“I couldn’t give a [profanity] whether a person calls himself a scientist. Science has covered itself with glory, morally, in my time. Scientists were the people in Germany telling Hitler that it was a good idea to kill all the Jews. Scientists told Stalin it was a good idea to wipe out the middle-class peasants. Scientists told Mao Tse-Tung it was fine to kill 50,000,000 people in order to further the revolution.”
–Ben Stein
Linkage? I want to see the full context.
It’s not online, that I can find. It’s from page 72 of the April 2008 issue of Christianity Today.
Blaise Pascal:
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
Aldous Huxley:
At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.
Albert Einstein:
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree. All these aspirations are directed toward ennobling man’s life, lifting it from the sphere of mere physical existence and leading the individual towards freedom.
I had to do it.
Stein obviously doesn’t know understand Charles Darwin or the Theory of Evolution. Evolution does not attempt to explain how these changes or mutations take place, only how the differentiation in individual members of species causes favorable or unfavorable survival capabilities.
What Stein is really objecting to in his new “movie” is that scientists have taken on the mantel of “prophets and seers” rather than as the objective observers they are supposed to be.
Wow … after the recent >war on antidepressants and the Autism-Vaccine sensationalism, I thought the Peoria Chronicle had hit rock bottom.
Obviously I was wrong. Congrats on a new low.
I don’t give a hoot what someone else believe’s about evolution or the imaginary “science of Intelligent Design”. I do CARE a great deal when someone tries to teach this nonsense to my children and call it science. As long as ID is left out of the schools you can revel in it all you want.
Dear Wiener in Dragonland,
Important issues one and all.
“More Special Accomodations For Smokers.”
“Another WHOI Team Member Joins The Blogosphere.”
“Was Schock In Utah In 2006?”
“The World Is NOT Your Ashtray!!!”
SNORE…………………………………
Michael: It is not important or even desirable to keep ID out of schools. It is critical to keep it out of SCIENCE classrooms, but it would be a relevant topic to cover in certain theology, mythology, and philosophy classes.
All: As kcdad mentioned, Stein clearly does not understand what evolution and natural selection really mean, especially in terms of ‘the origin of life’.
1. Evolution is indisputable fact*.
2. The best current theory about the mechanism of evolution, natural selection, is backed by mountains of scientific** evidence. It is ‘fact’ (in layman’s terms) as much as General Relativity is ‘fact’.
3. The origin of life, abiogenesis, is not explained by natural selection any more than electromagnetism is explained by Germ Theory. Asking why natural selection cannot define abiogenesis is about as valid as asking why a map of Earth cannot show you what is north of the North Pole***.
*If you concede that flu shots need to change every year to be effective against different strains, you have conceded that evolution is fact.
**I mean “scientific” in the sense that it follows the scientific method, not that self-labeled scientists did the work. So-called scientists create bogus science, just as so-called scientists create brilliant science. If I screw something up in my job, don’t blame all people of the same profession, blame ME for the lousy job I did.
***Geographic north pole, not magnetic north pole, for any smart-asses in the audience.
Here are the two sides of the argument, from Nova:
In Defense of Intelligent Design
In Defense of Evolution
C.J.,
This is a very interesting site. I know that whenever I have a question about anything [especially I.D.] the first person[s] I consult is a lawyer and/or a comic-actor. What I find most interesting is the language used by Johnson: “…now, that is what is taught as fact in our textbooks.”
I have NEVER seen the word FACT used in any science textbook. Anyone involved in the lab sciences, social sciences, etc would never use the word FACT. They understand that any true definition of the word FACT is lacking. There are theories, hypotheses, and interpretations. Anyone claiming anything is FACT is…like Lawyer Johnson? As a lawyer, HIS argument is based on highly circumstantial evidence. I believe that this invalidates his argument from the beginning. He should know better.
Besides, wouldn’t teaching I.D. in the public classroom be constitutionally illegal? I mean separation of Church and State…and all that? HA!
