…and this is a 
Another ignorant pastor brings shame to Christianity
Category: Creationism
Posted on: November 18, 2006 9:20 AM, by PZ Myers
The Minneapolis Star Tribune published a very foolish editorial in their Faith and Values section, carping about that Dawkins fella and his atheistic Darwinism. It's typical creationist dreck, I'm afraid. If you want just one good argument against religion, it's that it seems to promote idiots to positions of leadership.
Richard Dawkins, author of the book "The God Delusion," intends that religious readers of his book will be atheists when they finish it. Let's put some of the statements he made in his Nov. 4 Star Tribune interview to the test.
Dawkins claims that evolutionary science "offers a brilliant and beautiful explanation of origins and existence." But evolutionists assert that this universe and everything in it has come about by chance. There is no plan, no divine planner/creator -- just random combinations of atoms. What's brilliant about a random, unplanned process?
Oh, come on now. Evolution is not simply a random process. There are strong elements of chance throughout, and random events are certainly a dominant contributor to the patterns we see—every child, for instance, is partly the product of a chance combination of alleles and biasing developmental events—but natural selection is not random at all.
What is utterly brilliant about Darwin's insight was that he saw how the combination of random variation and a selective filter could lead to the diversity and complexity of the world around us. I'm not surprised that Pastor Hellmann is baffled by the value biologists place on Darwin's idea, because he clearly does not understand it.
Can such a random process actually work? Sir Fred Hoyle, noted English astronomer, studied the problem and concluded this: The probability of one cell coming into being by chance was the same as the probability that a tornado striking a junkyard would produce a fully functioning 747 jet airplane. In other words, the chance of it happening is virtually zero.
Fred Hoyle did not study the problem at all—as noted, he was an astronomer, neither a biologist nor a chemist, and he was speaking far, far outside his domain of expertise. It is correct that the probability of a cell coming into being by chance is prohibitively low, but what did I just say? Evolution is not simply a chance process. The Hoyle analogy does not apply, even if it is a staple of simple-minded creationist thinking.
What is beautiful about evolution? It requires a struggle in which the fit survive and the weak are trampled in the dust. Progress is made by almost endless generations of creatures living, struggling and dying. Where is there beauty in an every-organism-for-itself struggle? Even though the fit may survive a little longer, they are trapped in an existence without purpose or meaning. Such a dreary and hopeless spectacle can only be described as ugly.
This objection is hilarious.
Look at the world around you. There is death, competition, struggle for limited resources, predators killing prey, disease, brutality, and waste. This is the way the world is, and Darwin (or any competent observer) can see that. This situation did not suddenly emerge in 1859 when Darwin published his book. What's beautiful about evolution is that it explains how complexity and diversity and even beauty can arise naturally out of such callous and uncaring processes.
Does it somehow make the death of a gazelle by slow strangulation while it's being mauled and eaten alive more beautiful to imagine that this is done under the watchful, loving eye of an omnipotent supernatural being?
A world without religion
Dawkins asks us to imagine what a world without religion would look like. We don't have to imagine it. We have seen it and the results were horrific.
Communism, based on atheism and evolution, was tried in the Soviet Union. Stalin, the Communist dictator, ordered the murders of about 30 million of his citizens during his ruthless rule. Those who escaped liquidation lived in a "workers' paradise" of poverty and oppression.
About 100 years ago, evolution spawned two abhorrent social movements. Social Darwinism was used by some titans of industry to justify their predatory, ruthless business practices. Eugenics was a racist movement that some used to try to keep people they considered undesirable (the infirm, disabled, racial minorities) from reproducing. Hitler, an atheist and evolutionist, used that idea to justify purging his favored Aryan race of the disabled or weak, as well as killing millions of Jews and others he deemed undesirable.
Communism is not based on evolution. In fact, its principles are anti-evolutionary, proposing a pattern of progress by force of the people's will; if you want a political philosophy that's much more compatible with the ideas of evolution, I'm afraid it's capitalism.
Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist. One might argue that he wasn't a very good Catholic, but he sure paid a lot of lip service to religion.
Eugenics did find its rationalizations in biology, but it was bad biology and was based on principles rooted more strongly in the selective breeding used in agriculture for millennia.
Similarly, Stalin used atheism to purge the power of the orthodox church in Russia, but I'm afraid he was a very poor sort of evolutionist. He promoted Lysenkoism.
Atheism and evolution are based on the philosophy (religion) of materialism. Materialism asserts that matter is all that exists and that there is no God. Since materialists begin by denying the existence of God, it's no surprise that they don't find God revealed anywhere.
I challenge Richard Dawkins to study the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the book of Acts. Jesus invites all to come out of the hopelessness of the religion of atheism and live in his light and the salvation that he offers to all.
Robert Hellmann is pastor at St. Paul's and Trinity Lutheran Churches in Montrose, MN.
Atheism is built on that philosophy, I'll agree; evolution is not. Atheism is a natural consequence of understanding the power of purely material processes, though, so I have to agree that atheism is often a product of education and scientific training—but it isn't as if you can't believe in a deistic god and also practice good science.
