Some teachers were at a workshop in Atlanta to talk about their experiences teaching evolution, and how to overcome some of the problems. They've had it worse than I have.
Some students burst into tears when a high school biology told them they'd be studying evolution. Another teacher said some students repeatedly screamed "no" when he began talking about it.
Other teachers said students demanded to know whether they pray and questioned why the had to learn about evolution if it was just a theory.
I get remarks on my student evaluations (last year, a group of students must have collaborated, because there were a half dozen evaluations that said exactly the same thing: "This class taught me to love Jesus even more!", which they may have thought would hurt my feelings, but I just laughed.) I've had some students who talked to my colleagues about this evolution stuff — they were apparently afraid to confront me. I do get some forthright creationists, but they don't respond with tears…they try to argue with me, which is just fine. But otherwise, the only screams I get are when I return exams.
The solutions are a little vaguely stated, but OK — they are actively responding to the problem.
A few years ago, Pratt started holding meetings - open to parents, students, church members and others - to address their questions about evolution. She holds the annual session a few weeks before she begins the unit and gets about 200 people.
"It used to be that the whole unit was a struggle, and we were butting heads," Pratt said. "This meeting helps everyone understand that science teachers are not the enemy. Now, the kids are showing up ready to learn about evolution."
Other teachers said they try to fix students' misconceptions. They explain how humans and apes share a common ancestor that no longer exists, not that humans and apes evolved from one another. They say that while "theory" may describe a hunch in everyday language, in science it is defined as an explanation supported by factual evidence to describe events that occur in our world.
Graham Balch, a biology teacher at Grady High in Atlanta, addressed the controversy head-on. He had his students read about Cox's actions and the response she got. They learned about efforts across the country to water down lessons about evolution and how other public and private schools teach the material. They debated the cause of the conflict and whether evolution should be taught in public schools.
As for myself, the way I handle it is not to push atheism in the classroom (you're shocked, I know), since that would lead into arguments that aren't part of the subject matter of the course. What I do instead is teach a historical approach to the issue of evolution, showing that there really wasn't an Evil Atheist Conspiracy at work, but simply scientists who were making honest evaluations of the evidence: 19th century geology was driven by profits to be made from coal and railroads and canals, not ideology, and Darwin arrived at his conclusions in spite of his upbringing in a faith. And once you've gone through the evidence, it becomes really easy to spend a lecture or two ripping up creationists, because the students can easily see how creationists are not operating in good faith and are in denial of the facts of geology and biology.
Some still argue with me now and then, but usually my problem is keeping the other students in the class from brutalizing the poor credulous sap's arguments too cruelly.
- Log in to post comments
You're too easy on them.
I took Human Evolution at my current university. Strangely, even with Biology a prerequisite to take the class, there was still a vocal anti-evolutionist in the class who kept asking loaded questions. And the instructor answered them well.
One early class was even teaching that religion has nothing to do with evolution by showing the levels of high-profile people on both sides, their religion and their views on religion.
What I don't understand is how people who are against evolution or don't want to learn it sign up for a class that requires it to be taught? What does that do for them?
The problem is that the kids are set up by their parents and communities as 'defenders of the faith', beset upon by evil atheists and satanic worshipers. I'll bet the student who wrote "This class taught me to love Jesus even more!" pictured himself or herself as the beaming protagonist of a Chick tract.
It must be hard for them when they learn they're not the hero of a Heston film, their beatific smiles don't immediately earn them the enmity of the university Pharisees, but instead are just another student trying to figure shit out.
PZ This is slightly away from the point but are you concerned about the role Big Business/Multinationals play in financing scientific reasearch both in the lab and in the academy? It seems to me the ongoing difficulty for science is to maintain its independent position and autonomy and to have some sort of control over what is discovers and unearths instead of this information belonging to the Multinational. Im an aetheist and have been for 30 years so I'm not coming at this from a religious angle. I sympathise with the difficulty of combatting the mind-control and repressiveness of Creationism and the oppressive input it wishes to exert in American schools and colleges. However, as Bush and Exxon Oil pay pseudo-scientists to spout anti-ecological lies so does every scientist have to question where is pay packet comes from, no? Keep up the good fight anyway. p.s. When will the U.S. sort out it's seriously embarrassing gun laws???
Good approach PZ, I'm sure that other students ripping into their arguments makes a far bigger impression on them than if you did it (peer pressure and all).
When I did my science degree, at the first introductory biology course, the head of the department stood at the front of the class and said, "This course will teach biology from an evolutionary viewpoint. There will be no debate about creationism. Anyone unable to keep their religious beliefs to themselves and learn this material as it is presented had better leave now." (paraphrased) He then waited a couple of moments to see if anyone was making a move to leave, then we started the lesson and nothing was ever said of it again. Shocked the hell out of me. I had no idea we had any problems with creationists in Australia and that was nearly 17 years ago.
Either that, or they did it as a joke and were laughing their asses off imagining PZ reading it.
I like your approach PZ. Do you have it published or outlined somewhere, or does someone have something similar to link to? So I can work on my relatives! :-)
Whats really scary is that these people are supposed to be STUDENTS. They should be -and probably are- a little above the average educational level. Which implies that the overall education level is terribly low.
Oh yeah. I forget that students a pretty net-savvy and lots of 'em know who he is.
PZ, do most of your students know that you're the very face of the evil atheist conspiracy?
On a more to the point note..I think you'll find that most CEOs of Multinationals will have sympathy with Creationism because Religion as such maintains the status quo that allows big business to trot out profits and keep the rest of us slaves...as Nietzsche said...Christianity made a virtue of the slave mentality (Geneology of Morals)...Hence, a problem. We don't have education anymore. We have a process controlled by business to produce good machines. If the powers of conservatism control education what chance any truth or radicalism? Religion and/or Creationism is encouraged by Business because it breeds docile slaves who preserve Capitalism.....A problem, methinks. In other words, you cant just fight Creationism on one front. You have to fight Capitalism, too. Religion and Capitalism paradoxically go hand in hand. Capitalism has no concept of society. America needs to reinvigorate the socialist roots of its founding fathers!
In a perfect world a high school biology teacher could ask all students who believe in magical creation to raise their hands. The teacher could then instruct those Christian retards to leave the classroom and never come back. Intelligent students should not have to be stuck in a classroom infested with idiots.
She holds the annual session a few weeks before she begins the unit and gets about 200 people.
I don't get this "the unit" stuff. If it's true that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, how is it possible to properly teach biology without making evolution a major part of every single lesson?
Some students burst into tears when a high school biology told them they'd be studying evolution.
There could be no better evidence for the idea that Christianity must be stamped out and the sooner the better. The Christians religion is good for nothing but making people cowardly idiots.
I honestly feel sorry for the American education system if students burst into tears at the mere mention of evolution being on the syllabus.
And I am so glad that the UK does not have this problem. When I was doing Biology during my GCSE (google it) years, we had a couple of IDers in the class, yet they never kicked up a fuss. And it wasn't because they were there by choice, therefore knew what was coming - the sciences were compulsory.
One student in my evolution class sat in the back of the room glaring at me for the first two weeks of class. Finally, after I'd talked about science's inability to either prove or disprove the existence of supernatural entities, the student stayed after class to talk with me. He thanked me, and said that when he was in high school he had a biology teacher who told the class that science has proven that God does not exist, which troubled him deeply. I told him that his teacher had acted irresponsibly and had taken advantage of his position of authority. The student was able to relax in the class after that and enjoyed it very much. This was a public school the student had attended, by the way.
My students frequently want to know my stance on religion. I tell them I'm an agnostic who was raised Roman Catholic, and if they want to hear more about my "conversion" I'm happy to tell them. But this raises a question: If one professes to be an atheist (as compared to an agnostic), isn't this the same thing as saying to the students that you personally believe there is no god? And what would one base that position on, considering the untestability and unfalsifiability of the hypothesis of the existence of supernatural entities?
I might be able to offer some insight: there are more than a few that want a career in biology, and have enough of a narcissistic and masochistic streak (you know, a Jesus complex) to believe that they can be the one to bring the whole house of cards down with their valiant self-sacrifice, then go on to become a puppy doctor.
I ran into about three of these - they generally switched to history or political science within a semester or two.
Remember, they've been told that evolution is this fragile and easily debunked theory. They've been handed a series of irrefutable arguments. And they have the inerrant word of the Bible. So, when they run into a rather indifferent opposition (not a violent one in many cases, but one that pats them on the head and sighs) they have a choice to lose faith and learn, or turn elsewhere where they are not challenged.
Sadly, many choose as I've indicated above.
Actually, what am I saying as I chat here to myself in Ireland??????? Relgion IS Big Business. Cf Lenny Bruce Religions Inc. The further point is you need to tackle the whole Capitalistic fatalism of the world to rid it of Creationism. p.s. Art is in the realm of the magical, no? The strategy is to resist commodification in every facet of one's being. Bye!
The problem of evil, Russell's teapot, the inconsistent descriptions that most religions offer of their deities, Occam's Razor in view of naturalistic explanations of the current state of the universe. Take your pick.
@ #12
When it is highschool biology, most of it is simply memorizing the names of things. What those things are might not actually make sense in relation to each other without understanding evolution, but you can still rattle off the different cell parts and the stages of cell division to get a good mark. I spent four years in junior high/high school in western Pennsylvania, and we simply skipped the evolution section of our biology textbook completely. It was weird.
"Another teacher said some students repeatedly screamed "no" when he began talking about it."
Of course they yell 'no'. They know that their indoctrination in faith cannot stand up to any challenge. No cogent thought can be applied to faith because it will evaporate instantly.
They explain how humans and apes share a common ancestor that no longer exists, not that humans and apes evolved from one another.
Of course, the common ancestor no longer exists as he lived several millions of years ago.
However, the common ancestor was definitely an ape. And, is apes are to be a monophylletic clade, humans are also definitely apes. If apes is a paraphylletic clade, then humans evolved from apes.
Evolution is a fact. But if Creationism is imposed, I do not see any problem to cope with it rationally. When Mussolini took power in Italy, he demanded all university professors to swear the Fascist Principles. Some left university professors resigned from their posts. But others swore the Fascist Principles and tried to resist from inside. Galileo also rejected heliocentrism, but eppur si muove. We must be prepared to deny anything they want you to deny and to afirm anything they want you to afirm. Martyrdom is not a quality for an atheist.
