeteria Christians” who pick and choose what parts of the bible to believe. Why the non-fundamentalists aren’t more vocal in their own defense is beyond me. They are allowing the fundies to define the Xian agenda in the public sphere and –as you keep effectively pointing out on this site–the fundies are doing a miserable job at it.
As a European Catholic, I can only protest. From our point of view, creationism is something from ‘American’ christians… And hopefully, not from all of them.
It’s really like saying that all muslims are terrorists, which clearly isn’t the case. Not all christians are creationists.
Reason #3 Why I Am An Atheist:
Back during the five minutes when I was young and dumb and tried being a Christian, one of the ladies at the church stood up during testimony and proclaimed, “God healed my radio.” And she was fucking serious. She laid her hands on and prayed and lo! her broken radio worked.
This was one of the prime reasons I exited Christianity and fled into non-belief. Subsequent events have only proven the wisdom of this decision. I believe this is why they have developed such a persecution complex: if they scream “VICTIM!!11!!” loud enough, people might be too busy sympathizing to focus on the rampant stupidity.
Not one Christian I’ve asked has been able to tell me why that radio was so damned important God had to heal it rather than, oh, say, the pastor, who was dying of cancer…
I would never have known that reality is just evolutionist dogma. Thank you CEAI!
Xegian wrote:
> Not all christians are creationists.
That depends who you ask. If you’re dumb enough to ask a Creationist err an ID-iot, (s)he will tell you that a Christian who doesn’t believe in Creation err ID-iocy isn’t a real Christian.
What ever the F that is.
And from my experience, every (what I like to call) “hard-core” Christian IS an ID-iot.
On a more serious note, who is collecting all the experiences of teachers getting into trouble for teaching evolution because of the insidious fundamentalist wedge strategy that is tearing through communities and schools in small town america?
Maybe the NCSE could take this up, i’m pretty sure actual science teachers face more serious repercussions and even physical threats from the fundies then the other way around.
Nice framing.
“The Florida Department of Education has written new science standards that will require Florida science teachers to present evolution as a proven fact.”
Just typical pissing and moaning from a group of nut jobs in Florida because their anti-evolution bill is having a tough time getting passed in the Florida Legislature. Poor pitiful picked on persecuted pricks not getting their asses kissed by their politicians. When Jarjar and the Evil Emperor leave Washington I have a very strong hunch the creationists lives, along with their evangelist masters, are going to fall on very hard times. All that under the table tax dollars are going to dry up.
Stupidity is the most holy of all the sacraments.
OK, how was this?
David, what you are doing here is treason, pure and simple. The US will gradually become a scientific backwater or eventually an economic basket case, if you, and others like you get their way.
The Florida Department of Education has written new science standards that will require Florida science teachers to present evolution as a proven fact.
David, evolution is as proven as gravity, quantum theory or relativity. This is simply the truth, and to tell kids otherwise is lying. You make yourself (perhaps through mere ignorance) a liar everytime you spout this nonsense.
There are no provisions included in the standards that will allow for the critical analysis of the theory of evolutions.
Critical analysis by whom? High School teachers? Students? The very idea is absurd. Analysis of fundamental science occurs in leading universities, not high schools. In high schools you get to teach the consensus reached by the relevant experts. Nothing more.
Thus many of us that object to the “science” used to present evolution as a fact have no recourse but to teach the lie of evolution as though it is a proven fact.
You are a liar, and you know it deep down. You don’t object to the science, you object to evolution for entirely religious reasons. At least try and be honest with yourself.
1) Have you ever been confronted, reprimanded, or given a directive, for criticizing evolution or presenting scientific evidence critical of Darwinism?
You should be, if its pseudo scientific nonsense of any stripe. Astrology, Tarot Cards or creationism should be equally frowned on.
2) In light of the new dogmatic evolution standards recently passed by the Board of Education, (“Evolution is the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of evidence.”) do you feel that you are free to give critical analysis of evolution in the classroom and not be confronted or disciplined?
But David, “Evolution IS the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of evidence.” Thats not “Dogma” thats fact. God is triune is “Dogma”, because it is slavishly held too without a shred of evidence.
You are a disgrace to your profession and a traitor to your country.
I agree with Xegian @7
In the UK, I know lots of Christians but I don’t know any who believe in the YEC nonsense. It must be an American thing.
This is why we need to push space colonization. Let these morons have a planet where they can fight among themselves for as long as they can before they realize they desperate NEED science to survive. We could even name the planet “Timeout”.
Anyone else catch the fark.com story about how Floriday state teenagers think bleach cures HIV, and that Mountain Dew and pot are contraceptives? And that it’s linked to abstinence-only education?
Seems another raindrop in the hailstorm of duh.
Brian @ # 15, WELL SAID
Tom #16: Have you actually asked them straight out about this? They’re certainly more circumspect about it than in the US, but particularly amongst evangelicals I’ve discovered that there is actually a disturbingly strong undercurrent of sympathy to biblical literalism.
OT
Has anyone seen this story about McCain’s reluctance to talk about religion while campaigning for public office? Sen. Slime Brownback claims that this doesn’t make him secular, heavens no. He’s a great lover of Jesus, so Christians can feel safe voting for him.
Perhaps someone should inform Sen. Brownback that secular means precisely that your religion and government remain separate.
But I would think the concerted and largely successful effort in our culture to equate Christianity with the idiocy of belief in a 6000 year old world or a god who meddles in trivialities or denying the facts of a natural world would piss you off.
Yes–it DOES piss me off. And it’s hardly to be blamed on the work of atheists and agnostics.
For what it’s worth…
I sent him a copy of St. Augustine’s comment on the literal interpretation of Genesis. You know, the one that starts “Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth…”.
Let’s see if Mr. Bracklin is smart enough to figure out that it’s written about people like him.
Don’t tell us, tell the creationists!!!!
That is the point of PZ’s post, people! It is the _creationists_ themselves who are conflating creationism with christianity. If you are Christian and oppose being lumped in with the creationists, then stand up and object!!! Let the creationists know that you will not be lumped in with their idiocy! Stop providing tacit approval with your silence. Tell them, “YOU DON’T SPEAK FOR ME!”
It’s not just atheists who should be fighting this stuff. The Christians who accept the reality of evolution have as much responsibility, if not more. More, because by not objecting, they are allowing themselves to be defined by the lunacy of the creationists. Moreover, by not objecting, they are allowing creationists to include them as supporters. The creationists are not pretending that atheists support them, but they are implying that it is a Christian cause.
If the Christians don’t push the lunatics to the fringe themselves, then they are the ones letting the lunatics be their front. As such, the lunatics are going to be the ones by which they are judged.
He’s from FLORIDA. Surprise! No? Oh…
@#15:
“David, evolution is as proven as gravity, quantum theory or relativity. ”
You should really avoid using “proof” in the context of science, it just confuses the creationists. (I know what you mean, semantically, but there is no “proving” in science). The better word would be “Evolution is as SUPPORTED as gravity…” etc. I actually read somewhere that there’s more support for Evo than there is for the existence of the Electron! Anyways, just a polite suggestion, no offense meant. :)
>> Xegian wrote:
>> Not all christians are creationists.
> That depends who you ask.
I think Xegian is right. Creationism is not mainstream in Europe. Catholic and Lutherian churches are dominant and neither advocate literal creationism. Having lived in Europe for many years I have only met few creationists (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses and members of fringe “Free Evangelical Churches”).
Thanks for the great post! I definitely can vouch for not all Christians being idiot Creationism/ID/Theory du jour believers. I say this as a Catholic and a grad student of mathematical biology (where evolution plays a big role sometimes).
I’ve been keeping a running tally of scientists and science supporters persecuted, beaten up, and fired by fundie creos. Well documented cases are up to 11. There are many more, most not well publicized.
Dave@17
Don’t call it “Timeout.”
Call it “Expelled” — because there’s no intelligence allowed on it.
How about all of us that have had complaints about TEACHING evolution email him.
That might be more fun :)
Pablo #24:
That’s the point; I don’t know of any creationists in Belgium (Like imsd007 #26). It’s hard to tell them then.
And I think my government would not support any creationist who wants to teach creationism in our schools as an equal to evolution, not even in the catholic schools.
As a “not real” Christian, I agree that we need to do more to stand up to the people who have hijacked Christianity. But when mainline Christians do attempt to make a stand, however watered down it may be (see: Evolution Sunday), it’s roundly criticized by the likes of PZ Myers.
The fact is, mainline churches are seriously lacking in PR skills. The only time they manage to compete with the evengelicals for airtime is when they’re debating about the role of GLBT members in the church. Even if mainline Churches were to make a significant and meaningful effort to take on the creationists, it wouldn’t get any attention, and we’d be vastly outmatched by the evangelical PR machine.
I am sort of, which means almost nobody. My list is just internet documented higher ed and state officials mostly.
Undocumented stories aren’t included because the list would be too long.
Someone needs to collect this info and it needs to be hosted on a blog, website, or somewhere. My intention is to ask bloggers, the NCSE, or PT to host it as a guest for linking. Setting up a web page is all but beyond my computer skills and time.
imsd007 @ 26
Apparently we have different backgrounds. Though I’m an Atheist, as are most of my friends and buddies, I know tons of those previously mentioned “hard-core” Christians.
My family included. They are Methodists. Though my mom and dad aren’t into ID-iocy (at least openly), all the others are.
And I’m pretty sure I can come up with about 200 names of ID-iots in my immediate environment alone.
Heck, even Pope Nazi err Ratzi dismissed a couple of openly pro-Darwinian scientists in the Vatican and replaced them with openly pro-Creationism ID-iots.
So, there definitely is a tendency over here in Europe as well…
Fundies divide Xians into Real Xians and Fake Xians. Fake Xians might as well be atheists since they are all going to hell.
Real Xians are of course, those in their cult. This means (to them) that 80-95% of all Xians are Fake. Which also means in their theology that Xianity must be an almost dead religion kept alive by a few cults in mostly the South Central USA.
So all the moderates and Catholics can sleep in on Sunday. Fundies are very good at lying and hating and not very good at thinking or reading.
The bible says judgement is up to god not man. Theologically Fake versus Real is just wrong. A biblical literalist is simply one who has never read the book and doesn’t care what it says.
Why do I envision PZ standing on a tall cliff, wind howling and shouting this post at the heavens, “Christian Educators!”, like some kind of bearded Beowulf…
PZ, I’m a devout Christian who accepts scientific evolutionary theory. And I want to help other Christians do the same. And I see a couple of things that could help.
First, atheists who are scientists should clearly acknowledge that the atheism versus theism debate is philosophy, not science. Eugenie Scott at NCSE makes great statements about this. But if more people like you make this clear, than it would go a long way. You can try as hard as you can to attack my theistic views of cosmology and evolution, but clearly agree with Scott that our debate is philosophy, not science.
Second, public schools should insist that all students accurately recite evidences of evolutionary theory, but we shouldn’t force students to accept the theory. We can draw a horse to water and offer an endless supply of saltlicks, but…. In fact, I accepted evolutionary while taking an elective graduate reading course in molecular anthropology at Penn State while I planned on busting evolutionary theory. My professor, Mark Stoneking, was extraordinarily patient with me. He agreed to teach me the basic of microevolution in human and chimp genomes while I tried to prove that the mathematics would indicate that there was no evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps. Guess what happened? My point is that I learned to recite the basics of molecular evolution while I initially rejected most evolutionary theory. And I think that it’s too antagonistic to require creationists to accept evolutionary theory as long as they can recite the basic evidence.
Cheers,
BrianK said:
Now there’s fighting talk – you never know until you try do you?
As for being automatically outmatched by the creotards – come on, even mainline churches can call upon far more resources than the likes of PZ, Dawkins, Hitchens, Eugenie Scott et al and yet they seem to have made quite a splash lately.
Rather than whining about what the creationists have, how about trying to use some of what you have and seeing how it goes eh? I’m sure PZ would be happy to give you a few tips about how to get started, he seems to be quite capable of ruffling creationist feathers on a comparatively modest budget.
Not quite. Christians, like those I’m complaining about, do make intrusions into science, and we can use science, not just philosophy, to pin them to the wall.
I also think the retreat into “it’s philosophy” is a way to chicken out. It’s not philosophy; religion is lunacy. I’m not saying I’m going to back off on criticizing religion at all, I’m always going to be an ornery cuss who is rude to the faithful.
I’m just saying it’s not my job, nor do you want it to be my job or the job of my fellow atheists, to clean your filthy house. That’s what you have to do. If you want your house of god to be a disreputable bedlam filled to the rafters with kooks, that’s your business, and it makes my job of laughing at religion easier.
It does make my other job of teaching science harder, though, and that’s the one that pays my bills, so I’d appreciate it if you’d tidy up a bit.
Lilly de Lure said:
We do try – Evolution Sunday is an excellent example. It’s constantly been increasing the number of congregations involved, and yet it gets virtually no media coverage. The coverage it does generate is stuff like PZ’s criticisms (linked in my original post at #31).
Pablo at #24 said:
Part of my point is that us “not real” Christians are fighting on two fronts – we do have to stand up and tell this to PZ and the folks here, and we have to fight against the creationist nonsense spewing from other Christian groups.
I heard Barbara Forrest talk about her and the NCSE working behind the scenes a lot in order to catch problems before they get out of hand and end up in court. She’s a goldmine on the subject i presume.
When i hear creationists whining about prosecution I keep thinking about how one of the creationist school board members in Dover quietly removed a mural, featuring evolution and made by a student from the school, and afterwards stated to the judge “I gleefully watched it burn”.
I doubt these people ever engage their own conscience.
Any links to scientific evidence that is highly critical of or refutes evolution?
Like I said, you’re not going to see me supporting religion, ever. But you’re also not going to see me trying to legislate the religious out of existence. I’m less of a threat to your reputation than your fellow christians are.
And yeah, I’m no fan of Evolution Sunday, either. I’ve read some of the collected sermons, and it’s obvious it’s a gimmick to promote a superstitious mythology rather than science.
Kevin Klein @ 23,
I found some of Augustine’s stuff re biblical literalism at catholic.com, and it all sounded good until I got to this:
“They [pagans] are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of [man as] many thousands of years, though reckoning by the sacred writings we find that not 6,000 years have yet passed” ([City of God],12:10).
Creationism isn’t the “Christian” perspective; it is the regressive perspective.
There is nothing inherent in the teachings of Jesus that demands or suggests that one have a literal belief in scripture. Quite frankly, most people today who call themselves “Christian” know very little (if anything at all) about what Jesus actually taught. I’d even bet that were Jesus around today that these same people who worship him as a deity would call him an anti-American, terrorist-loving hippie!
I don’t consider Jesus as divine; his mother could not have been a virgin when she was pregnant with him; he may or may not have been executed by crucifixion; if he were executed, there is no possibility that he rose from the dead three days after he died.
But none of that is important to me in terms of the value of his teachings. I consider Jesus to have been a great teacher, a rabbi, a man who challenged us to rise above our base natures and to see everyone in the world as our neighbor and worthy of respect. Nothing in these teachings requires the supernatural!!
I really wish that the people who claim to follow Jesus would actually stop for a minute and actually read what the Bible says about his teachings. It is just maddening!
Let me just echo comment 12. Congratulations, PZ. This is how to fr*me this issue.
Let me just echo comment 12. Congratulations, PZ. This is how to fr*me this issue.
BrianK said:
Then might I suggest you switch your tactics to ones which do get you publicity – you say yourself in post #31 that you are quite capable of getting Media attention over the GLBT debate, why is media attention such a big problem when it comes to evolution? Get creative, pull some sort of stunt that screams “Newsworthy” (I’m not your PR person, but I’m sure there must be at least one who agrees with you and is willing to help, why not get their advice about what is likely to get you some press attention)!
