…and this is a 
Florida is for wankers
Category: Creationism
Posted on: January 21, 2008 12:20 PM, by PZ Myers
Greg Laden, that romantic evolutionary gastronome has several good posts on the mess in Florida (and, by the way, here's a map if you're having trouble keeping track of all those counties). These are documents produced by the activist creationists down there, and they really reveal how inept and uneducated these wankers are.
First is a letter from Bill Foster, the city council member who has mayoral aspirations despite his lack of a brain. It does drone on, but here are a few choice excerpts.
Throw in the case that there is still no fossil record or evidence to support Darwin, and all you have left is a theory. If evolution were true, then there should be countless numbers of transitional forms (e.g., 100% reptile; 75% reptile-25% bird; 50% reptile- 50% bird; 25% reptile - 75% bird; 100% bird and many transitional forms between each of those). Our science labs and museums are loaded with fossils, and yet, none support Mr. Darwin.
We have great stony piles of transitional fossils — what kind of argument is this, that when someone brings up all the evidence, the other just simply denies it away? We shouldn't take seriously someone so obtusely ignorant. We even have transitional forms for birds. Unfortunately, though, we will never have a complete, generation by generation fossil sequence for events that took place over tens or hundreds of millions of years; but one can't just reject a theory because the evidence isn't perfect.
But of course the evidence in our labs and museums supports evolution — that's why the people who work in labs and museums tend to accept evolution. Again, it's simply bizarre how Foster simply asserts his denial and ignores the actual state of affairs. Is this the kind of man St Petersburg wants for a chief executive?
None of Darwin's theories can be replicated or proven in a laboratory, and yet, by blind faith, many still believe in evolution. The Religion of Darwin is the only one accepted in the public school, and the time has come to change that fact. Some people think that I am misguided to believe in the Genesis account of creation. I happen to share a similar view about people who believe that all species evolved or morphed from a single cell. The beautiful thing about this country is that we all have a right to believe in whatever we choose. I may disagree with your science fiction, and you may disagree with my Bible, but we should be free to discuss each others theories, and none should be excluded form the dialogue Such discourse is not a violation of the Constitution, but rather is encouraged by the First Amendment.
Ho hum. Theories aren't replicated or proven; this is simply a complete lack of comprehension of the language of science. Evolution is not a religion. It's a description of the world and how it works.
The rest is just paranoia. No one is knocking on Foster's door and telling him what he is or is not allowed to think; no one is restricting the discussion of crazy religious ideas (look at this blog! I'm a loud and persistent biologist, and we talk about this crap all the time!), and no one is saying what anyone else is allowed to believe. This is an argument about what people can think and talk about at all — it's about what is appropriate for the classroom, about what works, about what is sufficiently well supported by the evidence that we can reach an objective consensus. What an ignorant yahoo can rant about is not the same as what should be taught in a science class.
Another item that seems to be circulating among the Florida fire-and-brimstone crowd is the Grubbs and Gibbs memorandum. It's painful to read: it's a long, overblown document in pretentious legalese that purports to justify the teaching of creationism in the classroom, and it goes through the various Florida science standard benchmarks in agonizing detail, fussing over various words and occasionally tossing out grand pronouncements about biology. It's hard to take it seriously when the clowns who wrote it persist in using "specie" as the singular of "species".
The whole thing is a string of descriptions of complex biological concepts by a pair who don't understand word one of the idea. Your jaws will all drop at this one little jewel of pomposity dropped near the end:
A worldview addresses, not only the field of science, but the philosophical purview of how to identify the four components of reality. The problem here is that Florida's science standards now force upon students only one of several potential interpretive worldview systems without providing any, philosophical instruction as to how students may evaluate and distinguish between the various worldviews that inform and identify the four components of reality—god, life, matter and time.
There are precisely four components of reality? But their list leaves out energy! And it includes this nonexistent entity they call "god"! And life is actually just a special case of matter — should it be included? I'm so surprised that they left out Jesus and the Holy Ghost, too.
Look, they're just making stuff up. That isn't science, it isn't even philosophy…it's just two ideologues in a mutual masturbation session.