Someone tell me how these kids got to high school without learning what Scientific Theory means. Frickin' idiot teachers.
recovering catholic:
Proselytizing, whether done by you or an atheist or a strongly sectarian religious person is wrong. The slippery slope is when folks try and use your argument above to assert that evolution without God is religious indoctrination.
The same thing an agnostic bases their position on: belief. It is a belief, and a religious person might very well ask you why you deny the irrefutable spoken word of a deity. What do you base your position on: what you consider to be a superior logic or stance?
Now, see - this is where you are not that far off from your original premise as a Catholic: that one truth exists, and people who don't see it are wrong. You've apparently still got that old bias against atheists. If there is no real difference in position either way, as in no way of discerning whether or not their is supernatural or not, you've opted to leave the door open to the belief side, and decry others who have closed it, when there really is no functional difference in this life anyway.
This blog taught me to love Jesus even more!!!
K @ 22:
Perhaps in response to this, the first few weeks of science classes in many of my junior high/early high school science classes included instruction on the scientific method, most with explicit definitions of "theory" versus "hypothesis". I never put two and two together as to why this was back then.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much of it actually stuck with most of the students after each time around. And then there was the at least one class that got the scientific method *wrong*...misconceptions could easily have been rife among us students.
I suppose your biology teacher was either incompetent and/or didn't want to deal with complaints from Christian retards. At least the students were able to read the textbook to learn about evolution. I couldn't even do that in my 1965 biology class. Evolution wasn't in our textbook and my biology teacher never mentioned the word. What a hopelessly pathetic country this is.
Not more than me! I love Jesus so much it hurts! LOOK! Stigmata!
Um, Gramsuil, you're trolling, right? Oh hell, I'll bite.
Please see, e.g., PZ's recent post on Proposition 8 in California. The big businesses there are against the religious foolishness. Big business, at least high-tech big business, runs on smarts, so they need real science education to increase the labor pool. And they want to keep all of that pool around, rather than drive the [minority|other religion|gay|etc] fraction somewhere else.
Hey, I'm a card-carryin', shirt-wearin', hat-sportin' member of the EFF; I'm plenty scared of corporate power. But AFAICT capitalism is more likely to save us from religion than not.
When I was in the 8th grade we had a teacher who put a ping pong ball in a hole in the top of a box and we observed that it came out in a couple of different directions. We had to form a hypothesis about what was happening and turn it in the next day. He showed it a couple times with us trying to figure out which hole it would come out of (not quite the scientific method but close enough for 8th graders and limited time and resources) and then opened the box to show us how it worked. We were then taught about the scientific method and were tested on it. I really do think that this needs to be taught at about that level to every child, and perhaps he or she will take away from that lesson the knowledge about how science works and what "theory" actually means.
I was recently suprised to learn that the girl I sit next to in my college physics class is a young earth creationist. This came up during a discusion of carbon dating. The professor asked,after stating the half-life of C14,if carbon dating could be used to age fossils. I said no, and this girl (with confused expression) said that she thinks it could be used because dinosaurs lived with humans less then 10,000 years ago. Right? I was shocked! And I know that I shouldn't be, but Really! 10,000 years! And with humans!
After class I asked her a few questions about what she said. I have to add that I was very nice. I acted like I had never heard such a thing before, and was curious as to where she came into contact with information so different from what science says. Long story short, we exchanged emails and she said she would try to dig up this info. I'm not holding my breath.
I don't think this girl is completely devoid of intelectual honesty. I think she is the type who has just never put any thought into what she is told. Also she is a political science major. The horror!
This left me feeling pretty disapointed. I have just moved back to the US from Holland and I guess I had forgotten what it is like here. sigh. There is still some hope though right? We can win this election, and that would be good. Please?
Well.. yes. How many other interpretations of the phrase "I am an atheist" do you know?
Think about it. If something is unfalsifiable and/or untestable, to what extent is it part of reality?
I would just tell the creobots that they can believe whatever they want.
What they have to know is what scientists have found out about the universe and life through time. Schools can't force people to believe anything, obviously so whether they believe it or not is their problem.
Never had to do this. I suppose there must have been a creationist or two in class but they never spoke up. Universities are expensive these days to say the least. Most students are more concerned with making good use of their time and money.
PZ, you've had it easier, because you have been protected by (heretofore) strong traditions of academic freedom, academic tenure, and professional collegiality.
As my profs used to say, "They can't fire me unless they catch me with the captain of the cheerleading squad, on the fifty-yard line, during a game."
Such a thing does not exist at all among at-will employees of private educational enterprises (at all levels),and you've blogged about it often (e.g., when certain private-college professors have dared to suggest such dangerous ideas as speciation, or even [gasp, shudder!] the demonic spectre of ecumenicalism).
What isn't known so well is that academic freedom is pretty much an illusion in public education, as is tenure. Most states have a poor imitation of it in due-process rights, which force a school board to conduct a kangaroo court in order to railroad an unpopular veteran out.
But those in the know also realize that invoking that right makes you unemployable afterwards (all they have to do is tell a prospective employer that you fought a dismissal-for-cause). The upshot is, you can't use what few rights you have unless you have enough evidence of the other side's own malfeasance that you can take all of them down with you. Then, you get to win the stand-off. It's as rare as woodland gnomes.
(I know some might want to invoke the Freshwater case as refutation; but it's an egregious exception, and more about the allegations of physical abuse than teaching. Furthermore, without massive support among fellow-thinker parents, his case wouldn't even have made it to a hearing.)
The nightmare scenario, often played out behind closed doors without documentation, is for activists to use student surrogates to undermine a science class, then force administrators to pressure a teacher into resignation using recommendations/retirement benefits as an incentive/club (for a parallel, look at what happened to Chris Comer in Texas).
I have seen just the vague threat of this become sufficient incentive to cow entire public school science departments into apologetic silence, where they only discuss so much of what is known as "The E-word" as is necessary to satisfy state testing requirements (and you know the battles happening there).
Just look at Michelle Bachmann's own claim to school-activism fame, where she led a parent movement to block a classroom showing of Disney's Aladdin (?!?) in a charter school on the grounds that it promoted paganism and black magic. Insanity like that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: Pat | October 26, 2008 2:59 PM
Not more than me! I love Jesus so much it hurts! LOOK! Stigmata!
You think that is bad, I am hearing Stigmata.
So many students are cannon fodder in the fight for anti-intellectualism.
Thank FSM that such efforts to actually teach open-mindedness and science are put forth by conscientious teachers.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I liked the way my Archaeology professor in college handled it. I don't remember exactly how she said it, but it went along these lines:
I don't care what you chose to believe, we are going to be dealing with larger numbers in the term of years and some concepts beyond the acceptance of religion. However what I teach will be on the tests and the finals.
Other teachers said they try to fix students' misconceptions. They explain how humans and apes share a common ancestor that no longer exists, not that humans and apes evolved from one another.
What kind of animal was the most recent common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans?
ayyubid:
You're welcome to check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics
... some students repeatedly screamed "no" ...
But at least no teachers reported that their students said, "My mommy is the Governor and she's going to get you fired!"
No. Some atheists--not many, in my experience--believe there is no god, but others simply do not believe that there is one.
In other words, "atheist" and "agnostic" overlap to a large degree.
In the classroom, what does it matter? Provided a science teacher doesn't teach hir personal beliefs, s/he is not obliged to explain why they're based on science, or even to claim that they are. In fact, s/he probably shouldn't be talking about them much at all--there's a curriculum to get through.
I'm still learning. When in the mid-nineties I got internet and discovered talk.origins, I was astounded to find that there still existed in the twentieth century, somewhere in the world, people who still believed all that stuff about floods and boats in the bible as literal fact. I'd been raised by Christians who told me plainly that it was just a bunch of old legends that bore a kind of spiritual truth (this sort-of makes sense in that it avoids conflict with scientific fact).
Even then I assumed there were just some demented morons of the kind that seem to hang around on internet forums.
Slowly over the years it has dawned on me that there are parts of America where most of the population are so lost to modern science that they believe this bilge.
It still staggers me. That there are some lunatic sects in my own country who swallow this bilge is mildly disturbing, too.
#28 Johnny Vector....perhaps Johnny we should make a distinction between Christian fundamentalism and the Jesuitical kind. Capitalism - whether it's minority friendly or not and always only so for self-serving purposes not because it believes in any morality - is more Jesutical in its mode of self-service and slipperiness. If you want a perfect trope for Capitalism look no further than the God of the Old Testament. As long as it's self-serving it goes. I'm talking about a mindset Johnny. The Capitalist and the Catholic. One and the same mentality, ultimately. Make no mistake, in order to preserve its power and existence the Catholic Church at least will do anything in he end. In order to preserve its worker pool and army of slaves it will no doubt eventually allow gay marriage and female priests.Power addresses only itself, it only has a duty to preserve itself. Like the Church, multinationals will also use the law of expediency to conserve their institutions. We shouldn't be fooled by the liberals as the extremists....Fascism is fascism whether it's gay, hetero, bi, female, male, religious or atheistic..Capitalism is..etc etc p.s. What's trolling??? lol
I also graduated from Western Pennsylvania schools, H.S. in 1960. I had never heard of evolution, and did not hear of it for at least several years afterwards. Having spent grades 4-8 in a Roman Catholic school, I was somewhat brain damaged. I was skeptical of the quality of the public schools even while I was enrolled. In 9th grade we were required to take a general science course. At some point during the year, the teacher acquired a copy of a science test from outside the system. I quite enjoyed it. However, when the tests were graded, the teacher told that class that I'd scored 95% [I read voraciously] and so must have guessed a lot. Whether he just wanted to make sure that no one else felt bad or really didn't know that 95% is unlikely to be the result of guessing, I don't know, but it didn't inspire trust in the school system. I wish my teachers had had a better education!
Atlanta, you say? Damn. I happen to live in Georgia, so this is just depressing.
'Other teachers said they try to fix students' misconceptions. They explain how humans and apes share a common ancestor that no longer exists, not that humans and apes evolved from one another.'