And I'm sorry, but seeing a pastor, one who doesn't understand science and has read nothing in the literature of biology, tell me that I need to read the Bible is unconvincing. I've read the gospels. I was brought up a Lutheran, just like Pastor Hellmann. I rejected the masturbatory cycle of reading the dogma of theologians because I opened my eyes and looked at the real world, and the rocks and trees and the milling multitudes of nature all cry out that the books of the religious are impoverished shadows of reality. Why sip from the recycled piss of Christianity when I can drink deep from the Pierian Spring?
Comments
Perhaps should be retitled "Christianity brings shame to another ignorant pastor".
Posted by: Ithika | November 18, 2006 9:47 AM
This is a great rebuttal, Dr. Myers. As well, these are such common creationist arguments that I suggest that you submit this post as an LTE in response. You should probably reword the last paragraph, though, to replace the two words that would make it too easy for the editors to reject it.
Posted by: bPer | November 18, 2006 9:50 AM
'Pieran'?
Sadly, there will always be enough people willing to persist in their preconceptions for this spiel to work. They want an evil to battle - not an actual evil, mind you, as that's too threatning, so world hunger or war is out - and godlessness is an easy target.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 18, 2006 9:58 AM
Matter is all that exists? Do physicists merely imagine photons? What about mathematical theorems. If they are mere fantasy, then how is it they can be proved? And what of the words I write here. Do they exist? Are they material? True, as they appear on my computer screen, one can argue that they are the phosphorence of specific pieces of matter. But then they appear on your computer screen. Are they different words, for being displayed on different pieces of matter, perhaps in a different font? Does a font exist? I know my computer generates an error if it doesn't.
More significantly, atheism need not be based on any ontological presuppositions at all. My failure to believe in god is not because I have posited an ontology that excludes the gods, but because I have no evidence for the gods. My beliefs about what exists follows what evidence I have. There is a lot of evidence for photons, but not so much for aether or ghosts or Nessie, and none at all for phlogiston. I'm not the least bit concerned about which of those count as "material."
Posted by: Russell | November 18, 2006 9:59 AM
Atheism and evolution are based on the philosophy (religion) of materialism. Materialism asserts that matter is all that exists and that there is no God.
Hey! What about surrealism? What does surrealism get such short shrift? What did surrealism ever do for Christianity? Huh?
I am offended that surrealism as a philosophical/poetic movement (before all the Dali hijinks) is passed over while naturalism and materialism get all the acclaim. Surrealism was the wonk in the back room during the height of Freud and Marx I will have this pastor know. It's time that somebody took cinderella out of her pumpkin and paraded her before the world as the princess of corrupted minds.
It's time, people. Help me to right this wrong. ;-)
Posted by: Kristine | November 18, 2006 10:01 AM
As usual, I am with you on this post, but I have a small quibble, not that it matters much to your point. Communism, and Marxism in general, did not rely on the force of human will. If anything, Marxists would reject that as typical bourgeois idealism. They would say that history proceeds according to natural law, which works through the dialectic. That was the beauty of Marx's scheme: it did not depend on the people wanting revolution; revolution would come inexorably as the inherent contradicitons of capitalism destroyed it from within. Marx built his theory on principles of his day. Most of his economics is straight from Ricardo. The dialectic was a funky idea, but Hegel had given it great prestige. Marx created a a carefully worked out model that made all sorts of testable predicitons about both of data to be found in his own a time and what would come in the future.
It really annoys me when the religious crowd equate Marx and Darwin. True, they both built elaborate intellectual structures to account for the world they saw. The differences is that Darwin'w ideas have held up very well, while Marx's have ended up mostly on the dust heap of history.
Posted by: david | November 18, 2006 10:09 AM
Other points one may want to consider for rebuttals to this guy:
1. Hoyle didn't eschew evolution at all. His idea was that evolution had to have occurred outside of Earth first. Hoyle said -- maybe not often, but more often than he talked about the odds of evolution -- that evolution cleary occurred on this planet, and that Darwin was right. So, why is this man of the cloth, who puts a premium on the truth, not giving the whole truth here?
2. Evolution, as Darwin saw it, was based on the philosophy of Christians, insofar as that philosophy stressed the telling of truth. Darwin was no materialist. He was a full-blown creationist when he sailed the world, and he was Christian when he discovered and realized the theory of evolution. His job aboard ship, one should recall, was to find the scientific evidence that proved one of the stories of Genesis. When he'd collected the data that should have made the case, it made a different case. Darwin, being an honest guy, published what the data showed (perhaps with some reluctance, but a reluctance that would shine like a maiden's virtue in a modern creationistDembksi). Why does this man of the cloth not tell truth here? Darwin was Christian. Evolution is no more materialist than is open-heart surgery, and no more threatening to Christianity (oops -- did I let the cat out of the bag on open-heart surgery?).
