Joshua Rosenau spends his days defending the teaching of evolution at 
PZ Myers looks at the poll we've been discussing lately, sees that all 72% of evolution-deniers do so for religious reasons, and wonders:
So tell me, everyone: why are scientists supposed to respect religion, this corrupter of minds, this promulgator of lies, this damnable institution dedicated to delusion, in our culture?Given that a decent chunk of Americans clearly regard evolution as immoral, perhaps even as child abuse, I don't think that's a road anyone wants to go down.Maybe we need to start picketing fundamentalist churches. Maybe it's about time that we recognize religious miseducation as child abuse.
The poll teaches us something useful, and it isn't helpful to get caught up in heated rhetoric. You, dear reader, and I both regard the issue as one centering on science. Those who oppose evolution are not doing so because of any particular interest in what the scientific evidence actually says.
That's unfortunate, but it's true of lots of issues. As far as many people are concerned, global warming is not about the effect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere, it's about economic growth. For a big chunk of the public, stem cell research is about destroying tiny human beings for financial profit. Educating people about human developmental biology, or about climatology, will change relatively few minds among those who view the issue through those frames lenses.
What do we do about it?
Understanding these facts is the first step. You have to know your audience in order to know how to address them, and to determine what message is appropriate. Many of the same tricks that make a professor a better lecturer also make public intellectuals more effective. It can be simple things like using a new study to address the broader social context. Or it can be a more complex effort to push people to see the issue in a new way.
That's why the Senate hearing on religious views of global warming were, at least in principle, a good idea. The execution fell apart a little, turning into a debate about the science by non-specialists, rather than the exploration of the ethical consequences of making global changes in our environment. Scientists are often unwilling to discuss the moral implications of their research, for better or for worse.
The public is obviously worried about the metaphysical implications of evolution. The ones ready to listen and be convinced by polite lectures about the details of the science have already listened and been convinced. A little more than a quarter of the public rejects evolution absolutely, and they have no other basis for doing so. Over a third of the public is ready to be convinced one way or another about evolution, and those metaphysical implications are the issues that worry them. They are only hearing those issues addressed from one source, their churches. Picketing churches will not change that.
What would change that is finding a way to have a public discourse on those issues. Until we can separate the ethical issues from the scientific issues, people won't hear the scientific evidence for evolution.
This is essentially the message in Bloom and Skolnick Weisberg's essay on resistance to science, which Dr. Myers reviewed recently. Their conclusion? "[O]ne way to combat resistance to science is to persuade children and adults that the institute of science is, for the most part, worthy of trust." I don't see how picketing or accusations of child abuse would contribute to that.
Comments
you know that pz doesn't write those religion posts, right? he programmed a java desktop app a year back and convinced scienceblogs to give him access to the movable type API, and now it hooks into the google news rss feed and simply uses particular anchor topics to generate the predictable anti-religion invective. it seems to me that pz has been manually cranking the inverted fundamentalist parameter up to see how far he can go....
Posted by: razib | June 12, 2007 12:28 AM
Ah, don't mind PZ and his fundamentalist
Christianatheist claptrap. It's empty rhetoric born of a deep contempt for anyone less privileged than he, and it was old about a year ago. Now that his actual rhetoric is little more than rearranged Dawkins quotes, there's absolutely no reason to pay attention to him.Posted by: Chris | June 12, 2007 1:02 AM
Joshua, I fail to see exactly how the institute of science can be made seem worthy of trust to a section of the population that will unquestioningly accept the teachings of Benny Hinn, Falwell and Robertson. All we, as scientists, can hope for is that some degree of critical thinking can one day infiltrate the fundamentalist minority - and unfortunately that hope appears rather forlorn at this point since they have been taught that believing without evidence is the highest virtue, the complete anathema to scientific reasoning.
