…and this is a 
Another reason not to waste time debating creationists
Category: Creationism
Posted on: July 26, 2007 9:49 AM, by PZ Myers
Comments are still trickling in and I still get email about this article, where I explain why debate is a poor strategy for dealing with creationists. I definitely don't argue that we should avoid engaging the public, but that there are a number of reasons why the debate format doesn't work for resolving conflicts between legitimate science and discredited malarkey. However, I missed one.
Some of you may know that a couple of commenters here resolved to have an off-site written debate on the dependency of the universe's existence on, specifically, the Abrahamic god. The debate is at the Topical Octagon, but after The Physicist AKA Equus Pallidus put up his first rambling shamble of a post, the debate was terminated for a very common reason: plagiarism.
There is almost no creative, original work on the creationist side. I sometimes wonder if the only reason that ID gets so much attention is that one thing the ID creationists did accomplish was to infuse a collection of new arguments into their side's corner — over and over again, the same old arguments, even down to the same words, show up in creationist debates. It's like the scholarly tradition in creationism is a glorified version of cut & paste, lifting paragraphs from other works and stringing them together, and Behe and company at least provided some new source texts from which to steal words.
Although IDists don't have much new to add. The last talk I heard by Behe was virtually identical, right down to the same old jokes, to the first talk I'd heard from him, ten years before.
Comments
That method worked pretty well for the Bible, why would Behe change it?
Posted by: DaveX | July 26, 2007 9:58 AM
Interesting, PZ! You're absolutely correct: same old arguments rambled over and over, and, even worse, plagiarized. But I guess when reiteration and bullheadedness is the name of the game ("stay the course!"), there's very little genuine thought going into the whole argument.
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | July 26, 2007 9:58 AM
But PZ, if not debated at all, Pharyngula would be ever so humdrum as compared to now. That said, I'm currently enjoying Flock of Dodos which I received in yesterday's mail.
Posted by: Sheril R. Kirshenbaum | July 26, 2007 10:00 AM
Tom @Thoughtsic.com wrote:
Wait... are we talking about creationist arguments or George W. Bush and the neocon arguments for the war in Iraq?
Posted by: Norman Doering | July 26, 2007 10:16 AM
In debating evolution the creationist side loses as soon as it quotes the bible.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 26, 2007 10:17 AM
Anyone who reads only the post where the debate was canned might get the impression that the example given there was the only passage plagiarized. Not so. About three-quarters of the way through this thread I posted more details.
Posted by: MartinM | July 26, 2007 10:19 AM
One thought not contained in your article: Creationist "combat" with infidel sciencers resembles tribal loyalty. Doesn't matter how sound your reasoning, so long as the tribe member emerges (physically) unscathed, they're victorious and united against the infidel.
But, when a tribe member needs for instance, medical help, infidel science is most welcome. Logical consistency or empirical validity are unimportant. Only the pride of the tribe matters.
Posted by: Howard Schamest | July 26, 2007 10:21 AM
Check out the comments over there at the linked "debate." That "Physicist" guy comes off like a weird, unholy spawn of DaveScot and John A. Davison.
Yikes.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 26, 2007 10:23 AM
True, but argumentum ad copy-n-paste requires a copy-and-paste response, as well. That is, for oft repeated, well-refuted arguments, we must then make the oft-repeated, well known refutation. I don't know what the problem is, but it has something to do with belief despite a lack of or counter evidence. The people who argue for creationism will not "look at the evidence" and make their decision. They are hung up on proving their irrational beliefs, and using whatever logical fallacy, false evidence, sophist reasoning, or other handy device at their side to justify it to themselves.
And in atheist circles these days, I see a lot of discussion about the problem. The whys, hows, whats, and so forth - but there really hasn't been much discussion in our community about solutions. Part of that is because we wouldn't really have the power to implement a solution right now, but we need to have that information ready for when the tide turns. Perhaps having that will help turn the tide itself.
Posted by: Greg | July 26, 2007 10:27 AM
I think there needs to be a debate, but not a debate about evolution. There needs to be a debate about intellectual honesty.
Do you think a Behe or a Dembske would show up for a debate on intellectual honesty?
Surely, any rational skeptic worth their salt should be able to churn out a series of Powerpoint slides on the nature of intellectual dishonesty that would come across to hoi polloi.
