Ronald Numbers is an historian of science and medicine at the University of Wisconsin at Madison. He is the author of The Creationists (1993), an out of print history of the creationist movement, and also the co-editor of God and Nature, a collection of essays on the historical relationship between science and religion. He definitely has a pro-religion bias, and in a recent PBS interview, he talked about the conflict between religion and science, and how that has played out in history.
Numbers also defends Creationism as not anti-science, and of course, set off a firestorm of response from the evolutionist faithful, who make some valid criticisms, and as always, present the usual straw-men, the pejorative descriptions of creationism, all the while reaffirming the "fact" of their interpretations and inferences. The PBS interview is worth reading, and here’s some nice quotes:
On the Recent Emergence of the Faith/Science Antagonism
Throughout most of modern history science and religion have not been in a state of conflict. That has emerged, at least the perception of a conflict, has emerged roughly within the last 130 years or so. Certainly, this didn’t occur during the so-called scientific revolution of the 17th Century, when by and large science and religion were fused in a common enterprise called natural philosophy.
On Galileo
Contrary to common myth, Galileo suffered very little abuse at the hands of the Catholic Church. He was never tortured, he never faced death. In fact, he was never imprisoned. His penalty was house arrest at a pleasant villa on the outskirts of Florence, Italy. Galileo’s problems with the church stemmed far less from his astronomical and physical views than from his lack of diplomacy, and from his impertinence in trying to instruct the church on how to interpret Scriptures, as some Protestants had attempted to do in the previous century. Furthermore, in writing his controversial book, Galileo had the impertinence to attribute the Pope’s views to a simple-minded character named Simplicius….
Looking back on the Galileo affair, it’s tempting to see it representing a fundamental break in the relations between science and religion, but I don’t think it represented anything of the sort. In fact, at the time, it aroused relatively little interest. It was only in later decades and centuries that it came to be seen as a representation of what supposedly happens to scientific pioneers when they dare to try to correct the church’s teachings.
On why so many Americans accept creationism
In the United States, roughly one-half of Americans continue to believe in the special creation of the first human beings no more than 10,000 years ago. There are many reasons why they do this. But for most of them, they don’t see their embracing of special creation as a rejection of science. They handle this by arguing that evolution is so speculative, so hypothetical that it doesn’t deserve the good name of science, and they are told by fundamentalists – especially by "creation scientists" – that there is an alternative model of the history of life on Earth that is as scientific as the one that evolutionists have created.
On whether or not creationists are anti-science
To me, the struggle in the late 20th Century between creationists and evolutionists does not represent another battle between science and religion because rarely do creationists display hostility towards science. If you read their literature, you’ll rarely come across an anti-scientific notion. They love science. They love what science can do. They hate the fact that science has been hijacked by agnostics and atheists to offer such speculative theories as organic evolution. So, they don’t see themselves as being antagonistic to science any more than many of the advocates of evolution – those who see evolution as God’s method of creation – view themselves as hostile to Christianity.
OMG this is GREAT!!! A whole episode of the Simpsons about creationism vs. evolution. Seeker, note Lisa’s words about teaching creationism in schools at the very end. The Simpsons And Evolution
Seeker,
As usual, your desperation in the face of overwhelming evidence continues to amaze. And while I won’t bother refuting all of the commentary here – because you won’t care anyway – I’d like to point out that blaming Galileo for the church putting him on house arrest is really, really cool. In much the way you deal with all victims that you can’t comprehend, here you again you see somebody being oppressed by somebody else and blame them. You do this with gays, you do with this with the unreligious, and now you look at history and claim that Galileo didn’t have it so bad.
Your always-blame-the-victim when you disagree with the victim attitude is really, really telling. And here yet again we see the difference between us and you; if a religious person was sentenced to house arrest just for being religious, we’d howl with indignation. We’d defend that person, and argue that they have the right to be religious. But when you see a scientist (or, presumably, anybody else that you disagree with) unfairly sentenced to whatever, you defend the sentence. You have no ability to sympathize with those that you disagree with.
As usual, your desperation in the face of overwhelming evidence continues to amaze.
Who's desperate? I'm convinced in my own mind, and I like talking about it. Your continued assertion that there is overwhelming evidence is what amazes ME.
I’ve seen that Simpsons. As usual, it is wickedly witty. Lisa’s closing sentiment is interesting, but it’s a bit of a straw man. Creationists are not trying to teach religion per se. And science and reason should be part of religious teaching – the separation of these disciplines, rather than the integration of them, is a “heresy” that is now being addressed by the purveyors of the Cultural Mandate. (see the wikipedia link for that).
As usual, your desperation in the face of overwhelming evidence continues to amaze.
Who's desperate? I'm convinced in my own mind, and I like talking about it. Your continued assertion that there is overwhelming evidence is what amazes ME.
Sam,
I don't know you and you don't know me. As a long time observer of these types of discussions and an occasional commentator I can say this:
It is not surprising that many such as seeker are so closed to having an open debate and discussion about creationism vs. evolution. There is no point in trying to convince those that are so sure in their belief that they wouldn't recognize overwhelming evidence to the contrary if it hit them up the rear end with overwhelming force.
Those that are so sure of themselves self appoint an annoit themselves as the righteous and make it their mission to prove everyone else as wrong and those they cannot convince by oppressing their opinions.
Seeker is entitled to his beliefs and opinions. It just doesn't make him right.
If you want an open discussion about these sorts of things this is not the place with these sorts of folks.
That much I have become convinced of in reading through all these posts. You or I are not going to convince Seeker that he is even potentially wrong.
One can make an argment that George Bush is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and find some sort of evidence to back it up. That's the beauty of beliefs and debate…you can back up your arguments with BS and make it believeable with enough belittling and force.
The righteous will ultimately be proven wrong with their overwhelming certainty that there belief is absolutely right regardless of scientific evidence. The hubris of overly righteous people are ultimately their undoing.
My advice is to take the debate somewhere else. Let the those that are not open to the possibility of being even remotely wrong mingle amongst themselves. Its not like this blog has a huge community of commentators reading it…I would argue that it doesn't even really matter in the grand scheme of Christian debate.
The other way to look at it is the place makes for fun discussion and entertainment.
-eco
They (religious Americans) don't see their embracing of special creation as a rejection of science. They handle this by arguing that evolution is so speculative, so hypothetical that it doesn't deserve the good name of science, and they are told by fundamentalists – especially by "creation scientists" – that there is an alternative model of the history of life on Earth that is as scientific as the one that evolutionists have created.
Economist, aren't statements like the one above the reason we should have the debate in a forum such as this one? Isn't this where people get the wrong idea and are confused by the lies that Seeker spews about creationism and evolution? When it comes to evolution and some other subjects Seeker is completely irrational, "I'm convinced in my own mind". One can't rationalize with someone with this mentality but perhaps there are those who read the posts and see creationism exposed for the fraud it is. It's a battle against ignorance when we challenge fundamentalists like Seeker. It's embarrassing that so many Americans are so ignorant as to believe in a myth over good science. Should we not speak out against ignorance when we encounter it?
Cineaste, I think economist’s point was that this isn’t even really a forum. Seeker and Aaron are entirely focused on the outcome of their beliefs, and not the methodology by which they arrived at them. No amount of debate is ever likely to change things for them.
Seeker and Aaron have some beliefs that are more important to them than others. Their belief in God, for example, is their most important. Someone who is truly interested in determining objective truth, to whatever extent that’s possible, has no “most important” belief. If they’re successful, they’ll have no beliefs at all. How can a belief be important? A belief is just information that’s used to make future predictions, and those predictions are either correct, or they’re incorrect. But Christianity actually places value on the beliefs themselves, instead of their ability to make accurate predictions.
Being proven wrong is one of the greatest and sometimes most difficult gifts someone can give you. The more open we are to it, the easier it is to receive it. Christianity specifically inhibits that gift. It commands its followers not to question, not to doubt. The Bible even threatens damnation for those who so much as question the Holy Spirit. You’re expending unncessary energy by having a debate with someone who isn’t interested in being proven wrong. Give your gifts to someone who wants them.
You do realize that creationists think the same of you evolutionary believers? I am convinced based on my evaluation of the data, not based on what I believe the bible says, though I do consider that as well.
Your salvos about a "battle against ignorance" may fuel your superiority/inferiority complex, but they fail to acknowledge that your arguments are failing to win over a full 50% of Americans. You need to ask why. While it may be comforting to think that they are under the spell of religion and a bunch of uneducated hicks, the truth is close to what Numbers said in the interview – "that evolution is so speculative, so hypothetical that it doesn't deserve the good name of science."
Why do people still believe this in the face of "overwhelming evidence"? I've given you the answers, but you do not listen. You do not listen.
Cineaste, I think economist's point was that this isn't even really a forum.
That was exactly my point. This is not a forum. This is a blog with two primary that espout their positions and not a broadbased community of Christians and/or non-believers discussing beliefs and evidence.
At times the statements made by Seeker are based on opinion and seen by some quarters as hate driven and at other times based upon "evidence" that has been obtained to back up their belief systems. Anyone can dig up an article and use it to back up their position they have a predisposed disposition towards. Anyone that has participated in High School forensics knows this.
You do realize that creationists think the same of you evolutionary believers?
Seeker, I am not that naive to believe otherwise. The difference is that I can be open to admitting that I may be exactly what you claim that I am (a fanatic), you are not.
Based upon the pattern I have seen in your comments of superiority and belitlement of those that do not agree with you, I would be first to call a Creationist Fanatic that relies on any sort of evidence regardless of source (and especially reliant on a Christian source) to back up your position.
While you preach love and inclusion at one breath, you espose hatred through belitlement of others that do not succumb to your beliefs or just don't see it your way. That is not a true Christian.
This is something that I have seen time and time again through your comments to Sam and others and frankly is oozes arrogance on your part.
This is your space and your entitled to it, but this is definitely not a broad-based Christian site that is open to other ideas. Instead it is something that is meant to serve your own interests and to preach to the choir that believe exactly as you do.
If you were truly interested in others perpsectives and also open to the idea that you may be wrong, you would welcome oposing views without belittling those that disagree with you.
To have a true discussion and open forum one must talk to a broadbased set of people with differing views and be open to the possibility that you could be wrong. I have not once seen that here.
Frankly, I look at your site as pure entertainment. I take the discussion that you are trying to have here and have it with parishners in my church and my neighbors in my community regardless of their belief systems. And yes, I go into it knowing that I could be wrong.
While you preach love and inclusion at one breath, you espose hatred through belitlement of others that do not succumb to your beliefs or just don't see it your way. That is not a true Christian.
Moral disagreement is not belittlement. It is immature and inaccurate to characterize disagreement and even moral value judgements as unchristian. While I have room to grow in being cordial, I do not apologize for proclaiming God's condemnation of sin (not sinners) and religious hypocrites and deceitful doctrines and their teachers.
And, in general, I have belittled what I consider to be poor reasoning, not the motives of those involved.
This is something that I have seen time and time again through your comments to Sam and others and frankly is oozes arrogance on your part.
While I may be guilty of responding poorly to their repeated and purposeful straw men, and their ad hominem attacks, your accusations of arrogance seem overblown to me.
This is your space and your entitled to it, but this is definitely not a broad-based Christian site that is open to other ideas.
Alas, that is true. I have oft thought of gathering together with other bloggers I agree with to make something bigger. However, you would be mistaken to think that the opinions shared here are just some extrmemist ranting – I believe that we represent the mainstream evangelical and bible-believing Christian positions on the issues we discuss here.
If you were truly interested in others perpsectives and also open to the idea that you may be wrong, you would welcome oposing views without belittling those that disagree with you.
Agreed, but if they are not open to dialogue themselves, and constantly ignoring my logic, perhaps I am just a fool arguing with fools.
To have a true discussion and open forum one must talk to a broadbased set of people with differing views and be open to the possibility that you could be wrong. I have not once seen that here.
That is partially true and partially not. In one sense, this site is not an open forum, it is for putting forth well-established Christian doctrines and reasoning for the sake of education and proclamation. The rants and superficial attacks of a few intelligent commenters are not about to unseat well-established doctrines.
Also, I have also worked very diligently for 20 years thinking about these issues, so again, I think I have a right to be forceful and not bow down to every possible challenge.
In another sense, you are wrong because I have occiasionally admitted when I don't have answers, like to some of Cineaste's evolutionary claims (like the alleles argument), and like FCL's claims about the main sin of Sodom (inhospitality). In addition, I have some very non-conservative viewpoints which I have discussed with Aaron, including life not beginning at conception, the Federal Marriage Amendment (I like it, Aaron does not), and that I agree that we are not merely a "Christian Nation." These show that we here are not as closed minded as you would like to think.
I admit I could be wrong. But just because I don't roll over at claims of "overwhelming evidence" or yield to liberal arguments doesn't make me any more arrogant than those who disagree with me. But I'm working on "not belittling."
Frankly, I look at your site as pure entertainment.
As perhaps I should look at your comments similarly? I'd say you are belittling this site and me.
Economist, is there a forum you could recommend? I would like to take Stewart's advice. I would like to have a conversation with people about these topics instead of arguments that eventually end with Seeker saying something like, "this is my religion, it's what I believe, nothing will ever change that, my interpretation of Christianity is right and everything else is wrong." It's a breath of fresh air when there is an actual exchange of idea's. The Simpsons link was intended as kind of an olive branch to Seeker cool the intensity of our exchanges, but he burned that to ashes as usual.
OMG, burned to ashes? By using it to make a point? I agreed that the show is funny. Was there anything vicious or vitriolic in that post? I think that you liberals (if that's really what you are) are like sensitive children who take every disagreement as disapproval, and who believe that since you are convinced, that the first time you present your case everyone should agree with you.
If you want open forums where anything goes, find a Unitarian site.
Seeker, I have one question for you. Where were you on the night of Harriet the Tortoise's death? (Charle's Darwin's pet) Was her death really because she was 176 years old or were you in Australia at the time?
Picture of Harriet with a young evolutionist
I believe that we represent the mainstream evangelical and bible-believing Christian positions on the issues we discuss here.
