Remember Ida? Formally dubbed Darwinius masillae, the cat-sized fossil was touted as the “missing link” between modern humans and their ancient primate ancestors.
'Missing Link' Fossil
News reports blared that the find would finally settle the debate between Darwinism and Religion, which was odd because I kept hearing that there was no debate; Evolution is accepted Law. So why we needed actual physical evidence was unclear to me.
The Press, in their efforts to outdo each other in the Best Supporting Journalist – Evolution category, described the fossil as “the eighth wonder of the world,” “the Holy Grail,” and “a Rosetta Stone.” I even read one article claiming we would finally be able to do away with Religion once and for all.
When Liberals start talking like this, I know all I have to do is wait. Disappointment has a way of souring hastily-made celebrations, and I knew it would eventually catch up with the Darwinist cheerleaders, too.
Well, the waiting is over. To borrow a line from a popular song from the 70′s, “another one bites the dust.”
Scientific American Magazine has published an article that summarizes recent criticisms of the earlier claims of Ida’s place in the line of human evolution. The critics’ arguments are quite convincing, as well. For one, Ida is too old to be the missing link. She is 47 million years old, while the earliest possible human ancestors are only 7 million years old. Ida also has features that do not appear in the line which allegedly became modern humans.
Robert Martin of the Field Museum in Chicago charges that some of the traits used to align Ida with the anthropoids do not in fact support such a relationship. Fusion of the lower jaw, for instance, is not present in the earliest unequivocal anthropoids, suggesting that it was not an ancestral feature of this group. Moreover, the trait has arisen independently in several lineages of mammals—including some lemurs—through convergent evolution. Martin further notes that Ida also lacks a defining feature of the anthropoids: a bony wall at the back of the eye socket. “I am utterly convinced that Darwinius has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of higher primates,” he declares.
We are still waiting for Darwinism to produce the “missing link.” In the meantime, I would recommend not holding one’s breath.
H/T to Post-Darwinist.
The creationist Trenton Hansen wrote “We are still waiting for Darwinism to produce the “missing link.” In the meantime, I would recommend not holding one’s breath.”
They are called paleontologists, not Darwinism.
“Missing links” is slang for fossils of transitional species. There’s numerous examples of these discoveries. If you weren’t so uneducated you would have known about them. For example the fossil record that describes the transition from land animals to whales is complete. Most of these priceless fossils have been discovered in the past 15 years.
What evolution deniers don’t understand is, while fossils are valuable because they help scientists learn about the history of life, fossils are not at all necessary to prove the basic facts of evolution. The evidence for evolution from molecular biology and genetics is many thousands of times more powerful than fossil evidence.
So go ahead and show off your ignorance about fossils all you want. Evolution has already been proven without fossils.
I love these generic, conspicuously non-specific references to “evidence” and “proof” that these guys always use, intermingled with insults of course (when you can’t win, insult), to sound educated and authoritative on matters about which they are totally ignorant.
bobxxx has a real knack for making vague references to “molecular biology,” insisting that “anyone who has studied molecular biology would know that…blah blah.” He accomplishes two things in this way:
1- He thinks he adds credence to his case by stating that anyone who is really educated knows better, with the added bonus (in his mind) of the implication that anyone who disagrees with him is totally uneducated and stupid.
2- He makes the strong suggestion that he is one such person who has studied molecular biology and is educated on the matter…but he carefully avoids actually saying that he is. His commentary is copied from any number of anti-religion pseudo-science rags that don’t actually have the mandate of acceptance by the real scientific world, and he conveniently ignores the points of debate that don’t support his assumptions.
Let me ask you this, bobxxx, since you’re so much more intelligent than an unevolved chimp like myself: If the point of evolution, according to Darwinist theory, is perpetuation of species by survival of the fittest, what sense would there be in evolving at all? Would it not be much easier for a species to remain as simple as possible rather than evolving into the complex, hard-to-maintain creatures that we humans are?
Further, how do you explain love? According to science, humans are the only species that experience such an emotion. Wouldn’t it be much easier for the species to survive if we were simply driven by reproductive instinct like the rest of the animal kingdom, and therefore, should we not have evolved into something more, well, primitive?
And how about that “spontaneous generation?” Got an explanation for that one yet? You’ve only had a few hundred years to try to put that one to bed. Talk about magic.
Oh Bob, you silly boy.
You sure do make some strong assumptions yourself, for example, that I am a creationist. In fact, I don’t believe in a seven-day creative period, at least, not the 24-hour days we currently experience.
My beliefs are much closer to Richard Dawkin’s idea of panspermia, with some differences.
I believe the Earth is probably closer to 255 billion years old which, according to the Theology I subscribe to, is the length of one Eternity.
As for your “missing links,” I am well aware of what some Darwinists claim are transitionary organisms. I am also well aware that there are questions that pose difficult obstacles to Darwinism, if those organisms really are transitionary.
I am much more well-read than you give me credit for, but your tendency to make hasty assumptions about people you have never met, along with your quasi-religious commitment to a Darwinist worldview, causes in you a knee-jerk reaction that results in some entertaining logical fallacies.
If you’re brave enough to have your assumptions questioned, I would recommend a viewing of the film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” starring Ben Stein. An excellent film.
255 billion year old earth?? The big bang only occurred about 15 billion years ago or so. If the fossil record isn’t showing us transitory species, than isn’t the only alternative special creation where these species appear out of thin air as if by magic? Where do species come from in your view if not from other species (i.e. speciation)? What causes them to appear and disappear on a regular basis without any transition from one to another? There is certainly far less evidence for species just magically blinking in and out of existence all the time than there is for speciation. Please describe the mechanism for this without falling back on religion, which ironically you accuse the “Darwinist worldview” of doing.
I know you won’t do it, Craig, but you need to read up.
I have read “Origin of Species”(Darwin), “Descent of Man”(Darwin), 2 or 3 of EO Wilson’s works, several of Stephen Jay Gould’s books, to name a few. I have also read Carl Sagan and am struggling through a book on string theory (not my thing- but I am trying). Being an expert in evolution, I can’t imagine you have limited yourself only to critics of the theory.
