Jesus gradually being phased out of American society?

Post Reply New Topic

I have to ask - just as I have to ask some Christian why they feel that losing 168 consecutive hour creation would invalidate Christianity - are you claiming that evolution is foundational to science, that if you teach any alternative to evolution you have sabotaged scientific education and the science project?

It was my impression that the various theories of evolution came OUT of the scientific endeavor, not the other way around. Just as a sense of God explicitly IN the scriptural narrative predates the Genesis account.

somehow got a duplicate posting and not allowed to delete it, but still allowed to edit it.

so I deleted the duplicate text and put this here instead.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 28 Nov 2010, 11:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." That was a quote from Dobzhansky back in 1973 and it still applies today. As for alternatives to evolution, scientifically THERE AREN'T ANY! That's the thing that gets me, that people pushing "intelligent design" or "scientific creationism" claim they just want to be fair. Alternative ideas deserve equal time only if they can explain the evidence equally well. Evolution is supported by and explains the evidence in a logical consistent manner. Creationism doesn't. Most of creationism's claims are not testable and are therefore not science, but those claims which can be tested have been proven false many times by many people.

Of course science and the scientific method can be taught without mentioning evolution at all, but as far as biology goes it's pretty essential as a unifying concept. There is at least as much evidence we are related to monkeys as there is that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa as Christians used to insist based on a flawed interpretation of the Bible. It is correct and proper to teach as FACT that evolution happens, based on accepted usage of the word fact.

I myself wouldn't object to teaching creationism in science classrooms, but I don't think the fundamentalist Christians would like it if it were actually done honestly. Their children would come home and confront the parents asking "Why do you tell me lies?" Creationism or its latest incarnation "intelligent design" is not science so doesn't belong in science classrooms. There are other classrooms more appropriate for discussions of religion than science classrooms.

As I indicated in my earlier post, one of the things that offends me the most about this "controversy" is the blatant dishonesty of those pushing the creationist agenda. Lying for Jesus is still lying. And to restate a key point, there is no scientific controversy about whether or not evolution happens. The "controversy" is a social one, not a scientific one. For creationists to imply that there is scientific controversy about this fact is another one of their lies. As I say in my song: "The scientists argue how it happened; they argue why. But they agree it did happen, it's senseless to deny."

Some states such as Texas, Louisiana, Florida and Kansas have really done their children a disservice by passing stupid laws about the teaching of evolution in public schools. There SHOULD be disclaimers in biology textbooks about evolution, something along the lines of “Even though all the evidence supports evolution and is explained logically and consistently by it, and even though we understand more about the mechanisms of evolution than we do about the mechanisms of gravity, there are many people who have been lied to about this subject who find evolution to be a controversial subject. Be warned!”

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 29 Nov 2010, 7:14 am, edited 5 times in total.

It is all about giving up the literal truth of the first few chapters of the Book of Genesis.

ruveyn

I'm not saying the Bible is not literally true. What I am saying is that such an interpretation is NOT supported by any evidence, is in fact falsified by evidence, and if you want to believe that or teach your own children that is fine but such an interpretation does NOT belong in a science classroom where everything must be based on evidence.

I have to ask WHY, if the God of the Bible is the Creator, why He would make it look as if the earth is billions of years old and life evolves if it didn't happen that way? Is He trying to test our faith? Is He a trickster?

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 28 Nov 2010, 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Quite so. Bible studies and Bible sources have no place in a science classroom. Science is a way of dealing with the natural order.

ruveyn

lol good riddance, can't happen soon enough.
But what superstition will it be replaced by? New Age?

Dobzhansky - never heard of him, did a quick uplooking.

By the way, I actually concur that religion does not belong in the science classroom. Nor does the dogmatism of my "THERE IS ONLY ONE GENIUS IN THIS FIELD" professor [he did not QUITE bow toward the east].

The science classroom should not be involved with the listing of fact - we want to see not facts but techniques and approaches and [to borrow a word] infusing a drive to seek for an understanding more accurate and comprehensive than what is in this year's journals.

Sorry to get preachy - I have felt strongly about this a long time.