Again, that is your belief. I suggest you travel the country and actually talk to people and then decide. And even if it may be true (which it could be), based upon your words here, I would think that you would seek to treat those that do not share those same views in this country as second class citizens. Afterall, the unholy and non-believers are heretics.
The rants and superficial attacks of a few intelligent commenters are not about to unseat well-established doctrines.
I guess that depends on which doctrines you believe in and what church you belong to under the Christian faith. Doctrines have been debated since the beginning of time. To say that Doctrines cannot be unseated is to also admit that Darwinist evolution cannot be unseated. It from a non-religious vein is well established doctrine. Yet, you are trying to unseat it.
These show that we here are not as closed minded as you would like to think.
Yes, but it is also in the path in which you chose to be open to differing opinions. Belitlement begets belitlement. Your razor sharp belitlement of ideas that you find flawed are not conducive to embracing differing views. That is your fatal flaw in at least walking the talk of not being so closed minded.
Also, I have also worked very diligently for 20 years thinking about these issues, so again, I think I have a right to be forceful and not bow down to every possible challenge.
Just where have you worked? Have you actively ministered? Have you actually talked to people? Or, have you just locked yourself away and read books on the subject and based it all on other writers opinions? If that is the case, then OK, but I don't see that as something that gives you the moral authority to preach to others.
I am not that arrogant to make that kind of statement without providing the proper context and backing it up.
But just because I don't roll over at claims of "overwhelming evidence" or yield to liberal arguments doesn't make me any more arrogant than those who disagree with me
You confuse those that disagree with you as those that are liberal. I think you flail that term around here like Don Quixite fighting windmills.
It is almost as if you look down at Liberal as being the lower end of the species…like religous heritics.
You wonder why those of us that are politically Liberal take offense so often to when you throw that term around? It is simply because you treat the term like it is a dirty word. You throw it around at those those that disagree with you or those that would move the country in a different direction than you would.
That is not Liberalism. That is giving a label to something that you either don't understand or don't agree with.
Frankly, assigning labels is not conducive to a conversaton (and I have been guilty of it like many others in the past)
As perhaps I should look at your comments similarly? I'd say you are belittling this site and me.
While that was not the intent, the fact it was taken that way is somewhat comforting. My post was a direct reaction to your belittlement of others.
Economist, is there a forum you could recommend? I would like to take Stewart's advice.
Cineaste, there are a number of forums like this counter to Seeker's claims otherwise.
I will pull them up for and provide them to you
I suggest you travel the country and actually talk to people and then decide.
I suggest that I don't need to do any such thing. Almost every viable and reasonable doctrine is available online. And in fact, outside of becoming an ethnologist, I'd say it is reasonable to read the polls from Pew, Gallop, and Barna to get a good grip on what people believe.
I would think that you would seek to treat those that do not share those same views in this country as second class citizens. Afterall, the unholy and non-believers are heretics.
Is this a veiled reference to my anti gay-marriage stance? If that's what you call treating people like second class citizens, then I reject your conclusion, as previously discussed. And again, don't make the immature mistake of thinking that because I disagree with you, intellectually or morally, that I think you a second class citizen or disapprove of you. I merely disapprove of your position. You may find that disingenuous, but I disagree.
To say that Doctrines cannot be unseated is to also admit that Darwinist evolution cannot be unseated. It from a non-religious vein is well established doctrine. Yet, you are trying to unseat it.
Good point. But just because I don't yield to your impressive arguments doesn't mean I am closed minded. That is a possibility, or maybe your arguments are just not convincing or logically constructed. Or both.
Belitlement begets belitlement. Your razor sharp belitlement of ideas that you find flawed are not conducive to embracing differing views.
Point taken, though I contend I have done much less belittlement than you imagine. I'll watch out for it. However, I will reserve the right to exercise occaisional humor or sarcasm, if that's alright with you. If not, I suppose I could go without.
Just where have you worked?
A better question is, HOW have I worked. I have been a missionary, have led small groups, have been a worship leader, earned a science degree and worked in biomedical research, I have taken graduate level counseling classes, and have read more books than I care to admit. I have done open-air preaching. I have studied and applied the scriptures for 20 years now (some years more than others), and lived in Christian community, learning from others. True, I could have more experience, which is why I start seminary in the fall. Then I'll start writing query letters to publishers ;).
You confuse those that disagree with you as those that are liberal.
You are right, labels aren't helpful when talking with people, but they are good if you want to identify a set of ideas. But perhaps we should just talk about the ideas themselves. Perhaps we should speak of liberalism rather than liberals, of religions rightism, etc.
It is almost as if you look down at Liberal as being the lower end of the species…like religous heritics.
I do think that modern liberalism is as anti-God and extreme as Ann Coulter declares. Kennedy Democrats are a thing of the past (the neo-cons look a lot like the Kennedy Democrats, actually), and today's Democratic/Progressive/Liberal party looks like some wild-eyed crazy Euro-leftist looking to take all of our money to help the poor, squash religious expression, and justify immorality in the name of human rights. It is scary to me how far left the mainstream left has gotten. Almost as far right as the religious right ;)
But maybe the term liberalism just insn't useful anymore, esp. since it has changed so drastically. Maybe we should talk of progressives. Do they have a cogent platform? Is it an mash-up of the purpose statments from Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, PFAW, and the NAACP? I mean, who speaks for progressives, or democrats, or liberals, or conservatives and Republicans, for that matter?
Although it is best to talk about individual ideas, it is still helpful to group various positions and priorities into named groups for the purpose of examining their integrated world view and priorities. This you can not do on a issue-by-issue analysis.
As in all debates, defining terms is key. I think that's half of why we argue over politics, religion, and evolution/creation – we don't use terms similarly, and often, we use the same term differently in different contexts, which adds to the confusion.
While that was not the intent, the fact it was taken that way is somewhat comforting. My post was a direct reaction to your belittlement of others.
So you are comforable with the hypocrisy of your statement because you can blame it on me for taking it that way? At the least, you could say that you didn't mean to be belittling ;) Funny.
Cineaste, there are a number of forums like this counter to Seeker's claims otherwise. I will pull them up for and provide them to you
Please do, I could use some good examples, obviously ;)
Hey Cineaste, I don't know exactly what flavor of forum you're looking for, but I have a suggestion. If you're looking for a varied, but fairly liberal discussion of Christianity, I recommend the United Church of Christ's official message board. The posters there seem lively, but there's not much mud slinging.
Wow, I like their standards, I should follow them here ;)
When we engage a sister or brother about a divisive issue, we should be careful never to question the integrity of that person. We should never impute dishonest motives to anyone.
Exactly.
Hostile generalizations about groups can easily poison a conversation. We should avoid comments that broadly condemn any group—liberals, conservatives, fundamentalists or evangelicals, for example—instead of directly addressing the issue at hand.
Holy crap, batman, I am guilty!
We should follow the example of Jesus when verbally attacked by another person. Attacks should be not answered by attacks, and insults should not be answered by insults. In many situations, it may be preferable to ignore an insult and move on.
Damn, that’s a hard one. But a good one.
Long messages or multiple messages posted by individual users sometimes discourage others from participating in the conversation, so please be sure to observe a limit of 400 words and do not post more than one message a day in any single forum.
Wow, that’s interesting. 400 words and only once a day? Makes for slow conversation. I was thinking of adding a chat box here! Heh.
Please note that at least one moderator has been designated for each forum: his or her name is normally identified in the brief description of each forum on the Topics page.
Well, that cuts down on noise.
That means there has to be some expectation that conversation partners will treat each other with respect and forebearance—as our tradition demands—and especially refrain from abusive language and ad hominem (personal) attacks.
Well, I guess *some* of us are going to have to change ;)
On the secular Internet, however, conversations are often characterized by unrestrained anger, accusation, calumny, and countless violations of the Ninth Commandment. “The world” has its own agenda on the Internet—and it is not the church’s agenda. The world is more interested in power, in self-assertion, in winning arguments and defeating opponents.
Wow, nice. I guess that means if I want a board with non-Christians, I can’t expect as much? I never get any kudos from you guys for not deleting profane comments.
Many members of our church find the rudeness and anger they frequently encounter on the Internet—even on Christian websites— not only inappropriate but also alienating.
Dammit, he’s right.
Seeker,
You have been accused here of arrogance. I would use the word smugness as a better descriptive. As an example I would offer your statement that “I believe that we represent the mainstream evangelical and bible-believing Christian positions on the issues we discuss here.” There is an implicit assumption on your part that communicates the idea that those who disagree with you are not “Bible-believing” Christians. Now I have no doubt that you do believe the Bible and are committed to Christ. However, your smug assumption cannot go unchallenged. I refuse to yield to anyone in my reliance upon Scripture as a source and norm for my life and the witness of my faith. We have different ideas as to the best interpretation of Scripture; hence the debate. In the end I am confident that reason and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will win the day and the fearful narrowness of your view will not. I even have prayerful hope that you yourself will come around to the true Gospel. This statement, however, is a far cry from claiming that you are not a “Bible-believing” Christian.
I can’t finish until I ponder aloud whether your smugness is a cover for a deep-seated fear that your worldview maybe in error. How else can I explain your failure to finish the discussion on your blog entitled “Debate: Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity?” This is a debate that you started. Yet I posted a response to you on June 21st in which I posed several serious questions to you regarding your position. It is now June 27th and yet no response. Whither your smugness Seeker?
As an example I would offer your statement that “I believe that we represent the mainstream evangelical and bible-believing Christian positions on the issues we discuss here.”
My mistake. I recant, since there is a range of bible-believing people who disagree on the non-essentials of the faith, and perhaps homosexuality falls into that category. I respect people on the evangelical left, like Tony Campolo, even though I disagree with his progressive politics and doctrines. He is, however, a believer, I am fairly confident.
I do, however, assert that the opinions expressed here are pretty much representative of the evangelical church, which most likely includes the majority of many conservative denominations, including Southern Baptist, Charismatic, Pentcostal, EFCA, and others.
I refuse to yield to anyone in my reliance upon Scripture as a source and norm for my life and the witness of my faith.
Me too.
I am confident that reason and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will win the day and the fearful narrowness of your view will not.
I am confident that reason and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ will win the day, and the careless lack of discernment of your view will not.
I even have prayerful hope that you yourself will come around to the true Gospel.
Well, thank you.
I can’t finish until I ponder aloud whether your smugness is a cover for a deep-seated fear that your worldview maybe in error.
I must also ponder aloud whether your lack of discernment regarding sexual sin is a cover for a deep-seated excusing of sexual sin in your own life, or merely a humanistic deception that loves man more than righteousness.
How else can I explain your failure to finish the discussion on your blog entitled “Debate: Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity?”
Your lack of ability to think of other possibilities shows your prior comittment to a decision on the matter. My real reason is that there is no END to these discussions. I’ve put my opinions out there, and we discussed them. Does it end when one of us concedes to the other? I have already rebutted your interpretation of Romans 1, and you disagree. What else must we say?
There are some unanswered questions for me, but I don’t have time for them now. You may see that as convenient, but my life is busy and I have no compelling reason to hunt them down with vigor because they are not that troubling to me, and I will take my time to research them. And, they don’t change my opinion of Romans 1 nor of the Levitical condemnation of homosexuality.
Whither your smugness Seeker?
It appears that you now carry the torch of smugness for me. I’m sorry, you’ll just have to wait.
Seeker,
That your blog represents the majority of conservative/fundamentalist Christianity is no doubt true. I appreciate your tacit recognition of differing views within the broad tent of the Christian faith. I do agree that we could debate the issue of homosexuality and the Church endlessly. I will concede that your being busy is not a disingenuous attempt to avoid the issue. Besides I realize that your interpretation of ROM 1 is so hopelessly lacking in logic and reason that it would indeed take too much bandwidth to straighten you out. I mostly wanted an answer to your view of the “Levitical condemnation of homosexuality” (which of course can’t be since they had no knowledge of homosexuality). The question I posed is a very serious one and has implications far beyond the issue of homosexuality: plainly state whether or not you feel that the punishment for same-sex activity (death) is appropriate today under LEV 20:13. If the Levitical code is to have any meaning then you must say yes. If you say no then your argument about the applicability of the Levitical laws collapses under the weight of its own hypocrisy. Since the answer to this question can enlighten all the participants on this blog about some very fundamental attitudes that you hold you can surely spare a moment for an answer.
they had no knowledge of homosexuality
You do realize that this assertion sounds as rediculous as "they had no knowledge of prostitution or adultery"?
Probably what you are really saying is that they had no concept similar to that of our psychological term "same sex orientation." That is, they merely considered it as an act, not as a valid psychological profile. In that, we may agree.
But the act of homosexuality, and the existence of same sex sexual and romantic affections have been around since sexual perversions of all types have been around. To say that they had no knowledge of this is to think that homosexuality is some recent development in human sexuality, which only a historical revisionist ingnorant of human nature would believe, imho.
Regarding my interpretation of Romans 1, I'd say that is it straightforward and attested to by years of excellent theology and scholarship, not illogical as you claim. Your approach, trying to twist it to support condemnation of pederasty (which it clearly does not) is convoluted and forcing a pro-gay theology on an obviously anti-homosexual text. Of course, this passage is about idolatry, but the end result of such idolatry? The debased perversion of the human, both morally and physically, the latter of which is epitomized in the example of homosexuality.
plainly state whether or not you feel that the punishment for same-sex activity (death) is appropriate today under LEV 20:13. If the Levitical code is to have any meaning then you must say yes.
I do not have to yield to your narrow either/or interpretation of the text any more than you have to yield to mine in Romans 1 ;). However, I do not believe that we as Christians are forced to follow the punishments described in Leviticus or Exodus or Deuteronomy, yet the moral law still stands as accurate in describing what is sinful. In fact, I do not want to enforce them as described, and of course, I do not support the civil criminalization of homosexuality. And while Paul in Romans 1 says that such are "worthy of death", it is debatable whether he is talking about civil justice or God's judgement on such sins. And while Reconstructionists do support the establishment of these pusnishments as civil law, I consider Reconstructionism to be extreme, poor theology, and a bit crazy. As I said, I am more of a Cultural Mandate type (see wikipedia).