I have no problem with people believing in an intelligent designer. I can’t control what people choose to believe. I do have a problem with those that argue this belief is somehow a scientific theory. To meet that qualification you must produce evidence to support it, and those promoting this be taught in the classroom refuse to say who the intelligent designer is, let alone how he/she/it placed or places life on earth.
Say what you will about the theory of evolution, at least it provides a mechanism for life to have come into existence and offers evidence to support the claim. You can take issue with the evidence – and I would argue you are wrong on that count – but at least it offers it. I have to date seen no evidence offered for the intelligent creation model. The argument seems limited to “it must have happened that way because no other explanation works”, and this is just a new version of the God of the gaps argument (i.e. – it must be God/intelligent designer because we don’t know what else it could be). This isn’t science.
Religion is undermined when believers insist it be taught as science. One is faith based, the other evidence based. I am not passing a judgment, just stating a fact. You drag religious explanations into the classroom you must have evidence to support the claims, which ultimately undermines faith. There is no evidence Jesus was born of a virgin for example. Saying so is a statement of faith, not fact, and most believers, theologians, and even church leaders recognize that and therefore don’t insist they have the right to present their case in biology class. Those pushing intelligent design/creationism are really destroying the very religious foundations they claim to be promoting by insisting their beliefs be treated as scientific theories subject to testing and the production of evidence. Not a wise move on your part.
Maybe the link color in my comment wasn’t noticed, so CLICK HERE. When I said you need to read up, I was linking you to exactly what you’re asking for. I wasn’t just making a general statement that you need to read something.
Now, to your point. You’re laboring under the same age-old and erroneous delusion that science and religion are somehow diametrically opposed to one another, when in reality, pure science and pure religion are perfectly unified. They both seek truth and neither can claim exclusivity on it because truth is truth. There is no such thing as “scientific truth” as opposed to “religious truth.” Truth is just that–true.
I won’t go into a detailed response here because everything you bring up is addressed in the blog (linked above). Suffice it to say that both science and religion have been historically biased in their own favor and they have both been their own worst enemy.
So do your best to set aside preconceptions and old beliefs about science and religion and try to think in terms of static, unchangeable truth. Then, again I say, you need to read up.
No, I read it. In the article the author states the difference between creationists – or believers in intelligent design if you prefer – is creationists don’t claim to have evidence while “Darwinists” offer evidence, but in his opinion (and yours) it isn’t credible. As I recall he called scientists “deceitful” for portraying the evidence as significant when in his opinion it isn’t. As I said in my response, one offers evidence which you and others choose not to accept and the other readily admits it offers no evidence at all. If you want your “theory” taught in science class, you need to offer some evidence.
The author also claims we haven’t witnessed speciation. Apparently he hasn’t heard of the evolution of anti-biotic resistant bacteria in our lifetime. Speciation has been witnessed in other organisms as well. This claim speciation hasn’t been observed blatantly ignores reality, a reality which I for one would prefer medical researchers not ignore for the good of us all.
I don’t disagree “truth is truth” (seems incredibly obvious), but the two (religion and science) do have a different approach to getting at “truth” and largely differ in which truths they are attempting to get at. It seems to me religion is focused more on why we are here and science is focused more on how we got here. Religion expresses what it believes to be truth generally through metaphor and deals more with ethics and morality, while science is looking at physical reality and generally leaves the moral or ethical questions to religion or philosophy. For example, I know of no major religion that tries to answer how the dinosaurs went extinct (though some believers foolishly insist they co-existed with humans and were wiped out by the flood, thus creating a conflict with science where none is necessary)and scientists don’t generally do research into just war theory or the morality/immorality of using birth control.
Any argument that claims religion and science use the same approach to answer questions, or even that they are generally trying to answer the same questions is just plain wrong. What is the point of having two separate branches (science and religion) if everyone is just striving after the same answers? The scientific method isn’t employed by the Pope, the President of the LDS Church, or any other religious leader I am aware of when making a pronouncement on the morality of certain behaviors. I am not sure how the scientific method would apply to such pronouncements as they reflect the values of those making them, not some kind of objective reality that can be verified with evidence. Similarly, scientists trying to figure out the history of life do not pray or meditate over fossil bones to determine the evidence contained within the fossil record.
But if, as you say, “pure science and pure religion are perfectly unified”, lets see how religions feel about doing away with seminary to train their ministers and followers and how scientists feel about doing away with classes in biology, paleontology, astronomy, etc. We can just have one big relience or sciegion class, or whatever you want to call it. Their reaction would be proof there is a world of difference in the purpose of a religious or scientific training.
“I believe the Earth is probably closer to 255 billion years old which, according to the Theology I subscribe to, is the length of one Eternity.”
What an uneducated wacko.
The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the universe about 14 billion years old.
What hat did you pull 255 billion from?
You claim you’re not a creationist, but you recommend the creationist movie “Expelled”.
Dishonest and stupid. Typical creationist.
Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne, published in 2009.
Creationists, read this book, or SHUT UP.
Ryan, my last comment was for you. It’s obvious you know nothing about science or anything else. Educate yourself or [watch your mouth, Bob].
Dear bob the porn star,
Seriously? That’s your response? You don’t want to address the fact that you refer to the so-called common knowledge of those who study molecular biology while carefully avoiding over-stating your own education? (We all know you’re not a molecular biologist.)
You don’t want to address my questions about the inherent paradoxes in Darwinist theory?
You don’t want to take a stab at spontaneous generation?
Wow, man…you are smart. Completely avoid the topic and instead revert to what amounts to an attempted blogospheric shout-down, safe from the comfort of your mom’s basement. (Oh, and you better get that ketchup stain off your shirt before it sets. Your mom can wash it for you I’m sure.)
I posed some legitimate questions. You responded with a tantrum. Well done. I’m sure that will make a great story to bore your Second Life D&D guild with for the next five years.