What I find frightening and dangerous is the absolutism which crops up in all kinds of places. "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." ! !! !??? That is absolutely as disconcerting as "believe Genesis literally or be damned" [incidentally, I feel violated when some one insists days in Genesis must be literal but weeks in Daniel ain't].

Thing is - if a branch of science, if a religious belief, is so UNrobust that removing one domino, even from the foundation,. destroys the whole system, it needs some serious fixing. The whole of science is dedicated - or ought to be - to removing and replacing those hypotheses / theories / constructs found to be lacking. Fine to say, lots of phenomena in biology [WHICH IS NOT THE ONLY SCIENCE, friend] make more sense if we assume evolution. To say without evolution NO sense? That had better be nonsense.

As for "if Joshua's Hebrews did not blow down Jericho al of Chistianity is bunk" theology - a revelation that lacking in redundancy [linguistics my speciality] is no communication at all.

Thing is - to end this: scientific "fact" is ephemeral. What counts is the method. And, hey, the scientific method comes out of a creationist society, and is elegantly used by people who have no problem using the concepts and techniques and believing in one or more gods.

I agree that Dobzhansky's statement sounds dogmatic, but it is an accurate description of our current level of knowledge on this subject. As for one domino, evolution is far more robust than that. There are so many independent lines of evidence that show evolution happens, that if some of the pieces turn out to be misunderstandings or even frauds it does not invalidate that evolution is a fact of nature. Frauds are much less likely these days with so many people having so much access to information, but even so people like National Geographic magazine can be taken in by fake dino-bird fossils enough to put them on their cover. Note that it wasn't a scientific journal that was fooled but a popular one.

Think of evolution as a pincushion with a thousand needles of evidence sticking in it holding it up. If you remove one or two, or even a few dozen from the pincushion it is still held up. It is one of the most strongly supported and robust ideas in all of human knowledge, and as such is a good example to use for teaching how science works.

When one applies the scientific method to the creationist or intelligent design models, they fail. That's just the way it is, like it or not. I understand the argument made by Biblical literalists, that if Genesis isn't literally true then no Adam, no Fall, no need for salvation so why bother with Jesus. i think they're missing the whole point of the teachings of Jesus, but regardless of my opinion, their opinion is NOT supported by the evidence of the physical world. They can deny evolution until they are blue in the face and it won't change the fact that they are biologically closely related to monkeys! Like I've said more than once, denying the fact of evolution is just as ridiculous and just as wrong as insisting that the earth is flat. I find it interesting that some people in recent times who continued to insist the earth was flat would use their interpretation of certain Bible verses to "prove" it.

You can believe in whatever God you choose and still accept evolution as part of God's creation. Most mainstream religions worldwide have no problem accepting that evolution is an observed testable fact of nature, including most denominations of Christianity. Those denominations that continue to deny this fact, that base their whole faith on an interpretation that is falsified by the evidence of the world, will eventually either have to admit they were wrong about this or fade into obscurity as just another failed crackpot lunatic fringe cult. Like you say, if removing one domino from the foundation causes the whole system to crumble, it needs some serious fixing. Fundamentalist Christianity is in that situation even though they deny it, which is apparently why they go to such extreme distortions of logic and honesty to try to discredit the fact of evolution.

By the way, it isn't Christianity that is the problem here but the fundamentalist style of interpretation. That style has other problems besides being contradicted by physical reality. Many consider it to be bad theology in that it limits God to man's understanding of the words in sacred texts. There is a fundamentalist Muslim in Turkey who publishes books of pretty glossy full-color photographs of living things that supposedly disprove evolution, and he uses many of the same long-disproved arguments used by some Christian creationists. In science, once something is proven false, it is no longer used. Creationists on the other hand continue to spew lies that were proven false decades ago. As I said, it is the dishonesty of the Creationists that really offends me most, especially since they are supposed to be representing moral high ground.

Again I ask, if evolution did NOT happen, why oh why does everything we can observe and measure support the idea that it did happen? If one must believe in a literal account of Genesis, that makes God someone who planted false evidence in His creation. While the idea of a trickster God is amusing, if He is trying to fool us that way how trustworthy is that God on any subject including salvation?