The nice thing about debating intellectual honesty is that it not only addresses intelligent design creationism, but a whole host of issues that have fucked up the world we live in. The mode of intellectually dishonest argument that the IDCers rely on is the same mode of argument that gave us everything from the War in Iraq to the Edwards Hair debacle.
Here's one for you and Chris, Sheril: Intellectual Dishonesty is the frame you want. Nobody likes being lied to, and every willing person can be taught to recognize a dishonest argument. There are intellectually honest theists out there (see Pharyngula's own Scott Hatfield, Fred Clark at Slactivist, etc.), so it shouldn't threaten anyone's faith. It does threaten hidden political agendas, however -- but that's a good thing, right?
Posted by: HP | July 26, 2007 10:36 AM
Well, that's what Chrsitians (specifically evangelicals and fundamentalists) do in general -- they quote the Bible and what their pastor preached over and over and over again instead of trying to figure out what they think and express it in their own words. It is a total intellectual cop-out, but since they're mostly anti-intellectuals, they don't even care.
Posted by: writerdd | July 26, 2007 10:38 AM
PZ,
this debate will not be won by atheist scientists / evolutionists.
This debate will be won by theist scientists / evolutionists.
This debate will be won by those who can explain why there is no incompatibility between faith, a belief in God and the spiritual and science / evolution.
If you think there is a contradiction between the two, it just means that you are not the right person to win the debate.
The objective is clear : to stop pseudo science / creationism à la Egnor to enter American schools.
Would love to help.
Christian
Posted by: Christian | July 26, 2007 10:40 AM
Posted by: Stanton | July 26, 2007 10:40 AM
This reminds me of a "friendly" debate I recently had, and I say friendly because it was between me and a friend, and nothing monumental or life-altering has happened since to either of us. See kids, Atheists and Theists can be friends. Anyways, we were discussing some of the double standards creationists often hide behind during any kind of debate. I told him that it is pointless for any one to actually debate creationism because it always has the "I win button" like throwing a stick of dynamite in a rock-paper-scissor game.
For example, if you tell a creationist that the Earth is ~4.5 Billion years old and the Universe is over 13 Billion years old, and that this completely contradicts their 12,000 year or so "beginning", they will often spit back out "God works in mysterious ways" or "God made the rocks to seem that old, to fool your science". The first is a very common answer, but the second I have been privileged enough, if you can call it that, to hear first hand.
On the other hand, an argument that has been running rampant lately since every creationist likes to regurgitate anything they've read somewhere else is the formation of hemoglobin, or some other protein in the body. They'll say something like "the odds of it forming on its own are astronomical, there must be something guiding its formation, like GOD". At this point its fairly trivial to even argue against it. It doesn't really matter what the odds are, because it happened, we're here. But if you remind them of that fact, they take it as a win anyways.
Posted by: zero | July 26, 2007 10:41 AM
The comments are hilarious. I love the way every time he needs to offer up something more substantial than insults and threats blogger conveniently "eats" his posts. It's almost as if he has nothing to say at all!
Posted by: poke | July 26, 2007 10:48 AM
Posted by: Stanton | July 26, 2007 10:52 AM
There is no incompatibility between faith and science as long as the religious can check their faith at the door when they want to learn about and discuss science.
Once they see science as a justification of their faith... they've gone off the tracks.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 26, 2007 10:53 AM
Wow, that debate was weird. Well, the increasingly evident looniness of The Physicist was weird. "I win! You must concede defeat!" But with more typos and threats.
Formation of hemoglobin is a fun one to debate. I have (probably, hard to diagnose definitively) a metabolic disorder that causes a disruption in the heme biosynthesis pathway (porphyria, fortunately not one of the icky cutaneous ones). It doesn't disprove their hemoglobin arguments, but does stop them short in demonstrating that one can be perfectly functional with slightly off genetic code for an essential function. (Animals have porphyrias, too, although I don't know much about it. I should go read up on them.)
Posted by: MyaR | July 26, 2007 11:01 AM
Many creationists will even happily admit their bias when filtering the evidence, but they just respond that secular scientists do the same thing with their "materialistic" bias.
Posted by: H. Humbert | July 26, 2007 11:04 AM
Steve,
I agree. But if science starts with the preamble : there is no evidence for god / the spiritual, therefore we don't see the need for it, what you get is the current situation where creationism (pseudo science) ENTERS AND TRY TO PLAY THE ROLE OF SCIENCE.
