Pharyngula

Posted by: Moses | March 24, 2008 12:45 PM

"...think like creationists..." Dude, that's not thinking. The antonyms of thinking are: irrational, stupid.

Posted by: Carlie | March 24, 2008 12:48 PM

And for everyone who has come over here wondering what all the fuss is over Expelled and their ilk, here it is. This is what we're dealing with. This kind of crap, peddled as God's Honest Truth, coming out of the mouths of thousands of pastors, parents, and yes, teachers, all over the country. And hundreds of thousands of kids are soaking it up, well along their way in training to ignore science any and every time it suits them. Antibiotic-resistant diseases? Don't exist. Global warming? Scientists don't know what they're talking about. Lack of evidence for any demonstratable mental or physiological differences between ethnic groups? Scientists are the ones with the evil agenda, trying to make everyone seem the same, ignoring what we really know to be true.

It's all part and parcel of the same problem. That's why we get so upset. There are people in this country actively eroding science at every turn in this country, and they have been growing more numerous and more powerful for the last 30 years, and it needs to be stopped.

Posted by: severalspeciesof | March 24, 2008 12:52 PM

PZ,
After viewing this, my question is: "And Nisbet wants you to what?????"

Posted by: Mark B | March 24, 2008 12:55 PM

It was kind of funny when the interviewer asked them why dinosaur bones were never found in the same strata as humans. It's clear that they at least did a little preparation, instead of giving the creationists a forum for spouting their talking points. Hopefully, this will become a trend for mainstream reporting about creationism.

Posted by: Andres | March 24, 2008 12:57 PM

Actually, the comment about the vegetarian T-rex, and the whole question about how there were no carnivorous animals before the Fall, is an interesting one. Does it mean that the lions, wolves et al were all redesigned after the Fall to be able to hunt and digest meat?

Posted by: Glen Davidson | March 24, 2008 1:01 PM

That's what they do, of course, they drum into kids' heads to pass every conclusion by their "understanding of the Bible," so that better methods won't even begin to get a grip on thier minds.

It's not always so devastating when the kids nevertheless do learn science and how to think through evidence, because then the obvious problems arise in many of their minds. But this will discourage them from studying science in the first place (home schoolers are notoriously badly educated in the sciences), and for those who largely miss learning science, there's little way for them to comprehend our positions by anything but a prejudicial manner.

And yes, the "questioning" that they bring up is just the sort of "skepticism" and "openness" that Expelled is promoting. "Question science," just be sure to insist that religious bias is every bit as deserving of respect as are our judicial and scientific standards for using evidence.

I hate to say it, but most home schooled children had probably be best written off as damaged goods. Most (not all, of course) are home schooled precisely in order to prevent their learning anything other than rote swill.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Posted by: Dustin, OM | March 24, 2008 1:01 PM

I suppose the tour skips the museum's computer demonstrations of natural selection.

It still baffles me that there could be creationists in Colorado -- it takes a special kind of moron to live in a place where you can find everything from trilobites to dinosaurs literally in your back yard and still declare that the world is a few thousand years old.

Posted by: Patrick Albers | March 24, 2008 1:03 PM

These people are so silly. Ignoring facts and spreading some well manufactured propaganda onto children. I feel sorry for them.
What would a creationist do if an educated person comes along while they are "teaching" the chrildren and would do somethin like this...

Hey kids, have you ever seen a bird with teeth? ... No? How would it look like if a bird would have teeth? It would look silly, wouldn't it? ... Yes. That would be very bad design. Now everybody say "bad design"... "BAD DESIGN". Yes kids. So why is it, that bird have no teeth, but they have the genes to grow teeth, although they don't use these genes? It's because of evolution. Bird have a common ancestor who had teeth. Within the process of evolution bird lost the use of teeth and now they don't have them, but they still have the genes. This is just one proof of evolution. Now everybody say "proof of evolution" ... "PROOF OF EVOLUTION". Good kids... Now would you like to pray or would you like me to buy you some ice cream?

hehe ;-)

Posted by: Kseniya | March 24, 2008 1:04 PM

s/part of a moment/part of a movement/10

Posted by: Ric | March 24, 2008 1:07 PM

PZ said: Then there is the twisted logic. T. rex has big sharp teeth; they know, though, that he was a vegetarian, because "if this creature was designed to eat meat from the very start, what would he have to do until Adam and Eve sinned, and death entered the world? What would he have to do? Fast and pray for the Fall." Oh, and of course, he then says, "Is that likely? Everyone look at me and say...no. Try that with me...no."

Twisted logic indeed. I think I'll use this as a perfect example of rationalizing for my critical thinking class.

A clear thinker would say, "That is indeed not likely, and thus it calls your Garden of Eden origin story into question."

Posted by: deerjackal | March 24, 2008 1:07 PM

I've gotten to the point where I can laugh at most creationist nuttiness, but whenever there's kids involved, I seriously want to bawl. To preach to the choir, steering them away from critical thinking / logic sets them up for failure on so many fronts. Child abuse is the perfect label.

Posted by: Dale Husband | March 24, 2008 1:10 PM

The religious bigots have been doing this for centuries. That there are millions of athiests in the world and millions more people who accept evolution even while being Christian shows the indoctrination process is not as successful as you'd think. Indeed, some of the best advocates for atheism were raised in fundamentalist Christian homes.

Posted by: atari_age | March 24, 2008 1:12 PM

Ok, these guys are lying and they KNOW it. They do.

And if they have to lie for their beliefs, they must have very little faith because they're faith is weak.

So they're lying twice over.

Really disgusting.

Posted by: Ian | March 24, 2008 1:15 PM

I've just realized that I've been living in the Denver area almost two years now, and I haven't yet been to the museum! Now I'll definitely have to take a trip.

Posted by: Kcanadensis | March 24, 2008 1:17 PM

Disgusting. It really is a kind of child abuse. (And, as pointed out, abuse of a perfectly good museum!)

Posted by: MyaR | March 24, 2008 1:18 PM

They can't even get their OWN theology right -- "We believe Jesus is our creator". My friend's awesome reply -- "maybe the creator of their church's landscaping, but I think he has an accent on the u."

But yeah, this pisses me off -- teaching children how to NOT think by pretending to teach them how to actually think. Fortunately, for some of us this backfires, because we miss the cues and think we're actually supposed to think. So we do, and we really do learn.

Posted by: Ian | March 24, 2008 1:18 PM

Earth six thousand years old... six or seven generations of 800 year old people between Adam and Noah .... uh,...

Er, I imagine the assumption is that they reproduced well before they reached 800, just as people today reproduce around 20 or 30, not 80.

Posted by: MandyDax | March 24, 2008 1:20 PM

"How do you know?"

?!

READ THE FUCKING SIGNS!! They're there at the exhibits to explain just that. I look at these adults who are leading the tour, and they say these crazy things, and it suddenly dawns on me that they actually believe what they're saying. I may have to call in sick after watching that. I feel so sorry for these children.

Posted by: Fire Ant | March 24, 2008 1:20 PM

Wow......I agree, it is a good sign that the curator outgrew the YEC upbringing. Another irony is that these guides will keep on using the medicines and food developed through scientific methods (and yes, evolutionary concepts) and use gas processed from oil deposits millions of years old and not even think about it. Think any of those kids has a chance working at a large energy company if they think the world is 6,000 years old?

Posted by: raven | March 24, 2008 1:25 PM

OT but related. Looks like some xian fundies are in trouble for killing their kids. The kids in the museum are the lucky ones, so far. FWIW, this happens frequently, though I can't give any numbers on it. Most don't get reported and most docs who have been through the court order process don't try it more than once. It is too depressing and usually futile.

Oregon prosecutors review girl's death, faith-healing law 3/22 5:54 pm

OREGON CITY, Ore. (AP) - Prosecutors are reviewing the death of a 15-month-old girl a medical examiner says could have lived if she had been treated with antibiotics, but was not because of family religious beliefs.

The Oregonian newspaper quoted Dr. Christopher Young, a deputy state medical examiner, as saying that Ava Worthington died March 2 at home from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and infection.

the newspaper said that if prosecuted, Ava Worthington's parents would be the first members of Oregon City's Followers of Christ, a fundamentalist Christian denomination, to face charges for failing to seek medical treatment for a gravely ill child as required by a 1999 law.

When The Associated Press called the number listed for the church today the person who answered hung up.

The church came to Oregon early in the 20th century. When members become ill, fellow worshippers pray and anoint them with oil. Former members say those who seek modern medical remedies are ostracized.
Oregon prosecutors review girl's death, faith-healing law

Posted by: Kim | March 24, 2008 1:26 PM

There are just no words.
I truly feel sorry for those children.

Posted by: alickn | March 24, 2008 1:28 PM

Oh dear. This is disgraceful. Mr. Jack and Mr. Carter - lying for jesus - your choice. Lying to children - shame on you.

Posted by: Will E. | March 24, 2008 1:29 PM

Think any of those kids has a chance working at a large energy company if they think the world is 6,000 years old?

Sure, why not? Cognitive dissonance is the creationists' stock in trade--especially if there's money to be made. One of those kids might even grow up to be president!

Posted by: alickn | March 24, 2008 1:30 PM

Oh dear. Mr. Jack and Mr. Carter - this is disgraceful. Lying for jesus - your choice. Lying to children - shame on you.

Posted by: Forrest Prince | March 24, 2008 1:32 PM

(paraphrasing) "And what changed your mind?" the reporter asks of the curator. "Empirical evidence" he replies.

Empirical Evidence. A notion anathema to the minds of these bone-headed creationist neanderthals (with apologies to neanderthals). Empirical evidence is used in shaping the theory to fit the facts, i.e. the scientific method. Warping, ignoring, slandering, explaining away the facts in order for what little is left to fit the "theory" of creationism is how these dummies play their game.

Nauseating. And yeah, I agree: a form of child abuse. Not prosecutable, unfortunately. Maybe some day.

Posted by: True Bob | March 24, 2008 1:39 PM

Eeesh. That was difficult to watch - I had to stop it and come back later.

BC Tours? More like BS Tours.

What is really bizarre to me is how blinded they are to their biases (maybe that's because I'm blinded by mine). I think I'd want to shadow them and make corrections aloud. At least, loud enough for the kids to hear.

Posted by: Brad | March 24, 2008 1:46 PM

Comment #43 beat me to the dripping irony with regards to the "for the bible tells me so" explanation for birds being designed as such.

Posted by: Steven | March 24, 2008 1:50 PM

This stirs a feeling of utter indignation. This is child abuse for sure. Retarding the minds of children for Jesus is just wrong.

I had to post about it also

http://cantmakeadifference.blogspot.com/2008/03/retarding-for-jesus.html

Posted by: jimmiraybob | March 24, 2008 1:53 PM

Posted by: firemancarl

Yep, despite the idiocy taught by the YEC guys, some of those kids are going to think for themselves and when they do...

You suppose the mom that was quoted as saying she believes everything in the bible really feels that way when her man wants some lovin?

I'm willing to bet she compromises when the children get a little older and a little more independent. A real test of this conviction will be when she has a chance to set the first stone hurtling toward the unruly child. Of course, there's always the possibility that the husband stones her first. Apparently, the curator's parents lacked complete conviction in the inerrant nature of the Bible - at least I saw no obvious indentations.

Posted by: tacitus | March 24, 2008 1:57 PM

Ugh. Makes me want to weep. Those poor kids were being force fed a butt load of lies.

However, Nightline did mess up the 800 year generation thing. You don't count generations by life span, you count them by the average age gap between parents and children (about 25 years today). So, in terms of Biblical mythology, there is no real problem in having seven generations within a couple of thousand years, since the seventh generation could have been born within a couple of hundred years of Adam and Eve.

Of course, it's all just a myth anyway, but I can imagine the creationists watching jumping on this point and saying it proves how untrustworthy the whole piece was.

Posted by: Don | March 24, 2008 2:09 PM

#31

That might seem reasonable to you or I, but Genesis is clear that Noah was 500 before his first offspring.

Posted by: dvizard | March 24, 2008 2:11 PM

Creationists are definitely bad for my blood pressure. Hell, they are.