Hang on, you are worried about standing up for what you think because it might generate criticism? Might I suggest that you have a look at Raven’s post (#28) for a list of what some teachers/administrators have gone through for sticking up for evolution? You are asking me to take seriously people who will stop standing up for their beliefs because PZ criticises them?
A few mocking words from PZ should not be enough stymie people if they are determined to stand up for themselves, or are you suggesting that PZ should just shut up and be nice for the greater good (where have we heard that before)?
My experience living for many years in New Zealand, Canada and Scotland is that creationsim is genuinely utterly absent even from the clergy there. It really is an American obsession, and a bemusing one at that.
James (@35) I’m glad that worked for you. I don’t think any teacher is trying to force belief on their students, just knowledge of the standard theory.
Still waiting for my favorite xian, Scott Hatfield, to weigh in on this.
Most of the science teachers in our local school system and a disproportionate number of grade school teachers have all been hired form Olivet Nazarene University. This is the very same university that persecuted Richard Colling. This is a prime example of human evolution taught in our High School. Assignment: Color the picture of the skull on the handout. That is it, no other mention of human evolution considered. The little kids want to study dinosaurs, no can’t do that because all the dinosaur books mention the age of the earth in millions of years and that nasty evolution word is all over the place. I guess a person could call this a form of censorship.
Catholics are not Christians. The Pope is the anti -Christ, just ask any true Christian.
“Accept”? Nobody’s asking anybody to “accept” anything. Students have the inalienable right to believe whatever they like. They can believe that 2+2=7, and that is their right–but that doesn’t mean they won’t get a poor grade if they insist on asserting it in a math classroom. They can believe that the holocaust never occurred, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get a poor grade for asserting it in a history classroom. They can believe that the sun goes around the earth if they like, but it’s going to tank their astronomy grade if they assert it.
All that anyone’s ever demanded (at the high school level) is that students learn facts. They don’t need to believe them, just know them. What do you want? Do you want every sentence in the Evolution chapter to begin “The theory of evolution states that–“?
raven (#32):
I’d be happy to host your list as a blog post at the very least. Since you say your list contains “internet documented” items, I assume you have links to news stories and whatnot substantiating each entry. (If you don’t, I can poke around a bit, although naturally, the more work that’s already been done, the sooner we can get a useful list online.) My contact information is here, if you’d like to send your notes via e-mail.
“But I would think the concerted and largely successful effort in our culture to equate Christianity with the idiocy of belief in a 6000 year old world or a god who meddles in trivialities or denying the facts of a natural world would piss you off.”
This is mainly an American problem, and mainly due to the Evangelicals (there are more than 80 million Evangelicals in the US, and less than 2 in Europe). They are also the fastest growing brand of Christianity in the USA. If they can’t solve it, too bad for them, in 50 years, the “ESA: Evangelical States of America” will be the economic equivallent of Somalia today.
Pro Science Christians, non believers, etc… should denounce this lunacy, but it won’t help. Because people who move towards Evangelicalism, do it precisely for that reason, because they want to find a justification for their conservative morality and their conviction that America is a nation blessed by God who has granted it with a special mission to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world.
It is only when they will realise that this has failed desperately, that they have become much poorer than Europe, China and other nations, that things will really change.
I worked for a little while selling children’s books to elementary school libraries. One of our best sellers was a series on dinosaurs that didn’t mention the age of the earth or evolution. The talked about dinosaur anatomy and habits, what their ecology was like, and so on. There wasn’t anything FALSE in them, though some of the language was deliberately vague (“A long time ago”).
This was a selling point, if the librarians let us get that part out. Many of them would shut us down with a, “We can’t have any books on dinosaurs in our library,” before we could tell them, and I was never a bold enough salesperson to push on in the face of that.
Interestingly, after a while I stopped calling the real hard core anti-dinosaur crowd, because they never bought anything from me. They let my company absorb the costs of selling the books to them, then went and bought from another vendor. They didn’t do it with any malice, either, they just didn’t think about it.
“…stupidity isn’t supposed to be a Christian sacrament.”
Too bad there isn’t an official sin associated with stupidity.
Anger, blasphemy, envy, malice,… STUPIDITY!
As Oscar Wilde said: “There is no sin except stupidity.”
But then they would invent a prayer to forgive it.
Never mind.
PZ#37, I suppose that you were replying to me. You make your job of teaching science harder by refusing to acknowledge that religion is philosophy. And you sound like an incompetent scholar when you say that religion isn’t philosophy. On the other hand, your science research indicates competence.
Have you made any attempts to challenge university philosophy departments in regards to their view of religion?
And I never suggested that science cannot test various creationist claims such as a 6,000 year old universe or baraminology. And philosophy such as the analysis of cosmology extensively borrows from science. Have you ever read anything about the philosophy of science?
I merely bring up that more atheists should join Scott in clearly stating that the atheism versus theism debate is philosophy (that extensively borrows from science) because many of my Christian colleagues don’t believe me that atheists see it that way. And it would make your job of teaching science easier if you would do it. And you can still participate in your hobby of ridiculing religion apart from the science classroom. Or do you think that the science classroom is a place to ridicule religion in general?
And I’m curious about why you think my theistic views or cosmology and evolution are lunacy. Are you capable of explaining that?
Cheers,
Here’s the thing. I’m a Christian, and I’m extremely pro-science (biochemistry major looking forward to earning a PhD or MD in the future) and think these people are the definition of stupid.
Guess what? It doesn’t matter. Since I’m not an idiot with no life, I’m not going to dedicate my pointless life to squawking about whatever annoyed me four seconds ago. The ID-iots WILL dedicate their pointless lives to squawking about whatever annoyed them four seconds ago, so more people will hear them.
Yeah, I speak out against this garbage at any chance I get, but I don’t think it’s worth the time and money to found an entire organization (or 2, or 3) and a museum to complain about it. But these guys do!
Keep a copy of Bracklin’s letter around, because the reason this idiot is asking for stories is that they haven’t had any examples of “persecution of those who ‘question’ evolution” to the present time. That is to say, it’s a non-problem, and their “concern for academic freedom” only extends to biological matters.
I can’t say that they wouldn’t be asking for more stories if they had any, I just know that the opponents of their nonsense have noted the fact that there are no cases where “questioning evolution” (or unfortunately, the teaching ID/creationism, which likely has happened) has caused anyone any problems. So this buffoon has to try to find instances of a problem for their “solution,” in the hope of selling it to the legislators.
Even one of the sponsors of the bill (a dentist–yay, another expert on the matter) talked up the importance of “prevention” at the press conference with Stein, which one may presume was because he didn’t know of any problem his “solution” would fix.
This letter is just more of the same, then, they’re trying to sell a “solution” to a “problem” that doesn’t exist (not for legitimate questions anyway–which includes the teacher fielding a few ID/creation questions from students, IMO), just like they did when showing Expelled.
For, above all, the IDiots know that ID has no excuses for producing no results nor even any tentative legitimate scientific hypotheses, unless they have been prevented from doing so. Of course they haven’t been, however, to keep ID looking like science to their stupid sheep, they have to fall back on the persecution theme.
Bracklin’s dearly hoping that it is true, and although I doubt he’ll find any legitimate problems at all (as we know, suppression of evolution teaching is rampant, by contrast), he will get some whining from people who feel persecuted for having been taught science, and perhaps from people who have been prevented from teaching pseudoscience. Whether he’ll dare to use any of that tripe remains to be seen.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Let me go on the record once again. I am not sure whether my voice is that of a minority in Christianity, or whether it is simply that those who are the least educated about their own faith, the Bible, and science are the most vocal, and manage to intimidate others or make them feel guilty so that those with other viewpoints do not speak up.
About me (relevant posts from my blog, rather than go on at length here):
I am a Christian
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-i-am-christian.html
A progressive Christian
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/04/under-new-management.html
I’ve been banned from Uncommon Descent (and my complaint about it is, ironically, still up at the Expelled web site)
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/04/still-not-expelled-from-expelled.html
I spend a lot of time arguing against Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism from a Christian standpoint
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/search?q=intelligent+design
To the Christians who say “We are trying! Nobody is paying attention!” I say bull. We waited and waited for you to do something, but when you failed we non-believers took up the cause.
And we’re succeeding. People are starting to talk. We’re getting media attention. And now we’re wondering how dedicated you are to changing your house from, as PZ put it so excellently, a “disreputable bedlam filled to the rafters with kooks.”
Duh! If they say they don’t believe in creationism, they are told they aren’t good Christians. If they say they believe in Christ, they are derided and made fun of by the athiests. They get you coming and going.
It’s a heckuva lot more fun to watch the fundies and athiests duke it out than to become cannon fodder for both sides. Most people I know are somewhere in the middle and can’t tolerate the arrogance or stupidity of either extreme. It’s just easier to tune it all out.
PZ, I know that you are being provocative, but there are many christians who are in the trenches trying to stop the idiots like Bracken.
Of course Bracken pisses me off. At the same time, it makes my life easier as we defeat in the courts challenge after challenge to solid science from this folks. As long as we get them to “frame” the issue as a religious one, they lose.
So for my part…Lets see, I have testified before legislative panels, I have given countless workshops for K-12 teachers, I have given workshops to Clergy and parents groups I have written tons of letters. I have done many television and radio interviews etc. When appropriate or asked I indicate I am a scientist and christian (well LDS, so most christians won’t claim me). (I got one red faced politician to blow his lid and yell “Your God and my God is different!” To which I was able to have my one and only ever rhetorical victory by telling him I objected to his attack on my beliefs (since I had already testified I was LDS) Exposing the legislators supporting the bill, that the bill was about teaching who was the correct God, not about teaching good science.
Sorry I haven’t had time to start a blog, time to look at every nutcase, but I have helped to hold my local nutcases accountable when I could (this includes time spent in Utah), luckily there were many who came before me esp in Utah and BYU, who have been fighting anti-science propaganda (evolution and other science issues) risking jobs and livelihood along the way.
BrianK said:
Good point. I can just imagine someone like a Quaker or a Unitarian coming up to PZ and saying how great it is that he is opposing creationism and how they’d like to help. And in my imagination PZ cries “Begone, vile religious fanatic! Go help your natural allies the creationists!” At least that’s what many of PZ’s statements here would lead me to expect.
Blake, got a deal. I’ll be contacting you sometime today.
1. Be careful what you wish for. This list is very damming to creos and they are terrified of it.
They will try to hack your computers and most likely threaten you. I should know, been through the threat cycle myself a few times, a dismal experience. The serious ones aren’t death threats scrawled on a paper towel in crayon. They are people who file SLAPP law suits and install sophisticated spyware programs on your systems.
2. All my info was collected with Google off the internet and is documentable by links. Documentation will not be a problem. A lot of it came from Pandasthumb.
There are a lot more threats and harassment that has not been reported publicly, some ominous and some just silly. Mplavcan, a paleoanthropologist in Arkansas, said that students used to hold prayer vigils outside his office. These stories would make another fun post or two.
Later, got some real work to do. Thanks a lot, Raven.
@ James Goetz #54: A correction or two: The debate over theism vs. atheism can be philosophy, but it needn’t be and often isn’t. Philosophy requires careful rational analysis of arguments and evidence; many proponents of theism embrace “faith” over reason, and thus are engaged in nothing like philosophy.
Likewise, the theism vs. atheism debate can be a scientific debate, depending on what the god is supposed to have done. The age of the Earth is a scientific issue. If one’s theism postulates a god who created the Earth 6,000 years ago, then the atheist position is supported by science (i.e., science tells us that THAT god doesn’t exist).
Of course, there will always be questions that can be filed under philosophy of religion, philosophy of science, epistemology, etc. But the mere fact that there is *a* philosophical issue of theism vs. atheism does not imply that this issue exhausts the debate.
James, I think there are plenty of religious people who would object to calling religion “philosophy”.
And it simply is the case that all religions except the weakest Deism do make empirical claims about the physical world that can be refuted scientifically. If you want to argue that there was “something” before the universe that caused it, that’s fine, but if you also argue that such “something” has had any intervention in the physical world since that time, that is an empirical and not “philosophical” claim, and if you’re not arguing that, if you think that such “something” has remained completely uninvolved in the physical world since the beginning of time (e.g., doesn’t answer prayers, doesn’t perform miracles, doesn’t intervene at all in events) why on earth would you worship such a thing?
Cherish: How’s your butt feeling sitting on that fence? Who cares if a bunch of nutjobs don’t think you’re a good Christian? Your beliefs are your own. Stand up for what you know is right otherwise don’t complain when atheists lump you all in together!
I’ll make a deal right here: You come out against retards who think the Bible is a science book, and I won’t make fun of your belief in an unverifiable and illogical being.
All the more reason to get a list together which can be distributed and mirrored. One computer can fail, but the Network survives.
You can’t stop the signal.
I sincerely doubt the probability for meeting those is much larger than zero. Most religions have a creation myth, and christianity has one (well, technically two) explicit in their main dogmatic text.
Now, you can certainly find large groups of non-fundie christians who characterizes this text as allegoric, while keeping it. But many of those seem to retain a belief in a creator, making a small letter gap creationism compared to fundies capital letter explicit Creationism.
You can meet deists or pantheists people who instead discuss interventionist or mystic signs of their deities in nature, but I’m not sure how many are bona fide christians.
I sincerely doubt the probability for meeting those is much larger than zero. Most religions have a creation myth, and christianity has one (well, technically two) explicit in their main dogmatic text.
Now, you can certainly find large groups of non-fundie christians who characterizes this text as allegoric, while keeping it. But many of those seem to retain a belief in a creator, making a small letter gap creationism compared to fundies capital letter explicit Creationism.
You can meet deists or pantheists people who instead discuss interventionist or mystic signs of their deities in nature, but I’m not sure how many are bona fide christians.
Indeed, all of Christianity hinges on the fact that people are created by god and have turned their back on it. Without this, there is no reason for god to come back and symbolically sacrifice itself, except not because it didn’t actually die, so that we can live a life without suffering. Eventually.
Slightly OT: A friend picked up a book for me- a discard on sale from the Fargo ND public library: an omnibus volume Darwin’s Origin of species and the Descent of Man. This weekend, first chance, I will check into it and find out WHY such a book was removed from the shelves. I am not yelling conspiracy theory, but this discard is thoughtless.
Well, as they say: the church is wherever God’s people are braying.
my bigger concern here is that he’s meeting with florida representatives to pass that BS academic freedom bill.
Since you folks need an example, I am a Christian, a computer scientist, and an admirer of Darwin. In fact, I consider evolution to be a convincing explanation for Christianity. Here is a question for you. If a computer scientist creates a computer simulation of some physical laws that give rise to replication and the consequent evolution of virtual creatures, does the scientist disappear?
PZ at #41 said:
I’m not asking you or anyone else to support religion, and I haven’t seen any comments here that are. I’m just trying the challenge the assumption that Christians aren’t already meeting your challenge to “[squawk] a little louder”.
I think there should be more organized opposition to creationist nonsense from mainline churches, but there are significant internal and external challenges to be overcome.
Anyway, I appreciate the engagement on this issue, and I think that PZ has really hit on something with this frame. (It did turn me from a regular lurking reader into a commenter, after all.)
creationism means requiring god(s) as explanatory, not just a belief in god(s)
Creation myths are important not for the “creation” but for the relation both among humans and between humans and deity and can be completely allegorical therefore.
One can be Christian and completely accept naturalistic explanation of the universe, or one can retain a “gapish’ belief, and still be a good scientist by knowing that the gap may be ultimately explainable. one becomes anti-science when the gap becomes fixed to the text, and therefore outside of science.
@#60
Thanks for the point Joe. Thank you that you were willing to help me in my efforts to debunk Dembski a while back.
As a biology professor at a Christian university one does get it from all sides. I too lament this kind of thing – people pushing antievolutionism as the only Christian perspective. Trouble is, they’re everywhere – the “whack-a-mole” metaphor is apt.