Wanna take another shot? How about spontaneous generation? Wanna start with that one?
Craig, you need to read more than just that one post. You have to read the entire series (9 posts) before you can make any educated commentary about it.
I’m happy to continue with the conversation, though, and I will shortly. For now, keep reading.
Bob, you’re gonna blow a gasket.
Calm down, and tell us why you’re so angry that we don’t believe in Evolution.
By the way, “Expelled” has nothing to do with Creationism. Try actually watching it sometime; you needn’t feel so threatened by it that you must blow a fuse even at the suggestion of watching it. What’s to lose? If you think it’s wrong, you’ve spent 95 minutes finding out why.
Oh, and according to the latest thoughts, the Universe may be older than 14 billion years. You see, when we looked out into deep space with the Hubble telescope, we expected to see young or proto-galaxies. Instead, we found fully formed, mature galaxies as far as we could see.
We really don’t know how far we’ll have to look to find the edge of the Universe. The theology I follow says there is no edge to it; no beginning and no end. I realize it’s hard to fathom for us finite minds, but I don’t need to know everything yet.
I understand there are nine parts to the posts you have requested I read, but I must limit myself to responding to one in the interest of both time and space. I have chosen the post entitled “Evolution vs. Intelligent Design – Round 1” where the author makes abundantly clear he has little to no understanding of the theory of evolution through natural selection. I have little doubt my arguments will fail to convince as the desire to believe we have a special place in the universe created for us by some kind of intelligent designer is stronger than any argument I am likely to be able to come up with, and as the ongoing battle over evolution has shown these past 150 years, any theory that demonstrates an intelligent designer is not necessary for life to exist is a threat that evokes the most emotional and often nonsensical response in people.
First, the author of this post defines evolution as follows: “Life spontaneously originated from non-living matter as a single-celled organism and accumulated mater/mutated at random without design, law, or purpose, which process gave rise to all life forms over time. Spontaneous generation has not yet been witnessed, replicated, or proven in any scientific manner, nor has anything ever been found to exist without design, structure or law.”
We see here a trick the author repeats throughout the article. He defines evolution and includes in his definition a statement that evolution, as he has defined it, has never been found to exist. Ergo, evolution must be false. For the moment at least, I will focus on the reference to law as he claims evolution occurs in the absence of any natural laws and he refers to evolution as a “lawless” process elsewhere in his argument.
No scientist I have read or seen on television describing evolution has ever argued or would ever argue evolution occurs outside the natural laws governing the universe. Therefore, the author appears to be intentionally misrepresenting the theory to suit his own purposes. Opponents of evolution often equate a random process as a “lawless” one. Anyone who has ever played with dice or played a card game knows, or should know, random does not mean lawless.
If you were to randomly generate sequences of six numbers using a six sided dice by throwing it six times in a row, writing down the numbers that come up (1-6) and then repeating the process, you are generating random numbers but the law, in this case dictated by the number of sides and corresponding numbers on each side of the dice, limits the options to 1-6. The number of possible combinations varies from six sixes to six ones and every possible order of number combinations within the limits offered by the dice in between. There is no point in calculating the number of possibilities, but they literally extend into the hundreds of thousands. However, there are limits on the number of random possibilities which can be generated. In spite of the high degree of randomness in this process, you will never roll a seven.
The author shows his ignorance of the theory of evolution again when he asks the following series of questions: “Why aren’t they [scientists] researching burn victims to see if their offspring will eventually evolve fireproof skin? Why aren’t they offering money to case-study people who have survived gunshot wounds or 100 foot falls and encouraging them to generate offspring who will someday evolve wings and resistance to bullets?” Why not? Because these scientists know that evolution is limited by the laws of physics, the author’s faulty definition of the process not withstanding. If the theory of evolution actually taught it transcended the laws of the universe as the author claimed, I wouldn’t believe in it and I doubt any scientists would either. However, it never has taught this and never will. Given the author’s obvious lack of understanding of what evolution actually teaches, it is impossible for me to take him seriously.
It should be obvious to all concerned surviving a gunshot wound has at best a very tenuous relationship to the genes inherited by the gunshot victim. You shoot someone in the heart they will die virtually 100% of the time regardless of what genes they inherited from their ancestors. Brain wounds my be slightly less fatal, but death usually follows here as well for reasons that have nothing to do with genetics except to the extent our genes put our brains on top of our bodies where they make a fairly easy target. If you survive a gunshot wound, it is almost certainly going to be due to the fact the shooter failed to hit an artery or other major organ, not because the gunshot victim inherited genes that somehow protected him/her from bullets.
Similarly with burns, you heat anything up hot enough it will burn. It is not physically possible to pass on genes that defy the laws of physics and enable the carrier to withstand extreme temperatures. In our universe at least, the laws of physics mean life has and will likely disappear pretty much altogether at somewhere around 200 or so degrees, though I suppose the life they have found in the pools of Yellowstone may push this limit up a bit. However, the more extreme the temperature the smaller the organism able to live in it tends to be. Hopefully you get my point.
But let us assume for a moment an intelligent designer is behind it all. Since you and the author of this piece insist on bringing belief in some kind of supreme being into the realm of science, your argument should be subjected to some scientific scrutiny as well.
If evolution were true, one would expect to find dead ends. For example, species whose random mutations within the limits of the laws of nature failed to keep up with environmental changes such as natural climate change, new predators showing up on the scene, outbreaks of disease, etc. This is exactly what we do find. To the extent evolution can be described as an “intelligent process” it allows life to continue and new forms to arise, but it has not been kind to most of the species that have ever existed as most are now extinct. It is great at maintaining a certain degree of diversity at any given time, but the constant battle with the forces of nature causes a degree of equilibrium to be maintained at great cost to species over time.