One last thing……
It often seems that scientists are much more willing to split-the-difference. Many of the most influential scientists of our age go to great lengths to reconcile science and religion. Correct me if I am wrong, but the most ardent supporters of I.D. seem to be spending more time trying to discount science than defining “Intelligent Design.” Besides, when it comes down to it…whose version of I.D. are we going to believe/teach? The Jews? The Christians [of course I am referring only to the Catholics]? The Muslims? The Hindus, Buddhists, polytheistic heathens in South American Rain-Forests….
Well, I really wasn’t attempting to start a debate about Intelligent Design theory. I was interested in the quote in my original post without its context because I believe some people have a dogmatic fundamentalist faith in science that is just as frightening as a dogmatic fundamentalist faith in religion. I thought the quote brought that out well. Then Mahkno wanted “context,” which I happily provided. Now Knight in Dragonland is angrily denouncing me, evidently based on the assumption that I believe everything Ben Stein or possibly Christianity Today says. Or maybe it’s fair to assume he’s one of those who has a dogmatic fundamentalist faith in science.
We are willing to accept your apology AND the fact that this entire mess is your fault.
You do have to admit this is fun. I just thank God I am more inteligant than anyone else who participates on this site…..
P.S. Knight should know better.
“dogmatic fundamentalist faith in science”
A vague set of terms that just begs for definition.
Mahkno — They’re terms that are usually used as pejoratives of religion that I’m applying to some people’s faith in science. In other words, some people unquestioningly accept anything that comes from a scientist (or science in general) as if scientists are, collectively, God.
The objective evidence against Darwinist evolution continues to pile up. Anyone who still blindly belives that nonsense is worse that an Islamofascist as far as being dogmatice and close-minded. If you really think it through you can see how ridiculous the theory is. Which mutation came first for the fish – a useless leg or a useless arm? How did that make that fish more fit? How did it then reproduce since they was the only one with the then useless apendage? Or did a whole bunch of miraculous mutations occur all at once in a whole bunch of fish. Opps, can’t say miraculous, can I. That is just one of many glaring faults in this goofy theory than is embraced by athiests as an alternative to admitting that some intelligence had to be The Creator.
Many years from now people will marvel that otherwise intelligent people bought such nonsense.
“I just thank God I am more inteligant than anyone else who participates on this site…”
Nicely played……
Darwinist Evolution worse than Islamofascism ?
Jumpin the Shark !
Mouse, your understanding of natural selection is flawed. May I point you to the writings of Stephen Jay Gould; a book entitled ‘Ever Since Darwin’. He gives a good balanced outline of the issue up until the book was published which was 1973 (yeah there is some dated stuff inside). He also goes into depth and is critical of what is and isn’t ‘evolution’ and how that plays out in the public discourse. Dr. Gould disliked the use of the word ‘evolution’, considering it misleading and inappropriate, preferring instead ‘natural selection’. He notes that for all the hullaballoo about Darwin, much of what Darwin wrote about has been discarded by modern science (similarly with Freud too). Biology has moved beyond Darwin. He looks a specific problematic cases and lays out how the science (in 1973) explained it. But he also keeps in mind his earlier discourse about what is and isn’t natural selection.
It is a good read and not at all preachy or arrogant like a number of writers today can be. Gould is one of those rare individuals who can take an obscure and difficult topic and make it readable to the laymen.
Mouse: If you have a theory that explains existing evidence better than natural selection and makes predictions that can be validated or falsified based on experiment, I’d love to hear it. I think you would be all but guaranteed a Nobel prize if it panned out.
C.J.’s comment about “faith” in science makes no sense.* I don’t have “faith” in science any more than I have “faith” that the wheels won’t fall off my car on the way to work tomorrow. Sure, it’s possible that the engineers or manufacturers or assemblers screwed up so colossally that a wheel could spontaneously fall off. Still, I don’t go around claiming that because we can’t perfectly predict the behavior of torquing fasteners that inclined planes and friction are flawed theories. Nor do I assume that the people who made the lug-nuts or the folks who tightened them are idiots who didn’t know what they are doing.