But your point is a valid one which I have not finished researching yet, and I admit that I do not have a good answer. I ask the question this way – if the moral law of Lev is still binding, why do we not also follow the punishments found therein?
I'm sure theologians have provided an answer, but let me guess at one possibility. While the moral law is still valid, the civil punishments prescribed in Lev were for Israel only. Is that a valid way to apply this text as a Christian? I would not immediately jump to a negative conclusion. Rather than parsing it out this way, you have said that the entire book is to be discounted, and anytying considered a "sin" in this book is merely called that because the pagan nations did it – it was entirely subject to the context of the time, and does not apply to us today unless attested to outside of Leviiticus, like in Exodus.
That is an interesting argument which I am considering, but I don't completely buy it. But give me time to mull it over – no on can yield right away ;)
And you would still have to answer for the other passages in the bible that condemn homosexuality. Of course, you have attempted to do that, but I do not think you have succeeded, esp. with Romans 1, not to mention the consistent references to marriage in the NT by Jesus and Paul as man and woman, while never mentioning any same-sex union as a "marriage." While this may appear to be an argument from ignorance (no information), I think it is more than that. If Jesus and Paul (and Moses) clearly defined marriage as between a man and a woman, I'd say that nearly settles the matter regarding the acceptance or normality of homosexuality as far as the Bible is concerned.
Thank you for an answer regarding LEV 20:13. Your position does create some large problems for your overall view of Leviticus but I will wait until you formulate a more specific response to this subject. Please keep in mind that my dismissal of the specifics of the Levitical code does not depend upon, as you put it “anything considered a “sin” in this book is merely called that because the pagan nations did it – it was entirely subject to the context of the time, and does not apply to us today unless attested to outside of Leviticus, like in Exodus.” We can get into that at a later date.
Of course Jesus and Paul never mentioned anything about same-sex marriage. Why in blazes do you think they would in 1st Century Palestine? They also never mentioned abortion, cloning, stem cell research or a host of other issues of the modern world. This has not stopped Christians from taking positions about these issues based on their understanding of Scripture. Nor should it have prevented them from doing so. The genius of the Bible is that it can inform us on a variety of topics regarding how we treat one another. If silence on a subject equaled either acceptance or condemnation we would still claim that Jesus never “specifically” condemned human slavery. Faith AND reason must always be our guides with Scripture.
Briefly regarding ROM 1, you will have to, in your next posts on the subject deal with the historical and linguistic fact that what Paul is talking about is not “homosexuality”. I will not repeat the definition here. Suffice it to say that while the phenomenon of reciprocal same-sex attraction has certainly been around since at least Paul’s time, the open acceptance and understanding of these relationships has not. If one reads the texts carefully one can clearly see that Paul is describing exploitative relationships built upon anything but mutual love and reciprocity. I am NOT arguing pederasty in ROM 1. This sinful behavior is described in 1COR 6:8-11. So while Paul may have been aware of reciprocal same-sex relationships in his time he specifically chose not to write about and condemn them in either ROM 1 or 1COR. In fact if he had known of these types of same-sex relationships then that only strengthens my argument since he describes something else altogether.
You claim that ROM 1 “is about idolatry, but the end result of such idolatry?” Yet you fail to accept the logic. That Paul sees people that have turned from God in sin and engaged in exploitative same-sex actions does not mean that all reciprocal, loving same-sex activity is sinful. That pesky syllogism (if A then B does not equal If B then A) keeps popping up again. I will stop know because as you have pointed out we can continue like this forever. I will let you get back to formulating some thoughts on Leviticus and will await your next post on the subject, praying in the meanwhile that the Holy Spirit will fill your heart with love and acceptance for all of God’s children.
FCL, that strikes me as an astounding revisionist argument. Nothing in the text speaks of power or submission, and everything of abandoning hetero for homo sex, and an obvious global condemnation of this type of behavior as against nature, against the creator's design itself.
He could not have been doing this. He knew nothing of such given orientations
This seems incredible to me in light of the OT condemnation (which you may say is only condeming pagan sex ritual practices) and even the most rudimentary understanding of human nature and sexuality. It's like saying that Paul knew nothing of bestiality or adultery or prostitution. It so defies common sense as to be incredible and the weakest of foundations on which to build an argument.
In fact, I think you are giving way too much weight to your largely speculative interpretation of the culture and understanding of the times, and hardly any to the clear, immediate context of the text itself. If this is the best argument against my understanding of Romans 1, how could I be anything but confident?
In response to my claim that Paul did not know of sexual orientation in the way we do today you claim “This seems incredible to me in light of the OT condemnation (which you may say is only condemning pagan sex ritual practices) and even the most rudimentary understanding of human nature and sexuality.” Are you claiming that Paul did in fact know of sexual orientation as we do today? If so you are factually incorrect. Also incorrect is your dismissal of the cultural context simply because it is inconvenient. Equally damaging to your argument is the plain language of the text itself. Paul is simply not using words that convey a sense of creation in the larger sense. He is referring to convention, as I previously discussed. This is a fact. When faced with new facts it is indeed time to revise your thinking.
Revisionism has in fact been a part of the Church all along. The Church revised its position on slavery, women on the altar and the notion of a 6000 year old universe. We came to understand more fully God’s Word and His Revelation for mankind. These examples have all been to the good in the Church’s goal of giving faithful witness to God’s love. So when the facts demand it and the Holy Spirit calls you to do it then we must revise our thinking accordingly. To fail to do this would be to lack the faith to use the brains God gave us.
Are you claiming that Paul did in fact know of sexual orientation as we do today?
No, I am saying that the modern formulation of "homosexual orientation" is immaterial to the argument. The act of homosexuality, regardless of its origins, is what Paul was most certainly aware of.
Our modern excuses for adultery or any other sin don't change them into something non-sinful, and while our greater understanding of the roots of such behaviors, be they biological or sociologic, may help in treating them, it doesn't change the fact that they are sinful. Paul didn't need to know Freud to determine that adultery, homosexualy, and bestiality were sinful. But the act of homosexuality has been around since the beginning.
Paul is simply not using words that convey a sense of creation in the larger sense. He is referring to convention, as I previously discussed.
I guess I still don't understand this part of your argument. You are saying that he is talking about some specific practice of the idolatrous, rather than leaving the natural use of the woman (hetero sex) for the unnatural act of having sexual desire for the same sex? To me, the text is perfectly clear in talking about nature itself, not some conventional practice he abhors.
The Church revised its position on slavery, women on the altar and the notion of a 6000 year old universe.
I guess we'll have to discuss whom you think "the Church" is. Some of us still hold to a 6000 year old earth ;). And many conservative denominations still hold the position that women are not to be ordained (which I am on the fence about. As a post-charismatic, I have seen many able women ministers). Interestingly, Al Mohler, who is against the ordination of women, believes that this is a first and logical step towards the acceptance of and ordination of homosexuality.
So when the facts demand it and the Holy Spirit calls you to do it then we must revise our thinking accordingly. To fail to do this would be to lack the faith to use the brains God gave us.
I agree with you, but your "facts" are dubious, and I disagree with your hermeneutic. You know what the holy spirit tells me when considering homosexuality (besides the passage in Romans 1)?
Galatians 6:7-8
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
2 Peter 2:6-10
if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.
If homosexuality is defined as “Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.”, then a homosexual act is same sex intercourse between two people with such an orientation. It is too bad for you that this is not what Paul was describing in the texts. It is too bad for you that this is not the kind of same-sex activity described anywhere in Scripture. It is too bad for you that Paul is not using the word natural to refer to the orders of creation but rather to Gentile convention (which he rejects). This is a convention that has nothing to do with sexual desire or orientation but has everything to do with rancid exploitative power arrangements. It is too bad for you that these facts add up to a failure to find a condemnation of homosexuality in the Scripture.
It matters not at all to me that you fail to accept the facts. They are not my facts, they are just THE facts. It is hard to take seriously what you will accept as fact when you fail to accept as datum that the Earth is just a tad older than 6000 years. Hey, now there is a hermeneutical principle for you: reality.
I’m going to just use Mark Vuletic’s article to respond to Mynym ‘s comparison of Darwinism to the Proto-Nazi. I don’t have time to respond in my own words but this is a common accusation of creationists for which this is the response…
It was also mentioned Darwinism was used by communists…
It is too bad for you that this is not what Paul was describing in the texts.
As I said, it matters not the motivation, the action itself is sinful because it is against nature. It's like saying "if pedophilia is defined as 'Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons who are not yet sexually developed", then saying that because Paul could not have thought this way about it, that he could not have condemned it. And besides, "burning with lust for one another" is the motivation, homosexual "orientation" excuses or not.
I'd say a good parallel is where Paul recommends marriage for men who want to have sex with a woman. "It is better to marry than burn with lust." Did he condemn this lust? Not really, he said get married if you burn with "lust" for a woman.
But when men burn with lust for other men, he calls it debased, unnatural, etc.
I am curious though. Where do you get this esoteric argument about Paul not knowing about homosexual "orientation", so therefore he can't be condenming homosexuality. Who came up with and promoted this argument?
This is a convention that has nothing to do with sexual desire
So words like "passion" and "burning with lust for one another" has nothing to do with sexual desire? Truly, your argument has no clothes.
It matters not at all to me that you fail to accept the facts. They are not my facts, they are just THE facts.
So your esoteric, strained interpretation of this passage is the fact? I realize that my opinion may not matter to you, but to argue that this interpretation is fact is at best overstated. You are convinced, that's fine. But I am not, not due to a prior comittment to my interpretation, but due to my committment to a sensical interpretation. Obviously, your pro-gay hermeneutic forces you to justify homosexuality no matter where you find it in scripture. I mean, seriously, the "Paul didn't know about homosexual orientation" is really a knee slapper, it's so obviously sophistry.
But I am glad you have explained this position to me, which I poorly understood before. I'm sure I'll be seeing it again, and will be researching it more in the future.
Philosopher Philip Kitcher correctly points out that evolution, like all good scientific theories, is morally neutral
Actually, I think this is only partly true. Is it true that many, maybe even most people that believe in evolution fail to support social darwinism or eugenics? Yes. However, the fact that evolutionary theory dovetails seamlessly with such ideas, and that, when it's principles are applied to other disciplines such as social science, leads to such ideas, means that it is NOT MORALLY NEUTRAL. It's like gun manufacturers saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people." They may be right in the letter of the law, but in the spirit of the law, they are avoiding their shared resonsibility for what goes on with their products.
The reason the logical implications and applications of evolutionary theory to other disciplines is important is because all of reality is connected, and all truth in various disciplines is describing the same reality. In science, we often find that principles apply across disciplines, that models used in one area have analogs in other areas. The fact that the analogs of darwinism are so pernicious means that, despite the existence of nice evolutionists, the theory itself is not morally inert. To ignore these implications is intellectually dishonest and shows an uncritical (unscientific) bias.
The most popular doctrine for use in rationalizing evil and immoral actions has surely been Christianity. There is a long record of brutalities and atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christ: the Crusades, the persecution of the Huguenots, periodic waves of anti-Semitism, sporadic witch burnings, the Inquisition, 300 years of Irish "troubles"; the list could go on and on
Actually, I'd say more evil has been done in the name of atheistic and anti-christian ideologies, not to mention Islam. And most of the accusations on your list can be dismissed or at least weakened with an honest look at history, rather than by merely accepting the views of anti-Catholic Renaissance historians and their devotees. For example, there are historical defenses or clarifications of the Crusades, the Inquisition (most of it was actually pursued by the King and Queen of Spain, while the Popes, corrupt as many of them were, were begging for it to be halted), "and the list could go on and on." Rodney Stark does an admirable job of unraveling anti-Catholic revisionist history in For the Glory of God and his other books on history.
The other problem with this argument is that, though people used religion to "justify" their atrocities, their interpretations and application did not flow logically from the teachings of Christ, but rather, were bastardizations or outright heresies. However, social Darwinism flows easily and logically from Darwin's theories, arguably.
evolutionism…stresses the unity of humankind. The Victorians were quite happy to put themselves at the top of the evolutionary tree — others, including Slavs and Jews, came lower down. However, ultimately, we are all part of one family.
I think this is inaccurate. While evolutionism might stress the relatedness of mankind, it says nothign of unity. In fact, it speaks more of competition. And those who like to put themselves higher on the evolutionary tree are probably rightly applying evolutionary ideas to social structure and human progress. Have you seen GATTACA? That is evolutionary social policy. Eugenics most certainly does flow logically from evolution.
Now, you might argue that evolutionism would encourage us to keep the gene pool diverse, and so keep everyone around for that purpose, and that would be a decent argument. But it would not erase the valid conclusion that Darwinism and eugenics can be easily tied together ideologically.
Marxism has nothing to do with evolution.
This also is inaccurate. While Marxism and communism and the other anti-religious totalitarianisms do not teach evolution, they rely on it because it is the only theory of origins that is non-religious in nature, that is, it supports the atheist, anti-faith views of these various isms. It helps them justify their anti-religion, pro-materialist atheistic framework. This implication of Darwinism, though perhaps not intended by Darwin, is real and significant.
However, not being well versed in the philosophical inputs to these great totalitarians, I concede that you may be more than correct in saying that they were influenced by other thinkers and not by Darwinism. But I wanted to mention the link between atheism and Darwin, and atheism and Communism. Darwin's theories have some unsavory philosphic bedfellows.
Most of your post tries to tie evolution to aetheism, for example…
While Marxism and communism and the other anti-religious totalitarianisms do not teach evolution, they rely on it because it is the only theory of origins that is non-religious in nature, that is, it supports the atheist, anti-faith views of these various isms. -Seeker
This is false…
You make it sound as if atheists are immoral. Tying evolution to aetheism makes evolution immoral by default? Is this your argument? It’s immoral to call people who don’t believe in God’s, immoral. :P
Have you seen GATTACA? That is evolutionary social policy. -Seeker
Oh Please. Gattaca is not natural selection.