Politics
Comments
Look, they're just making stuff up.
*faints*
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 12:25 PM
"Specum," right?
Posted by: Milo Johnson | January 21, 2008 12:36 PM
"...the four components of reality--god, life, matter and time"
Not all Christians share that interpretation. The traditional classification is "God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and gays-are-evil".
Posted by: hyperdeath | January 21, 2008 12:37 PM
Can't we just start hitting these people? I mean, like really hard?
I don't know if it'll help 'em learn anything, but it would do wonders for my ulcer.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 21, 2008 12:37 PM
I assume you mean this isn't an argument about what peole can think and talk about...
Posted by: Anne Nonymous | January 21, 2008 12:38 PM
Just throw Donald Prothero's latest book at them. If it doesn't knock some sense into them, it will do some damage. Either way it's a satisfying feeling.
Posted by: Randy | January 21, 2008 12:40 PM
...four components of reality--god, life, matter and time.
The fools probably think this is the Xian version of the four heathen elements - earth, air, fire, & water.
Posted by: Richard Harris | January 21, 2008 12:41 PM
PZ and Pharyngula readers might be interested in the newest issue of the journal Mind & Language, which apparently starts off with a paper (written by a philosopher, not a biologist) claiming -- get this -- that natural selection cannot explain the phenotypic traits seen in populations of organisms. What this has to do with "mind" and "language" I can't fathom, and I have no idea why this journal chose to publish this, but on the plus side, most of the rest of the journal (particularly the next article) includes rebuttals of this paper.
Posted by: Jerry D. Harris | January 21, 2008 12:48 PM
Oops, sorry all -- that URL is probably going to work better this way...
Posted by: Jerry D. Harris | January 21, 2008 12:51 PM
If there is a Religion of Darwin then I want tax exemption!
Posted by: healthphysicist | January 21, 2008 12:53 PM
If there is a Religion of Darwin then I want tax exemption!
Please, I'm going to start a gay sex cult--The rituals will be a blast, the laying on of hands being the least of them.
All that and tax exemption. Now, to get some funders so that when one of the local parish churches goes up for sale....
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 12:57 PM
Next time one of these fuckwits bring up the 'lack of transitional fossils', insist on seeing the bones of every ancestor of theirs all the way back to Adam and Eve. When they can't, brain 'em with the second densest object in sight (the first densest will be, of course, their head.)
Sorry about all the violent imagery, but I watched There Will Be Blood on Saturday, and I'm afraid it's given me some ideas.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 21, 2008 12:57 PM
Posted by: Bobby | January 21, 2008 12:58 PM
...four components of reality - god, life, matter and time.
This seems to me to be even more ignorant then the denial of evolution. From their own perspective, God is the source of life and 'death' is a separation from God so how can it be a 'component'. With that in mind it's an abstraction on either side of the 'argument'. It's being with God on one side and it's a specific set of interactions of matter and energy on the other side.
So his list of reality comprises of an invisible friend, being in that same invisible friends presence, things that are solid and the past. As you mention where is energy? I also want to know why time is important enough to mention yet the 'physical' dimensions are neglected?
Posted by: locksmyth | January 21, 2008 12:59 PM
What, no earth, air, fire, and water?
Posted by: gizmo | January 21, 2008 1:06 PM
Wow. I think we may be approaching a full 1.0 Timecube rating.
Posted by: Dunc | January 21, 2008 1:06 PM
Can global warming come soon enough?? Florida biology classes should emphasize the unique aspects of the Floridian endemic flora and fauna- bring the message home that evolution occurs in their very own backyards. When Florida finally sinks beneath the waves we'll loose one interesting endemic Bess beetle and a lot of creationists. I LIKE the beetle.
The journal article is amazing in that changes in gene frequencies of populations have been SOP lab exercises in biology classes for more than a generation now.
You just can't make this stuff up. [falls over, is covered by sediment, in later uncovered from Florissant, Colorado shale with wings perfectly preserved]. Hell, there's even transitional fossil butterflies fer god sake.