Posted by: MartinC | June 12, 2007 1:28 AM
Martin, if you read the Bloom and Weisberg piece to which Joshua links, you'll find that believing Dawkins, PZ, or hell, even Einstein and Newton, has less to do with "critical thinking" than to do with trust in authority, much as religious belief does. The problem, then, is less a deficit in critical thinking than it is the outcome of a power struggle between our experts and their's. And honestly, when our authorities are spending their time trying to make asses out of themselves in a way imitative of the way their's make asses out of themselves, who will win is anybody's guess.
Posted by: Chris | June 12, 2007 1:56 AM
Chris, I guess I come at this topic from a different perspective from you US based guys. I grew up in Ireland, went to church every Sunday just like the other 90% of the population (probably a higher percentage than even the most religious parts of the US). Yet Ireland, like most of the western world, doesn't have a big problem about the acceptance of the theory of evolution and common descent. I've lived for a number of years in England and Sweden too, both places where evolution is about as contentious as Copernican cosmology. The problem of accepting evolution, in my opinion is particularly linked, not to religion per se, but to particular religious belief systems, most notably evangelical christianity and fundamentistic Islam. Take these two out of the equation and the problem becomes negligible. Of course other religious systems such as catholicism or moderate Islam has its own particular beliefs regarding birth control or homosexuality for instance that may clash with modern thinking but that is another story.
Posted by: MartinC | June 12, 2007 2:45 AM
I sometimes think that certain minds oppose evolution not because they know it is wrong but because they fear it is right. Science gives them cell phones, and TV, and microwave ovens, and cures for diseases, and they love all of that. And then science starts making claims that clash with their beliefs. If science was right before, it could be right about evolution, and they don't want to give up the script of their beliefs, so they fight that which might challenge them to think for themselves.
Posted by: pablo | June 12, 2007 6:17 AM
Give Pablo and Martin C a Gold-Star!
Posted by: J-Dog | June 12, 2007 7:56 AM
Martin, I think the first thing to remember is that scientists are trusted within some areas (e.g., technology). Extending that trust to other areas can be a progressive process, predicated on a willingness to publicly engage ethical and moral issues. It doesn't have to presented as competitive with religion. Our arguments have to stand on their own. Pablo may be right that there's some cognitive dissonance involved. The way to change that is not to force people to exercise those defense mechanisms, but to build on the ways that they already agree with us.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | June 12, 2007 11:03 AM
*** ce chap. 14 pp. 175-176 The Human Miracle ***
Things Only Creation Can Explain
17 The Encyclopædia Britannica states that man’s brain “is endowed with considerably more potential than is realizable in the course of one person’s lifetime.”21 It also has been stated that the human brain could take any load of learning and memory put on it now, and a billion times that! But why would evolution produce such an excess? “This is, in fact, the only example in existence where a species was provided with an organ that it still has not learned how to use,” admitted one scientist. He then asked: “How can this be reconciled with evolution’s most fundamental thesis: Natural selection proceeds in small steps, each of which must confer on its bearer a minimal, but nonetheless measurable, advantage?” He added that the human brain’s development “remains the most inexplicable aspect of evolution.”22 Since the evolutionary process would not produce and pass on such excessive never-to-be-used brain capacity, is it not more reasonable to conclude that man, with the capacity for endless learning, was designed to live forever?
*** ce chap. 14 p. 171 The Human Miracle ***
THE HUMAN BRAIN—An ‘Unsolved Mystery’?