Posted by: chaos_engineer | March 24, 2008 2:15 PM

Sigh, that's not even a good rationalization. Why not just use this argument:

"Here's a picture of an orchid blossom that looks like an insect. It's such a close resemblance that real insects will try to mate with it (and pollinate the plant in the process). Before the Fall, birds weren't allowed to eat insects, but they would have been allowed to eat the blossoms of this plant. Did they do this? That's a logical conclusion! Could bigger orchids have had triceratops-shaped blossoms? I don't see any reason why not! And might T.Rexes have eaten them? Well, duh! And would there be evidence of those orchids today? Maybe, but they might have gone extinct during the Flood! And is it this hypothesis theoretically testable but not falsifiable? Yes to both! And does that make it as close to science as Creationism can ever get? Absolutely!"

Posted by: Patrick | March 24, 2008 2:21 PM

Here I thought I had to turn to BBC if I ever wanted to see these hacks taken to task. By the standards of American news media that is a downright scathing indictment of complete idiocy. Forget Expelled, schoolchildren need to see that video. There is something humorous about the lies being so outrageous that even children have trouble even imagining the creationist fantasy. Clearly these morons haven't been around much if they think adolescents, particularly adolescent boys, don't know enough about dinosaurs to know that they didn't live a couple thousand years ago. Unless things have changed radically since I was a child, the average young boy can name more dinosaur facts than anyone this side of a paleontologist. They can certainly tell you that the T-Rex ate meat and top it off with dozens of other meat eaters. Try and tell a child that dinosaurs were prissy vegetarians that scampered about Eden and you just lost a convert. No offense to vegetarians.

Of course...it's best that these walking anachronisms aren't around adolescents or any people between the ages of 0 and 800.

On a final note, is it weird that the only thing that made me smack my head against my desk was the math in the 800 year generation discussion? It's mind-blowingly retarded to even discuss but people living 800 years likely wouldn't have 800 year generations any more than generations occur every 70 years in the modern day. I'd certainly hope that anyone who honestly believes people used to live to 800 has never bred and doesn't know what a generation is.

Posted by: rea | March 24, 2008 2:31 PM

T. Rex must have been a vegetarian, otherwise he would not have been able to eat before the fall, these people tell us.

Does that mean that it's a sin to eat meat? Are these people militant vegetarians as well as creationists?

And what do they make of New Testament passages that have Jesus eating met?

Posted by: dsmvwld | March 24, 2008 2:34 PM

No mention of the appalling math from the oh-so-neutral reporter, though, of course. A new generation doesn't start after a person dies. Generations overlap. That inconvenient truth seems to be lost on the reporter and, well, everyone else here.

Posted by: Rick Schauer | March 24, 2008 2:43 PM

I watched this on tv last night. The part that got me was the one mother of these kids saying the bible is true and so is their interpretation of it.

Aren't laws about fraud or child abuse applicable here?

Irony is, it makes complete sense to these people to worship an angry, jealous, vengeful god who's all powerful but still had to sacrifice his only son due to a small sin oversight. Nutty!

Posted by: Louis | March 24, 2008 2:47 PM

{comment deleted by author}

The above comment has been deleted by the author, a scientist, because it violates the Nisbet-Mooney Accords of 2008.

This is something of a shame because the post contained a) the answer to solving the problem of creationists which will not only keep creationists happy, but also moderate religious people and scientists, b) the solution to climate change, and c) the secrets behind having a really big penis/thick lustrous hair/weight loss/cellulite removal/general body image problems/removing unsightly skin blemishes/etc.

Apologies. Please feel free to slip merrily into a second Dark Age because we are afraid to upset people.

Louis

Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | March 24, 2008 2:48 PM

I wonder what venus fly-traps and pitcher plants ate before "the Fall".

Posted by: thadd | March 24, 2008 2:51 PM

Wouldn't teeth wear to nothing over an 800 year life?

Posted by: thadd | March 24, 2008 2:54 PM

Also, why would a sea turtle die in the flood?

Posted by: Angrynight | March 24, 2008 2:59 PM

I have to give it to the new reporters though, they certainly didn't cut anyone any slack. I like the curator's responses too. It's depressing people are doing this to the kids, but at least some will come out alright. I myself used the term "survival of the fittest" as a platitude not related to evolution in front of my religious father when I was eleven. I didn't even know what it meant when I said it, but his reaction was enough to make me look it up!

Posted by: chaos_engineer | March 24, 2008 3:02 PM

Does that mean that it's a sin to eat meat? Are these people militant vegetarians as well as creationists?

It's not that it's sinful, it's just an article of faith that nothing died before the Fall. So nothing could have been eaten except for the parts of plants that can regenerate. (Fruits and leaves, but no root vegetables.)

The only way meat-eating would work would be if animals could regrow missing tissue pretty quickly, and if they had no pain receptors so they wouldn't mind if you took a bite out of them. But that's silly.

No, wait a minute, that's not quite as silly as the triceratops-shaped orchids I suggested earlier in the thread. I'd like to switch my theory to this one, please.

Posted by: pough | March 24, 2008 3:04 PM

Ever since Dawkins talked about the Lord Privy Seal thing, I've been noticing it and it's driving me crazy. Near the start of this video (0:47 or so), when the narrator explains how the tour is a Christian thing, they slowly focus on a stained glass window of what looks like Jesus on a privy, balancing balls like a trained seal.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 24, 2008 3:09 PM

And it was ignored or laughed off every time.

Sigh. Here's what Patrick wrote:

On a final note, is it weird that the only thing that made me smack my head against my desk was the math in the 800 year generation discussion? It's mind-blowingly retarded to even discuss but people living 800 years likely wouldn't have 800 year generations any more than generations occur every 70 years in the modern day. I'd certainly hope that anyone who honestly believes people used to live to 800 has never bred and doesn't know what a generation is.

So whaddaya want?

Posted by: Rudy | March 24, 2008 3:11 PM

C'mon, haven't any of you heard of T Rex's common
prey, the Tofudont?

Posted by: Steve | March 24, 2008 3:12 PM

Jackasses. If there was no death and suffering in the Garden of Eden, animals wouldn't need to eat at ALL. What are they gonna do, starve to death?

Herbivores provide just as much as problem for the Creationists as obligate carnivores do xp

Posted by: Ian | March 24, 2008 3:14 PM

And it was ignored or laughed off every time.

Posted by: dsmvwld

I didn't see a single response laughing it off. The only opposing response I see period was #61, which raised a valid point. And how can you know that it was ignored? How exactly do you distinguish "ignored" from "read and accepted without further comment"?

Posted by: Ken | March 24, 2008 3:22 PM

Just watched the video. Those guys should not be allowed near any children and should be charged with child abuse.

Posted by: Greg | March 24, 2008 3:25 PM

Sad, just sad - I felt nauseated for witnessing this child abuse

Posted by: vlad | March 24, 2008 3:26 PM

"I swear, not ALL of us were homeschooled because our parents wanted to fill our heads with creationism instead of biology." The obvious question would be why are people home schooled. There are some legitimate reasons for home schooling but only if it's done properly. With the exception of bad local schools or disabled children I can't see legit reasons to home school.

Posted by: AJ Hawks | March 24, 2008 3:30 PM

Wow, I happened to be dosing my lunch time insulin while watching this, and had a hard time not stabbing my eyes out with the syringe.

They hurt my brain. It physically hurts.

Posted by: durakje | March 24, 2008 3:56 PM

@ #104

Dude, about time you showed up. We've been waiting for you since comment #16.

Posted by: Jonathon | March 24, 2008 4:00 PM

OK, I tried. I made it through the first 30 seconds of the video before my head exploded.

BC Tours? "Biblically-Correct" tours? Give me a freaking break.

Miseducating children is outright child abuse, and the Denver museum should have shown the "guides" the door when they started preaching creationism. A real tour guide, one who actually knows the material, should have been substituted so that the children could hear the real story - even if it conflicts with the religious indoctrination that passes for "home schooling".

It almost equates to having a white supremacist take a group of children to the Holocaust museum and then give a tour explaining how all of the exhibits are wrong and that no Jews were killed and that the Holocaust is just liberal propaganda.

Those poor children. My heart breaks for them. What will these children do when they grow up? They are so sheltered, so indoctrinated that I fear they won't be able to function in society once they reach adulthood. No critical thinking, no doubt - just accept what you're told and believe what we tell you. How can people STILL be so stupid?

Posted by: Ryan F Stello | March 24, 2008 4:03 PM

If you really want to take issue with what Christians believe (or should believe), try taking issue with scripture itself, rather than with those who might not necessarily have the clearest understanding of scripture.

Even if you don't self-identify with the freaks that this post is aiming at, you still have an expectation that scripture is important for understanding.

Why on Earth would you suggest that atheists/evolutionists (your labeling) look into scripture if, as you acknowledge, your own people can walk away with 'misunderstandings'?

Other than, I dunno, your own feelings of righteous 'understanding'...

Posted by: Ted | March 24, 2008 4:10 PM

I remember two years ago for my intro-EvoDevo class at the University of Denver when we took multiple field trips to this Prehistoric Journey exhibit at DMNS. We spent hours and hours over multiple trips over multiple quarters studying the exhibits, taking exhaustive notes, following our professor's guides and notes, and writing up our observations. To see this excellent museum being pissed on by ignorant delusional fanatics to advance religious dogma is patently offensive. So I say a giant "thank you" to Dr. Monahan @ DU for his hard work in advancing actual science on us hapless undergrads who weren't bio majors.

Posted by: Tayi | March 24, 2008 4:18 PM

In response to some of the comments about homeschooling: I chose to be homeschooled in high school because I wanted to finish high school more quickly so I could escape the situation I was in. I had math and science textbooks with Bible verses in them, which were just a continuation of the dinosaur books I read as a child that said the same things this tour guide did. In spite of the craziness, I managed to get a decent education and escape to the real world. In the end, my homeschooling experience laid the seeds of my rejection of creationism and therefore Christianity, because I learned to research things on my own whenever I was curious about them.

All that being said, there are parents who use homeschooling as an excuse to try to brainwash their children into being little automatons. But there are parents who try to do that without homeschooling as well, and I think that homeschooling makes very little difference in the effectiveness of the propaganda. An environment where kids are only exposed to church-approved information can actually result in kids who reject religion entirely, because eventually they encounter reality. When you've been told repeatedly that you have to believe in creationism or your faith makes no sense, and then you find evidence that creationism is false, many people end up rejecting the religion and everything that goes along with it as well. Which I can't help but think is a good thing.

Posted by: JimC | March 24, 2008 4:23 PM

If you really want to take issue with what Christians believe (or should believe), try taking issue with scripture itself, rather than with those who might not necessarily have the clearest understanding of scripture.

Scripture itself? I hate to tell you this Dan but scripture is only as usuable as the person reading it. Is an infallible bible in which no one can agree on virtually anything any better than a fallible one?

Your version is no more correct than there take in a theological sense. The final barometer is reality. That which matches reality is likely correct.

Posted by: Kseniya | March 24, 2008 4:32 PM

BTW: theropod.

Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2008 4:43 PM

durakje #105, Thanks! I'm glad you missed me!

Greg #106, regardless of whatever case I can present, one way or another, it all comes back to the beginning.
The Christian, the evolutionist and everybody else still have to deal with the fact that, at some point, something came out of nothing. If this point can't be rationalized, then the atheist or evolutionist is just as justified in believing in a chance chemical reaction as the Christian is in believing in a Creator.

If you really want my incomplete and flawed take on Christianity, it's not about following laws, it's not about teaching our kids that evolution is wrong, it's not about judging anyone who doesn't believe what we believe to be 'evil' and declaring them to be 'destined for hell'.

In fact, all that stuff (and much more of what Christians practice) is arguably anti-Christian.

It's about - as Christ states - firstly loving God, and secondly loving your 'neighbour' (your neighbour being pretty much everyone)

I'd say it's not loving your kids to brainwash them into irrationally believing that evolution is ridiculous and 'bad'.
It's not loving anyone to brainwash them about anything.
I don't read of Christ brainwashing people. In fact it was almost the opposite - much of Christ's teaching was 'this is how it is' - 'it doesn't make a lot sense' - 'like it or lump it'.