Posted by: mothra | January 21, 2008 1:07 PM
For #2;
Species is a loan-word from the Latin 5th Declension noun species (pl. speciei).
So even though it looks like a plural it is a singular and in English as a naturalised loan-word (ie we don't italicise it when we use the word in print) the singular and plural forms are the same.
Of course, my shaky Latin knowledge from 10 years past may well be flawed and I would appreciate it if a commenter could set me straight if I have erred.
Olly
Posted by: Mystic Olly | January 21, 2008 1:09 PM
Just as the ancients needed a fifth element--quintessence--to bridge the gap between mere matter and living things, this new component analysis is missing a key element, required in order to make the other four make sense of it all.
I call it ignorance.
Posted by: Anon | January 21, 2008 1:10 PM
Bill Foster's letter is a bath of warm santorum.
Posted by: Lycosid | January 21, 2008 1:18 PM
I was thinking something similar recently: I was listening to Susie Bright's audible.com podcast In Bed, and she was talking about a private swingers' party in (you guessed it) Texas that had been shut down by local bluenoses on the grounds that it was a sexually oriented business (because the hosts collected donations to cover the cost of food and drink). It occurred to me that if they called themselves a church (and really, how is swinging any more bizarre as a spiritual ritual than symbolic cannibalism?), they could not only skirt the law that shut them down, but also get a whopping tax exemption. The hosts' house would become both church and rectory, and would therefore be exempt from all property tax!
Seriously, I wonder if one way to attack religious tax preference might not be reductio ad absurdum: Claim then on behalf of... shall we say "nontradtitional"... churches, and do it so aggressively that folks are forced to recognize how unfair the tax exemptions are. Does anyone know if local Pastafarian groups have formed real-world churches and pressed tax claims?
There need be nothing dishonest or disingenuous here: Rev. Freelove of the First Church of Abundant Sexual Life need not claim to believe in any god, nor to falsely support the idea of tax preference. He need only tell the inevitable reporters, "We're just a group of people who come together to celebrate our shared beliefs, just like any other group of worshippers. Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that any such group should get special status, but those are the rules and we're happy to live by the rules."
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | January 21, 2008 1:19 PM
It's been a while since I've seen the movie, but I thought the fifth element was played by Milla Jovovich.
Posted by: Shawn Smith | January 21, 2008 1:21 PM
@19. I was expecting 'putrescence' but ignorance truly does make their world go-round. No, wait, the SUN goes around their world- which is flat anyway. [Hopelessly signs off and heads home to continue reading 'Endless Forms most Beautiful'].
Posted by: mothra | January 21, 2008 1:22 PM
Bill,
only if i get to be the god. I'm a skinny, mediocre-looking, intellectual gay man who refuses to go to the gym. I want to be the god for once.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 1:23 PM
1. Carbon Dioxide cannot be a pollutant because we exhale it. Do you think God created polluters?
2. It was a cold day in New York today. So much for Global Warming, folks.
Two gems from (Floridian) Rush Limbaugh's radio show. That's the kind of logic Florida is headed for!
Posted by: June | January 21, 2008 1:23 PM
I just sent an email letting Greg know he needs to update the map to include Madison county. Our local paper carried the resolution to teach ID on the front page last Wednesday and depressingly I'm sure it will pass.
Posted by: giscindy | January 21, 2008 1:23 PM
And your name begins with J!
You're hired! We'll have biscuits as our ritual meal.
Just one thing: Is there room in Your Kingdom for those of us who prefer straight sex? Or must we have schism before we're even truly founded? ;^)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | January 21, 2008 1:28 PM
Four components? Translating his into physics speak;
Space-time, energy/matter... life and mythology? Nah.
I see two basic components, one emergent property of the two and a second emergent property of the third.
Posted by: Paul Schofield | January 21, 2008 1:33 PM
Just one thing: Is there room in Your Kingdom for those of us who prefer straight sex? Or must we have schism before we're even truly founded? ;^)
As long as you recognize the pleasure in it and don't demote it to mere reproduction (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 1:34 PM
As long as you recognize the pleasure in it and don't demote it to mere reproduction (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Oof, I've had a few experiences in the sack that I wouldn't like to reproduce.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 21, 2008 1:36 PM
i was surprised to read (in the last comment) that the authorities stopped people from doing something in private. i used to think america was a place where atleast people's privacy was respected.