3. "Social Darwinism" preceded Darwinism. Darwin hated it. It was a principle pushed by sociologist Herbert Spencer, embraced by many Christians at the time, which said that the strong survived -- which excused those of great wealth from feeling guilty about the poor. Ironically, Darwin opposed the idea -- while Christians embraced it. Let's have some repentance from the good pastor before he suggests Darwin has any role in a philosophy Darwin condemned -- Darwin was right, and the good pastor owes Darwin an apology.
4. Not only did Stalin ban Darwinism, so did Hitler. Can we add a world history requirement to seminary and preacher licensing? Failing to understand Darwin, or to have in place a system of morals that would allow the teaching of Darwin unfettered, was more what led to the evils of communism and Naziism than anything else. To the extent the pastor condemns Darwin erroneously and asks for a system that bans Darwin just like Hitler and Stalin, he spits on the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Mayflower Compact, and the Constitution -- not to mention our unwritten science constitutional requirements for peer review. What is it the pastor has against liberal democracy, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment? Does he understand that his rights to pray and gather on Sundays are protected by the same amendment?
Where do these guys come from?
5.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | November 18, 2006 10:11 AM
Hitler may have been a bad Christian, but in fact was a pretty traditional Catholic. The Catholic Church has historically been virulently anti-Semitic. It murdered thousands of heretics and "witches." The Crusades were wars of aggression intended to take over the Holy Land and caused the deaths of thousands of Muslims. The modern Church may be more mild-mannered, but only because it no longer has secular power.
Posted by: Buffalo Gal | November 18, 2006 10:24 AM
Marxism may be all that you say it is, but starting with Lenin the Russian communists believed you could skip the inexorable march of history and jump straight to communism by force of will. You could "build communism" (design?) and not wait for a country like Russia to go through the required Marxist stages, such as capitalism, before it could reach that goal.
Stalin wasn't a very good Marxist.
Posted by: The Ridger | November 18, 2006 10:33 AM
And since they begin by denying the existence of fairies and hobgloblins, it's no suprise that those don't exist either.
Do these people deny that most complex lifeforms come into existence from one simple cell, without God's intervention? If not, then why is it so hard for them to understand that everything ultimately came from simpler forms, long ago?
Posted by: jeffw | November 18, 2006 10:33 AM
Rider's point is well taken. I think Lenin tried to have it both ways: The inexotable laws of history still apply, but you need the vanguard of the proletariat to make things happen. I've seen some very elaborate rationalizations from orthodox Marxists. It think it is a sign that Marxism was a theory in crisis by that time. The revisinists had pretty well abandonned all of Marx's original claims about the coming revolution.
Posted by: david | November 18, 2006 10:47 AM
Ed Darrell Wrote:
"Why does this man of the cloth not tell truth here?"
I know you have to have run into this sort of thing before. In order to make a case against a satanic concept, Christians and Muslims are allowed to deceive their listeners to bring them back to God/Allah. It is called "Deceiving the deceived." So the good pastor is just doing his duty; or else he has poorly researched the issue.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich | November 18, 2006 10:56 AM
@Caledonian:
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
For shallow Drafts intoxicate the brain
And drinking largely sobers us again."
— Alexander Pope, Essay on Criticism
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 18, 2006 11:01 AM
I know the reference. I was inquiring as to whether that was one of the two words that needed to be edited out.
Posted by: Caledonian | November 18, 2006 11:06 AM
Go figure, another editorial spewing the same old anti-evolution/anti-atheism BS from someone who never took 5 minutes to actually read any texts on the matter, all while misrepresenting the historical record of just about everything to make a vaccuous point.
I sincerely hope there will be an editorial countering this tired and unoriginal old saw of an "argument".
Posted by: BlueIndependent | November 18, 2006 11:08 AM
@Caledonian:
I count at least four words in the last paragraph which would almost certainly inflame the editorial sensibilities, so I'm not sure where that "replace the two words" bit comes from.
Since it is probably too much to expect that these folks were awake in tenth-grade English Lit, you may be right.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 18, 2006 11:27 AM
I find it disturbing that your paper has a "Faith and Values" section. Do they also have a "Science and Atheism" section?
Posted by: George | November 18, 2006 11:30 AM
It shouldn't surprise anyone that a religious writer begins writing about a type of person whom he opposes without knowing anything about that person - his image of atheists can go right in the same pot as the image of gays, foreigners, nonwhites, any number of things. If he wants to point to communism as the perfect example of a society without religion, then perhaps we can point to Iran as the perfect example of a society run by religion. Same diff.
Not only does he follow the Dawkins quote with a statement that directly contradicts what Dawkins says following that statement (and throughout the book, and in interviews, articles, and other books) but most of what he says indicates he either didn't read the book, or lightly skimmed through it. Dawkins emphasizes over and over that evolution does not depend on "random chance" and that while there might not be a plan, there is a purpose. And let me tell you about that dry, meaningless, godless life from the point of view of my cats - it totally rocks!
Lastly, he shows how little he understands atheism itself by linking it exclusively with materialism and calling it a religion - then insisting that all you need to do is read the gospels to see the light. It's a common misunderstanding that atheists need to read the bible to change their minds - most of them not only read it, know it better than most Christians, but use it to bolster their lack of belief.