I mean, if you've got a degree in biblical studies, you must have come across the idea that the Bible tells us that - for whatever inexplicable reason - it is God that choses us and changes our hearts and minds. So whether you agree with it or not, you must understand why people either believe in God or not.

JimC #115, I've kinda addressed this above, and I guess you're right - scripture is only as useful as the person reading it.
But I guess nonetheless, it still stands; what point is there in critiquing a Christian who misrepresents Christianity? Isn't it better to figure out scripture for yourself and then critique scripture? After all, where else will you find out what Christianity is all about?

If you can't do that, then what is the point in arguing at all?

If you're objecting to brainwashing of kids, then i'd strongly agree that brainwashing kids about evolution/creation is not biblical, and some evolutionists and atheists are equally guilty of brainwashing kids.

"That which matches reality is likely correct."
Yes, but what two people agree on reality?

Posted by: H.H. | March 24, 2008 4:52 PM

Dan wrote:

If this point can't be rationalized, then the atheist or evolutionist is just as justified in believing in a chance chemical reaction as the Christian is in believing in a Creator.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 24, 2008 4:59 PM

Dan, the point is that these people are abusing children by warping them in this way.

I've read scripture, and spent a hell of a lot of time both in front of and behind the altar. The first 10 years of my education were spent in schools that taught classes on Christianity.

But so have a lot of other posters here. Whatever your 'Peace & Love' version is (and mine was very similar to yours) it draws some of its inspiration from the bible, but it also requires one to ignore a whole hell of a lot. In the end, you're not really left with much more than 'I believe in this version of Christianity because I want to. These people would of course agree up to a point, differing only to add that you and I are both completely wrong, and yours and my children should be forced to be raised their 'right way', even if we disagree. They don't give two shits for your interpretation, or mine, and they're not interested in dialogue.

In my opinion, people with beliefs like yours aren't particularly problematic (and are probably, by most accounts, 'good' people), except for when you show up to defend the actions of wingnuts like these with your blanket assertion that struggling hard to pick 'n' choose verses from the bible in which to believe in the face of mounting evidence against doesn't lead to dangerously self-deluded groups like this.

Posted by: Markus | March 24, 2008 5:02 PM

Diane Rehm on NPR today had a home school discussion. I didn't hear the first half, but it did sound like a fairly decent conversation. Of course after one of the pro-home schoolers on the board had explained what a splendid job she had done with reaching all the benchmarks for her children, they have a caller call in and go off on how home schooling is such a great thing for Creationism. Man, the one day I actually had my cell phone with me in the car but didn't have time to call in..

Posted by: gravitybear | March 24, 2008 5:12 PM

From the video, the christian at the end said that choosing to believe in something and choosing not to believe in something are equivalent positions.
So if your neighbor believes in fairies that make shoes in the middle of the night and you say he's crazy and you show him the payroll records from a shoe factory, you are just having a philosophical difference of opinion.

Is that right?

Posted by: vlad | March 24, 2008 5:16 PM

"If you can think of a reasonable excuse to rally a bunch of children to gather around a 75 year old woman and catcall about how she's going to go to hell for teaching children about dinosaurs, I'd really like to hear it." Wow never though I'd be on this side of the argument but. He's not suggesting that the behavior posed by Nutbags can or should be justified. He's only saying that just cause a person says they are Christian doesn't not mean they are anti evolution or anti science nor will they support the behavior of these half literate idiots.

Posted by: James F | March 24, 2008 5:17 PM

Ain't no carnosaur. Is more closely related to the birds than to the carnosaurs. Allosaurus is a carnosaur, Tyrannosaurus is not.

Looks like I was going by the outdated definition back from when I was a lad - thank you for edifying me! Although I'm sure these creationists would argue that Allosaurus was also herbivorous.

And by the by...do creationists argue that Homo neanderthalensis and the other extinct species of the genus Homo were blinked into existence separately from Adam and Eve, along with all the other animals? Did they get along with Adam and Eve, or was it kind of an uncomfortable Geico caveman situation?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 24, 2008 5:20 PM

I actually stated that I believe that what these people are doing is arguably anti-Christian and unbiblical.

I know you aren't actively defending these people Dan, and we know all Christians aren't the same. (Hey, even PZ used to be one, but not like these.) But spare us your indignities. If you're on the side of science, then join in the fight against stupidity like this. Saying that wingnuts like this aren't representative of your brand of Christianity may help you sleep at night, but it doesn't do a lick for those who've suffered under a faith-based ruling elite in the US and elsewhere.

Posted by: James F | March 24, 2008 5:29 PM

#124 JDP: The docents are assaulted? Possibly even to the point of battery? As disgusted as I was by the video, this is completely unacceptable. Where is security? Why are these groups not banned? Sounds like a great time for a little YouTube video journalism to me.

Posted by: Stanton | March 24, 2008 5:39 PM

Probably some acceptors of evolution don't treat their kids right, people are people. But at least they are doing it because they are bad parents rather than as part of destructive cults who believe god told them to.

Posted by: vlad | March 24, 2008 5:43 PM

"but it doesn't do a lick for those who've suffered under a faith-based ruling elite in the US and elsewhere."
Again wasn't expecting to see it this way. I'd actually disagree here's why. When someone wants out of a community of wing nut bible thumper (like my old Sunday school priest) the gentler the transition from nutty to normal the better. If you have had it drilled into you (brain washing) that all non Christians are bad evil and want your soul your not going to trust them. Even if you know that your teachings are wrong human mind doesn't let go of fear easily. So if you are eased into a science based view of the world by someone who happens to wear a crucifix (out of habit, occasionally) I see no harm. Someone who answers a question of faith not 1) How can you buy this dribble or 2) How dare you question GOD your going to hell, but with 3) Don't know I like to believe there is but here's the difference between faith (what I or you may believe) and science (what we know)science will explain our world and it comes first.

Posted by: benji | March 24, 2008 5:52 PM

They fucking pricks should be ashamed...

It is SO sad... so ridiculous. I just feel like crying over this...

BUT THE ANGER IS SO STRONGER!!!

And they're homeschooled, so we can barely hope that they will ever change their minds. Let's hope so.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | March 24, 2008 5:56 PM

Dan,

I don't see it as a battle of science vs. Christianity.

And it doesn't have to be.

With responses by both Dan and Vlad, this is boiling down to a 'where do the moderates fit in' kind of discussion, which I think is a fascinating one, but one on which I'm still not sure where I stand. I for one, actually don't have much of a problem with moderates, though (since I was one, once) I think their thinking in religious matters is usually a little sloppy. However, c'est la vie. And if moderates were all that there were in the realms of religion, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

But what I'd like to see from the moderates is less "But, but, I'm not like that", and more "Hell, yeah! These tools are ruining both science and my God's reputation--let's get them the hell off of our schoolboards and away from our legislatures!"

Posted by: Jason | March 24, 2008 6:00 PM

My favorite part:
After the creationist lies about the age determining methods used, the reporter says "Then [the creationists] turn their backs to a display nearby explaining carbon dating."
HA! I like this reporter.

Posted by: waldteufel | March 24, 2008 6:07 PM

Christianity and all other religions depend primarily on fear born of ignorance. The survival of Christianity therefore depends utterly on keeping the masses ignorant and fearful.

When you convince someone that you have the key to their immortal soul, you have 'em by the balls.

Therefore, these Christian fundies have as their main goal to raise ignorant, fearful, and obedient children who will grow up to be ignorant, fearful and obedient adults.

These ignorant, fearful and ignorant adults then vote the way their pastors tell them.

The bastards leading these tours want a world in which the police can show up at your doorstep on Sunday morning to demand why you aren't in church . . . . .

Posted by: Tatarize | March 24, 2008 6:10 PM

If both evolution and creationism are matters of faith then evolution takes about as much faith as believing the sun will rise tomorrow and creationism requires as much faith as believing there are elves in my pants.

Posted by: lytefoot | March 24, 2008 6:17 PM

Now... this annoys me. It drives me just as nuts when people I agree with argue against straw men. There was a moment in the video when they were talking about how long men supposedly lived before the flood... and it cut away to a blackboard writing "800 years x 6 generations = 5400 years". This is frankly stupid. People now live for about 60 to 80 years... yet we say that a "generation" spans about 20 years of time. Why? Because people REPRODUCE BEFORE THEY DIE. Duh.

A skilled biblical literalist would be able to give you an exact timeline of the generations immediately following Adam--that's how the creation of the earth was dated to 4004 BC to begin with. They would be able to tell you in what year the flood occurs. This is not the problem with the argument; it is not *A* problem with the argument. It's a straw man, it's not an inconsistency if you bother having the slightest notion of medieval theology, and the fact that the two jokers in the film didn't have a better answer ready only shows that they're incompetent in their field as well as in science.

By arguing against the wrong point, people hurt our case. That interview was biased in a way we wouldn't let the bad guys get away with for a second.

Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2008 6:18 PM

Brownian #143, Hell yeah!

"Hell, yeah! These tools are ruining both science and my God's reputation--let's get them the hell off of our schoolboards and away from our legislatures!"

I can say that. It's just that it wasn't really the point I was initially making.
Although I've never really considered myself to be moderate.

I guess I probably don't have as clearer picture of how things are in the States, as I'm a New Zealander.

Sastra #144, sorry (I seem to be saying this a lot!), if you take another look at my comment #138, I'm not saying that these are 'false' Christians - I shouldn't have put that last 'Christians' in quotes.
Someone can be a 'true' Christian yet behave in an un-Christian fashion (Christians call that 'sin') and I am certainly in no position to judge one way or the other.

My apologies to all - I'm not being very clear.

Posted by: Bently | March 24, 2008 6:22 PM

Has anyone done a study of these home schooled kids and the chances/percentages that they are either victims or products of incest?
I ask (not to insult or insinuate) because, without the social interactions of the outside world, it seems the 'perfect' setting for such insular abuse. In fact, the whole philosophy seems to support and perpetuate the practice.

Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2008 6:33 PM

Brownian, #146, no problem.
I find it pretty tricky to get my head around many aspects of evolution; it's something I want to know more about.

CJO #148, yes.

"Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15)
"Go ye therefore and teach all nations" (Matthew 28:19).

But what is the gospel? What exactly should Christians teach?
Paul says "When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling." - 1 Corinthians 2:1-3.

Paul came to preach the testimony of Christ's death and subsequent resurrection, and what it means to sinners. He didn't brainwash, indoctrinate, philosophize or exercise any sort of superior wisdom. It wasn't a battle of wits.

Posted by: True Bob | March 24, 2008 6:41 PM

Dan, thanks for your commentary.

As you might imagine, most theists who pop in here are generally vitriolic and closed to dialogue.

As was mentioned, yes, we know there are many kinds of christians. And many of us are at least fairly familiar with various holy books.

Now, for the topic of the thread:
What is most appalling for me, at least, is that these liars and fact-manglers want their distortions in our public schools. It's gets way beyond "look at the silly YECs at the museum" to "they want to teach my kids what?! So when we see this kind of coverage, we are pleased that a bunch of charlatans get some exposure, and also dismayed that they are so manipulating their children (knowing that's what they want to do to ours).

A tangential topic also arises. We have discussed what kind of role do "moderate" christians (or other theists) have to play? Should they sit idly by (seems the default) while these loonies rant (implied endorsement) or should they screech "Heresy!" themselves and stone these guys? (OK, not really, but I hope to illustrate the at there is a spectrum of engagement, and AFAIK, almost nobody but atheists and scientists get worked up about IDiots - at least no institutions of religion weigh in). Not being a theist, I would hope more moderate xians would try to reign in the kooks. I do not see this, though. :(

Posted by: NickD | March 24, 2008 6:48 PM

As a scientist I found (like many others) that video was literally sickening, but be glad because many of you will have not felt the terrifying anguish that I feel as a Christian knowing that those children will grow up and bitterly abandon their faith because of this sham. It will damage these people mentally and create hate in them towards other people(look around). I have often wanted to give up being a Christian, not because of science, but because of being associated with this creationist foolishness. I cannot, because I know God; he loves me and so I love them, but I will condemn their dogmatism. Hate will not work.

