Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I was flipping channels and came across a video of a group of creationists who went to the Galapagos Islands in order to prove Darwin wrong. I didn't watch much of it, but I figured it was only a matter of time before such a well-funded creationist project showed up on the Worldnutdaily. And it reveals just how ignorant and ridiculous the people behind this project are. Some of this stuff is staggeringly idiotic. Like this:
He explained that Darwin accepted homology and morphology, believing common origins would be evident from similar body traits."The idea is that a man has a head, arms and legs and an ape has a head, arms and legs, so that shows similar ancestry and, therefore, a common lineage," Phillips said. "That was one of the fundamental bases of Darwinian thinking that came from the Galapagos."
However, he said even evolutionists don't believe that anymore because DNA has proven it's utterly false.
"We have eyeballs with retinas and rods and corneas, but so do giant squid - just like humans," he said. "Nobody thinks we came from the same common lineage. Creationists argue that it's because we have a common Designer, not a common evolutionary ancestry."
Scientists don't believe in homology anymore? I'm sure that will come as quite a shock to scientists. If anything, the case for homology has gotten much, much stronger with the advent of sequencing of proteins and DNA. Sequence homology in proteins and DNA provides a virtually irrefutable argument for common ancestry.
Here comes the serious stupid:
Another concept that came from Darwin's Galapagos adventure was Lamarckism, something Phillips said is "the cornerstone of evolutionary thinking.""The concept is, for example, if a giraffe stretches its neck, builds its neck muscles and develops a longer neck, it will pass on that trait to baby giraffes. Their necks are expected to be a little bit longer and stronger because of the practices of the parents," he said. "Lamarckism is the laughingstock of the scientific community because if I run a marathon and develop strong leg muscles and excellent cardio, does that mean my children will benefit from that? Absolutely not. That's ridiculous."
He continued, "We know that now because we understand genetics, and Darwin didn't have access to genetics."
For crying out loud. Not only did Lamarckism not "come from" Darwin's work, Darwinism was largely a rejection of Lamarckism (bear in mind that Lamark was dead before Darwin ever boarded the Beagle, much less published his theory). Darwin did very tentatively suggest the possibility of a related concept (pangenesis) as one mechanism of evolution in plants and protozoa, but it was natural selection working on natural variation that was his dominant proposed mechanism for common ancestry. The neo-Darwinian synthesis, integrating Mendelian genetics with Darwin's theory of evolution, put the final stake in the heart of Lamarckism.
What is truly bizarre is that Phillips simultaneously claims that Lamarckism is "the cornerstone of evolutionary thinking" and that Lamarckism is "the laughingstock of the scientific community." It cannot be both, and of course the first statement has not been true for the past 150 years.
Politics
Comments
Creationists can most certainly claim both things about Lamarckism at the same time. They believe to bible to be literally true, so holding contradictory claims in their head comes as naturally as breathing and using Hitler comparisons.
Posted by: JakeS | November 24, 2009 9:40 AM
Phillips also claims Malthus helped Darwin interpret his data (by that he implies Malthus did this directly with Darwin). While Malthus certainly influenced some of Darwin's ideas, Malthus was, erm, dead before Darwin worked seriously on his theories (1838) or published them (first synthesis in 'Species' in 1859). Ed caught the best one - the 'Darwin ergo Lamarck' nonsense..
Posted by: criswell | November 24, 2009 9:41 AM
This Mr Phillips seems to be ignorant. OK, OK, I know, no real scoop here. But he doesn't seem to know that our eyes and the squid's share interesting similarities, and also exhibit deep differences. I suppose that would require opening a book.
Also, dear creationists, if Lamarckism (or rather, inheritance of acquired traits) is so easily refuted, can you please explain why it had supporters until the 1930s approximately, and why it has been defended by people who didn't accept evolution?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | November 24, 2009 9:48 AM
Aaaaaagh. I wonder if his brain would explode if he typed HOX into Google...
Posted by: Bene Tleilax | November 24, 2009 9:54 AM
Judging by the level of foolishness, it will become a staple of creationist dogma with private showings followed by 'serious' discussions led by 'scholars' from the likes of Liberty U.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 24, 2009 9:54 AM
I hate to differ, but I think the serious stupid was right there in the first quote. Nobody thinks we share a common lineage with giant squid? Where exactly do they think squid come from? One more example of how creationist just can't get their heads past monkeys.
Posted by: Drekab | November 24, 2009 9:58 AM
Aaaaaagh. I wonder if his brain would explode if he typed HOX into Google...
Nah, he'd just dismiss it as atheist code for "hoax." It'd be no surprise to him that such a trick would fool non-Christians, as only a creationist has the discernment and divinely-granted intelligence to crack that.
Posted by: schism | November 24, 2009 10:02 AM
Not to mention that the eyes of giant squid are NOT "just like" humans' eyes, and the different morphology is absolutely consistent with the different branches of the evolutionary bush. Squid retina have the light-sensitive cells facing the front of the retina, where the light actually comes from . Our cone and rod cells face the back of the retina, so that the light has to pass through layers of blood vessels, bipolar, horizontal and ganglion nerves, not to mention the length of the rod or cone cell itself, before bleaching the photopigment at the tip. Because of this, we have a blind spot where all the supporting gunk has to exit through the retina (forming the optic nerve).
Given the number of times the convergent evolution of different eyes has been used to counter their claims of "the eye is miraculous, and could not have evolved!", I would think that even creationists would know this much about eyes.
Posted by: Anon | November 24, 2009 10:07 AM
When I just went over there (which I almost never do), the article was flanked by an ad for toilet paper. How appropriate.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | November 24, 2009 10:11 AM
Wow. I have seen some incredible creationist stupid before, but I don't think I've ever seen quotes that make it so obvious that the fellow fell asleep in high school science class. I vividly remember being handed a worksheet that contrasted natural selection and Lamarckism. It credit the illustrations.
Posted by: FishyFred | November 24, 2009 10:12 AM
Nice attempt at a Rovian tactic, there - hit 'em at their strengths. But he better check the Dembski playbook - I think he is straying off message.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 24, 2009 10:13 AM
Yes, he thought they were rocks.
Posted by: Spidergrackle | November 24, 2009 10:13 AM
I bet these creationists are trying to tie Lamarckism to evolution to also defend their false argument that atheistic, totalitarian Stalinist Russia embracing atheistic science theories led to their huge crop failures.
Stalin's agriculutural policies rejected evolution in favor of Lamarckism, yielding atrocious results. The lesson of course is that authoritarian adherence to scientifically weak or even falsified explanations results in atrocious results. Creationists don't want that to be the lesson since they also argue for ideologically-derived explanations rather than fact-based findings.
Fareed Zakaria's Post American World reports that China experienced a 180 degree turn-around in its economic growth prospects for one primary reason. China's leaders decided in the late-1970s that the best way for the communist leadership hold on to power was to grow the economy and increase the standard of living for its citizens. Their mechanism to do this was to base their decisions and policy on facts and the best explanations from functional experts, they essentially rejected ideology, even large aspects of Marx and Maoism on economic matters.
We see China's superior results since then in how far China has out-paced India, their economic competitor during this period who is democratic, capitalist, and English-speaking. We can also consider their application of sound Monetarist and Keynesian principles during this recession where they enjoyed a much quicker rebound than we've experienced. I would argue their beating us out of this recession is partly because the GOP has committed itself to economic policies since the mid-1990s that are consistent with conservative ideological principles but contra to sound economic principles, including conservative economic principles. China in turn has been actually using its authoritarian powers to enforce solid economic policies both in good times and in bad times.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 24, 2009 10:18 AM
Headline:
From the body of the article, quoting Doug Phillips, executive producer:
Which is it? Did they disprove Darwin’s theory or did they just find a way to interpret the facts differently. It’s kind of sad when you have to move the goalposts in your own article. But here’s the thing that really gets me about this “different conclusions” tactic the Creationists have been pushing so hard lately, it doesn’t speak to the correctness of their interpretation. It’s like a desperate plea to please, oh please, take them seriously.
Two people searching for a set of keys can wonder about how they got lost. The keys aren’t where they thought they’d left them. One may conclude they must have been mistaken about where they left them while the other can conclude that elves moved them in the night. The same fact observed, different interpretations, except one of those interpretations is nutty given there’s a natural explanation that works perfectly well and a complete absence of evidence for elves. But damn it, I believe in elves, says he, so everyone should respect that and give my idea equal weight.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 24, 2009 10:46 AM
Re Abby Normals post @ 14 - the 'sharing the same facts but arriving at different conclusions' meme, a dishonest pose their differences with Science are principled, is one I've been hearing more and more. Kent Hovind's kid used it in a radio debate I heard recently.
I consider it one more concession to science given creationists constantly give ground and therefore are continually moving the goal posts they defend backwards. I think the number of positive yardage pickups from scrimmage that creationists enjoy remains at zero. This reality has convinced me its not mere willful ignorance, but outright delusion that drives these people.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 24, 2009 10:57 AM
I'd like to add about squid eyes (since I've recently been researching the topic). They (and all things with eyes) have almost exactly the same proteins that are used to absorb light. While the structures (compound, camera, etc) evolved independantly, the basic chemical structure has been in place since (probably) before multi-cellular organisms.
Posted by: OgreMkV | November 24, 2009 11:07 AM
But Ed, Phillips is the cornerstone of creationist thinking that is the laughingstock of the scientific community. I'm sure he can't see the illogic in his statements.
Posted by: Umlud | November 24, 2009 11:44 AM
Creationists are not coming from a place of logic, so not only does Phillips wholeheartedly believe that both conditionals are true, but he cannot and will not see the fundamental disconnect in this line of thinking.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 24, 2009 11:54 AM
Since the squid eye clearly got the better design, this proves that squids not humans are the true chosen of the creator. That will be one awkward looking cross so.
Posted by: Mu | November 24, 2009 12:25 PM
I have a post at In The Agora about homology:
http://www.intheagora.com/archives/2009/11/when-is-similarity-homology/
Posted by: Chuck | November 24, 2009 12:41 PM
Well, I certainly came from the same lineage as squids; it just branched at an earlier point than my shared lineage with apes. Maybe creationists are aliens that unrelated to all life on Earth, and that's why they're so weird.
Posted by: catgirl | November 24, 2009 12:45 PM
Couple of comments here.
1) The author's name is extremely appropriate for this article. I've rarely seen a more blatant example of shilling.
2) Having said that, I must confess to being uncertain that Chelsea Schilling actually wrote that article. I think Doug Phillips was the actual author. The entire article was "'Blah blah blah,' Phillips said." Was nobody else on this expedition? Anybody else have anything to say whatsoever?