Why, pray tell would an intelligent designer create a species – say humans – but also create diseases such as the plague that can wipe out huge numbers of them in a matter of a year or two? Why parasites we have no resistance to? Why cancer? Given evolution does not argue it is guided by intelligence, though it does argue it is subject to the laws of nature, one would expect to find inefficiencies and dead ends everywhere, and one does. With an intelligent designer one would expect to find these only to the extent he/she/it is intelligent. In other words, the more dead ends, inefficiencies and outright failures one sees in nature, the less intelligent the designer must be.
If nature were designed intelligently, wouldn’t the designer just design everything in a state it could maintain itself without the need for extinction and replacement of species with new ones over time? Is the design work still underway and he/she/it just fiddling with things trying to get them right?
Ironically, one argument the author used against evolution can more effectively be used against intelligent design. The author states “Spontaneous generation has not been witnessed”. He was referring to the spontaneous generation which, under the theory of evolution only needed to happen once to get things started. If we are to throw out the notion of evolution by natural selection, sexual selection and any other means, spontaneous generation must be occurring all the time to maintain a degree of equilibrium within nature – i.e. to replace species which become extinct. If not speciation then spontaneous appearances of species within nature, one supposes dropping from heaven or something, would occur all the time. If given a choice between something that only had to happen once but hasn’t been observed (they have gotten very close in the lab by the way) and the choice between something that is supposedly happening on a regular basis but hasn’t been observed, the first option seems far more reasonable to believe than the later.
Craig,
You’re missing the point. Don’t you see? Law cannot exist without intelligence. Therefore, if elements in the universe obey natural laws of any kind, it is because they were designed to do so. And if there were no intelligence regulating the behavior of elements, there would be no obedience to law. Every element would behave completely at random according to whatever stimuli it is subjected to at any given moment. There would be no patterns, there would be no predictability. In fact, you would have to do away with Newton’s laws of motion (at least the third), because nothing would exist to dictate that when one thing bumps into another, they would bounce off each other with equal force in every case.
That’s the point: intelligence is everywhere in the universe. So completely woven into the universal fabric that it’s easy for us to not call it intelligence. Are you satisfied to just say, “that’s just how things work,” and let it go without explanation? Because if you are, that sounds an awful lot like the same basis for the argument that you bring against proponents of intelligent design, i.e., the desire to not believe in an intelligence greater than our own (and hence not be required to be responsible for our actions) is stronger than any argument I can make to the contrary, at least in terms of convincing those who refuse to see it. The argument in favor of intelligent design is bullet-proof, but many air-tight cases have been completely ignored by their opponents simply because they choose not to believe it.
The point is clear: Law requires intelligence. There is no other way. Laws are binary. They are either true, or they are false. The only question on the matter is the origin of that law, how and where it came from. In the universe (defined by “science”), there is no “false” law, because anything that would be considered a “false” law would simply not be a law—it wouldn’t exist. Gravity, for an obvious example. We know gravity exists, that is a true law. The universe recognizes no such thing as a “false” law of gravitation, or even different interpretations of that law under which, let’s say, gravity becomes a force of repulsion rather than attraction. Elements simply comply with gravitation because it is the law and they are bound by it. But, why would elements obey laws in exactly the same, predictable way, every time…unless they were designed to do so? Without design (which implies intelligence) , the universe would simply be chaotic randomness. (And I’ll give you a hint here: there is no such thing as “random.” Just ask a computer scientist whether it’s possible for anything to be truly random.)
If you think of law as a judge, any action in the universe must be immediately judged for compliance to the law—was that action lawful, or not? It becomes more evident in complex (intelligent) systems (even natural complex systems, such as humans): as elements begin to disobey or fall out of compliance with the laws of their existence, the system immediately begins to break down and will eventually fail unless corrected. That’s what illness is.
So, there are only two alternatives: either the universe has laws, which implies intelligent design; or the universe has no laws, which would imply no form, function, predictability or sustainability. There is no such thing as law without intelligence. Simple as that.
Now the conversation becomes focused on that nature of that intelligence, not whether or not it exists.
Also, I’ll note, you have to be careful on two points:
1- You have to be careful not to allow the mystical and historical versions and misrepresentations of religion to cloud your examination of the argument I’m making. I don’t agree with those characterizations either (such as “Heaven” as a collection of harp-playing angels and “Hell” as a place of fire and brimstone with a horned devil running the show), which leads me to your second problem.
2- It’s a false conclusion (one all too often promoted by traditional religious ignorance) that God created everything, including disease and suffering. Effectively, you’re talking about the Problem of Evil. This is an easy one. God did not create disease, or tragedy, or “evil” (defined as anything that is in opposition to truth). And even if one argued that He did create disease, you’d have to assume that He did so as part of a plan, designed and rolled out in an infinite universe that is sustained by static, unchanging truth—laws. Further, the “tragedy” that we often ascribe to such sufferings—cancer, let’s say—represents a myopic vision of our own existence. If God does exist and did create humans for a purpose, and if that purpose is for us to mature to the same state the He enjoys, then suffering and even death in this short blip of life amounts to very little, and is not the tragedy that we impose upon it by our hyper-emotional, very human lack of perspective. In short, God did not create the laws; God obeys the laws perfectly.
Finally, who has gotten close to spontaneous generation in a lab? You guys do this a lot: make vague, passing references to “science” but fail to provide any attribution or substantiation of it. If you’re talking about a hypothesis, that’s one thing, but if you’re going to use experimentation to support you, you need to cite the sources. And really? They’ve gotten close? How so? Did they set a petri dish down and just watch the hell out of it until they were convinced that something almost sprang into existence?
Sorry, I’m teasing a little, but that’s just silly. How do you “almost” achieve spontaneous generation?
Now that I think about it, if you were to reproduce spontaneous generation in a lab, wouldn’t that be considered creation? Wouldn’t that be the work of an intelligent being (or beings) according to an intelligent design?
To be honest, there’s probably a closer connection between the theories of evolution and intelligent design than either side of the historic battle (“science” and “religion”) are willing to admit. There’s too much money and emotional capital invested in both, and to much power to be grabbed by the “winner” for either to capitulate. That’s exactly the problem. Somewhere we stopped looking for pure truth and began defending our egos and ill intentions.