Posted by: Christian | July 26, 2007 11:07 AM
There is no incompatibility between faith and science as long as the religious can check their faith at the door when they want to learn about and discuss science.
The religious could say the same thing to scientists:
There is no incompatibility as long as the scientists check their evidence at the temple/church/mosque door.
Compartmentalization is not the answer.
Posted by: CalGeorge | July 26, 2007 11:11 AM
Science addresses the need as a purely sociological/psychological coping mechanism.
We have advnace sciences, they explain the universe quite nicely. The fact that people hold onto their mythical mystical beliefs despite the evidence isn't a positive thing.
Old habits die hard. But to say we have to pat people on the back for their hanging onto faith to get them to accept science is absurd.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 26, 2007 11:13 AM
Norman wrote:
Odd how both are so similar, eh? Stay the course with outdated, fabricated arguments, and any time anyone disagrees with them, they're "unAmerican."
Posted by: Tom @Thoughtsic.com | July 26, 2007 11:15 AM
Steve, you say :
"We have advnace sciences, they explain the universe quite nicely. The fact that people hold onto their mythical mystical beliefs despite the evidence isn't a positive thing."
Which evidence are you refering to.
Posted by: Christian | July 26, 2007 11:18 AM
Creos don't care about evidence, common sense, or the truth.
Really no point in worrying about it. The average creo just wants some rationalizations for his reality denying belief system. That it is a pack of stupid lies doesn't matter since the lies are to shore up a pack of other lies.
I've dealt with the rank and file a bit mostly on line. They tend to be uneducated and not very bright. If they were neither, they wouldn't be creos.
One guy claimed that humans couldn't decend from apes because:
1. Humans have a 4 chambered heart and apes have 3 chambered hearts.
2. Humans have color vision and apes don't.
3. Humans don't have any muscles in their feet and apes do.
All 3 of these statements are false as 2 minutes with a search engine would show. They don't care, a lie is equivalent to the truth in their world.
Posted by: raven | July 26, 2007 11:21 AM
Posted by: Tulse | July 26, 2007 11:22 AM
Poke #15: Yeah, The Physicist surprised me with the aggressive, kick-ass Texan persona he displayed on the debate thread over on T.O. He hasn't whipped that one out here on Pharyngula, for some reason. Maybe he was simply trying to be a good guest...
HP #10: In a word, "Yes."
Christian: You're the French atheist Christian, right? There's another Christian (a theist and allegedly a physicist, and also French) posting on the "29 words" thread. I humbly suggest that one of you devise a more distinctive handle.
:-)
* * *
The name of the creationist game is indeed Reiteration.
"Repeat a lie often enough, with enough conviction, and..."
I actually fear the proven efficacy of that strategy. It never stops. Now the insurgents in Iraq are all "al Qaeda" and always were. Soooo... Invading Iraq was all about 9/11 and the War on Terrorism after all! How could I have missed that? *facepalm*
Orwell, Orwell, Orwell.
Re: Ken Ham. A friend of mine (more of a surrogate mom) from Kentucky recently visited the Creation Museum (against her will; she was in the neighborhood, and some friends/family dragged her to check it on the grounds that there was some "good stuff" in there. Sigh.)
She's a Bible scholar (who realizes that much of it cannot be taken literally) and friend of Jesus, but like quite a few theists I know, eschews organized religion out of... well... disgust. Faith is a very personal experience for her. It's all about having a relationship with her Creator. Anyway, she's certainly no scientist, but she knows malarkey when she sees it. [Insert your own sardonic "Bible scholar" comment here.] Her assessment of the museum: Crap. (My word, not hers.)
Point being, there are a lot of folk out there like her, which is why I think the Museum (which I'm starting to think of as "Canned Ham") will have a short shelf-life. One can only hope.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 26, 2007 11:23 AM
Raven,
what you write is a prefect illustration of why we are in this mess.
I believe in God and yet I also believe in science /evolution. I think creationism is very dangerous.
If you think that my belief in God goes against all evidence, common sense, or the thruth, you probably know in advance what my belief in God entails.
Posted by: Christian | July 26, 2007 11:33 AM
"One guy claimed that humans couldn't decend from apes because:
1. Humans have a 4 chambered heart and apes have 3 chambered hearts.
2. Humans have color vision and apes don't.
3. Humans don't have any muscles in their feet and apes do."
Which is why they have to cut and paste. If they try to formulate arguments they "remember" into their own words they screw it up.