Call me thick (I often do) but I can't see how this would be acceptable to someone who dislikes the idea of being related to an ape. I suspect that they would be more horrified to see that venerable ancestor. Am I missing something?
Thank GOD, my kids are grown an finised with school. I am glad they finised school when it really meant something and america was number 1 in education in the world instead of 15 or 16. my how the public scool system has dumbed downed the kids of america. RIC
Thank GOD, my kids are grown an finised with school. I am glad they finised school when it really meant something and america was number 1 in education in the world instead of 15 or 16. my how the public shcool system has dumbed downed the kids of america. RIC
The balance of probability - The probability of the existence of God, based on available evidence, is so unlikely as to be effectively zero. This leaves the door open to the idea that if God decides to leave some evidence, your mind would change.
I'm not sure what the name for this is, but the idea is that it doesn't matter if God exists if: he provides no evidence of his existence, isn't detectable as a being, and doesn't interact with anything in any detectable way. In effect, if he doesn't do anything then his existence, if he can be said to exist at all, is irrelevant and therefore assuming he doesn't exist is a reasonable position.
OT: Chopstick Octopus
There is indeed no difference between a god not showing his existence and a non-existing god. If he shows his existence by some phenomenon, this phenomenon enters the science area and the god actually loses it. In C:
phenomenon () {
science++;
god--;
}
Why do some posters keep pretending that they don't think evolution has anything to do with religion when PZ makes it clear that he thinks evolution bascially does away with religion?
His buddy Dawkins of course promotes the same thing? So why the pretense?
Some of the responses these kids display, when confronted with the posibility of studying evolution, seem to support Richard Dawkins position that religious indoctrination of young children is equivalent to child abuse.
By the way, yours (and others)anecdotal evidence of what some students have said is not evidence at all.
Further, I question whether it is even ethical for a High School teacher who can be easily identified to make such comments about students.
In fact, PZ, I wonder if you should be?
What posters are you talking about Julie?
How do you know they are pretending? Can you read minds?
So you don't keep them locked in cages where the evil atheist students poke them with sticks that are made in the image of Charles Darwin's ribs? Damn. I just assumed there was an off-line equivalent to your online dungeon :P
There's an element missing from much science education up through and including the undergraduate level (and perhaps beyond, but I never did post-grad science work so I don't know), and this absence has a lot to do with the persistence of attempts to inset non science-based belief systems into science curricula. The missing piece is a conveyance to the student of an understanding of the epistemology of the scientific method and the history of its emergence from ancient times to the present. Only a minuscule minority of high school students will go on to do peer-reviewed research, and the percentage of such undergraduate level kids sitting in you professors' classrooms isn't all that large either. Yet if there is one thing regarding science that we should want our average high schoolers and college graduates with non-science majors to come away with, it is a general understanding of the role the scientific method plays in modern, industrially developed societies. With all due respect to you science educators out there, it is more important for the vast majority of them to come away with this than with the specifics of of the dominant paradigm of whatever science branch you teach. The fact that we do not do that is what allows the Sarah Palins of the world to state that science is just another "belief system" and to not be called on it by the stuffed shirts of the mainstream media.
Broadly speaking, science education addresses two major issues: the scientific method; and the prevailing paradigm of accepted theory that has been derived by the use of that method up to the present time. To the extent the scientific method was addressed in my long ago educational experience it was done so in the context of the specific branch of science that hosted the course in question. The focus was on the use of the instruments pertaining to that branch, as well as issues of measurement details, record keeping, etc. Only in my personal reading through the decades since have I come to truly understand what an accomplishment the emergence of the Method was for human culture, and how it qualitatively differed from the epistemology of the belief system within which I, like the vast majority of others in the world, was raised and educated.
It seems to me that all of our young folk, not to mention our society as a whole, would benefit from an educational unit of at least a week or two, at both the high school and college level, that presented the basic ideas developed half a century ago by Thomas Kuhn in his classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. That book itself could be the main text used in the unit in introductory science courses at the college level, and it's ideas could be abridged and condensed as appropriate for students of high school age and younger.
Spurge, start with post number two, and work your way down.
IN answer to your second question, yes.
I bet PZ works REAL HARD to protect the "poor credulous chaps"...and he has undoubtedly smeared a student.
If a student could show he was doing it maliciously and intentially...that would be an interesting scenario for a complaint, methinks.
#56 Hey I've read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions too...It sure is a mighty fine book.....here endeth the lesson...
@Julie
Show me the evidence that specific posters are pretending or take back what you said.
The second poster did not even state their own view on religion and evolution.
I guess you really can't read let alone read minds.
What I can't understand is... you teach college students, right PZ? So they've chosen to do biology? What on earth would make you choose to study biology at college if you don't believe in the fundamental idea underlying the whole of the subject? Just plain contrariness? I don't get it!
Is it me or is Julie Westhues less coherent than the average troll?
Read the posts yourself, Spurge, and compare it to what some of them have said elsewhere.
And I ain't taking nothing back...go ahead, try and make me you arrogant twit. LOL!!!
Julie Westhues (#51), Evolution doesn't have anything to do with religion for the same reason gravity has nothing to do with religion. However, evolution, more than any other scientific fact, has major religious implications because millions of Christian retards believe a magic fairy created life. In a world without religious stupidity, evolution would have no religious implications at all.
I once used carbon-14 dating as an example in my intermediate algebra class. We were studying logarithms and I used them to show how a sample might be dated by using the exponential decay law. One of my students primly informed me at the end of the period that her religion didn't believe in carbon-14. She must have been a real hoot in anthropology class.
Take that, C-14!
Bob, do you think evolution implies atheism?
Tim Minchin - 10 Foot Cock & A Few Hundred Virgins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaLF8UGr0hQ
Hey Janine, sober up! LOL!!!
Julie
The vast majority of christians accept evolution.
Why do you feel that evolution destroys religion?
The fight against the teaching of evolution is lead by religious organisations and ideas, so there are many who would agree with what you seem to be implying, but the vast majority would disagree.
Julie, science ignores the existence of god. God and science divorced a couple of centuries back. Science can neither prove nor disprove god, and likewise, god cannot be used for a scientific explanation. So in a certain sense, science is atheistic (more like agnostic).
Now, the discoveries of science do indicate the bible is not very truthful on certain matters. It directly contradicts portions of it. This irritates those who believe in the bible. So some of the religious, usually fundamentalists, try to impose their ideas onto science. Since they involve god, they are not scientific. So science fights back. This is the short version.
I have read the posts Julie.
You are the one claiming people are lying.
Put up or shut up.
ggab
In answer to your question, NO.
But a lot of atheists do! LOL!
for starters, something isn't a proper hypothesis until it is phrased in such a way that it CAN be tested and falsified. until then, it's an idea, a hunch, a thought.
also: the existence of a supernatural being cannot be tested/falsified per-se. but the existence of an INTERVENING supernatural (i.e. defying the known laws of physics etc.) being can... and so far, there's no sign at all that there are or have ever been provable exceptions to established laws of physics; and when discrepancies are discovered, that generally leads to the development of more precise laws... there hasn't yet been an instance that couldn't be fit within a natural (non-supernatural) framework
that leaves us with a potential, non-intervening deity... which for all practical purposes of science might as well not exist and is therefore treated by science as non-existent.
Like I said, Spurge, make me! LOL!
#66, I think the discoveries from all of science has shown beyond any doubt a belief in a magic fairy is a childish idiotic idea. Modern science has made every god ever invented obsolete.
Some people pretend they can accept both the discoveries of modern science and their belief in a magic fairy. I have only one thing to say to those people: Grow up.
Poe on Westhues
Then you really have nothing to contribute Julie.
Bye.
Why do I feel Julie is a sock puppet? She sort of sounds like Brenda...
At least I can sober up. You will still be an incoherent troll.
I just love how you are accessing PZ of abusing his students. I would love to see you point at an example. Or is the the standard, "WWHHHAAAA! The mean atheist does not respect my god belief."
Also, if evidence of evolution threatens your god belief so much, it either means that your faith is not so strong of that the power of god shrinks in the face of reality.
No laughing at you. You just get a sigh...
Giving a "no" answer to a question in my post seems to hold to the earlier theories that you can't read.
Perhaps you are looking at posts with the glazed over eyes of a deluded bible literalist?
If you promise to try to focus and actually pay attention to what's being said, I'll have a discussion with you on the subject.
So, Nerd, do YOU believe evolution implies atheism? You seem to be saying that, but hesitant to just come out with it.
You do realize that if you do maintain that, you are going beyond science to philosophy to make your claim?
Don't you?
Almost like EricA or Baba.
Julie, the whole enterprise of science ignores god. Period, end of story. What part of that don't you understand? Science doesn't need god. Evolution is part of science. So what is your question?
Evolution itself is not a religion (that's one argument that creationists like to use), it's a scientific theory that is based wholly on evidence. As for it's role with religion, there should be no conflict between the two. But because religious texts and traditions throughout the ages have tied their respective deities into the origin of man, evolution becomes incompatible. Best I can gather is that some religious people want to be clay golems instead of a product of 4 billion years of adaptation and selection.
"You ever notice that everyone who believes in creationism looks really unevolved? Eyes real close together, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day." Yeah, it looks like he rushed it." - Bill Hicks
Julie
You can't be a bible literalist and accept evolution.
Do you believe that you can't be religious without being a literalist?
Haven't got the guts to answer the question, eh Nerd?
And ggab, I read your loaded question. And I never claimed, in the first place, that evolution destroys religion.
Thus I gave you the only answer you deserved.
Of course, as I said, some atheists to feel it destroys religion, but that ain't science either.
Now is it, sport?
Many atheists tell the Christian retards they can accept evolution and still believe in their Christian fairy. Those atheists are lying and the Christians retards, as stupid as they are, know those atheists are lying.
I think it's impossible for a person who has a good understanding of how evolution works to still believe in magic fairies. They might claim they're still religious, but they are either lying to everyone else, or they are lying to themselves. It is pointless to believe in god who is good for nothing.
ggab, whatever you mean by a biblical literalist, I don't think thats me.
And, again, the answer is NO, as I understand your word salad question.
You sure assume a lot, skippy.