With regards to creationism, I ask why there is such a shortage of Jewish creationists - it is afterall a Jewish creation mythology which these Christians defend. Judaism is a mature faith and they full well know that the truth of the creation myth cannot be uderstood literally.

Posted by: RobotaholiC | March 24, 2008 6:51 PM

PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins are my heros for sure. They're always busy, on the move, involved in so many things -standing up for the truth. :)

Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2008 6:54 PM

John Mark #160; Sorry, as I clarified in a previous comment, I didn't mean to imply that they are not 'true Christians'; I kinda got myself a bit tangled there. Rather, what I meant was that I didn't believe their approach to be biblical, nor an appropriate display of Christian love.

Posted by: DanioPhD | March 24, 2008 6:59 PM

Come for the party, stay for the crabs...

Posted by: True Bob | March 24, 2008 7:05 PM

Yes, Bride, you need a permit for a car, a boat, a gun. But no qualifications required to rear a child.

Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2008 7:08 PM

CJO #164;

One way or another, no one - creationist, evolutionist or anyone - can empirically prove exactly why we're here or how we got here. There's a whole bunch of uncertainty.

In that case, could it not be considered crueler to be told you're nothing more than a souped-up monkey than to be told that you are the special and unique creation of a God who loves you?

I guess I've just asked "What if you're wrong?" question. But then I'm more than happy to answer that same question.

Posted by: raven | March 24, 2008 7:16 PM

Going to have to repeat myself. These fundies aren't at the museum to teach creationism. A museum would be the worst place to do it, assuming (big if) the kids know how to read.

They are there to teach the kids to hate and fear science, scientists, and outsiders.

This is the 21st century and the USA and our civilization runs on science. Really, who made the internet and computers possible so anyone can even read this?

Abusive, and they are setting their kids up to fail. Whatever they do when they grow up isn't going to require much in the way of skills, education, or thought.

Posted by: True Bob | March 24, 2008 7:21 PM

In that case, could it not be considered crueler to be told you're nothing more than a souped-up monkey than to be told that you are the special and unique creation of a God who loves you?

Except that's not all. Let me put it as I see it:

In that case, could it not be considered crueler to be told you're nothing more than a souped-up monkey an amazing result of billions of years of evolution, are related to every other living thing on the planet, and have parents who love you very much than to be told that you are the special and unique creation of a God who loves you but will cause you infinite agony for all time if you don't do what you're told?

Hmm, seems a different choice to me, Dan.

Posted by: CJO | March 24, 2008 7:24 PM

If I'm wrong (i.e. evolution is false and the events narrated in the bible actually happened) then I am a prisoner without hope in a toy universe presided over by an insane demiurge.

It would still be a lie to tell little Timothy, "you are the special and unique creation of a God who loves you."

And, anyway, what do you have against monkeys?

Posted by: firemancarl | March 24, 2008 7:36 PM

Ya know, becuase of this fucktard, I am gonna spend a lot of time at the Museum of Arts and Sciences with my children this summer.

Posted by: andy | March 24, 2008 7:39 PM

If it helps, I take my 4 1/2 year old daughter to that museum on a regular basis and she's fascinated and curious by the exhibits and the signs near each.

Sadly, the cretins and yahoos of BC Tours use that same curiosity to squelch the thinking of children.

Posted by: DanioPhD | March 24, 2008 7:44 PM

I guess I've just asked "What if you're wrong?" question. But then I'm more than happy to answer that same question.

Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2008 7:52 PM

True Bob #175 - Yeah. My comment was rather ill-conceived, wasn't it. I guess there are countless versions and variations of that comparison.

Hank: #176 - Hmm... I can't help thinking that I've swum out of my depth here.
Dust or monkeys, what is our purpose? Aren't we only going to be eliminated, or at least out-classed by the next evolution?

CJO #177; If the biblical account were true, then the bible would be true, then it would be true that God actually loves His creation and doesn't want us to suffer. I don't really have anything against monkeys.

H.H. #178;
Yeah - that was a pretty stupid thing for me to say.
I wouldn't disagree that there is evidence that we are descended from apes, but that doesn't make it fact.
We didn't see it happen and I'm pretty sure we can't reproduce it - that's too much uncertainty for me.

Just to be clear, I'd also say that while there is evidence for creation, we weren't there, and so I'm not prepared to state creation as fact, either.

Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2008 7:59 PM

DanioPhd #183.
Surely you must know that everything in that cartoon is crap?

Sue #184.
I'm not quite sure what I did to deserve that? Could you be a little clearer on exactly what I've said that you have a problem with?

Posted by: DanioPhD | March 24, 2008 8:05 PM

That link totally neglects the possibility that the believer is half right and winds up in the hell of some other religion for believing the wrong thing.

True, it's not explicitly addressed, but I think the last frame, with multiple deities and the text "Wager then, without hesitation that He exists" sort of implies it.

Aren't we only going to be eliminated, or at least out-classed by the next evolution?

Dan, this statement reveals that you have, indeed, 'swum out of your depth'. I don't mean that in a snarky way, truly I don't, but it's clear that you lack a good, factual grasp of evolution theory. You seem to be thinking of it more like the 'evolution' of newer better versions of software or something, and this is not at all the case. I would really encourage you to avail yourself of the bounty of resources on line or in your local library. It is well worth the time and effort to needed to understand the nuanced, often messy, but no less wondrous for all that, Theory--with a capital T--of Evolution.

Posted by: True Bob | March 24, 2008 8:10 PM

John Mark, to do the block quote, at least here, the delimiters are carets (? - "greater than" and "less than" symbols - my poor brain fails me), and the magic word is "blockquote". Like this:

[blockquote] and [/blockquote]

but with the little arrow dealies.

Posted by: DanioPhD | March 24, 2008 8:14 PM

Ooh, pwned by the robust "everything is crap" gambit. Ok, try this, then. I'm still operating on the assumption that you are a well intentioned, quasi-concern troll, but my faith in you is faltering, Dan.

John Mark, use the carat signs "" around the word "blockquote" to start, and same carats around "/blockquote" to end.

Posted by: Sastra | March 24, 2008 8:19 PM

Nick D #161 wrote:

As a scientist I found (like many others) that video was literally sickening, but be glad because many of you will have not felt the terrifying anguish that I feel as a Christian knowing that those children will grow up and bitterly abandon their faith because of this sham.

For all their complaints about how atheists are just "playing into the hands of the creationists," those who criticize the approach of Dawkins and PZ seem to ignore that the opposite can also be said: by insisting that evolution and Christianity are not compatible, creationists are playing right into the hands of the atheists. I would think that if anything would galvanize liberal Christians to get out there and fight creationism, it would be the realization that the real issue under direct attack isn't evolution, or even science in general -- it's the viability of Christianity.

Teach a generation of public school students that evolution leads to atheism -- but, hey, don't worry -- evolution isn't true after all. Then sit back and let scientists continue to use the theory of evolution for 5, 10, 25, 50 years, and let it get worked deeper and deeper into every branch of our understanding till anyone who denies it is considered a nut by pretty much everyone. Now -- how many Christians are left?

Hey, great strategy, Bible-Believing Christians. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Religious scientists like Nick D are not stupid. They don't read Dawkins saying things like "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" and go "well, then evolution couldn't have happened." No, they go "I better get out there!I better tell them that you can believe in God and evolution, too!" Lots and lots of them, with their religion at stake and a fire under them.

Which is what Nisbet and Mooney presumably want. Hey, maybe PZ is really just their shill.

Now that would be a really cool conspiracy.

Posted by: Dan | March 24, 2008 8:23 PM

John Mark #188;

Our purpose is to make our lives as enjoyable and happy as possible.

As is equally the case with my understanding of our purpose, there are a whole bunch of ethical implications. Is 'our' a collective or individual reference?

I know you probably know this, so I'm not trying to insult your intelligence but the bible says that if we repent and believe we will have life?

DanioPhd and H.H. #189 and #190.
Look, I'll be honest - I don't know much of evolution beyond what I've learned in school, and have read of in the odd book or website. And so I'm not prepared to die on any of those hills just yet.
I'd love to learn more about evolution, so any resources you can recommend would be greatly appreciated.

Rey Fox #192. I'd say I believe that each animal was created according to its kind as per Genesis 1:21, so no, I wouldn't accept that other species evolve and have evolved. Natural selection, on the other hand, I accept. We have different colors, beak sizes, leg lengths, etc. of all kinds of animals. But I've yet to see something change from one kind to another.

Blockquotes work like this: <blockquote> Quote </>

Posted by: True Bob | March 24, 2008 8:26 PM

Danio*, the carets won't appear here. I seem to recall someone (Brownian?) getting them to appear in exactly this context, but I can't make it happen.

Persnickety remark: carat refers to purity of metals, caret is an upward pointed chevron. And my brain has no other word for the sideways chevrons.

*danio rerio?

Posted by: DanioPhD | March 24, 2008 8:30 PM

Dan,

The Talk Origins site is a great place to start. They have an extensive, well-referenced FAQ section.

Okay, how do you get the carats to appear in your post? Not that I foresee a need to know this, beyond telling other people how to do block quotes, etc., but I'm clearly out of MY depth in this regard ;-) and I'm irritated that I can't figure it out

Posted by: True Bob | March 24, 2008 8:33 PM

You and me both, Danio. Must. Know. Solution.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 24, 2008 8:34 PM

"What can they do? Fire up the tanks and jet fighters and have another 400 year long battle? There really isn't much they can do except vote wingnut Dominionists out of office"

How about writing op-eds in major newspapers or going on TV promoting reason and bashing fundamentalism? Instead 90% of the articles explicitly by "moderate" religionists bash the likes of Dawkins and Dennett for their "militancy". At best they'll say the "militant atheists" are "as bad as the fundamentalists". Even if this were true, it's the very opposite of finding common cause against the fundamentalists.

Posted by: raven | March 24, 2008 8:36 PM

Aren't we only going to be eliminated, or at least out-classed by the next evolution?

We can hope, can't we. The next species in our lineage will be our children. Or more likely some indeterminate future generation.

Evolution takes time. H. erectus was around for 1-2 million years. They aren't exactly gone, they evolved into....us.

Humans 100,000 years from now could be smarter, long lived, and less prone to mental illness and violence. Who knows?

Dan knows zero about evolution, less than a high schooler.

Posted by: True Bob | March 24, 2008 8:39 PM

In Dan's defense, at least he's asking questions, and appears to honestly answer when he no longer gets the flick. Unlike the True Trolls, who are not open to dialogue, get snotty, project left and right, then bail out.

Posted by: Lurky | March 24, 2008 8:42 PM

In that case, could it not be considered crueler to be told you're nothing more than a souped-up monkey than to be told that you are the special and unique creation of a God who loves you?

Nice job loading the question, Dan.

Here's a decent answer for the question "What if you're wrong?".

Posted by: DanioPhD | March 24, 2008 8:45 PM

*headdesk*
Ah, 'greater-than' and 'less-than' signs. The mental clouds are parting. Math was never my strong suit. Thanks, Dan.

Ok, I'll bite: How is 'Christianity' not a 'religion'?

Posted by: Mark B | March 24, 2008 8:51 PM

to display the less than symbol:

<
type &lt;

and the browser renders it as left angle bracket.

the greater than symbol:

&gt;

which renders in the browser as > [the right angle bracket].

Google 'HTML entity' if you're interested in this subject. Preview plays havoc with all of this character escaping so hopfully I didn't mess it up.

Posted by: biology teacher | March 24, 2008 9:00 PM

RE: Vegetarian T Rex:

Why is it OK for plants to be killed to keep T Rex alive before the fall if there was no such thing as death? Which also makes me wonder why vegetarians have no problem killing plants for food, when they are surely just as alive as animals. But anyway....if there was no death before that dumb broad Eve ate that piece of fruit, did everything just soak up the sun and photosynthesize? Maybe T Rex's teeth are just pointy little solar panels!