For an example of successful experiments in the lab, go here: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/ .
On a planet currently abundant with life, it would be impossible to witness the first step that made it happen in the natural world. You couldn’t find an environment not already contaminated with life in which the process could repeat itself. Therefore, the closest we can come to showing it is possible under certain conditions is the lab. I am not the one claiming species spontaneously arise in their current form however. If I understand your position correctly it is your theory which demands we be able to observe it now, not mine.
This notion there must be intelligence to have physical/natural laws is a chicken and egg argument. Who created the laws that enabled this mysterious intelligence to arise in the first place? If the intelligence came before the laws then it is above natural laws and no laws are necessary for creation. If they were, how could the intelligent designer have come into being in the absence of natural laws? If the laws gave rise to the intelligence, than no intelligence is necessary for the existence of the laws. So which is it: A)Intelligent designer creates laws but came into being without existence of physical/natural law, or; B) Laws led to creation of intelligent designer, ergo no intelligence needed to create laws?
To me, the answer is simple. If a universe exists, then the laws of that universe must allow for its existence. This is self evident. If all the evidence points to the first cause being the big bang, the laws of physics obviously allow for a big bang and the laws governing the matter generated by that big bang allow for the universe we live in or we wouldn’t be here.
You add a step to the process by insisting there be an intelligence behind it all. Given this intelligence must be at least as irreducibly complex as the universe it created, this only begs the question how did the intelligence come into being? Removing this need for an intelligence to govern it all, a universal law giver if you will, simplifies things for me because we can’t answer where the intelligence came from or whether he/she/it created the law or is a product of it. In my worldview at least, natural law just is because if it weren’t, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
The big bang offers a natural explanation and possible natural explanations for its cause (i.e. singularities, etc.) We can only look back so far in time, so inevitably any explanation we come up with is going to have at least some element of speculation to it. However, while the existence of a singularity can at least be mathematically demonstrated, some mysterious intelligent designer with mysterious origins of its own cannot. I can’t prove it doesn’t exist, but if it does its existence raises far more questions than it answers.
That’s just limited vision.
What you’re saying is that you simply don’t care whether or not such an intelligence exists, and by extension you don’t care why you exist. Whether or not you believe it is immaterial; it’s the first and most fundamental question that requires an answer. Not believing in God doesn’t change whether or not He exists, just like, from your perspective, not believing in evolution doesn’t change whether or not it’s a fact.
(Incidentally, if you haven’t picked up on it, my argument isn’t that evolution does not exist; but rather that whether or not it does changes nothing about the existence of an intelligent designer. If species evolve, they were intelligently designed to do so, and there is no evidence against that.)
To put a finer point on the debate, the anti-intelligence proponents really have no reason to promote their opinions or their findings other than in an attempt to wage war against religion. If God does not exist, then why do they need to work so hard to prove it or to bring the matter into question? On the other hand, from the religious perspective, if God does exist, then those who know it are expected to spread the word of it and convince their “brothers and sisters” of it in order to do what they can to see them all benefit from the knowledge. Obviously, historically that responsibility has been used as a justification for tyranny, but then again, so has science (just look into Hitler’s sterilization and eugenics programs).
But the fundamental question remains: Does God exist? Is there intelligence behind it all; a sort of “method to the madness,” if you will? Not wanting the answer or not caring about the answer does little to change the ramifications of the answer.
I’m telling you the process for discovering God is the exact same process used by science for discovering anything. It can be repeated by anyone with exactly the same provable results. But you have to be willing to ask the question and more importantly live with (and for) the answer.
You clearly don’t understand the scientific method. And by the way, you completely failed to answer how, if as you argue, law can only come from a creator and creation is governed by laws set up by the creator, how the creator came into being before law? Or did law predate the creator? Your argument is logically inconsistent.
I am only insisting your argument be logically consistent because you insist God is some kind of scientific truth. You seem to think faith is meaningless given you can’t have both faith in God and “know he exists” at the same time. When you have proof, there is no need for faith. Science takes no position on the existence of God. God’s existence isn’t even a scientifically verifiable question. My caring about it, or you caring about, won’t make it so.
There is no scientific test you can come up with that will verify or disprove the existence of God. You cannot “discover” God through experiment, in the fossil record, or in a formula accept maybe in the deeply personal subjective sense I suppose. However, the kind of evidence science demands does not lend itself to discovering God the way Galileo discovered the sun and not the earth was at the center of the solar system or Salk discovered the polio vaccine.
Even the world’s major religions do not advocate searching for God the way a scientist searches for a cure to cancer. They advocate prayer, meditation, or reading various holy books. They advocate establishing what they refer to as a very personal relationship with God. People’s various religious experiences are deeply personal, not objective truth that can be measured with some kind of instrument or written into a mathematical equation. While we can and do conduct brain scans and other tests on religious people so religion’s physiological impacts if any can be measured, the religious experience itself is not a scientific one. Dragging God into the science classroom subjects people’s very personally held beliefs to the kind of scientific rigor those beliefs can’t withstand, and frankly were never intended to.
You argue religious people are required to share their religion with others. Which religion do you want to share in the classroom? I understand you may believe evolution itself is guided by an intelligent designer. But which intelligent designer do you want to promote? Vishnu, Jesus, the Great Spirit? If we are going to tell students it is all guided by an intelligent being, we shouldn’t be surprised when they ask the incredibly obvious question “who?” Your religion requires you share YOUR truth with the world and exclude other people’s religion. In this country at least this is, if we are honest, largely coming from the Christian right. Any entrance into the classroom of any other culture’s intelligent designer will raise all kinds of hell from true believers who think they “know” God exists and “know” the gods of other cultures don’t.
And for the record, it is not your belief in God that upsets me. I couldn’t care less. What troubles me is the implications this insistence on dragging unscientific ideas like intelligent design into the classroom has for science education in this country. This is an area we are already falling behind in, and having textbooks poo-poo scientific theories in the interest of not offending people’s religious beliefs, or worse, having people’s religious ideas brought into the classroom undermines our ability to thrive and compete as a nation.