For my part I teach evolution unashamedly (though I sometimes worry about getting censored a la R. Colling, or worse, since I am not yet tenured), write letters to senators, speak with people in my church about the issue, et cetera, et cetera. In a bible study group I attend I recently led a multi-week series using Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, and I am scheduled to give a presentation to a number of church-going friends sometime soon.
So, there are those of us providing critique from within, yes. We do it because we care about truth and scientific integrity. You are welcome to criticize our beliefs, absolutely – but we can influence key groups devoted to antievolution activity more effectively than an atheist can.
note for Raven: here’s another victim for your list:
Dr. Peter Enns, Westminster Theological Seminary
details are on the front page of his seminary’s web site:
http://www.wts.edu/
This one might not appear obvious, but a large part of the reason for Dr. Enns’ suspension is based on his views on Genesis.
A review of his controversial book in CT:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2006/003/3.8.html
Kevin in #6 said:
Why the non-fundamentalists aren’t more vocal in their own defense is beyond me.
It’s beyond me too. I’ve even met some who call themselves “creationists” even though they accept evolution and don’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
I think for this I’ll quote a post I made on Panda’s Thumb, in the thread about the Expelled *jazz hands* “spoiler” about the creationist propaganda film using the Holocaust as ammo for attacks on science. Someone named “Misha” objected to this, but disappeared after that first post.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/expelled-a-spoi.html#comments-open
Does anybody know of a good pro science christian blog ?
for the folks who are saying that Creationism is mainly an American thing, i’d like to point out that here in Edinburgh we have the wonderful Edinburgh Creation Group, who have had at least one article published in the student paper.
honestly, the article could actually have been cut and paste straight from AIG, complete with “second law of thermodynamics” canard.
apparently they hold talks fairly often too.
it seems American-style madhouse charismatic Christianity is getting more popular among the younger folks and students over here, actually.
The problem is that the structure of most branches of the Christian church is to some extent diffusive and, if not democratic, than at least congregational. So individuals, congregations, or ministers, or bishops who represent subsets of Protestant groups, can stand against creationism, but there is no unified body. Even someone like Rowan Williams is not ‘authorized’ to speak for the entirety of the Anglican Church, which is relatively hierarchical. There are plenty of Christians who regularly try to persuade their fellows that ID and creationism are nonsense and unhelpful (heck, I was telling my fellow-Christians that ID was nonsense almost weekly back when I, well, was still a Christian) but they don’t get the media coverage, nor the unified funding.
A great deal of the broad/liberal Protestant Christian churches’ wealth is tied up with trusts etc. that deal with fairly narrow mandates – i.e., clergy education and salaries, libraries, etc. They simply don’t have the available liquid resources that many fundamentalists can deploy, and nor do they have as sensational an image.
Lily at #45 said:
Absolutely not – I’m just saying that it’s problematic for non-Christians like PZ to pose this challenge after mocking past attempts to do just that. That kind of criticism doesn’t stop me from speaking out on my own, but it does affect efforts at building a larger coalition to fight against the creationist agenda.
As far as the PR situation, I was just pointing out that there is a significant infrastructure gap between mainline Christianity and the “Religious Right.” That gap poses a challenge that can’t be erased overnight, and helps to explain why the creationists have louder voices in this matter.
…if by “Christian” you mean someone who rejects virgin birth, and revivification of bodies three days dead, and creation of foodstuffs out of literally nothing, and conversion of H2O into ethanol with some other organic matter. And, of course, also rejects violations of physical laws not just thousands of years ago, but even today, including the altering of the physical universe based on requests to a supernatural being (i.e., “prayer”).
Somehow I think most “Christians” wouldn’t be happy with some if not all of those commitments.
Oh, fuck that. Edinburgh Uni’s my alma mater.
Still, Edinburgh’s pretty international, the student areas especially. Are they home-grown or imported?
Christians that support evolution are real… but they’re some sort of mystery to me. It just can’t work with the book that is supposed to lead them. But hey, whatever floats their boat. As long as someone is for the truth, it’s ok.
But problem is that they whisper. They don’t shout. They shyly raise their hands and go “Yea uh… creationism sucks? I think? But Jesus TOTALLY ROCKS MAN!!!! At least we have JESUS in common! YAY FOR JESUS! …evolution is great…”
Sounds like a “No True Scotsman” argument to me.
I guess I don’t bother trying to tell Christians what they do or don’t believe. I don’t proclaim to understand salad bar christianity, but then again, I don’t insist that it has to be logical, either.
Pablo, I don’t insist on definitions either — people can believe whatever they like and call themselves “Christians” if they want. I was just pointing out that if one wants to “completely accept naturalistic explanation of the universe”, there are certain implications that has that are generally thought to be contrary to some central aspects of Christianity as it is usually described.
And I do insist that the religious at least be consistent in their beliefs if they are going to legislate.
Xegian, Tom, imsd007 and possibly others. I live in Europe, too.
Don’t underestimate the impact of American creationism on European Christians. Some 20-30 years ago, Christians whom I asked about evolution, would tend to be offended that I even thought of the possibility that they would be that ‘retarded’ (literally translated) not to accept evolution at least as very likely. Unfortunately, this has changed – and I think it is an American influence mainly through television.
Analogous to how he Americans liberated Iran in a military sense, they try to liberate us now from Darwin. (Please let me know if the above sentence needs any irony marks or quotation marks, etc.)
Maybe it is a Dutch thing, I am not sure about the rest of Europe.
Just one example from the Netherlands: here we have famous physicist Cees Dekker who sympathizes with ID. One intelligent person supporting ID is of course much more worrisome than thousands of idiots.
Yes, creationism/ ID looked like an American disease. Maybe it was, but it turns out to be contagious.
MartinM #83- they are home grown, although no doubt use a lot of USA’ian stuff. It saves time if you copy and paste lies across.
Their website is here:
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/
They have the usual notorious liars speaking to them, including Andy Macintosh, a thermodynamics prof who doesn’t understand thermodynamics.
Pretty damned comfortable, thank you. And this is precisely my point…you’re derided by either side for not taking sides.
Gabriel #75,
“but we (pro science Christians) can influence key groups devoted to antievolution activity more effectively than an atheist can.”
Interesting that you say this, I also used to think the same.
I’m not so sure anymore.
It seems to me that everything in the American public discourse is dominated by the concept of the Overton Window.
The limits of the window are defined by the following over simplifications (frames) :
1) SCIENCE (T.o.Evolution) => ATHEISM => SECULARISM => PROGRESSIVISM
2) CREATIONISM (Y.E.C + ID) => CHRISTIANITY => CONSERVATISM
Anything in between just gets no coverage in the public discourse.
Creationism isn’t absent from the UK. Back in the days when he was a crypto-papist, Tony Blair used to dance around the issue in that annoying non-committal fashion of his and did nothing to discourage Emmanuel College head of science Stephen Layfield’s crackpot views. Particularly when challenged on the fact that Layfield’s paycheck came from the taxpayer.
Creationism has been making inroads in the UK over the past decade or so, particularly in the city academies (and the bloody Vardy Foundation, who are cosy with AiG)but the vast majority of people of whatever religion or none see it as a wierd US import.
However, you don’t even have to go the whole creo hog to see how religious indoctrination skews people’s understanding of the physical world, very often without their even realising.
A good friend and colleague is a nominal catholic and just the other day we were chatting over coffee about a TV show on Victorian fad diets. I mentioned that surgery had been used to achieve the desired ‘wasp-waist’ and the conversation went like this,
C. Yes, I’ve heard about women having their spare ribs removed.
Me. Their what ribs?
C. Spare. You know, because women have one more pair of ribs than men.
Me. They do?
C. Yes, because of the Garden of …oh.
Me. Uh-huh.
C. That’s bollocks, isn’t it?
Me. Uh-huh.
C. Damn.
Me. I mean, how would that even work?
C. OK, OK. Damn.
Once she noticed that her ‘belief’ in skeletal structure was based on myth, she dropped it without hesitation (well, she did a quick Google to be sure – putting more trust in Google than in her childhood indoctrination.)
This is a highly intelligent, well-educated woman who remains a nominal catholic for mainly family reasons – she cheerfully dismisses limbo, indulgences and trans-substaniation as ‘bollocks’ and she described the Irish clergy who tried to force a young woman pregnant with a child with half a skull to bear it so it could gasp in agony for an hour or two as ‘vile, evil bastards’, but who had embedded within her a whole raft of fallacies based on a myth she long since rejected.
Bullshit.
The cretinous lackwits have as much claim to “the teachings of Jesus” as anyone else. The canonical Gospels are theological fictions, written by persons for whom Jesus and the Apostles were figures of legend. Why don’t you “stop for a minute and actually read what the Bible says about his teachings”? You’ll find numerous internal contradictions. In any case, a Jewish peasant revolutionary of the early Common Era would certainly be troubled by the assertion that he was not descended from Adam, the first man, who was literally created “in God’s image.” It’s unlikely he would care about the ethical standards of modern Gentiles.
My advice, quit serving as a human shield for the frothing lunatics. Step away from the Jesus, and let them stand exposed to the world as the credulous morons they are.
Of course, Europe is not imune to this American anti-science disease. For that, we would need all Europeans to be well educated and able to think critically. Which is far from being the case.
Having said this, our best protection is to remain conscient of that and sistematically block all attempts made by creationists to infiltrate our cultures.
Here in Spain, the ID folks recently tried to come over and make a series of university conferences. They got 100% rejected. Not one single conference took place.
As long as we can observe the “American experiment” from a safe distance, we’ll be fine. If we let it take the slightest root here, we’ll be in danger.
alex: I’m a student at Edinburgh too and I’ve never hear of Edinburgh Creation Group! This has really blown me out of the water…
Cherish: You are allowed not to take sides, just don’t go bitching when the fundies slowly erode away America’s future.
To call these guys rank amateurs would be something of an understatement. I particularly like the part where they model the Earth-Moon system as a pair of point particles.
Found this….the DI’s Periodic Table.
If I didn’t know that there were people who believed that the Periodic Table is a pernicious complication of the simple xtian worldview, I’d laugh even harder….
#31 BrianK wrote:
Remember, Evolution Sunday was just one event; the organization that sponsored it is the Clergy Letter Project, organized by Prof. Michael Zimmerman, and it works year-round. It serves as a clearinghouse for scientific information, as a way to rally people against anti-evolution political movements, and, through its group of over 560 scientific consultants (I’m one of them), as a means for scientists to support pro-evolution Christian clergy. In the battle over the science standards in Florida, two of the ten pro-science standards speakers at the public hearing were CLP signers: Rev. Dr. Brant Copeland, a Presbyterian, and Rev. Harry Parrot, Jr., a Baptist. Recently, the CLP has also worked with local citizens groups to organize opposition to Ben Steinian “academic freedom” bills in Florida and opposition to creationist candidates running for the Texas state board of education (both of whom were defeated in the primaries). The latter effort was a collaboration that involved both the Texas Citizens for Science and the Texas Freedom Network, which is a mainline Protestant organization that, among other things, defends the teaching of evolution in high schools. I imagine these groups know about this “Christian educators” issue already, but in case they don’t I’m going to contact them and make sure they make their opinions known. Thanks for the tip, PZ!
The only good Christian is a former Christian.
The only good Jesus is a dead Jesus.
bottomline, getting back to PZ’s post and not the idiot comments:
Yes, PZ, it does piss me off that so many have convince a large fraction of our culture that the only true belief in Christianity (or postmodern liberalism, or Islam, or New Age or woo medicine or whatever) is to be antiscience. So I spend a lot of time working to change that. I get pissed off when I read about the idiot parents who pray but don’t get insulin for their daughter, hell I get pissed when parents pray for a safe journey and don’t use seatbelts and car seats for their kids. I do leave some room for ‘supernatural superstition” . resurrections, virgin births, fish and loaves etc. are either false, scientifically investigatable or not scientifically investigatable. At this point they are not even historically investigatable. But those beliefs (and beliefs in afterlife) have very little impact of science practice or science education. Beliefs in “healings” only impact in those few cases, luckily it is few, where they are used exclusively and in place of medical treatment. most folks I know that are involved in those practices do the blessing, prayer or whatever and go see the doc (or even go to doc first). They may thank the lord for being healed, but they usually also thank the doc.
MartinM: I had a quick look and was disappointed to miss
I’m seeing a theme…
So, for all those Christians here who can’t see how they can make their voices heard, a suggestion.
Issue a press release decrying Expelled: No Intelligence Required. Criticize it as being Anti-Christian, untruthful and disrespectful to those who suffered the Holocaust.
Call in to a talk show radio program or see about getting someone onto a TV talk show with the same message. It’s not so hard to achieve, if you and your fellow worshippers actually do believe ID is a lie that must be confronted.
I won’t be holding my breath because I think the majority of moderate Christians don’t really mind Fundamentalist posturing at all. That and it is uncomfortable to loudly declare before one’s fellow parishioners that there are large parts of the Bible that one does not believe to be true.
The first step is to accept that you can make mistakes. The second step is to accept the challenge of correcting those mistakes. Then and only then can you call yourself a scientist.
Accepting anything on blind faith requires no courage. Doubt is what requires courage, especially when you’re doubting something that gives you comfort. Verily* I say to you, surety is the enemy of learning. For when you are absolutely sure of yourself you cannot truly accept that what you know could be wrong.
*When using archaic vocabulary you need two things. First, you need to know what you’re doing. Second, brass balls.
[QUOTE]
If a computer scientist creates a computer simulation of some physical laws that give rise to replication and the consequent evolution of virtual creatures, does the scientist disappear?
[/QUOTE]
No, the scientist doesn’t disappear. At least not immediately. So what? He also does not suddenly become omniscient nor omnibenevolent. He does not gain the ability to violate physical laws. He is not worthy of worship. He is not a legitimate analogue if you’re insinuating what I assume you’re insinuating.
Moderate, liberal and progressive Christians certainly do mind the fundamentalists who give Christianity a bad name. But to suggest that “we” (as though we were any easier to organize than freethinking atheists) issue a press release seems to be unfair – like asking ‘atheists’ to issue a press release. A number of denominations, magazines, theologians and others have been vocal in their criticism of Intelligent Design and other forms of pseudoscience. That the media (and very large numbers of Christians) pay little heed is certainly not our fault!
@Alan, #105
Too, too many people have the second without the first. I thank thee, for not being one of them.
(How many, for instance, would have said, “I thank thou…”?)
Indeed, it’s precisely the fact that he’s bound by physical law in the first place which allows him to produce his simulation at all.
Looks like we’ve missed everything, actually. I suppose it’s too much to ask that they’ve just packed it in.
I asked a while back this question : (#78)
Does anybody know of a good pro science christian blog ?
Is there, at least…. one ?
How are Christians supposed to fight against anti-science if they don’t even have a blog to voice their opposition ?
I think this is quite symptomatic of the current state of affairs.
#106
James, having recently attended the First Freedom First movie on the separation of church and state, I would add that yes, while you can’t have a statement “signed, moderate theists” (as great as that would be), you can get official statements from organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance.
Randy @ 59 and gabriel @ 74: Thank you. I’m glad there are Christians out there putting in this kind of effort. I want you to know it is appreciated. I hope you’re able to get more people to listen.
Blake Stacey @ 66 “You can’t stop the signal.” I heart you. And thanks to you and Raven for giving that list a home. I wanted to reference it last week and only knew I’d seen it somewhere in the comments for some post where I’d never find it again. It’s a great little weapon to have access to, even if reading it makes me sad.