Posted by: raven | March 24, 2008 9:10 PM

RE: Vegetarian T Rex:

The usual explanation is that T. rex ate coconuts. This won't kill the tree after all.

However, fundies never make the connection that this itself is infanticide, baby eating. Coconuts are just embryonic coconut trees.

Ask the fundies but don't expect a sensible answer.

Posted by: CleveDan | March 24, 2008 9:18 PM

"......without doing the math......"

that about sums it up

Posted by: Cara | March 24, 2008 9:29 PM

I can guarantee one thing about these kids--at least a few of them, despite all efforts and propoganda to the contrary, will become atheist. That's not the best of news, but perhaps it lessens one's despair.

I spent my first eight years of 'education' in a private, southern baptist school. I am now working on my masters in biology and am atheist; my brothers and many others i know from the school are also atheist, often vehemently so in reaction to what we went through then. Looking back on it, i can clearly see the transition from a blindered, bleating, fingertips-in-ears creature to what i am today...at some point the disconnect between the lines we were fed and the information from other sources became too great to be ignored and we made a choice. I wish i'd known enough to try to bring others along with me.

I do think if science education were better in public schools (private schools...ugh, i despair), children would be more engaged and better at critical thinking and questioning, which is integral to being able to detect bullshit from one's 'superiors'.

Posted by: Carlie | March 24, 2008 9:42 PM

I think Dan is showing a perfect example of how to be a theist and engage here without being a troll who wants to make people throw rotten apples. Yes, a lot of what he's saying is stuff that some of us have gone over time and time again, but he's being open, stating what his knowledge base is, and seems amenable to listening what people have to say about it. I find that quite refreshing, and I would like to hear what he has to say after he goes and does a little background research on evolution.

Dan, going back a ways in the thread, one thing to keep in mind when we talk about whether or not certain creationists are representative of "True Christians" is that many of us here come from conservative fundamentalist religious backgrounds. Some of us grew up in the thick of it, some people here had religious training up through seminary. So it's not just a matter of seeing a few crazy people and labeling them as "Oh, that's what Christians must be like". For some of us, that's the only kind of Christianity we ever knew to begin with. I know when I hear moderates saying "Well, that's not at all what most Christians are like", I go "Wha?" because from my experience, that's exactly what all the Christians I ever knew were like. It rings just as hollow for me to hear that 'most' Christians take the Bible as allegory as it does for, say, a Boston Methodist to hear that 'most' Christians believe every word in the Bible is factually true. When you see so much vitriol against things like the subject of this post, please keep in mind that a lot of that vitriol isn't a just a knee-jerk reaction to something we think is weird, but to something that affected people very deeply and personally throughout their lives.

Posted by: JCE | March 24, 2008 9:45 PM

Yes that hurt to watch. Hurt even more when kids raised like that got to first year zoology with the mindset intact and I had to look them in the eye and deal with it. Fortunately a good chunk of them that make it that far have learned to think, as the curator did.

Dear fundies (of whatever religious alignment) who do stuff like this:

1. One of these days your children are going to enter the nigh-inevitable rebellious adolescence phase. They may also have wised up and/or been laughed at enough by their peers into thinking outside your horrible, stagnant little box. On top of the usual real or imaginary things to be angry with you about, add the fact that they will know that you LIED to them and made them look stupid (on youtube yet!). I would feel sorry for you if I didn't feel sorrier for your kids and their future instructors. A lot of your children are going to hate you for this. Really.

2. There's a lot of evidence in favour of an old earth and changes in life through time. If it is all put there by an omnipowerful practical joker and made to look old even if it isn't, don't you think you had better go along with the joke? Went to a lot of trouble, yanno and, if that book y'all like so much is anything to go by, then he/she/it does not react well to people who don't play along. Best to go along with the joke and nod sagely when looking at the big carnassials and the transitional fossils in the nice museum. It was a nice museum, wasn't it? Think you'd be that tolerant if someone like me stood up in church one day to contradict everything you said?

3. Asking the rational population to treat you seriously when you pull stuff like this on your own kids is just a tad unreasonable. Not that reason is your thing. I get that. It worries some of us a lot that people with access to WMDs (real ones) are not focused in the real world and care more about life after death and the rapture than in making life good now and tomorrow.

I will now call my immediate ancestors (still in pre-fossil stage and thus available without the aid of woo/magic) and thank them for being who they were instead of what I just saw. It reminded me that it is wonderful to be able to respect one's parents.

Posted by: Marcus Ranum | March 24, 2008 10:31 PM

Mark Twain's "Diaries of Adam and Eve" cover a great deal of the territory of this debate. There's a particularly charming section in which Eve writes about how nice the tiger's breath is from the strawberries it ate...

There's a great description of how, when Eve eats of the tree of knowledge, Adam witnesses the horrible carnage that ensues when all the animals realize that they should eat eachother.

I highly recommend it - it's actually a beautiful love story and suitable for children. Oh, and give them "The Mysterious Stranger" too..

Posted by: Zarquon | March 24, 2008 10:41 PM

Marc Bolan was vegetarian?

Posted by: James F | March 24, 2008 10:51 PM

#217 Beth:

If only you were representative of all parents who homeschool their children, this country would be a much better place. Thank you for stating your position so eloquently - may others follow your example!

Posted by: Arthur Thomas | March 25, 2008 12:12 AM

Why does no one seem to question bluntly, why lying is necessary and justified to present and defend one's viewpoint? I have read many excellent rebuttals to creatinist presentations, but there seems to be a reluctance to point out to the creationists that if the viewpoint had any validity to it at all, they would not need to lie about what they believe.

There is no rational counter when someone says "I believe ...." I have finally realized that it is not possible to change the mindset of someone by presenting rational arguments to him if he has not reached that position rationally.

A.R. Thomas

Posted by: John Mark | March 25, 2008 12:35 AM

Dan #197 wrote:

As is equally the case with my understanding of our purpose, there are a whole bunch of ethical implications. Is 'our' a collective or individual reference?

Someone above (#227/230) mentioned how kids will detest their parents for the lies they tell, and I'm definitely going through that phase right now. I'm one of the childrenz from a conservative Christian homeschooling family (K thru 12, baby) who has now gone agnostic (so far). Not to say that my parents are "pasty-faced and empty brained", they are damn smart and did very well in homeschooling myself and my two siblings. I'm just unhappy with how Christianity/creationism impacted my schooling and my thoughts on pretty much everything. I am only recently finding my way out of it (and this blog and these comments have been a great help, btw).

Dan #220:

At its core, Christianity has no prescribed practices or rituals that are necessary or are prerequisites for being a Christian (to be saved), except to repent and believe.

Posted by: Nick K | March 25, 2008 12:51 AM

When many of these kids grow up, they will become educated, and they will find out that their parents and pastors were lying to them about the methods and findings of science.

Many commenters have pointed out that they too grew up being taught creationism, and rejected it only once the evidence to the contrary became overwhelming.

I'm not as sanguine. These kids are not simply being taught creationism. They are being taught how to look evidence squarely in the eye and reject it. That's different than simple naïve creationist teachings. It's far closer to "We've always been at war with EastAsia" type of mental programming. It's far easier to de-program simple creationist teachings than it is to de-progam a trained ability to avoid cognitive dissonance. I think the people running these tours have figured this out.

Posted by: strangebeasty | March 25, 2008 3:05 AM

I don't know if anyone will see this comment, but I want to say that the "generations" calculation at the beginning really bugged me. Judging by the Biblical account (no, I don't believe in it), those people who lived for 800 years were reproducing (creating new generations) throughout their lives, not right at the end. The way to answer transparently fallacious reasoning is not with MORE transparently fallacious reasoning.

Posted by: arachnophilia | March 25, 2008 4:30 AM

(err, make that 956. darn copy errors.)

Posted by: VB | March 25, 2008 4:54 AM

The museum should ban them for making a profit on there site for lying to and abusing children.

I mean come on this is sick. The tour is claim everything in this entire museum is a conspiracy! Science is a Conspiracy tour of the science museum!!! oooo where can I sign up for that tour! oh yeah and sign my kids up too.

Posted by: Kris Verburgh | March 25, 2008 6:59 AM

Scientific discoveries don't rhyme with biblical facts (for example the age of the earth is 6000 years old vs 4,5 billion years according to science)

So science, reason and logic have PROVEN that the bible contains errors,

which subsequently proves that the bible isn't the word of god,

but shows that the bible is written by (quite ingnorant) people 2000 years ago. As anyone already knows whose head isn't brainwashed by religious dogma.

Kris Verburgh

Posted by: Hipparchia | March 25, 2008 8:17 AM

The J-word?

I am not a native speaker of English. I've always believed word so unmentionable to be referred to by its initial means that same word is somehow shameful or naughty...

Posted by: CalGeorge | March 25, 2008 9:21 AM

Proving once again that, yes, and despite all evidence to the contrary, it is possible to see the hand of God in everything.

Where are they headed next, the Grand Canyon?

The science museum should permanently ban those jokers from the premises.

Posted by: vlad | March 25, 2008 9:36 AM

"While we're commanded and expected not to murder, steal, hate, etc (sin), adherence to these laws does not gain us any sort of merit." Um, you sure about that. So where does it say that you don't actually have to adhere to the laws of Christianity to be saved?

Posted by: Hematite | March 25, 2008 10:53 AM

I think most of you missed the sentiment of Dan's post (way back at #104), which I paraphrase as "These guys are nuts! Proper Christians don't act this way! Don't use these crazies as a straw man to attack decent Christians!" - a sentiment that I remember feeling in my early days on teh intarwebs.

When I first started reading about the creationists and their (frighteningly successful) assault on the teaching of evolution in American schools I was amazed, I couldn't imagine anything like that happening in New Zealand. I assumed that it was some backwoods fundies loading a school board to get their way - an isolated incident. My mind still boggles that things like the posted video can actually happen in the modern world.

I'm not Christian, but I have been aware of Christian thought and philosophy for a long time for various reasons. My experience of the local Christianity is that they are wonderfully accepting of the fact that Bible vs. Science = Science Wins. Rationality is the order of the day, but Christian tradition still informs morality and culture. Our local religious hero is Lloyd Geering (read it, it's good value) who largely reduces Christianity to Christ's teaching: Don't be an asshole. As an atheist, I consider this to be Christianity Done Right. Now, Geering is from the liberal fringe, but I suspect that kind of thing is what Dan means in his post about 'what Christianity is really about'.

Dan - sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, I feel that as a fellow countryman and seasoned evolutioniser I can foster some understanding here. I hope I'm not misrepresenting you.

Posted by: Jood42 | March 25, 2008 11:16 AM

Fossils are "boring" because they're made of "dead things".

AWESOME. These people should rewrite all our textbooks.

Posted by: Jack | March 25, 2008 11:18 AM

I love it when people choose to turn their brain's off.

Posted by: Carlie | March 25, 2008 12:08 PM

Where are they headed next, the Grand Canyon?

Silly CalGeorge, they cut their teeth on the Grand Canyon! That's where they started, and so far no one's been able to get their "alternative" interpretation book removed from the Park Service-run gift shop, last I heard.

malcontent, please don't give up on those kids. Some of them might see reason yet.

Posted by: ronhohn | March 25, 2008 12:14 PM

If god created everything in the universe then he must have been some kind of sadist. Otherwise why did he create cockroaches and gophers?

Posted by: Kampah | March 25, 2008 12:15 PM

Dan,

Your particular definition of Christianity still states you derive your faith from the Bible, mainly the New Testament. And yet there are a whole lot of symbolisms and contradictions in the New Testament. Does your particular brand of Christianity take the virgin birth literally? His resurrection of himself or others? If not, what makes you choose not to take some aspects literally? Certainly not the bible itself. That just proves that you DON'T get your morality and belief from the Bible, you just pick and choose using your own morality. Which is good, because I wouldn't want you hoping you'll be healed of an amputated limb. There never was an amputated limb healed by Jesus, I wonder why? Peace :)

Posted by: Satu | March 25, 2008 12:29 PM

Religious indoctrination of children should be criminalized and actively discouraged by Unicef. Considering how widely the religious extremism is spreading even in the developed countries, it is not very likely to happen.