Whether you believe in God or not impacts me not in the least as long as your personal beliefs stay just that – personal. Having you insist we teach your religious ideas in the classroom has profound effects on our society and I and everyone else ultimately ends up paying the price. Students should get the best science education possible. What people want to teach at home and church is their business.
If a science student leaves the classroom not believing in evolution or some other scientific theory, but having a firm understanding of it, I can live with that. If that student leaves the classroom not understanding it because it was glossed over in the interest of not offending some group or another or because unscientific ideas were introduced and muddied the waters, that hurts our society’s ability to advance and ultimately hurts us all.
See, you still don’t get it. “YOUR truth…” There is no such construct. Truth is truth. One person can’t claim to have truth that is in opposition to another person’s truth. One of them is wrong, or they both are, relative to what actually is, regardless of what either believes.
And now you’re leading exactly to the point. People’s beliefs, while personal and cherished they may be, mean precisely nothing. Only knowledge–truth–matters. And you’re exactly right, when you achieve knowledge, there is no longer a requirement for faith because it is now knowledge. That’s exactly the purpose…to arrive at that knowledge. Whether the world’s major religions encourage the pursuit or not is meaningless. Most of the world’s religions don’t understand God and man any better than science does, which is why science poses such a threat to them.
So your question is exactly right: Which one? And while you may kick and scream that God cannot be discovered in the same way, you’re wrong. He can, and that will answer the “who” question as well. Every person can do the same exact “experiment” and arrive at the exact same answer. It all just depends on the integrity and sincerity of the searcher, just as it does with scientific discovery. You can’t go into the scientific method with prejudice, you have to be objective and willing to accept whatever it is that you might find. Same is true for this process. The steps of the process are the same.
As for which came first, law or God, I might as well try to draw eternity on an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper. It’s not something that humans can really grasp with our linear-time programmed brains. It’s really immaterial, though. It doesn’t matter how, it only matters if….
Now, no one is asking for any one religion to be taught in school, but it’s also completely disingenuous and improper for ONLY the atheistic scientific version of history to be taught. Both should be available for inclusion in the curriculum. In fact, it’s not even a matter of allowing the discussion of “God” per se; simply a recognition that the theories posed by intelligent design, whatever that intelligence may be, have merit and should be equally considered. That’s not what’s happening, and that’s exactly the point of the movie Expelled. “Science” is bullying the open conversation of intelligent design out of the classroom illegitimately. So if you want students leaving the classroom being able to make their own decisions about evolution or intelligent design (or in my book, evolution AND intelligent design), why only present one position? Show me the science that disproves intelligent design (not religion or a specific god, just intelligence in the process).
Ryan – I have admitted I can’t disprove the existence of God before. I can’t disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus either. No one can prove a negative.
You claim to know God exists, even which one. I would submit any argument you put forward for your god someone else could just as easily submit for theirs. Using the scientific method, prove the existence of God then if it is doable. Tell me what this scientific experiment is that will demonstrate not only that God exists, but which God we are talking about here.
Furthermore, when you say regarding the question of whether the law or the creator came first “It’s not something that humans can really grasp with our linear-time programmed brains. It’s really immaterial, though. It doesn’t matter how, it only matters if….” you as much as admit it is not something subject to scientific examination. Is it within our grasp to get to the bottom of this via the scientific method or “not something humans can really grasp”?
And you can’t have it both ways. You can’t argue in one earlier post the existence of laws is contingent upon the existence of an intelligent creator and then argue in your latest response whether the creator or the laws came first is really beside the point. If you want me or others to take your beliefs seriously to the point of accepting them as a valid scientific worldview, you can’t dodge these questions. If you want to argue theological questions are just a matter of faith, then that is another matter.
I will admit “your truth” is a poor choice of words. It is your belief, but belief is not knowledge as you claim, it is your belief. Is your belief “truth” and everyone else’s religious belief just belief then? People with a number of religious beliefs claim to “know” their belief is true. I see no reason I should take your belief any more seriously in this regard than others making this claim.
As for “atheistic” science classes, this is a red herring. When I was in high school we didn’t address the existence of a creator in history, English, algebra or typing class for that matter either. I wasn’t attending school to learn about God. I was there to learn the life skills needed to enable me to function as a reasonably productive member of society. Atheism has nothing to do with it any more than theism did. Biology classes were no different. They typically just don’t address God at all because the students are there to learn biology, not God.
That said, you provide this scientific experiment you are talking about that proves definitively the existence of God and I will join your campaign to conduct it and teach the outcome of the experiment in science classes. The outcome of the experiment, to be scientific, cannot be dependent on the “integrity or sincerity of the searcher” as you claim, except to the extent they are not dishonest by rigging the experiment. What a scientist thinks the outcome of the experiment will be has no bearing on the outcome of the experiment. In fact, most experiments begin with the researcher making a prediction (offering a hypothesis) on the outcome and then conducting the experiment to see if their hypothesis is correct. They do not go in saying “I have no idea or prediction as to how this will turn out.” If you are simply going to challenge the sincerity or integrity of anyone that conducts your experiment and doesn’t come to the conclusion you like, your experiment was not scientific.
Let’s do the experiment. I offer the hypothesis there is no scientific proof of God (which is not the same as saying there is no God) and you offer the hypothesis there is. Let’s see who is correct. What is the experiment?
Fair enough. I’ll take you up on it. I’ll write up the steps of the experiment and link you to it. But just as you said, you can’t prove a negative, so I guess your hypothesis in unprovable. You admitted as much so I won’t hold that against you.
At the risk of starting a new thread of conversation, and bringing the conversation back to the context of the founding of the U.S. and the Constitution (which I realize is more the topic of the other post), let me pose this question to you:
If there is no Creator, in what way are we created equal? That is the fundamental principle (law) of the Constitution and the founding of America. If we were not created, and “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights,” then by what standard are we equal? Is equality inherent? Hardly. That’s a direct affront to the core tenet of Darwinism and evolution–survival of the fittest. Certainly we are not “born free and equal” as some would like to suppose.