Posted by: croor | January 21, 2008 1:37 PM
With those four components of reality, I wonder where they would put satan? Surely they are not denying his reality.
Posted by: natural cynic | January 21, 2008 1:38 PM
Aether, phlogiston, orgone, and chi.
Posted by: HP | January 21, 2008 1:38 PM
[i]the last comment[/i] was #21
Posted by: croor | January 21, 2008 1:38 PM
A swinger's club that has a rectory?
Hee hee!
Posted by: inkadu | January 21, 2008 1:39 PM
"The problem here is that Florida's science standards now force upon students only one of several potential interpretive worldview systems"
I can't help but wonder which "worldview system" they would like taught. I'm assuming they just want to legitimize teaching Xian creationism, but what about the other 4999 creation myths? Most schools already cover a fair amount on Greek stories, and I certainly wouldn't mind seeing more taught on the Norse creation myths. Why should they be left out? I mean if we're going to dedicate class time to teaching different "worldviews." Now there is going to be a lot of information to cover now, and I'm not entirely sure that the current course title will be fitting. That said, if we're going to make all of these changes to the course we should change the name of the class as well, so as to reflect the lessons more clearly. Perhaps we could go with something along the lines of World Philosophy. Now with these changes, we're not going to have enough time to properly discuss the Darwinian "worldview." Not a problem though, we'll simply rectify this by making a separate course to cover that information. Now, this new class will also need a simple and descriptive name, so people know what they're getting into. Hmm... maybe something like, introductory Biology? Yeah, I like that -- it has a nice ring to it. Anyway, I think this simple little suggestion should solve this debate once and for all. This way, people get to learn about the different ideals and religions of the world, without taking away from science education. It wouldn't even bother me if they wanted to make a religion or philosophy class required. I think the topics can be very interesting, and if nothing else, may give students some exposure to different cultures.
-Michael B
Posted by: Michael | January 21, 2008 1:40 PM
Ooooooh, that's the problem! You're talking about biology and they're talking about coins. All this time they were arguing that money was designed by an intelligent creator. I can see why they though it was a god that did it, some idiot put "In God We Trust" on them.
Posted by: Martha | January 21, 2008 1:45 PM
America is; any particular town or neighborhood in America, not so much.
"America" is an abstraction that tends, in some people's minds, to fade when faced with the fact that "those perverts" are parking their cars all up and down the street. I'm not sure NIMBY is uniquely American, but it sure is prevalent here.
Lord Jeff:
Hey, the less connected to reproduction, the better, IMHO! Sexual hedonists, unite!!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | January 21, 2008 1:48 PM
Olly says:
Species is a loan-word from the Latin 5th Declension noun species (pl. speciei).
So even though it looks like a plural it is a singular and in English as a naturalised loan-word (ie we don't italicise it when we use the word in print) the singular and plural forms are the same.
My shaky Latin knowledge is older than yours (and I haven't looked it up), but as I understand it:
1. 5th declension nouns' (res, dies, species) nominative plural looks the same as the singular (so the plural is species, not speciei, which looks like a genitive singular form to me). Same in English: one species, many species.
2. Other naturalized loan-words have singular and plural forms: crepe, crepes; taco, tacos; etc. Again, the reason "species" is the plural of "species" is that that's how it is in Latin. That or because no-one wants to say "specieses".
Posted by: Dave M | January 21, 2008 1:51 PM
There's nothing worse than a missed opportunity for double-entendre, eh? Thanks for (you should pardon the expression) plugging the hole. ;^)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | January 21, 2008 1:51 PM
What was it Orson Scott Card said in his Secular Humanist Revival Meeting? "What they want is for every creature that's ever lived to lay down on top of his daddy to die -- and even then they'd say they was only cousins!"