3) The fact that Darwinism was used as a basis for eugenics does not make it invalid. That would be "where Darwinism went wrong", not "where Darwin went wrong", and has no impact on the scientific validity of evolution.
4) As a side note, I'm pretty sure that Stalin was not an advocate of eugenics. He threw everybody in Siberia and threw away the key, regardless of race or religion.
Posted by: dcsohl | November 24, 2009 12:51 PM
blaming Darwin for eugenics is like blaming Newton for people who jump of the golden gate bridge.
Posted by: rob | November 24, 2009 1:33 PM
Ed.
I have been reading Dispatches for some time and do not think you need to spend any more time castigating the creationists. Entertaining as the castigation is, it does in the end fall on sterile ground..
They are children playing in an adult world where their efforts to please an uber-parent tend to be loud and annoying. They are irritating for sure, but still children and lack the rational facilities that are the hallmark of adulthood. Creationist, being children, cry and moan and complain and argue whenever reality has the effrontery to smack them in the face. Above all creationists want to believe in something that makes them special, not part of the muck, blood, and death that make up our existence. As with children, we must threat their tantrums with mature patience in order to guide them out of superstition and into the real world and resist the temptation to beat the crap out of them for being willfully stupid.
Posted by: Yeti | November 24, 2009 1:39 PM
The Lamarck thing is too wrong to just be incompetence.
This has to be some cool PSYOPS tactic to muddy the waters of thought so much for believers that the whole thing becomes unpalatable to them and they just turn off their brains. I'm not kidding.
Posted by: cm | November 24, 2009 1:39 PM
I think that you're right and you're wrong with this assessment. You're right that creationists (and social conservatives generally) are emotionally stunted and seek an authoritarian society that closely mirrors a strict parental prototype. But you're wrong that they are powerless to change this worldview; unlike children, they could potentially reprogram their lives and seek truth instead of clinging to the security blanket that they perceive authoritarianism as. The fact that most of them don't question or try to transcend this authoritarian paradigm does not mean that they don't have the choice to do so.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 24, 2009 1:52 PM
Curse thee spell checker--faculties
Posted by: Yeti | November 24, 2009 2:08 PM
Mu @ 20:
Does this mean PZ Myers is a prophet of God?
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 24, 2009 2:43 PM
Yeti, the most recent Gallop poll shows that about 44% of Americans believe that God created man whole and complete in our present form. Another 36% believe man devolved over time with supernatural guidance. Only 14% believe man evolved naturally. Almost half of Americans reject evolution entirely. It doesn't look like the time to stop "castigating the creationists" is going get here any time soon.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 24, 2009 3:03 PM
"The idea is that a man has a head, arms and legs and an ape has a head, arms and legs, so that shows similar ancestry and, therefore, a common lineage," Phillips said. "That was one of the fundamental bases of Darwinian thinking that came from the Galapagos."
Am I the only one who wants to know about these Galapagos apes?
Posted by: Rob Jase | November 24, 2009 3:04 PM
Rob @23: "blaming Darwin for eugenics is like blaming Newton for people who jump of the golden gate bridge"
very nice one. Thanks. I'll remember this.
Posted by: Gray Gaffer | November 24, 2009 3:08 PM
Er, developed, not devolved.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 24, 2009 3:11 PM
dcsohl @ 22:
No to "where Darwinism went wrong". Eugenics also gets Darwinism wrong given the scientific theory since Darwin espoused evolution amongst populations and their chances for survival. Eugenics equated some ability to selectively discern disadvantaged traits amongst individuals or a collection of individuals just like farmers did prior to Darwin and we still do today. I'm not an expert in this area but I'm pretty sure Darwin and his theory properly understood did not support the eugenics argument but instead eugenicists misrepresented both the man but also the theory to better market their views.
Perhaps someone like DaveL can better articulate my mediocre attempt to fisk this point.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 24, 2009 3:13 PM
Eugenicists were around before Darwin's theory became well known. It was co-opted to provide a thin veneer of science to racism and the paranoia about the lower "criminal" classes.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 3:19 PM
The fact that some bigots took some sciencey-sounding phrases from Darwin's writings and used them as a basis for eugenics, does not make Darwinism invalid.
There, fixed it for you.
Posted by: Raging bee | November 24, 2009 3:24 PM
I’m not an expert either, nor even a DaveL, but I’ll chime in with agreement anyway. One of the lessons of evolution is that adaptability is key in the long-term survivability of a species. To quote Darwin:
Genetic diversity drives adaptability. You never know what mutations may come in handy when conditions change or what future mutation may turn a marginal or "undesirable" trait into a beneficial one. Eugenics, quite obviously, limits diversity and therefore harms the long-term growth and survivability of our species.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 24, 2009 3:37 PM
I'm piling on Abby Normal's post @ 29 rebutting Yeti's argument @ 24. IMO our public schools are not even close to adequately teaching science in the schools, especially but not only evolution. Their primary impediment are creationists.
Yes most teach evolution, but nowhere close to the level and intensity it should be taught. That would mean a healthy dose right from the first science class all elementary students take. In terms of scientific literacy, I also advocate teaching how scientific theories differ from past or current methods to seek truth and the results of these competing approaches to seeking objective truth.
You don't yield world-class design and manufacturing without their having adopted processes and systems inspired by the scientific method. There are many other examples of how science has benefited humanity beyond pure science and/or which is a direct legacy of science. The fact we don't analogously tie the relatedness of these disciplines together while also increasing the intensity of developing critical thinking skills reduces the ability of people to independently conclude the absurdity of creationists.
Creationism should be a case study in defective thinking in our public schools, we shouldn't be ignoring it.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 24, 2009 3:41 PM
dcsohl #22:
Whilst you're correct to say that even if eugenics was based on evolution, it would not make it wrong, you're actually wrong to say that eugenics is based on evolution. At best, it is based on a severe misunderstanding of Darwin's theories. At worst, it is simply using Darwin's theories as an excuse for extreme racism and discrimination.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 24, 2009 3:50 PM
Posted by: llewelly | November 24, 2009 4:10 PM
The differences in architcture of human and squid eyes are the result of differences in developmental methods between deuterostomes and protostomes.
The ignorance of creationists about science flies in the face of the admonition, "Know your enemy."
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | November 24, 2009 4:30 PM
Reply to #'s 37 and 29
All I am saying is that castigation and ridicule on this blog is no more than preaching to the choir. To make a difference attend your school board meetings, track what your public servants are up to and enjoy Dispatches.
Posted by: Yeti | November 24, 2009 4:42 PM
@Yeti #41
Well, bust my buttons! Why didn't you say that in the first place? That's a horse of a different color!
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 24, 2009 4:55 PM
rob,
Or like blaming Christianity for the KKK or the Third Reich.
Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 5:01 PM
Boy, that brought on a flashback! Creationists never seem to discard old, long-discredited arguments, so ...
I was in elementary school, long ago; I was looking at a page in my "Science" textbook. It had a black and white photo of a giraffe, and the explanation that evolutionists believed that giraffes ate leaves from trees, so their necks stretched and - etc. Next paragraph; this was based on the theories of Lamark, which have been proved wrong. Conclusion I was supposed to come to: evolutionists were wrong about this, their basic assumption. 'Nuff said; back to real, God-centered Science.
Creationist science is so easy! You never have to discover anything new, just dig up an old, forgotten idea, spice it up a bit with new technology, and you're cookin'!
Posted by: Susannah | November 24, 2009 5:07 PM
In fact, would it not be more accurate to describe eugenics as a sort of Intelligent Design theory? Y'know, a conscious agent deliberately steering the genetics of a population?
We really should ask someone at das Entdeckungsinstitut
Posted by: Amadan | November 24, 2009 5:55 PM
Eugenics is based on artificial selection, not natural. Its model is Animal Husbandry, not the Theory of Evolution.
Posted by: Taz | November 24, 2009 7:08 PM
I was going to say that I think the most stupid part of the article was that they tried, in the first quote, to argue against common ancestry by denying commonality, but then claimed it was common design instead. But heddle has just gone and out-stupided even that. KKK and third reich were openly and proudly xian organisations, whose evil, like heddle's own, comes straight outta scripture. heddle, you're an evil idiot. Go away.
Posted by: eddie | November 24, 2009 7:32 PM
eddie,
You are an idiot who completely missed the boat. I'll spell it out for you: Just like people can co-opt evolutionary ideas for evil purposes (misguided support for eugenics) they can co-opt Christianity (or anything else) to support their lunacy. Whatever is convenient.
That probably wasn't worth the effort, I can guess it went right over your head.
Are you under the impression that you can tell people to stay away from this blog?
Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 7:55 PM
Well, I rarely miss a chance to needle heddle, so it's only fair that I also make note of when I agree with him. Indeed he understates things--eddie didn't just miss the boat, he was completely unaware there was a boat to catch.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 8:10 PM
"Or like blaming Christianity for the KKK or the Third Reich."
Sure, except that most folks who understand science are in agreement that eugenicists were not genuine darwinists. OTOH, there were lots and lots of tried and true christians in the KKK and the Nazi party--that's not a guess.
Posted by: democommie | November 24, 2009 8:42 PM
While I was in the Galapagos, Jerry Falwell disproved the Rapture (at least for himself), and nothing can take that away from me.
if a giraffe stretches its neck, builds its neck muscles and develops a longer neck, it will pass on that trait to baby giraffes...
So there are giraffes in the Galapagos? I remember that old chestnut from the "creation science" brouhaha in the 1980s. (Some ding-dong on TV also said, "The Jewish people have been circumcising their children for centuries, so how come children aren't born circumcised?" Gee, we've been painting our living rooms for decades, so why aren't houses built by now with living rooms already painted, genius?) They needed to go to the Galapagos to bring up that again?
Posted by: Kristine | November 24, 2009 11:17 PM
Ned Flanders: We want you to teach alternative theories to Darwinian evolution.
Principal Skinner (after a confused pause): You mean Lamarckian evolution?
Reverend Lovejoy: No! The Adam and Eve one!
Posted by: pough | November 24, 2009 11:33 PM
For the purposes of refuting this creationist idiot, you're right enough.
However, if I may be the nerdy, pedantic history of science guy for a moment, your characterization is rather historically inaccurate. Darwin himself never repudiated Lamarckism. He downplayed its importance relative to natural selection, but he did not reject it. And he was right not to reject it, because at the time Lamarckism was a plausible idea that seemed to fit the evidence. Evidence clearly refuting Lamarck wouldn't come along until later.
Also, Lamarckism survived long past the publication of the Origin of Species. There were still neo-Lamarckists in the early 20th century. It was never the cornerstone of evolutionary theory, but it certainly didn't die with Darwin.