JohnnieCanuck makes an excellent point. Why is the Expelled hullabaloo between an atheist and a gang of ID liars? I should think the people who ought to be most furious are the Jews who are seeing a vast crime against them used as a rallying point for creationist idiocy, and Christians who are being manipulated into regarding creationism as a point of doctrine in their creed. Try looking at the overtly Christian web sites that mention Expelled, though — I haven’t seen any that aren’t approving.
And we atheists are far more poorly organized than any religion, yet we at least seem to have a mostly united and loud voice for science.
Has any religious organization taken a moment to do as little as put out a press release disavowing the claims of the movie. Does any religious organization even care?
Don’t be such a wimp. Christians don’t get fired or lose friends for criticizing a movie as Anti-Christian or untruthful.
Publicly declaring one’s atheism is not so lightly done. At least not in the US.
Either you are strongly convinced that Fundamentalist Liars for Jesus are hurting Christianity or you are not. Have you already made yourself part of the solution, or are you still part of the problem?
More seriously…
Science is not about finding answers, science is about producing the best guess regarding how things work based on what we know. When we learn more about how things work, we come up with a more accurate guess. And sometimes we need to come up with a better guess.
Creationists hate evolution because they fear what it says about them. They are afraid of becoming just another animal and so losing their humanity. They will not accept that they can be animals and human. That the quality of being human is merely part of being a member of the human species, of being Homo sapiens.
Creationism is not about glorifying God, creationism is all about glorifying Man. It’s all about exalting, praising, and ego boosting humanity. Evolution tells us we are animals, and that gives the creationist the vapors. Creationism is simply an act of cowardice, and when desperate the coward can cause a lot of damage as he blindly lashes out.
In Old and New Testament those who suffer and die in the name of God are called brave. You want courage consider the Prophet Abraham. According to the tale Abraham met two Angels of the Lord as they traveled to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of the wickedness of the people dwelling within them. Learning that this was their goal he wanted to know if what they proposed to do was such a wise idea. He essentially told God (in two persons on this occasion) he, Abraham, didn’t think God’s plan was such a hot idea. He then haggled God down to ten good men as the minimum needed to spare the two cities from destruction. God or hyper advanced alien intelligence, that’s the sort of thing that require some serious cajones.
Creationism tells Man He is some seriously gnarly shit. Evolution tells Man that while he has his strong points and is a cool thing in many respects, he’s still just another collection of protoplasm and protein in a world filled with such. Which do you think takes more courage to accept?
“Educated creationists” are products of alternative credentialing systems. Even at respected schools it’s possible to get degrees with minimal exposure to science. As the number of schools proliferates it becomes easier to become credentialed without meeting competent scientists or worse yet knowing only pseudoscientists. Creationism is both a pre-enlightenment phenomenon and a post-enlightenment phenomenon. Europe may escape the former, but not the latter.
I could be wrong, but I really do think that many religious organizations will protest the misuse of religion by that film, especially if it does well (so far that looks questionable). ERV (half Jewish by blood, all Jewish by matrilineal inheritance–yes, it matters for this bit) did inform the ADL about the movie (not that they wouldn’t know, but more voices is better), and they’d certainly be derelict not to make a formal protest (they’re not a religious organization, but with concerns about Jewish religious sensibilities–and others’), unless it dies with barely any notice.
A lot of religious organizations wouldn’t protest before seeing it, even though that is far too late to begin to protest. They’re being cautious and conservative as one might expect of most religious folk–which gives the Expelled bunch time to craft a web of lies (if rather ineptly).
So yes, it really does come down to the atheists, and a comparatively few religious folk who are quite appalled at such nonsense in their religions’ name, to tackle the movie when it is most important, well before their “message” of persecution congeals in people’s minds. We’re stuck doing the most thankless, yet most important, task of countering the propaganda that they want to instill prior to people seeing the propaganda in the film.
And yet, at least if it is reasonably successful, my wager is that many religious organizations will protest, and be given most of the kudos for stepping in at that late date. Anyhow, if they don’t do at least that, I will truly be offended.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Ooo. Ninja’ed and ‘referenced’ by PZed. This day is getting better and better.
Maybe we need a better term for when pirates slip in a post ahead of slow typists.
negentropyeater:
Over in this thread:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/miseducation_by_the_creationis.php#comment-804468
Leigh wrote about Beliefnet, where there is an “origins of life” forum where science-minded Christians try to explain evolution to novices.
That might be worth exploring, if you’re interested in that sort of thing.
A couple observations:
I believe the christers behave like Ronny Rayguns’ Republicans – “Don’t criticize any other christers”
Second, how friggin’ generic a religion is xainity? A god named “god”, a first man named “man”, a saviour named Joe Messiah, etc? Sheesh, howzabout a little imagination, folks?
Off to flay a captive for Xipe…
James Goetz #35 wrote:
But we don’t think the atheism vs. theism debate is confined to philosophy. If one takes the concept of “God” as a theory with observable consequences, it is brought into science. I understand what you’re saying. But when it comes to atheism vs. theism, we are right in the middle of having a debate on where the debate is. You are asking us to concede the foundation of our main argument.
Evolution is not atheism. It is not ‘atheistic.’ It does not invariably lead to atheism. You can teach it from a completely neutral stance — and should, in the public schools, and in basic biology classes. Teaching evolution is not the same as teaching atheism. But, we add — if you look at God as a scientist should, and then do what scientists do, the theory of evolution counts against the existence of God.
The message here then is that you can accept evolution and believe in God. The two can be reconciled. You don’t bring God into biology. This is where pro-science theists and atheists work in harmony.
But we are not likely to agree with you that a non-theistic naturalism is only a matter of “philosophy” when, to us, it’s actually a well-supported working theory — and the other side is a failed hypothesis. That would be “lying for science” — saying something expedient that goes against our commitment to science’s honest method of inquiry, for a political gain. It’s like the atheist version of “Lying for Jesus.”
Don’t bring God into science class — unless you want to accept the consequences. Maybe you can use us as a threat ;)
#82:
I haven’t read the posts since yours, but I have to respond. It’s perfectly fine for a Christian to read all of the stories in the Bible (virgin birth, water to win, etc. that you listed) as symbols rather than literal truths. It’s only logical; most religious myths I’ve ever read are intended as symbols to preserve cultural values, not as literal historical accounts.
In fact, I’ve read many fascinating articles showing direct equivalences between diverse world religions. I studied the mythology of the Iroquois for a few months and I, personally, saw numerous direct correlations between ideas in their stories and the values represented by the Bible (as I read it).
It seems like most of humanity has a similar system of values and ethics, but different groups have chosen to preserve it in different ways. Now that all of humanity can meet and communicate together on the Internet, I suppose the stories of religion aren’t so necessary for culture anymore, but that doesn’t mean they’re bad as long as people aren’t stupid about it. Atheists and theists can have the same set of values (and often do in my experience), with the only difference between them being that the theists have codified theirs in stories and the atheists hold them internally or whatever else.
Just because mainstream Christianity in the US has some disease where it doesn’t realize this doesn’t mean that ALL theists are arrogant, closed-minded bigots.
Wilson Fowlie, #107
Most welcome art thou, ’tis gladsome tidings indeed to hear such approval from a man of learning and discernment. You’s a cool dude you is.
I find it amusing that ‘you’—the form used when addressing superiors—won out over ‘thou’—the form used when addressing peers.
Which is what atheists – or at least, rational secular humanists – have been trying to say since forever, it seems like.
So are you saying that since a programmer can simulate natural phenomena using his computer it should follow that the natural phenomena we witness in the real world was programmed? Seems to me like just another “it looks desinged so it is desinged” sort of argument.
Lets try the same sort of thinking on other examples.
1. A mole makes a mole hill… a mountain looks like a giant mole hill…hence it was made by a giant super mole.
2. A refrigerator can make ice cubes… hail stones are ice cubes… hence hail stones are created by invisible refrigerators sitting inside the clouds.
I hope the flaw in this sort of thinking is evident to you from my examples.
Seriously Why? That book, which is good for the first 3/4’s, has a terrible and muddled chapter where he tries to combine his RCC with evolution.
Have you ever talked to Miller about his religion? For such a bright scientist he really sounds so clueless. I found the conversation embarrassing for him.
That he is catholic almost makes it worse for all the superstition he is required to swallow. Miller is great on evolution and a real champion in the arena but he is NOT a clear thinker.
Sastra,
you say, “But, we add — if you look at God as a scientist should, and then do what scientists do, the theory of evolution counts against the existence of God.”
I don’t understand this point. Can you please explain a bit more what you mean ?
Glory hallelujah!
Tentative approval of Expelled on an American Unitarian thread:
This looks interesting….movie taking a stand against orthodoxy / the debate is over type of Big Science…in this case…Darwinism. I think evolution is a useful theory…but I do see evidence of a Creator beyond the mechanisms of evolution.
189 views, no replies.
I get the feeling that most Christians don’t care about defending Darwin.
I’m glad your good on the science but I must ask how is evolution a convincing explanation for Christianity?
As I see it the theory creates insurmountable problems when you get down to actually thinking about it and it renders the bible superflous.
Whoops. Meant to say “approval of Darwin”!
I live in northern Europe and creationism isn’t very common here but there are some people that are trying to bring it more to the forefront.
I’m still a member of the lutheran church like most people around here, though I have never believed in that stuff. It’s a kind of a practical compromise and partly lazyness. I greatly enjoy organ music at the cathedral once a year and get to vote in church things for example. I never go to sunday service.
A few years ago I met a pretty famous preacher at some more enthusiastic lutheran people’s bible club (was invited there by a friend who has rediscovered her faith recently) and although I didn’t agree with him in his preaching that much, I talked with him afterwards. He was a very nice guy and he didn’t like the creationism thing either, he actually said he subscribes to a science magazine and has star gazing as a hobby.
I had been a pretty outspoken critic of creationism before that but it kinda gave me rest, I haven’t really fought against the creationists much since then. Even most of the enthusiastic really believing christians recognize them as crazy.
I’m sorry to hear it’s reached such a level in the US that it hurts teaching biology etc. That dinosaur book thing in the comments here was an especially terrifying.
A few years ago, the ID:ers tried to hold a few lectures at a university here but were rejected, but the neighbouring technical university accepted them (one department head at the TU is a ID guy). I went there and argued a little. There were three lecturers brought in from USA. But it has pretty much died down since, nobody even cares about them anymore.
It’s not perfect but it’s not that bad. For example, there are woman priests and the fundamentalists who refuse to work with them are driven out of the church slowly. The church is a pretty vague organization nowadays.
So this is my report of the situation in northern Europe.
I hope you in the US can return to more normal too in the not too distant future.
Akshay,
I don’t think your examples touch Juan’s point.
More relevant would be the following, if we in the future, can produce a gigantic 3D computer simulation of a universe which is consistent with the laws of nature, what stops you from thinking that we ourselves do not live in such a simulation ?
Is it B-R-A-C-K-I-N or B-R-A-C-K-L-I-N? Your post says one thing and the e-mail address says another.
Here’s a horrible little report regarding “Expelled,” Stein, and the Missouri governor. Here are a couple of cross-posts from Talkorigins:
And here’s the other post, discussing Stein’s frankly close-minded approach toward “Darwinism,” which he’s stated many times before, but notably again at this showing where he’s pleading for “openness”:
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I recently asked my boss who is catholic why there isn’t more of an reaction by moderate American Christians. Her response was essentially that they aren’t feeling particularly put upon, certainly not enough to actually do anything about it. While she is a medical professional, who accepts evolution, and is a great deal more moderate than she’d like to admit, she is never the less of the belief that the nut jobs trying to hijack her religion aren’t actually members of her faith and can’t actually hijack her religion. I suspect this ability to compartmentalize and define your religion as independent and separate subsets that aren’t actually part of one whole explains why most moderates are largely silent. To them it literally isn’t their problem, the nut jobs aren’t part of their religion. There’s also a component that weirdly seems to be that moderates feel that the fundamentalists are as idiotic and crazy as we think they are, without applying any of that judgement on what they themselves believe because they aren’t the same.
If she thinks the creationists are nutjobs she needs to look in the mirror. Not accepting evolution doesn’t make you crazy. It makes you an ill informed dullard and perhaps a danger to education but not crazy.
Thinking there is a patron saint of the internet along with 400+ others,transubwhatever, and the rest of RCC ideas that potentially makes you a nutjob albeit perhaps a harmless one.
they’re pretty rubbish actually. the article they published was in a “religion special” of the Student. i sent in a rather angry letter in response (they wheeled out Anthony Flew among others, shameless) and a biology Doctor sent in another angry letter the next week.
apart from that and the website, that’s all i’ve heard from them, so they’re hardly going to turn the city into Florida overnight.
Sure, they’ll not convert Edinburgh to YEC’ism, but I’m sure they’ll confuse a lot of students. Plus they’ll probably write really stupid letters to the Scotsman. one Creationist who writes to the Scotsman and posts on their website ran away from me when I refused to prove that I knew about Dembskis theories before debating them with him.
negentropyeater #127 wrote:
I meant that many atheists today (including Dawkins & PZ) think that, if we are to be consistent, the concept of God should be examined and treated as if it were a serious scientific hypothesis. As Vic Stenger puts it “Any God who plays an important role in the universe must produce observable effects, and observations fall in the realm of science.” You can be a perfectly good scientist and decide you are not going to consider God this way, of course, but you have put up an artificial barrier for personal reasons.
Evolution explains how complexity arises from simplicity. At best, it makes God unnecessary, and a victim of Occam’s razor. At worst, it completely undermines the idea of looking at intelligence as a top-down phenomena outside of nature.
“Mental things, brains, minds, consciousnesses, things that are capable of comprehending anything — these come late in evolution, they are a product of evolution. They don’t come at the beginning. So whatever lies behind the universe will not be an intellect. Intellects are things that come as the result of a long period of evolution.” (Richard Dawkins)
Speaking up works!
I just dashed off an email to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, asking if/when they were going to make a public statement about Expelled. Turns out, they already posted a review months ago, and will look into doing more. NCSE didn’t have the review on expelledexposed, so I emailed NCSE and now a link to the AU’s review is up. So there!
“I wonder if they realize how craven and pussinillous they sound?”
Hey Moses, I did a Google search for “pussinilous” and it only returned one hit: this very blog post. Could you explain, please?
James F #140:
Good for you!
Rey Fox:
I did the same thing and (naturally enough) got the same result. I wondered if – then assumed that – he meant ‘pusillanimous.’
#136, I agree entirely. But then I’m an atheist and I assume anyone who believes in god is nuts. Anyone able to hold two mutual exclusive concepts as valid has to be playing with less than a full deck.
But I wasn’t explaining my position, just that of a better than average educated American Catholic. My boss doesn’t consider herself a religious nut case, she’s entirely incapable of caring that her moderate faith is what makes the fundamentalists possible. As far as she’s concerned the fundamentalists are like a different species, they aren’t anything related to her. She laughs at their stupid ideas and goes about her life as a person of faith without batting an eyelash.
Scott:
As I said, you can give yourself any label you want, but if all of the stories in the Bible are symbols rather than literal truth, in what way does the Bible differ from, say, Aesop’s Fables? There are lots of books that use allegory and symbol to provide insights into the human condition, but we don’t build churches around most of them (there is no “First Church of Remembrance of Things Past”, or “Congregation of the Brothers Karamazov”). The historical reason that people treat the Bible different from these other kind of books is that they thought the Bible made truth claims about the world: that there is a supernatural being that created the universe, that this being can violate natural laws to reward those who request aid, etc. Without those beliefs, religion is just a cross between a literary club and a support group.
Rey, I believe the word intended was pusillanimous.
A comment by John Novak on Chad Orzel’s blog is interesting:
The original blog post is here:
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/04/the_framing_fracas.php
and the full comment is here:
http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2008/04/the_framing_fracas.php#c819057
Christians aren’t more vocal about defending evolution because it’s irrelevant to their message, and for most of them to their lives. A Christian’s daily struggle is against one’s own selfish and sinful nature, not the evolutionary struggle for survival of the fittest. The teachings a Christian lives by are embodied in the life and words of Jesus, not the fossil record.