“The human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe.”—Anthropologist Henry F. Osborna
“How does the brain produce thoughts? That is the central question and we have still no answer to it.”—Physiologist Charles Sherringtonb
“In spite of the steady accumulation of detailed knowledge how the human brain works is still profoundly mysterious.”—Biologist Francis Crickc
“Anyone who speaks of a computer as an ‘electronic brain’ has never seen a brain.”—Science editor Dr. Irving S. Bengelsdorfd
“Our active memories hold several billion times more information than a large contemporary research computer.”—Science writer Morton Hunte
“Since the brain is different and immeasurably more complicated than anything else in the known universe, we may have to change some of our most ardently held ideas before we’re able to fathom the brain’s mysterious structure.”—Neurologist Richard M. Restakf
Regarding the huge gulf between humans and animals, Alfred R. Wallace, the ‘co-discoverer of evolution,’ wrote to Darwin: “Natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of the ape, whereas he possesses one very little inferior to that of an average member of our learned society.” Darwin, upset by this admission, replied: “I hope you have not murdered completely your own and my child”g
To say that the human brain evolved from that of any animal is to defy reason and the facts. Far more logical is this conclusion: “I am left with no choice but to acknowledge the existence of a Superior Intellect, responsible for the design and development of the incredible brain-mind relationship—something far beyond man’s capacity to understand. . . . I have to believe all this had an intelligent beginning, that Someone made it happen.”—Neurosurgeon Dr. Robert J. Whiteh
Posted by: Marilyn | June 12, 2007 11:29 AM
During this century, science has greatly increased our knowledge of the natural world around us. Its telescopes have revealed the awesome wonders of the starry heavens, just as its microscopes have disclosed the amazing complexities of molecules and atoms. The marvels of design in plants and animals, the wisdom reflected in our own fearfully and wonderfully made bodies—this knowledge also comes to us through the discoveries of hardworking scientists. We are not unappreciative.
But there is another side to science. Not all its practitioners measure up to the image of the objective, passionate pursuers of truth, regardless of where it might lead. There are too many scientists who select the material that supports their theory and discard what doesn’t. They report studies they have never made and experiments they have never performed, and they fake what they cannot establish. They plagiarize the writings of fellow scientists. Many claim authorship of articles they have never worked on and maybe have never even seen!
Flagrant fraud may be rare, but some of the manipulating of data mentioned above is common. Even more common, however, are two additional kinds of fraud, both involving deceitful propaganda. The four articles that follow examine the problem.
*** g90 1/22 p. 3 Fraud in Science—It Makes the Headlines ***
The image of scientists as invariably dedicated to truth has been tarnished, as these headlined items show. ***
“Ethics in Science”
“A fight is building in the U.S. House of Representatives over fraud, misconduct, and conflict of interest in science.”—Science, July 7, 1989.
***
“Two New Studies Ask Why Scientists Cheat”
“It was an innocent enough question: how do scientists behave when no one is looking? But it has produced an incendiary answer: not too well, reports a paper this month in the British journal Nature.”—Newsweek, February 2, 1987.
***
“The Case of the ‘Misplaced’ Fossils”
“A prominent Australian scientist has examined two decades of work on ancient Himalayan geology and alleges it may be the greatest paleontological fraud of all time.”—Science, April 21, 1989.
“Now It’s the Journals’ Turn on the Firing Line”
“[He was speaking] specifically about how poorly many [science] journals have handled scientific fraud. . . . The same message previously dispatched to other members of the scientific community has now been addressed to the journals: clean up your act or you may find legislators getting into it.”—The AAAS Observer, July 7, 1989
***
“Do Scientists Cheat?”
“After the initial inquiry by this [congressional] committee into this subject, the committee has had growing reason to believe that we are only seeing the tip of a very unfortunate, dangerous, and important iceberg.”—NOVA broadcast on PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) on October 25, 1988.
*** w90 2/15 p. 28 Insight on the News ***
“Hijacking Fossils”
Under that title, the French daily Le Monde reported the case of a paleontologist in India who “for 20 years . . . apparently deceived his colleagues concerning the origin of fossils that he submitted to them for their appraisal.” It is claimed that the “hijacking” consisted of sending them fossils obtained in the United States, Africa, Czechoslovakia, and the British Isles, saying they had been discovered in the Himalaya Mountains. This scientist published his findings in over 300 articles. The fraud was brought to light by an Australian scientist via the British scientific journal Nature. He wondered ‘how it could be that such a large quantity of doubtful findings remained unchallenged for such a long time.’