Posted by: Aquaria | March 25, 2008 12:35 PM

People like this give homeschoolers a bad name. For a variety, some of us have little choice but to homeschool, and museums are wonderful resources for us. I can't name the number of times I took my son to our local natural history museum, the Witte (San Antonio), and let him explore and ask and learn. The staff was extremely helpful, especially since we had the luxury of going during the day, when few other people were there. So much information, so much to thrill and amaze, and these creobots besmirch it all with their ignorant, revisionist garbage!

Posted by: Aquaria | March 25, 2008 12:58 PM

Don't worry. The fundie stuff doesn't take hold very much or well, or at least not always. My cousin married a fundie minister and turned fundie herself. She was one of the fundie homeschoolers. Her oldest son decided to pull the "learn biology to disprove evolution" tactic. After a semester of college biology, he was starting to waffle. A year later, after taking more advanced biology courses, he accepted evolution. By the time he graduated, he was an atheist, much to his parents' horror. They disowned him. My mother talks to him periodically, and it's just heartbreaking that he feels like religion matters more to his parents than he does. Sometimes, he jokes that maybe it would have been better if he'd said he was gay--they would have tried to "save" him, at least. Or tried harder, anyway.

Posted by: Michael | March 25, 2008 1:49 PM

Ugh, how pathetic.

Posted by: Dan | March 25, 2008 4:26 PM

Sorry I've been a bit quiet - busy at work and all that.
I guess the comments of this post aren't necessarily the best place for a discussion such as this. (In fact the internet itself is not the best place for any sort of discussion).

Hematite #255; The funny thing is, I wouldn't consider myself a liberal or even a moderate. I'm of a reformed theological background, and would consider myself to be quite theologically conservative. I just hate to accept things blindly, and have always questioned everything - as the bible encourages us to do.

Kampah #265; I believe in the virgin birth. I believe that Christ died and rose again on the third day. I believe that Christ raised others from the dead.
I believe that God caused the sun to stand still at Gibeon so that Joshua could complete his battle in daylight.
If we want to get out all the labels, then I'm also a Young Earth Creationist; I believe there was a global flood.

The thing is, I came to these conclusions largely by myself. I never recall having them rammed down my throat by my parents or by church leaders. Sure, I've read the Bible a wee bit, but of my own volition.
And since I came to these conclusions by myself, I really don't feel the need to ram them down the throats of other people.
And since I came to these conclusions by myself, I'm quite ready to stand corrected on any of them.

There are a few reasons I don't feel the need to convince others of these truths (I see them as truths; you may not) are:

1. I figure that most of them are in the bible so anyone else can read them if they want to,
2. if God is sovereign and omnipotent, then He doesn't need me or my pitiful efforts to defend Him, but more importantly:
3. these things just aren't that important.

I realise now that it was a mistake for me to get involved in this discussion, as I'm way out of my depth and only ended up saying dumb stuff in my ignorance (souped-up monkeys? sheesh!)

I've started looking through the resources I've been recommended in comments above.
I got looking at speciation, and the predominant theory, BSC, seems to have some acknowledged flaws particularly in the area of delimiting species. The examples of speciation provided don't contradict scripture as far as I can tell, as it seems they all produce variations that are within their own 'kind', as per Genesis 1:21.

I guess I need to read a lot more yet. Thanks for your help

I better dash! Seeya!

Posted by: Slaughter | March 25, 2008 5:03 PM

From "The Sopranos," Season 6:

Christopher: What's he saying? There were dinosaurs back with Adam and Eve?
Tony: I guess ...
Christopher: No way. T-Rex in the Garden of Eden? Adam and Eve would be running all the time, scared shitless ... but the Bible says it was paradise.

Best explanation I've heard for saying that Genesis is bullshit.

Posted by: maphead | March 25, 2008 6:23 PM

Thank god for the USA and ABC. Best reporting we get on the old rabbit ears - good to see it on the web. Thanks for the post.
See "Jesus Camp" on DVD to get another view into the 'because god said so' realm.

Posted by: CJO | March 25, 2008 7:22 PM

I've also seen the same evidence used in an equally-convincing fashion to lend support to the theory of creation.

No, you haven't. You've perhaps seen practiced apologists wave their hands frantically when presented with evidence for evolution and since they were telling you what you wanted to hear, you gave them a pass.

But if we're talking a "theory of creation" that comes with chapter and verse references, includes a story about an old man and a big boat, and claims that the whole shebang is about 6-10,000 years old, sorry to break it to you, but every single instance of empirical observation ever conducted goes against it. Various extremely weak forms of ID and what is called theistic evolution can claim the same evidentiary support as evolution. But all they do is add a layer of theological shoegazing onto the theory; they add nothing to its explanatory power whatever.

Read up the thread a bit, and take your own advice. You have a lot to learn. It may be hard, but try to do your reading with as open an attitude as possible. What I mean is, come to explications of the evidence without your preconceptions; think only "if I didn't already think I knew the answer, which way would this evidence lead me?" If you have the courage and the intellectual honesty to do so, you will see that it is not a matter of conflicting beliefs, but of a solid inference versus wishful thinking all too often bolstered by outright lies.

Posted by: DanioPhD | March 25, 2008 7:49 PM

Dan, I first want to echo the several other commenters who have commended you on your civility and openmindedness here. I think it's fair to say that most of the Christians, particularly the Biblical literalists, who turn up on this blog have one of two things to say:
Either, "I know I'm right and I'll weep when you all are burning in hell" or the rather more odious "I know I'm right and I'll laugh when you all are burning in hell". There are a few notable and refreshing exceptions, but as far as I know you are the first self-admitted YEC who has not come in toting a flamethrower, so thanks for that.

Now to the science bit, I see that CJO has already posted eloquently on much of what I was going to say--that it would be ideal if you could put aside your preconceptions and try really hard not to attempt to fit the new scientific information you are learning into the biblically-derived paradigm. Particularly when you talk about 'convincing' evidence, it would be great if you could be rigorous about making that judgement. A clear understanding of the scientific method is critical here. What constitutes 'convincing evidence' in the eyes of the scientists who generated the data about which you are now reading? How were the experiments designed? What were their alternative hypotheses, etc. How does use of the scientific method help convince scientists, and others, of the mechanisms of natural phenomena like evolution?

Finally, is the burden of proof that you apply to new science information about the natural world equal to that which you apply to your interpretation of the biblical source of this information? I know it's difficult, but impartiality will benefit you tremendously here.

I apologize for sounding like such a schoolmarm. I'm a science educator/researcher by trade, and it's hard to prise that pedagogue hat off my head, especially on this topic. Cheers!

Posted by: Robert Madewell | March 25, 2008 9:06 PM

The girl with the kercheif made me cry. She's being raised into a misogynistic society, telling her that she must submit to men. She'll probably grow up to marry a kid she meets at bible school then have 5-10 kids herself. She'll probably never work outside the home, never go to a real college, and never know the true potential that a women can have. All because her church family sees women as subservient to men. Sad really. Of course I may be wrong, but I'm not. I've seen it happen so many times.

Posted by: alicesprings | March 25, 2008 9:52 PM

dan, at #171, says: "could it not be considered crueler to be told you're nothing more than a souped-up monkey than to be told that you are the special and unique creation of a God who loves you?"

advocating belief in god on the basis that it is "crueler to be told you're nothing more than a souped-up monkey" than to believe in the rumored "god who loves you" is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

if christians are so confident in their belief systems, why do they feel so compelled to go way out on that shaky limb and attempt to "prove" no other belief system could possibly be reliable? in the end, if god made it all, god made it all. if "he" didn't, clearly we haven't lost anything.

and while we're on the subject of deciding what is factually accurate on the basis of what we perceive to be "crueler," i'm declaring that "early morning" is ten a.m. that five or six a.m. stuff is just way too cruel for me. hmm, could be a new game ... what in your reality do you declare to not be so just because you deem it "cruel"?

Posted by: alicesprings | March 25, 2008 10:18 PM

dear dan:

i hope you are not still feeling that "it was a mistake for [you] to get involved in this discussion." it is my belief that you have proven through your posts that you are a very capable swimmer in these particular depths.

just always remember that there is a big difference between what you fantasize having for eat when you're laying on your back on the lawn in the sunshine and the reality of what's in the pantry once you get back in the house. sure, i would love me some new york pizza but where i live the best i can do is domino's. no matter how many times i've been told "it's all pizza," i'm sorry but i have to still insist that it's just not.

p.s. thank you very much, pz myers, for another interesting post and comment thread!

Posted by: Hematite | March 26, 2008 1:36 AM

Dan,

I wouldn't consider myself a liberal... I just hate to accept things blindly, and have always questioned everything - as the bible encourages us to do.

...since I came to these conclusions by myself, I'm quite ready to stand corrected on any of them.

Depends what definition of 'liberal' you're using :) That's definitely the right attitude to take.

I wish I could offer you some great advice about how to understand evolution. I guess the thing that threw me the most when I was getting into this is the realisation that certain creationists are willing to outright lie about evidence for evolution. Talking points like "no transitional forms" and "evolution does not add genetic material" are lies often repeated by creationists who certainly know better.

From your posts above, I think you might be stuck on a notion of 'kinds', and transitions between kinds, and whether kinds are the same as species. One of the more interesting (to me) problems in biology (taxonomy?) is how to define what a species is, and the problems that arise with various definitions. This messiness sits well with evolution and poorly with deliberate design. I am not a biologist so please correct me if I say something dumb ;)

It is tempting to define a species as a group of individuals that can mate and produce offspring. It seems like a natural definition... except that horses and donkeys can mate to produce mules, and horses and donkeys are different (but related) species both genetically and at a casual glance. Anyway, mules are sterile so perhaps we should say "a species is a group of individuals who can mate to produce reproductively viable offspring". There are other problems though - really big dogs and really little dogs can't produce viable offspring together because of size problems, even though the genetics work and either should be able to procreate with medium sized dogs. We don't want to say that big dogs and little dogs are different species. It gets worse, there are related animal populations that could interbreed with each other in the wild, they just don't want to because of differences in colouration and mate attraction behaviour. Are they the same species or different ones? The ultimate awkwardness is, in my opinion, ring species. Try this link for starters.

I think ring species are fantastic. Of course they don't disprove creationism (since it is not falsifiable) but they are either well explained by evolution or a sign that The Creator has a sense of humour, depending on your outlook.

Posted by: Leigh | March 26, 2008 4:03 AM

@Dan: "Well, maybe it wasn't a mistake, but it hasn't really been constructive. I'm still weighing up whether it's worth my time and effort getting stuck into the mountains of reading and discussion required to actually get anywhere in reaching any sort of a solid belief in evolution."

Dan, let me invite you again to our Origins of Life discussion over at Beliefnet. We have some great science teachers who can (and will) give you a primer on this stuff. We "evilutionists" over there are always delighted to find someone who's truly seeking information and who wants to engage in civil discourse at a more basic level (on the science). Many of us evilutionists are Christians, and I think you might find the atmosphere over there a little more more laid-back -- whereas there are many heavy hitters here who are at a level far above you and me on the science.

The link to our forum on Beliefnet is here. I post as Colossians3_12 there, and you can click on my name for my homepage.

Posted by: BC | March 26, 2008 4:34 AM

What disturbs me the most, even more than the lost potential of each of those children, is that this only serves to reduce what America is and can be. People like this will make the term 'America the Great' nothing more than a historical term.

Posted by: True Bob | March 26, 2008 7:18 AM

Dan,

To go somewhat off-topic here, I wanted to make a point about the age of the universe.

From all our observations, over hundreds of years, light is really really fast. Nothing physical can get past that speed. Through astronomy (I know, I know, evil Phil's place), we observe that distances across the universe are heyuuuge. These observations show that the universe is nearly 14B years old. It boils down to rate X time = distance.