Unholy sieve-brains, these guys... Did they sleep through Archaeopteryx, or have they heard about it but are just THAT deep in denial and lies to ignore it?
Posted by: Rachel I. | January 21, 2008 2:00 PM
Hey, the less connected to reproduction, the better, IMHO! Sexual hedonists, unite!!
Just remember, sexual pleasure is not just a benefit, it's a responsibility. Don't just take...give.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 2:01 PM
OMG it's all a hoax! No more Archaeopteryx! Damn! That was my favorite critter growing up.
I guess it must be an angel then.
Posted by: E in MD | January 21, 2008 2:03 PM
What was it Orson Scott Card said in his Secular Humanist Revival Meeting? "What they want is for every creature that's ever lived to lay down on top of his daddy to die -- and even then they'd say they was only cousins!"
What does that even mean?!
what an empty world they live in.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 2:03 PM
Between stuff like this business in Florida and the new House Resolution 888, I'm beginning to think that there is no turning back the tide. This movement will have to burn itself out, and that will take years. Perhaps decades. And the United States will suffer until its over.
These people are incapable of assimilating new information. They are incapable of learning. They are incapable of recognizing when they are wrong. They have utter confidence that they are right because they know God is on their side. Losing court cases like the one at Dover doesn't matter to them. They simply adjust tactics and keep pushing.
The cognitive dissonance is profound. There was a bit on Bill Maher the other day in which one of his staffers visits South Carolina. He reports that many people there have decided that it's time for change in the White House, and what they need now is a man with solid Christian credentials as president. They fact that they've had precisely that for eight years doesn't seem to register.
Explaining that the separation of church and state is for their own protection is a complete non-sequitur to them. These people will have to learn their lessons the hard way, and only after many more years of wrecking their own country will they finally understand. They won't stop otherwise.
That's the view from my vantage point from here in Montreal. If a Republican -- especially Huckabee -- wins the next US election, the push for theocracy in the US will accelerate. If a Democrat wins, the theocrats will simply bide their time.
Posted by: Jim Royal | January 21, 2008 2:06 PM
The current issue of The Atlantic has an interesting article on how education and religion became unhappily fused at the reptile brain. It maintains that America's educational system is deeply flawed mostly because it isn't centrally funded or administered, but is left in the hands of innumerable school board members. Further, the article says that this state of affairs came about because in their headlong rush across the continent, Americans tended to carry their religion with them and then open schools that favored those traditions. Americans, therefore, grew up with the idea that schools were not really secular institutions at all, but actually extensions of the parental religious persuasion. If that's so, then it would explain not only why school boards seem obliged to push their faith on the tots, but also why their constituents don't complain.
When we see school boards across the country still playing chicken with the Federal courts and the Constitution, it almost makes me wish the feds would take over the schools. But then I remember what Bush and Cheney would likely push onto the curriculum, and I change my mind. At least now the insanity is fragmented and can be picked off more easily.
Posted by: Tim | January 21, 2008 2:11 PM
Olly:
As someone who studies Latin and Greek for a living, DaveM is correct. In Latin the nominative singular and plural of species is the same (along with the accusative plural). Speciei is the genitive and dative singular.
Posted by: Classicsgirl | January 21, 2008 2:14 PM
Would it be nutty to imagine if all atheists and scientist who believe in evolution take a day or two off "monthly" to protest and enlighten those who believe in this xtian/muslem crap.
Enforce write essays, make tv appearances and march to see these uneducated persons and explain why their 1800 pages of creation, contradiction, ghost worship, hyperboly and drivel just don't add up.
Think about shutting down Dow Chemical, Siemens, etc, etc...think about every company and university doing research based on evolution, geology, etc...we could start this Darwin Day!
Posted by: Rick Schauer | January 21, 2008 2:16 PM
Okay, for all the scholarly talk about declinations and genitilia, not a-one of us non-classics majors has any clue as to what you're all getting at.
So, for the record, one species, two specieses, right?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 21, 2008 2:21 PM
Right, so presumably, since this is only about discourse, dialogue, and the First Amendment, he would be OK with schools teaching both about abstinence and birth control/abortion, traditional marriage and homosexuality -- it's all just about teaching the controversy, right? Let the students decide, right?