Now, a wheel MIGHT ACTUALLY fall off tomorrow, but there are millions of other wheels that don’t fall off every day. That tells me that our understanding of stud-making and friction and torque and assembly procedures are good enough that I should have “faith” that my wheels will all stay firmly attached. Likewise, there currently is no better way than natural selection to explain the past and predict the future of biological change. There certainly might be something different and/or better discovered in future, just as General Relativity improved upon Newtonian mechanics.
*I’m ignoring the fact that we could all be brains-in-vats, with our senses emulated/tricked by some more intelligent being. At some point, we have to have “faith” that we perceive the physical world in a meaningful way.
I don’t understand why there’s such a resistance to science on the part of the religious. It’s not out to destroy Christianity. Darwin wasn’t out to destroy Christianity. “Science” is not trying to push an agenda–it uses the scientific method, takes note, and adds it to the pile of evidence, modifying theories where necessary. There is no “evolutionism” nor “evolutionists” in science. Agreeing with or accepting the theory of evolution does not make intrinsically make it a religion.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I find it highly suspect when people claim something is science, but are openly biased about the results and are trying to push an agenda. That would filter the results, would it not?
I went to a Christian high school for two years and got to learn the joys of ID theory and Christian biology textbooks. The way the write it is surprisingly convincing. That is, until you take an actual science class and see what’s actually happening. The differences are staggering. For starters, science relies on the scientific method. Christian “science” relies on scripture, then plugs in science where they think they can add a naturally occuring event for credibility, but list supernatural causes.
Sometimes the ideas are plain old ZANY. Look up Christian science flood theories, or the Genesis account of creation where God puts firmament between the waters.
Here’s a compatible Deistic proposal by an admitted secular humanist: Maybe instead of trying to return to the dark ages, we ought to thank the Creator for giving us brains capable of figuring out and understanding how his creations work. Maybe instead of fighting science, we ought to thank all the geniuses out there who, because of the theory of evolution, were able to discover genetics, which has led to unprecedented breakthroughs in medical science, enabling us to save lives, help people live longer and exponentially increase the quality of living for countless people. Finally, maybe we ought to take the theory of evolution at face value; not as an attack on our faith, but as a neutral area of study independent of spiritual matters that seeks neither to confirm nor destroy our religion.
As an addendum, maybe add “take the bible at face value instead of interpreting every line literally while trying to prove it with science, inadvertently eradicating the fundamental tenet of Christianity: faith.” Seriously, Christians. Spend less time hating science and more time loving your neighbor, even if he agrees with evolution.
New Voice: While it is true that Darwin and the Spencer (et al) never intended their theories to be construed as fact (and most “true Scotsmen… er scientists begin with this), the “Fact” is that “popular” scientists today have lost all semblance of objectivity and neutrality and now claim everything as fact… global warming, dark matter, the inherent value of Capitalism, freedom of speech, and Democracy in America…. oh yeah, Evolution. These are all axioms or a priori assumptions without which no “intelligent” conversation occur.
Definition of science: knowledge of fact and laws BASED UPON OBSERVATION and arranged in an orderly system. Thorndike Barnhardt Dictionary.
The theory of evolution is FAITH in ORIGINS, based on what man has NOT observed, i.e. in the beginning.
INTELLEGENT DESIGN IS FAITH in ORIGINS, based upon what the Creator has communicated to man.
Both are based on faith. It comes down to this: Do you believe God, or man?
Frequent Reader,
While we cannot obviously go back in time to observe every single stage of the process we can rely on evidence left behind from days gone by. It isn’t necessary to observe first hand every moment in question to show a preponderance of evidence in support of a hypothesis to make it a valid and defensible theory.
That evolution takes place among animals is really without dispute. Medical professionals deal with it every day of every year as viruses and bacteria evolve. It is clear that simple organisms do evolve more rapidly, due to more rapid reproduction, than more complex organisms. That flu shot that is available every year changes as the flu virus changes. Evolution is observed and even induced on more complex creatures like mice. With humans, the challenge is considerably more difficult. Instead of running eugenic like tests which would be highly illegal, we rely on past evidence.