And I don't think it's right to call Lamarckism "the laughingstock of the scientific community." A person in the 21st century who supported Lamarckism would certainly be a laughing stock (just like a person who supports the old Paley-style natural theological creationism is a laughingstock). But the theory itself was a worthy (if highly speculative) stab at an evolutionary mechanism. That it proved to be wrong doesn't make it a laughing stock (the same could be said for 18th century natural theology, too).
Anyways, those points don't in any way diminish your demolition of the creationist's nonsense. Just me being pedantic.
Posted by: Wes | November 25, 2009 1:43 AM
blaming Darwin for eugenics is like blaming Newton for people who jump of the golden gate bridge.
Or like blaming Christianity for the KKK or the Third Reich.
Well, no. Since evolutionary biology is not a prescriptive matter, it is purely descriptive. Newton and Darwin say "Given conditions X Y Z, then we can expect outcomes A B C". There is no comment on wether A B or C are good things or bad things. They will just happen. A cannonball WILL fall at a certain rate under certain conditions. The question of wether that is a good thing or not is left as an exercise for the reader.
Christianity, however, is prescriptive. The structures and texts of Christianity contain laws and commandments that say certain things SHOULD happen. So, for instance, the phrase "You shalt not suffer a witch to live", is not saying what WILL happen, it is saying what should happen. And so people who are devout Christians can and have legitimately pointed to it as a moral justification for the murder of witches. There is no way you can point to any scientific work and legitimately use it as a moral code.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 25, 2009 6:33 AM
Donalbain ,
Who said anything about moral codes? The point is quite simple and limited: you can murder someone and justify it on the basis of evolutionary theory or on the basis of Christianity. In either case you would be misapplying the underlying ideas. I didn't say evolution was like Christianity--I said that people can use or co-opt either, and have at various times, as convenient rationalizations for committing evil. It is manifestly obvious. And actually I think blaming Christianity for murder is a closer analogy to blaming Darwin for Eugenics than for blaming Newton for gravitation. I don't know of anyone who has committed evil and used Newton's gravitation as their moral excuse--but maybe I haven't looked hard enough.
Yes one is a science and one is a religion but that is quite irrelevant to the unfortunate person who was killed or sterilized or enslaved because some fool claimed to be applying the laws of evolution or the teachings of Christianity. I don't think they give a rat's ass that one is prescriptive--they would only wish, if they stopped to think about it, that the person committing the crime actually understood the ideas they claimed to be applying.
Posted by: heddle | November 25, 2009 7:15 AM
Heddle: You are wrong. Sorry.
There are no "rules of evolution" that you apply to decide what you should do. Evolutionary biology is DESCRIPTIVE. Not prescriptive. No scientific study will ever make the claim of what SHOULD happen. It tells you what WILL happen. A scientific study is silent on wether you SHOULD drop a cannonball, but tells you what WILL happen if you do drop it. O, in terms of evolutionary biology, it can tell you what processes WILL happen and what pressures WILL be placed on a population. No comment about what pressures SHOULD be placed.
Christianity on the other hand tells you what you SHOULD do.
Thus your analogy is fatally flawed.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 25, 2009 7:45 AM
Heddle: You are wrong. Sorry.
There are no "rules of evolution" that you apply to decide what you should do. Evolutionary biology is DESCRIPTIVE. Not prescriptive. No scientific study will ever make the claim of what SHOULD happen. It tells you what WILL happen. A scientific study is silent on wether you SHOULD drop a cannonball, but tells you what WILL happen if you do drop it. O, in terms of evolutionary biology, it can tell you what processes WILL happen and what pressures WILL be placed on a population. No comment about what pressures SHOULD be placed.
Christianity on the other hand tells you what you SHOULD do.
Thus your analogy is fatally flawed.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 25, 2009 7:49 AM
Donalbain,
Nonsense. We are talking reality, not theory. If some highschool student kills because he claims to be an agent of natural selection, or some Crusader kills because he thinks Jesus would want him to take the Holy Land, the result is the same. Someone is dead because someone else wanted something, and needed a rationalization.
Posted by: heddle | November 25, 2009 8:14 AM
OK Heddle, in reality, in the last 150 years how many persons have killed 'in the name of evolution', and how many in the name of religion'? Which excuse is the more commomly used?- DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 8:26 AM
DJ,
The religious excuse, overwhelmingly. So we can agree:
Eugenics/killing in the name of misapplied evolutionary theory is like Enslaving/killing in the name of misapplied Christianity though the latter has occurred much more often.
Posted by: heddle | November 25, 2009 8:33 AM
On the prescriptive/descriptive question I think heddle's analogy can survive simply because he formulated it along the same lines as the previous analogy to the bridge-jumper; that is, it had the limited purpose of making a parallel analogy and thus scoring a point which holds until you probe the underlying differences of the two elements (science and religion) and shows once again that they are different for all practical purposes, and shows repeatedly that they are of wildly differing values when it comes to doing useful things like, oh, I don't know, creating antibiotics.
We are conditioned to seeing devious logic from creationists--note the supposition above that the Lamarckian idiocy isn't just idiocy, it's one more new skirmish line in the debate for the minds of the mindless 50 percent. Because the logic of the Christian creationists is wildly creative and operates under evolutionary laws, it's important for scientists to anticipate any useful mutation in that logic and ready their defenses. That's because, as Michael Heath points out, creationism is causing serious damage to our science education process and therefore causing real damage to our nation while accomplishing as its only good the preserving of a few nonexistent souls for nonexistent salvation. And of course satisfying various public figures large and small that they still have the power to inflict their ideology on the society at large by debasing curriculum, confirming their bias by looking at iguanas, or scoring minor points off of a chatboard full of atheists.
So Heddle has the point, as far as I'm concerned. Good on ya. Next perhaps he can extend the victory to some real analysis of the planet we occupy at the moment. Perhaps the motivations of bridge-jumpers vs. the devout Christian Amon Goth?
Go for it.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | November 25, 2009 8:51 AM
I've never understood this creationist explanation for homology, the appeal to a common designer. That logic may apply to any designer except God, but on what basis should we expect a supreme being to reuse the same designs? He presumably had unlimited options and easily could have designed every species eye to work entirely differently if he so desired, and if he had it presumably would be a piece of evidence for his existence. Instead he's apparently made it look like he didn't have much direct involvement at all (or just doesn't exist of course).
Posted by: Spartan | November 25, 2009 8:59 AM
I think Heddles analogy works as far as it goes, one can use anything as a base when rationalizing harmful actions, whether it be interpretations of scientific theories, religion, or even talking dogs. So I agree with that aspect of Heddle’s comment.
However, I think the purpose of bringing up Christianity in that way, as revealed in his later comments, is to say that the people who use Christianity as a justification for harm are misinterpreting it. This implies there are both right and wrong ways to interpret Christianity and that I disagree with. Every Christian has their own interpretations and beliefs and they’re all still Christians. That it, it was a pretty standard No True Scottsman defense. It was just a little harder to recognize because it was in a discussion thread where Christians weren't being attacked.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 25, 2009 9:26 AM
Heddle - But don't get me wrong here, it's not the religions* per se that are evil, it's just that they seem to attract evil people who use the religions to fulfill some need. - DJ
------------
* I am not speaking of any particular religion here, but all
Posted by: DingoJack | November 25, 2009 9:27 AM
OK.. Once more for the hard of thinking.
The work of Darwin says absolutely NOTHING about what should be done. Nothing at all. If someone claims it does, then they are simply wrong. If I kill someone because I think that it is BETTER that the "less evolved" be killed, then that is based on some source of morality other than evolutionary biology.
However, if I kill someone because the Bible says that I SHOULD kill witches, then my morality is based in the Bible and Christianity.
Prescriptive/Descriptive
Ought/Is
Learn the difference
Posted by: Donalbain | November 25, 2009 11:39 AM
Donalbain, no one is disagreeing with that. It's simply beside the point. The descriptive nature of science doesn't prevent people from using it to rationalize harm. I pointed out that one can use instructions from a dog as a justification for harming others. That does not mean I think dogs can really talk. Only that the actor thinks one can.
Heck I use science to justify my actions all the time. For example, science shows that smoking has a high probability of being harmful to me. So I quit smoking. The science doesn't tell me to stop smoking. But I still point to it as a primary driver of my action.
Yes, you're absolutely right about science being descriptive and religion prescriptive. You're very smart. It's just not relevent.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 25, 2009 12:05 PM
Heddle, question for you:
If someone does something they claim is based in Christianity, can cite scripture backing up what they're doing, is approved by one Christian Church or another, but you, personally, think is is unChristian and goes against the tenets of Christianity, are they a Christian or not?
If you say they are, then you've just said that things like the Crusades and witch-hunt trials were Christian acts, perfactly in line with the tenets of Christianity, regardless of whether you, personally, approve of them or not. If you say they are not, then you've said you are a prophet of God who decides who is a True Christian or not.
Pick one.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 25, 2009 12:21 PM
Nope. The prime driver is your desire not to have cancer. Whether you WANT cancer or not is not a scientific question.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 25, 2009 2:22 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 25, 2009 2:32 PM
Correct, and still missing the point.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 25, 2009 2:33 PM
In light of James Hanley's comment (even I wasn't going to get that pedantic) I'll revise my statement to, "Close enough, and still missing the point."
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 25, 2009 2:50 PM
Perhaps the fact that Christianity is supposed to be used to inform people's actions, while the ToE is not, is one reason is more often misused in that regard.
Posted by: Taz | November 25, 2009 3:27 PM
Zmidponk,
Would you like to try false dichotomies for $800?
In fact, we are instructed by the bible to judge who is a True Christian™. That is, the practice of excommunication, which presupposes that we judge, is commanded in the NT. The Corinthian church was instructed to expel the man sleeping with his step-mother. It was not tasked to be a prophet--it was charged with expelling those who do not live up to a standard. Maybe the man was a Christian--and certainly some of the church members in good standing then (and now) are not. All we can do is judge based on the standards. And when we judge we are in effect saying: We are going to treat you as if you are not a Christian, with the understanding that only God knows your heart.
So when I say Fred Phelps is not a Christian, I mean: based on his deeds I will treat him as an apostate and a heretic, because that's what I'm instructed to do.
The crusades and the witch hunt trials are not in line with Christianity. Can you refer me to a teaching of Jesus (or an apostle) that states: After I let the Romans destroy Israel in AD 70, I want you to recapture the Holy Land by force. Or, hunt witches and put them on trial and if found guilty kill them.
So none of these is in line with Christian teaching. I am sure misguided Christians receiving bad instruction went along but that is why the bible tells us that teachers will be held to a higher standard.