…and don’t give me that crap about the dictionary defining words inaccurately thereby making it a bad scource to quote from.
The most popular doctrine for use in rationalizing evil and immoral actions has surely been Christianity. There is a long record of brutalities and atrocities perpetrated in the name of Christ: the Crusades, the persecution of the Huguenots, periodic waves of anti-Semitism, sporadic witch burnings, the Inquisition, 300 years of Irish “troubles”; the list could go on and on
You forgot to mention witches! You believe in witchcraft correct? Furthermore, there comes a time when the allegedly scientific arguments you are making are so weak and ignorant that you brand yourself as anti-science simply by offering them.
Seeker,
Just a few final notes before a weekend vacation. I understand that you feel that homosexual acts are against nature. It is just that Paul does not write that. He is not using the word nature the way you are.
Your comparison of pedophilia and homosexuality is disturbing to say the least. Pedophilia is by definition a forced act upon one who cannot give consent. This is the antithesis of a reciprocal relationship.
Your statement that “So words like “passion” and “burning with lust for one another” has nothing to do with sexual desire? Truly, your argument has no clothes” depends on our definition of sexual relations and an exploration of the type of activities being discussed in the texts as well as in the wider culture at the time. While I have attempted previously to explain this it is a topic too large for this post; I will leave it until another time.
The next time you delve into this issue please deal with your statement “I mean, seriously, the “Paul didn’t know about homosexual orientation” is really a knee slapper, it’s so obviously sophistry.” Show me exactly where and how Paul knew about a concept like sexual orientation that was not developed until the late 19th century.
I, during my hiatus will attempt to pull together a more comprehensive and complete argument in an attempt at greater clarity. At which time we can battle anew. Until then God’s peace and have a very gay 4th of July
“I mean, seriously, the “Paul didn’t know about homosexual orientation” is really a knee slapper, it’s so obviously sophistry.” Show me exactly where and how Paul knew about a concept like sexual orientation that was not developed until the late 19th century.
I am not saying Paul knew of this concept, I am saying that to use this as a reason why Paul could not have condemned homosexuality is a knee slapper. The fact that homosexuality itself, like other sexual sins, was known to Paul is enough to understand his condemnation of it.
You make it sound like homosexual relationships and sex were a modern invention. My point is that Paul did not need to have some modern psychological concept in mind to determine if homosexuality, or any other sexual sin, was sinful. Your argument is silly because it presupposes that Paul needed this knowledge to determine the morality of homosexuality, or that Paul would not have made such a determination without it.
In my mind, the straighforward and clear interpretation of the text, despite whatever the cultural practices of the time were or were not, is that Paul is describing men turning from hetero to homo passions, which is against nature. There’s no children involved here, no forced sex, no temple prostitution. It’s just as clear as the condemnation in the OT – men lying with men as with women is an abomination, a debased, unnatural action. It is clear as day, and no amount of painting in the historical background (which may be accurate, but in this case, is not applicable to the text) can change the clear meaning of this passage.
And to clarify, I totally agree that historical context is important in intpreting texts. However, I think you are misapplying the historical background in order to change the intended meaning of the text. The other historical background to consider is Paul’s understanding of the OT, his knowledge of the Septuagint, and more importantly, the context of the book of Romans itself.
I find the connection between evolution and communism to be a bit overboard. To reverse the situation, an atheist could note that Martin Luther was horribly anti-Semetic, perhaps even supporting the murder of Jews, and many Protestants and Catholics agree with his position. Therefore Christianity is to blame for the Nazi Holocaust.
Ideas can be used for good or ill, but these attempts to connect a general religion or scientific theory with extremist ideology seem quite forced to me.
I find the connection between evolution and communism to be a bit overboard.
I think it’s a connection via atheism, although the connection between darwinism and eugenics seems pretty direct, even if it is not intended.
I think it’s a connection via atheism
No such connection exists. See my post for explanation.
I wasn’t clear. There are clear connections between atheism and communism. There are also clear connections between atheism and evolution. They share a common friend in atheism. So, is there a connection between evolution and these totalitarian isms? Only indirect, and perhaps not a causal one.
Assertion 6.14: Evolution is the basis for Nazism. Analysis
(i) Philosopher Philip Kitcher correctly points out that evolution, like all good scientific theories, is morally neutral…
An ironic argument, given that the Nazis argued that what they did was “morally neutral” because it was based on biological fact, i.e. scientific facts. It seems that those who want to egage in Darwinian forms of reasoning and philosophy want people to forget that so that they can rely on the same exact intellectually degenerate standards based on naturalism and similar arguments to this day.
Before going into the proto-Nazi nature of Darwinists given the material that you’ve provided, something is making me a little sad now. For you didn’t pick up a challenge to cite your own imagination as “scientific” evidence in the Darwinian way (and factual, too!) based on the smallest of things about life, like the copulatory organ of the male dragon fly. What, are the tittles of Mommy Nature suddenly not titiliating enough? Ah well, the point of much of it is that you must know that when it comes to Life, pretenses of “neutrality” toward the subject are all false because the subject is not merely just an object and never can be…trying to assume it is so “scientifically” and objectively has been the business of proto-Nazi half-wits. So back to that, the Darwinian reasoning that you cite and the view toward biology and Life that is contained in it is especially ironic to cite here given that the same intellectual degeneracy helped Nazism succeed in technical ways that exponentially increased the effect of barbarism, given that the barbarians were technically proficient. I.e. the same argument of “moral neutrality” toward Bios/biology that the little fellow above tries to prop up was promoted in proto-Nazi and Nazi times based on the same reasoning and the same philosophy that makes biology into a mask for the urge to merge that some little fellows seem to have:
(The Nazi Doctors: Medical
Killing and the
Psychology of Genocide
By Robert Jay Lifton :129) (Emphasis added)
Is it really a brute “scientific fact” at issue or do some little fellows just like feeling merged to overcome the “Jewish influence” of alienation? It seems that all that is essential and conceptual is alienating for some little fellows. As one put it:
(Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in
Germany’s Crimes Against the Jewish People
by Max Weinreich
(New York:The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :33) (Emphasis added)
Darwinists simply cannot seem to engage in conceptual thinking because they are usually trying to engage in “biological thinking” instead. That leads to them running in a Herd as well as scholarship of this form:
(Ib. :7)(Emphasis added)
Anyone who has debated those trying to prop up the Darwinian creation myth these days knows that the apt summary of a historian has given Nazi reasoning matches Darwinian reasoning, which is often based more on a repudiation of the spiritual than actual evidence. Indeed, Darwinists have often said and written that their repudiation of the spiritual in negative theology is their best evidence. Panda’s Thumb, anyone? They named their blog after an argument of the same structure, a repudiation of the spiritual is actually being cited as evidence and “scientific” evidence at that. I am merely calling a spade a spade when I point out that Darwinian reasoning is proto-Nazi by Nature. The ignorance and stupidity of the willful denial of the evidence of creation that goes on among Darwinists and the links to further degeneracy is truly amazing, for instance one of the avenues of misdirection used by charlatans such as this has been to try to associate ID types with Holocaust denial but I doubt that the little fellows have never debated a Holocaust denier because they seem to have little use for actual historical evidence.
Various people have appealed to the theory of evolution to lend respectability to their appalling moral views…But this fact says very little about evolutionary theory itself. Virtually any morally neutral, or even morally good, doctrine can be misused for evil purposes. (Kitcher 1982:196)
Intellectual history demonstrates that Darwinian forms of reasoning and the degenerate anti-philosophy that sits behind it that was dead at its conception was not misused or abused, instead it was applied, which lead to death. Apparently these dead in the head fellows who are willing to engage in so much charlatanism for their pseudo-religion of Darwinism simply refuse to admit to the historical evidence, once again. Perhaps instead they are busy believing that their own little imaginings about history can serve as valid historical evidence again and perhaps their own imagination is even becoming “scientific” evidence too!
(ii) Creationists, most of whom are fundamentalist Christians, should be able to understand the point by considering some of the horrendous moral doctrines others have taken Christianity to be their basis for, and asking whether or not this means that Christianity must therefore be evil or incorrect…
Essential Christian reasoning can be known from Christian texts just as Darwinian reasoning can also be known, given that it can be proven that the Nazis engaged in Darwinian reasoning as opposed to Christian reasoning.
Yet although the Christian Church has a checkered history, it is evident that Christians can claim – quite justifiably – that the evils result from perversions of religious doctrine.
With justification drawn from its own texts and tradition. The reason these fellows cannot seem to do the same in the case of Darwinism and Darwinian reasoning and so instead are relying on a misdirection (Say, let’s look at the perversion of Christian principles and reasoning instead or somethin’…) is because the eugenics movement and Nazism was not a perversion of Darwinian reasoning but instead its application given the state of science of its day. And it is not “science” that is holding back its application these days because Darwinian reasoning is still prevalent among scientists, instead it is once again the “wise lack of consistency” typical to those who try to be half-wits about half of the time.
(iii) Philosopher and historian Michael Ruse notes that while Germans from Bismarck to Hitler did seem to absorb a “bastardized” form of Darwinism, this form “bore little resemblance to anything to be found either in The Origin of Species or The Descent of Man” (Ruse 2000:81).
Now they finally get to the point, yet there’s nothing there. No evidence is cited of this sort: “Darwin said this, but as you can see from the historical evidence the Nazis said and did this instead.” Etc. Why do you suppose that is?
Moreover, explains Ruse,
it does not take much to see that there could have been no simple relationship between any philosophy based on evolutionary ideas and the ideology that was so important for the national socialists (Kelly 1981). Apart from anything else, evolutionism — Darwinism in particular — stresses the unity of humankind. The Victorians were quite happy to put themselves at the top of the evolutionary tree — others, including Slavs and Jews, came lower down. However, ultimately, we are all part of one family.
Wrong, the metaphor of a tree clearly also represents the possibility of divisions or a degeneration away from an original purity as well as a lack of being”fit,” i.e. one branch of Darwin’s so-called Tree of Life could become corrupted and so in need of being pruned off so that the tree will not die and so on. I’m still waiting on the vast contradictions between Nazi attempts at “biological thinking” and the mentally retarded forms of Darwinian reasoning that seek to accomplish the same thing by failing to admit that organisms are living things and the like.
A consequence like this was anathema to Hitler and his cronies. It is revealing that although [German evolutionist Ernst] Haeckel (like so many of his countrymen at the time) was anti-Semitic, his solution to the Jewish problem was one of assimilation rather than elimination.
Evidence? I suppose it depends on what you mean by so-called “assimilation.” Isn’t it curious that these are the same fellows that still cling to Haeckel’s frauds? They do not seem to mind associating themselves with someone who helped shaped the worldview of a proto-Nazi generation so that more and more youth would attempt to engage in biological thinking.
E.g.
(From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany
by Richard Weikart :11)
The prophet of “biological thinking,” the stygian stench that follows him is only appropriate given that he sought to invert what goes on in the womb:
(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the
Psychology of Genocide
By Robert Jay Lifton :441)
This was the very opposite of the policy endorsed and enacted by the Nazis…Truly, as scholars have shown, national socialism owed far more to the Volkish movements of the nineteenth century, and particularly to the so-called redemptive anti-Semitism of the group of Wagnerians at Bayreuth, than it did to anything to be found in the writings of evolutionists (Friedlander 1997). (Ruse 2000:81-82)
More charlatanism, it seems that those with the urge to merge cannot help themselves.
The late Carl Sagan adds a few comments….
For those who became bored with the incessant misdirection of these half-wits away from the thinking organism as such, Sagan added a few bits of his own form of drivel.
As to the list of material “causes”…for that matter, there would have been no Hitlerism if the pattern of matter that we call “Hitler” did not exist in history. Is that an argument against the power of the individual thinking organism to cause an unfolding/evolution of events that are good or evil? For some reason half-wits assume that someone must be arguing against material existence as well as any unfolding of events (“Why that would just be poof, there it is or somethin’.”) if they point out to obvious spiritual realities like organisms desiring, experiencing, selecting and choosing based on their own sentiments and sentience. Why, the very notion of intelligent selection must be opposed to material existence according to those with the urge to merge, so how could it exist? Etc. Natural selection as the Darwinian way of denying that organisms are selecting and choosing was always a mentally retarded idea. It was dead at its own conception in the minds of some mentally incompetent organisms…yet they continue with it!
It was also mentioned Darwinism was used by communists…
It is not as clear as in Nazism, so I assume that these charlatans would have a grand old time with their red herrings and so on. Yet it would still be obvious that the general milieu of scientism based on the forms of “reasoning” or “thinking” that they still want to try to engage in was a key factor in all forms of socialism.
I can’t resist an irony at the end:
…a better appreciation for evolutionary biology probably would have prevented many innocent in the Soviet Union from starving.
He may as well declare that Darwinian reasoning leads to am understanding of the Soil and the Blood more in tune with Nature than the Marxian.
Note that Marxism and its heretical branch still tended to share a common Darwinian vision anyway, e.g.:
(“In the Interests of Civilization”: Marxist Views
of Race and Culture in the Nineteenth Century
By Diane Paul
Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 42, No. 1.
(Jan. – Mar., 1981), pp. 115-138)
Why are there these historically verifiable similarities in vision based on Darwin’s metaphoric Tree of Life, that he couldn’t seem to admit was made up of living organisms? You aren’t really fully taken in by the charlatanism of these half-wits, are you? Do you notice the missing evidence, the missing comparisons of Darwinian reasoning and texts to the supposed “perversion” of them in history? Why is it that Darwin’s own version of perishing races found in the Descent of Man reads a lot like Engels vision? The supposed perversion of the correct version does not seem to be much of a change, that’s probably why some fellows cannot seem to cite actual evidence to make comparisons. Perhaps we should imagine a different history and then cite our own imaginations as evidence while murmuring that is all that is “natural” and therefore our own imaginations define the truth about history? That seems typical to Darwinian “reasoning,” after all.