Things like fighting for or against what’s in biology texts is a distraction. The non-fundamentalists don’t put much energy into it because that takes time and funds and effort away from fighting poverty, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, helping disaster victims, promoting positive afterschool programs, doing things that actually improve the material and spiritual condition of fellow human beings. Outside of the internet, few people feel strongly about evolution. When these Christians are concerned about schools, it’s more about teaching kids (foremost their own) to make responsible life decisions like avoiding pregnancy, resolving disputes without violence, staying out of gangs, and rejecting guns and drugs. Evolution wars are low on the list.
Man, some researchers you people are.
pussinillous
-adjective
1. consisting of, resembling, or pertaining to pussinills
(Pussinills, of course, being Victorian era implements for pinching the cheeks to redden them, as proper ladies did not wear rouge or other makeup.)
To be or act ‘pussinillous’ thus means to be ‘pinchy’–irritating for the sole purpose of gaining attention, with the connotation that other, more obvious methods of achieving the same are being eschewed for reasons of pride, or other such silliness. The word is most apt when describing the political tactics of creationists.
Sheesh.
Brownian, you totally rock.
akshay #125, JimC #129 negentropy #132
Akshay’s examples are irrelevant since they exist entirely within the laws of physics. All virtual universes in this universe have creators. To a virtual creature in a simulation, the metauniverse is that of the programmer. If one assumes that existence is computational, that the laws of physics are not real but are simulated, then our universe is a simulation. If God is this computational existence and delights in mathematical search algorithms like evolution that operate within the very large search space provided by His laws of physics, then he is clearly trading off the good (emergent beautiful complexity) against the bad (evolution doesn’t work without conflict and suffering). This might be called Darwin’s theodicy. Christians believe that God acted out of compassion to mitigate the evil by-products of evolution by sending revelation on how humans can get out of the trap that evolution has them in. This blog is not capable of handling this discussion but in the unlikely case that anyone is interested in this line, you can go to my blog, read the confession of faith, or read the book.
Sastra,
I agree that the theory of Evolution makes Atheism a much more plausible notion than it used to be before we discovered it. I agree that only the scientific method will enable us to settle, hopefully one day, this question, and that in the meantime, both the existence of God(s) and its non existence need to be treated as hypothesis.
One of them is true. As long as we don’t know which one, or even can define a degree of plausibility, saying that evolution counts against the existence of God makes no sense to me.
Dawkins’ argument is also weak. We do not know what caused the Big Bang. It may have been an entirely natural phenomena, a quantum effect in a previous false vaccuum state, but it could also have been the result of a planned scientific experiment. If we can one day understand the precise laws of nature, wouldn’t we want to verify with an experiment, especially since we have defined God as a hypothesis. Which other way would we have to verify either hypothesis ? Or build a gigantic 3D simulation ? I know, these are all extraordinary claims that will require extraordinary evidence, but so is the claim that the Big Bang was a natural phenomena.
Holy fuck, but does everyone who has some sort of epiphany get to claim that what they think is what ‘Christians’ think?
No, ‘Christians’ don’t believe that. (At least, I’d be willing to bet that many more don’t believe that than do.) Further, that hypothesis makes God sound like the ultimate retard.
Here’s a better hypothesis, and one that is supported by the evidence: ‘good’ behaviours such as altruism and cooperation evolved just as ‘bad’ behaviours such as intra-specific competition, etc.
Raven, Blake Stacey:
I’d like a copy of that list, too. Blake, we’ve chatted more than once about the sheer screeching DISHONESTY of so many of my fellow believers. I’d love a ‘rap sheet’ of the persecuted as a ‘talking point’ the next time somebody claims that creationists are the victims of the worldwide Darwinist conspiracy.
Richard:
Thanks for drawing my attention to this thread.
Bruce: (#49)
Getting ready to weigh in.
Brown #157
I usually don’t respond to content free vitriol but since you didn’t bother to say what part of my “Christians believe..” statement you have a problem with, I’ll assume that you don’t understand compassion or revelation. This is the typical atheist response to logic. Read Vox Day’s book “The Irrational Atheist”. He logically eviscerates Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins. But you won’t read it because you are not intellectually solid enough. By the way, I agree that good and bad behaviors evolved. How do you know which is which? Is it bad for a male lion to eat the cubs of a previous male when he takes over a pride?
PZ:
Did you know that it is assumed that if you are a Christian and a teacher, that you oppose the teaching of evolution and want to introduce creationism into the classroom?
You know, I have noticed that.
Did you know that people purporting to represent you will be going before state legislatures and telling your representatives that creationism is the Christian perspective?
I don’t think that will fly in the Golden State. Can’t speak about other places, though.
Did you know that people are collecting stories about getting slapped down for teaching nonsense in science class, and are telling politicians that it’s because they are Christian?
You mean, like Roger De Hart? (sigh) More work for me.
You know, I think Christianity is awfully foolish anyway,
Yes, but you like beer and evolution, so I’m inclined to overlook your petty shortcomings.
.. but I’m a goddamned atheist.
Maybe you are, but I don’t believe anyone is God-damned for honest doubt. And I don’t have any reason to believe that your skepticism is dishonest, self-serving, etc. And, again, you like beer. I’ll drink a goddamned beer with a goddamned atheist.
You don’t care what I think.
(puckishly) Now, how can you say that after all we’ve been through? Don’t you think your readership should know that you’re a Christ figure?
But I would think the concerted and largely successful effort in our culture to equate Christianity with the idiocy of belief in a 6000 year old world or a god who meddles in trivialities or denying the facts of a natural world would piss you off.
I get sad, I get frustrated, I get angry, I get motivated. You?
Unless it’s true, that is, that you don’t mind having your religious beliefs associated with flaming anti-scientific lunacy.
No more than you would object to sharing a pup tent with William Dembski.
Maybe you should try squawking a little louder.
I believe that my track record of tilting at windmills speaks for itself.
You could start by writing to David Bracklin and letting him know that stupidity isn’t supposed to be a Christian sacrament.
OK, I’ll try that, but since he’s a politician I face an uphill battle. Politicians typically pander to the LCD that gets them votes.
Unless it is, of course. I wouldn’t know. Atheist, remember? All I know is what I see, the stuff the loudest of you bray out in public, and boy, you Christians sure seem to hate good science.
The problem isn’t that Christians hate good science any more than any other sufficiently broad swath of the populations. The problem is that, like most laypeople, Christians aren’t knowledgeable enough to know what good science is. The vast majority are taught factoids about science, including the scientific method, rather than how to reason about natural pheonomena and the nature of science itself. This makes them vulnerable to arguments that exploit that ignorance and which appeal to their prior experience–and misconceptions.
Hahahah!
Read Vox Day!
Too funny.
@ #48
I’m sorry, Emily, but I have to disagree with your comment about the absence of creationists in the Antipodes. New Zealand has just developed a new national curriculum, evolution features heavily in the science section – & when the draft document went out for consultation there was a fair amount of opposition to & criticism of the prominence granted to evolution. Christian Science Ministries organised a e-mailing campaign urging its supporters to oppose the inclusion of evolution.
We have the position where ‘special character’ schools are able to place ads for teachers that include phrases like this: “The successful applicant must be able to conform to the school’s conservative reformed special character including the ability to teach scientific creationism.” And principals at such schools are happy to comment that “It’s perfectly possible to say God created the world at a point in time and at that point in time [the Earth] was fixed with so many C-14 and so many ordinary carbon molecules – why not? God is God” and “[Evolution] relies on unproven scientific facts and theories – that’s why it’s called a theory of evolution. It’s not the fact of evolution – it’s called a theory for good reason. No-one can prove it.”
Not helped by an education ministry spokesman who said “A full explanation of [scientific] theories should include a consideration of challenges that have been made to them… We are not suggesting that teachers teach [YEC or ID] as accepted science. We are suggesting that challenges to accepted scientific understandings should be considered in science classes.”
And of course, we have the Christian Science Foundation over the ditch in Australia – in the 1990s it was the world’s second largest ‘creation science’ foundation (euch, I have to wash my mouth out!).
That’s not counting the locals who come out of the woodwork when the local paper carries something on evolution, and write all sorts of nonsense to prove it isn’t so.
I’m afraid their tentacles are everywhere – oops, I mean tendrils; no offense, PZ.
Wait, did Juan Zanzeros just invoke the name of Vox Day? The man who uses a flaming sword as a codpiece (but isn’t overcompensating for anything, honest!)? The one who is amazingly arrogant enough to call himself the voice of God, even though everything he spews is uninformed, factually incorrect, misogynistic, misanthropic, and, well, stupid? (which may make him the voice of god, now that I think about it) That Vox Day?
And is, frankly, far, far less contradictory of their religion than a good middle-eastern, bronze-age history class where the mythologies that are Judaism and Christianity get explained.
Shhhhh, I get enough of a headache reading about, talking about, and dealing with people who want to rewrite the constitution and gut science for Jaaaayzuz! Don’t get them started trying to rewrite history standards.
ndt in #80 above wrote: “I’ve even met some who call themselves “creationists” even though they accept evolution and don’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.”
They’re framing it in inoffensive terms so as not to spook their brethren.
It’s frames all the way down!
Read the Bible much? I’ll assume you don’t pray then, since that would most certainly be responding to ‘content free vitriol.’
At the risk of being repetitive: No, ‘Christians’ don’t believe that. (At least, I’d be willing to bet that many more don’t believe that than do.)
You’re not ‘Christians’ Juan, you’re a Christian. It’s pretty clear that many Christians don’t agree with you, thus you can’t presume to tell us what ‘Christians’ do or don’t believe.
What a funny assumption! Have you ever actually met someone who doesn’t understand compassion, at least on some level? Such behaviour is usually associated with psychopathy, particularly sociopaths. Have you met many sociopaths, Juan? Do you make that assumption a lot? What makes you assume that someone on a science and atheism blog would be a sociopath after one comment?
And as for revelation, almost all here would agree it exists, many from personal experience as well as observation. I suspect a majority of the posters here experienced religion and what it entails before becoming atheists.
I’m beginning to see a pattern here….
Uh-oh. You’ve tipped your hand Juan, and most of us have played with Vox Day enough to know that the cards in your hand just ain’t the nuts.
Yeah. As I said, this ain’t the nuts. Vox Day and his acolytes seem to think that they’re equipped to discuss this topic, but countless discussions have shown their claims to be devoid of evidence, an understanding of basic concepts in science, or sound reasoning. Some basic research will show that the commenters on Pharyngula have dealt with this topic quite in depth, and have the data to back up their claims. I suggest you read through the Index to Creationist Claims before you try passing them off as if they were novel.
Enjoy your time here.
Agreeing with most of what’s being said (and a Christian, and one who is not fundamentalist by anybody’s definition, and a scientist), but some of the things said in this thread Are Just Wrong.
Anybody who equates teaching of Science to “here are the Correct Facts; learn them” at any level, as Brian does in the middle of 15 and lytefoot at 49 is doing us a disservice, and in fact is propagating what I have begun to call “Science as a Religion”.
Science says “1. Collect data. 2. Make a theory that fits the data. 3. Use that theory to predict what will happen in a new case. 4. Test that new case. That now is more data. 5a. If that data contradicts the prediction, go back to step 2. 5b. If it doesn’t, make more predictions, or go back to step 1 and look at something else.” That is Science.
Yeah, it’s impossible to go from first principles in everything, and so, for many years, 90+% of what one will learn in Science classes will be stuff that has had Science done to it ad nauseam (“facts”), and maybe only 5-10% of it will be actually doing Science. Even that will be retesting what others have tested for years on end (i.e. not original research). Please note that retesting what others have tested, even for the million-and-first time, is very valid Science – the first million trials could just have had something unchecked for corrupting the experiment. The chance of it is infinitesimal, sure.
Because nobody can know the whole of the panoply of Science, we put in place checks and balances against bad science – peer review, the whole reference system (including the almost always works idea of “more references in new papers mean this is a better paper”). But the core of the game is, and always has been, “You don’t believe me? Look it up. You don’t believe them? Do the experiment yourself, or show me some data that refute it.” And “you’re not educated enough yet, Learn The Facts and leave the actual thinking to the Advanced Universities” is actively harmful to Science, and is more correctly called Indoctrination of Dogma.
There are things that the scientific method is incapable of dealing with, because one of those steps above is impossible. There’s nothing wrong with that, even if those things are illogical. There’s nothing wrong with illogical thinking, either, even though there’s no room for it in the scientific method (so don’t use it there).
The data pretty much puts paid to the “count up the years in the Torah, add, and that’s how old the earth is.” It has been proven that evolution happens, and happens all the time in real life, and is responsible for species that exist today that didn’t exist to Darwin. The best theory to the data in the fossil record today is diversification through evolution. We can’t prove that this all wasn’t set as a humanity problem in year X, where X is before any of us were born – after all, everyone here has been set problems that could have evolved naturally, but were clearly set up as tests. The chance of that is infinitesimal, sure; but as far as Science is concerned, it is totally irrelevant. Positing that as a theory (which is basically ID) makes my steps 3. and 4. impossible, and therefore isn’t Science. It might be true. But it’s not Science.
But neither is “Critical analysis by whom? High School teachers? Students? The very idea is absurd … In high schools you get to teach the consensus reached by the relevant experts. Nothing more.” That’s religion, folks; praying to the Holy God Science, reciting from the Scriptures as written down by St.disprovable, and that theories that are not testable are not Science. It may even be correct, not that that’s really relevant, but it’s not Science. Unfortunately, too many of us, Fundamentalist Christians and otherwise, have forgotten that fact, in the fervour of “that’s not Right. How dare you?”
Having said all of that, those “Scientist Christians” who attempt to force the data to meet their predefined theory, as all of you are saying, are Doing It Wrong (and having all kinds of trouble with all that data that is really hard to make fit). Of course, manipulating the data to match the desired theory isn’t exactly unique to scientists espousing ID…
Carlie #163
Yes, you’re right, he’s arrogant and I’ll take your word for his silly game stuff since I haven’t seen it. I’ll even admit that I have called him an idiot myself, and what’s with the haircut. But his logical destruction of H,H,D was thorough and I doubt that you have read it or could back up your vacuous comment. In fact you are a perfect example of the evolved human tendency to form groups, attack those not in the group, and hurl witty invectives to enhance your status competition within the group. No facts or logic needed, point contempt at someone outside the group, turn and get the high fives. It works in high school.
Juan Zanzeros wrote: “This is the typical atheist response to logic. ”
Well THAT’s a pretty broad brush you’ve got there. Start with that phrase and you’re never going to get anywhere in a discussion.
Between that phrase and citing Vox Day, and telling us we aren’t “intellectually solid” or whatever…
You’ve revealed more about yourself in that one post than I think you’d want to!
Siamang #170
Another content free post. You’re making my argument. Except usually atheists start using a lot of F words and exclamation points when they can’t logically refute an argument. What did you think of the tone of those who responded to my posts. Good for meaningful discussion?
Let the activists do their thing it is part of our political system. PZ is an activist for scientific atheism and David Brackin is a Christian activist for The Florida Family Policy Council and both would like to swing public opinion toward their cause/side. I am not inclined to let either of them speak for me or think for me.
I am more inclined to be an activist like AnnaZ @ comment #152. I agree with her.
Well, Louise and Anna, your concerns are noted, but you have to realise that christians in general won’t be allowed to push their more rational concerns while their spokespeople push the anti-truth agenda as the most important issue to christians. If you accept the evidence of your eyes, accept that god’s act of creation must necessarily have been via evolution, and therefore put your support behind the teaching of evolution, your other concerns and priorities for the teaching of our children are more likely to be listened to.