One possible reason, according to Le Monde, was the law of silence heeded by many members of the scientific community. The article noted that this fossil “hijacking” has “made useless practically all the facts accumulated [over the past 20 years] on the geology of the Himalayas.”
Obviously, this new case of fraud in science does not cast doubt on the entire scientific world. It does, however, provide further evidence that arguments of paleontology when pitted against the unfailing accuracy of the Bible record are often nothing more than what the apostle Paul called “the contradictions of the ‘knowledge’ which is not knowledge at all.”—1 Timothy 6:20, The New Jerusalem Bible.
***Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase
“THE competition is savage. Winners reap monumental rewards; losers face oblivion. It’s an atmosphere in which an illicit shortcut is sometimes irresistible—not least because the Establishment is frequently squeamish about confronting wrongdoing.” So opened the article “Publish or Perish—or Fake It” in U.S.News & World Report. To escape perishing, many scientific researchers are faking it.
The pressure on scientists to publish in scientific journals is overwhelming. The longer the list of published papers to the researcher’s name, the better his chances for employment, promotion, tenure in a university, and government grants to finance his research. The federal government “controls the largest source of research funding, $5.6 [thousand million] a year from the National Institutes of Health.”
Because “the scientific community shows little stomach for confronting its ethical dilemma,” “has been strangely reluctant to probe too deeply for hard data about its ethical conduct,” and “isn’t keen about cleaning house or even looking closely for malfeasance,” congressional committees have held hearings and considered legislation to do the job of policing for them. (New Scientist; U.S.News & World Report) This prospect wrings from scientists much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yet, one science journal asks and answers the question: “Is the house of science clean and in order? The bit of evidence that reaches the public invites serious doubts.”
Some researchers eliminate data that does not support what they want to prove (called cooking); report more tests or trials than were actually run (called trimming); appropriate for their own use data or ideas of other researchers (called plagiarism); and make up experiments or data they never performed or produced (called forging). A cartoon in a science journal poked fun at this last tactic, one scientist talking to another and saying of a third: ‘He’s published a lot since he took up that creative writing course.’
“What’s the major product of scientific research these days? Answer: Paper,” U.S.News & World Report said. “Hundreds of new journals are being founded each year to handle the flood of research papers cranked out by scientists who know that the road to academic success is a long list of articles to their credit.” Quantity, not quality, is the goal. Forty thousand journals published yearly produce a million articles, and part of this flood “is symptomatic of fundamental ills, including a publish-or-perish ethic among researchers that is stronger now than ever and encourages shoddy, repetitive, useless or even fraudulent work.”
Posted by: Marilyn | June 12, 2007 11:35 AM
GOD THE CREATOR
8 There are persons today who deny the existence of God. Some say, “God is dead.” But is their theory right? Speaking of such persons, Paul states in one of his letters:
“[God’s] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.” (Romans 1:20)
The vast universe and all the marvels that it contains are truly an expression of God’s “eternal power.”
9 Even famous scientists have at times acknowledged their own smallness in comparison with the stupendous power and wisdom apparent in creation. For example, Albert Einstein once testified:
“It is enough for me to . . . reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe, which we can dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifest in nature.”
10 The discoverer of the “law of gravity,” Sir Isaac Newton, was another who was deeply impressed by the evidence of God’s invisible qualities that are to be seen in His creation. The following account relates how Newton testified to his belief in Almighty God:
Newton once had a skilled mechanic make for him a model of the solar system. Balls representing the planets were geared together so as to move realistically in orbit. One day an atheist friend visited Newton. On seeing the model, he operated it, and exclaimed in admiration, “Who made it?” Newton answered, “Nobody!” The atheist replied, “You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius.” Newton then said to his friend, “This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker!”