Julie, I've answered your question twice. Science, and evolution, ignore god. What part of that statement do you have trouble with? Or are you just tweaking noses?
Time for you to present your ideas that you would replace evolution with. Please cite the sources from the scientific literature.
It does destroy some religions, but not all. As the archbishop of Canterbury said [paraphrasing]: "If God had to have a hand in the process, that would imply he didn't do a good job in setting up the universe".
So what of Ken Miller and Francis Collins?
Nerd, the part I have trouble with is the part you tried to leave out...where you said science is in a certain sense atheistic.
Thats not the same as "ignoring" God.
So I take it that your answer to the question of whether or not evolution implies atheism is NO?
Or is it YES?
Why not just SAY IT, kiddo?
Of course, if you are "ignoring" God, you have kind of already stacked the deck as to where you conclusions can go, kiddo.
And I never claimed to want to replace evolution, so maybe you could, uh, like, uh, quit misrepresenting things?
Posted by: Julie Westhues | October 26, 2008
I bet PZ works REAL HARD to protect the "poor credulous chaps"...and he has undoubtedly smeared a student.
If a student could show he was doing it maliciously and intentially...that would be an interesting scenario for a complaint, methinks.
Two can play this game, you dishonest little creep. Please answer, did PZ abuse any of his students?
Julie
Your posts clearly said that those claiming no conflict were "pretending".
Perhaps you need to take some time to figure out what your position is on this subject before throwing around statements and accusations.
We'll wait.
Take your time. This is an important subject.
"It used to be that the whole unit was a struggle, and we were butting heads," Pratt said. "This meeting helps everyone understand that science teachers are not the enemy. Now, the kids are showing up ready to learn about evolution."
Problem: The creationists are portraying science teachers as the enemy.
ex 1) http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/CW_Pages/CWteachers.asp
ex 2) http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/CW_Pages/CWweekening.asp
ex 3)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/CW_Pages/CWUnderGod.asp
This one directly targets people who try to teach young kids about science.
ex 4) http://www.answersingenesis.org/CreationWise/CW_Pages/July98CW2.asp
That's probably the worst of the lot...but there's a lot more. Note how circular reasoning is encouraged in a lot of them.
This is what teachers are fighting against. Is it any wonder student sometimes wig out?
Very effective when one is spreading lies!
Kel, what of 'em? I think they are both great. Unlike PZ.
And Janine, you really shouldn't drink alone. I haven't even claimed most to what you say I have.
Have some coffe.
You forget Janine, Julie can read minds and does not have to back up her assertions.
Julie, since you're having comprehension issues with nerd's response, here's a translation: when he says that science and evolution ignore religion, he means that they do not concern themselves with whether a diety exists or not, per-se. science has however already proven that literalist bilicism is false, and that there most likely isn't a intervening diety, either. whether you choose to believe that there is a diety and it works too subtly for science to ever notice, that's your personal choice. but for the purposes of science, such a diety is irrelevant. that means it doesn't matter if it exists, and that means that science doesn't need there to be no diety.
Of course not, that would imply there's a God to ignore. Instead science ignores the question of God. There is a difference. It has to ignore the question of God because God is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's a supernatural entity and science tests the natural.
Hey spurge, I thought you left! LOL! But since you are back, look at post 88. Take it up with him. (chuckle)
And Janine, he has held them up to ridicule here. what do you call that?
And better have another cut of coffee.
Those are the only two scientists I know of who believe in a magic fairy. Collins is a total wacko. Miller, I don't know what his problem is. Is he lying to himself, or is he really an atheist who enjoys the money he makes from sucking up to Christian morons?
I'm a big fan of Ken Miller, but I think he does science education no favors by implying that evolution doesn't have religious implications. The only possible way to make America scientifically literate is to first eradicate the insane Christian death cult.
Julie
Science has "no need for that hypothesis".
In a certain sense, that could be considered atheistic.
That's not the way I would put it, but I can understand why some would.
Jadehawk, why don't you let Nerd answer the simple question? Yes OR No.
How hard can that be? Hahahahahaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!
And Kel, I appreciate you trying to fix up what Nerd said, but HE is the one who said it.
Since reading this post, I have started respecting PZ even more, Jesus, no so much
PZ doesn't think Ken Miller or Francis Collins are great?!? Just do a search of Ken Miller's name on here and see for yourself...
I am done with this idiot. Nerd answered her multiple times. As did others. Plus she makes baseless charges and cannot back them up.
Congratulations Julie. You are the internet version of the vagrant in soiled pants, yelling at the top of her lungs.
Julie,
Sorry if I was not clear. I did not mean I was leaving. I was just going to ignore you until you actually back up your assertions.
So far you have just been a typical slippery and dishonest troll.
...sigh...Janine, Janine, Nerd never gave a straight answer to the question.
Does evolution imply atheism?
A simple Yes of No would do.
And what baseless charge are you refering to? PZ referred to some of his students, creationists, as saps.
Are you trying to tell me his students don't read this blog?
Really, get some coffee girl!!!
Julie, please pay attention. Science ignores god. Therefore, it has no theology, gods, or religion. Science it not a religion or belief system, but a way of finding things out, a methodology. Science is also used to describe the body of knowledge found out by science. It just excludes god from the list of things it investigates or can use as an explanation.
I think you are headed toward the atheism equals religion bullshit, so if evolution is atheistic, it is a religion.
Individual scientists can be a theistic as they want. They, as individuals, can believe that god is behind everything.
I'm trying to fix up your misunderstanding of what he said and trying to help you. Does it really matter if he's the one to type it?
Julie, he has. and I have, and several others have answered. the problem is that your question isn't simple, it's simplistic. to answer "yes" means to believe that atheism directly follows from the correctness of the theory of evolution. to answer "no" is to say that evolution has nothing to say at all about any form of religion. clearly, neither is correct. so instead, you got a nuanced answer that belies your simplistic false dichotomy.
But spurge, honey, if that is what you meant, you haven't been ignoring me.
LOL!!!
On the subject of Ken Miller, he's going to be at the cincinnati museum center in December.
I was surprised to see how many of you cats were local, if you're interested in seeing him, check it out.
I'll be there.
So what? Creationists are retards. Everyone knows that. They're the most stupid people in human history. There's no excuse for believing in the idiocy of magical creation in the 21st century. I'm in favor of throwing those creationist assholes in prison for treason when they try to dumb down science education with their childish Christian beliefs.
Nope Jadehawk, you haven't.
What you have done is tried to Spin, er, uh, nucance, the question.
And Kel, YES.
charl1e wagne1r
There are millions of examples of evidence that verify the theory, no evidence that refutes it, and of course holes that have yet to be filled except for an understanding of the process. That does not mean the theory is wrong.
look up "spin" in a dictionary, it might help. it is not my fault you're incapable or unwilling to accept that there are no simple questions. evolution is irrelevant to the belief in a diety. evolution does not imply atheism, but it denies some forms of religion and some particular deities. the answer to your question, to keep it extra-simple, is "neither"
BobC, number 113. Truly classic.
Q.E.D.
And Kel, PZ make think Miller and Collins are great. Its PZ that is not great.
what the hell does "modelling the arrival of the fittest" even mean?
Hey all,
I understand the theory of evolution, but I don't agree that it's plausible. However, this has very little to do with my belief in Jesus. I believe in God because He has changed my life, not because I have somehow been clever enough to work out stuff that others have been too stupid to see. I use this phrase not because it's how I see people but because it seems to be the view of many American and some British 'creationists'. They act like this is the only issue, and like everyone who doesn't agree is stupid.
Well, bad attitude is bad attitude, whichever side of the argument someone's on. And I agree that religion is often pretty evil. Reason? Religion comes from a human idea of what God should be like. But a relationship with God means letting God call the shots. If there's no God, nothing will happen! Me saying there is and I'm sure of it isn't arrogance. If you know someone you know them, and it's all down to His intervention in my life - this is why I don't understand the pride shown by some Christians.
To finish, I've not seen anyone's life changed for the better by rejecting God & 'finding' evolution/atheism, but I've seen quite a few who've been transformed by meeting Jesus. Not always in spectacular ways, but always from the inside out.
Talk to God about the issue, I dare you. If He's not there, you have nothing to lose...
Julie, if you are soooooo smart, why don't you present your evidence for the newest scientific theory that will replace evolution. I recommend writing it up for the journals Science and Nature, since they have a high of first publication for Nobel prize winning work. You don't need to bore us with a description of the idea until it is published. Then feel free to tell us all about it.
Until you put up the proper evidence, which will be required to get your paper published, you are just another liar and bullshitter.
Except my time, my friends, and my reality-based self-consistent worldview.
Jadehawk! Yous answered it! "evolution does not imply ahteism"... that sure looks lie a NO to the question of whether evolution implies athesitm. I agree, that was all I was wondering.
Now, if Nerd will just come out with it!
Come on Nerd, what to ya say?
meditating on an issue, i.e. any form of inner monologue, can be used by anyone to help find a solution to problems. has nothing to do with god. on the other hand, in some situations doing that wastes time that should have been better spent finding and applying practical solutions, rather than praying
and people have died for their fundie beliefs. that's not a change for the better; people have been convinced that they're filthy, nasty sinners and been driven into clinical depression because of their religion; that's not change for the better, either. in either case, liberating yourself from this belief in god serves to liberate from this imposed suffering.
Perhaps they should learn the basics of the scientific method before stuying advanced science? It's clear that these people might as well be the kind of kooks who send angry feedback mail to talkorigins. And why on Earth did they decide to study biology if they have little intention to... I don't know... learn about biology?
Steve, you haven't heard that the biggest cause of atheism is reading the bible from cover to cover. All the lies, bad and petty behavior by god's favorites has a way of turning off people. And the words of Paul contradicting those of Jesus. What is a poor confused mind to believe? Taking the who thing as a pile of manure takes care of all the problems.
"I've not seen anyone's life changed for the better by rejecting God & 'finding' evolution/atheism"
I have.
While the shit storm is going on, charl1e wagne1r and Steve drop in. sigh...
Steve
"Talk to God about the issue, I dare you. If He's not there, you have nothing to lose..."
How about my self respect?
Seriously though, there are several stories of peoples lives changing for the better by letting go of religion.
If you really are interested, you could probably find several great books on the subject on amazon.