Posted by: heddle | November 25, 2009 10:09 PM
What Jesus said, according to Matthew 5:17-18
17. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
18. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Hm. Exodus 22:18 rather bluntly states: "Suffer not a witch to live."
Now if Jesus said not one letter of the law was to be changed, and the law says suffer not a witch to live... Well, try to be honest for once in your life, heddle, and admit that Torquemada and the judges of Salem would have a biblical, even Jesus-instructed, foundation for burning witches.
Oh, wait, you'll come back with some prattle about what your variation of delusion thinks is or isn't law, what Jesus did or didn't mean, in 3...2...1...
You're so predictable in your mendacity.
Posted by: Aquaria | November 26, 2009 12:42 AM
heddle @ 73 - that's the boldest 'no true Scotsman' claim I've ever encountered. Astonishing really.
I'm not calling you out on the below, merely an observation about two groups I encounter. I know you don't subscribe to the following policies, but it's my experience.
One side of my family is German (Baptists). The ones that still reside in Germany are now all liberals. They had to confront the horror of what they enabled with the rise of Nazism, conceded their part, learned from it, adapted and fight for policies to never enable such atrocities again.
The ones that came over here just prior to or right after the war are virtually no different than they were when the left Germany (few of their kids are different either). America gave them an opportunity to avoid dealing with their own culpability regarding the horrors of WWII. They are in fact aggressively dismissive in any role they played (or their parents) in what happened while they apply the very same type of thinking and prejudices to new "others" here in America.
They claim that the Nazis were 'no true Christians/Germans'. There is a whole cottage industry of books that feed their delusion that tell anecdotal non-fiction stories about Christians helping out Jews, while avoiding what a far grater number were majority were doing to support the Nazis. They are primed to repeat history as our future generations (at least a couple more).
My personal opinion is the definition of a group is its collective acts, not merely its dogma always framed in an expedient manner. To run away from that guarantees bad behavior in the future because it enables avoidance of dealing with bad behavior and evolving.
Maybe not as bad, it all seems far less worse these days. Rather than throwing the Jews on the trains, we just 'hate the sin' by voting against gays all the while calling America a free country. But I gotta say, it wouldn't take much to get about 25% of the country to move from merely not letting them marry to far worse if they had power and were then pressured by their fundie preachers to take the next step, and the next step, and the next step, all justified by particular passages of the Bible. W. Bush never scared me as a fascist, he scared me because of what would follow, the incremental next steps if Rove got his 'permanent majority' wish.
My small culpability in all that was my longtime membership in the Republican party, and financially contributing to it, which tolerated social conservatives because they gave us a malleable voter constitutency, that is untill they took the party over and now demand we follow through with their insane positions. So now I gotta go reform myself, where Ed and his crowd have been a beneficial part of the prescription.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 26, 2009 12:49 AM
heddle #73:
So, in other words, you are using scripture to justify your judgement that the other guy is No True Christian™, even if the other guy has other scripture that says he is, and has approval from a Church for his actions. So what, precisely, makes you a Christian and him not, given that you both claim you're going by the Bible, if, as you imply, you're NOT claiming to be a prophet from God? The answer seems to be nothing whatsoever.
But if both your 'standards' and his 'standards' are both based on scripture, nothing gives you the right to make that judgement, if, as you've implied, you are not a prophet from God.
You're still not seeing the problem - the thing that 'instructs' you to treat him as an apostate and a heretic, according to what you've said, is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as what 'instructs' him to do what he does. So, given that you've implied that you are not a prophet of God, you have no real basis to say that he is No True Christian™, and that he, and the folk who carried out the Crusades and witch-hunts, are misinterpreting Christianity.
For witch-hunting, Exodus 22:18 - 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'. No doubt you'd say that isn't a 'teaching of Jesus', but that's YOUR version of Christianity. Others hold that the entire Bible is important, so it still holds, and, again, given that you've implied you are not a prophet of God, you have no basis to say that they are No True Christians™.
For the Crusades, the Biblical justification was that Israel was promised to the Jews by God way back in Genesis. Again, you'll no doubt say it wasn't Jesus who said this, but, again, whether that's important or not is down to YOUR version of Christianity.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 26, 2009 1:13 AM
Well Michael, on the plus side, even if the kooks are off the leash the plutocrats will still get their tax cuts and deregulation (because Jesus was apparently laissez faire, the Lord being only a regulator of morality) and the military-industrial complex will still get their wars (and, more profitably, the possible threat of the maybe-terrorists could-be-planning to perhaps attack America or somewhere), all paid for by not them. Maybe the corporatists will still manage to suckle the public teat (because "small governnment" seems to mean "sold to KBR, then leased back at cost-plus plus, then bailed out when it still manages to go to pot") if they push it hard enough on both FoxNews and all the liberal media they own.
They'll just have to hop the border when the wife needs more birth control pills, and maybe have to put up with State regulation and punishment of unapproved thoughts ("Shape up, Hollywood!").
Of course, this will only happen if the Democratic Party gets either complacent or corrupt enough to rally more than the Republican Party's shrinking base to boot the Dems out. And we all know that a party in power with no real opposition never lets that happen.
Oh, and the wingnuts might try to jump start Revelations.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 26, 2009 1:16 AM
Michael Heath - I think you would be wise to consider what Heddle is saying, even if you disagree with it, before pinning the "no true Scotsman" fallacy there...or at least, permit me to rephrase what he's getting at in different terms.
Suppose you have an acquaintance who is a doctor. You come to find out that this acquaintance is also somewhat sadistic (and not figuratively so) and has found clever and generally inconspicuous ways of including slightly painful practices (which leave no lasting damage) into his general course of treatment for his patients (who think these practices are a necessary evil for good health), merely out of a desire for personal pleasure. You conclude that this behavior is a violation of the physician's foremost rule: Primum non nocere (First, do no harm).
Now, one might say that your acquaintance is not a true doctor - that is, he does not uphold the basic standards to which he professes (having taken the Hippocratic oath) - although that might not be quite a sound judgment. But you could also say that he is a bad doctor and deserves to have his medical license revoked.
The latter move is analogous to what Heddle is saying: there are certain atrocities that by their very nature violate the basic precepts of proper Christian behavior, and even though they are not to be used to exclude those individuals from professing themselves to be Christians, these precepts can be used by organized groups of Christians to disown self-professing Christians who violate them and to mark them as "bad" Christians (ones that have grossly violated the most important precepts). These Christians, for better or worse, are excluded from the community but not from being able to call themselves Christian or claim that they follow the precepts thereof.
If Heddle were explicitly saying that people like Hitler and Torquemada are not Christians, then I would agree with you (and if Heddle jumps in with that claim, I will agree with you). But it seems to me from statements like
that Heddle is not making this move toward the fallacy but instead toward an exclusion from community, not from the title by a question-beginning redefinition.
(I hope that all made sense; it's late, and I've been feverish lately.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 26, 2009 1:17 AM
Christian Cynic - "I've been feverish lately", better go see a (no true) Doctor then. :)
The problem with your analogy is that one would say of this doctor: "he's a doctor, and a sadist", what Heddle is trying to say is: 'Christians are morally incapable of evil, therefore no true Christian", not really the same thing at all, is it? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 26, 2009 1:28 AM
Zmidponk: I happen to agree with you that figuring out which way is right is tricky, but it amazes me how seldom anyone ever stops to think about one little thing - despite it getting so much airtime around this domain.
What am I talking about? Three guesses:
...
...
Okay, I'll spill: reason. I know there are those around here who think that there's no way to apply reason to religion, but those aside, it is possible to say that the Salem witch trials were wrong based on reason even if it is the proper thing to put witches to death (which I don't think is true, consequently). Ultimately, it was in part the words of reasonable people like Increase Mather that stopped the trials, anyway, not merely a dispute over interpretation. (One would have hoped that reasonable people would have stopped the thing in the first place, but history rarely ever works out that way.)
I'm not saying this is the best way to handle matters; clearly it is not. But it does not seem to me that it is an insuperable obstacle by any means, just a difficult one. Lamentably, getting some religious folk to use reason is difficult enough.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 26, 2009 1:29 AM
DJ: I don't think Heddle is at all saying "Christians are morally incapable of evil" (and again, if he is, I will disagree with him and agree with you). I still take his statement regarding judgment to mean "Christianity does not tolerate acts of evil, and so perpetrators of such acts are to be cast out of the faith community (i.e. excommunicated)." Heddle will have to be the one to clarify the record on that.
And your statement about my analogy is not mutually exclusive to my statement about the doctor being a bad doctor (unless you think that the doctor's being a sadist justifies him causing harm to patients in order to satisfy his desire, in which case we'll have to agree to disagree).
P.S. I'm not so feverish now, although I imagine I'll need to see a doctor anyway after the holiday. Hopefully he/she isn't a sadist!
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 26, 2009 1:33 AM
Re: my comment @78 - that last part should be "question-begging" not "question-beginning." Remember what I said about being feverish? ;D
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 26, 2009 1:36 AM
Aquaria,
I'm am always amazed that people would think I never read Matthew 5:17-18. Did you read the part of the sermon where Jesus follows the pattern: You have heard (some OT law) but I say unto you (some upgrade of the law) Or did you happen to read, since you are dropping verses as proof texts, For when there is a change in the priesthood (referring to Jesus replacing the Levitical priests) , there is necessarily a change in the law as well. (Hebrews 7:12)
Or did you consider the possibility that what Jesus meant in Law or the Prophets was not a list of laws (why include "or the Prohpets"?) but exactly what this phrase means when it is used for elsewhere--it means Pentateuch and the books of the prophets--Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. That is, that what Jesus is in effect saying is I come not to abolish the Old Testament but to fulfill it.
Yeah, so what? The Old Testament calls for the sacrifice of animals for sin atonement. Do you see that in the New Testament church? Did they just forget? Were you not around to remind them that if it said to sacrifice animals in the OT, then they were required to continue? How did Peter and Paul miss that? And what is up with circumcision? The first church council described in the book of Acts issued a proclamation that it was not needed! But, but.. how could they do that? If you were there you would have said: you are wrong Peter, James, and Paul: see here is the verse from the OT--it is a death penalty if you don't circumcise! I demand you keep that law and stop liberating people from the law's yoke! Bad apostles, bad!
How could they make a blunder like that? I guess they didn't know the OT as well as you. And Paul, dear old Paul, always complaining about those Judaizers following him around, beating him up and telling the new Christians they had to obey the law--why, now that you've opened my eyes I see the Judaizers were right and Paul was wrong! Whouda thunk it!
This may be hard for you to grasp but for Christians when our savior completed God's plan of redemption on the cross at Calvary everything changed.