I suspect your biggest gripe on evolution stems from the whole ‘descent of man’ question. Are we evolved from apes? Well to prove that, you would have to find evidence that shows humans gradually changing from apelike features to more present day human like features. Guess what? Scientists have this evidence. Dozens upon dozens of bone fragments and complete skeletons going back many thousands of years have been found, put together and compared to present day humans as well as present day apes. Leakey anyone? The gap most certainly narrows. What is surprising is that they have also found that humans have had additional species that have obviously died off. The most recent discovery involves prehistoric hobbit sized remains found on some islands in the south pacific.
There are other situational bodies of evidence that lend support to human evolution.
The puzzle is hardly complete. Many questions and gaps remain but they are not the sort to discount the theory as it stands. New evidence is found to make the picture clearer and in the process revise how humans might have evolved. The current view by naturalists on how man has evolved is a far cry from what Darwin envisioned. It has been revised many many times. Each time the theory gets stronger, not weaker. This is hardly a FAITH in ORIGINS.
I am glad to see you at least got one point right. Intelligent design is faith in origins.
Frequent Reader – You’ve never read anything on quantum physics or atomic science, have you? Not everything in science is orderly.
Anyway, The Theory of Evolution has little to nothing to do with origins. Second, evolution can be observed daily. Have any kids? Genetic mutations took place upon their conception. That’s how it works. It’s a cog in the clockwork of evolution.
The minor part that does speculate on origins exists to give us a working model based on what we know to assist in the research of evolution, or training in bio/chemical sciences. We both speculate on and have proof of ancient creatures and microbes using the fossil record, and while there may not have been any scientists to observe the primordial soup, they *are* able to work backwards to fill in the gaps. Science has been able to prove a heck of a lot that started out as speculation. Ever lost your keys? Ever retrace your steps to find them? You didn’t see yourself lose them, but you have an idea of where to look. Think of that as an over-simplified version of it.
Anyway, it’s not a choice. Nobody is asking anybody to abandon their faith in God. In fact, the only ones who are even making a deal out of it are fundamentalist Christians who claim, among many other fallacies, that evolution is a huge debate that has divided scientists against each other. False. There is no debate, let alone a huge one. It is what it is.
kcdad – People who proclaim fact are people pushing an agenda–that is, activists and politicians. Science is not based on facts, it is based on theories. The theory of gravity. The theory of relativity. The theory of evolution. Science doesn’t deal in facts, it deals in empirical data to confirm or deny a hypothesis. Intelligent conversation, as you put it, might be able to occur if more people understood what science is.
Furthermore, Mahkno is right. We don’t need to observe every moment first hand. In a nutshell, if you go to bed and there’s no snow on the ground, then wake up and there *is* snow on the ground, you can safely concluded that it snowed. Get it? If anyone is suggesting that people are wholly incapable of connecting the dots, I feel sorry for them.
Can someone explain to me Einstein’s special theory of relativity? I understand his general theory of relativity, but when it comes to the special theory, I just have to take it on faith.
There is no evolution going on between species, it’s all a variation in kind. However, the thing I really want to know is, when it comes to teaching creationism along side evolution, what are you so afraid of? Do you fear that someone will accidentally stumble into the truth? Or are you as intolerant as you accuse the creationists of being? Do “scientists” only examine hypotheses that support their own preconceived theories, or do they look at all the evidence objectively, present it, and let each person decide for himself? There is clearly a division in thought where this is concerned by a great many learned people. Evolutionists are probably certain that there are no absolutes, and they are absolutely certain of it. So why can’t both sides be examined equally? Why should Secular Humanism, which by it’s own definition is a religion, be held up as the state religion in our public schools while out of the other side of their mouths they cry separation of church and state? I repeat, what are you so afraid of?
Frequent Reader: “Both are based on faith. It comes down to this: Do you believe God, or man?”
The question is do you believe what man says about mankind, or do you believe what man says about God?