Newton’s friend came to acknowledge that the great Designer and Maker of all things is God. Surely we, too, as we look on the marvels of creation about us, in the heavens and on earth, must acknowledge that an all-wise Creator made it all! How thankful we should be that this mighty Creator lovingly placed man here on this earth and that he is deeply interested in us!
Posted by: Marilyn | June 12, 2007 11:41 AM
Please, Marilyn, if you're just going to cut/paste stuff you've posted elsewhere, save some electrons and just post a link.
BTW, did you realize it's considered unethical to copy others' work without attribution?
http://cornellsun.com/node/23302#comment-19434
http://www.omninerd.com/2007/05/01/polls/153/comments/2216
http://scienceline.org/2007/04/22/episode-3-the-sound-of-science/#c832
Posted by: Cheryl Shepherd-Adams | June 12, 2007 12:59 PM
I certainly agree with one thing from those ...errr.... 'interesting' posts Marilyn, namely that plagiarism is indeed a bad thing.
Posted by: MartinC | June 12, 2007 1:08 PM
Marilyn, it's probably better if you actually present your own argument, since I guarantee no one knows what you are responding to. If you're just trolling and not responding to anything in this thread, take it somewhere else.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | June 12, 2007 1:16 PM
Chris, I don't get your argument. You seem to be saying that the problem is not articulating the science; you say that it "has less to do with "critical thinking" than to do with trust in authority;" yet you fault those who believe that it is necessary to say, out loud, that the religious authority is just wrong in this instance. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you--but I assume you know that none of the evil atheists you describe are roving the streets attacking the religious, and that PZ's blog is probably not typical of his day to day interactions with colleagues and students--but I don't get how eloquence somehow avoids that central confrontation. Personally, having witnessed other public debates, I figure it will take all kinds, volumes and styles of discourse, and I'm not sure any one is "better" except insofar as it's comfortable for the wielder. How do you address the fact that evolution directly contradicts a central tenet of most common religion here?
Posted by: les | June 12, 2007 3:45 PM
Les, if PZ, Dawkins, etc. were just saying that religion is wrong in this instance, you'd have a point. But they're not. They are saying things like, "religious education is child abuse." That's a much more sweeping claim. And it's a self-defeating one.
Posted by: Chris | June 12, 2007 5:01 PM
Chris, it's certainly more sweeping; watching "Jesus Camp", I don't know if it's wrong. For some listeners, the statement may be self-defeating; for some, it may be the shock that makes them look at the situation. I certainly don't think everyone needs to be in that place--but neither am I convinced that having someone speak like that is fatal. And I don't see many statements like that in public, which to me doesn't really include blogville. I do still wonder--and again, I may just be missing your point--what you are suggesting when you get to the "no, that's just wrong" point.
Posted by: les | June 12, 2007 5:07 PM
Josh,
I agree, but when will 'moderate' religious leaders step up and talk about integrating science and religion from their pulpits? Why is it that scientists are the ones who have to carry the water by themselves?
Posted by: Mike the Mad Biologist | June 12, 2007 5:10 PM
I'm sorry, but I'm still utterly flummoxed by the idea that evolutionary theory somehow has such greater metaphysical implications, so much more impact on how we live our lives, than does, say, Thevenin's theorem.
Is it that recognizing ourselves as the modified descendants of earlier organisms who were themselves the modified descendants of still earlier organisms means giving up the comfy notion that human beings are privileged above all other life forms, and the very reason for the existence of the universe?
Is that what all the upset is about? Facing the fact that we're not the most important, most specialest, bestest thing in the universe? Is our culture thus mired in the mentality of a two-year old?