I think PZ should definitely send off this post of his as a rebuttal - not that it'll do any good. He'll probably be told that he needs to read the bible a little more thoroughly.
Posted by: Alison | November 18, 2006 11:34 AM
The watchful, loving eye of an omnipotent supernatural being.........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ezekiel 9:1-10 (King James Version)
1He cried also in mine ears with a loud voice, saying, Cause them that have charge over the city to draw near, even every man with his destroying weapon in his hand.
2And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer's inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar.
3And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer's inkhorn by his side;
4And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
5And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
7And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
8And it came to pass, while they were slaying them, and I was left, that I fell upon my face, and cried, and said, Ah Lord GOD! wilt thou destroy all the residue of Israel in thy pouring out of thy fury upon Jerusalem?
9Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seeth not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Samuel 15:1-115 (King James Version)
1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.
2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
4And Saul gathered the people together, and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of Judah.
5And Saul came to a city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley.
6And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them: for ye shewed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.
7And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.
8And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
9But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exodus 32:19-30 (King James Version)
19And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.
20And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.
21And Moses said unto Aaron, What did this people unto thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them?
22And Aaron said, Let not the anger of my lord wax hot: thou knowest the people, that they are set on mischief.
23For they said unto me, Make us gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
24And I said unto them, Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.
25And when Moses saw that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies:)
26Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
27And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
28And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers 31:1-20 (King James Version)
1And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.
3And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
4Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
5So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
6And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
7And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
8And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
9And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
13And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
--------------------------------------------------
Joshua 6:12-30 (King James Version)
12And Joshua rose early in the morning, and the priests took up the ark of the LORD.
13And seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the LORD went on continually, and blew with the trumpets: and the armed men went before them; but the rereward came after the ark of the LORD, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets.
14And the second day they compassed the city once, and returned into the camp: so they did six days.
15And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early about the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner seven times: only on that day they compassed the city seven times.
16And it came to pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the LORD hath given you the city.
17And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent.
18And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it.
19But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD.
20So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.
21And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
22But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her.
23And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel.
24And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
25And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.
26And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.
27So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hosea 13:9-21 (King James Version)
9O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.
10I will be thy king: where is any other that may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges of whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes?
11I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath.
12The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up; his sin is hid.
13The sorrows of a travailing woman shall come upon him: he is an unwise son; for he should not stay long in the place of the breaking forth of children.
14I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes.
15Though he be fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come, the wind of the LORD shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and his fountain shall be dried up: he shall spoil the treasure of all pleasant vessels.
16Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's cool but clear here in Washington DC.....going out for a god-free bike ride.
-Dark Matter
Posted by: Dark Matter | November 18, 2006 11:35 AM
Dr. Myers, you play a great game of Whack-a-Mole. I think you should send your rebuttal, in some form, as a letter to the editor.
Posted by: Andy | November 18, 2006 12:01 PM
Posted by: calladus | November 18, 2006 12:07 PM
Darn it, hit post too soon. The Fresno Bee has a Faith and Values section.
The Science and Atheism section has yet to appear.
Posted by: calladus | November 18, 2006 12:10 PM
Hitler, an atheist and evolutionist...
Not only was he not an atheist, as you rightly point out, but he was far from an evolutionist. His own understanding of evolution was indistinguishable from that of a creationist.
Posted by: dorkafork | November 18, 2006 12:13 PM
I second Andy's recommendation. All you locals need to write a letter to the Tribune combating this kind of drivel.
Posted by: Mike | November 18, 2006 12:16 PM
See this is the very problem: "just random combinations of atoms"
Because we all made Darwin a fraud instead of giving him credit where credit is due and let him RIP. The problem is that now people rip Darwin apart with his knowledge and books he wrote almost over 150 years ago and not have people come to terms with the present, namely quantum mechanics even though everything in our world is quantum mechanics. The very fact of seeing and thus indulging in this beautifully illuminated world is based upon it as well.
And truth be told without it one could never understand why atoms do what they do, and thus dismiss Darwin altogether.
Oh yeah we have a name for a random combination of atoms as well, it is called a liquid (or even a gas; other states of matter like plasmas do have chaotic behavior like plasma oscillations). It hurts to see such lack of knowledge in adults in the 21st century. What the hell are we doing to our children! *shuddering in agony*
These are things 14 year olds should know, - even though i have now idea about the US schooling system,i`m afraid, but educational values also seem to break down in germany, and other european countries as well.
Naturally one would think that the 21st century is the century where humans have evolves so much knowledge as they finally would worship education above everything yet this is only displayed by a few asian nations such as south korea, japan.
PS: Actually of course a liquid isn`t random as well and thus realistically described by Debye Hueckel Theorie. I don`t even understand what that`s supposed to mean because you won`t find anything in nature (i may be wrong in that part, please correct me if i am - even though rationally i couldn`t see this feasible) that you could ascribe the property of total randomness because of the very properties of atoms. Heck even random is very much predictable. Random for the most part is mostly an approximation and if it were true for nature then we really wouldn`t even exists in the first place, nor could we scientists then understand anything about or world, and we would pretty much end up as ignorant as the author of the above mentioned editorial.