As Arthur Miller’s John Proctor observed: “God voice hasn’t tickled my ear”.
kcdad
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:20,21
The answer to your question, Frequent Reader, is that those who think they follow The Truth (whatever that religion or ideology is) cannot tolerate false religions. We all need to acknowledge that however dear we hold our beliefs, others MAY be right about some things. Second, we need to ditch this “diversity” CR–, and start concentrating on what unites us. We can always find differences, but if you look closely at various religions, for instance, what eventually comes out is how common threads they have. The politicians talk a lot about how they are going to unite us, and then they proceed to divide us in every possible way. Too many people favor freedom of speech only so long as it’s their speech that’s free; if they disagree with it, then it’s “hate speech”.
Frequent Reader – Yayyy, more propaganda. There is no conspiracy in keeping it out of the classroom. Creationism is a religious matter, not a scientific one. The place for that is at church, not at school. Similarly, I wouldn’t go to Hardee’s in search of a Big Mac. Is this really so hard to agree on?
It’s not a matter of fear. It’s not a matter of intolerance. If anyone is intolerant, it’s the Christians, who are trying to cram their religion down everybody’s throat by making their case for origins a state-mandated part of the curriculum. Seems a bit oppressive, if you ask me.
Scientists, on the other hand, do let people decide for themselves. You obviously have. Nobody told you what you had to think. Obviously, you don’t get a say in how the theories progress because you aren’t a scientist in that field, which is good for the rest of us, because you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. Not an insult, mind you, but can you honestly disagree? If so, show me your diploma.
Also, for the record, “secular humanism” is not a religion, hence “secular,” (seriously, get a dictionary) and, being a subset of humanistic philosophy, which is also not a religion, your reasoning does not apply (no, really. get one.). That’s like calling Marxism a religion instead of a way of thinking.
Personally, I think you’re the one who’s afraid. You’re so afraid that there’s no God, no Jesus and no afterlife that you have to prove it with man-made methods to validate your faith. Instead of standing on your own and saying “This is what I believe, this is what I stand for,” you’re trying to get everyone else to agree with you. Sad. You want to know how to get people to believe in creationist theories? Do your job as a Christian and get people to come to church, rather than going on websites and telling people they’re afraid of God because they prefer the sound reasoning of science over the glaring conflicts and inadequacies of religion.
Besides all that, if you give Christian origins a fair shake in a, let me emphasize, a NON RELIGIOUS CLASS in a NON RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, you’ll have to give every major religion’s origins a look. Frankly, teachers these days are stretched out enough as it is trying to get through the curriculum of actual science, rather than having to cover a bunch of baloney because people who claim to follow Jesus can’t take the time out of their day to follow his command to spread the word, and instead want the state to do it for them. Way to win, dude.
Postsimian, I believe that’s why Intelligent Design theory was born. It takes religion out of the equation, but allows scientific inquiry into whether there are signs of intelligent design of the cosmos (such as irreducible complexity, for example). It doesn’t try to tell anyone what sort of intelligence did the designing (could be God or aliens or something else entirely). Hence, no religion. And thus, different than Creationism.
But ultimately two branches off the same tree, no? The problem with Intelligent Design is the same as the problem with most religions: We don’t know, so it must be God. The rest of science says,”we don’t know, so let’s find out.” That’s why they win the neutrality/objectivity contest.
With ID, there *must* be a designer. It follows the line of reasoning that because we live in an orderly universe, it must have been designed to be orderly. This is not necessarily true. Once again, it leaves out any other possibility. Even neutral ones like “it is what it is.” Again, non ID science’s take on it: “We don’t know, so let’s find out.”
If at the apex of human knowledge and understanding, we do indeed discover that there’s a God (or something) that created it all, awesome. Science discovers God. The difference in credibility is that science will have proof to back up their claim, while ID theorists do not. They start out with a premise: “The universe was designed. Because it exists, it must have been created. If it was designed and created, it must have been designed and created by someone or something.” Science, on the other hand, takes what it knows/thinks it knows and goes from there. “We don’t know, so let’s find out.”
ID is just as religious as Creationism, just not expressly Christian. Though, I’d challenge you to find more than a handful of non-Christians who support/research it.
For clarification, that’s not to say science rules out god/whatever as a possibility, only that they’re not out to prove it.