If you don't really want to find out, you should probably avoid doing any real research on the subject.
Whatever works for you. I'm not here to force it on you, but I'd be careful about making statements on the subject.
It's risky to base opinions on "people I know".
Julie, your question has been answered repeatedly. You just don't like the answer since I'm not falling into your trap.
Julie, time to present your fabulous idea that will replace evolution. I can't wait to read all about it. I suspect I will never see it though, as you have nothing.
So now we have spurge, nerd, and Jayhawk coming out with it.
This is all about evangelizing for fundamentalist atheism.
Who ya kiddin, sports.
I knew it all along.
Q.E.D.
Julie Westhues the Troll blathered;
Evolution implies atheism in the same way that it implies the colour blue.
Your question is meaningless because, as you have been repeatedly told, science ignores the question of gods.
A word of advice, give up now.
You are obviously trying to get one of the regulars here to answer "yes" or "no" to your stupid question, so that you can make some inane point about science being a religion. While this may have seemed like an undeniable argument when it came up on whatever christian board you found it on, the regulars here eat trolls far smarter than you for breakfast.
recovering catholic,
Are you atheist or agnostic when it comes to belief in the Easter Bunny?
For me; same amount of evidence, same conclusion.
"So now we have spurge, nerd, and Jayhawk[sic] coming out with it.
This is all about evangelizing for fundamentalist atheism."
wtf? what "it"? and talking on an atheist blog about atheism is evangelizing?
QED what exactly?
you're a very confused and confusing person.
and what does any of our personal convictions have to do with evolution, anyway?
I recall a moment in my undergraduate Ecology and Evolutionary biology class with a very sharp professor who was likely very similar to Dr. Meyers. This professor, after surveying the class, found that many of us believed that Intelligent Design and not Evolution was the most convincing model for the explanation of biological diversity, etc. So he decided to have a class session in order to deconstruct many of the ideas of ID. (I went to a fairly religious institution, which thankfully had a very legitimate biology program).
I, having read the likes of Wells and Behe, came to class equipped with the (what I now know) mentally retarded rhetoric used by IDers.
He began by explaining the definition of theory as consistent with the facts of nature...etc, by holding up a ruler and asking students to pre-empt what would happen if he were to release the ruler. "It will float!" I shouted. "How do you explain that?" He inquired. "Well," I started, "Any theory has to be falsifiable. So for me to accept the infinitesimally small probability that proteins and nucleotides will randomly arrange in order to form the first simple cell, I must accept the equally infinitesimally small probability that the ruler will float contrary to our knowledge of gravity." As you can see, i obviously didn't understand what "falsifiability" meant or that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. He just asked me to continue my case without responding to any of my arguments. All he did was let me make my entire case against evolutionary theory.
He dismissed class early. The next session, i returned (gloating), to find a stack of peer-reviewed articles. A massive stack of some 40-50 articles that I still hang on to today. Each of them contained a scientific rebuttal to all of my arguments: evolution of irreducible complexity, the eye, blood clotting evolution, speciation, huge genetic conformations of evolutionary predictions... etc. On top was a little hand written note explaining the difference between evolutionary biology and abiogenesis. He included his personal thoughts on the issue concerning science and religion (that evolution doesn't preclude faith). It also ended with a polite request that I read through these with an open mind and respond the next week.
I'm proud to say that I stood up the following week and admitted that my former position was mistaken. I'll never forget Dr. Gregory Murray for opening up my mind to the incredible theory of evolution. It was this transformation that changed my career path from Seminary-bound to biology student. Now I'm a medical student and on my way to an M.D. where I'll be doing lots of research on top of a clinical practice so that I can advance humanity.
http://jdfettblog.blogspot.com
Jordan
Great post, thank you.
I'm another a lot better off for getting religion off my back. Steve should also know that if god ever talks back to him its called schizophrenia.
I asked a question @45 which I'd like a comment on please as I've read of this before and I don't get the logic.
Jordan, that was an awesome story, thanks for sharing. there's too much negative stories, without ones like yours we'd all be clinically depressed :-p
Thank you, Jordan Fett. I am sure you already know this but you will do more good as a M.D then as a priest.
CF @136, the point is I think more about the "if we evolved from monkeys/apes, why are there still monkeys/apes?" question. you can't do anything about the phobia... well, except slowly get them used to it (i don't believe in shock-therapy for phobias... but maybe that's because i'm arachnophobic, and the thought of being shock-therapied for it makes me break out in cold sweat)
I did a quick Google search on Ms. Westhues, but just found her posts here. There has to be an ulterior motive for such ignorant posts.
Most posters on this thread were Xians and went towards atheism to one degree or another. They are in an ideal situation to answer that question.
I have seen people join cults and totally, completely screw up their lives. One grad student couple were moving to their new university. The girl (a fiancee) moved first for logistic reasons and was supposed to start setting up their new home. She disappeared suddenly.
Weeks later it was determined that she was not abducted by aliens. The Moonies got her. End of engagement, end of grad school, and she lost almost all contact with her immediate family.
Skipped the evolution=atheism subthread. They have nothing to do with each other. One is science, the other religion. The Pope accepts evolution but few have called him an atheist. The antichrist maybe like Michelle Bachmanm's church, but not an atheist.
Julie Westhues' comment:
sounds like a threat to me, or at least an attempt to incite someone to file a complaint. Hope it gets kicked.
Normally, I just lurk here (and thoroughly enjoy this site), but several people have noted an unusual number of new posters--mostly apparent trolls. Has anyone found a link or anything else that would explain this?
Thanks Jayhawk, think I've got it now. Good luck with the spiders:)
Well aren't you the childish one.
LP
I don't think a link is needed.
It's not as though PZ doesn't draw attention from fundies.
Everyone's hackles are up due to the political season, so I imagine people are looking for a place to lash out.
We can certainly handle it though.
of course evolution does not imply atheism, but that doesn't stop science from being an atheistic process. i.e. a scientific theory is not "there were apes -> Goddidit -> humans", that Goddidit step cannot be put in there. If you want to believe that God was the arbitor of the process then go ahead, but that's not a scientific concept.
Dr. Myers:
Your article raises an intriguing question. You stated that you like to put the understanding of evolution and geology in an historical perspective. My question is this: If Charles Darwin had not come up with the evidence for evolution and put the basics of the theory together, how long would it have been before someone else did so? I'm fairly confident that an idea this big is not going to stay hidden forever. But did Darwin jump-start the process? Or were there contemporaries of his who would have kept us on relatively the same time line? Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Julie Westhues #107 wrote:
Yes. And no ;)
Evolution implies (or leads to) atheism
1.) if you approach the existence of God as if it were another scientific hypothesis
and
2.) if you follow the implications of evolution all the way down (or, perhaps, all the way up.)
Even among creationists -- who seem to feel that the existence of God is demonstrable through science, and falsified by evolution -- there is still a tendency to balk at the first approach. Among more mainstream and liberal believers, a lot of their apologetics rest on denying that the first approach should ever be used on God, as if God were an ordinary fact claim to be treated like vitalism or ESP.
Therefore, they make the claim that the "supernatural" is outside of science. If they also happen to believe in vitalism or ESP, those are outside of science, also. Since there's no need to assume them, and good explanations of why people would think they are there when they are not, that means that science fails. Not the belief. They can't be made to fit into a coherent scientific understanding of reality because believing in the supernatural is like falling in love. It's a personal experience.
Which is a poor analogy. But that is what they're left with.
So, to answer your question, does evolution imply atheism?
Depends on how you classify God. If you classify it as a science theory, then evolution implies atheism.
If you classify God as being like a value, a feeling, a way of living, a leap into joy -- then no.
Paul
Google Alfred Russel Wallace
That should help answer your question.
Kel in 146 earns the prize for "most clear and concise answer" to why the question was simplistic and incorrect, and therefore couldn't be answered with "yes" or "no"
Darwin published Origin of Species after another biologist, Alfred Russel Wallace, published a paper giving similar ideas. Darwin acknowledged Wallace's priority, but since Origin of Species was much more complete than Wallace's paper, Darwin is given credit for natural selection.
I'm reluctant to feed the troll, but would like to point out that if somehow it turned out that the cosmos had strong indications of having a creator of some sort (which we'll call "God," in Arthur C. Clarke's sense), evolution would have absolutely nothing to counter that evidence. And when I say "evidence for a creator," I mean something rationally derived, like prime number sequences showing up where we have no explanation (and can largely exhaust any possibility), or some other undeniably encoded information in the microwave background, physical parameters of the universe, or what-not.
There is no sense in which evolution rules out god, then. Indeed, there are people who believe in cosmological ID without thinking that life was at all designed--although I do not think that they have much cause to accept cosmological ID (at least it has observations which have not been fully resolved, however).
I would even say that science is not decidedly agnostic on the god question, so long as god is considered to be the kind of being that might leave an intelligent imprint on the universe. Thus far, however, we have no basis from which we can infer god, except by utilizing faulty anthropocentric biases and extensions of those biases (e.g. religion).
The avenues potentially open to giving evidence for god are independent of each other. It is for that reason that god could hardly be excluded by evolution.
Note that PZ really does not say (not usually, at least) that evolution indicates that god does not exist, he says that science indicates (or fails to provide evidence for god) that god does not exist. Evolution is simply where most religidiots (by which I do not mean all religious people) want to deny science to make way for god, for a variety of reasons.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
In addition to what the above posters have said, there had been, throughout the 19th century, various "transmutationist" theories, as they were known at the time. Various theories about species "transmutating" over time. The most famous is Lamark's theory of the Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics, which suggested that changes in an organism can be inherited by its children. If a proto-giraffe strained its neck, its children would start out with a slightly-longer neck, and so, over many generations, their necks would lengthen.
Others believed that new species came into being abruptly, to replace other species that went extinct, so that, over time, life on Earth would change, but the species themselves were fixed. Charles Lyell, who first introduced the concept of Uniformitarianism, was one such person.
Had Darwin died on the Beagle, we would probably be in the same place we are now. We'd just have creationists decrying "Wallacism" instead of "Darwinism". If both Wallace and Darwin had died, there would've been a delay, but I doubt it would be much more than a decade or two before evolution by natural selection was discovered.