Bite me. That is the coward's way of pretending that they know how someone would respond and pretending that their little itty-bitty preemptive strike renders any response insignificant. You give the cue in 3, 2, 1... response of an intellectual sissy.
Zmidponk,
No, you didn't listen. The New Testament gives us the most important command for how we are to deal with one another: Love your neighbor as yourself. That is beyond refute--since Jesus himself gives the command and declares its preeminence. And in Matthew 7 we are told to judge one another (claimants to Christianity, that is) by our fruits. I judge that Fred Phelps produces no fruit and does not love his neighbor, so I declare him an apostate and a heretic. He is, of course, perfectly free to declare me the same.
So when a high school student kills his classmates and justifies it by an appeal to natural selection--then this due to HIS version of evolution? (I can use capitals too!)
Posted by: heddle | November 26, 2009 1:54 AM
Ah yes, but 'by their fruits ye shall know them'. Religions (and, to be fair, this has to be said of all of them) have condoned, encouraged, even instituted evil acts as organisations, therefore any member of that religion is no true member of that religion & etc,
The real difference between a religious and secular organisations, I think, is if you're going to hold yourself up a being morally superior to others, and claim that you have all the answers to life's questions (and a special hot-line to an imaginary sky-fairy or two, to boot), then you're going to have to live up to those vaunted ideals or risk being called on your hypocrisy. Simply saying "we forgive sinners in our religion [no culpability required for them], but those that are truly evil (even if they are senior members of the organisation itself), well, they're not a true members of this religion [no culpability for us]", just won't wash morally. - DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | November 26, 2009 2:05 AM
Heddle - how's that treeless garden going? :)
If someone shot up a school, say, and claimed it was because of Evolution*, we would describe them as delusional, possibly psychotic; if someone shot up school and claimed it was because of religion, we would describe them as immoral.
Science simply measures, describes and explains reality; it is religions that claim to describe what is right and wrong**.
You're trying to measure the distance to the moon in pounds.- DJ
-------------
* and as we agreed earlier, this hasn't happened at anywhere near the same rate as acts justified by religions. (or at all as far as I am aware)
** this could also be said of philosophy, I guess, but who shoots up a school for stoicism or utilitarianism?
Posted by: DingoJack | November 26, 2009 2:25 AM
So when a high school student kills his classmates and justifies it by an appeal to natural selection--then this due to HIS version of evolution? (I can use capitals too!)
No. Because evolutionary biology is silent on the issue of "ought". It speaks of what will happen. There is simply no way that it ever speaks of what people SHOULD do. Unlike Christianity.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 26, 2009 2:30 AM
DJ,
Say what? Where did you get that? Christians can murder, steal, cheat, defraud, rape, covet their neighbor's ass (I mean, you should see my neighbor) etc. However:
1) They cannot justify their actions based on the bible. In fact if they don't
2) do the opposite, i.e., acknowledge that these actions are contrary to the bible and demonstrate repentance then
3) after doing all that is commanded in Matthew 18 regarding church discipline--if there is still no repentance,
4) I'd support excommunicating them and treating them as non-Christians.
If that is subject to the No True Scotsman charge--who cares? How could you ever excommunicate if the No True Scotsman fallacy was some sort of universal prohibition on judging the merits of anyone's claim to legitimate membership--in any group?
Posted by: heddle | November 26, 2009 2:32 AM
DJ,
I would describe both as delusional, possibly psychotic and immoral. I don't see the basis for the different diagnoses.
Posted by: heddle | November 26, 2009 2:35 AM
Heddle - The difference is motive.
Evolution (as donalbain keeps forlornly saying) makes NO DISTINCTION as to what one SHOULD do. It simply is a theory that describes a possible mechanism that could shape species to fit their environments and so survive. Religion, however concerns itself with MORALS and ETHICS.
To kill for one is illogical; the other immoral BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE YARDSTICKS THEY USE.
Hence calculating the distance to the moon in pounds. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 26, 2009 2:57 AM
DJ,
Then both you and donalndbain have forgotten an important point: we are not discussing people who represent evolution or Christianity faithfully and with a perfect grasp --on the contrary we are talking about people who co-opt evolution or Christianity. The deranged student killing in the name of natural selection doesn't know or give a rat's ass that evolution doesn't say what you OUGHT to do--he's a friggin' lunatic psychopath who has latched on to evolutionary theory as a justification and a way to get through the day. As a lunatic it is not surprising that he mangles the theory--but that doesn't negate the sad fact that he is (mis)using it as his rationalization. (Whether sincerely or not is another question--who knows if he was sincere--who knows if the slaveowners who justified slavery by misusing Christian theology were sincere or self-delusional?)
Likewise if someone kills in the name of Christianity it hardly matters that while Christianity does indeed tell you what you OUGHT to do, killing ai'nt one of the OUGHTS. LOVING is one of the OUGHTS. Each killer misrepresents their chosen "world view" (Sorry, ~3:30 am and I am near the end of an 8 hour shift at the lab monitoring an experiment--can't think of a better word). Why are you telling me what the student did doesn't really represent true evolution? I know that. That's a feature of my argument, not a bug.
Posted by: heddle | November 26, 2009 3:29 AM
People, please! If nothing else, can we at least agree that Darwin lead to Hitler?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 26, 2009 3:42 AM
"Then both you and donalndbain have forgotten an important point: we are not discussing people who represent evolution or Christianity faithfully and with a perfect grasp --on the contrary we are talking about people who co-opt evolution or Christianity."
DingoJack & Donalbain:
Far more importantly; you have forgotten that heddle is inerrant when speaking about the ONE, TRUE, INVISIBLE AND UNKNOWABLE GOD. So, there!!
Posted by: democommie | November 26, 2009 7:36 AM
Heddle: The Bible says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". So, it is perfectly possible to point to the Bible as your MORAL basis for killing witches. Now, *you* might DISAGREE with them, and say that other parts of the Bible are more or less important than others with regard to that, but that is just a matter of opinion. And would lead to a discussion wherein you both throw pieces of text at each other in an attempt to prove your point. However, the fact remains that there is a clear statement in the Bible about the desirability of killing witches.
However, there is NO statement in any evolutionary biological paper or scholarly work that gives any moral opinion whatsoever on the killing of anyone. There is nothing there that you CAN co-opt. There would be no discussion on the matter, since the person saying that evolutionary biology says we should kill people would simply have nothing in the scientific texts that he could point at.
So, to say that using one to condone killing is like using the other to condone killing is either dishonest, or stupid.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 26, 2009 9:30 AM
Well, if you live in a trailer park, isn't that how your living rooms come? Lamarckism is proven!
Actually, according to the Theory of Evolution, Darwin did not lead to Hitler, they both had a common ancestor - some damn dirty ape.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | November 26, 2009 9:57 AM
..."some damn dirty ape"......
Just as the heart of the "argument" against gay marriage is really "Ew!", the heart of the "argument" against the veracity of the theory of evolution is really "We are too important to be mere animals." They are both block-headed reactions based upon preferred conclusions rather than reality.
Posted by: jws | November 26, 2009 10:10 AM
Christian Cynic @ 78:
I'd argue your analogy makes my argument, and destroys heddle's.
I never disagreed with heddle's point about a church throwing out its own members or pointing to a different group within the faith and calling them out.
However, in your example, merely throwing out the doctor is a mere containment measure, it doesn't address the root cause, and therefore no preventative measures are also adopted to insure this doesn't happen again to others by other doctors. That is my point.
When the good doctors take ownership for the bad doctors among them and decide they have change their system, policies, and processes to eradicate bad doctors, then you'll see real improvement. But that first step is ownership, something heddle's post avoids with the 'no true Scotsman' argument as does my experience with a sub-set of German Americans who refuse to concede their complicity.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 26, 2009 10:16 AM
donaldbain,
Always a rational, winning argument.
To deny the very possibility that some nut might co-opt evolutionary ideas to kill is to put one’s head in the sand. It denies the obvious fact that some have co-opted evolutionary ideas for evil purposes. What you say can’t happen, that it is impossible, has happened, demonstrably. And of course, if I am a psychopath, I can point to natural selection, right out the textbook, and argue that I am a perfectly natural agent thereof, and how do you know I am not? Your response is that they are misrepresenting evolution, and to use the actual literature of evolution to make you case—which is not the point, given that I agree with you. They (the psychopaths or eugenicists) would, of course, say you are wrong. My response to a Christian killing a witch is to say that they are misrepresenting Christian theology, and to use the actual literature of Christianity to make my case. They would, of course, say that I am wrong.
Posted by: heddle | November 26, 2009 10:41 AM
To pile on to my comment at 96 which was unfinished. I see heddle acknowledging a problem and supporting what I view as a mediocre containment act. In most problem solving processes, that is merely the beginning of addressing the problem/defect.
I think Christianity fails to adequately:
investigate root cause for their defects
create a permanent corrective action
create preventative actions
monitor progress
I think this failure is based on the idea that dogma is holy and can't be modified coupled to a people mostly tied to religion emotionally who really have no desire to engage mentally and in an authentically committed manner.
Dogma is not the only the problem, but certainly the biggest, i.e., the holy scriptures still provide ample justification for bad behavior and more enlightened people like heddle have absolutely failed miserably to educate their brethern. I'd argue the faith is becoming even more emotional and zany.
Yes Christianity's bad behavior is currently far less harmful than it was in the Dark Ages, but I'd argue merely because they enjoy political power and those with powers are liberal enough to damp down the worst aspects of their members while providing access to just enough power to fundies so they don't revolt; though a revolt might be possible in the next few years given their increasing realization and perspective they've been played by secularists and liberal Christians alike.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 26, 2009 10:43 AM
To deny the very possibility that some nut might co-opt evolutionary ideas to kill is to put one’s head in the sand.
OK.. I give up. Unless you can actually point to ANY reference in ANY scientific work saying that people SHOULD kill, I will not bother you further.
Posted by: Donalbain | November 26, 2009 10:52 AM
donaldbain,
Good. I'm tired of trying to convince you that my argument "people can co-opt X, distort its teachings, and use it to justify atrocity Y" is not refuted by the argument" "but X doesn't really justify Y."
Posted by: heddle | November 26, 2009 11:06 AM
Christian Cynic #80:
Fair enough, but you can't say that the people doing it were 'unChristian' for the simple reason that they were obeying scripture, as they saw it - you can only say that there's good reasons for them not to do it.
Heddle #83:
And he quite probably does so - using scripture. You still haven't answered the question what makes him wrong and you right. You indicate that it's by his fruits, but, firstly, according to scripture, that doesn't apply to 'claimants of Christianity' but, 'false prophets'. Secondly, Phelps probably believes that his 'fruits' are good.