Postsimian, you say the basic theory of ID is “We don’t know, so it must be God.” I think that’s a mischaracterization of what they’re saying. If you read the interview with Phillip Johnson, you’ll see that he explains it this way:
So, you see, it’s not a scientist saying “we don’t know, so it must be God.” It’s a scientist saying, “we know that some form of intelligence designed this, based on our scientific inquiry.” That’s different than your characterization.
Replace “God” with anything you like, it’s just a filler word–but an appropriate one. Either way, they’re still saying it must have been designed. Designed by whom? God. Unless you’ve got a better word for “person or force which affects the way everything in existence works and guides it in its development as opposed to letting it happen randomly on its own.”
I think the guy in the interview is over-simplifying it. (A Christian, as I suspected) Finding poison in a person’s body, which can be an intelligent cause, is a far cry from looking at something, failing to understand the complexity of it, and proclaiming it an intelligent cause. It’s exactly what he’s saying: I don’t know what could have caused this event to work/I can’t explain why it works the way it does, so it must be Intelligent Design, which is a verbose way of saying “God made it so.”
Even in his statement “Now, if the intelligent cause turns out to be supernatural, that’s a determination that is outside of science” is almost too coy. He’s right in saying “(needing) intelligence is not a determination that is outside of science.” But suggesting that the whole universe was guided into existence and in its evolution? Guided by what? That’s the realm of theology and thus, so is ID. They don’t “know” that intelligence designed anything, they’re guessing.
Anyway, I’d be interested in reading the guy’s book to hear his case for it in full. Chances are, it’s yet another shabby defense in a long lineage of shabby defenses of god science–might as well call a spade a spade. But I’ll wait to make that judgement until after I’ve actually read it.
But see, it’s not that I don’t know what his biases are and am asserting that it must be X because I can’t explain it, I actually have evidence to back up my claim: When asked if his spirituality was a motivating factor in his conclusions, he affirmed,”It is a motivation, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.” I’m science. He’s ID science.
No sir, it’s not the motivation that’s wrong, but how it filters the results. The rest of the article makes that much clear. Claiming that intelligent design can be tested, demonstrated lack of understanding of evolution, and the mother of all claims, that there is “very little evidence.”
From the article, the guy is obviously letting his faith dictate the way he conducts his profession, and no matter how much more evidence is provided, he and other like-minded Christians will find fault and refuse to accept it over the most minute gaps in information. Believe it or not, I’m also a heavy critic of certain parts of evolution. The theory has its problems, but it’s not anywhere near the wreck that this guy describes. But to give some credit, at least he doesn’t write off the whole theory as bogus, something only a moron could do in his field of study and still claim to be a scientist.
We can safely file this under “Creationism Lite”. The difference between them is that ID doesn’t list God by name. They just leave you hanging saying everything was created/guided, but not by whom.
Anyway, if you or anyone you know has even a shred of evidence that intelligent design is at play in anything we take as naturally occuring, I’d love to see it. It would make for very interesting conversation.
C.J., Frequent Reader: Until ID is formulated in a way that is falsifiable, it is not science. ID is religious (not scientific!) mental masturbation much like string theory is mathematical (not scientific!) mental masturbation.
Both ID and string theory are interesting to ponder. Maybe they are related to philosophy, but certainly not to science.
ben & postsimian
In spite of your hostility, there is a God, and He would love to get to know you.
ben & postsimian
correction: He would love for you to get to know Him. He already knows you and has every hair on your head counted.
Ah, the “God loves you” pitch, the final refuge of those who can’t argue with reason. I accept your concession.
I won’t bother with a wordy response, but thanks for giving me an idea for a blog.
Frequent Reader: You are seeing what you want to see. I am not being hostile. I’m not telling you that you cannot believe in your Jewish zombie any more than you can tell me that I cannot believe in my plate of anthropomorphic spaghetti (may you be touched by His Noodly Appendage).
I am saying two things, and two things only.
1. ID is not science. It does not help us understand the world around us, it is not verifiable, it is not falsifiable, and someday in the future (near future I hope!) it will be universally regarded as being equally laughable as believing lightning is caused by Mjolnir.