Julie Westhues #107 wrote:
Category error in the same way as asking
"does 2+2=4 imply atheism?".
Evolution in and of itself does not imply anything about theism. Knowledge of evolution usually leads to atheism since knowing that the facts totally undercut and invalidate most of the major claims of most religions will encourage any thinking person to abandon them.
Steve #119 wrote:
If there is no God, then what you're proposing will still work.
You're not taking the human propensity for self-deception into account.
How could "nothing happen" once you've made the commitment to look for evidence, and be generous in interpreting it in a positive way? That's how cold readers and phony psychics work. They'll say "in the next few weeks, an important change will come into your life." And lo and behold, you find out that it DOES. That's because change always happens, and what you consider "important" is subjective. You're an active participant in trying to fulfil the prophesy. It's technically known as subjective validation.
Faith is a commitment you make to yourself, to find what you're looking for, by interpreting events and experiences in a certain way.
The belief that their lives are being watched over and cared for by an intimately loving but invisible presence will put people into a psychological mindset that will allow them to feel as if they are being watched and helped. Even in cases where people believe what you think are 'false' ideas -- such as when people 'feel' the presence of space aliens or their animal spirit guide -- it's still very persuasive.
Sure, religion (or spirituality) will often "work" -- have pragmatic benefits and improve people's lives. This is true even for 'false' religions. But this is not evidence for the existence of God. On the contrary. It is evidence that people would have a good reason to believe in God even if there is no God. It can be good therapy.
As others have noted, it can also screw you up.
Your challenge to "give God a chance" is not a real challenge if there is nothing you would accept as a negative result. Something will happen. Anyway.
That is not correct mike.
Both papers were read at the Linnean Society at the same time and Darwin was given priority.
There was a great article in eskeptic a few months back about the role of Wallace in evolution. It came to the conclusion that Wallace got the better deal out of having his name on the paper alongside Darwin's. Wallace was important it seems because he spurred Darwin into releasing his work, but really there is no doubt that Darwin came up with it first...
...not that it really matters. It's the science that's important and not the personality behind it.
"There has to be an ulterior motive for such ignorant posts."
Isn't it obvious? The motive is yanking your chain. Getting some cheap "gotcha" moment where she can twist our words into fitting her simplistic good tribe vs. evil tribe way of looking at science and religion. Read her last comment, note the use of the word "fundamentalist".
Paul:
Many scientists of the 19th century were formulating views that species were not immutable, that they changed over time. With the increasing amount of knowledge of animal species, and the subsequent discovery of the laws of heritability, it was certainly inevitable that someone would have came up with the mechanism that Darwin did, and as others have pointed out, Wallace came up with the basic idea around the time that Darwin did, but even without those two, someone would have surely puzzled it out by the 20th century.
These are way too many comments. I guess it happens when you post on such a controversial topic.
I don't think people should doubt science.
Anyway I was just going to say that probably the most intellectually honest way to confront people who disagree with you is to confront the leaders of their movement, like Kent Hovind, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Dembski, and the others (like Paul Johnson).
E.V. wrote:
I don't think it's Brenda. It's the mighty morphing Emanuel Goldstein, with the signature line "who ya kiddin, sport?"... or some other troll pretending to be that troll.
(The latter seems unlikely---who'd bother to impersonate such a pathetic loser?)
ntoedscholar: I think it is fair to say that this blog and many others have dealt extensively people like Kent Hovind, William Dembski, Wells and anyone else that could be thought of as a "leader" of the movement.
We've got a minor problem with creationism here, it's around 30% of the population from memory. It's just that they aren't very vocal about it, not to mention the church demographic here is mostly Catholic or Anglican, both churches having accepted evolutionary theory. But that American protestant movement is slowly pushing into our society!So I wouldn't say it's a problem here, it's not very vocal at all - I guess we have that demographic that if you say something as stupid as creationism you get mocked.
I can't believe there are creationist nutcases who go to Morris. It saddens me.
co#38:
wikipedia refers to "great apes", meaning all the modern great apes at once. I'm specifically talking about chimpanzees and humans. But somewhere I read that chimps and humans form a clade i.e. they share a common ancestor not shared by any other ape. Let's call it "mr.X" aka "mysterious unknown animal". Look at this cladogram:
http://img259.imageshack.us/my.php?image=apecladogram2hv1.jpg
So, a long time ago, when humans didn't even exist, there were gibbons, gorillas, many other apes and Mr.X was there too. Then, Mr.X evolved into chimpanzees and humans. Now, what kind of animal was Mr.X?
I would say it was an ape.
Oh big fat YAWN
Agreed. The "humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor" notion is absurd. The ancestor of humans would've had all the characteristics of an ape. Indeed, from a cladistic perspective, we *are* apes.
What I don't get is why people would refuse to learn about evolution, and get upset that it is taught. If I were going to take a course in religious studies, I wouldn't stick my fingers in my ears and sing 'lalala I'm not listening' because I don't believe that it's true. In fact, I did take RE at school, and learnt about various religions, and their beliefs, and in tests I wrote 'Islam states that...' 'Christians believe...' etc. It doesn't mean I had to believe it.
You hear stories of students not answering questions on evolution in exams on the grounds that it is against their religion, and getting away with it. If they are taking science, then they have to learn the theories and the facts of science, and what is accepted by scientists, and why.
If I took psychology and disagreed with Freud's theories, I wouldn't get away with not answering questions about it because i thought it was a load of rubbish. why should biology students? it's ridiculous.
Of course you'd want the students to accept evolution, but there are some that are always going to stubbornly reject it, what ever the evidence. Why can't these students learn 'what the scientists believe' whilst beliving something else themselves? If their faith in creationism is so strong, why are they so scared to learn anything about evolution?
You'd hope that if they stopped to listen to what evolution was about, they would eventually start thinking critically for themselves, but if not, at the very least it would cut down on the 'evolution isn't true because I've never seen a dog give birth to a cat' arguments.
*facepalm* I did not mean what that sounds like, of course. I mean, the notion that "humans did not evolve from apes, but from an 'ape-like ancestor'" is what's absurd. Our ancestor would've been an ape. We did not evolve from any of the now-living ape species, of course, but rather, from an extinct ape species.
Paper Hand et al.: lack of exact context of the situation etc makes this a bit difficult, but i'm thinking when a creationists comes up to you and says "i don't believe we evolved from apes", they're thinking modern apes, as currently existing. so that's the starting point: you gotta explain that no, we did not evolve from any of the currently existing apes, but from an animal that was a common ancestor to modern apes and us
other than that, you are of course correct. we are apes.
Nerd, What did you bait up to catch the idiot with? A chunk of half rotted jackass?
Smells like she's been here before.
Interestingly (to me anyhow), I was taught evolutionary theory by nuns in a Catholic public school (which existed in Canada at that time). They certainly saw no threat to their faith in scientific theory, in that, as was mentioned above, their faith treated the bible as a series of legends containing moral and social truths. Indeed, the gospels were taught to me as allegory and parable rather than literal truth.
Perhaps the current feeling of threat amongst god-botherers comes from the fact that this very approach taught me to think for myself, examine the evidence, and eventually become a pro-abortion feminist atheist.
I think the nuns did me a great service and I thank them for the wonderful education.
I once asked God whether he existed. God said "no".
If you don't mind me asking, how much training have you had in the natural sciences, specifically in biology?
Patricia, I think she smelled the garbage, which also included a bad cauliflower, from the Redhead's cabbage soup.
I too, feel like I should recognize her. We had Brenda, ForTheKids, or it could be CW playing one of his games since one his posts popped up in the middle. I couldn't put my finger on the name, but I did recognize the game.
"...I've seen quite a few who've been transformed by meeting Jesus. Not always in spectacular ways, but always from the inside out." - Steve, #119
Please describe how you observed change "from the inside out." I'm sure all the psychiatrists and psychologists in the audience would be fascinated.
Greetings!
I can't speak for anyone else here, but I can answer Julie Westhues's question as far as I can for myself:
No, understanding of the theory of evolution does not imply atheism - in so long as you're willing to entertain the idea that god is an evolved entity. Only when one requires of their idea of god that it (he/she/etc/all-inclusive) be utterly perfect and complete 'right out of the starting gate' does this concept begin to get in a bind with general evolutionary theory.
As noted in posts above, evolutionary theory does not conflict with *every* concept of god, (one could argue that god is a very simple entity not capable, for example, of complex thought or emotion, but just a very powerful shapeless mass like Azathoth from Lovecraftian fiction) but it seems to be at odds with most classical christian interpretations, and is certainly at odds with fundamentalism.
So, to bounce the question back to Julie Westhues:
Are you, Julie, of the opinion that acceptance of evolutionary theory implies atheism?
Please explain your answer (as I, and several others) have done so.
Thank you.
Fundementalist atheism. As oppossed to the other kind...
I taught my last University class in 2000.
I had taught in University for the previous 16 years, at LSU (Baton Rouge) and then the University of Oklahoma.
What struck me then, and what the attitudes of many of the students in such stories demonstrates is still true, is that the majority of students do NOT attend university to actually 'lwearn' anything.
No, mainly they are there for two purposes: 1) To have their prejudices ratified, and 2) to get their ticket to prosperity punched. Mostly, they do NOT have to actually "work" to see either of these goals accomplished.
Admittedly, these students were attending the flagship schools of their own 'state' systems. They drove new cars, wore fancy clothes, took expensive vacations, etc. So I reasoned they were children of parents who could afford to send them to any school they were qualified to attend.
That they stayed so close to home spoke volumes...
Please describe how you observed change "from the inside out." I'm sure all the psychiatrists and psychologists in the audience would be fascinated.
To say nothing of the surgeons.
But then "god" probly gave him special powers, e-ray eyes, or sumpin, right, Steve?
Paul Burnett @ 175 : Please describe how you observed change "from the inside out."
Perhaps after their born againary, they walked around like their shit didn't stink anymore.
scooter, thats the usual dead give away in my scientific observation.
Seems like nothing more than a drive-by gotbotting. "evolution is false, God is real, if you don't believe me ask him yourself". Just another idiot who thinks his opinion is worth something; it seems to come hand in hand with religion. Talk absolute nonsense but back it up with sincerity that stems from an inflated sense of self worth.