Facts don't go away. They are not ephemeral in that sense. Evolution is just as much a fact as gravity is, and we understand more about how evolution works than we do about how gravity works. Did you know that?

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 29 Nov 2010, 10:38 am, edited 7 times in total.

"evolution is an observed testable fact of nature"

You need to be a little careful here - even if you use [as you said earlier] - an informal definition of "fact" I do not think my paleontologist brother would claim that evolution is OBSERVED and TESTABLE - Hard to do an replicable evolution experiment.

Be that as it may - I agree the Creation Sciene types are problematic - so are most of the mainstreamers who "debate" them - as if debate has ANYTHING to do with truth or fact however we define it!. As I have said, I have seen only ONE work - author starts with S, I could maybe still find where it is in the library, but I have no head for names - that actually had the intellectual guts to examine the REAL -- not straw man - arguments on both sides.

You read about the medieval anatomy course lecturer reads from the AUTHORITY who says where the spleen is, while the despised barber points to the place in the cadaver where the spleen REALLY is.

If you have the facts wrong, sooner or later you will find come up against a macine that does not work - you will wind up in the Caribbean instead of India. Which is what science is about.

Properly practiced, theology is a science [the materialist premise is not essential to the method.]

Evolution has been observed and tested in the field and in the lab. if your brother doesn't know that he is decades behind the times. Google is your friend. I also am not using an informal definition of "fact." I said "accepted usage" which you took to mean informal. That was not the meaning I intended to convey. Informal is not accepted in some circles. An example is the creationist distortion of the word "theory" as applied to evolution, where they use the colloquial instead of the scientific definition. Let me rephrase to clarify my meaning: there is as much evidence and reason to call evolution a fact as there is for calling the earth going around the sun a fact. Evolution is not "just a theory" any more or any less than gravity is "just a theory."

The medieval lecturer about the spleen example you give does not apply here. In this case, it is the creationists who lecture about how things "should" be while scientists describe how things actually are.

I am glad we agree that the creation science types are problematic. The mainstreamers who debate them are problematic only because by debating they give such nutjobs more credibillity than they deserve. Many scientists refuse debates about evolution for that reason. It would be like agreeing to debate somebody who insists the earth is flat, or an astronomer debating an astrologer, or a chemist debating an alchemist. It is a waste of time. The argument was settled long ago BY EVIDENCE, as was the fact of evolution among the scientific community.

I attended such a debate back in the 1980s at a Christian Life Center in Vacaville, California between some famous scientists and famous creationists. After the debate the audience was allowed to ask questions. Someone asked both the scientists and the creationists if sufficient evidence were shown to them that their viewpoint was wrong, would they change their mind? The scientists all answered "Yes, of course." The creationists all said "No, absolutely not." In a nutshell, that summarizes their respective positions. Scientists (good ones anyway) have their minds open to the truth, regardless of whether or not it agrees with how they think things "should" be. Creationists are committed to a rigid interpretation of an ancient book and automatically assume that if any evidence conflicts with it then it must be reality that is wrong and not their interpretation of that book.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 29 Nov 2010, 7:09 am, edited 5 times in total.

1. I would ask you to clarify precisely how you define "fact". I get a sense you are using it differently from my understanding. To me, in linguistics: it is a fact that in German there is a word Tier roughly equivalent in meaning to English "animal". It is a fact that in English there is a word deer, referring to one of several species of ruminant. It is generally accepted that these words have a common origin at some point in the history of the Germanic languages. Some of us speaking loosely may say their cognacy is a fact, but that is not formal usage.

2. Most mainstream evolutionists [with, as I say, one exception] I have read are remiss in that they do not engage and address the claims and evidence of the Creation Scientists any more than most of those of whom I am aware will directly engage the claims of evolutionists. It is irrelevant in this case who is more right - it is never scientific to dismiss an argument without finding out what is in fact [see above] being said.

3. Perhaps you can help me with a specific reference. A quick search for statements on evolution as observable and testable turned up nothing to the point except a rather trivial and circular statement.

There are several good resources out there, and of course many bad ones too.