Posted by: lo | November 18, 2006 12:27 PM
That pastor being a Lutheran makes me think back to the founder of his sect, Martin Luther. He has written a book, On the Jews and their Lies, in which he argued that Jews are so evil that they deserve to be kicked out of their homes and deprived of their property and sentenced either to perpetual servitude or to being banished. Not surprisingly, some Nazis, like Julius Streicher, admired that book.
Posted by: Loren Petrich | November 18, 2006 12:29 PM
'If you want just one good argument against religion, it's that it seems to promote idiots to positions of leadership.'
Ironically, religion also seems to form a good argument against natural selection, at least within itself. The least competent and most ignorant often seem to be the most successful in that system.
Posted by: gg | November 18, 2006 12:31 PM
DM:
Or as it is commonly known, meaningless citation of dogma. You can probably link to the bible, if you feel the need to spew BS on others.
:
"Marx created a a carefully worked out model that made all sorts of testable predicitons about both of data to be found in his own a time and what would come in the future."
So what about Engels on marxistic science? :-)
Anyway, whether this model of marxism is accepted or not, if evolution was the thesis communism was still the antithesis. Evolution works by variation and selection, communism tried to work by no variation and no selection. (I guess that somehow makes capitalism the synthesis? The carefully worked out models of marxistic dialectics always confuses me about their assumptions, models and predictions. :-)
"The Catholic Church has historically been virulently anti-Semitic."
Though IIRC some of the blame is put on support from the anti-semitic tradition of Luther.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | November 18, 2006 12:32 PM
And I learned how to kiss and be merry- an
Education left better unsung.
My neglect of the waters Pierian
Was a scandal, when Grandma was young.
-Dorothy Parker
(The Little Old Lady in Lavender Silk
Posted by: khan | November 18, 2006 12:35 PM
Speaking of Luther:
"If some were to teach doctrines contradicting an article of faith clearly grounded in Scripture and believed throughout the world by all Christendom, such as the articles we teach children in the Creed -- for example, if anyone were to teach that Christ is not God, but a mere man and like other prophets, as the Turks and the Anabaptists hold -- such teachers shuold not be tolerated, but punished as blasphemers..."
"That seditious articles of doctrine should be punished by the sword needed no further proof. For the rest, the Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it . . . Secular authorities are also bound to restrain and punish avowedly false doctrine . . . For think what disaster would ensue if children were not baptized? . . . Besides this the Anabaptists separate themselves from the churches . . . and they set up a ministry and congregation of their own, which is also contrary to the command of God. From all this it becomes clear that the secular authorities are bound . . . to inflict corporal punishment on the offenders . . . Also when it is a case of only upholding some spiritual tenet, such as infant baptism, original sin, and unnecessary separation, then . . . we conclude that . . . the stubborn sectaries must be put to death."
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/luther-death-penalty-for-anabaptists.html
What a guy.
Posted by: George | November 18, 2006 12:36 PM
"I challenge Richard Dawkins to study the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the book of Acts. Jesus invites all to come out of the hopelessness of the religion of atheism and live in his light and the salvation that he offers to all."
Assuming the requirement of a literal, inerrant reading of the 1611 KJV--no questions asked or doubts to be considered. Every jot and tittle of God-breathed, received text is a perfect rule and guide of faith and everyday living. "Why?" "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"
I recommend that Brother Hellmann, and anyone interested in how "holy" scripture came to be in the form we have today, read Misquoting Jesus--The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why? by Prof. Bart D. Ehrman (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005). It is a fascinating read! It sure did answer a lot of questions for me. Further justifies a release from the "hopelessness of the religion of" myth, superstition, and patriarchal authoritarianism.
Case in point: the last 12 verses of the Gospel According to Mark. Just how many women (three, or just one?) discovered "the empty tomb" on the "first day of the week"? Did they not tell the disciples or did she? (Mark 16: 1, 8, 9-10)
Does Pastor Hellmann manifest "his light and the salvation that he offers" in his church by 1) damning unbelievers, 2) exorcising devils, 3) speaking in tongues, 4)taking up serpents, 5) drinking deadly things, and 6) practicing medicine and healing the sick by the laying on of his hands (Mark 16: 16-18)?
Backs up the point that people think with different parts of the evolved brain. Some people feel the need for "salvation" and "blessed assurance" of same, some don't. Those that do should have no right to force those that don't into forced subjection.
That's exactly what the Christian dominionists and reconstructionists (aka, the American Taliban) are trying to do with their attempts to post their version of Commandments in public places and to demonize groups of people they don't like with Constitutional amendments to define and "defend" marriage as they see it. To allow any other god concept than theirs or to accept the marital union of anyone with other than their definition of a proper penis and vagina (and the subsequent requirement of procreation) would belie their faith and witness. Their god Yahweh who would stop blessing America. People might just start to think for themselves!