In order for the universe to be actually only 6 - 10K years old but to appear billions of years old, any creator would have had to place all the objects in the universe spaced apart, and would have to pre-position their images - i.e the light coming from these galaxies and objects would have had to be placed between them and us. Then they all (objects and images/light) would have had to start moving, all at once. This would have to include pre-placing effects like gravitational lensing, red shift, dark matter, etc.

Now, why would a benevolent creator make a universe that appears billions of years old, but is actually under 10K years old? Isn't that a deception? Why would our loving god want us misled like that?

Or perhaps some people would like others to believe in a young universe. I don't know, because I accept a 13+B year old universe but not any gods.

Anyway, it's something in a different discipline to ponder.

Regards, Bob

Posted by: Kseniya | March 26, 2008 11:27 AM

Leigh, I might pop over there myself. Iain, good point about "after their kind" being consistent with scripture and with evolution. That, and Bob's comments about the age and size of the universe and the enormous values of time and distance they imply, tie in with some things I was thinking about last night and which I wrote about at some length. I hesitated to post this lengthy, non-technical view. but what the heck. PZ can warn me about spamming, and I'll be more careful the next time. :-D

Species concepts do vary. The most extreme version that I've been exposed to supposes that there is no such thing as a species, that every living thing is part of a continuum of living things that covers the entire globe and some 3 billion years. Or is it 4 billion... This concept doesn't seem very useful to taxonomists, but it does offer a way to conceptualize common descent.

Dan, I don't know if you're still with us, but this might interest you. Maybe it applies to you, I don't know. You're obviously bright and open-minded, but given that you're a young-earther, it might.

My opinion on why so many people have a problem accepting (actually, grasping) the ramifications of the theory is that it's very difficult for the human mind to truly comprehend the scope of what the theory, in its essential elegant simplicity, attempts to encompass: Series of events which occured over huge spans of time covering hundreds of millions, even billions of years; reproductive events beyond counting; the power of natural selection and the profound effect that many tiny heritable changes, accumulated over hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of years, can have on populations of organisms.

The process that creationists like to call "macroevolution" does, at a glance, seem highly unlikely! How can a fish turn into a bird? An absurd question, and yet... a fair question. The answer? It doesn't. A fish doesn't "turn into" anything. And we ought to try to decrease our focus on the word "fish" - it doesn't mean quite as much as we think it does. It's a classification we use to help us distinguish a myriad of ectothermic aquatic vertebrates from other, variably and continuously less-similar creatures. "Kind" isn't cast in stone unless fossilization has occurred. :-)

Again - a fish doesn't "turn into" anything; it stays a fish. We begin to address the question by generalizing the reality: Any organism that manages to reproduce has made an approximate copy of itself.

Creationists claim there are no transitional forms? Bah! Every organism is transitional! It's just a matter of degree. I am a transitional form between my parents and my as-yet-unconceived children. We will resemble each other, for sure, but none of us are identical. What does this imply?

I now offer Stoopid Mathematical Thought Experiment #1:

Imagine a species, Xeniasaura (the most hospitable of the hadrosaurs). Imagine that Xeniasaura emerged during the Cretaceous around 74 million years ago, and presumably lived until the famous mass extinct event that occurred some 9 million years later.

Imagine that 1000 years represented 200 generations of Xeniasaura. Let us say, arbitrarily, that we can expect up to a 1% change in Xeniasaur physiology every 200 generations covering roughly 1000 years. (Remember, my educated friends, this is a stupid arithmetic thought experiment aimed at simple-minded folk such as... well, such as myself!)

Imagine that a good-sized group of Xeniasaura wandered off from its original population to form an isolated population of Xeniasaura. Let's call it Population A.

Therefore, Population A might exhibit a noticeable change in physiology - up to a "10% difference", whatever that means - over the span of one million years and 200,000 generations. Another population (the original population, or another isolated population) might show substantially less change. As with any such change, its scope depends on the number and nature of heritable variations that occur, and the effect of natural selection on the proliferation of those variations in the population with each successive generation.

After another million years, Population A could have changed another 10%, making it as much as 20% different from the original population from which it has been isolated for two million years. Two million years! That's 400,000 generations!

And, remember, the changes are small - up to only 1% change every 200 generations. On average, then, each generation is at most only .005% different from its parents. That's what I call "microevolution" - but my oh my, those tiny changes can add up.

Can.

Not must.

Not will.

Can.

Remember: evolution is about branching, not about parallel lineages of unrelated species serially giving way to their successors and descendants. This is why it's important to understand not that Population A necessarily "turns into" some other "kind", but that a population is likely to diverge, to some unknown extent, from other populations from which it is isolated.

After five million years (and one million generations!) Population A could be as much as 50% different from the original population. Are they even the same species anymore? If we were lucky enough to find the fossil remains of any members of Population A, would we recognize them as the remains of Xeniasaura? Probably not. But it depends on what the changes are. Maybe their limbs are longer. Or shorter. Or neither. Maybe their teeth (and diets) have changed. Or not. Maybe their scales have become feathers or fur. Or not. Maybe they're larger. Or smaller. Or smarter; or not. There's no necessary trend toward anything in particular other than towards being as viable as possible according to the (possibly changing) demands of the environment.

After nine million years, unknowingly on the brink of violent extinction, Population A could now be as much as 90% different from the original population. Could they possibly be the same species, or even the same "kind" as their forebearers in the original population? If they've changed that much, then almost certainly not - and yet, when exactly did this population cease being Xeniasaura and commence being... whatever it is we humans one day decide to call them? It's impossible to say.

Anyways, I hope this illustrates something about the power of accumulated change, and how the scope of evolutionary history exceeds our ability to fully comprehend the spans of time over which these processes occur. We tend to think of a decade as a long time. A century is more than a lifetime. Even a single millenium is difficult to grasp in terms of our own immediate experience. And, as you can see, a millenium is just a blip on the larger timeline.

Ask yourself this: Why are Mesozoic life forms so noticeably different from contemporary forms? Why don't we occassionally see populations of radically different megafauna (say, something like a stegosaurus, or even a megatherium or smilodon) suddenly appearing in Alabama, Columbia, or Vietnam? If God is out there making stuff, why don't we see this, or anything even remotely like it? EVER?

One more thing. It's not up to the observations to prove the theory. It's up to the theory to explain the observations. Does the theory explain the observations? Yes. The lack of a perfect fossil record, though inconvenient, means nothing. The significance of the fossil record is that we haven't found anything that the theory can't explain - no Cambrian rabbits, no Carboniferous chimpanzees. When the theory fails to explain a new set of facts, the theory will be broken. In one hundred fifty years and counting - which covers millions of person-hours of scientific inquiry in biology, physics, chemistry, geology, paleontology, anthropology, molecular biology, and so on - that has not yet occurred.

I trust my more learned friends will gently smack-down my commentary if I've said anything mind-numbingly stupid. :-)

Posted by: Dan | March 26, 2008 1:23 PM

True Bob,

Despite the fact that an omnipotent Creator God could do anything, I have read a theory of the creation of stars and other stuff in the universe that can fit young-earth timescales. I think it was in a book called Starlight and time by physicist Russell Humphreys. I just found a brief description. As you'd expect, many secular scientist contradict the theory, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Kseniya,
I can't necessarily disagree with macroevolution, nor with any of the associated concepts.
But as you say, it's up to the theory to explain the observations.
While the theory of evolution provides a plausible explanation of what we observe, so does creation. Both have holes, and that's really only because we don't have a full record of exactly what happened, and we can't reproduce history.
So, no matter how much science or faith you throw at either explanation, no one can be proven correct and the other wrong.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've yet to find something that scripture can't explain. But because this all comes down to just me, my understanding and what I choose to believe, I don't feel I have any right or obligation to convince anyone else of what I believe in this area.

Rampaging through museums and ramming stuff down peoples throats is, I believe, contrary to what Christ would have us do.

Posted by: Kampah | March 26, 2008 2:32 PM

Dan: I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've yet to find something that scripture can't explain.

Sigh...

Posted by: JimC | March 26, 2008 3:22 PM

While the theory of evolution provides a plausible explanation of what we observe, so does creation

No creation doesn't, at least not in the nominal form. The evidence matters and there simply isn't any for the creationist point of view.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I've yet to find something that scripture can't explain

Lets take the question from the video. Why aren't humans and dinosaurs found in the same strata?

Posted by: PeteK | March 26, 2008 3:45 PM

Lol, the same old canards, the same old language

Posted by: Rey Fox | March 26, 2008 4:18 PM

"While the theory of evolution provides a plausible explanation of what we observe, so does creation."

Creation explains nothing. Poof, goddidit. Where's the mechanism? Where's the creator? Why are species this way instead of that way? Evolution explains how processes that we know to exist (heritability, differential survival of offspring, etc., to say nothing of the advances in genetics that we've made since Darwin's time) can produce the diversity of life that we see today. Creation assumes the existence of some god being for which we have no evidence, bringing life forms into being by some process that we've never observed. The deficit in the plausibility of either idea is obvious.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 26, 2008 4:45 PM

Looks like I was going by the outdated definition back from when I was a lad - thank you for edifying me!

It's not a matter of definition - before 1992, Allosaurus and Tyrannosaurus were indeed thought to be close relatives.

Hank: #176 - Hmm... I can't help thinking that I've swum out of my depth here.
Dust or monkeys, what is our purpose?

Why should we have one? What makes you think terms like "purpose" are even applicable?

Aren't we only going to be eliminated, or at least out-classed by the next evolution?

Evolution does not, I repeat: not mean "progress". There is no "higher" or "lower".

You say there's evidence for creation. What is it? I can't think of any...

I'm not sure of any other religion where no practice is required.

I've never seen this as a definition for "religion". What about "belief in something supernatural"?

Besides, as you know, not every Christian became a Protestant when Luther nailed "sola fides" to that cathedral door. That's because the New Testament, while saying faith alone is necessary and sufficient for salvation, also says faith and good works are required, and says works alone are enough, and says words are enough. Different denominations pick & choose different verses.

(In fact the internet itself is not the best place for any sort of discussion).

In my experience this is completely wrong! :-)

I believe that God caused the sun to stand still at Gibeon so that Joshua could complete his battle in daylight.

What. You are a geocentrist?!?

---------------

Whatever. Please define "kind". I bet you can't. You see, biologists have spent centuries trying to define "species" -- there are now at least 25 species concepts out there, and, depending on the species concept, there are between 101 and 249 endemic bird species in Mexico! No wonder some think "species" is a wholly artificial term just like "genus" or "family" or "order".

What would stop evolution from, given enough time, producing new "kinds"? Wouldn't that take a miracle?

Posted by: Leigh | March 26, 2008 6:50 PM

@Jimc (#310): "With all due respect they may be correct on the biblical exegesis. Trying to put the biblical perspective into the theory of evolution makes both a convoluted irrational mash and does neither any favors."

I should have been more explicit . . . what we typically try to do is to steer them away from literalism, which I believe to be a particularly dangerous form of eisegesis (church-talk for "getting it wrong"). The understanding that I, in common with the big majority of Christians on Origin of Life, have of Genesis is entirely metaphorical.

I agree that conflating the ToE and the Bible makes for a "convoluted irrational mash."

You can see us making this exact point in this thread yesterday.

Posted by: Dan | March 26, 2008 7:11 PM

David,
Re: the faith/works thing; I'd be grateful if you could point me to the passage of new testament scripture that says that works alone are enough.
James says that faith without works/good deeds is dead. He doesn't say that works/good deeds are required for salvation, but rather that works/good deeds are required to demonstrate faith.
Works prove the faith, so you can say that if there are no works, then it is likely there is no faith.
Paul and James both agree that salvation is by faith alone.
Anyway - this is rather left-of-topic.

I wouldn't consider myself to be a geocentrist, or even a modern geocentrist, but I would say that the earth is positioned at, or relatively near to, the center of creation. Anyway, the incident at Gibeon doesn't necessarily presuppose geocentricity, does it?

What would stop evolution from, given enough time, producing new "kinds"?

What sort of creature would you conceive that evolution might hypothetically produce, given more millions of years?

I mean, a microbe is not going to become a fish is not going to become a bird - evolutionists and creationists can both agree on that. So what will happen?