When someone says something along the lines of I understand the theory of evolution, but I don't agree that it's plausible. , any subsequent text is guaranteed to be a reflection of the person's delusional state of mind. Steve you are not God's greatest gift to mankind, evolution is only only plausible, but it's been observed many times, and if your God relies on you being a clay Golem then your God died out a long time ago as science ushered in an age of reason.
Perhaps PZ or the Chimp can have a look and see if she's a sockpuppet I certainly don't have the skill.
Cabbage soup is one of my favorites too. But just now the Galeux D' Eysines (winter squash/pumpkin) is ready, and after waiting over 100 days for them - the soup is on. I just wish I knew someone French that could tell me a recipe that was more traditional than what shows up on the inter-tubes. *grin*
recovering catholic at 15
Well, in The God Delusion Dawkins argues for a 7 point scale, with 1 being absolutely certain God does exist, and 7 absolutely certain God does not exist. Dawkins rates himself as a high 6, and so do I.
PZ, this is a great topic. I have to agree with the posters that state that evolution must be integral to every lesson. I teach that way, and generally have run into few problems, excepting one creationist kid at a university in New Zealand where I used to work. Actually, it wasn't anything I said during the lesson, but rather a comment upon my "Flying Spaghetti Monster" desktop on my computer which annoyed him.
Julie Westhues wrote: Does evolution imply atheism?
This question makes ZERO sense. Atheism is a human idea, while evolution is a natural process that occurs whether humans like it or not. "Does evolution imply atheism?" makes as much sense as "Does gravity imply socialism?"
Perhaps the question was, "When a person accepts that evolution occurs, does that imply that this person has become an atheist?" That's still not a great question; the answer to it is "sometimes yes, sometimes no," but as stated it ignores the possibility that a person can be an atheist and know absolutely nothing about evolution.
It's rather obvious Julie Westhues is either a young child, or someone with severe intellectual problems. Either way, encouraging the idiot is not a good idea.
And I think it's safe to say anyone who uses "LOL!" in nearly every post is no less than an idiot.
Julie Stahlhut #185 wrote:
Maybe it could be rephrased into an essay question:
Supernaturalistic Theism assumes a top-down universe created from a previously-existing disembodied immaterial Mind which works through the force of Willpower to design the world the way humans design artifacts. If it happens to be the case that -- contrary to what our folk intuitions have told us -- the universe is bottom-up, dualism and PK are false, and complexity, life, minds, intelligence, and apparent design are themselves the result of a long process of mindless evolution, then what, if any, are the implications for Supernaturalistic Theism?
The name "charl1e wagne1r" lookied familiar, so I went here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/plonk.php
And found:
Charlie Wagner
AKA Little Blond Girl, Militant Agnostic, many others
Wanking, Morphing, Stupidity, Insipidity, Spamming
Automatically Junked
Weird anti-evolutionist with delusions of intelligence. Commonly popped up in response to any science post to claim that it showed evolution was wrong. I put up with him for many years; when he rejected my request to make only constructive comments in a particular thread, he defied me and posted the same insult repeatedly, and then insisted it was his privilege, went on a morphing spree, and threatened to spam the site every time my back was turned. Complete ass.
And when I read his comment above, it only proved once again what a lying little $#/+ he still is.
Eliza @ 167 points out very nicely what I was going to mention on the current discussion:
Thats exactly the difference between a child with a closed brainwashed mind that was brought up by religious dimwits,and a child that was given the chance to form an opinion free from religion or ideology.
And can I just say that the trolls in todays thread seem to have reached a new level in intellectual dishonesty and sheer stupidity,the mind boggles.
Julie Westhues,
Evolution does not imply atheism, nor does it imply theism. It's simply science's current interpretation of the available evidence, subject to change as more evidence presents itself, as all scientific theories are always subject to change in the face of evidence.
Science is not religion, and religion is not science.
Eliza, the reason that I even rescinded my position was because I felt so convinced that Behe's position was the most scientifically tenable one. So, even before the encounter with my prof. I had the attitude that "If the evidence shows that I'm wrong, I'll admit I was wrong." I was fairly certain ID had the evidence in its favor.
I was wrong :D
http://jdfettblog.blogspot.com
Humans are apes.
Conceited apes.
Posts from Julie Westhues sure sound a hell of a lot like FtK off on one of her little benders!
Stealth troll!
PZ, do you ban for hypocrisy?
Alan, I followed the link. I did not see a name for the person who runs that foolishness. Are you saying that the person who runs Science And Math Defeated is trolling here?
"Science and Math student" who writes a blog named "science and math defeated"...? :-/
I believe "hubris" is the correct word.
besides, I though everybody knew the difference between RBG and CMYK colors?
janine, alan's referring to poster in #159
Except for the time, which could be better spent fornicating.
Thank you Jadehawk. I think Alan is right in thinking that person should be thrown in the dungeon.
Evolution surely does not imply atheism, simply because there are a number of religious scientists who understand the evidence behind the phenomenon of evolution.
However, I think that evolution directly points out that there is no need for any supernatural entity to have interfered for life to have evolved, and that some interpretations of religious texts which are in direct contradiction with scientific evidence based on evolution (and geology) cannot be correct.
Evolution is no more atheistic than the general theory of relativity or the laws of thermodynamics, or the maxwell distribution for ideal gases.
The odious (and oblivious) Julie Westhues appears to have vanished back down the slimy troll-hole she crawled out of, but it's an interesting enough exercise, methinks, to address her question.
Does evolution imply atheism?
My answer would be: no, it doesn't. One can certainly be atheist without knowing about or understanding evolution; in fact, every single person on this planet is born atheist - and I can't imagine too many newborns exit the womb with a copy of Darwin's finest in his/her hand (with the exception, perhaps, of Stewie Griffin). I, for example was (fortunately) not indocrinated or brainwashed into any religion as a child; ergo, I was an atheist without having the faintest clue about evolution.
What I think evolution does, however, is make the literal truth of the bible very difficult, if not impossible, to accept - since it leaves no doubt whatsoever that the creation described in it cannot have happened; or, at least, if it did happen, it implies that god has gone to great lengths to provide us with an astonishing amount of misleading data. And that doesn't really fit with the whole 'kind and loving invisible super-bestfriend' ad campaign.
Since all of the Abrahamic religions depend on the 'truth' of the bible, to a greater or lesser extent, having a key aspect of it shown to be patently untrue is a major blow. If some of the bible isn't true - and anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty accepts that this is undoubtedly the case - then how do we know which bits are 100% true and which aren't? If the flood is only an allegory, what's to says that Jesus wasn't? Or Moses wasn't? If Leviticus - with all its ridiculous prohibitions and strictures - isn't then we can all go on a mixed-fibre wearing, shellfish-eating homosexual bender right now without fear of damnation.
Alternatively, there's the 'god is testing our faith' argument, or the 'devil wants to lead us astray because he's the father of lies' defence, neither of which is satisfactory after a modicum of consderation since it leads to bigger questions about god's motivations, goodness and/or omnipotence (or impotence).
What I think, then, is that evolution, in and of itself, cannot be said to imply atheism. But it supports atheism because it casts doubt on the existence of god, or any other gods for that matter, if said gods include amongst their defined abilities the creation, ex nihilo, of life in more-or-less the same form it appears now.
Of course it's possible that the gods are dishonest/deceptive and enjoy nothing more than magically creating thousands of buried fossils that support evolutionary theory and rolling on heaven's floor laughing their asses off as we dig them up and pronounce them significant. But how many religions have their deities proclaiming something along the lines of 'I am thy lord and god and will definitely fuck with you from time to time, since I enjoy a good laugh and am not really all that kind and loving when it comes down to it - so watch your asses' in their revealed texts?
Ahh... and there Emmet has it.
Except for the time wasted when we could have been fornicating.
Damn christians.
I wasted 50 years on that shit.
All you bright and beautiful - get to it!
Patricia @202,
I delight in reminding Christians that a great deal of sinning (fornication, sloth, coveting your neighbour's ass, etc.) is fun and morally neutral by any standard not derived from bad goatherd fiction.
Plus, "fornication" is a great word. It's been one of my favourite words for years and I don't get to use it nearly often enough.
I think there is a good point here about the lack of education in some parts of this country. I went to Junior High in Tx where my teacher actually drew and wrote his own companion to our textbook. His text included evolution. In order to mention it any student who found it offensive was allowed to leave and study privately in the library. He was later fired anyway. Evolution was just something you didn't teach.
This was in 1994 or so. I hope that science teachers are able to overcome this kind of opposition to anything that could possibly challenge a personal faith.
Students shouldn't be deprived of an education because of a group of people's religious beliefs.
Is this going to come to a civil war eventually? I joke about it sometimes, but these days I really start to wonder. Will the Republic of Gilead really come to be?
I sincerely hope not. We've seen time and time again that a sizeable proportion of them only refrain from raping and murdering because they think it'd make baby jebus cry - and that only stops a few of them, some of the time, since he'll forgive you if you say 'pretty please with sugar on top'. If someone could convince them their super-bestfriend was okay with killing then I doubt they'd exercise much restraint.
And don't forget that they (the religulous) have the majority of violent criminals on their side.
I just don't see how the two sides can ever be reconciled. This is Sunni versus Shi'ite level of animosity that's festering.
We just have to hope that the younger generations will outgrow this stuff, or at least learn to keep their religion private and personal, and that what PZ and other are reporting is sporadic and will decline.
the only screams I get are when I return exams.
PZ,
I've been hearing for several years of a phenomenon of "grade inflation", and it sounds like you don't participate in it. I'm curious, what do you do when someone tries to argue their grade with you?
-jcr
I live in Ohio, and I've never met anyone that immature.
Surely one can, but that was not part of the question. Watch out for the "affirming the consequent" logic fallacy. The question above is not a biconditional ("if and only if" clause). "Atheism implies evolution" was not affirmed.
(That's not to say that evolution does imply atheism, but that there are better lines of reasoning.)
...You know, it just hit me... I didn't learn much about evolution in biology at highschool... When I think about it... I learned about some evolution in the HISTORY class but never in biology.