Do you suppose that Christians arguing against a “perversion” of the Christian version of things would be as lacking in Christian reasoning, texts and tradition as these little fellows seem to be or that they’d sit about with arguments of this mentally incompetent structure: “Well, Darwinian reasoning was perverted this one time or somethin’, so look over here at this and this! This one time, people burned witches or somethin’.” (That red herring was a little ironic given that as the Inquisition spread there is evidence that the old superstitious/folk practice of witch burning decreased.)
There are also clear connections between atheism and evolution.
Again. No. It is creationism that has clear connections with the supernatural. This gives creationism the scientific legitimacy of the tooth fairy.
An ironic argument, given that the Nazis argued that what they did was “morally neutral” because it was based on biological fact, i.e. scientific facts.
In nature, the fittest survive. There is nothing immoral or moral about this. It is morally neutral. It is how man applies science that makes it moral or immoral. In all cases though, the onus lies with man and not the science itself.
Nazism was not a perversion of Darwinian reasoning but instead its application.
This is the Nazis fault and not Darwin’s fault. It is the Nazis fault and not Jesus’ fault that the Nazis perverted Christian reasoning (Say, let’s look at the perversion of Christian principles and reasoning instead or somethin’…) Not instead, along with. You have already looked at the perversion of evolution, now here is Christianity…
Something is making me a little sad now. For you didn’t pick up a challenge to cite your own imagination as “scientific” evidence in the Darwinian way (and factual, too!) based on the smallest of things about life, like the copulatory organ of the male dragon fly. What, are the tittles of Mommy Nature suddenly not titiliating enough?
Mynym, I’ll shed a tear in commiseration for your sadness. No, this looked like bait to me the first time I read it and that you dangle it in front of me once more makes me doubly leery. If you have a good argument against evolution because of dragon fly penis’, take it up with an entomologist. I won’t bite. This conversation is keeping me busy enough.
It is how man applies science that makes it moral or immoral. In all cases though, the onus lies with man and not the science itself.
That may be true of science, but ideas like evolution are not just science. Ideas have consequences. I am saying that eugenics and such, even if not intended by Darwin, ARE the logical and inescapable extension of Darwinism.
Me: here are also clear connections between atheism and evolution. Cin: Again. No. It is creationism that has clear connections with the supernatural.
Are you not aware of the famous quote by atheist apologist Richard Dawkins, about it being impossible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist before Darwinism?
While the historic beginnings of Darwinism may have had little to do with atheism (that’s probably what you are referring to), evolution is most certainly an idea that atheists cling to with tenacity because it allows them a creation myth without God. To deny this connection is silly, I think.
Seeker, the predictability of your arguments is frightening.
Are you not aware of the famous quote by atheist apologist Richard Dawkins, about it being impossible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist before Darwinism? -Seeker
The above has already been anticipated. Check out the passage I highlighted in bold for emphasis.
I respect theistic evolutionists such as FCL. People like him have managed to reconcile evolution (truth) with their faith. This is how it should be! As Christians, how is it that he can do this and you cannot? Christians who do not accept common ancestry live in denial.
I already wrote this once and then the power went out. Too bad, it was longer before.
In nature, the fittest survive. There is nothing immoral or moral about this. It is morally neutral.
Moral neutrality is not an option for living organisms that generally have to consider life worth living lest they fail to survive.
Note the Nazi slogan about “life unworthy of life” that supposedly was not their selection but instead was an aspect of “natural selection.” The selection or valuation of things was supposedly of Nature instead of being an aspect of the individual organism based on its own bits of sentience and sentiments and so on. There is indeed something moral and immoral about things living and dying and different rates of survival. If you don’t have the sentience to sense that and instead sit about trying to be “neutral” about Life then most likely you are as dead in the head as those who tried to engage in “biological thinking” just a short time ago. It’s the organism that selects based on its own nature and form of sentience within Nature. It is interesting that you keep making use of the fact that organisms are sentient, selecting and living/surviving things within Nature, if only to deny it in favor of some inane notion of “natural selection” in which an inanimate Nature supposedly “selects” for the animate.
Nazism was not a perversion of Darwinian reasoning but instead its application.This is the Nazis fault and not Darwin’s fault.
All I would say of your shift away from Darwinian reasoning to Darwin, who could have nothing to do with Nazism given that he was just a Christian apostate of the Victorian era is that I would say little of nice little Darwin. Take a hypothetical alien instead, one that came to a hypothetical planet humans had colonized and then promulgated the notion that their ancient stories about the past were all wrong, that human life had evolved from lower forms of life instead, that in the process of evolution only the fit survived, that the process was responsible for humans being the highest form of life on the planet, that some races of humans were more fit and favored than others and lastly that the lower races were destined to perish soon, etc. Then imagine that there was a hypothetical group of humans that claimed to be one of the higher races so they had scientists try to speed up the natural process, they argued that lower races were destined to perish, etc. I’d say that the hypothetical alien had something to do with the hypothetical people, wouldn’t you?
Is it the “fault” of any thinker/scholar/nerd if their ideas, metaphors and words are applied or literalized? It would seem that Darwin was one of the meek that inherit the earth that probably couldn’t fathom doing what the Nazis did literally. Though apparently he became fine with it in spirit/metaphorically, after being sick over it literally. It is the mind that governs the body of an organism, so beware of the meek that tend to work with things metaphorically to get at the spirit of things. Do you think that a writer will not be held to account by the creative Spirit of all metaphoric likeness or that their metaphoric excrement is not their “fault”?
It is the Nazis fault and not Jesus’ fault that the Nazis perverted Christian reasoning…
Darwinian reasoning is a perversion in the first place that typically relies on a pollution of language combined with imagining things about the past. Jesus said that metaphoric excrement makes a man more unclean than literal excrement, which leaves Darwin in a bad way. The Nazis had to pervert Christian reasoning and not Darwinian reasoning, e.g.:
(The Rise and Fall of the
Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany
by William Shirer :239) (Emphasis added)
Which is Christianity, faith in Christ as the Son of God or faith in the Blood and Soil? Despite the bigots and charlatans that you seem to be citing who are trying to make a hash of historical evidence, it really isn’t that hard to understand.
Not instead, along with. You have already looked at the perversion of evolution, now here is Christianity…
No, one had to be perverted into something it never was away from its texts while the other was simply the application of what Darwin argued in favor of based on supposed “knowledge” about the past that is often based on little more than people imagining things combined with negative theology. I see that you’ve argued that Darwinism has nothing to do with atheism and yet the “best evidence” cited for Darwinism has long been combined with atheism. Again, to summarize the moronic and biologically ignorant logic of it: “If not divine selection, then that’s evidence for natural selection.”
Thus, when Adolf Hitler needed a scapegoat group to rally the discontented majority to his cause and catapult himself to power, natural victims clearly marked by the church were at his disposal. The Christian public, not only in Germany, but also throughout Europe, was predisposed to receive the Nazi message of hatred. (Haught 1990:157-158)
What Christian public? It seems that most people throughout history have been predisposed to be anti-Semitic. That may be because of some vast cosmic evil behind the scenes or it may be because people hate each other, naturally. Most likely, it is a combination of the two. At any rate, what Christian public? Have anyone in mind? It can easily be argued that the Weimar Republic was post-Christian. And note the sort of philosophy that came about in a culture shaped by the Darwinian creation myth:
(The Nordic Pagan Chant Grows Louder
By Albion Rossberlin
The New York Times, Aug 4, 1935; pg. 3-4)
It seems that the only thing that “fits” with the Darwinian is being a Christian apostate, naturally. That is fitting, as for the most part that is all Darwinism and its buzzword of “evolution” have ever been when the term evolution is weighed down with the grand mythological narratives of Naturalism. Generally those Christians that remained in the culture were of the type that believed in a “separation of church and State.” It is interesting to note the natural philosophy that those who would not agree with such things had to fight against. E.g. the organism as a machine, man as animal, etc.:
(The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide
by Robert Lifton :93-94)
The Holocaust was, of course, the bitter fruit of long centuries of Christian teaching about the Jewish people. (Dr. Franklin Little, chairman of the Department of Religion at Temple University, as quoted in Haught 1990:158)
[The Holocaust] could not have been done had not the name of God been used for centuries to preach hatred of the Other, the Jews. (A. M. Rosenthal, editor of the New York Times, as quoted in Haught 1990:158)
[The Nazis] are inconceivable apart from this Christian tradition [of hostility to the Jews]. Hitler’s pogrom, for all its distinctiveness, is the zenith of a long Christian heritage of teaching and practice against Jews. (Clark Williamson, theologian at Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, as quoted in Haught 1990:159)
[The Nazis] did not invent a new villain…They took over the 2,000-year-old tradition of the Jew as villain…The roots of the death camps must be sought in the mythic structure of Christianity. (Richard Reubenstein, theologian, as quoted in Haught 1990:160)
The Nazis would agree with that last mental midget, given that they thought that the Jewish basis of Christianity had to be done away with and that is basically the mythic structure of symbols and signs that Christianity is based in. The basic structure of what Christ fulfills is found in the Jewish Old Testament and the like, so how were those that attacked it in proto-Nazi times even Christian. It is a twisted web that moral degenerates currently have to weave to try to distance themselves from Nazism even as they repeat its patterns, is it not? How is it that the “roots of the death camps” can be found in the mythic structure of Christianity when those are the very roots that the Nazis sought to root out? The Nazis were against the Old Testament, those “old fables of wandering goat herders,” while in the end the Nazis generally concluded that all of Christianity was subject to the “Jewish influence” as well. E.g.
I respect theistic evolutionists such as FCL
Well of course, you like him, he believes the same thing you do as far as evolution goes. There's no nobiblity in that.
And your argument against atheism is interesting, but of course, it makes my case, not yours. First, it admits that evolution supports atheism, or is consistent with it. It then goes on to make bogus comparisons to heliocentrism (actually, theologically, that makes more sense than geocentrism, if you take the sun to represent God) and suffering. This argument sounds eloquent, but it's really just a collection of poor analogies that lead to non-sequiturs. But I am glad that it admits that there is a link between evolution and atheism.
It's second point is a nice straw man, since no one here has said that evolution is on the slippery slope to atheism, son that paragraph is just having an argument with some mythical opponent.
But as usual, evolutionists have to miss the simple argument and cloud it with sophistry. The contention is simple. Evolution, while it may be consistent with "theistic evolution", does not require God, but rather, is embraced by most as a purely materialistic, atheistic process. Atheists love it, hence the Dawkins quote which you failed to address directly. This fact makes it appealing to anti-religious bigots, including atheistic totalitarian systems. Is this the fault of Darwin? No. Does this make evolution evil? No. Does its easy incorporation into such evil systems of thought make it suspicious? Absolutely.
Moral neutrality is not an option for living organisms that generally have to consider life worth living lest they fail to survive.
I need some clarification of what you mean by this statement. As it stands, I am having trouble making sense of it. When you say “living organisms have to consider life worth living,” are you confusing survival instinct with a sense of morality? Again, survival of the fittest, as a concept, is not right or wrong.
Darwinian reasoning is a perversion in the first place that typically relies on a pollution of language combined with imagining things about the past.
Ad hominem.
“If not divine selection, then that’s evidence for natural selection.”
Not at all. It’s not evidence for natural selection. One simply can’t prove the former and there are mountains of evidence for the latter.
There is indeed something moral and immoral about things living and dying and different rates of survival.
Morality is a human construct and not applicable to wild animals any more so than is calling an earthquake immoral because it was responsible for the death of thousands.
It’s the organism that selects based on its own nature and form of sentience within Nature. It is interesting that you keep making use of the fact that organisms are sentient, selecting and living/surviving things within Nature, if only to deny it in favor of some inane notion of “natural selection” in which an inanimate Nature supposedly “selects” for the animate.
Your equating limited sentience with morality. The presence of one does not necessitate the presence of the other. The concept of “inanimate nature” playing a large role in the “natural selection” of sentient animals is neither difficult or inane. Why doesn’t anyone live in Death Valley?
I’d say that the hypothetical alien had something to do with the hypothetical people, wouldn’t you?
You could have just said the hypothetical alien was Hitler. And yes indeed, Hitler had something to do with the Nazis but his perversion of “survival of the fittest” was a perversion because it was not “natural selection” in which an inanimate Nature selects for the animate.
Do you think that a writer will not be held to account by the creative Spirit of all metaphoric likeness or that their metaphoric excrement is not their “fault”?
Of course I don’t. The Spartans practiced infanticide (survival of the fittest) long before Darwin. Can Darwin be held accountable for the Spartans as well? No! So, your argument is meaningless. Also, the Spartans perverted the concept exactly the way the Nazis did after them, “life unworthy of life”. It was not “natural selection” it was eugenics. Do you see the difference between practicing eugenics and making the observation that in nature, the fittest survive? I do.
You’ve cited arguments and opinions but not historical evidence.
This is exactly what I think about your attacks on Darwin and natural selection. You have no evidence to support your creationist perspective so you resort to attacking Darwinian thinking. This is bigotry. All you need to prove to the world that Darwin was wrong is a homo sapiens fossil from the era of the dinosaurs. If you creationists had anything like this I am sure you would let the scientific community know. But you don’t and your position is weak. So, you create these long posts filled with sophistry and little substance.
I need some clarification of what you mean by this statement. As it stands, I am having trouble making sense of it. When you say “living organisms have to consider life worth living,” are you confusing survival instinct with a sense of morality? Again, survival of the fittest, as a concept, is not right or wrong.
It has been documented that the sentience of humans has an impact on their survival in various ways, and that’s the same sense and sentience by which we consider, measure and “value” things right and wrong. I’m not confusing a survival instinct with a sense of morality, it can be observed that human sentience and sense has an impact on survival. Typically what is missing from Darwinian “reasoning” or imagining is the organism and biology itself, so I will simply refer you back to it. Again, survival of the fittest is laden with morality given that even Darwin admitted that organisms “struggle” to survive. The notion that different rates reproduction lead to “evolution” or higher forms of life emerging from lower forms is laden with morality and values just as the notion of “natural selection” is weighed down with the Darwinian creation myth based on inane logic such as: “If not divine selection, then natural selection…”
Ad hominem.