Posted by: Ktesibios | June 12, 2007 7:29 PM
Mike, it's certainly true that western religions have more problems than just their opposition to particular areas of science. Hell, in the grand scheme of things, that's one of the smaller problems with western religion. But there's no reason to think "religion is child abuse," or the rest of the inflammatory rhetoric spewed by fundamentalist atheists who, it should be noted, are not experts on religion, and therefore absolutely should not be trusted as authorities in that regard, has any of the intended effects, unless the intended effect is to piss religious people off and make them less open to anything else they have to say. And to be honest, I'm not sure that's not the real intended effect. But abiding by the principle of charity, I'll act as though the fundamentalist atheists really are motivated to bring people out of the intellectually and socially oppressive chains of organized religion, and just aren't very good at doing it.
Posted by: Chris | June 12, 2007 10:13 PM
"But there's no reason to think "religion is child abuse," or the rest of the inflammatory rhetoric spewed by fundamentalist atheists who, it should be noted, are not experts on religion, and therefore absolutely should not be trusted as authorities in that regard, has any of the intended effects, unless the intended effect is to piss religious people off and make them less open to anything else they have to say."
What are the qualification to be an expert in religion? I can get ordained online, so that's probably not it. Is it the blind indoctrination over years of study? or simply listening to the leaders of the "field" and taking everything they say on faith?
No reason to think of religion as child abuse you say. Hmmm, on the one hand its not like these kids are getting physically beaten. However, many US hurches teach that if you believe X you suffer eternal damnation forever burning in the pits of hell. Oh that's ok you say, it helps provide a moral frame-wok to keep these kids socially responsible. Of course when these kids go to school and hear about evilution and suffer the emotional trauma of being taught something that if they believe will damn them. How do they correctly answer test questions, wouldn't this be akin to taking other gods before me? When a 16 year old girl has consensual sex with a 30 year old man, its rape because we consider (and should consider), a young individual not able to fully understand the nature of their actions, but when a 6 year old is being indoctrinated into a religious faith, that's AOK. No issues there, obviously the word of god (one particular word that is) is not subject to informed consent, after years of indoctrination, adults can then make whatever decisions they choose.
"...and socially oppressive chains of organized religion, and just aren't very good at doing it..."
oh you do think religion is oppressive, but not in any way child abuse. OK
I go on in my own blog, but I think many people are so defensive about their religious beliefs they cannot tolerate the anti-thesis and so fail to think about what Dawkins/Myers/et al are truly saying. It is easier to be righteously indignant and just go on.
Posted by: wafer | June 13, 2007 7:33 AM
“The Lords Prayer!”
Within its contents lies the Solution to the entire Worlds’ Problems. It is such “Good News” and it is soooo seldom that we hear “Good News.”
In all its simplicity “The Lord’s Prayer” or “Our Father Prayer,” answers “three” of the most catastrophic problems facing humans today. Jesus provided the Solution to all the World’s problems (in just three sentences.) Problems such as; Will there ever be “World Peace?” Will the earth be destroyed by “Weapons of Mass Destruction” or possibly an “Asteroid from Outer Space?” Or will there ever be a time when “Sickness, Sorrow and Death” is done away with?
We pray in modern English, “Let your Kingdom come.” God’s Kingdom is a Spiritual Government, I am sure that you are familiar with the terms “Prince of Peace and King of kings,” referring to Jesus Christ It is Jesus’ Spiritual Government that is going to bring permanent Peace to the Earth.
Then we continue; “Let your Kingdom come and let your will be done on earth.” In order for God’s will to be done on earth the earth has to remain and there will have to be people on earth to do God’s will. So we don’t have to worry about the earth being destroyed! But you may be wondering now will we always have to live with the tragedy of “Sickness, Sorrow and Death?” Jesus said NO!
“God’s will will be done on earth as it is in heaven” heaven is perfect! So in essence we are asking God to please rule this earth in Perfection as He once did in the Garden of Eden.
Wouldn’t you agree that this is “Good News?” That is why Jesus stated at Matthew 24:14, “And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”
Thank you so much for your time and attention. I do hope that this is “Good News” for you also.
Sincerely,
Posted by: Marilyn | June 13, 2007 9:18 AM
Science is a rational approach to testing ideas and understanding our natural world. Evolution does not provide us with any testable facts.