It's funny how quickly the Religious Right drops their newly-acquired taste for relativism and dialogue when they are supporting the status quo, rather than attacking it. Funny, but sad as well...
Posted by: Tulse | January 21, 2008 2:21 PM
Oops, my bad.
I forgot this is the 21st century.
That should have been:
One species, two species's.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 21, 2008 2:22 PM
...he would be OK with schools teaching both about abstinence and birth control/abortion, traditional marriage and homosexuality....
Compared to what we have now, that would rock!
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 2:23 PM
(And #50 is what you get when you try to get cute with DIV tags and Comic Sans -- important safety tips kids: preview is your friend.)
Posted by: Tulse | January 21, 2008 2:23 PM
I disagree. If Huckabee is the nominee and he loses (especially if he loses by large margins), I think it might permanently fracture the alliance between fundies and secular (or at least not so passionately theist) conservatives... and if he wins, secularism is doomed in this country. Either way, I think the question would have been answered for some time to come.
If one of the non-fundie candidates gets the Republican nod, it may mean that the alliance with fundies is already weakened. It's possible that a Repub loss in that scenario might generate a right-wing backlash against "insufficiently Christian" candidates, but I don't see that as certain.
The only real answer to the possibility that "the theocrats will simply bide their time" is to do what the Patriots did in the 4th quarter yesterday: Don't let 'em back on the field 'til the game is over.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | January 21, 2008 2:25 PM
And by 'traditional marriage', you mean, of course, polygyny.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 21, 2008 2:27 PM
I've seen the theocrats written off as stooges Reagan used, as done when Pat Robertson lost the R nominationin 1988, when Bill Clinton won the Presidency in 1992, when the public just wouldn't go along with thinking a blow job was impeachment-worthy, when President Bush flew back from vacation to "save Terry Schiavo"....they just won't go away. Indeed, they have more institutional power today than they did in the Reagan administration.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 2:29 PM
one species, two species, three species, etc.
Posted by: Classicsgirl | January 21, 2008 2:34 PM
I thought the four components of reality were earth, air, fire and water. Or was just earth wind and fire? No, they kinda sucked. Oh well, I need to go bleed myself to release the evil humors.
Posted by: ckerst | January 21, 2008 2:40 PM
I don't really want to know, I just like annoying philosophers.
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | January 21, 2008 2:47 PM
All this time I thought they were dualists... turns out they're quadralists!
Posted by: Sarcastro | January 21, 2008 2:48 PM
Yah, but you could've said the same thing about Republicans generally as recently as 2006. The thing about absolutists -- whether they be secular neocons or theocratic dominionists -- is that they tend to overplay their hands, eventually. If the Repubs nominate Huckabee, that just might signal the "overplayed our hand" moment for the fundie theocrats.
Hey, like the song says: "I can dream, can't I?"
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | January 21, 2008 2:49 PM
""And by 'traditional marriage', you mean, of course, polygyny.""
Hahah...
I feel like Huxley, as it is rather stupid for me not to have thought of that myself...
Posted by: Lago | January 21, 2008 2:56 PM
Maybe not. The tide might be going out on the Christofascists.
1. They own Bush and owned the congress until 2006. Bush's approval ratings are about the lowest in history. And the theocrats got defeated in droves in the election of 2006.
2. A recent poll by Bama, an evangelical polling company, showed that 49% of the US population is sick and tired of Xian cultists trying to cram their beliefs down everyone elses throats.
3. The rise of Militant Atheism. You hear a lot about Death Cult Xianity these days. You also hear a lot about atheism.
There is a backlash right now. As to how strong it is, we will just have to wait and see.
If they win, they will eventually lose anyway. They are pushing intolerance, lies, ignorance, and conformity to views most Americans have rejected. Their one way ticket back to the Dark Ages isn't going to be popular.
Unfortunately by the time they lose, our civilization might be dead. There has never been a civilization that didn't fall sooner or later. Toynbee says it will be our turn someday.