Posted by: Kseniya | March 26, 2008 7:34 PM

Ok Leigh, I'll pop over there when I get a chance. I'd like to check out the joint anyways.

Regarding teaching, I'm hardly qualified. As you've said, there are some heavy hitters here. My knowledge of evolutionary biology could fit into one of their thimbles. I mean, if they had thimbles. Which they may not. Umm. Never mind that. Perspectives, though - I've got. :-)

Posted by: DanioPhD | March 26, 2008 8:40 PM

Anyway, the incident at Gibeon doesn't necessarily presuppose geocentricity, does it?

In a literal interpretation, that's exactly what it presupposes: that the sun, on a normal, non-battle day, is in motion across the sky from the perspective of an observer standing on the (stationary) earth. Hence when god causes the sun to stand still--as opposed to halting the rotation of the earth--to prolong the day, you have a clear inference of geocentrism.

I'm unfamiliar with the term 'the center of creation'. The earth is certainly not in 'the center' of any identifiable astronomical/physical arrangement.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 26, 2008 9:26 PM

I forgot to mention Occam's/Ockham's Razor. There must be a nice Wikipedia article on it that Dan needs to see. Science has two pillars: any hypothesis must be falsifiable ("if I were wrong, how would I know?"), which means it must be possible in principle for evidence to exist that contradicts and thus disproves the hypothesis; and if two or more falsifiable hypotheses are compatible with the same evidence, Ockham's Razor chooses between them -- the one that requires the fewest additional assumptions is preferred (till it is falsified). If you just assume enough miracles, YEC explains everything* just as well as ordinary scientific theories -- but each miracle is one more than the latter require, so it loses.

* Well. It's half past 2 at night, so it's not like I had made an exhaustive analysis of this. I have also ignored the two contradictory creation stories in Genesis.

Posted by: Iain Walker | March 27, 2008 10:52 AM

Dan (Comment #301):

While the theory of evolution provides a plausible explanation of what we observe, so does creation.

Sorry, but this is the farthest thing from true.

Very simply, to say that hypothesis H explains observation O, is to say that it can be demonstrated that we would expect to observe O (rather than some other state of affairs) if H is true. I.e., that it is demonstrable that O is an expected consequence of H (as opposed to our observing something other than O).

So what observations does creationism actually explain? What are the expected observable consequences of the "hypothesis"? The answer is: not very many. It's too vague. Creationism is consistent with too many different states of affairs for it to have any genuine explanatory power. For instance, it's consistent with humans having hair, or humans having feathers, or humans having scales. Because of this, there's nothing about creationism that explains why humans have hair as opposed to feathers or scales.

Evolution, on the other hand, makes sense of this with the idea of common descent. Humans and other animals with fur/hair are descended from a common ancestor, and so share a lot of the same hereditary characteristics. Similarly, animals with feathers are also descended from a common ancestor, hence their shared characteristics. However, fur and feathers arose after the two groups diverged from their common ancestor. Consequently, you don't see mammals (including humans) with feathers or birds with fur.

Creationism simply doesn't supply a context in which observations like this make sense. From a creationist perspective, there's no reason why humans shouldn't have feathers, other than an arbitrary decision by a mysterious creator, who could just as easily have decided otherwise.

This is just a specific instance of a more general point, that evolution explains - and creationism fails to explain - the patterns of diversity of living things. If you tote up the similarities and differences between organisms, they fall naturally into a nested hierarchy - i.e., particularly similar organisms can be grouped within larger groups based on more general similarities, which in turn can be grouped into larger groups based on more general similarities still. This is exactly the pattern you would expect to see if these organisms were related by common descent. As populations split apart and diverge, they acquire new characteristics (or lose old ones) independently of one another, and these gains and loses are passed on exclusively to their descendents. Consequently, you get these nested clusters of characteristics (e.g., fur combined with lactation in mammals, or feathers combined with the distinctive avian respiratory system in birds).

Just to be clear about this, evolution doesn't necessarily say that any particular characteristic (e.g., fur) is specifically expected to correlate or with some other particular characteristic (e.g., lactation). It simply says that whatever characteristics we find in organisms, they will tend to cluster together in this nested manner. The observation being explained here is not so much the individual characteristics as the patterns in which those characteristics tend to be found. But from a creationist standpoint, there is no particular expected pattern to the similarities and differences between living things at all, because creationism simply doesn't have anything to say about this.

This is just one single example of an aspect of the natural world where evolution provides an explanation (because it has specific observable consequences) and creationism fails to explain anything (because it has no consequences relevant to the observations in question). The list of such examples, however, is very long indeed.

Oh, and in those cases when creationism does make claims that have specific consequences (e.g., in flood geology), those consequences invariably turn out not to correspond with what we observe.

So please, don't try and claim that the theory of evolution and the claims of creationism have equal explanatory power. They don't.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 27, 2008 10:31 PM

[...] So please, don't try and claim that the theory of evolution and the claims of creationism have equal explanatory power. They don't.

Great explanation.

----------------------

Now to the Biblical contradictions. Let's ignore the Old Testament, which obviously never says faith in Jesus is required for anything. The New Testament says salvation is by faith alone 10 times, but apart from this it also proclaims...

Righteousness as a necessary condition:

Matthew 5:20
Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

So perhaps salvation by faith, but not by faith alone.

Words as necessary and sufficient condition:

Matthew 12:37

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Note that Matthew contradicts himself here: first righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees is necessary, then words alone suffice.

Acts 2:21
Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Endurance all the way to the end of the world as necessary and sufficient condition:

Matthew 10:22
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Matthew 24:13
But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Mark 13:13
And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

Matthew contradicting himself again. And just wait for Mark...

Not judging as a sufficient and forgiving as a necessary condition:

Matthew 7:1-2
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Luke 6:37-38
Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

OK, maybe that's not about salvation, but about life on Earth... so maybe I can spare Matthew yet another accusation of contradiction...

Works as necessary and sufficient condition:

Matthew 16:27

For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Matthew 19:17
If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.

Matthew 25:21-46
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Matthew contradicting himself some more, for real this time.

Luke does not contradict himself, if we kindly ignore 6:37-38, though perhaps that's because he touches the question only once:

Luke 10:26-28
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Love may or may not be a work, but it sure isn't faith.

Then let's skip the Gospel of John (see below) and turn straight to Paul. The Letter to the Romans preaches salvation by faith alone no less than four times, and contains two additional verses (3:20, 4:2) that tell us that whatever is necessary or sufficient for salvation, it isn't works -- but it nevertheless contradicts itself by containing this passage:

Romans 2:5-13
But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

The Second Letter to the Corinthians is entirely on the side of salvation by works alone:

2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Same for the Letter to the Philippians:

Philippians 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

And for the First Letter to Timothy, although only a single work alone is sufficient here:

1 Timothy 2:14-15
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

Peter agrees on salvation by works alone:

1 Peter 1:17
[...] the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work [...]

And so does the Revelation to John:

Revelation 2:23
I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Revelation 20:12-13
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Revelation 22:14
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.

Pretty unambiguous. (Well. Revelation 14:12 does mention explicitly that the saints have faith: "Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." But perhaps the faith wasn't necessary and is just a nice addition -- who knows... Doesn't really sound like it was optional, though. But then, Revelation 14:3-5 mentions that the saints are virgins: "And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God." Is that necessary after all?)

Faith and works as necessary conditions each and as sufficient together, though it's only implied, not made explicit, that faith is necessary:

Matthew 7:21
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

You have mentioned James 2:17 ("Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.") as meaning that works are a symptom of faith, a rather inevitable consequence (the exact opposite, interestingly, of John 3:19-21, see above); but let's read the context.

James 2:14-19
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Got that? James openly mocks the idea of salvation by faith alone: the devils believe and are not saved, so that alone can't be it. And James isn't even done yet:

James 2:20-26
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

This needs no comment.

(Which shall not stop me from commenting anyway upon the fact that James contradicts Paul here:

Romans 4:2-5
For if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

BTW, Paul also ascribes more wordly blessings upon Abraham as being due to faith alone:

Romans 4:13
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

I'd call for a celebrity deathmatch if Paul hadn't already contradicted himself in that very same letter.)

Faith and baptism as necessary conditions each and sufficient together:

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

Mark contradicting himself (see above).

Mercy and what seems to be baptism as necessary conditions each and sufficient together, though one might speculate on causal connections between the two:

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

Words and faith as necessary conditions each and sufficient together:

The Letter to the Romans already contradicts itself -- here's a third opinion in the same letter:

Romans 10:9
If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Mind you: it's not enough if you believe, you also have to say it.

Predestination as a necessary and sufficient criterion:

Calvin, too, had a Biblical basis for his abhorrent doctrine:

Matthew 22:14
For many are called, but few are chosen.

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Yep, Matthew and Romans yet again.

Poverty as a more-than-necessary condition:

Matthew 19:23-24
Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Matthew, unsurprisingly.

The utter mess that is the Gospel of John:

To be fair, I haven't counted if John contradicts himself more often than Matthew or the Letter to the Romans, but be that as it may, John contradicts himself all the time:

John 3:3-7
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

John 3:16-18
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:19-21
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 5:24
But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

John 5:29
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

John 6:37
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Salvation by being born again (which Southern Baptists seem to believe means "telling everyone who wants to hear it, and then some, that you are born again", but that seems to be ignoring 3:4 and 3:5), faith alone, faith which is a symptom of works, faith alone, faith which is a symptom of works, works alone, and what seems to be a combination of predestination and faith (perhaps faith due to predestination, or the other way around, who knows), in this order. Neat. Note especially the switch from 3:18 to 3:19.

Verily, verily, Dan, I say unto thee: There is no Biblical literalist, no, not one.

(And I say unto me, I should have gone to bed three hours ago. Now that is eternal truth.)

Posted by: amphiox | March 27, 2008 11:03 PM

I would just like to point out that the YEC conjecture of a 6000y or so age for the earth isn't in the Bible. It was derived by some archbishop trying to calculate the age using various information in the Bible, so it's just an interpretation. Not literal "word of god" at all.

If I could be as generous as I possibly could to the creationist/ID viewpoint, I would say that an intelligent agency could be part of a legitimate scientific theory, but said theory would have to make certain proposals regarding the nature of the postulated intelligence, with regards to motives, capabilities, limitations, etc. Then we could make predictions based on these conjectures as to what kinds of things this intelligence might have chosen to design, and how it might have gone about designing them, and compare these predictions with observations from the real world. But this kind of intelligent design theory, although scientifically legitimate, would only displace evolutionary theory if it could explain everything evolution already explains equally well, and also explain new observations that evolution cannot explain.

Now, if the ID crowd is willing to make this kind of proposal, then we could have a legitimate scientific discussion with them. I'm guessing it would be a short one.

But I'm not holding my breath on this. I like my oxygen too much.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | March 28, 2008 12:11 PM

David: Wow.

I simply started here and here and got carried away. :-)

I also overlooked at least one interesting quote, it turns out:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Lack of bad works as a necessary criterion of salvation.

And I was tired enough to mention, as skepticsannotatedbible.com does, that the saints are not simply virgins but virgin males according to Revelation 14:3-5. Fits nicely with predestination, har har.

And I closed a blockquote tag too early...

------------

And yes, I am male. I'm using my real name - how else could I constantly boast about my Syst. Biol. paper? :o)

------------

(Confession: I got all fluttery when I read "beautifully explained argument"...*g*)

"The most hospitable of the hadrosaurs" is a phrase that I, as a nerd, find really touching :-}

Posted by: Stanton | March 28, 2008 1:51 PM

So, then, john, please explain why we, the inhabitants of Professor Myers' personal blog are to blame for the fact that pious, perfidious morons claim to speak for the totality of Christians everywhere, and why we are to blame for the fact that the aforementioned morons also claim that the Path to/through Christ is to reject the evidence of reality (including the evidence of "descent with modification") and embrace one's own ignorance and stupidity, calling that "faith"?

Posted by: Stanton | March 28, 2008 2:01 PM

JimC, is it just me, or is it an alarming trend that many Christians appear to embrace the idea that "thinking is the Devil's hobbyhorse" with great enthusiasm?