For example, I’m a person of relatively large stature. If I find someone to be a threat to me–a liberal, for example–by what standard do you tell me that I have no right to destroy that threat (person)? Is that not exactly the behavior that pure Darwinist theory (without intelligence) sustains?
For that matter, how can you even make any kind or argument about what you find to be acceptable or unacceptable (right and wrong) behavior if there is no standard against which to judge that behavior? Is everyone entitled to draw their own standards according to their will and pleasure? If so, then you have to accept whatever anyone else does because you can’t say there is right or wrong in the matter.
I’m not ducking your challenge. I will write it up and link you to it. Meanwhile, I await your justification of judgment without standards.
There being no scientific proof there is a God is not a negative which can’t be demonstrated. There being no God can’t be proven. You can demonstrate a lack of evidence for something, especially if clear rules of evidence are established. Demonstrating a lack of evidence for something doesn’t prove something doesn’t exist. We do it in our courts all the time. Nice try though.
I will await your link to the experiment.
With regard to your other questions, evolution is a scientific theory explaining biological phenomena. It should not be applied to ethics, law, economics, etc. It is for this reason social Darwinism was/is a complete misapplication of the theory. Therefore, I see no conflict between the ethic of equality as described in our laws or elsewhere and evolution.
By the way, the quote “endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights” comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. While the Declaration of Independence is an extraordinary document, it does not have the force of law in this country. The Constitution does.
Regardless, your argument that equality isn’t inherent depends on your definition of equality. We certainly are not all born into families with equal amounts of money, conditions providing equal opportunities, etc. However, we are all born human and in that sense equality is inherent. We are all born with the ability to make choices, so in that sense we are equally free.
As people born under repressive regimes demonstrate, we are not all born with equal power. But this does not diminish the ability of people to make the choice to obey or not to obey in situations of repression, even if making the choice to disobey comes at a heavy price. If they choose not to disobey because they feel the price is too high, they still made a choice. Our founders demonstrated the ability to risk everything for what they believed and others have demonstrated this through the ages. This unalienable ability to choose; to choose what we think, how we react to certain situations, etc., is built into who we are.
As for by what standard you have the right to defend yourself, the threat must be imminent and you or someone else near you must be threatened with physical harm. If a liberal is threatening you physically and directly, I would argue they aren’t really a liberal. Physical violence or murder is an attempt to deny people their inherent freedom, and short of self defense (imminent or actual threat) there is no ethical excuse for it. The denial of freedom, especially by threat of physical violence, is anathema to true liberalism in my view, so I really don’t see a true liberal doing that. I disagree with you a great deal, but find arguing with you far more satisfying than holding a gun to your head or putting you jail for your beliefs.
Evolution has built into most species a fight or flight mechanism and this does enhance our ability to survive. However, it only kicks in when you are in imminent danger, not when you feel threatened by the beliefs of others. So no, you would not be justified under the theory of evolution to remove a remote perceived threat, only a real and imminent threat to your physical safety. As I said before, when it comes to how we should treat one another, evolution really has nothing significant to say. It is not an ethical philosophy but a biological theory. To the degree certain behaviors can truly be said to be hard wired into our DNA you can look to evolution for an explanation for human behavior. To the extent biological traits (our large brain for example) have endowed us with a greater ability to choose, evolution is less of a guide to human behavior. To the extent it is guide to human behavior at all, it deals with the why (biological basis) and not the should (ethics/choice). Even where there is a biological basis, sex for example, there is freedom to choose.
As for the notion one can have no sense of right or wrong, or that anything goes without a creator, I have always found this a rather demeaning view of humanity. In an earlier post you indicated our lives can have no meaning without a creator. It is hard for me to see how we can claim to be free and be dependent on a creator for everything from what is right or wrong to the meaning of our life.
If I say doing my best to be a good husband gives my life meaning or being a good friend and companion to those I care about gives my life meaning, this is my choice. I don’t need a creator to give me permission to have these things provide my life with meaning.
Similarly, we have the ability to reason and it is relatively easy to figure out we typically won’t get very far either individually or collectively if we deem it right and appropriate to murder at will, steal anything we want from someone else whenever the urge hits us, or engage in any other of a number of bad behaviors we could think of. There are some behaviors there is considerable disagreement on, but the taking of another life, physical violence in most circumstances, and stealing are necessarily wrong if any group larger than about 2 or 3 people hope to live together for any length of time successfully. I don’t think we need a creator to tell us this must be so, but if you absolutely cannot refuse the urge to kill without believing in God, by all means keep believing in him.
I get it. You want one set of laws to govern nature, and another set or laws to govern humans. Aren’t humans a part of nature? How convenient. That way we can completely ignore natural law when it disagrees with our personal world views and apply it militantly when it agrees.
Just because we humans have this weird tendency to compartmentalize things–like life sciences from “soft” sciences from religion, etc.–doesn’t mean that it’s legitimate. The same set of laws–truth–applies to all of them and therefore they can’t really be separated.
Here’s your big assumption–and I might add your big departure from your own argument: being born human does not mean we are born equal. In purely scientific terms, men and women are not equal, though they are both human. Men are generally physically “superior” to women. That’s the “scientific” law of nature. Think of a pride of lions. The females form the bulk of the pride. They do all the hunting, all the child rearing, almost all the defending of the pride. And yet, when they have made a kill, the male strides in and immediately takes the food and eats his fill before any of the females eat. There is slight variation in this pattern (males allowing females to eat with him, for instance), but generally that’s how it works. And yet they are all lions. Further, male lions scout territories, including that of other prides (if they can get away with it), and if they find even cubs of another male, they’ll kill them. The cubs are tiny and they aren’t in the male’s pride territory, yet he kills them anyway because they pose an “imminent” threat, not to the perpetuation of the lion species, but to his blood line. This isn’t a rival equal male attacking his personal safety, this is the male lion going out of his way to eliminate what he considers a threat to his pride. That’s the scientific law of nature.