It's also ironic that you refer to Matthew 7. I just have to point out verses 1 & 2 - 'Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.' Phelps is judging you with exactly the same 'measure' as you are judging him - with scripture.
No, because, if he is acting as a 'selector', by definition, it is not natural selection - it is artificial selection.
Heddle #87:
And you're still not getting the point - if they're justifying it using scripture, such as, 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', failing you having a direct line to God, then you cannot say they are not Christians - at best, you can only say their version of Christianity and yours are different.
Heddle #90:
And you're still not getting the point. If these people are citing scripture that seems to indicate they are correct in what they do, there is nothing that gives you the right to say that they are 'co-opting' Christianity, especially if they also have approval from a Christian Church - such as in the Crusades or witch-hunt trials. You would only have a point if someone went on a killing spree and said that, for example, this was justified from John 13:34 ('A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.')
...according to YOUR version of Christianity. Other people's versions of Christianity allows or even applauds killing in particular situations - and these people justify this from scripture. So, again, you're missing the point that, failing you being a prophet from God, you simply have no basis to speak for all Christians, and all variants of Christianity worldwide, and thus declare that ANYONE is No True Christian™. Conversely, your example of a high-school student saying that he is carrying out 'natural selection' by killing his classmates is a clear-cut mangling of the very meaning of 'natural selection'.
Because the term for that is 'artificial selection'. 'Natural selection', by definition, happens without any directed effort behind it.
And you're still missing the point that, in your hypothetical case of someone co-opting evolution, the literature actually proves them wrong. In the case of someone justifying, say, the witch-hunt trials on scripture, they can actually cite 'literature' that backs them up.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 26, 2009 5:21 PM
Zmidponk ,
And the eugenicists who believed they were faithful to evolution as they saw it?
The same thing that makes, say, Dawkins right and those that who justified eugenics on the basis of human evolution were wrong. Namely: a reasonable person can make a compelling case that their interpretation of evolutionary theory does violence to the theory as a whole, and the isolated tidbits they extract from, say, Darwin’s OoS amount to quote-mines. But the same token I can make a compelling case that the New Testament rules out hunting and killing witches or retaking Jerusalem. If your only response is “well who am I to say who is right?” then you are abdicating your intellect, and are no better than someone who says: “well if the eugenicists say Darwin supports their beliefs, who am I to say they are wrong?” So welcome to the world of Uncommon Descent.
Oh noes, I never reads those! I’ll point out that immediately after those passages scripture instructs: do not give what is holy to dogs and do not cast pearls before swine—which presupposes that we can judge some to be dogs and some to be swine.
And you're still not getting the point - if they're justifying killing/eugenics by appealing to natural selection then you cannot say they are not evolutionists - at best, you can only say their version of evolution and yours are different.
Note: I don’t actually agree with the previous statement, I’m just pointing out it the nature of your argument.
...according to YOUR version of Evolution.
Sigh. Let me say this for the Nth time: I am not arguing that people committee atrocious acts and then justifying them by either evolution or Christianity do so by interpreting evolution or Christianity correctly, but by interpreting evolution or Christianity incorrectly.
Posted by: heddle | November 26, 2009 5:53 PM
Heddle, you've repeatedly missed the point again and again and again, despite me stating the point pretty damn clearly. I'll try stating it as clearly as I know how and see if you can grasp it:
The people, in your hypothetical examples, who justify atrocious acts by evolution can be shown to be committing acts at odds with evolution by pointing to objective facts, such as the actual definition of 'natural selection'.
Conversely, you can only argue that people are 'unChristian' for committing, for example, the witch-hunt trials by saying that they are not in line with your own subjective interpretation of Christian scripture. Given that you've already admitted that you are not a prophet of God, this means you do not have the right to speak for all variants of Christianity and all Christians worldwide. This means you cannot say that someone is No True Christian™, only that his version of Christianity is different from yours.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 26, 2009 7:25 PM
Oh, and it helps if you actually quote fully what I say, and actually answer the points I make, rather than provide an incomplete quote and answer a point I don't make, such as here:
It's particularly ironic you do this in the same post where you mention people quotemining Darwin.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 26, 2009 7:33 PM
Michael Heath:
That's patently absurd. By point:
As an attempt of finding an analogue, let's take the scientific community (not entirely analogous, but close enough for our purposes) and the unethical behavior of cooking data in order to fraudulently submit a paper that will be accepted by peer review:
All that is spoken from a layperson's point of view, so I admit that I am not, as demo has put it, "inerrant" on the topic. But I don't see that much of a difference here in the power of the scientific community to police its own standards vs. that of churches to police the standards of Christianity.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 26, 2009 7:36 PM
Zmidponk:
Not to get all postmodern here, but there are facts and there are interpretation of facts. The definition of "natural selection" is a fact, certainly, but the fact that you don't think that an ought can be derived from an is doesn't mean that someone won't disagree with you on the point (certainly I've met people who thought Hume was wrong about this). And who are you to say that someone is not rational or scientifically minded because they accept this philosophical premise and you don't? (You see how this can be applied to anything? If you can argue using reason, then Christians are justified to use it and your criticism bears no teeth.)
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 26, 2009 7:49 PM
One other point for Zmidponk, regarding the allegation that Heddle engaged in something akin to quotemining: What evidence do you have that Fred Phelps argues such a point about Mt. 7:1-2? Because those very verses as you are interpreting them (nevermind for now if that interpretation is correct) would seem to count against him and the message of his church (namely, judging America, the world, etc. to be evil, corrupt, immoral, and whatever synonyms you care to throw in). If you have it, I would love to see it - I always love seeing someone like him caught in an utter inconsistency - but if not, then this criticism of Heddle doesn't hold.
Pick your poison.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 26, 2009 7:55 PM
Zmidponk,
Just out of curiosity, if this is true, then why do you suppose the New Testament describes the process of excommunication? Why does it instruct us to throw apostates out of the church, even though they claim to be Christians, if it is impossible for us to make a judgment as to who is a True Christian™?
As an aside I like Jason Rosenhouse's take on this. He argued (paraphrasing from memory) that if someone argued "I am a Christian, and I believe Elvis is Jesus" that it is painfully obvious that we can say that such a person is not a True Christian™.
Posted by: heddle | November 26, 2009 8:08 PM
Christian Cynic 106:
And how, precisely, does that alter the highschool kid going against the very definition of 'natural selection', which you've admitted is an objective fact, in Heddle's example? Answer: It doesn't. How does it alter the fact that Heddle is calling other people 'unChristian' because their interpretation of Christian scripture is different from his? Answer: It doesn't.
Christian Cynic #107:
I never said Heddle quotemined Fred Phelps. I said he quotemined me, which he did. Quite blatently.
Heddle #108:
Prove it's not impossible, then, and tell me exactly what makes Phelps or those who carried out the witch-hunt trials unChristian and you Christian, given that you're all working from scripture?
Well, in this hypothetical scenario, if this hypothetical person could actually cite scripture that seems to say 'Elvis is Jesus', what gives Jason Rosenhouse the right to say that scripture is wrong, other than his own personal interpretation that it is?
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 26, 2009 10:44 PM
And some of you people were upset when heddle left.
Christianist hairsplitting wordsalad, courtesy of heddle which only proves that he is dogged in his intellectual dishonesty, regardless that others attempt, in good faith, to engage him.
He's got a blind spot a mile wide on the topic of religion, especially his own views on it.
He considers that he has won when other people become exasperated by his failure to answer questions in a straight forward manner, moving the goalposts and patrornizing them.
He professes a belief, as knowledge, absent any verifiable evidence, that there is a GOD; that he is "elected" by that GOD to live eternally in heaven and that his GOD only saves the few. It is a shallow, self-serving and egotistical attitude that is, unfortunately, quite common amongst those who think that they are GOD'S special persons.
I, for one, don't give a damn what he believes. I do and will continue to give a damn when he derails threads for his own petty reasons. This is such a case.
heddle, you really are a pompous dick.
Posted by: democommie | November 26, 2009 10:55 PM
Hey, democommie, at least try to stay on-topic. The subject of this page is football, I think. Something about the Colts versus the Giants.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 26, 2009 11:27 PM
Zmidponk,
Oh stop whining, I didn't quote-mine you. You said in #101 "I just have to point out verses 1 & 2" and I then pointed out what came after those verses. Here is a little lesson on quote mining: it means that I take something you wrote out of context to make a claim that you said something that you didn't really say. I didn't do that to you.
My question,
"Just out of curiosity, if this is true, then why do you suppose the New Testament describes the process of excommunication? Why does it instruct us to throw apostates out of the church, even though they claim to be Christians, if it is impossible for us to make a judgment as to who is a True Christian™?"
Your "answer:"
Which does not actually answer the question.
Let me summarize your argument to date, as I see it.
Fred Phelps (or the witch hunter) quotes scripture to support his deeds. Therefore nobody has any right to claim he is not a True Christian.
This argument is very poor, as The Christian Cynic tried to point out (and Jason Rosenhouse too.) Because an intelligent person--an intelligent atheist, could read Jesus' teachings and ask: how in-line with Jesus' teachings is Fred Phelps? Talking the talk is easy--is he walking the walk?
1) Does Fred Phelps give evidence of loving his neighbor as himself?
2) Does Fred Phelps exhibit many/any of the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control?
3) Is there any precedent in the NT for acting the way Fred Phelps acts? Did Jesus act like anything like Phelps? Did any of the apostles? Did Jesus or any of the apostles call for the execution of anyone? Did Jesus hunt witches? Did any of the apostles hunt witches? (And they even had the chance! They encountered "Simon the Sorcerer" (see Acts 8:9-24) What did they do? Did they kill him? No, they excommunicated him. Simon, you see, claimed to be a Christian. The bible says he believed and was baptized. But Peter excommunicated him--he judged him to be a non-Christian--what arrogance! No True Scotsman, No True Scotsman! Too bad you weren't there to defend poor old Simon: How dare you Peter! Your claim to being a Christian is no better that Simon's! What gives you the right to say your view of Christianity is correct and his view is wrong?
Posted by: heddle | November 26, 2009 11:36 PM
Modusoperandi:
I do my best, I just lose track of things at times. No Colts v Giants, but, OT, the Giants did lose to the Broncos. I was happy and I really dislike Denver.
Posted by: democommie | November 27, 2009 6:12 AM
Hmmm, this seems to contradict itself. Yes, the bible does say that Simon believed (not 'claimed to believe'), which I think means he was saved at least according to things you've said in the past (only the chosen can believe, you can't lose your salvation, etc). But Peter judges him not to be a Christian I'm assuming because of his sins/lack-of-fruit, but he must obviously be incorrect about that unless non-Christians can be saved. Apparently, even Peter didn't know them by their fruits.