Richard Dawkins and all intelligent free thinkers point out the feeble sands on which religionists and their power stands. This makes them desperate and all the more zealous to defend their tribal god Yahweh.
Posted by: Chemist | November 18, 2006 12:40 PM
"Social Darwinism was used by some titans of industry to justify their predatory, ruthless business practices. "
This is silly. They are ignorant in biology and they are ignorant in social sciences. "Social evolutionism", and not "social darwinism", actually predates the publishing of The Origings of Species in 1853. Spencer wrote about it in the book Social Statics that appeared in 1851.
Posted by: Ed | November 18, 2006 12:42 PM
"Faith and values" section: truly disconcerting. It`s almost ridiculous. Religious faith is the very enemy of any society not one of its values. The only thing that still brings us forward is our inherent biology evolving as rapidly as the current genetic "operating system" of our brain allows it to.
If it were up to religion than we should drop dead all dead at our masters command without ever having come as far as asking one properly articulated meaningful question.
Posted by: lo | November 18, 2006 12:44 PM
lo:
Stop making unsense, will ya'?
"now people rip Darwin apart with his knowledge and books he wrote almost over 150 years ago and not have people come to terms with the present, namely quantum mechanics even though everything in our world is quantum mechanics"
Darwin's work is amazingly well preserved, as you would know if you hang around here and read instead of spew. Quantum mechanics has little relevance for biology except as a source of variation, the same variation that already Darwin described.
"Oh yeah we have a name for a random combination of atoms as well, it is called a liquid (or even a gas; other states of matter like plasmas do have chaotic behavior like plasma oscillations)."
A liquid may be composed of molecules, hardly random entities, and gas, liquids and plasmas are describable by thermodynamics and most often hydrodynamics et cetera. Don't confuse randomness with probability distributions and effective theories on them. *shuddering in agony*
"worship education"
Great idea! Get some, already!
"you won`t find anything in nature ... that you could ascribe the property of total randomness"
Near ideal white noise, or total randomness, is a common property of many systems.
Getting back to QM, the randomness displayed is *genuine*, ie not a property of coarse graining a system. That means fundamental (total) unpredictability for the individual event.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | November 18, 2006 12:50 PM
Aw, someone beat me to Luther. It's that quicksilver George who also asked if the STrib had a "Science and Atheism" section. *Chuckle*
Believe it or not, there are a lot of readers who accuse the rest of the STrib of rampant godless liberality. I know, I know.
In the same section in the print version, however, is a box showing Dawkins' and Harris's books high on the bestseller religious reading list.
Posted by: Kristine | November 18, 2006 12:50 PM
Blake's citation of Pope for "Pierian" is familiar - and thanks to Khan for that unfamiliar gem from Dorothy Parker.
My nephew is named Pieris, and his personal web site offers a third citation:
"My name:
It's Greek. I'm not. The name is what I got from a cross between free-thinking parents and a botany class. "
(The parents did seem more botanical than entomological (there's both a animal and plant genus of Pieris), but I think they were mostly inspired by Pope.
Posted by: thwaite | November 18, 2006 12:52 PM
Loren, you are not entirely correct. That jews are in fact evil has been proven enumerate times especially drastically in the last case study, that has been done in conjunction with ID research in order to keep the budget down, wherein a direct proportionality between the beard-length and evilness was shown. It can be so evil in fact that it burns up on its own!, after one has ignited it with a fire device.
[PS: I am pleased to see lately how many religions expand their repertory with new vocabularies like evidence, science and systems giving them a whole new level of meaning. It`s like religion but with style, like the plasma screens in those few elaborate chapels, donning the new look of 21st century charity - where,- yes u guessed it -even that has become a multibillion dollar big business.]
Hence also, the pure Christian shaved faces of Bush, and this weird pastor in the Dawkins movie(with an seriously unhealthy dose of prenatal testosterone) - just like god intended to.
Posted by: lo | November 18, 2006 12:58 PM
I found this on the web:
"Marx and Engels admired Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, because it provided a unified, naturalistic, materialist account of nature, life and human nature, but they also saw it as a prime example of the penetration of ideology into knowledge. When he first read Darwin, Marx wrote to Engels in 1860 that 'although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view' (Marx and Engels, 1954, p. 171). He added in 1862, 'It is remarkable how Darwin recognises among beasts and plants his English society with its division of labour, competition, opening up of new markets, "inventions", and the Malthusian "struggle for existence"' (Marx & Engels, 1955, p. 128). Engels wrote, 'Darwin did not know what a bitter satire he wrote on mankind, and especially on his countrymen, when he showed that free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom'. He added that only 'conscious organisation of social production' could lift humankind above the animal world (Engels, 1873-86, pp. 35-6). "
http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper46h.html
Posted by: Arun | November 18, 2006 1:04 PM
http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Marx/
"From Engles' Eulogy (1883)
Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history; he discovered the simple fact...that mankind must first of all eat and drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, religion, art, etc., and that therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation upon which the state institutions, the legal conceptions, the art and even the religious ideas of the people concerned have been evolved, and in the light of which these things must therefore be explained."