Posted by: raven | January 21, 2008 2:58 PM
Whoever is elected, he/she's
Got to recognize that species
Come from God, Life, Time, and Matter
All mixed up like pancake batter.
Any talk of evolution
Does not fit in this solution;
We voted this depravity...
Next week, we outlaw gravity.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | January 21, 2008 2:59 PM
Any list of components that leaves out the fifth dimension (the discography of Elvis Costello) clearly can not be taken seriously.
Posted by: Scott Hatfield, OM | January 21, 2008 3:03 PM
#21: "It occurred to me that if they called themselves a church (and really, how is swinging any more bizarre as a spiritual ritual than symbolic cannibalism?)"
Recommended reading: Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert Heinlein. It was published 20 years before Reagan. Heinlein also predicted televangelists and megachurches.
BTW, I haven't seen a Bible yet. Only copies. Where can I see the original?
Posted by: Lassi Hippeläinen | January 21, 2008 3:05 PM
Hello
Im new to this blog and Im wondering if anyone here can answer a question. Does anyone on here believe that belief in God and evolution is compatible?
Posted by: John T. | January 21, 2008 3:05 PM
Im new to this blog and Im wondering if anyone here can answer a question. Does anyone on here believe that belief in God and evolution is compatible?
The number of people who are "believers" and also scientists itself shows that it's possible.
However, there are many here who would try to problematize the entire statement by getting into questions of definitions of god (some are quite simply not compatible with evolution) and the fact that the god hypothesis simply isn't necessary for evolution.
Now, let the vivisection by others begin :)
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 3:10 PM
"As someone who studies Latin and Greek for a living, DaveM is correct."
As someone who edits English for a living, I'd like to point out that Classicsgirl is saying that DaveM studies Latin and Greek for a living. I'm guessing that isn't what she intended.
(Ordinarily I wouldn't stoop, but if we're going to make fun of people's errors in Latin...)
Posted by: Ann | January 21, 2008 3:11 PM
John T.
Scientifically, there is no evidence of God. So there is no reason to believe in God.
The observations that living things evolve makes evolution a fact. Darwin put together a comprehensive theory that it is this observed evolution which causes differences in species. All physical evidence in the 150 years since Darwin developed his theory has supported the theory (some minor debates). No evidence has contradicted it.
To throw your question back at you, do you believe that a belief in the tooth fairy and nuclear physics are compatible?
Posted by: healthphysicist | January 21, 2008 3:15 PM
The majority of the world's Xians do. Catholics, the Pope, mainstream protestants, Mormons, and even some evangelicals. The reality deniers are cults from the south central USA mostly.
Roughly half of all biologists in the USA are believers of one sort of another.
Posted by: raven | January 21, 2008 3:16 PM
Just so you know. I am the tooth fairy in my house lol.
Posted by: John T. | January 21, 2008 3:17 PM
god, life, matter and time.
Why, this classification schema is completely inadequate. For example, I cite the (theorised) existence of Bushmills Irish Whiskey.
At first glance, it would appear that Bushmills should be considered matter. However, by translocating sufficient quantities of it from one place (e.g. the bottle) to another (e.g. my stomach), one will notice that time no longer exists. Further translocation will cause one to realise that they are God, and I theorise (based on sound experimentation) that further translocation of the substance will do for life what lesser amounts have done for time and God.
To me this suggests an inherent hierarchy to these four elements of existence. However, preliminary data gleaned from similar experimentation with Jägermeister and Goldschläger demonstrates that the hierarchy is not absolute.
Finally, experiments carried out early in my career with varying quantities of marijuana, 'shrooms, and Big Bear malt liquor have suggested that a hypothesised fifth element exists that overwhelms the known universe in its ubiquity (much like dark matter): vomit.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 21, 2008 3:18 PM
Finally, experiments carried out early in my career with varying quantities of marijuana, 'shrooms, and Big Bear malt liquor have suggested that a hypothesised fifth element exists that overwhelms the known universe in its ubiquity (much like dark matter): vomit.