I can attack Darwinian reasoning as a perversion all I like and it is not an ad homenim. It is a perversion based on an inversion that exchanges the freedom of thinking through biology philosophically for the mental retardation of a proto-Nazi form of “biological thinking.” As for the notion that Darwinian reasoning is often based on imagining things about the past that is not an ad hominem either, it is a provable fact. So I could clog this blog with examples of such imaginings. Perhaps I should, yet I wouldn’t want to overwhelm you. For it seems that you are easily overwhelmed.
Not at all. It’s not evidence for natural selection. One simply can’t prove the former and there are mountains of evidence for the latter.
One cannot prove any selection in the same sense that one proves a “natural” unfolding of physical events, your own supposed selections included. Yet you still expect to be treated as a sentient being that is making selections and there are also various lines of evidence by which selection can be inferred even in an unfolding of physical events (i.e. programming), it is just not direct physical proof of the intelligence that programmed the events based on a logical if/then structure. The ironic thing about any demand for direct physical proof and the like is that without the sentience there to sense it as such it doesn’t matter as “proof” anyway. Yet with the sentience there and admitted to as such, that opens the door to claims of hallucination, misunderstanding, (Well, what about all these people over here who see things differently?) etc.
As for there being mountains of evidence for things living and dying at different rates, of course there is. But is there overwhelming evidence that different rates of reproduction are a physical mechanism that “selects” for higher forms of life to emerge from lower, naturally? Well, go on…overwhelm me! When I make a claim about evidence or “proof” I have things in mind with which I can back it up. E.g., I can clog this blog with examples of Darwinian reasoning being full of imagining things about the past. So go ahead, what is the overwhelming evidence that “natural selection” has and will “select” for higher forms of life to emerge from the lower?
Morality is a human construct and not applicable to wild animals any more so than is calling an earthquake immoral because it was responsible for the death of thousands.
Humans are animals, trying to make use of a sort of alienation from Nature by human intelligence and sentience while also denying human intelligence, selection and the role of the selections of organisms against Nature or a chain of physical events that would unfold if left to the “natural” is a half-witted form of reasoning. I.e., on the one hand you make use of the sapience and sentience of Homo sapiens to claim that they can construct things within Nature by their own sort of nature and yet on the other insist that all animals are governed by “natural selection” that comports with “naturalism.” Note that from our perspective the results of earthquakes typically are a natural evil, anyone that cannot admit that is dead in the head. On another note, earthquakes are evidence for catastrophism and the evidence clearly indicates a record of great catastrophism and cataclysm throughout the earth’s geologic history, not one of uniformitarianism in which an infinitely slow process has the time to “select” things. Instead, things are always one so-called “selection” away from extinction at a much larger scale than the sort of processes described based on natural selection, which was based on a false view of geologic history when it came to the way that Darwin applied it. (It was first developed by a creationist as a way of explaining the degeneration of things.)
Your equating limited sentience with morality.
Just as every sentence you write here entails some notion or definition of right and wrong an organism’s sentience leads to an awareness of right and wrong.
The presence of one does not necessitate the presence of the other.
Yes it does, everyone who is sentient has a sense of right and wrong. If you disagree with me about that then you’ve only offered one more bit of evidence of it, given that you consider me wrong based on some sense of right and wrong that is bound up in your sentience.
The concept of “inanimate nature” playing a large role in the “natural selection” of sentient animals is neither difficult or inane.
I didn’t say that. The context was the blanket denial by Darwinists that it is organisms that have a role in their own selections and the attempt to reduce their selections and sentience to the inanimate. Of course the inanimate has a “large role” in the selections of organisms, but it does not actually select anything unless we blur, pollute or change the very definitions of animate and inanimate. You see how Darwinism is based on the pollution of language and how the reasoning works towards blurring the distinctions and definitions of words and information. It is only fitting that it does so, given that in Darwinian theory anything that you can imagine fits the evidence, although in fact it does not.
Do you see the difference between practicing eugenics and making the observation that in nature, the fittest survive? I do.
It’s false and half-witted notion that people can generally believe as “truth”(evolution) one thing while living by another (a Christian ethic or some form of transcendence such as Natural Law, etc. Therefore what people take as true becomes what they act on. Take for example Darwin’s projection of the ruthless form of economics typical the Industrial Revolution onto Nature:
(War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race
by Edwin Black :12-13)(Emphasis added)
Another variant of scientism:
(The German Churches Under
Hitler: Backround, Struggle, and Epilogue
by Ernst Helmreich
(Detriot: Wayne State Univ. Press, 1979) :303)
It seems that combined with German higher criticism and the like it was the Darwinian creation myth and the suitability of Darwinian imagining for the Christian apostates of the West that undermined the Church. It is likely that a few of the frauds of Darwinism like Haeckel’s embryos, Piltdown, etc., made the effect of its perversion more “overwhelming.” It is worthwhile to consider what you’d think about things if you lived at the time and were subjected to it all. Note that the German church once again had to go back to the Bible in the end, at least for a short time:
(The German Churches Under Hitler: Background, Struggle and Epilogue
by Ernst Christian Helmreich
Reviewed by Arthur A. Preisinger
Church History, Vol. 49, No. 3. (Sep., 1980) :347)
You often go back to and rely on distinction and differences that you’ve already denied given Darwinian reasoning. For instance, given Darwinian reasoning there is no difference between the subject/organism and the object/Nature, animate/inanimate, etc. Instead, it has been blurred away based on the pollution of language and so the perversion of thought itself. Little wonder that people seem to have minds that exist only in their imaginations. Those that practiced eugenics saw no difference between what they observed in Nature and what they did because eventually Christian apostates lack the view of the world or worldview by which they can have a perspective to judge what is observed in Nature. You seem to be one of those that is still playing pretend that there is some perspective such as Christian ethics or Natural Law that is totally divorced from science/evolution/”truth” that is really just a personal view, illusion or fiction, yet we still can or “ought” to go against natural selection and unity with what is observed in Nature. The fact is that if your own view of the world truly succeeds among Christian apostates in the West and the like then the historical evidence shows that people will begin to live by it in political and public life. I.e., it will be taken to be the factual and that which governs political/public life while personal faith/fictions will be relegated to private life before disappearing. It is an inexorable truth that sentient beings want to believe that what they believe is true. That is their selection, naturally, while interwoven in all their selections is a sense of morality. You are playing pretend when you try to pretend that is not the case.
This is exactly what I think about your attacks on Darwin and natural selection. You have no evidence to support your creationist perspective so you resort to attacking Darwinian thinking. This is bigotry.
No, some fellows have been claiming here how overwhelmed they are by Darwinism and “evolution”, so of course it should be pointed out to you that imagining things about the past is not actually evidence and so on. As for arguments and opinions vs. actual historical evidence, misinformed opinion was for the most part exactly what you were citing when it came to Nazism as you seem to well know given your shift away from that and back to Darwinian imaginings about ancient history and the supposed mystical powers lurking in differential rates of reproduction. As far as claims about Nazism I’ll take reading what the Nazis actually said, wrote and did over the opinion of some theologian trying to make some moral point to Christians any day, whether the theologian is conservative or liberal. They hardly ever seem to know what they’re talking about anyway. Some of them are clearly just plain ignorant in this case as well, as generally people are not motivated by “centuries of hate” because most have no sense of history anyway. Generally the mob is lost in the moment and it is the theologian or the scholar that has a sense of history. So perhaps they’re projecting that onto the general public and then making claims about the centuries again. I’ll ask you again, what Christian public do you think that there was in the Weimar Republic?
All you need to prove to the world that Darwin was wrong is a homo sapiens fossil from the era of the dinosaurs.
You’re wrong about that. What do you think about the latest find of possible red blood cells in a T. Rex bone? That ought to keep the Darwinian myth makers busy for a bit. But only a bit, as given the original degenerate epistemic standard that they adhere to of: “If I can imagine a little story about that, then that’s evidence for evolution or somethin’.” they can work wonders with their own hypothetical goo.
You are ignorant of the facts, as artifacts that are anomalous to the Darwinian creation myth have been found in nearly every “era.”
Examples:
Precambrian, site: Ottosdalin, South Africa, item: grooved metallic sphere
Precambrian, site: Dorchester Mass., item: metal vase
Cambrian, site: Antelope Spring, Utah, item: shoe print
Devonian, site: Kingoodie Quarry Scotland, item: iron nail in stone
Carboniferous, site: Macoupin, Illinois, item: human skeleton as well as site: Rockcastle County in Kentucky, item: humanlike footprints
And so on, see: (The Hidden History of the Human Race
by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson)
There are block walls in beds of coal, etc.etc. There is more that is anomalous to the Darwinian creation myth as well in various fields dealing with history, prehistoric times and the like. E.g., Egyptologists finding holes drilled through granite in the pyramids that an engineer tells them would take a drill spinning at thousands of RPM. But you can believe that some egyptian sat there spinning and spinning a copper tool to drill through solid granite in the supposed Copper Age if you like.
If you creationists had anything like this I am sure you would let the scientific community know.
And I suppose that you suppose that the thanks that one would get from proto-Nazis would make it all worth while? Or perhaps the Old Press would be pleased to report that the Darwinian creation myth that they seem so desperate to prop up is annihilated by lines of evidence of all sorts?
But you don’t and your position is weak. So, you create these long posts filled with sophistry and little substance.
It is not sophistry to clearly state what people are doing, i.e. imagining little stories about the past and shaping the evidence to fit instead of looking at the actual historical evidence as it is and going from there.
There is more evidence, all of it can supposedly be explained away if one agrees to the original degenerate epistemic standard of including your own imagination as evidence. Sometimes I find myself agreeing to the standard because the little stories are entertaining. Too bad that you didn’t even want to try to imagine a little story about the copulatory organ of the male dragon fly. It is not bait, biology is full of such instances. Apparently you are overwhelmed by people who choose the easiest things to merge together out of millions and millions of types of organisms (“Say, this looks a little like that or somethin’…well, I ought to imagine a little story about it doing so then!”), sometimes choosing to arrange the environment in a sequential way (aquatic, semi-aquatic, etc.) in order to make imagining things a little easier while quickly becoming overwhelmed by their own imaginations about the past.
So when they come across an iron nail in a bed of fossils that according to the myth in their mind must not be there it is easier to cast it aside or to imagine a little story about it too, difficult as that may be.
I rewrote that comment here.
It still needs a little polish just as the original version above did but I don’t have time. If you want to debate the evidence then by all means, debate it. But first know what it is, the charlatans of talk.origins are a bit unreliable. They’re still just getting over Haeckel’s frauds, and they can hardly bring themselves to do that. Their urge to merge is shaping their view of embryos and the womb, don’t you know, as they’d merge themselves right into the womb of Mommy Nature if the human spirit that they have would let them. Maybe humans have to be born again because you’ve hardly even been born the first time, so break out the waters of baptism and all that…
When you say “living organisms have to consider life worth living,” are you confusing survival instinct with a sense of morality?
It has been documented that the sentience of humans has an impact on their survival in various ways, and that’s the same sense and sentience by which we consider, measure and “value” things right and wrong. I’m not confusing a survival instinct with a sense of morality, it can be observed that human sentience and sense has an impact on survival.
Yes, yes of course this is true of humans. But, you said “living organisms” which encompasses humans and everything else alive. The question is one of sentience, meaning consciousness. Without it, there is only survival instinct. The only animals that we are sure think “life is worth living” are ourselves. This is why morality is a human construct. You believe morality is divine? That’s why it’s not science, but religion or philosophy. This is why science itself is not moral or immoral, though it’s application can be. You are trying to apply morality where it can’t apply and it fails; “The notion that different rates reproduction lead to “evolution” or higher forms of life emerging from lower forms is laden with morality and values.”
I can attack Darwinian reasoning as a perversion all I like and it is not an ad homenim. It is a perversion based on an inversion that exchanges the freedom of thinking through biology philosophically for the mental retardation of a proto-Nazi form of “biological thinking.”
Yet you didn’t address the point I made about the Spartans practice of “life unworthy of life” long before evolution. The correct terminology would be that the Spartans were the actual proto-Nazis. Characterizing Darwin’s reasoning as such, laying all blame or credit squarely upon his shoulders, is indeed ad homenim. I keep coming back to this conclusion but “survival of the fittest” can be described as pragmatic but not immoral. Darwin observes that it is usually the weak or sick animal that dies and you leap to mental retardation of a proto-Nazi form of “biological thinking.”
For it seems that you are easily overwhelmed.
Is that what you think? What is overwhelming is the volume of material you present that I disagree with. You claim you can “clog this blog.” I don’t doubt it.
So go ahead, what is the overwhelming evidence that “natural selection” has and will “select” for higher forms of life to emerge from the lower?
The existence of homologous features in animals as evidenced by the fossil record. For example Osteichthyes, an ancient boney fish.
You often go back to and rely on distinction and differences that you’ve already denied given Darwinian reasoning. For instance, given Darwinian reasoning there is no difference between the subject/organism and the object/Nature, animate/inanimate, etc.
I.e., on the one hand you make use of the sapience and sentience of Homo sapiens to claim that they can construct things within Nature by their own sort of nature and yet on the other insist that all animals are governed by “natural selection” that comports with “naturalism.”
This is true. Morality is a construct (that we know of) unique to humans. Would you say that lemmings have a sense of morality? They would all go to hell anyway since they commit the sin of suicide. And wouldn’t animals having sentience and morality entail the presence of a soul? I would say that humans are still greatly influenced by natural selection though we have a capacity for sentience, which other animals lack, that empowers mankind to manipulate nature.
It is an inexorable truth that sentient beings want to believe that what they believe is true.
Little wonder that people seem to have minds that exist only in their imaginations.
It’s a two sided coin, you think this of evolutions and they think it of creationists. The science pertaining to the origin of species has changed in the last 2000 years. The biblical creation myth (genesis) has not really. At least scientific minds can be changed. It is much tougher to change the mind of the religious, hence unreasonable, creationist.