Posted by: KeithB | July 26, 2007 11:49 AM
Didn't say that. You have no right to even infer that I said that. My comments were strictly directed to creationism, a lie, and the lies that shore up the lie.
Science is methodological naturalism, concerned only with the observable world and neutral on the supernatural. The vast majority of xians and other religions are perfectly OK with science and reality. This isn't a popular statement on a fundamentalist atheist board*, but science and religion are compatible as shown by the fact that both have coexisted for 2,000 years.
The attack on science is real. It is also mostly the lie and violence soaked cults of the south central USA. Even the pope came out yesterday and said what I just said. Catholics make up 1 billion of the 2.1 billion xians.
*You know the drill. Issue a fatwa, declare heresy, put on the Jihadi hat, and go crusade. It is amusing how fast nonbelief takes on the resemblance to a religion.
Posted by: raven | July 26, 2007 11:57 AM
Christian, I think the main problem with theistic evolutionism (I'm talking about it in general terms now, since you haven't revealed much of your personal brand yet) is that it usually implies a teleological interpretation. The process of evolution is often seen as guided by the deity-of-choice, with man as its goal and main achievement - it's just a new version of the old "Crown of creation" schtick. A mainstream view of evolution would instead insist that we're just one small branch on the tree of life, which just happened to be extremely successful.
Still, I definitely think TE is a step in the right direction from old-school creationism.
Posted by: forsen | July 26, 2007 12:03 PM
I dunno. Evidence like the big bang. Evolution.
You know all the evidence for how the universe formed and behaves.
No magic required.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 26, 2007 12:04 PM
Kseniya: "Canned Ham"? For that you win. Whatever the contest is, whatever the prize is, you win.
Christian, you might enjoy the article on skepticality and religious belief in this week's eSkeptic by Dr. Hal Bidlack, a skeptic and a theist.
But I am unclear on what you mean by "If you think that my belief in God goes against all evidence, common sense, or the thruth, you probably know in advance what my belief in God entails." Are you suggesting that your belief does indeed go against evidence and common sense, or were you sarcastically suggesting that your belief is of a type unknown to Raven?
Posted by: Brownian | July 26, 2007 12:04 PM
For example, if you tell a creationist that the Earth is ~4.5 Billion years old and the Universe is over 13 Billion years old, and that this completely contradicts their 12,000 year or so "beginning", they will often spit back out "God works in mysterious ways" or "God made the rocks to seem that old, to fool your science". The first is a very common answer, but the second I have been privileged enough, if you can call it that, to hear first hand.
The perfect rebuttal to the second answer is to tell the aforementioned Creationist that for God to "fool (our) science," would necessate making Him a lying trickster, and as such, making such a statement is, technically, blasphemy
-------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
If the goal for "debating" creationist, theists is to get them to question their belief I think that this might be a good approach. From within the christian belief system exists a "being" called Satin who is a lier and deceiver. What would be the biggest lie of all but to claim that "I am God." So it appears to me that by definition religion is worship of Satin!
Posted by: uncle frogy | July 26, 2007 12:10 PM
Well, to be fair, I have to do a lot of cutting and pasting, too when arguing for the science side. But I have much better sources to cut 'n paste from and I ALWAYS cite my sources.
Posted by: twincats | July 26, 2007 12:12 PM
Posted by: Tulse | July 26, 2007 12:13 PM
On the trickster god: The old heresies are the best.
If your discussants are RCatholic, remind them that the trickster god is one of the tenants of Manichaeism. That usually helps. Don't know what good how well it works with the protestant thumpers.
Posted by: other bill | July 26, 2007 12:14 PM
The remarkable thing about creationist plagiarism, beyond how widespread it is, is how brazen about it they are. I realise that apologetics is a very different discourse than science, but even so I can't imagine any discourse in which passing off other people's arguments - their very words - as your own would be acceptable. And yet, as EP's comments show, even when they're caught they can't see what the problem is. And then they have the nerve to complain about angry scientists. Why on earth would scientists get angry when their opponents literally and deceptively recycle arguments they've seen a thousand times before? I can't possibly imagine.
Maybe it's got something to do with their poorly executed obsession with scripture - they're so used to going back to an ancient text to support their positions that they do it reflexively with other texts. They don't have the gumption to pass off the Bible as their own words, but what does Hugh Ross care?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | July 26, 2007 12:15 PM
Y'know, I knew something fishy was going on when the Physicist (AKA Equus Pallidus) wrote in complete sentences with good spelling and punctuation.