Posted by: Spartan | November 27, 2009 8:53 AM
Just for ducks, since Prof. Heddle posits himself as the great expert on Christianity, does he consider someone who rejects the concept of the Trinity to be a true Christian?
Posted by: SLC | November 27, 2009 9:32 AM
heddle and Christian Cynic,
I'd argue you guys keep looking at singular examples to defend your position when I'm arguing that the current Christian premises guarantee bad behavior in the future. Premises that can be altered but your religion refuses to touch. You point to trees rightfully felled (e.g., Fred Phelps) or rightfully left standing (some Christian charitable efforts) while the forest burns and is guaranteed to burn in the future.
heddle's previous attempts in this forum to parse OT and NT law and when to consider the OT and when to ignore it can't even be adequately understood in this forum populated with a disproportionately high level of educated critical thinkers. How are the faithful that have the misfortune to not be well educated or develop critical thinking skills supposed to distinguish when its acceptable to violate enligthenment ideals and when its not based on passages in the Bible?
Japanese manufacturers have a term called pokey-yoke. When a defect in their process is identified and they discover the symptoms, the corrective action process they use often looks to modify the design of either the product, the process, or their interaction in a manner where it's impossible to repeat the defect just experienced.
Here's an example, an electronic connector to connect a memory stick to a circuit board is installed by hand backwards (i.e., human error in a repetitive manufacturing environment). The memory stick is subsequently installed in the connector correctly, but because the connector is in the circuit board backwards, its connections to the circuit board's trace lines is wrong and therefore you have a circuit board failure.
One way to pokey-yoke this issue is to change the design of the connector so it can only fit into the board correctly (There are a handful of alternative solutions, some superior, this is the simplest to explain.)
Christianity continues to justifiably ostracize and call out , inconsistently, some bad behavior of some of its adherents while making virtually no serious attempt to eradicate future bad behavior that predicated previous failures. The very dogma that justifies bad behavior continues to be maintained and even celebrated as "God's Word" where even Christians themselves argue over how to interpret extremely bad behavior examples or laws in the Bible or even morally wrong laws that remain in the holy books. Some modern day problems aren't even adequately described in the the Bible, opening up dubious arguments based more on political preferences than sound exegesis. E.g., What to do with gay Christians, attempt to turn them into heteros even if they're clearly not even bi?, Can they be members while still gay?, Should our church marry them or ostracize them? If abortion is murdering a baby, isn't it justified to criminalize abortion and terrorize or even commit violence against abortion health care providers in order to defend the so-called innocent?
This forum often ridicules those who wrote, edited, and published the Bible as bronze-age tribesman, but at least they had the good sense to edit what they were using in order to better fit their arguments to superior policies. Modern day Christians on the other hand defend their dogma without modification in spite of the fact that very dogma is guaranteed to deliver current and future confusion about what is right and wrong and therefore gaurantees more death and suffering for future humans.
I don't think Christianity even makes a serious attempt to improve itself. I don't think they even promote leaders who have the skill sets to even understand the problems, let alone have the capabilities to lead a reform. Christianity's efforts and results are not even close relative to the dedication we see out of other institutions to improve its outcomes, like modern day world class manufacturers or the scientific community.
Normally I'm careful distinguish the bad behavior I see out of fundies and evangelicals that identify as social conservatives from other Christians (mostly more liberal). However on this issue, I point my finger at the whole of Christianity with exception of Unitarians, some Quakers, and a few other minisculely populated groups.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 27, 2009 10:22 AM
MH, with all due respect (and I mean that sincerely), comparing a belief system to an engineering process sounds entirely backwards. That said, I sympathize with what you're trying to say, I really do. I wish that churches would pay more attention on how to live well in the world rather than reacting to the some of the most trivial issues. (Here is another sympathetic position by a Christian singer-songwriter who is very controversial.) If divorce is a bad thing, then how do we help people be smart about who they marry and their attitude about marriage? If it still happens, how do we help people learn and grow from their mistakes? (Actually, I think this really does happen in some churches; it's just not a systematic thing - I'll come back to that thought in a minute.) I even tend to agree with you regard LGBTQ Christians, who I think most mainstream churches do a great disservice in vilifying them (even if they think they have good reason for it, i.e. Biblical justification).
But at this point in time, not quite two millennia past the founding of the religion, how is any sort of systematic effort possible? Despite efforts at ecumenicalism (which I strongly support), the Christian church is fragmented, and it is probably a misnomer even to call it the Christian church. If you can get the ELCA to do something, what does that to for United Methodists, Roman Catholics, or Southern Baptists (just for starters)? It sets an example, maybe, but those organizations have to take their own steps to enact any sort of procedure to identify problems and set up preventative measures.
Add to that the doctrine in many sects of the priesthood of the believer - that each individual Christian has the authority and maybe even duty to interpret Scripture - and the fragments worsen even within organizations. (I say this as an American Baptist, a denom that holds such a belief; I deviate from my individual church's unofficial positions on a number of subjects and probably from the larger denomination on some as well.)
Moreover, I think this fragmentation - call it tribalism, if you like - is a bug of human society, especially over strongly held beliefs. It can be overcome, certainly, but it is difficult to combat. I for one am all for fighting back against the trend, and I agree even with some of your criticisms. I just wouldn't know where to start, and I am only a 25-year-old in a small rural church. If you have any ideas, I'm all ears.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 27, 2009 11:40 AM
Spartan,
No, I’ve written on many occasions that simple belief is not enough. In addition to the theological support there is, as mentioned, the example of Simon, the example of the demons when James teaches in his blunt style that even the demons believe (James 2:19), and the example of Jesus telling people who apparently believed in him: depart from me I never knew you. A saving faith goes way beyond intellectual assent. If you are interested in more details, scroll down in this Sunday School I taught until the section named Apologetics and Saving Faith.
SLC,
It is a complicated question and I assume you mean would I accept their claim as being Christian (since I can't see their heart.) This may be the fuzziest of the line-in-the-sand doctrines. To me it would depend on how they deny it. If they say flat-out it is polytheism and that Jesus is not god, then I say no. If they, like Newton, struggled with the how of it all, and struggled with the complex doctrine of one substance but were orthodox on the gospel, then personally I would have Christian fellowship with them—or probably anyone who was struggling on any given issue.
By the way, if that was an honest question, would it kill you to ask it like a normal person? I never claim that I am an expert and readily and frequently admit (even thiugh I shouldn't have to--it should be understood like it is for anyone else) that I could be wrong in my theology. Apparently having opinions and a willingness to express them and defend them means, to you, "posits himself an expert”, at least if they aren't popular opinions.
Michael Heath,
In my opinion you have one serious, legitimate issue—which is the topic of homosexuality. More on that anon.
Usual preemptive strike: I am speaking based on the churches I have attended, Christians from other places and churches that I know, and what I read in the Christian literature.
First of all, I feel it is germane to point out, again, that true dominionism was always a small minority of Christians, was confined to a large extent to a handful of intellectuals in a relatively small set of small denominations, and since 2001 has decreased, dramatically, from its not-very-impressive (though loud) peak.
What is taught in every church I have been in (except perhaps for my present church) can be summarized as this: The moral law, especially the Ten Commandments survived, while the other ceremonial laws and the civil penalties for breaking those laws are gone—since they reflect not God's character (as the moral law does) which is immutable but rather the civil laws of a nation that doesn’t exist. I believe that this is most likely what is taught in the majority of evangelical churches. (As an aside, I disagree, I think all the laws are gone, but that's a different question.)
This is a pretty simply concept. It is not an unreasonable position (though as I said I disagree) and you don't have to be a theologian or a serious critical thinker to grasp it. ceremonial and civil law: gone. Moral law, primarily the 10 Commandments: still valid.
As for violence against abortion providers I have never been in a church, visited a church, or knew, personally, even a single Christian who advocated that violence directed against a provider was justified. Furthermore it has been taught, explicitly, unambiguously, with no loopholes, in no uncertain terms, in every church I have been in, all of which have been vehemenly opposed to abortion: you may not commit violence against providers and that if you even fatansize about it you are in sin. You can vote your heart for pro-life candidates, you can protest peacfully, you can work at crisis preganacy centers, but no violence.
The one area which, in my opinion, you have a point is the issue of homosexuality, since the teaching above about the moral/ceremonial/civil law split allows many Christians to hold on to the OT verses as describing God as morally opposed to homosexual activity. That, combined with the weaker NT references, at least one interpretation of them, results in what I guess is the overwhelming majority position in evangelical churches that homosexual activity is sinful, and leads to the common "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach. Every church I have been in would accept a homosexual, willingly, in complete fellowship, with open arms, and what they would look for is not that the person enter a program to be "cured" but that the person acknowledge (though perhaps never conquer) their sin. Personally I go farther, and could have fellowship with a person who did not see their homosexuality was a sin, if they affirmed the same gospel I do.
Having said all that, I didn't respond (until now) to your subthread because I see it is broader and distinct from the subthread I was engaged in, which was roughly: can people co-pt evolution, distort it from the mainstream understanding, and then use it to justify heinous acts and the strangely related topic of whether Christians can judge one another to be apostate and even whether non-Christians can look at the bible and say: that person (say, Fred Phelps) does even remotely resemble what is taught by Jesus and the apostles.
Posted by: heddle | November 27, 2009 11:59 AM
Heddle #112:
Which is utterly irrelevant to the point I ACTUALLY made, not the point you make out that I made by only quoting me quoting Matthew 7:1 only, and leaving out Matthew 7:2 and the comment I made after it. So, indeed, you did take what I said out of context to distort the point I was making.
Because your question is irrelevant to my point, and I refuse to go off on one of your little sidetracking expeditions. If Phelps is going by scripture, the people who carried out the witch-hunt trials were going by scripture, and you are going by scripture, what makes you right and them wrong? The answer seems to be 'nothing'. You've repeatedly failed to give me any answer that is not connected with your own interpretation of scripture, so that only reinforces this impression.
And all of those questions are posed assuming your interpretation of which parts of scripture are important and which are not is valid for all Christians and all variants of Christianity worldwide. Some believe that only the parts of the Old Testament that Jesus specifically or implicitly invalidated should be taken to be so. Others actually believe some of the Old Testament is more important than what Jesus said, so take that over what he said. By what right are you saying that they're wrong, bar your own subjective interpretation of the same scripture? Given that you've basically denied being a prophet of God, the answer seems to be 'none'.