An organism’s sentience leads to an awareness of right and wrong.
I think we disagree on the word “sentience.” I equate sentience with consciousness. When you use the word organism, it encapsulates all animals, even the amoeba. Are you saying that an ameba’s actions are based upon its sentience and morality and not pure instinct? If so, this is an example of “half-witted” reasoning.
Those that practiced eugenics saw no difference between what they observed in Nature and what they did because eventually Christian apostates lack the view of the world or worldview by which they can have a perspective to judge what is observed in Nature.
Everyone who lived before Christ and everyone who is and ever was is a non Christian is a Christian apostate. Though these people may not have abandoned Christianity per se, it makes no difference since they were never exposed to Christian ideals in the first place. You are saying all these billions have/had too narrow a world view to judge what they see in nature? Crazy! Had you not included “Christian apostates” and left it as “those who practice eugenics” it would have made more sense.
You seem to be one of those that is still playing pretend that there is some perspective such as Christian ethics or Natural Law that is totally divorced from science/evolution/”truth”
I am not pretending. Christian ethics, specifically Christian morality, should be totally divorced from science/evolution/truth AKA the scientific method. This is what the method was created to avoid: the “perversion of thought itself.”
As for arguments and opinions vs. actual historical evidence, misinformed opinion was for the most part exactly what you were citing when it came to Nazism as you seem to well know given your shift away from that and back to Darwinian imaginings about ancient history
I said that the Nazis perverted Christianity and cited examples. I thought you agreed. It’s not a shift. Also, the Spartans and Nazis have eugenics in common so you couldn’t apply Darwin to the Spartans. Is it an accident that the Ku Klux Klan so immersed with both Christianity and Nazism? They too have perverted Christianity right? I think so.
I’ll ask you again, what Christian public do you think that there was in the Weimar Republic?
Why don’t you educate me? Was there or was there not a Christian public when Nazism was on the rise in Germany?
What do you think about the latest find of possible red blood cells in a T. Rex bone?
I would ask, are there possible conditions that took place in order for the red blood cells to be preserved. I would ask, is this enough to prove the dinosaur died (relatively) recently? Do you think so?
You are ignorant of the facts, as artifacts that are anomalous to the Darwinian creation myth have been found in nearly every “era.”
Your reply from this point on down is a cop out and you do exactly as I said you would, impugn evolution. Your reasoning; oh, there is lots of evidence for a 6000 year old Earth, species popping up out of nowhere etc. but the proto-Nazi scientists won’t listen to reason because they are trapped within their imaginations. You think it’s all just a big world wide, century long, conspiracy. No wonder it’s near impossible to take creationists seriously. Creationists assume non creationists are witless automatons. “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.”
Too bad that you didn’t even want to try to imagine a little story about the copulatory organ of the male dragon fly.
You could just say “penis.” In that future, please keep brevity in mind. I ask this as a courtesy because I am spending too much time reading through all you have to say and replying to it. You are overwhelming me with your wordiness. Please, I am not trying to get out of responding to you in any way; it’s just that I honestly want to give you a well thought out reply. My reply here is already three pages long and imagining a little story about the copulatory organ of the male dragon fly would be a conversation worth another 3 pages on top of this. Okay? Peace be with you Mynym.
Yes, yes of course this is true of humans. But, you said “living organisms” which encompasses humans and everything else alive. The question is one of sentience, meaning consciousness. Without it, there is only survival instinct. The only animals that we are sure think “life is worth living” are ourselves. This is why morality is a human construct.
The same observations that I referred to can be made of animals with the only lacking observation being a direct observation of their subjective experience of their form of sentience, sapience and intelligence.
This is why science itself is not moral or immoral, though it’s application can be. You are trying to apply morality where it can’t apply and it fails..
All scientia/knowledge relies on sentience, and sentience entails a sense of right and wrong, historically the notion that there is a form of knowledge/scientia that sentient beings can have that is not moral or immoral has lead to scientism, the eugenics movement, Nazism, etc. That is why above when you made argument of the same structure based on the myth of moral neutrality the words of Nazis, eugenicists and so on run in parallel, as they argued for the same foundation.
Your reply from this point on down is a cop out…
Don’t think I’m going to go off and chase red herrings now, my friend. No, you made an assertion about actual evidence of some type that can be falsified or verified, and it is one that can be proven to be falsified time and again. To make matters worse when it comes to your claims it was woven into yet another unjustified attack against creationists, those attacks that you seem capable of pulling out of thin air with no evidence cited, no texts cited and no claims verified. The claim divorced of from that context:All you need to prove to the world that Darwin was wrong is a homo sapiens fossil from the era of the dinosaurs.
Well, there are artifacts that indicate enough use of technology to infer that they are the work of homo sapiens that have been found in such eras. For that matter, at least some homo sapien fossils have been found in the same supposed “era of the dinosaurs.” Using your attacks against creationists as a red herring now does not hide the fact that your own terms were met and that your own claims lack substance, as is proven by the lack of evidence cited. I can back up my claims about Darwinists imagining things by citing texts written by Darwinists just as I can back up my claims about Nazism by citing what they wrote, said and did, perhaps combining historical sources such as newspapers of the day, etc. In contrast, it seems that you continually fail to back up claims about creationists that ought to be easy to prove and instead just make more and more! Which creationists attack science and where is the textual record of such attacks? What creationists claim that there is a “worldwide conspiracy” among scientists? Cite them, lest one assume that you are referring to ignorant bigotry or the specious charlatanism of talk.origins as all the evidence you need for such claims. There is a structure of argument that is typical to bigots or charlatans in which one is supposed to simply assume that an assertion is true as they shift away from the evidence, so I demand proof. Take one of your latest claims:”You think it’s all just a big world wide, century long, conspiracy. No wonder it’s near impossible to take creationists seriously. Creationists assume non creationists are witless automatons.”
So prove it. That is a provable claim, probably much easier to prove than historical claims about Nazism. There are probably plenty of texts to refer to. As to claims about what I have written I know that I didn’t claim that there is or was a worldwide conspiracy anywhere. And I typically claim that the Herd merges and runs together naturally enough.
On the topic, it seems that there is an interesting contrast between you and Ronald Numbers:”If you read their literature, you’ll rarely come across an anti-scientific notion. They love science.”
Emphasis added…because you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about when it comes to creationists. If you had knowledge even of a minimal and marginal sort then your arguments would be of this structure: “At least this one creationists here said this. So as you can see my case is proven!”
I don’t expect much of the Darwinian mind and so I don’t expect that you will live by your own evidential terms and claims, as they seem to be quite imaginary. E.g., “If human fossils were found in the same era as the dinosaurs then it would all be so obvious that creationists would have proven their case! Such fossils don’t exist, which is why creationists are dummies or somethin’.” But such fossils have been found a number of times, so then in theory the mind that is met on its own terms will say: “Very well, now that the terms that I set have been met I’ll change my entire view of the world!” Well, not exactly, not if it has made its mind up to be in rebellion against some forms of wit/knowledge. So instead you are still trying to prop up the claim that creationists are paranoid, ignorant or stupid, etc., which is ironic given your apparent ignorance of basic facts combined with apparent paranoias about creationists.
Okay? Peace be with you Mynym.
Don’t pretend that you have softened up that much even as you weave various attacks against creationists and I into the same comment. It seems that some fellows attack and then say “Be at peace…uh, please!?”
At any rate, I’m not attacking you yet. Just cite me the text that backs up your claims, assertions and attacks. I can and will do the same for my claims, perhaps even including the notion that some within the Herd may be conspiring when it comes to the evidence and access to it. Conspiracy? But of course, you didn’t know?
What a bunch of charlatans, liars and moral degenerates, I say! Ummm, be at peace Cineaste. Peace out!
The same observations that I referred to can be made of animals with the only lacking observation being a direct observation of their subjective experience of their form of sentience, sapience and intelligence.
All scientia/knowledge relies on sentience, and sentience entails a sense of right and wrong, historically the notion that there is a form of knowledge/scientia that sentient beings can have that is not moral or immoral has lead to scientism, the eugenics movement, Nazism, etc.
We will have to disagree here. Though it is impossible to “know” through direct observation the subjective experience of other organisms, I believe one can safely infer that something like an ant has neither morality nor the level of sentience required for morality. An ant’s “struggle” to survive is therefore instinctual and not morality driven. Humans, being both sentient and moral animals, have the ability choose to suppress their instincts. A priest can choose to live a life of celibacy for example. An ant (queen) can never choose celibacy. The instinct to perpetuate her species drives her in all cases. So, the process of “the fittest surviving” is laced with no morality except the morality humans apply to it. In short, I think what you are trying to argue is that because animals “struggle to survive” they must have a sense of right or wrong (morality) to make decisions. I disagree, some animals (the highest forms) have a sense, a consciousness/sentience, of right and wrong and others don’t. Those that don’t, “struggle” because they have an instinct to do so. Spiders don’t take engineering classes to weave their webs just so; its instinct i.e. no morality involved. Let’s move on.
No, you made an assertion about actual evidence of some type that can be falsified or verified, and it is one that can be proven to be falsified time and again.
Alright, I’ll do my best to address each item in your list. Just know that I have never heard of any of these, so when you accuse me of being ignorant of evidence creationists use to prop up creationism, you are correct. I’ll have to google every one. I won’t read creationist articles because they are self interested and at the same time I won’t look at scientific publications as you may make the same claim.
1. Precambrian, site: Ottosdalin, South Africa, item: grooved metallic sphere
Your search – Precambrian site Ottadalen South Africa item grooved metallic sphere – did not match any documents.
2.Precambrian, site: Dorchester Mass., item: metal vase
The only thing even close I found was this site Ancient mysteries The explanations they posit are far fetched like aliens and multiple universes.
3. Cambrian, site: Antelope Spring, Utah, item: shoe print
In fact, it is nothing more than a slab of Wheeler shale that has a fragment spalled off in the form of a footprint, which reveals a trilobite, Erathia kingi. To fully appreciate that fact, which has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, you should read Conrad’s account.
4. Devonian, site: Kingoodie Quarry Scotland, item: iron nail in stone
My search didn’t turn up much except to confirm a nail was found there in a rock. Ththweb
5. Carboniferous, site: Macoupin, Illinois, item: human skeleton as well as site: Rockcastle County in Kentucky, item: humanlike footprints
Google turned up one referrence to this and it was a Christian site.
Well, you can’t say I didn’t do due diligence. I’ll be honest with you, I got the impression this sort of “evidence” is of the same quality as the image of the Virgin Mary appearing as a stain under a highway bridge being “evidence” for her existence. It’s tenuous at best and that Meister print was an outright hoax like Piltdown man. You slammed me for saying that scientists had a conspiracy against creationists. You called my assertion a red herring. Very well, if there is no conspiracy and this evidence is solid, then it should be accepted, at least in some areas, of the world’s scientific community. Of the few sites that had anything to say about this evidence, the vast majority were young earth creationist sites. There were no newspaper or magazine articles. That is telling.
I don’t expect much of the Darwinian mind and so I don’t expect that you will live by your own evidential terms and claims, as they seem to be quite imaginary.
Mynym, if you have the time I would like to ask what you think about this article. You may disagree but I thought it an excellent exchange. I felt that the creationist was the one imagining things. They really got into the details, which I don’t care to do anymore, due to the wild goose chase you led me on and for the same reasons Steven Schafersman gives.
So instead you are still trying to prop up the claim that creationists are paranoid, ignorant or stupid, etc., which is ironic given your apparent ignorance of basic facts combined with apparent paranoias about creationists.
Some creationists are very intelligent, articulate and well read. This is where I think they cross the line from ignorance to full blown delusion. You have made it clear that you feel as much about evolutionists. In fact, you think of them like Nazis.
Don’t pretend that you have softened up that much even as you weave various attacks against creationists and I into the same comment.
I was hesitant to include this as I knew I would catch hell for it. Maybe it was deserved because it sounds patronizing. Please understand I didn’t mean it so. My experience has been with Seeker that the longer conversations like these go on, the more they tend to degenerate into insults. It was my attempt, admittedly a poor one at that, to “soften” things, as you say. Anyway, please use the Steven Schafersman article as my “evidence” and rebuttal to many of the creationist attacks on evolution. My response is longer than I wanted, so sorry for that as well.
Bump so that this does not get lost until Mynym responds.
…its instinct i.e. no morality involved. Let’s move on.
I edit that because you want to move on. We will have to disagree, as it seems you cannot agree that morality is often intuitive, i.e. instinct.
Alright, I’ll do my best to address each item in your list. […] I’ll have to google every one. I won’t read creationist articles because they are self interested and at the same time I won’t look at scientific publications as you may make the same claim. (Emphasis added)
There you have it. Nothing more really need be said because you have consistently relied on arguments and claims based on ignorance and bigotry throughout this dialogue. I do read what Darwinians say as such and so on. Those are the arguments about the evidence that I use as the material of satire: “If I can imagine a little story about this, then it is so.” In contrast, if you come across a source that is Christian then you don’t even look at it. E.g., “Google turned up one referrence to this and it was a Christian site.” What is it that you’re expecting, the Darwinian mind to disagree with itself? Of course it is going to be Christians, Jews, Muslims, UFO kooks, etc., that tend to disagree with the Darwinian creation myth. It’s as if you turn away from every sort of person that disagrees with you about what happened in the past and then insist that there is no other perspective, no evidence against what you believe and that you are “overwhelmed” by the supposed truth of your own narrow perspective.
I may be able to verify some references further, yet it seems that if they are not Darwinian then you will turn away from the evidence anyway. And if you follow the memes of talk.origins further then if they are from Darwinists then you will probably assert the old canard that is so typical to those with the urge to merge about supposed “quote mining.” It’s not clear what half-wits expect when it comes to that, given that their standard for evidence seems to be Darwinians disagreeing with themselves it will always be that a fellow half-wit can go back to the Darwinist that made a heretical comment about the evidence to say, “But you really believe in the Darwinian creation myth, don’t you?” So then with a furrowed brow and perhaps a little tension in their voice the other half-wit replies, “Of course I do! I’m no heretic. It’s just those ID types and creationists quote mining again, I says!” Etc. There is an added layer to heresy hunting these days given that the definition and testability brought by being really defined by the symbols and signs of text is lost on those with the urge to merge, thus claims of “quote mining” are not surprising.