I wonder
who he'll rip offwhat he'll say when he posts here again.Posted by: Brownian | July 26, 2007 12:21 PM
I worship Satin, but not for the reasons you think.
(Mmmmm... Satin.)
Seriously, though, just this morning I was thinking about the God-as-Loki thing -- and here it is right on Pharyngula.
("Who are we to know the mind of God? It is hubris to question. Uh, but of course we know all about where he stands on sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll. It's all right there in the Bible. Which is The Revealed Word of God. Except the parts that aren't. What? Oh, shut up. Go away! You'll burn! I win!")
Make'em dance. Make'em dance. Rinse. Repeat.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 26, 2007 12:22 PM
Unfortunately, your premise is just plain, conservative, old-fashioned wrong. Science is founded on logic, rationality, evidence, and observation. Faith and a belief in God and the spiritual is founded on illogic, irrationality, lack of evidence and ignorance of obseravtion.
There can be no compatibility between those things. They are polar opposites. Faith and unfounded beliefs are not scientific. Basing thought on logic, evidence and observation, and more importantly, the ability to reshape those thoughts when they don't hold up to evidence and observation leaves no room for faith.
If a person comes along who manages, somehow, to meld faith and science, then we all - believer and sceptic - lose.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 26, 2007 12:28 PM
Does ID really add new arguments to creationism (or theism in general)? When it comes to "evidence"-based arguments for creationism, it's always been (in my experience) "We don't know/can't be absolutely certain, therefore God" or "Behold our mangling of science into a strawman, science is wrong, therefore God by argument #1." ID might be using new words, but they're still using the same two bad arguments as far as I can tell.
Posted by: uknesvuinng | July 26, 2007 12:34 PM
In my experience, that is true... but only as far as science and reality are kept separate from religion.
As soon as you ask a believer to explain how some particular aspect of his religion can be supported by science, he gets dismissive at best, angry at worst. I can only conjecture that this happens because when the inconsistencies are pointed out, the weakly religious recognize that they've been caught and know that their position is untenable, but for personal/cultural/traditional reasons refuse to move from their untenable position. This creates conflict and anger.
This is something I see all the time... about 1/3 of my relatives are Jehova's Witness. I'm sure you can imagine how discussions go when there's any significant family gathering that involves me and them :) If you asked any of them if, say, they believed in evolution, I'm certain they'd say "absolutely". But if you followed that with "but how does that fit with your faith", their little hard-wired brains would explode.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 26, 2007 12:37 PM
Most mainstream protestant, nonchristian, and catholic sects are OK with science. This is the vast majority of xians even in the USA. What the rank and file believe is sort of dismal. But 20% of the population believe the sun goes around the earth and a lot more believe in astrology, a decidedly nonchristian practice. A lot of this is most likely ignorance and apathy rather than hatred and attacks on science.
The proof of the coexistence of science and relgion. The USA is 82% xian, 90% religious (source gallup GSS poll, 2006).
The USA spends 50% of the world's R&D, produces 50% of the world's science, and has been the acknowledged world leader for decades.
If US religion and science weren't coexisting, none of the above would have happened.
The attack on science is real and potentially a disaster for us. But it isn't all religions, in fact, it is a minority of bizarre cults.
If anyone thinks that science is under attack by xianity in general, they are foolish and wrong. They would also lose badly. That 82% xians outnumbers the atheistic fanatical fundies by a long, long ways. They also support science by paying taxes. Science is expensive. Science runs on money. I believe the NIH budget alone this year is 20 billion bucks.
Posted by: raven | July 26, 2007 12:38 PM
well, I'd define myself first of all as a scientifically biased individual. I tend to consider what are the generally accepted scientific theories (by the specialists in those respective fields) as the valid explanations of the various phenomena. It's just based on common sense, if a large group of intelligent people who have put a lot of work together converge to a common conclusion, who am I to refute it ?
Having said that, I also believe in God. But a Spinoza type god : God is the only thing that exists. Not a god of the gap. I think the bible (or Quran) were written by humans, at a time to be understood by humans. Even if you assume, for a second, that these could have received a "divine inspiration", there is no way these people could have understood genetics or quantum mechanics, at that given time. You could argue, in the same way, that Newton, einstein or Darwin, also received this "divine inspiration". This is anyway nothing refutable and therefore not scientific as a hypothesis.