ID in 3-D: Delusion, deception and denial.
Not likely. They think abstinence only sex ed is the way to go. We’ve seen how well that works.
Juan, it’s boring to keep eviscerating the same people over and over. Do an archive search for Vox Day here and you’ll see that the substance of what he’s written has been dealt with numerous times.
“Another content free post.”
Sort of like your #169 and #171, in fact.
negentropyeater #156 wrote:
The Big Bang could have been the result of a planned scientific experiment? Yes. The likelihood of this being more or less equal to an entirely natural and non-intentional phenomena which fits into early conditions? I think no.
Just because the two possibilities are God or No-God doesn’t entail that the odds for each are therefore 50/50. You need to add in any background knowledge we might have on kinds of causes and what causes them if you’re going to weigh probabilities. This is partly what Dawkins is doing when he points out that what we know of minds and intelligence is that they are formed over long periods in a mindless step-by-step process of evolution. That lowers the odds on starting out with one of them, complex and fully formed to fit no particular environment, and with the significant purpose of making sure WE human beings were sure to someday appear.
I’m no expert in this area, but my own personal guess is that the Big Bang was the result of a transcendent, eternally existing, and perfectly formed orchestra. Although the orchestras we’re familiar with are made up of material violins and woodwinds and brass sections, and are composed of human beings, we have no way of telling what an orchestra which exists outside of space and time would be like. We must therefore be careful we don’t make assumptions from our experience, since the conditions would be so dramatically different and mysterious.
We must also not be too quick to assume that we’re the motive. The purpose of this orchestra is less likely to be the eventual appearance of life, and more likely to be something having to do with noise. If you look at the universe, it seems to be a system specially designed to make noises.
Some day we may be able to test this. I’ll let others fill in any math. There are noises no doubt throughout the universe — an extraordinary coincidence that calls for explanation. And Dawkins argument is very weak here indeed. Noises don’t need to evolve. And they wouldn’t need a particularly complex orchestra to set them in motion.
Not an orchestra, Sastra…
a rock band
My blog’s main purpose is to protest and correct spectacular evangelical Christian errors and to reverse evangelical ignorance of science, especially regarding evolution. Everything PZ says above is correct. Evangelical credulity is a shocking scandal. I’ve stated as much, more than once, on my blog.
I’m an evangelical, a (real) biologist, and a full-blown evolutionist. I’ve written repeatedly against creationism on my blog. So it’s true that there are evangelicals who are working against the obscurant tide of modern evangelicalism. But it’s also true that the task is overwhelming, and the efforts of pro-science evangelicals like myself don’t seem (yet) to have a detectable effect. I see very encouraging signs among Reformed evangelicals, but there are days when I rant against Christendom in terms that would make PZ weep with joy.
I guess what I’m saying is this: yes, we’re here, and we’re working at it, but PZ & Co. are right about the pathetic state of evangelical Christendom.
And I’ll add this: be careful with the guilt-by-association ploy. It’s one thing to note, correctly, that thinking Christians need to be heard, and that silence in the presence of foolishness or dishonesty is too easily mistaken for apathy or even agreement. But when it turns into something else, something that looks more like an attempt to use the misconduct of some to discredit others unfairly, then it’s not criticism, it’s dishonesty.
And in case it’s not obvious, PZ, guilt-by-association is just as easily and perniciously employed against skeptics. Repeated calls for “moderate Christians” to repudiate the misconduct of other Christians start to sound a lot like a similarly cynical and dishonest tactic in a Culture War, and I can’t imagine why any decent person, believer or not, would want to stoop to the sleazy level of, say, Jonathan Sarfati.
#152 AnnaZ wrote:
Anna, I agree that these pursuits are at the core of Christianity – certainly as it was taught to me as a Catholic, where the focus was upon the corporal and spiritual works of mercy and the beatitudes. When fundamentalists foster an anti-science sentiment, however, they poison critical mechanisms for making advances in medicine and technology, things that will ultimately improve – and even save – the lives of millions. I would not ask that you abandon charitable works – far from it – but rather that you keep in mind how science supports these good works and that you maintain a pro-science stance as you interact with others, online and in the real world.
Juan, read this if you want to see how dishonest Vox Day’s book was: The Irrational Atheist – a review, by Steve Zara.
If this is the best that you can come up with, God help you – which explains quite a lot, actually.
Juan-
Your explaining neither. It is only a matter of perspective and you are pretending that God sees beauty in anything here. What you consider good another organism considers bad. The conflict isn’t conflict so much as simple survival. In any event you idea renders man completely innocent and a victim.
There is no trap. It’s a perfectly designed system in which the fittest pass on their genes and allow life to continue. It’s simple.
No sir you are not capable of making a sound argument. Your conflating a parsed view of evolution and square holing it into your favorite religion. Species are somewhat arbritary and fluid. There was no ‘first’ human and eventually we will segway into another being. A 25 million years from now humans will not exist per se just something from our line.
I am a Christian and I thought Theodores attempt was pathetic and clearly devoid of much logic. Dawkins and Dennett are much better thinkers(which is obvious) and I view your statement above as something of an embarrassment.
huh, like religions.
Well honestly Juan you have spouted off here and seem pretty arrogant. Your idea is thin to laughable in it’s plastering of religion and evolution. So really you have few facts and precious little logic here either. Just being fair.
Steve-
Glad you support science now please explain how you rationalize evolution and being an evangelical to me? If you would please. No feel good trash either I want to seethe theory blended better than ole Juan up there.
JimC–
Read the blog, or read Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, a book linked there. That’s all the time I have for you, I’m afraid, but you seem to be an astoundingly brilliant person, so I’m sure there’s nothing I could tell you that you don’t already know.
Steve-
Why the venom? Did I do something to you? Why the assholishness? I simply asked for an explanation. Your response indicates you may not have many answers.
I have read that book. I want to here how you do it?
I want to read how you blend evolution into the evangelical perspective including the fluid state of species, the continuing nature of evolution, etc.
OK, this is a little off-topic, but I hope that Jim’s reference to humanity segwaying into something else is a result of liberal use of a spell-checker…
Hey, those things were supposed to be big in the future…
Or lack of one wazza. Doing a few things at once here:-)
Steve- Spent some time browsing your blog. Nice job overall especially on the science. On the religion and science blending, well, pretty weak overall but it’s easy to see your one the right side of science.
But really how do you blend evolution with the evangelical perspective and what exactly do you think is ‘revealed’ in your version of the religion? It seems obvious to me and many other Christians that the bible is a product of it’s times and you seem to take the opposite stance. Why?
Isn’t this the same David Brackin who was saying a few days ago that:
Now he’s on this web page calling it “the lie of evolution.” Doesn’t calling something a lie pretty much end the questioning?
One story for the general public, another for a friendly audience? Isn’t there something about doing that kind of thing in some book somewhere?
Okay, Jim, I’ll take the bait, just ’cause the word ‘assholishness’ is so cool. I thought your response to Juan indicated significant arrogance (even if I agreed with you more than I agreed with him), and your request of me was certainly not delivered with an air of openness or an intention of dialogue. Limits of the medium, perhaps, so I apologize for being snippy. Here in the comments at Pharyngula, I’m not going to discuss the huge subject of how I can self-identify as both an evolutionist and evangelical; I’ve written on the topic on my blog, and I came here to discuss the issues raised by PZ, not to write a book on evangelicalism and common descent. What you conclude from this is of little interest to me, because I don’t know you and don’t care much for your approach. Come to QoD for more discussion if you want, otherwise I wish you well. (P.S., I’m glad you read Perspectives, and if you’d like to discuss, say, George Murphy’s chapter therein, I’d be happy to indulge you at QoD.)
Not baiting you Steve and your wrong I did intend it as an opening. I am doing a few things at once and perhaps was to brief/rude for this I apologize.
My approach? Which was what? I did see you insult me but I simply asked a question.
I have read some more of your blog and my opinion still remains that your thoughts on the science are very clear but your religion/science blending shows the best of compartmentalization. This is fine but as I said it’s all I ever see when the 2 combine outside of a Christian fideism more or less.
I simply wasn’t impressed with the thinking in Perspectives for the same reasons I’ve stated above. It creates more holes than it closes. But in fairness I haven’t read it recently although I doubt that would matter.
From your blog:
In part I have sympathy for this angle but it is also extremely ugly on the other end. And again I find this view impossible to reconcile with evolution.
So what exactly would be a threat to your belief? My bet-nothing because you seem to be able to rationalize just about anything. Again what evidence do you yourself find compelling about this particular religion?
The reframing of the problem of evil is almost neither here nor there. Although it doesn’t answer why an evolved species of primates would need saved when they didn’t do anything but fulfill the behaviours they evolved with in the first place. What exactly do they need saved from?
Like I said your blending of the two isn’t exactly smooth in most places. In fact like most accounts I’ve read it is more general like ‘God did this because’ rather than offering an actual blending of the theory and what that would imply.
Jim, one explanation of what they might need to be saved from is their evolved characteristics: if you behave like an animal, that’s bad, so God will guide you to behave like a human so you can enter heaven…
Personally, I’ve been an atheist for a long time and think it’s all bs, but I’ve been to christian schools and so I’m familiar with the arguments
Yeah but if they have those characteristics they are the ‘winners’ in the scheme! Why should they be saved from having exactly what they are supposed to have?
Well, it could be argued that God is an evolutionary pressure. You have to evolve to fitness for this world, and fitness for the next, too.
Fair enoughas one can argue from any angle I guess but I suppose one asks if it is reasonable to do so.
Likewise since species are relatively arbitrary and fluid and no ‘first’ human existed where does the soul enter the picture? If evolution is ongoing why suppose current humans are God’s goal any more than Erectus?
Because we’re the ones he sent his only begotten son to…
there’s no gospel of Ug Christ
haha, to late for that here.:-)
Here’s what Bracklin considered to be “scientific evidence critical of Darwinism” in his SBOE appearance:
I think the supporters of these ‘Academic Freedom’ bills should be called on how unscientific their “scientific evidence critical of Darwinism” is.
One story for the general public, another for a friendly audience? Isn’t there something about doing that kind of thing in some book somewhere?
(joshing)
You mean, as in ‘not bear false witness’ ?
Or perhaps you mean Abraham and his ‘sister’, Sarai?
Or how about Paul’s declaration (the guy from Tarsus, not Minnesota) that he must be ‘all things to all men’ ?
If so, aren’t we in danger of ‘being double-minded, unstable in all his ways?”
My bemused point is just that the nature of scripture for some of these folk is that they can pick and choose when they’re going to be truthful, according to the audience. With a little massaging of the text, they can even think they’re doing God’s will with their lies, and that it was even meant to be. We call it prevarication, they call it predestination. Kind of makes me less bemused, now that I think about it. Maybe I’m just feeling cynical!
But I would think the concerted and largely successful effort in our culture to equate Christianity with the idiocy of belief in a 6000 year old world or a god who meddles in trivialities or denying the facts of a natural world would piss you off. Unless it’s true, that is, that you don’t mind having your religious beliefs associated with flaming anti-scientific lunacy.
It does “piss me off.” Which is why I’m blogging about my journey away from young-earth creationism. If I can redeem one intellectually-honest Christian away from the farce that is YEC, I’ll be a happy man.
Maybe you should try squawking a little louder. You could start by writing to David Bracklin and letting him know that stupidity isn’t supposed to be a Christian sacrament.
Good advice. Consider it done. If I get a response, I’ll forward it to you. ;-)
I would really like to think that someday this “controversy” will be looked at in more or less the same way as the centuries old “controversy” regarding whether the Earth is the center of the universe.
It already is. (By most people.)
I honestly believe that sensible Christians (of which there are, of course, many) could do far worse than to recognize and promote one of Dawkins’ ideas, rather than take offense at the very mention of it.
That is to actively fight against young children being indoctrinated. When pinned down, I am yet to hear any reasonable person disagree with the idea that children shouldn’t be labeled and that they should be allowed to make up their own mind about such an important issue. And yet, most people make the terribly silly claim that he must want it to be made illegal, which is, of course, nonsense.
The line is not easy to draw, I would agree, but most intelligent religious believers surely recognize the ethical case for raising children to think for themselves, even if you do introduce them to your own religion, of which there is no harm. It is those who purposely deny their children the right to understand the world in its full glory (age dependent, of course) that are creating the next generation of anti-science individuals, and the cycle will continue.
I am only talking about a concerted effort to raise consciousness, after all, nothing more. While it may lose some people to non-belief, or even to other beliefs, it would also help to create a religion that was followed by people who had thought about what it means to be a Christian/Muslim/Jew, etc, and had made a conscious effort to understand the true message and value of the particular religion. In short, it would help to create a mature religion, which is surely the goal of all of us, atheist and believer.
Sastra,
“This is partly what Dawkins is doing when he points out that what we know of minds and intelligence is that they are formed over long periods in a mindless step-by-step process of evolution.”
Sure, not disputing that.
“That lowers the odds on starting out with one of them, complex and fully formed to fit no particular environment, and with the significant purpose of making sure WE human beings were sure to someday appear.”
How does it lower the odds ? If we (or whatever highly evolved beings will exist in the universe at that time) can, one day, as part of an experiment, or a 3D simulation, produce a new universe which fits exactly ours, why wouldn’t our own universe have been the result of such a previously held experiment (one that took place 13.7 b years ago, time being measured in our universe).
As I said, this is indeed an exceptional claim, that will require exceptional verification. But so is the claim that our universe was caused by a purely natural phenomena, or, by an orchestra. How would you verify either ?
Sastra,
in other words, can this universe generate sufficient intelligence and knowledge so as to produce a new equivallent one ? Maybe. Then why wouldn’t our own universe have been produced in a similar way. And you can go backwards that way for eternity.
My point is that indeed, if we treat God as a scientific hypothesis as you suggest, the only way to verify it, is to see if we can do it ourselves, and we’ll need an experiment, or a simulation.
What are the odds for or against ? 50/50 ? Why ? 99/1 ? Why ? 1/99 ? Why ? So far, we have no basis to make any. You can make an “educated guess”, maybe, but whatever your guess is, for the time being that’s faith.
@negentropyeater & Juan
I don’t get it how my examples were irrelevent to Juan’s argument.
negentropyeater, you ask how can I say that we are not in a simulation as this sort of thing should become easy to do within the forseeable future. I’m not saying that it can not be so, only that to think it should be so by matching results ie “the world looks like a simulation so it should be one” does not have a very good track record of being correct.
The fact that my examples already have a physical explanation for them is irrelevent. My “giant mole” and “invisible refrigerators” can function as a God-of-the-gaps kinda explanation. After all a simulator God is one such thing. A God that fills our gap in knowledge about what happened before the observable universe got started.
As I show through my examples- “Just because a mole can make a mole hill doesn’t mean a mountain was made by a Giant mole”. This translates to “Just because a programmer can simulate pehenomena in his/her computer doesn’t mean we are in a simulation run by a super-programmer a.k.a God.”
“If Y looks like the work of X, then Y'(similar to Y) need not be the work of super X.”
The counter-argumetn that “hailstones” and “mountains” already have natural explanations for their origins is irrelevent.
While we are on the subject of simulations, what is to say that we are not in a Dream? A very long one at that.
For all we know, when we go to sleep we might be just dreaming within a dream. Also, once we die, we might wake up in another dream. It could be dreams all the way.
Our world and the experiences in it looks very similar to a “dream”, so it MUST be a “dream”.
Akshay,
there’s a difference, we know already that a mole can’t make a mountain, and never will. Also, we have a perfectly valid explanation for mountains.
We don’t know already, if one day we won’t be able to create such a 3D simulation or perform a big bang experiment. BTW, the only way we’ll know, is to try it, isn’t it ? Moreover, we do not have an explanation (non yet verified, many interesting hypothesis which include natural causes and unnatural causes) for what caused the big bang and for where the laws of nature come from.