2. Evolution via natural selection is every bit as solid as general relativity or electromagnetism or any other scientific theory that is predictive, observable, and verifiable on a daily basis. It is not COMPLETE, human knowledge never is and never will be, but it’s dang good.
Ben
You make these statements of how evolution is observable and verifiable on a daily basis, but I submit to you that so is the evidence for creation. You are just looking at it from a different premise. You see, when God created the world, everything he created had an appearance of age, such as,the chicken not the egg, the oak tree not the acorn, the earth laid down in layers, and the stars already where they were placed in the universe. Man was full grown and woman was created soon after. The chief difference in mankind is an eternal soul that nothing else possesses.
Evolution does not answer the questions of what is the real purpose of life or the chief end of man. It does not give a basis for law or morals or intellect. How can a person enjoy a full education without examining all of the attributes of life.
I have been spoon fed evolution from the time I started school, but it’s far from being an answer to most anything that really matters. I have observed that those steeped in this theory consider anything pertaining to God as not worthy of consideration. Why do you suppose that is? It’s half of who you are as a human being. You are more than flesh and blood and bone. To believe in evolution is to deny your own intelligence and uniqueness. What is so repulsive about examining these things with boldness and openness. Schools teach Greek mythology and nobody gripes. They require reading books with profanity throughout, and consider that acceptable. I do not consider science evil. We should be seeking understanding about ourselves and our environment, but by looking at the whole picture, not just half of it, and calling the other half stupid,and uneducated. The fact that creation raises so much ire in people is indicative of a repressed knowledge that there must be something to it.
In this country we don’t burn books that give a different view, we just slander and denigrate, and discourage looking at the other view. Same thing.
Have you ever read Francis Scaeffer’s “Trilogy”, or Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that Demands a Vertict”, or Dr. John C. Whitcomb’s “The Genesis Flood”, or “The World that Perished”? Have you ever listened to Ken Ham?
They may not change your mind, but at least you would have a good idea of what some very educated men of our time have to say on the subject. Isn’t that what a well rounded education is all about-examining all sides of a subject?
Frequent Reader:
1a) You mentioned that “evidence for creation” is observable and verifiable, just like evidence for evolution by natural selection. What evidence is that? You did not provide any.
1b) You mention that “schools teach Greek mythology and nobody gripes.” Well, nobody (at least, no rational people) would gripe about Christianity in schools if Christian mythology was taught in the same way as Greek mythology — as a mix of superstitions and allegories, nothing more. As I have said before in this thread, aspects of Christian theology would fit quite well into the curriculum of many non-science classes (e.g. philosophy or ancient literature). This was exactly the point of my Mjolnir comment.
2) You did not even try to refute my second point, as far as I can tell.
As far as evolution within species…of course there is… look at how bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics. Look at birds; Darwin’s study of the finches was the basis for his theories. The Origin of Species, the title of his work, is about how evolution describes the (duh) origin of species from other life forms through sexual and asexual reproduction
Wow, Frequent Reader. That post was some of the most offensive stuff I’ve read in awhile. Good job.
Really, postsimian? That was “some of the most offensive stuff” you’ve read? I would submit that calling Jesus Christ a “Jewish zombie” is far more inflammatory.
Satire. Jesus was Jewish and rose from the dead. That makes him a Jewish zombie. Get it? I thought it was pretty clever.
Saying “you people are incapable of law, morals, intellect, meaning or purpose unless you believe in my god,” and honestly believing it, on the other hand, ranks pretty high on the sleaze-o-meter. Way to belittle the accomplishments and lives of every human being that has ever existed.
I looked back at Frequent Reader’s comments, and I’ll be darned if I can find where s/he said “you people are incapable of law, morals, intellect, meaning or purpose unless you believe in my god.” I think you’re jumping to conclusions.
“Evolution does not answer the questions of what is the real purpose of life or the chief end of man. It does not give a basis for law or morals or intellect.”
Then he/she goes on to say,”To believe in evolution is to deny your own intelligence and uniqueness.”
In other words,”If you believe in God, you will have law, morals, intellect, meaning and purpose. If you believe in evolution, you won’t.”
What was that about jumping to conclusions?