The key point is to ask yourself this question : is it possible that indeed, God is everything. Now, does that mean that we, as humans shouldn't try to understand better how he works, via science. No. Shall we invent pseudo science to try to misinterpret facts that we already have very valid explanations for ? Neither.
But it has a lot of impact on my ethical and moral behaviour whilst I am alive and well, and that faith helps me in afronting death.
The point I am making is that faith and science are two completely different things. Creationists are trying to play science. But didn't science also make the mistake of trying to play religion ?
Posted by: Christian | July 26, 2007 12:39 PM
raven:
You can continue to assert that, but the evidence is far to the contrary. Again, most Christians believe in the efficacy of prayer, in miracle, and don't believe in evolution. That's not being "OK with science". I also think it is arguable that, worldwide, most non-Christian sects are also profoundly anti-science. Surely you are familiar with the huge attack on science during the recent US presidential administration, largely based on religious grounds. Look at funding for stem-cell research, look at the fight over HPV vaccine, look at the fight over global warming, look at the attempt to get creationism in schools, and then tell me science isn't under attack by religion.Posted by: Tulse | July 26, 2007 12:54 PM
Evolving squid :
this is how I think :
Faith : influences my moral, ethics and helps me to affront death (note : all these things have nothing to do with science)
Science : helps me to understand how things work
Posted by: Christian | July 26, 2007 1:01 PM
I'm calling strawman here. I didn't say that. Once again and that is it. I'll type real slow but it won't do any good.
1. You are generalizing from a small group of bizarre sects based in south central USA to all christians. Confusing a minority with a majority is wrong. "and then tell me science isn't under attack by religion."
Sure, science is under attack by some weird, religious cults. "Bizarre fundie cults" is not equal to "all religion". The logic error here is simple. "PZ is a scientist. PZ is an atheist. Therefore all scientists are atheists.
2. The majority of mainstream protestant, the catholics, and the nonxians are fine with science. They pay for it.
3. The Bush administration has been a destructive force against a lot of science. This shows that the cultists have enough luck, votes, and political power to elect a moron. BTW, Bush was not elected on an anti-science platform. He was elected on mostly an anti-terrorism platform, at least the second time around. Bush's approval rating right now is 26%, about as low as it gets. You can bet that the majority of those 74% who are sick of the guy are....xians.
Posted by: raven | July 26, 2007 1:13 PM
Actually, the moral implications of a belief in the Christian god were what led me down the path to becoming an apologist (first Catholic, then merely Christian) and eventually an atheist based in scientific naturalism. Scientific knowledge certainly can influence ethics and morality (for instance, the knowledge that the differences between men, women, and the variously described 'races' are mostly superficial) can lead one to concepts such as universal human rights. (In contrast, a God who is ethnically and temporally selective about whom he chooses to reveal himself to requires a lot of apologetic 'thinking'--in other words, making stuff up--to reconcile with the concept of universal human equality).
Posted by: Brownian | July 26, 2007 1:18 PM
Raven said:
Ignoring for now the fact that science has not existed for 2,000 years, co-existence is not evidence of compatibility. Both aggression and pacifism have co-existed for even longer, yet they are clearly polar opposites. A mobster can be a sweetheart to his family and a sadist to his victims. Just because people are capable of holding contradictions doesn't mean they aren't contradictions.
Is this supposed to be funny? Because you've just listed everything that differentiates religion from non-religion. Even if you were just throwing around hyperbolic metaphors in the case of atheists, the fact that these things aren't merely metaphors when it comes to religion is extremely telling.Posted by: H. Humbert | July 26, 2007 1:19 PM
Shouldn't morals and ethics come from an understanding of how things work? Otherwise, there's no legitimacy to claims behind what is ethical and what is not. When you know that heaven does not exist, murder becomes a yet more heinous crime, for example - because that's the way things work. Religion's claims to legitimacy usually stem from knowing the opinion or feelings of some sky-god. Since we know from the way things work that this is bull, those edicts have no legitimacy. I think you're just deluding yourself into a rationalization for clinging to false belief.
Posted by: Greg | July 26, 2007 1:21 PM
Ahem. Ahem. Ahem. AHEM.
Sorry, I think I need some orange juice, and maybe a little fresh air.