Juan says ,
If we assume
negentropyeater,
you’ve missed my point completely. How can you say a Super-mole with super strength did not create mountains? The fact that we know about tectonic plates and how mountains evolve gelogically is irrelevent. My “mole” would have stood a chance some 200 years back when all this geological data was not there. My “mole of the gaps” is your “simulator of the gaps”. God as a simulator is used to explain from where the laws of our universe came. By saying that it could have come from a super-programmer because programmers on earth are able to simulate natural phenomena by programming physical laws onto their computers is as faulty as my mole argument.
If we have a word for “dream”, it’s to describe some specific state. When I’m awaken, i’m not dreaming, otherwise, we’d just call everything a dream and we wouldn’t need all these words.
The notion of simulation, is much more serious than that. Just imagine a 2 dimensional world like your LCD screen, where the different pixels are the fundamental elements. Let it evolve through specific rules (a random generator, natural selection laws, etc…). Think of trying to do the same in 3 dimensions, much more complex, but why wouldn’t we be capable of doing so in the future ? Now ask yourself the question, how do the inhabitants of that 3D simulation who have evolved through perfectly natural laws, know if they are in a simulation or not ?
No way of knowing that. I grant you that.
But that doesn’t mean we are in a simulation.
we could be living in a dream. All this what we see, including us debating about this on pharyngula could be just what you are imagining in yuor dreams. Sure dreams in common parlance is used to refer to a state where we feel we “really” are interacting with the “real world”. But I think we can still argue that we have no way of knowing if we are NOT in a dream as we speak.
Actually negentropyeater I’m not sure if you really believe in this “simulation theory” yourself. If you are only asking me to think of it as a possibility then I have no problem with that. It sure could be.
For all we know Uri Geller could be Neo and James Randi could a shorter version of Dr Smith.
I think thats Agent Smith not Dr Smith.. :) .. Ooops!
Solipsism is a philosophy with few adherents, because mostly people toy with it, then realise that if we’re in a simulation which behaves exactly like the real world, then for all intents and purposes it IS the real world, and so there is no reason to hold to this philosophy and act as though it were true, ie it has no effect on one’s behaviour.
It’s a stupid theory, and I refute it thus: *kicks negentropyeater*
negentropyeater, I have another question for you. :)
If we are living in a pseudo-reality(simulated or some other thing) why should we trust what we learn from this pseudo world? Allow me to explain this using an example(I promise, no more moles)-
Suppose I make a simulated universe called Zeta. And I direct my simulated world in such a way that the people in my simulation(Zetans) happen to discover a drug that puts any Zetan into a dreamful state of sleep. After much use the Zetans figure out that these drug-induced-dreams are indistinguishable from zetan-reality. So they infer that they must be living in a drug-induced-dream themselves with some devine-pharmacist as the one who drugged them.
Now why did the Zetans get it wrong about the “real” reality? Because, they tried to RELY on what they learned from their simulated Zeta world to infer about what lay beyond it. And I have shown this could turn out spectacularly wrong even if the Zetan’s are absolutely convinced about it.
In other words, anyone who infers that we are in a simulation based on the what this simulated universe has tought them, will be drawing their conclusions from an untrustable source. Its just conceptual suicide if you ask me.
Akshay: are the zetans mole-shaped?
They look more like vogons… :)
Akshay, wazza,
what does “to believe” mean ? I’ve never understood that question. For me, there are only concepts that are plausible and others that aren’t. There are concepts that are still plausible and amongst those, some that I’d prefer to be true. Does that mean I believe in them ?
Is it plausible that this world was created in 6 days, that women were made from the ribs of men, that all animals were made at ounce, etc… Clearly no.
Is it plausible that we live in a 100% natural world, that there’s nothing else than what we think we know … Clearly yes.
Is it plausible that we live in a world that is a simulation, or the result of a scientific experiment, that someone is observing, testing and sometimes makes a little tweak, yes.
Which one do I prefer ? When I was younger, I prefered the first, now that I’m getting older, the second.
Occam’s razor, man
what you see is what you get
anything else is just wishful thinking
negentropyeater, what about my post #219 …. isn’t the idea that we live in a simulation self defeating?
I take from your reply that you are a Naturalist now, is it so?
I would define belief as commitment to a particular conclusion. Ofcourse it need not be dogmatic according to this defintion.
@negen
Is it plausible to you that you could be in a dream as we speak?
negentropyeater:
In answer to your post #222. I think Philip K Dick may have already come up with a nice starting point for you already:
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
lilly, I think it was pointed to you the last time you brought this quote up that it would not apply to schizophrenics. Their voices don’t go away if they stopped believing in it. I think the same can be said about optical illusions, they don’t just go away if we changed out belief about them.
Its a neat quote though… “almost” brilliant!
wazza,
if we had followed our wysiwig instincts from the begining, what would we know today ? All of science’s discoveries have been made when we went beyond the limitations of our senses.
akshay,
we can only infer from the world we live in, wether it is the result of a simulation or an experiment, or neither.
But if we, ourselves, perform such an experiment, or simulation, in the future, and observe what is happening, and it corresponds to our own world, what will our conclusion be, about our own world ?
I love the way PZ talks about ‘YOU CHRISTIANS”.
Reminds me of Obama talking about the “typical white person”.
Bigotry by any other name stinks as bad, PZ MYERS>
Lilly,
What about
“Reality is that which can tell us if we are wrong” ?
This definition will even take care of cases like schizophrenia and optical illusions. For a schizophrenic when he/she finds out that the voices go away with medication and that a certain part of the brain is resposible for the voices in the first place, then this newfound knowledge can be said to have enabled the person to “realise” his/her mistakes in judgment. And hence this “new knowledge” is more “real”.
Ditto with optical illusions.
Its not as neat a definition as yours though.
Lilly,
why would people living in a simulation not think that what they experience is real ? It’s only a simulation, from the point of view of the one who is observing and performing the simulation.
Actually, I prefer the word experiment.
Sure we can only infer from the world we live in but inferring that our world from which the inferrence is based is itself a simulation begs the question, Why believe reality outside the simulation is anything like what we see within the simulation. From the example I used, Zetans believed that the reality outside of Zetain-reality is a “drug based” one when infact it was a computer simulation.
Will it be justified if a Zetan argued “we can only use what we learn from zetan-reality to infer about the reality outside it” and went on to believe in the devine-pharmacist theory of reality?
akshay said:
It does have the advantage of dealing with schizophrenia and optical illusions more thorougly though! However technically speaking both optical illusions and schizophrenia are real phenomena that my Dick’s definition won’t go away when you cease to believe in them – it’s how the brain interprets the phenomena that’s gone askew (also – the brain’s interpretations of external stimulii are in and of themselves real phenomena) so I would stand by my quotation, with qualifications.
Incidentally I don’t think I’ve used this quote here before (I might have, it’s a favourite of mine, but I don’t recall any other occasion) and I don’t remember any prior discussion of it vis a vis schizophrenia so you may have been talking to someone else regarding this. It’s a neat quote so I’d be surprised if it hasn’t come up in discussions before!
Hilariously uninformed individual said:
Er, why did you omit the context? Doesn’t fit your ridiculous argument, perhaps? It was said in a particular context, and in quite a friendly manner. Not that it bothers you, of course.
Unless you are too dense to understand what a bigot is, nothing in this post could be described as bigoted, and you are the only person (Christian or not) that is too sensitive, it seems, to engage the substance of the argument.
Thanks for your contribution, anyway.
Neg, you’re applying motives where none can be discerned. They might be running the Matrix to suck out bioelectricity, though for those purposes, electric eels would probably work better…
Actually, all discoveries are based on our senses, and on devices allowing us to sense what is beyond our biological capabilities. Nothing has ever been discovered that cannot be sensed. Overarching laws organising the different observations aren’t really discoveries as much as very useful and predictive constructions. The simulation argument doesn’t belong in that category.
ABM: fuck you too, dipshit
you know, I love the internet. Normally, I don’t get to say stuff like that to people who really deserve it.
Lilly: you have a dick?
sorry, shouldn’t jump on typos like that…
I think I have seen you use it before, or someone, at least, and quite frequently, too. It’s in the quotefile as well.
Lilly,
Did you use the quote at RD.net? :) … I did read it somewhere recently, maybe it was someone else.
negentropyeater:
Akshay got there before I did with a lot of what I was going to say! What she says – #232.
Wazza also mentioned Occam’s Razor, which states that when choosing between two explanations go with the simplest one that explains all the data.
An external world that our senses can sample does explain all the data we receive from our senses and is more parsimonious than a vastly complicated simulation that would have to be set up, maintained e.t.c. and presumably exists within a separate external reality itself.
In your simulation scenario, you have two sets of reality to explain the same data where only one will do the job perfectly adequately, hence – Occam’s Razor cuts away the simulation.
This post is a poor example of what you’d otherwise be right to complaining about, AnBiMy. Here, it’s a challenge to the many Christians who don’t think like Bracklin to begin to refuse to let the Bracklins of the world speak for them, and to start making some noise on the side of science and rationality themselves. You know, like Scott Hatfield already does.
Lilly: should I have defined that? I just assumed anyone who’d heard of the fallacious concept of negentropy had also heard of Occam’s razor, which is part of the reason why negentropy is fallacious
So what do you suggest the Zetans argue then ?
The point of the simulation, or experiment if you prefer, is that it is the only way to verify our own theories of nature. But if we perform it, and that some intelligent beings come out of that experiment, and also learn about nature and also perform an experiment, etc… What would be your conclusion ? What would be the conclusion of the beings in the experiment that we have created ?
Neg: exactly the same, of course, if they really couldn’t detect the nature of the simulation…
the point is that the simulation has no effect, and therefore you have to assume it doesn’t exist. You can believe in it if you want, but if you’re going to do that, you may as well become a christian and have done with it. So long as you’re following the tenets of science, you have to stick with falsifiable explanations, and the simulation idea simply isn’t falsifiable.
negen,
Your argument would be more sound if you could show that God was doing his simulations inorder to test his theories of “his” own world. For all we know, our God could be a prankster playing with a particular simulated world. And as with Zetans we can not simply rely on the information we gather from our psuedo-world to educate us about the “real world”. Unless god can be shown to be a computer scientist interested in checking his theories about “his” reality you can not assume “what we happened to do in our world (ie run simulations) is what is happening to us(ie. we are in such a simulation ourselves)”. Or else you’ll be wrong like the Zetans.
(Wow… how did nine comments slip in between AnBiMy’s and mine?! I must have nodded off… LOL)
The PKD quote is ubiquitous. I dunno if Lilly’s ever cited it before, though. (Does it matter?)
akshay said:
I don’t tend to comment on RD (although I do lurk there sometimes) I’m afraid, so I assume that it must have been someone else.
:-)
Lilly,
“In your simulation scenario, you have two sets of reality to explain the same data where only one will do the job perfectly adequately, hence – Occam’s Razor cuts away the simulation.”
Let’s assume that our universe was caused by a perfectly natural quantum transition in a previous vaccuum state. Let’s assume that we have a sufficently well defined model describing this and that we want to verify it.
Now we perform this experiment, or simulation, in order to verify our model. This newly created universe will look to us, the observers, as a black hole, but we know, from the holographic principle, that by analysing the surface of its event horizon, we should be able to create a simulation of what is happening inside.
Now, we are observing inside that new universe, which obbeys the same laws of nature as ours (it’s supposed to be so, that’s how we have defined the experiment…). Nucleosynthesis, supernovaes, planet formation, life, evolution, and everything develops in a similar way as our own interpretation of our own history.
Now we are observing some intelligent beings in this new universe, and they are asking themselves the same question, what caused us ? And they do the same, another experiment, and etc…
Now you say, no, no, no, occam’s razor, this is too complicated. Our universe must have been the result of a purely natural cause. There are no observers in this previous vaccuum state. Fine. But what about if we still are capable of performing such an experiment, and we do it ?
But we can’t produce a simulated universe (within this universe) that “fits exactly ours”, since it would by necessity contain less information, and it would be running in a different medium. Any computer simulation that we can currently conceive of needs to be fed with outside energy. Our universe doesn’t.
Wrong, to treat evolution or the Big Bang as scientific hypotheses we don’t need to produce an one-to-one simulation of either. We look at the traces they have left in the present.
I personally don’t prefer to think that we are a result of scientific fraud… You don’t “tweak” your simulations while the experiment is running!
I wouldn’t agree with this but rather say we developed tools to enhance our senses.
All that proves is that a)much of current physics is wrong and b)we can make universes! Koolz, no?
It doesn’t prove that our universe arose in the same way.
Indeed, what if no intelligent life tries the experiment in our little simulation? What if we get five or six iterations down, then no one tries it? What does that prove?
Your argument is based on the idea that if we can do it to the zetans, someone must have done it to us. But ability does not equal intention.
Akshay,
“Your argument would be more sound if you could show that God was doing his simulations inorder to test his theories of “his” own world.”
Sorry if I didn’t express myself clearly enough, but that was precisely my point. Thanks.
But Neg, you can’t show that!
negen, probably you read me wrong, when I said “Your argument would be more sound if you could show that God was doing his simulations inorder to test his theories of “his” own world.” I wasn’t saying that if you inserted “his own world” into your argument then it would be correct, instead I was arguing that you need to SHOW that God is such a computer scientist simulating “his” world. As I argued in my previous post, why should we no assume that God could be just running some random simulation with different rules and different realities that have no bearing to the world in which God himself lives.
Er… and if I may respond to your post #247- I don’t think anyones questioning you about whether it is possible for us in the future to make similations with people inside them who infer the same things that we#ve inferred about our natural world. The only question I’m asking is “Why assume we live in a universe run by a scientist-God and not by a “game junky” ? Also , why not assume we are in a “dream” after being drugged by God?
i’m not saying what you think is not possible. But I’m asking you why you only think of all the other possibilities you think this one is more likely to be true?
Windy,
I think in the future, we are going to want to know a little bit more about our own boundary conditions than we do today. The whole problematic behind the different theoretical models of quantum gravity is to define experiments that can in the future verify one or the other and help us to understand better, what were the conditions which were required to cause the big bang.
We still have a lot to learn from theoretical physics, and we’ll need many more experiments for that.
The last paragraph was very unclear. Sorry. I’ll write that again.
I’m not saying what you’re defending is not possible. But, I’m asking you why you think of all the other possibilities one can come up with the only one that is more likely to be true is the one you thought?
Er.. or is that still confusing?
There’s nothing in your scenario that isn’t a result of a natural cause! So if the people in the baby universe conclude that they came about by natural causes, good for them.
Besides, previously you talked about “computer simulations” and now you are talking about entire new universes, which is a bit confusing. Those are clearly two different things.
#254: this doesn’t have much to do with what I said.
Ok I’ll try to be clearer this time negen.
Suppose we are living in some pseudo-reality. We don’t know yet what the other reality is about. But in our world we can come up with computers that can simulate our world even to minutest detail.
It is also possible that in our world we can create a drug that puts who ever who takes it into a a coma-like state where they have very vivid dreams which look indistinguishable from reality. Now which hypothesis should we prefer?
Are we in a “dream” or a “simulation” ?
Akshay,
“i’m not saying what you think is not possible. But I’m asking you why you only think of all the other possibilities you think this one is more likely to be true?”
I don’t think it is more likely to be true than a purely naturalistic one. I think they are both serious hypothesis that should not be neglected.
When it comes to the philosophical interpretation of either, that is a different ballgame. All I’m certain is that religions invented things at a time when we knew nothing. But it doesn’t mean that the notion of God(s) should be rejected once and for all. That’s not the attitude of someone who is trying to find the truth.