At any rate, who is it that you think is going to disagree with the Darwinian mind if not Christians and others?
1. Precambrian, site: Ottosdalin, South Africa, item: grooved metallic sphere
Your search – Precambrian site Ottadalen South Africa item grooved metallic sphere – did not match any documents.
Here is one, but I’m not really attached to this supposed evidence or ideas about it. It is shades of the canals on Mars and so on. However, I wouldn’t begin including my own imagination as evidence either. I.e., I can imagine natural ways that such an object can come to be formed much easier than say the origin of Life and so on, yet that does not mean that my own imagination is sufficient evidence or is the default answer that all must agree to without any testing. If I can imagine a way that a physical object can be formed then I ought to test the hypothesis out physically. At any rate, in the interest of brevity…
2.Precambrian, site: Dorchester Mass., item: metal vase
The only thing even close I found was this site Ancient mysteries The explanations they posit are far fetched like aliens and multiple universes.
Far fetched? I suppose it is going quite far to posit multiple universes and yet scientists themselves seem to do so naturally enough, often enough. One is left wondering just how natural all these hypothetical universes are or if calling some a form of heavenly worlds of the Forms and others levels of hell in which our form of sentience can emerge to be born again would be religion and not “science” again. I.e., which areas of knowledge are our self-defined Policemen of Knowledge capable of policing?
As for the item, there were many such reports before the Darwinian creation myth became established and so you probably won’t be able to find much. The full report:
(The Hidden History of the Human Race
by Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson :106-107)
3. Cambrian, site: Antelope Spring, Utah, item: shoe print
In fact, it is nothing more than a slab of Wheeler shale that has a fragment spalled off in the form of a footprint, which reveals a trilobite, Erathia kingi. To fully appreciate that fact, which has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, you should read Conrad’s account.
Unfortunately I simply cited the beginning of an index of evidence drawn from Hidden History, so the ambiguity of some of it will allow you to more easily reject everything as false pattern recognition and so on. I should note that I’m not really writing for you because you don’t even believe in reading what ID types, creationists or UFO kooks or anyone else disagreeing with Darwinism write. It seems that you cannot deal with the evidence they find or reading their perspective and view on the evidence anyway. Instead, you seem to be sitting about waiting for Darwinians to disagree with Darwinism. Ironically, given the inane nature of the Darwinian creation myth they sometimes do just that but most of the time they do not and instead engage in imagining things about the evidence again. E.g., when a hominid fossil does not comport with their creation myth they imagine that a deer stepped on it and then they break it apart and arrange things the “right” way.
On the other side I am indeed left with some crackpots, kooks and so on who stand outside the paradigm. They may sometimes imagine that a pattern is an image of something when it is not. Yet when the paradigm itself is made up of people who are breaking apart the actual evidence to make it fit to their imaginings about the past then I feel more comfortable with the occasional crackpot on my side that imagines something “odd” about the evidence. There is a difference between pattern/image creation and pattern recognition. Note that one is capable of having false positives while the other is not, yet the original degenerate epistemic standard that is often set by Darwinists relies is a case of pattern/image creation: “If I can imagine a little story about the past about that, then that is evidence of how it came to be.”
4. Devonian, site: Kingoodie Quarry Scotland, item: iron nail in stone
My search didn’t turn up much except to confirm a nail was found there in a rock. Ththweb
You can’t exactly trust the web either. But in the interest of brevity…
I’ll be honest with you, I got the impression this sort of “evidence” is of the same quality as the image of the Virgin Mary appearing as a stain under a highway bridge being “evidence” for her existence.
For one thing, there is evidence that Mary existed. It is worth thinking about what evidence exists to this day because it illustrates just how easy it is for an organism to recede into the dust without a trace. In fact, without there being a great catastrophy resulting in fossilization that is most likely the typical way of things. But what evidence for the existence of Mary does exist, it’s textual in nature. The notion of text relies on a coding system and so on that often can be translated. It is the best conduit for information and the best way of saving information in a world in which forms with spirit and meaning travel from dust to dust. It is the best way of saving the meaning of forms that once were and the like, so information carried on through language is the best and perhaps the only remaining evidence for the existence of Mary. All else is actually more questionable than your original terms and reasoning about fossils made it seem. Things can always be questioned and the information drawn from fossils lends itself to questioning more easily than information saved in text and language.
It’s tenuous at best and that Meister print was an outright hoax like Piltdown man.
Again, there is a difference between false pattern recognition and the creation or setting a standard in which the continual imagination of imagery is common. As far as that print, I should note from the same source that their view on it was that it was weak: “…as evidence for a human presence in the distant past, is ambiguous.” (Ib. :120) As I said, I began by using the index of evidence that they include in the back of their book. I probably should have begun with cases that are not as ambiguous and then worked backward. I wasn’t thinking about it at the time.
You slammed me for saying that scientists had a conspiracy against creationists. You called my assertion a red herring. Very well, if there is no conspiracy and this evidence is solid, then it should be accepted, at least in some areas, of the world’s scientific community. Of the few sites that had anything to say about this evidence, the vast majority were young earth creationist sites.
I care little about whoever the world’s self-defined Policemen of Knowledge currently are and those who define themselves as the “scientific community” at the moment. The eugenicists were the scientific community of their day, with alchemists before them. It is not all history, as if that was then but science these days is in fact all fact. For instance, most paleanthropologists these days are little better than the phrenologists of old. The tell tale signs of the same forms of charlatanism that propped up mixtures of “knowledge” such as anthropology/phrenology/eugenics seems to begin to emanate from a community that begins with degenerate epistemic standards (as is the Darwinian way) and then falls down from there. Another sign of pseudo-science and pseudo-knowledge is when the “community” seems to be more interested in maintaining its professional identity than in seeking scientia/knowledge as such, thus charlatanism becomes more prevalent in such communities and those within it come to claim a knowledge of more than they know.
What “community” seems to be quite interested in maintaining its professional identity, often more than seeking knowledge as such these days? The pattern of it seems to bleed through in every other argument when it comes to the Darwinian creation myth that is fused to it: “Geologists may as well be truckdrivers if that is accurate knowledge. Geologists are scientists and not truckdrivers, therefore that cannot be accurate. Me scientist, so I know!” Or another: “ID is just creationism in a cheap tuxedo but we real scientists wear real expensive tuxedos when we go to our scientific conferences. That’s the way real science is.”
There were no newspaper or magazine articles. That is telling.
Telling of what? It may be that I can find what you cannot but it seems to me that what the Old Press decides to report on often says more about the Old Press than what is worth reporting on. In this case, perhaps on the one hand challenges to the Darwinian creation myth could be sensationalistic stories to report in some respects. Yet on the other the Old Press tends to be “liberal” and so it is biased towards propping up the Darwinian creation myth as it fits in with other myths. E.g., the myth that man has emerged from Nature as the measure of all things and is capable of progressive progress towards “saving the planet” (Why not the Cosmos while we’re at it.) and this sort of thing if only the power of the State of man is used correctly. In that myth the true state of man cannot be admitted to but the myth is amusing given that man will never be able to hold the planet in orbit, etc. Yet I meander, all I would say is that the Old Press has its own interests just as scientific charlatans who work with it to generate the illusion of knowledge and control do. An interesting note to bring things back to the issue at hand though, note the proliferation of paleoanthrolopologists making their name and establishing their professional identity through the Old Press with reports on supposed evidence of human origins. It seems that the degenerate nature of the scholarship of what amount to modern phrenologists matters little when it comes to propping up their professional identities as scientists and the like. The results of the need for some to prop themselves up as the Policemen of Knowledge in this case are that we seem to have many types of human ancestors, yet modern apes have virtually none. But it’s curious, is it not? Apparently many hominid fossils along the “hypothetical” human line of descent just happened to be preserved and yet there is virtually no evidence left for apes and their line of descent. A more cynical person might note that apes don’t read newspapers.
Mynym, if you have the time I would like to ask what you think about this article.
No time now.
…due to the wild goose chase you led me on…
I don’t feel bad for you, entering things into Google is a small thing compared to the number of Darwinian claims I’ve wound up researching. For that matter, I once debated a fellow who got his hand bitten by a spider when he was tracking down some old bit of knowledge at the library. I don’t know why you bother anyway. Again, you’ve already come to the narrow-minded position in which all you can accept as evidence is Darwinians disagreeing with Darwinism and so every challenge is met by an attack on the source for not being Darwinian. So you are left waiting for Darwinists to disagree with Darwinism, or perhaps you are also waiting for a vast change in the views of the current “scientific community,” the scientists that you seem to put far too much faith in. Those sorts of things are not going to happen very much and so your views and beliefs are set, even if they are based on an absurd foundations such as faith in scientists of the socialist sort.
Some creationists are very intelligent, articulate and well read. This is where I think they cross the line from ignorance to full blown delusion. You have made it clear that you feel as much about evolutionists. In fact, you think of them like Nazis.
Apparently you have too high an opinion of modern evolutionists and too low an opinion of Nazis as well as the whole “scientific” cultural milieu in which they existed that was based on the very same philosophic naturalism and demarcation arguments that you have been supporting. There were plenty of “nice” people who believed in the Nazi form of scientism just as today there are nice people that are the leading propenents of scientism these days who tend to fall into saying things that the Nazis said. I think that some are like Nazis because they are like Nazis. I have evidence in mind when I say that, so what evidence do you have in mind when you assert that creationists who are intelligent, articulate and well read must be delusional? You make many claims that echo with empty rhetoric. How do you know that they are delusional when you will not even read what they write?
Anyway, please use the Steven Schafersman article as my “evidence” and rebuttal to many of the creationist attacks on evolution. My response is longer than I wanted, so sorry for that as well.
Apparently I will need to read that article and if I am interested then I will use it eventually. Note that you are often relying upon reading only the critics of creationists and as you have argued you won’t even read what creationists write anyway. That’s why I cited Ronald Numbers from the original article saying something along the lines of: “Creationists respect science, as any reading of their literature clearly shows.” That’s because he’s read their literature while you clearly have not. It’s little wonder that you are repeating almost every canard that has ever been spouted by the charlatans of Darwinism these days given that all you seem capable of accepting are Darwinian attacks against creationism.
I still have to demand evidence and not just paranoid imaginings layered over imaginings, so cite leading creationists’ texts that portray the worldwide scientific community as a vast conspiracy and so on or cite them attacking science and so on. There are a number of claims that you made about creationists, yet you cite no evidence. I can cite evidence as to Darwinists imagining things to back up my claims or evidence on how Darwinism comported well with Nazism, yet your sweeping rhetorical claims are echoing with the fact that all you’ve done is read attacks on creationists and so you can’t seem to deal with the texts of leading creationists or ID types even though they are supposedly the very people you are referring to.
I began reading the article:
Your creationist website is filled with all the classic methods used by creationists: quotes out of context, misleading quotes, irrelevant quotes, out-of-date quotes, quotes of creationist pseudoscientists posing as scientists, quotes of legitimate scientists used misleadingly to support contentions they did not intend and that are not true…
Classic. It is so typical for those with the urge to merge to seek to avoid the definition that comes with text. This leads to the difference between the way physicists work with mathematics to define the trajectory of an object and so on while biologists claim to have a theory like natural selection which is "just like gravity" yet seem to feel that sitting around and imagining stories about how the adaptations that exist came to be is the epistemic equivalent of the predictive power of the theory of gravity. It's as if they believe that physicists sit around and predict where an object will fall based on the theory of gravity after it has already fallen. Here is a question, what trajectory of adaptation has been predicted for a group of organisms by the theory of natural selection and then verified to take place?
More classic drivel from a half-wit: I expected such an answer: creationists really desire to be taken seriously by others–in the same way they see themselves!
That's a projection of the fusing of the Darwinian creation myth with the professional identity of scientist soon to be combined with: "Me scientist, so I know!" bit. And then: "It is disingenuous for Mr. Anderson to want me to respond specifically to his creationist arguments, as if there was actually a controversy within science about the fact of evolution.
That means that the typical half-wit is about to respond with every tool of science at his disposal, to the best of his limited ability. If he ever gets into trouble with the science of things he'll begin murmuring that it is not a scientific issue at all and that forms of knowledge can be split apart into "religion" and "science."
And so on.
It's curious how arrogant little fellows with the urge to merge can get about knowledge given that they cannot even refrain from the pollution and blurring of language on their own terms. For instance, by evolution does he mean every change and unfolding of events that has ever taken place in the Cosmos or perhaps the fact that when you have some moths with dark wings and some with light and more light winged moths die than dark winged moths then there are more moths with dark wings. Ah, the vast explanatory powers of natural selection….it seems that it must seem like gravity to half-wits. Again, what unfolding of events and adaptation has been predicted by the theory of natural selection as expressed in the language of mathematics before one can just look at things and use language to make some claim about them.
These issues all bind together with the blind mind: "There is no such thing as essence." (The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution
by Richard Dawkins :308)
Yet back on page 35 even this half-wit that sets about trying to deny or minmize about half of all wit actually knows that things of the essence are essential. He places the recognition of the essential nature of things at the Great Leap forward in the Darwinian creation myth. Ironically he has enough sense left to be correct about that, as it is the essential that has much to do with the ingenuity, intelligent design and the application of knowledge typical to technology. Ironically if you take away all the creationists, the UFO kooks, etc., you would have virtually no technology and none of the actual application of scientia/knowledge to the ends of man.
For ironically, as Dawkins represents it in his little myth there, Dawkins would be one to react to the notion of insight about the nature of Nature with: "Well, anyone can just make things up! That's like a Flying Spaghetti Monster or somethin'." Etc.
But anyway, so that's the article that best represents you? Alright. I'll finish reading it later. It seems to be good material anyway.