Some of the creationist sources such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research are so full of lies, distortions and, PRATTS (points refuted a thousand times) that when I see anyone use those web sites as an authority I know they have no accurate knowledge of this subject. It isn't that the scientists don't address points made by the creationists. It is that in most cases (I would say all but that goes against my scientific principles, let's say 99.99%) the points these clowns make have already been addressed many times over, yet the clowns keep using the same arguments that have been PROVEN wrong long ago way beyond any reasonable doubt according to anyone else's standards but theirs.

A Usenet group I have frequented for about ten years is called "talk origins" and its stated purpose is as flypaper where creationists or people seeking knowledge about evolution can post questions or arguments without cluttering up the newsgroups used by researchers to communicate with each other. Many of its regulars are professional scientists and philosophers. Some are just amateurs with an interest in the subject. I have studied this subject intensely for about forty years.

If you have questions about evolution, I recommend the Talk Origins Archive. That web site has lists of FAQs (frequently asked questions) and a list of hundreds of creationist claims that are refuted pretty thoroughly, with links to creationist and scientific sources for the quotations and data used.

The article that pertains most to your first question is
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

As for your second question, there is NO evidence presented by Creation Scientists. They've had their day in court about a dozen times the past forty years, and every time they have not been able to produce ANY scientific evidence, nada, none, zilch, zip that supports their position. Thus, their claims are not worthy of debate by scientists since those claims are baseless. This is a theological debate, and a social or cultural one. It is NOT a scientific issue and hasn't been for more than a century.

Your third question about observations and tests of evolution is also addressed on that site, but the archive is sometimes years behind current research mainly because creationists haven't been able to come up with new arguments for a long time that haven't already been refuted a thousand times (PRATTS). Check Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

And of course I don't use only one source for any of my studies. I give you the Talk Origins Archive as one of the better examples of such a resource on this subject on the internet. There are many science blogs too. I don't agree with the attitude of some of them. I agree with you that science should avoid absolutism. One of my favorite blogs is The Sensuous Curmudgeon. He has a long list of previous posts on the sidebar, including a list of his best articles, and he keeps up with current events very well. The regulars who comment on his blog are also talented people entertaining to read.

I have other problems with the theology of the fundamentalist style of interpretation, but since their denial of what I know to be real is so blatant, it raises an even more serious question in my mind. Since they are so clearly so wrong about a subject that has so much physical evidence anyone can see for themselves if they have enough interest and motivation, how can I possibly trust their word on spiritual matters not so easily verified? Augustine of Hippo made this very point a long long time ago in The Literal Interpretation of Genesis (early fifth century, AD):

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are."

Google "who controls the American media"

Do some research on the influence of peoples thinking by the manstream media.

Do some research on those who control the media and thier atitude to Christ and Christianity for the past two thousand years.

It will all become apparent to you.

How about selective breeding?

While selective breeding has often been brought up in my perception range as a useful analogy for understanding natural selection, and while it certainly is a fruitful - fruit-fly-ful? laboratory for understanding gene-based trait inheritance, it can't really count here.

But selective breeding cannot prove natural selection, and [as far as I know] it does not address the question of speciation. Of course I am periodically puzzled as the balance swings in taxonomy between lumpers and splitters [I am a cautious moderat splitter when I do taxonomy, if it matters] and two birds I was told were different species fall into the same species and ten years later are separated again.

But have we selectively bred from a single stock critters that count as different species? Maybe by now - I do not follow it closely and my brother would not deign to tell me.

In any case, evolution is a straw red herring which some theists incautiously allow to perturb them.

Like the life on other worlds proposition, evolution is not an issue to serious JudeoChristian theology. The atheist latches on to evolution - AH here is a mechanism that lets us have cockroaches [survival of the fittest, friends], guppies, puppies, and even Yuppies without NEEDING to postulate God. SOOOOOO God doesn't exist, because how can anything exist if there is an alternative?

But, after all, Occam never proved that the simplest account is TRUE - just that in debate it is preferablde to go that route. If I am here today and in Karachi next week, did I NECESSARILY takde the shortest route? Or did I go by way of London and build in a stopover to visit my old haunts?