Posted by: Arun | November 18, 2006 1:08 PM
http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1912/marxism-darwinism.htm
How it was perceived by Anton Pannekoek, 1912
" If we turn to Marxism we immediately see a great conformity with Darwinism. As with Darwin, the scientific importance of Marx's work consists in this, that he discovered the propelling force, the cause of social development. He did not have to prove that such a development was taking place; every one knew that from the most primitive times new social forms ever supplanted older, but the causes and aims of this development were unknown.
...
Thus, both teachings, the teachings of Darwin and of Marx, the one in the domain of the organic world and the other upon the field of human society, raised the theory of evolution to a positive science.
In doing this they made the theory of evolution acceptable to the masses as the basic conception of social and biological development.
"
Posted by: Arun | November 18, 2006 1:19 PM
Sorry, my last, but here is the brief form of the refutation of Spencer, from the above URL:
" While it is positively true that in the struggle for existence those animals that are strong, healthy and well survive; yet this does not happen under capitalist competition. Here victory does not depend upon perfection of those engaged in the struggle, but in something that lies outside of their body. While this struggle may hold good with the small bourgeois, where success depends upon personal abilities and qualifications, yet with the further development of capital, success does not depend upon personal abilities, but upon the possession of capital. The one who has a larger capital at command as will soon conquer the one who has a smaller capital at his disposal, although the latter may be more skillful. It is not the personal qualities, but the possession of money that decides who the victor shall be in the struggle. When the small capitalists perish, they do not perish as men but as capitalists; they are not weeded out from among the living, but from the bourgeoisie. They still exist, but no longer as capitalists. The competition existing in the capitalist system is therefore something different in requisites and results from the animal struggle for existence.
Those people that perish as people are members of an entirely different class, a class that does not take part in the competitive struggle. The workers do not compete with the capitalists, they only sell their labor power to them. Owing to their being propertyless, they have not even the opportunity to measure their great qualities and enter a race with the capitalists. Their poverty and misery cannot be attributed to the fact that they fell in the competitive struggle on account of weakness. but because they were paid very little for their labor power, it is for this very reason that, although their children are born strong and healthy, they perish in great mass, while the children born to rich parents, although born sick, remain alive by means of the nourishment and great care that is bestowed on them. These children of the poor do not die because they are sick or weak, but because of external causes. It is capitalism which creates all those unfavorable conditions by means of exploitation, reduction of wages, unemployment crises, bad dwellings, and long hours of employment. It is the capitalist system that causes so many strong and healthy ones to succumb.
Thus the Socialists prove that different from the animal world, the competitive struggle existing between men does not bring forth the best and most qualified, but destroys many strong and healthy ones because of their poverty, while those that are rich, even if weak and sick, survive. Socialists prove that personal strength is not the determining factor, but it is something outside of man; it is the possession of money that determines who shall survive and who shall perish"
Posted by: Arun | November 18, 2006 1:27 PM
I guess Mao & Pol Pot was bad Catholics too.
Whatever Hitler believed, the Nazis did more for making people question the notion of a benevolent God than any book by Hume, Darwin, Dawkins, Dennett, etc. I think atheists have to accept that the pyschological revulsion induced by Nazi atrocities (a bit redundant) bolsters the case for atheism. It is certainly easier to understand than biology.
Holy Science PZ you will be expelled from the politburo with comments like: "But it isn't as if you can't believe in a deistic god and also practice good science."
Posted by: Irving Washington | November 18, 2006 1:38 PM
"If you want just one good argument against religion, it's that it seems to promote idiots to positions of leadership."
This is a terrible argument. What would this say about America, or democracy, or capitalism. What would it say about human kind?
Posted by: arthurz | November 18, 2006 2:08 PM
Can we give up on the Hitler was a Catholic BS please. Hitler was a Catholic like PZ Myers is a Lutheran, i.e. his parents were Catholic and he was baptized in the faith. Thats about it, save some lip service he may be paid to the Church later in order to be elected.
In fact, Hitler was profoundly anti Christian. He agreed with the atheist philosopher Nietzsche that Christianity was a slave religion with its appeals to compassion and care for the weak. He was certain that Aryans would not achieve their true greatness till they were purged of this " Platonism of the people".
Stalin was an atheist, whether or not he was a good evolutionist. I believe the pastor is arguing Communism ( which is militantly atheistic in virtually all its manifestations) was certainly ONE attempt at a atheistic political ideology.
Oddly, atheists seem to skip over the fact that Marxists continue to persecute, imprison, and even execute religious folk to this day, but get hysterical when one Christian religious leader criticises atheism.
Posted by: stonetools | November 18, 2006 2:38 PM
"Astronomers claim that astronomy 'offers a brilliant and beautiful explanation of how the stars and planets move." But astronomers assert that this universe and everything in it moves around by chance. There is no astrology, no cosmic plans, no significant messages and involvement with the lives of human beings - just random movements of astral bodies. What's brilliant about a random, unplanned process that has nothing to do with US?"