Sure negen, you’re right that we shouldn’t ever treat such notions as “false” by default. But they are pretty vague as of now and can’t be considered plausible either(just possible). So, we can agree to remain agnostic about it, I have not problem with that.
negentropyeater,
I’m not sure if you’ve run across it but your “University as experiment” scenario has been explored already (albeit in fictional form) most recently by by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen in “The Science of Discworld” series. If you haven’t already I’d strongly recommend getting your hands on them, as I think you’d enjoy them [/plug].
My point is however that Occam’s Razor works by using the explanation that best fits the available data.
Could such a simulation as the one you are describing be going on? The possibility is not zero, sure (it is impossible to prove a negative) but we don’t need to worry about the possibility until some evidence comes along that cannot be explained by the current “best” explanation of 1 Universe, no simulation.
If we think about reality any other way we are going to get ourselves in a muddle as there are literally (I hate it when people misuse this word but in this case it applies) an infinite number of things that cannot be disproved but if we think that the fact that the probability of their existence is more than zero means we have a license to believe in them we’re going to have a very crowded set of beliefs.
Can you prove that there is a zero possibility that there aren’t an huge number of invisible and incorporial hippos doing a massive conga around the Universe as we type, for example? If you can’t, I seriously doubt that you are then going to argue that the Hippos are by that definition a scenario worth taking very seriously.
Windy,
I talked about “simulations”, never suggested that we were somehow living in a “computer simulation” (if you think of a computer as a well defined object that uses a 2D visualisation). I don’t know right now how to make a 3D interface that simulates the real world, but who knows what will come in the future…
The point is, when you starting thinking of a 3D simulation of a universe, it’s awfully difficult to distinguish it from a real baby universe, isn’t it ?
Lilly,
sorry, I’m really doing a bad job at expressing myself.
My point is :
The hypothesis that we might be living in a universe that is the result of a scientific experiment (or 3D simulation, which ever you think is best), performed and observed by scientists in a previous mother universe, is rendered more plausible by our own scientific search for the truth. It is the idea that we, one day, might very well be in a position (once we understand better the boundary conditions and the type of state which was necessary to cause the Big Bang) to experiment and create such baby universes.
negentropyeater:
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree here.
As I said the possibility is not zero, but the likelihood of scientists being able to pull of a stunt like that, plus observe us on a regular basis without leaving any evidence of their presence for us to find stretches my definition of “plausible” beyond snapping point.
Also, if you don’t mind a note of caution – beware of positing “future science” as a way of waving away current physical laws/limitations e.t.c. It sounds less superstitious than a standard miracle, but taken to extremes sufficeintly advanced future technology can potentially do anything at all, and is therefore as unfalsifiable as “goddidit”.
But your scenario is naturalistic as I already pointed out! It’s just a different naturalistic scenario.
You did talk about computer simulations in #136 but OK, that’s not so important… but computers don’t use “2D visualisation”! Common computer screens do, but the computer can simulate as many dimensions as it’s capable of.
And our universe is not 3D, it’s at least 4D and possibly much more.
I hate to quote Searle, but a computer simulation of a hurricane doesn’t get you wet…
This is a fun discussion but it’s a bit frustrating when you don’t address most of the counterarguments. Like that a computer simulation is running on energy from the outside, that’s a major difference right there.
Lilly: Marry me!
Neg: Just because it’s possible, doesn’t mean it’s the best or even a likely explanation. And it’s always been possible to think about these sorts of things. But if you think of a two-universe system, where one created the other, but there are no other worlds, do we then have to be the one that was created?
In other words, you’re blowing it out your ass. Actually read the arguments made against your theory, then come back with sensible arguments for your position. I for one have told you about five times all the different reasons why your hypothesis can be summarily rejected pending better data. If a PolSci undergrad can do that, you should consider maybe thinking your ideas through a little more, k?
I mean, it’s interesting and all, but it’s getting a little repetitive.
“Can you prove that there is a zero possibility that there aren’t an huge number of invisible and incorporial hippos doing a massive conga around the Universe as we type, for example?”
Damn! I was sure I was going to get priority for my explanation of cosmic acceleration!
No, but I can prove that hippos perform ballet.
Just because it’s possible doesn’t mean it matters, especially when it comes to science. I tend to say, “It’s possible that the universe was created yesterday, with everything exactly as it is and all our memories created intact. But that’s not the way it looks.”
The problem with the “it’s possible” game is that there are an infinite number of varieties. For example, “It’s possible the universe was created the day before yesterday…” etc, etc, etc.
Now, I look at it from a probabilistic standpoint. If there are an infinite number of possibilities, and all are equally valid given the information we have, then the probability that I would invoke the right version is infinitesimally small, and if I were to make such a claim, I would inevitably be wrong. Thus, I don’t claim to know the answer, but I can assuredly say that anything claimed about something for which there is absolutely no information is going to be wrong.
Hence, it doesn’t look like we are part of simulation. Thus, any speculation that is presented about whether we are and, if so, how it works, is wrong. Has to be.
Windy,
sorry, had to leave for a while.
You are assuming that one of the inflationary models is true, and that no outside energy was required as the negative gravitational energy of the inflation balances the matter and radiation energy produced. That is indeed a serious hypothesis. But tell me one thing, how are we going to find out if it is true, without any experiment ?
It fits the data you say. But then why would there be several hypothesis, some with a hypothetical inflaton field, some without, some which require a huge fine tuning, some without any inflation at all, some with a vast inflating background, some that result of a quantum fluctuation in a non inflating background, etc…
So we are going to need more data, we are going to need to experiment, that’s the only way we can understand better. Look at the LHC, what kind of experiments will we be realising in 20 years, in 50 years, in…
I mean, you really think fundamental Physics is going to stop there and that as we try to dig deaper in our understanding of this most fundamental question, that we are not going to be forced into defining more and more sophisticated and precise experiments to try to reproduce the initial conditions of our own universe ?
Pablo,
and I say, “It’s possible that our universe was created 13.7 b years ago, by a team of scientists who had understood with great precision the laws of their universe, as the result of an experiment. And it looks as if we could end up doing the same…”
and I can also say, “It’s possible that our universe was the result of a quantum fluctuation 13.7 b years ago, in an eternal background vaccuum.”
Now, can you explain to me why one is more, or less, probable than the other ?
Hey Neg… I’m in over my head here, but I’d say we have no idea what the probabilities of either might be. The only difference, really, is that the first option doesn’t suggest how that universe came into being – which, IMO, has no bearing on the probabilities of Option 1 being the explanation for our universe.
Why? Because we needn’t necessarily fall into infinite regression, for even assuming Option 1, there’s an equivalent (in that it is unknowable at this point in time) probability that our parent universe came about by means of some variation of Option 2 rather than by another iteration of Option 1.
Critique as needed. :-)
No, silly, I am noting that our universe is not currently being sustained by an outside source of energy as a computer simulation would be.
I think it would be clearer if you didn’t refer to the baby universe as a ‘simulation’. It’s misleading, like referring to exact physical clones of people as ‘simulations’ of people.
Windy,
how are you noting that ? What causes the acceleration of the expansion of the universe ?
Tulse, how can you scientifically prove that no deity ever answered a prayer?
James Goetz, can you demonstrate that you have a sufficient understanding of science, or at least an earnest desire to learn, to warrant anyone taking the time to answer this question? (Hint: science doesn’t ‘prove’ anything)
@ randy #77:
This is a very vague statement, in the tradition of apologetic rethoric.
But FWIW I analyse it thusly: how can you at the same time have an importance for a relation and have it completely allegorical? It doesn’t pass a smell test IMO.
@ Juan Zanzeros #155:
Boltzmann’s Brains is a trivial counterexample.
@ randy #77:
This is a very vague statement, in the tradition of apologetic rethoric.
But FWIW I analyse it thusly: how can you at the same time have an importance for a relation and have it completely allegorical? It doesn’t pass a smell test IMO.
@ Juan Zanzeros #155:
Boltzmann’s Brains is a trivial counterexample.
@ negentropyeater #156:
Dawkins’ argument in TGD is an interplay between creative agents coming late and probabilities for creation. This argues against experiments.
I agree that the argument is weak, but OTOH it is stronger than the alternative.
We can currently not do statistics over multiverse ensembles, so this is an open question. What isn’t open is if you come to the end of your regress, where the one universe claim applies.
Sure, you can claim an infinite regress but it sort of invalidates the religious concept here. This is the area of open questions like simulated reality and solipsism. Parsimony and universalism of scientific theories argues against those as null hypotheses.
Um, no – we have plenty of examples of natural phenomena. :-P In fact, it is the null hypothesis of science as formal method.
@ negentropyeater #156:
Dawkins’ argument in TGD is an interplay between creative agents coming late and probabilities for creation. This argues against experiments.
I agree that the argument is weak, but OTOH it is stronger than the alternative.
We can currently not do statistics over multiverse ensembles, so this is an open question. What isn’t open is if you come to the end of your regress, where the one universe claim applies.
Sure, you can claim an infinite regress but it sort of invalidates the religious concept here. This is the area of open questions like simulated reality and solipsism. Parsimony and universalism of scientific theories argues against those as null hypotheses.
Um, no – we have plenty of examples of natural phenomena. :-P In fact, it is the null hypothesis of science as formal method.
Hey PZ. I’m an atheist with a B.S. in biology, cranking up for grad school, and teaching high school in the interim. So even though I’m teaching algebra (special ed), they pulled me aside to assist in tutoring at-risk seniors for the biology session of the NCLB test.
I’ve got a “evolution in five statements” lecture I thought you might be able to spread around.
1: DNA determines characteristics. That’s trivial and won’t be contradicted.
2: Mutations occur. These are random changes in a single individual, and as changes in DNA, they can be changes in characteristics at the cellular level. Ask anyone with cancer, or achondroplasia.
3: Individuals who are bad at reproducing, don’t have as many kids to pass on their genes.
4: Mutations which are bad for an organism’s reproduction (or survival), therefore, don’t get passed to the next generation as frequently, or at all.
5: Over many generations, getting and keeping a lot of mutations can change an organism into something with totally different DNA, and therefore totally different characteristics.
What I’ve learned from special ed is: you can’t give ’em the chance to nitpick and misunderstand complex ideas. Five uncontrovertible statements that break it down, are better for the average ordinary preacher-ridden kinda guy, than a thousand peer-reviewed journals.
Stuff about founder and bottleneck effects, robust populations, genetic diversity, gene drift, all that is trivial, and belongs after they get the basic concept down.
I laid it out like this in a little rural high school in deep south Texas, and got nary a complaint. Went so far as saying, “Yes, this means that your ten-thousand-greats grandfather was a monkey*,” and nobody batted an eye. What was there to complain about?
The other thing that people mess up on is that they don’t understand the unbelievable amount of time involved in evolution.
*or whatever the number is, Dawkins gave a number in The Ancestor’s Tale but I couldn’t recall it.
#273: stuff within this universe causes the acceleration. I’m not sure what your point is anymore, though. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, in #270 you are comparing two naturalistic theories, not a ‘more naturalistic’ and ‘less naturalistic’ one.
A Few Things
#1. According to what we know now this (the theory in question) is the best description we have of this (the phenomenon in question). In the future as we learn more about the phenomenon the theory describing it will change to account for our new knowledge, and may even be replaced entirely.
#2. From Lily du Lure @ #260
Were that the case wouldn’t the Universe be contracting, and with alacrity?
#3. Where computer simulations are concerned, think computer modeling instead. And using computer science and technology rather more advanced than ours is above basic counting on your fingers. May even be divine ability level tech.
Furthermore, our universe may be a model for a universe established using particular parameters. Not just the constants, but also including the how things work and are but together. In S. M. Stirling’s Dies the Fire trilogy the suggestion is made that the Emberverse has no electrons (and thus no electricity), but compressible shells around an atom’s nucleus. (At least that’s the reading I got, Steve tends to be tight lipped about how the Emerverse works, leaving a lot of lee way for the reader’s imagination.) We have the forces Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear, and Weak Nuclear plus the phenomenon (Gravity) we insist on calling a force because the model we live in was designed to have such.
Here’s another thing, how do we know this model is not reality for us? That the phenomenon that is us did not spontaneously arise in this model as a consequence of how the original ‘script’ was written? That is, for us this is not a model or simulation, but reality.
Um, you don’t. And specifically you never “prove” anything in science. That is what you do in formal theories on static knowledge – and science isn’t static.
Science is empirical, so you have to accept a quantifiable uncertainty.
What you can do with scientific method is to establish certainty beyond reasonable doubt. This is what happened with Templeton’s prayer studies, there was no difference between praying or not. (Or, IIRC, it was better not to pray. A scientist would conclude (and presumably test) that this is because of some psychological reason).
Um, you don’t. And specifically you never “prove” anything in science. That is what you do in formal theories on static knowledge – and science isn’t static.
Science is empirical, so you have to accept a quantifiable uncertainty.
What you can do with scientific method is to establish certainty beyond reasonable doubt. This is what happened with Templeton’s prayer studies, there was no difference between praying or not. (Or, IIRC, it was better not to pray. A scientist would conclude (and presumably test) that this is because of some psychological reason).
A wise book said once…
Two ideas that are very intimately connected with any theory of organic development, are heredity and variation. Heredity is shown in all the various ways in which an animal or a plant is like its parent. Variation is illustrated in the ways in which it is unlike its parents or its ancestors. The two ideas are antagonistic; if variation had full sway there would be no stability of type; if heredity only prevailed there could be no evolution. In Darwin’s day very little was known about either of these principles; but this ignorance of the real facts permitted Darwin to assume almost anything he wished regarding variation.
Did some wake up on the wrong side of the bed in this blog? Such hostile posts in this particular topical blog for some teacher collecting data…
It’s always circular logic with these people. They say or do something totally ignorant or insensitive and then claim that the reason they were such a jerk is because they are Christians.
I don’t see the logic of this comment, what did that teacher do that was so bad? The bottom line is government schools are terrible, this man thinks by bring traditional values into the school will fix the problem. It’s a noble idea in a failing public school system ranked very low compared to the rest of the world with less resources than our own. But the idea though noble as it is, isn’t the answer for a terrible government controlled system.
Michael: uh, what?
Where did that come from? It seems completely unrelated to the post. Also, your quote isn’t true; if you actually read the origin of species, you’ll find darwin’s case is built on what was known of variation and heritability at the time.
so, yeah. Read the blog post. Read the comments. THEN write something, maybe, if it’s pertinent. And write of what you know – I add this because you obviously don’t know anything about Darwin.
And your antagonism to government controlled school systems is completely irrational. A system is as good as the input. If you input unsupported nonsense, you’ll get unsupported nonsense.
PZ,
Actually PZ, contrary to what you seem to think, many of us actually LOVE good science. And I want to thank you for helping to put me in touch with David Brackin. Just goes to show that it really does pay off to read your blog!
And, some of us don’t think you’re a lost cause either.
Kevin
reply to Raven at post #28
“I’ve been keeping a running tally of scientists and science supporters persecuted, beaten up, and fired by fundie creos. Well documented cases are up to 11. There are many more, most not well publicized.
Posting the list of who is really being beaten up, threatened, fired, attempted to be fired, and killed. Not surprisingly, it is scientists and science supporters by Death Cultists.
There is a serious reign of terror by Xian fundie terrorists directed against the reality based academic community, specifically acceptors of evolution.”
Raven,
I’m sorry to see any of the 11 victims on your list, however, you have a LOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go to catch up to the thousands of cases where Darwin Skeptics have been fired, denied degrees, denied tenure and have suffered the loss of their careers, families, homes, jobs, etc.
The terror train to be concerned about really isn’t from fundies – it’s running much more strongly on the evolution track, I can assure you.
You may not think it’s a big deal for Darwin Doubters to suffer what my investigation into this subject have shown, however, you should think about this: Academic Freedom cuts both ways.
thanks