Posted by: Blake Stacey, OM | July 26, 2007 1:26 PM
I wasn't going to comment on the absurdity of 'fundamentalist' atheism, mostly because it was obviously thrown out as a distraction by someone upset that us 'poah meenie ole afeists are not wespeckting weligion', but I'm glad someone called Blake's Law on that shit.
Posted by: stogoe | July 26, 2007 1:36 PM
Brownian : that's why I do not define myself as Christian.
A lot of the problems of this world have to do, not with faith per say, but on the fact that most faiths relied on antiquated and totally outdated scriptures.
Posted by: Christian | July 26, 2007 1:37 PM
One more for the road. For an example of how much the religious 90% majority hates science, contemplate the NIH budget for this year. It is $28 billion bucks. This is for medical research alone and doesn't include NASA, NSF, and other programs.
The absolute easiest way to kill US science would be to cut funding. Scientists don't do science by posting on message boards or handwaving. Research is expensive and they spend money to do it. Lots of money.
The majority are smart enough to realize that the benefits of science are for everyone. Longer life spans, better health, improved technology, a 21st century lifestyle instead of a 16th century one.
Posted by: raven | July 26, 2007 1:40 PM
More amused than anything. The fundie atheists seem to be just as dogmatic, defensive, and fanatical as any fundie xian, fundie moslem, or fundie Jew. Some people claim that religion is hard wired into the human brain. Fundie atheists by turning their nonbelief into a quasi-religion would have a hard time disproving that.
Posted by: raven | July 26, 2007 1:59 PM
As long as we're arguing with 'The Physicist'- do we get to wear capes and a utility belt and ride in a jet-car?
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 26, 2007 2:03 PM
In a word Christian.
No.
Posted by: Steve_C | July 26, 2007 2:26 PM
raven, just because religious groups do not attack all aspects of science does not mean that they are somehow "perfectly OK with science" -- they are clearly not "OK with science" when it contradicts their religious beliefs. To say that this kind of tolerance somehow equals full acceptance is like arguing that there was no racial discrimination in the US because some people employed blacks as housemaids.
And the attack is far from a "small group of bizarre sects based in south central USA" -- the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. The Catholic Church officially opposes embryonic stem-cell research. Belief in creationism is very strong in many Muslim countries.
Finally, you haven't addressed the point about fundamental anti-scientific beliefs in practically all religions, such as miracles and the power of prayer.
Posted by: Tulse | July 26, 2007 2:27 PM
Back this statement up with evidence, Raven. What do you mean by fanatical?
Saying things doesn't make them true.
Posted by: Brownian | July 26, 2007 2:35 PM
Well, affronting death could be considered anti-scientific, since the evidence points to death being rather cold and final with no magical afterlife.
There would be some logical/rational issues with believing that morality comes from an invisible superman that gives no evidence of its existence or of its moral superiority.
However, if that is the limit of your beliefs, then I would say there's probably no conflict of significance with science, although your beliefs certainly defy scientific evidence. Your beliefs DO conflict with science, however there's probably bigger fish to fry.
Posted by: Evolving Squid | July 26, 2007 2:42 PM
This seems like as good a time as any for a reminder that--although I did used to post as "Raven" on the old site, the one that allowed my sweet little sun bear gravatar--"raven" and "RavenT" are actually two very different posters.
We now return you to your regularly-scheduled discussion.
Posted by: RavenT, Adjutant Minion | July 26, 2007 2:43 PM
Do "most" Christians (or Americans) disbelieve evolution?
According to a PEW study from last year:
- 51% of those surveyed believe in Evolution.
- 42% do not.
- 7% don't know.
That's pretty bad, but it doesn't support the claim that "most Christians" disbelieve Evolution. Or does it?
It seems that only 26% of all those surveyed believe in evolution through natural selection, while 21% believe in evolution guided by a supreme being. Ack.
The breakdowns shown on the summary are kind of odd. The categories are White Evangelical, White Mainstream, White Catholic, and Secular. Perhaps non-Christian theists were not polled.
Apparently, 83% of those in the "secular" category believe in evolution, 69% in evolution by natural selection. Interestingly, 9% of the Secular group believe in guided evolution - so, just as in real life, "secular" is not synonymous with "atheist".