Steve #113:
Well, count me as one you've "seen." And conflating evolution and atheism is incorrect. What I "found" with science in general was an optimism that man could do great things. With religion, I found a God that generally was more spiteful and moody than my drug-addicted father and in-denial-depressive/alcoholic mother. Their capriciousness was echoed in God's killing of random, innocent, or minor offenders, eternal torture, general affliction, and so on. God hates you if you haven't heard about him. How lame is that? At ten years old I figured that if God was more unfair than me, he would be baggage that would drag me down. Science, however, never condemned anyone. People condemned themselves through ignorance. Science is a meritocracy to which all are invited to contribute.
That's something that does "save" me and restore my faith in humanity. There is a system to which the world works, we can figure it out, it isn't run by spirits which must be propitiated, and it is impersonal. My parents have problems; they aren't "fallen" and doomed to Hell, and they might even be helped by science through pharmaceuticals. Being related to a monkey is a lot better in my mind than being beholden to a maniac.
evolution doesn't imply atheism. many biologists are believers, like francisco j. ayala. just make sure your faith doesn't get in the way when you're at work and everything would be ok.
Julie Westhues = J.A.D. - "I love it so!"
TardTroll
"The odious (and oblivious) Julie Westhues appears to have vanished back down the slimy troll-hole she crawled out of, but it's an interesting enough exercise, methinks, to address her question.
Does evolution imply atheism?"
I am more interested in the implicit question:
Does Julie Westhues imply LOL?
Discuss.
@43
What school in W. Pa? I grew up (and still live) in W. Pa.
A good friend of mine quit his job as a middle-school science teacher, in part, because he was not allowed to teach evolution. He was required to avoid the topic altogether. He was a superb teacher, who won a national award for his work, which was presented in Washington DC (I think at the White House, but it's been a long time so don't take that as a fact). He fought for a while but when his principal refused to reconsider, he concluded he just couldn't honestly teach science without teaching evolution and quit. There were other factors, and he probably would have quit eventually anyway, but the "system" could have gotten a few more good years out of one its best teachers.
I actually didn't take biology in high school (too squeamish to dissect), and I'm not sure how my school handled it (although since it was very Bible-belt I have my suspicions), but I do remember that most of the science I did have was of the "memorize this bunch of facts" kind. I got very little info about the process of science or the world-view implied by it. I think it's really not all that important that the average person remember the parts of a cell or what atomic weight is after his/her formal education is over, but it's extremely important to know what science is, and is not, and what it does, and does not.
When I got to college (Michigan State in the 70s) they had a general education science sequence required of all students that was very different from the typical "1 science course with a lab" requirement. There were three courses (MSU was on the quarter system then) which dealt with the history and philosophy of science, "big ideas," the scientific method, and changing paradigms. One terms was mostly about geology, one about biology and evolution, and one was about astronomy. Of course there were more traditional science courses as well, but these were mostly for people actually majoring in a scientific discipline. This has served me very well--I can look up the parts of a cell if I need to know them for some reason, but even though I haven't had a science course since 1972-73, I still know what science is ABOUT and I can make reasonably informed judgments about scientific issues. I don't know if MSU is still doing that, but I wish more universities (and high schools, for that matter) would adopt this approach to general science education instead of just cramming a bunch of facts down students' throats (not that facts are unimportant per se, of course).
Does evolution imply atheism? Of course not. It doesn't imply theism either. The fact that evolution says nothing about gods leads directly to the answer. It does not lead to an answer of 'neither' or an answer of 'your question makes no sense'. It leads to the answer 'no'.
Does evolution imply 2 + 2 = 4? No. Of course it doesn't. Just as it doesn't imply 2 + 2 != 4. Why are people getting their knickers in a twist over this?
Move along.
"To finish, I've not seen anyone's life changed for the better by rejecting God & 'finding' evolution/atheism, but I've seen quite a few who've been transformed by meeting Jesus. Not always in spectacular ways, but always from the inside out."
Count me in too, then. I was already an Atheist when I really understood evolution (thanks to the books of SJ Gould...). It left me with the wonderful feeling of understanding a very vast, very important part of the world. With the great vision of a synthetic theory that gives sense to the complexity of life. Had I learned about it earlier, I would definitely have studied biology and steered my life towards a scientific career. (Of course, that would have meant I'd be broke today...).
There's just no comparison with the narrow worldview that's contained within the pages of the Bible, or even within a more liberal version of faith.
"Talk to God about the issue, I dare you. If He's not there, you have nothing to lose..."
In other words : "Discuss the matter with your spouse. If you're single, well, you'll be talking to yourself, so you have nothing to lose"...
Julie Westhues,
Mehtinks you have it backwards. Evolution does not imply atheism; however, religion implies retardation.
It never fails to amaze me that teachers over in the US are forced to spend so much time on 'preparing' students for the teaching of what is a very ordinary subject over here - evolution just is! when are the religidiots in the US going torealise that they are holding the country back in the dark ages?
Psychodiva, a simple and simplistic answer to your question is this; they want the US to reenter the dark age. Better to rely on your gut and "common sense" then "book learnin'". "Book learnin'" will just lead you away from the "wisdom of god".
http://eddirt.frozenreality.co.uk/index.php?id=514
@ Kel (90): It does destroy some religions, but not all. As the archbishop of Canterbury said [paraphrasing]: "If God had to have a hand in the process, that would imply he didn't do a good job in setting up the universe".
Ah, but Marion Zimmer Bradley had the answer 30 years ago when she wrote "A Feminist Creation Myth". Once God was distracted by Her little girl, She couldn't really make a perfect world, couldn't She? Or even trash that one and start again, because Her daughter needed it, by then...
Maybe this would help Julie:
Premise #1 - The "Christian god" exists.
Needed to be true - Evolution doesn't happen, it all happened in six days, and he mucks around in everything.
Why it isn't - Evolution does happen and is observed, all evidence points to it happening a **long** time ago, over an equally long time, and no evidence exists that such a god mucks with anything.
Premise #2 - The Neo-Christian god exists (or the Deist version).
Needed - It created things, and then just sort of sat back to watch.
Why it isn't - Well... It could be, but its a) meaningless, b) doesn't add anything to anything, and c)how do you test it?
Premise #3 - Buddhists are right.
Needed - An afterlife, of sorts, the capacity to "transcend", and a lot of magic ooga-booga.
Why it isn't - Can't prove needed item one, no evidence of needed item two, and all the ooga-booga is explainable via natural phenomena.
Premise #4 - Insert some other deity, pantheon or religion.
Needed - More stuff that they claim.
Why they are not - Untestability, factual error, natural explanation, etc.
A "few", like Hindi, make statements that are "almost" scientific, such as that mythology needs to stand aside when faced with facts about what really "is" possible, but most still end up failing, by including things like Vedic Science, which is just a variation of Alchemy, Creation Science, and/or, "I believe the myths are true, so the world must work like the myth says.", which then directly contradict the very premise that those myths "are" myth, and don't really explain physical, real world, things.
Point being, in general, deities **Science** puts the nail in the coffins of, religions, are not always completely incompatible with it, save that, even the best ones, tend to insists at some point that "magic" is a better explanation than "fact". The only thing that Evolution dips in acid, stuffs in a 50 gallon drum, shots bullets through, then buries in an unmarked grave, is "Christian Creation", and other such myths that are directly contradicted by its facts. The rest of Christianity manages to survive quite well without that, most realizing that the barrel is empty in the first place, do nothing was really buried, and its "other" branches of science that are chewing the guts out of the straw men holding much of the rest of it up.
Hmm. And, an interesting article I just ran across:
Religion Not The Only Path to Altruism
http://www.livescience.com/culture/081027-religion-altruism.html
Needless to say... its just confirms what we know. Most religious people seem to do "good works", not to do good works, but because some authority figure is watching and *they* want them to do good works.
Me too.
My life became much better and much fuller once I abandoned religion and embraced a naturalistic view of the universe. I'd never go back.
Religion wasted over thirty years of my life, and I'd love to have them back now.
Evolution implies that God isn't necessary to explain the variety of life. And oy, it is varied.
A religion's scripture only deals with how that religion sees God. Nobody has ever taken dictation from Him.
I teach high school Biology in NC, and actually do start off the YEAR with a Philosophy of Science unit. Students are required to regurgitate the scientific method time after time, but have never been taught its value or purpose. We read excerpts from Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn and discuss the merits of truth and its aquisition.
By the time we get to our evolution unit (the time designated to discuss the history and development of the idea as well as its specifics- of course, I base all instruction in light of evolution), there is no need to discuss why creationism isn't scientific.
Oddly (given my locale) I have had relatively few problems with teaching evolution. Most of my students listen attentively, consider ideas and express them fairly eloquently for their age (usually around 14). I hope that by exposing them to sound scientific thought and analysis, they will later be able to apply that thought to their religious beliefs. Interestingly, many are comfortable accepting evolution and those beliefs concurrently at that age, but as their capacity for complex thought develops...
Teaching evolution as theory needs to change a little.
Please read "Beak of the finch". This book provides the story of several scientists in the field who have proven that evolution is happening and at a rapid rate. To prove something makes it a "FACT", and no longer just a theory.
As for myself, the way I handle it is not to push atheism in the classroom (you're shocked, I know), since that would lead into arguments that aren't part of the subject matter of the course.
You're quite to take such a position PZ. I've been told often enough that science takes no position on the supernatural. You've also confirmed my point that this debate isn't about the existance or non-existance of God. That is a philosophical argument, not a scientific one (although some Atheists seem to disagree with this).
In all the science classes I've taken, whether it be at high school or university level, or geology through to chemistry, I've yet to hear Atheism mentioned once (despite what the YEC's claim).
AND, if evolution implies atheism, so?
Though evolution doesn't imply atheism, it does imply that there is no necessity for a god to be involved; that natural processes can do without a god at the controls, and quite nicely, thank you!
It seems to me that the problem lies with the unspoken assumption on the part of the person making the claim WRT evolution and atheism, that of course their god/s-of-choice must be the god/s whose non-existence is being claimed; other options need not be considered, since any other god/s are obviously non-existent.
Evolution does imply a-Christianity (I'm sure there's a better word for this, but I don't know it), for instance, as well as a-any-other-interventionist-godism.
(Why, yes, I do abuse the common hyphen. Why do you ask? :) )