In a nutshell: Evolution is a half-cocked idea based on emperical observations (more like an unfinished puzzle), which vast conclusions are being drawn from (i.e. we evolved over millions of years from a primordial soup).
Evolution is a pseudo-science, and those who put their trust in evolution are doing so blindly. In reality, Evolution is Science's religion.
Evolution is a theory that can not be tested. Fossil records show no proof of any mutations that bridge the gap between primates and humans.
Posted by: Louis | June 13, 2007 10:30 AM
"Evolution does not provide us with any testable facts."
What is a testable fact?
"Evolution is a half-cocked idea based on emperical observations (more like an unfinished puzzle), which vast conclusions are being drawn from (i.e. we evolved over millions of years from a primordial soup)."
Damn those ideas based on empirical observations...from wiki "empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses"
So my guess is that your ieda is to sit around and wait for divine inspiration to explain life.
"Evolution is a pseudo-science, and those who put their trust in evolution are doing so blindly. In reality, Evolution is Science's religion."
The alternative you propose is what exactly? What prediction/explanatory power does it have? BTW which religious leader/guide book did you lift these 2 sentences from?
"Evolution is a theory that can not be tested."
Wrong, but I doubt you care.
"Fossil records show no proof of any mutations that bridge the gap between primates and humans."
What? Do you know what these words mean or did you just string together some biological sounding words in a way that passed Word's grammar-checker?
Idea for you Louis, get an evolutionary textbook, read it (before burning it), look at all the information/supporting evidence/predictive power and then come back. I know I know its hard work, but so what. You have a brain (in theory, however unlike evolution I have no evidence to truly back that up), use it.....you know what, dont, go back to FOX news and tell us the latest on Paris Hilton.
Posted by: wafer | June 13, 2007 12:25 PM
Ktesibios, I think your questions are important. I don't know if I fully understand what the philosophical beefs are, and I certainly don't share them.
Wafer: I think there is an important distinction between referring to "socially oppressive chains of organized religion," and stating that "religion is oppressive" as some general proposition. Some is, some isn't.
I agree with Mike the Mad Biologist that moderate religious voices need to be a bigger part of this conversation. They've ceded the public square to their oppressive brethren. I suspect that we could get useful answers to the questions Ktesibios asks above if we worked with those moderate religious leaders, rather than painting all of religion with an overly broad brush.
Posted by: Josh Rosenau | June 13, 2007 1:27 PM
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a 'simple' living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the 'simple' cell.
After all, shouldn't all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a 'simple' cell.
If it weren't so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence 'FOR' evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the 'raw' stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth's recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don't believe the 'original' Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
Posted by: James Collins | June 13, 2007 4:20 PM
Looks like the crazies have taken over, but wafer (one of the sane ones), you've made my point for me with your last paragraph:
I go on in my own blog, but I think many people are so defensive about their religious beliefs they cannot tolerate the anti-thesis and so fail to think about what Dawkins/Myers/et al are truly saying. It is easier to be righteously indignant and just go on.
Exactly.
And what makes a person an expert on religion? An ability to display knowledge of it, for one. But I can tell you that people won't, and shouldn't, look to biologists to be experts on theology and philosophy, much less the sociology and psychology of religion, because they tend to make bad philosophers, theologians, sociologists, and psychologists, as Myers and Dawkins have demonstrated repeatedly.
Posted by: Chris | June 13, 2007 4:59 PM
Looks like the crazies have taken over
I'd say that started about the time the pseudointellectuals started tossing about oxymoronic phrases like "fundamentalist atheist", and pretending that one can have knowledge (aside from mere trivia) of that great organized naval-gazing known as religion. It's pretty much guaranteed to go downhill from there.
And isn't it time the sciencebloggers started deleting James Collins' spam?
Posted by: Science Avenger | June 18, 2007 10:50 AM