It's possible that the Secular segment is sufficiently large to push the percentage of Christians who do believe in evolution below 50%. I can't tell without looking at the whole report. I haven't downloaded the entire report, so I can't make sense of everything that's in the summary on the website, nor can I make any informed judgements as to the validity or relevance of the survey itself. I don't have time for it now, but it might be of interest to some of my fellow readers.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 26, 2007 3:00 PM
I don't agree that in a debate, non constubtion to paragraph would be called plagerism. The reason not to debate an old Earth creationist, Is because you will get your but kicked. I had TO Cornered and you can tell by his suddennly setting new rules. He claimed a third party moderator, wich we didn't get. And he was looking for an excuse to close the debate.
How is not atrributing something to someone change the truth of the debate. Don't worry I am in process of rectifying this whole mess by copying the debate and continued myu rebyttal some where else, And don't worry I leave the plagerism claim up. It will be just as it is and I will tear him completely to pieces. I hadn't even started, but to pull into his own parodoxical thinking.
I will adverise over at VD's place.
Posted by: The Physicist | July 26, 2007 3:33 PM
And you think this proves what again?
Posted by: H. Humbert | July 26, 2007 3:36 PM
Since we have no reason to believe your claims that you are a physicist (from your posts it would seem that you a barely literate and very unlikely to have graduated from any post-secondary institution), I am no longer going to address you a Physicist, but as PhysicallySick (as in, "You make me....")
PhysicallySick, I doubt you understand the claims you lifted wholesale from Hugh Ross. You have shown yourself to be a liar and a paranoid. Your defense of plagiarism shows you lack intellectual integrity. The fact that you resorted to threats and Christian language like "motherfucker" when challenged shows you lack emotional maturity.
I doubt any of us here are interested in following your 'debate' elsewhere (and why would we when we could much more easily read Hugh Ross's book since it, unlike your posts, is written in Standard American English?), so why not take your tantrums and your accusations of 'hacking' back home, creampuff?
Posted by: Brownian | July 26, 2007 3:50 PM
raven:
Oops. This is the second time I've seen you loose it, both times when the subject is atheism which evidently is hard to understand. But this time you got Blake's law applied to your ass. :-P
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 26, 2007 3:56 PM
Hey, it's "The Physicist"...Hi, Gregg!
"I don't agree that in a debate, non constubtion to paragraph would be called plagerism"
Oh, I agree with you about this. I wouldn't know what to call "non constubtion to paragraph," other than, I guess, gibberish. I certainly wouldn't call it "plagerism," though, since that's not a real word.
Brownian has kindly listed a few of the reasons you are unlikely to be taken seriously, here or anywhere else ('ceptin' mebbe TEXAS, Pardner).
Still, I'd like to let you in on a little secret we use around here to avoid appearing stupid or, worse, illiterate: it's a little grey rectangular guy called the "Preview" button. Try it!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | July 26, 2007 4:04 PM
How CAN there be any original work on the creationist side? Their thesis is "magic man done it." What more is there for them to say?
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 26, 2007 4:08 PM
"The reason not to debate an old Earth creationist, Is because you will get your but kicked. "
Oh, so you admit that you have no recourse but violence when verbally challenged?
Thanks for clearing that up. If I meet you and you want to debate, I'll just call a cop instead.
"I had TO Cornered"
No you didn't, and wishing doesn't make it so. (Which applies as well to the existence your imaginary friend, I might add.)
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | July 26, 2007 4:12 PM
Posted by: stogoe | July 26, 2007 4:14 PM
"non constubtion to paragraph"?
...WTF does that mean? Can you say it again, with more words in it?
Posted by: octopod | July 26, 2007 4:21 PM
Bullcrap. I've stated many times that the creos are lies, and the cults are ignorant, lie, violence, and murder saturated wingnuts who want to overthrow the US government and head on back to the dark ages.
No one has ever been able to prove the existence of god.
No one every has been able to disprove the existence of god either. Even Dawkins admits that. Speaking of mythology, fundie atheist mythology is just as mythology as any.
I can tell you fundies don't have real answers when you resort to insults, straw men misrepresentations, and emotional accusations. Relax, no one will take your religion away from you.
Speaking of reaping the benefits of modern science. Yes, I'm guilty. I also help produce them. In real life I'm a medical researcher.
Posted by: raven | July 26, 2007 4:24 PM
Of course not. No one has been able to disprove the existence of Brahma, Vishnu, or Shiva, either. You must be some sort of fundamentalist if you refuse to believe in them then.
Please, try evaluating the implications of your tired clichés on your own belief system before you go impugning us.