Posted by: Sastra | November 18, 2006 2:54 PM
Follow the link. Hitler was a Christian like Pat Robertson is a Christian: he said so repeatedly, and used his professions of faith as one lever to acquire popular support.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 18, 2006 2:58 PM
Hellmann? Surely that can't be a result of random chance! :^)
Posted by: Mena | November 18, 2006 3:04 PM
Hitler was a Christian like Pat Robertson is a Christian: he said so repeatedly, and used his professions of faith as one lever to acquire popular support.
_____________________________________
So Hitler is a Christian because he said so and he used his professions of the faith to gain popular support?
What kind of nonsense definition of being a Christian is that? Thats a definition of being a religious hypocrite.
A Christian is someone who actually PRACTISES his faith. Jesus was quite critical of folks who SAID they were religious, but didn't practise their faith. He was the first to use the word " hypocrite" to describe such folks.
Maybe its an atheist thing. If you SAY you are an atheist, you are an atheist, i guess. Christianity follows a different way of defining who a Christian is.
Posted by: stonetools | November 18, 2006 3:16 PM
So please do make a list of all those nominal Christians that you declare are not Christians.
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, George W. Bush, Martin Luther, the Pope, who? How about Mormons, 7th Day Adventists, Christian Scientists? Was Koresh a Christian? Do tell.
Posted by: PZ Myers | November 18, 2006 3:26 PM
It's almost like shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?
Ok, then, saying you're a Christian doesn't cut it. You have to practice your faith. Therefore, anyone who does not sell everything he owns and entirely forsakes his family and friends is not a Christian. No ifs, ands, or buts. It's right there in red letter Jesus words, right there in the ol' book. No 700 Club, no Crystal Cathedral, no age-defying protein shakes, no Purpose-Driven bookmarks and Bible-verse-card-of-the-day holders, no Dove Awards. All religious hypocrites, by your definition, stonetools. Glad to see you agree about that.
Posted by: Carlie | November 18, 2006 3:31 PM
"Hitler wasn't a Christian but had to pretend to be a Christian in order to rally the people behind his evil plans" isn't exactly a great endorsement for Christianity. When it comes to Hitler and Christianity and Christians, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing eh?
Posted by: poke | November 18, 2006 3:32 PM
stonetools:
It's worth pointing out that Hitler at least claimed to be a Christian. PZ absolutely denies being a Christian. From that vantage point, at the very least, your statement that, "Hitler was a Catholic like PZ Myers is a Lutheran" is patently false unless you are going to claim that PZ actually pays lip service to the church.
Posted by: BC | November 18, 2006 3:33 PM
"What is beautiful about evolution? It requires a struggle in which the fit survive and the weak are trampled in the dust."
Waaah, it's not fair that my gerbil got eaten by a cat! I hate biology! Darwin sucks, you guys are all going to hell! Waaaah!
I think it IS beautiful to have a system that corrects its own errors. Whoops, dodos don't really work that well. Fixed. Oh, there goes a gazelle with a birth defect. Cue lions.
What would it say about God if he made animals as stupid as dodos and then let people hunt them to extinction? It would say that he doesn't love ALL his creations, at the very least. Oh, and that he sucks at design. Really not fair to make a bird that's a) ugly, b) flightless, and c) dumber than Kent Hovind.
Posted by: Chinchillazilla | November 18, 2006 3:44 PM
Hitler was no true Scotsman.
Posted by: JohnJB | November 18, 2006 3:59 PM
Obviously, there are vast differences as well, and it's easy to stretch this metaphor to the breaking point. For instance, a book store can copy an inventory system from a toy store; and allegedly Henry Ford got the idea for the assembly line from the meat industry.
Posted by: arensb | November 18, 2006 3:59 PM
stonetools:
What does that have to do with anything? We don't like communists, and we don't like it when people try to impugn good science (evolutionary theory) by tying it to a bad political theory (as if that would be a good argument against the scientific theory anyway). We don't like it when people get killed or oppressed for their beliefs - whatever they may be. And we don't like it when ignorant people get up on their church podium and attack good science with bad information to "defend" their theological views.
Posted by: BC | November 18, 2006 4:02 PM
Similarly, Stalin used atheism to purge the power of the orthodox church in Russia,
you should be very clear that just like Hitler used religion as a tool to gain power, Stalin used atheism as a tool to remove his competition for power.
Stalin by no means meant to promote atheism as a philosophy for it's own sake.
otherwise, idiots might still think that the only reason to promote atheism historically is simply to remove the religious from power structures, rather than for the real reason, which is simply to remove IDIOCY from power structures.
Posted by: Ichthyic | November 18, 2006 4:36 PM
A Christian is someone who actually PRACTISES his faith. Jesus was quite critical of folks who SAID they were religious, but didn't practise their faith. He was the first to use the word " hypocrite" to describe such folks.
Okay, so... are there any people you can say are true Christians?
Just for starters, anyone who has advocated going to war in Iraq or elsewhere cannot be considered Christian. They all violate the "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" dictum.