Posted by: Zmidponk | November 27, 2009 12:36 PM
Welcome to debating Heddle. It's a shame really, I see him as a generally likeable guy, intelligent, etc. It's just when it comes to religion that he has a blind spot the size of the moon.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 27, 2009 12:40 PM
Thanks for the link heddle. I don't know that I agree with the division you've explained between assensus and fiducia. If notitia is understanding the knowledge content that you need a savior, assensus is the believing to be true that you need a savior, and, if I'm reading you right, fiducia is believing that the fact that you need a savior is 'good', well I guess I'm not seeing why believing it to be good isn't part and parcel of the assensus step. It seems like believing that you need a savior potentially includes believing it to be good; if you didn't think it was good, it seems like the logical conclusion is to say that no, you don't need a savior at all. I'm not sure how all these divisions of 'belief' jibe with other things I think you've said; I thought you couldn't believe in God unless he revealed himself to you, that you can't help but believe once this is done, and that implicit in that is that God is good.
As far as Jesus speaking of people believing and falling away, it seems possible then that people may be able to lose their salvation (although that notion may do more violence to other things Jesus as said). God could have chosen people to be saved and allowed them the free will to deny that salvation; after all, God allows us our free will but only to the extent that his plan is still fulfilled, and I don't see why his plan cannot still be fulfilled whether or not you for example gave up your faith or not.
Posted by: Spartan | November 27, 2009 12:43 PM
Spartan,
Take the example of stealing. Notitia means that you know there is a prohibition against stealing. Assensus means that you belive that you will be held accountable by god if you steal. Fiducia means that you do not just view the prohibtion as an annoying constraint, but you believe it is good.
Or another example: the famous unpardonable sin probably refers to a grivious lack, to the extreme, of fiducia. The pharisees so-charged had gobs of notia and fiducia, but they attributed what was good (Jesus casting out deamons and healing) to evil. The unpardonable sin is not making a silly "I blaspheme the Holy Siprit" youtube video. What I think: It is hyperbole aimed at those who know better (e.g., the pharisees) declaring was is good to be what is evil.
And of course you are spot-on, another interpretation is that people can lose their salvation. Simon the Magician, those who hear "depart from me I never knew you"--all that needs to fit into whether ot not you believe a person can lose their salvation. On the surface those particular passages are more difficult for those of us who believe it is impossible to lose your salvation.
Posted by: heddle | November 27, 2009 1:09 PM
Christian Cynic:
The corrective action process is much more than a mere engineering process; it is a method of critical thinking regarding defects and how to optimize the eradication of defects. Merely walking through the steps will yield minimal improvements. Optimal results require a change individuals' whole mindsets and often, a massive change in culture.
Most people are taught to avoid having to deal with defects if possible, even top managers at successful companies avoid them unless they've got a customer on their ass or they're bleeding cash. When that's not possible, leaders often look to quick containment solutions that appear to mitigate merely the observed symptoms so they can quickly go back to avoiding the root causes which caused the observations of a defect. This is a cultural trait. This trait is also what I see in Christianity and exactly why I noted that its leaders do not have the executive skill sets to manage its defects like we see out of not just companies with engineering processes, but all sorts of large institutions who adapt similar processes and mindsets.
Another obstacle is that our culture naturally avoids dealing with defects because they equate it to negativity. Successful institutions turn that on its face by committing to excellence where they see defects as opportunities to become more excellent. Their commitment is evident when you see people actively and energetically engaged that are considered valuable to the group and the group celebrates its success and its contributing members after a defect is effectively mitigated.
Christian Cynic
Please let me first note that I always appreciate and seriously consider your input in this forum. I'm amazed you are only 25, your past comments had me believing that you display the emotional intelligence of someone in the range of their forties to the age prior to where one starts to slide into being a curmudgeon (which varies greatly, I have a great uncle that held off until he hit his late-80s, I've got cousins that succumbed in their late-30s).
This is an off the top of my head brainstorm on what I would love to see a church or denomination go for (i.e., much room for improvement but it should get the gears moving):
1) Critique your own mission statement. Admit its failed in terms of eradicating poor output results by Christians, that this failure is systemic, this failure will continue to occur without corrective action, and it is no longer acceptable to accept such failures without an authentic effort to continuously decrease the rate of poor outputs.
2) Commit to adapting your mission statement by adding language that the church will be committed not just to minimizing bad behavior or bad results, but preventing such in the future.
3) Commit to a process where there are few sacred cows. Bible idolotory must not be one of those sacred cows or the whole process will be guaranteed to fail. A remaining sacred cow could be an effort to optimize each members' personal relationship with the divine as well as the groups' fellowship with the divine.
4) A collective concession amongst the group that past and current behavior has produced unacceptable results. Therefore, a committment is generated to create new policies and systems that will adequately capture future bad behavior and authentically commit to not only solving such bad behavior, but also commit to adaptations that will both monitor the results of corrective actions created and prevent future occurrences.
4) A process that rewards members who participate in the new corrective action process.
5) A process that celebrates new opportunities to improve the process and celebrate the completion of a corrective action process after a defect is identified and the process successfully runs its course. This is easier to instill in cultures which better embrace the collective vs. the individual, e.g., Japan v. America. However, it can be learned and is imperative to get top leaders and the grass roots collectively committed to seriously seeing through the integrity of the corrective processes application to individual defects.
6) If its important to the institution, then you have an imperative to measure your results. You aren't serious if you don't measure results, pareto the results, enact projects to improve those results. This would be outside the corrective action process for dealing with defects though the mind-set is the same. The 80/20 rule is a good start. Normally about 80% of your opportunity to improve can be found by addressing a mere 20-something% of the items that challenge improvement.
7) An easy and hard next step: People by their very nature are flawed (the easy part for Christians). One of the biggest failures I've seen when installing this new type of culture committed to eradicating defects is the tendency of the group to throw the person they think is responsible for a defect under the bus.
If the process is installed correctly, after the initial period, it will generate a lot of excitement because there is normally a lot of easy low-hanging fruit to be exploited by fixing. Therefore, it's typical to initially realize opposition which quickly changes to overly strident zeal. Commitment coupled to some dispassion is another leadership trait required in such a process.
If the process is committed to eradicating failure and reacts by ostracizing its members who fail, at some point there will no longer be any members given we all will fail in the future, guaranteed. This requires leadership within this process who can think creatively in terms of creating containment plans, corrective, monitoring, and preventative actions that accept the fact we are all flawed.
Too many times when I led the installation of this process, which I've done several times, it led to witch hunts. E.g., a shipping clerk inadvertently mis-labels a box going to an automotive plant because he's swamped with work and doesn't want shipments to miss the out-going trucks. That box is rejected and the month's goal for shipping a certain quality level fails. "Out he goes, says the team!"
A good leader is someone who can turn that wild-eyed zeal for another's head to a cooperating on a more aesthetically elegant approach with better results than replacing one human with a more inexperienced one. E.g., noting that putting another human in spot guarantees another box will be mislabeled, so maybe you put a process in place that automates labeling the boxes and first requires some validation that the label matches the parts contained in the box. This exercise also serves to bring loyalty to the members for both the group and the process by acknowledging our limitations and providing an example of how the process works for the greater good rather than being a tool to destroy people.
If it were my church and they committed to this change in mission. I think a good tough example to start with, after some easy successes were first realized, would be to stop lying about those outside your church's community. To be committed to intellectual honesty.
Given we can't empirically know that Jesus Christ is a historical figure, it would be impractical to start there by forcing everyone to say, "the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus saying . . .", rather than "Jesus said . . .". That is far too radical and would lead to instantaneous rejection of the process. But we could start for example by not bearing false witness of others outside the communal commumity, e.g., "President Obama is a Muslim", "Jews hate Jesus", "atheists hate God" by teaching people how to make cogent arguments based on honest assertions that note when the facts stop by supporting the argument and mere opinion is solely driving the argument.
Rather than claiming that "atheists hate God", a far better dialogue would be, "Why do atheists reject our beliefs?" and "How do we distinguish between our personal feelings and those experiences we're convinced are dialogues with the divine?", "How do we effectively communicate those differences so we can do a better job of explaining our experiences in a way that has athiests better respecting my personal experiences?".
I use this example because while I thought that Sam Harris man-handled Andrew Sullivan in their debate about God awhile back, I think this was ground that Sullivan convincingly defended and Harris had to respect as arguable (at least until we better understand the workings the human brain). It was one of the few debates in this area I actually learned something and better appreciated both sides. I found Mr. Sullivan's honesty exceptionally rare for the God-side as well, though I admit I rarely observe these sorts of debates.
I know Hitchens has done some with a respected religionist whose name I forgot. I've avoided those because I think Hitchens is a sloppy thinker who doesn't know as much as he thinks he does and I'm not a fan of winning on style, I prefer actual substance.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 27, 2009 1:19 PM
There is a huge hole in this argument Heddle. There are countless examples, throughout history, of people justifying their atrocious acts as religious requirements. I can't think of a single example of someone justifying their acts based on evolution.
Hitler? No, he rejected evolution and in fact quoted Luther and the Bible quite often in his speeches.
Stalin? No, he supported Lysenkoism which is a rejection of evolution.
I'm not saying that Christianity is responsible for these acts (or not for that matter), I am simply pointing out that this is a false comparison since there isn't evidence that the two arguments are even remotely similar, point in fact the "evolution required that I kill" argument has little if any evidence.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 27, 2009 1:30 PM
Re Heddle
Newton was an Arian which was considered heresy at the time by both the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. Thus, they would not have considered him a Christian if they had known of his views (which he kept very quiet so as to maintain his university and later Director of the Mint positions). Newton, who was vehemently anti-Catholic, considered the Trinity to be a Catholic doctrine.
Posted by: SLC | November 27, 2009 4:03 PM
MH, thanks for the response (and the somewhat odd statement about my emotional intelligence - I'm going to take it as a compliment nonetheless). Again, you're saying a lot of things that I agree with, but I just don't know if I can give a respectable response to it right now. I'm saving this thread, though, so maybe I'll write something substantive up on my blog (which is now mostly dormant) sometime in the near future.
Thanks for the dialogue.
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | November 27, 2009 8:07 PM
Michael Heath:
First off, I have been a card carrying curmudgeon since about the age of 13.
Secondly; I like your comparison of religions to science or commercial entitities. I actually think that religions have much more similarity to political movements. Many RW religionists have said that communism is like a religion. Well, if they're right then communism is one up on them, because it can change, in major ways, when those who control the system figure out that it's not working. Or, as it has largely done, outside of China, it can simply wither on the vine.
Fourth. I think you're prolly smarter than me, but I know you do a fuck of a lot more homework.
Posted by: democommie | November 27, 2009 8:19 PM