Rituals. You're doing them wrong. Never marijuana after lots of alcohol. Never.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 3:22 PM
#67.
If you believe everything has to be created, then you must believe in a MetaGod who created God. But then, who created MetaGod?
Posted by: June | January 21, 2008 3:22 PM
John T. -
HA!
My point is that they can be compatible or not compatible. Generally speaking, evolution is one of many scientific theories which contradict Biblical teachings.
You pile that on top of the Biblical contradictions, contradictions with other religious texts, the fact that praying doesn't work any better than not, etc. and it's pretty tough to buy into any religion.
Then pile on top of that, the psychology of "God" and you can be very, very confident that God doesn't exist.
But if you want to still believe (and many do), that is your choice.
Posted by: healthphysicist | January 21, 2008 3:23 PM
But then, who created MetaGod?
Duh! Ceiling Cat.
Posted by: MAJeff | January 21, 2008 3:24 PM
Hah! No need to teach your grandfather to suck eggs! I read Stranger when I was in junior high school, back in nineteen-seventy-[mumble], and I've been a Heinlein fan ever since. My Mrs. Grundy of a school librarian refused to acquire The Moon is a Harsh Mistress on the grounds that it was "full of way-out sex!" Imagine my disappointment when I finally read it, and realized that the most sexually explicit thing in it was a single kiss. (It's full of descriptions of "way-out" alternative forms of marriage, but no descriptions of what goes on in those alternative bedrooms, alas!)
The funny thing is, right-wingers often claim Heinlein as their own, completely ignoring that Stranger is practically Holy Scripture to a whole generation of free-love New Age hippies. And don't even get started on the incest themes in his later work! ;^)
Anyway... thou art god, Water Brother!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | January 21, 2008 3:25 PM
OK
If I look at a chair, I assume that someone designed it. Now when I look at the human body is it not "rational" to assume a designer is present?
Posted by: John T. | January 21, 2008 3:26 PM
Rituals. You're doing them wrong. Never marijuana after lots of alcohol. Never.
Initially I read this as "Ritalins. You're doing them wrong," and I thought: Definitely.
As I alluded, I was young (and in love.)
Posted by: Brownian, OM | January 21, 2008 3:29 PM
John T. -
Very rational...it does look designed. Look out your window, doesn't it look like the earth is flat, doesn't it look like the sun revolves around the earth, doesn't it look like there are no stars in the heavens right now?
The "designer" concept is very rational, but scientifically it's just a description of how something looks. Experimentation would give no evidence of a designer. Experimentation has provided evidence of evolution. Over and over and over again.
Posted by: healthphysicist | January 21, 2008 3:29 PM
All this mess in Florida, Kansas, and now Texas has convinced me that the average Joe American is NOT qualified to run or manage a school board. I can't believe it has come to this, but I think there needs to be prerequisites before eligibility for a seat. Something like 30 years as an educator or administrator, or a Masters of Education.
There are just too many fools in boards now. I am from Midland, Texas, and our sister city in Odessa, Texas, allowed a Bible course to be taught in one of their high schools. The course was an elective, but it was not an objective study of the Bible as literature or history just simply a Bible study. Despite the fact that the course was optional, using Federal and State funding for it is unconstitutional. A couple dozen parents called the ACLU, and now the city is on the other end of a law suit that could cost the city millions in fees. And who got them in this situation? A bunch of religious do-gooders who have no experience in the public school system and no understanding of constitutional law. I went to school with one of the daughters of one of the school board members. This woman has no college, worked for a non-profit Christian organization her whole career, and never had her kids in Public School! In fact, they sent their kids to private school in my city! And she's on the board over there! Unacceptable. That is the fundamental problem here, and I think prerequisites for office are the only way to fix it.
Posted by: Andrew | January 21, 2008 3:29 PM
"If I look at a chair, I assume that someone designed it. Now when I look at the human body is it not "rational" to assume a designer is present?"
Yes, but then that holds for the Designer, no doubt more complex than the entire universe. Is it not rational to assume the designer was designed? Hence MetaGod.
Posted by: June | January 21, 2008 3:32