So why is it different with humans? Because we are more intelligent? The lion knows that by removing his threats he’s not endangering his species, but rather sustaining it by weeding out the “weaker” portion of it. Are we not intelligent enough, then, to have that same knowledge? Hitler certainly thought so. How was he wrong if not by some higher standard than birth into humanity?
Now, you said, “As people born under repressive regimes demonstrate, we are not all born with equal power. But this does not diminish the ability of people to make the choice to obey or not to obey in situations of repression, even if making the choice to disobey comes at a heavy price.”
Bravo. We agree. I’m a little surprised that you recognize this, to be honest, but I’ll give props when due. Usually I find people with “liberal” leanings (there’s that word again) crying about oppression when it’s convenient to their cause, while totally ignoring the fact that if the people under oppression want out, they have to choose it, even if it comes at a heavy price (think Revolutionary War). That’s the price of freedom. And also (like the US Revolution), sometimes that choice needs help from outside forces.
There is one problem, however: without some standard of judgment, who’s to say what is oppression? Who’s to say that it’s not simply nature taking its proper course of allowing the strong to dominate and eliminate the weak?
The point is, without a belief in God or a recognition of some invariable standard that dictates right and wrong, there is no mandate to “refuse the urge to kill.”
I’m starting to see, Craig, that I’m going to get nowhere with you in terms of getting you to shake off the years of preconception and box-thought programming instilled by the education system. Try as I might, you just can’t (or don’t want to) see past it. So be it.
I’m struggling to see how anyone can miss this though: ethics and morals are the basis for the law (my contention is that there is no difference between them). They deal in what is right and what is wrong. Without some kind of invariable standard against which to judge behaviors, the determination of right or wrong cannot be made. Certainly you can make up laws based on general consensus and public opinion, but to do so places morality, and thus the entire legal system, on a sliding scale. So at any time I can rightly decide that only my way of thinking is valid and that the punishment for those who do not agree represents an “imminent” threat to me and my species, and therefore those who disagree must be destroyed. Then all I have to do is gain a large enough conversion of like minds to push through legislation and it would now be, by your standards, legal and “right.” It’s the difference between a democracy (rule of majority, which the US is not) and a republic (rule of law, which the US is).
That’s why we have a 3-branch system (a republic). Legislators are supposed to propose laws based on truth and right; executives confirm or reject those laws based on the same standard; judges have no other job than to represent the standard, not based on their opinions, but based on truth. They have no mandate for action, only judgment (which is not an active role). That standard is “all men are created equal.” Therefore, all judgments must fall on the side of equality, which is why there should never be any dissent in Supreme Court decisions. I’d like to hear of a single case in which the distinction between the arguments doesn’t clearly identify which promotes and sustains equality and which does not, or in which neither does (and so should be thrown out of court).
I’ll address this here because it seems appropriate to the subject-matter, but it’s also in response to your last comment on the other post.
You suggest that there is some separation between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. While our legal system is founded on the Constitution, what do you think the Constitution is founded on? What standard did the framers use when writing it? The truths declared in the Declaration were enacted in the Constitution. So to separate them is impossible. You either have to recognize its foundation or you have to remove it and build your own constitution. Simple as that.
Ryan, I will address your last point first. I didn’t say the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are not related documents. Nor was I trying to diminish the Declaration of Independence. I stated I felt it was an extraordinary document. I am not the one that decided one had the force of law while the other didn’t. The founders did. The Magna Carta also has had a great influence on the development of laws written later in history, but it isn’t a document you can take to court and accuse someone of violating. Only the Constitution and subsequent statutes have that authority in our system. That is just a fact.
Nor did I argue humans are not always subject to natural law. I stated evolution deals with biology. Astronomy deals with the planets and stars, but I would be hard pressed to find some kind of ethical philosophy there. Gravity is a force of nature, and we are all subject to it, but I don’t turn to the law of gravity for moral guidance when it comes to how I should treat others. While all the laws of nature impact everyone and everything to one degree or another, not all of them can or should be applied to moral decisions. Evolution is not a moral philosophy anymore than astronomy or physics are. In rare instances you may be able to apply a lesson from one or more of these fields to ethics, but they are not disciplines or theories dedicated to ethics and for the most part don’t apply.
With regard to equality, I believe I stated it depends on how you define equality. You asked, “if there is no creator, in what way are we all equal? This is a fundamental law or principle within our Constitution”, or something along those lines. Now you point out we are not all equal. I am not sure if you are standing up for the principle of equality as you believe it is outlined in our founding documents or taking issue with it. Regardless, the founders did not define the word equality, which gets back to the issue of interpretation being dealt with in the comments on the other post.
I said we are all equal in that we are all born human. That is the one thing we can all agree we share, our humanity. When the founders said “all men are created equal” we generally take that to mean “all humans are created equal” these days. I agree, physical differences such as gender can be pointed out to make the point we are not equal in all respects. It is our common potential as a species, our freedom to make choices even under the most trying of circumstances that I hope we can all agree provide us with some degree of equality or common experience. Whether this was endowed by nature or a creator doesn’t change the fact we share this in common with one another.
I don’t disagree with you ethics and morals are the basis of the law. You argue they have no meaning or real force behind them unless coming from a deity or other outside source. I argue, given humans have the ability and freedom to determine what is right and wrong for ourselves no outside source is needed. I can make a perfectly good case for why it would be wrong for me to kill you without needing God to do so for me. Furthermore, your will to live I would assume would be more than enough for you to want me not to whether you were a die hard believer or rabid atheist. Basically what you are saying is humans cannot figure these things out for themselves and need super natural intervention to do it for them. Or at the very least humans will have little motivation to be moral if they don’t believe morality is dictated from above. I am not sure why our creator would endow us with the ability to make moral choices for ourselves if he didn’t expect us to use that ability.
You are also arguing that if morality is completely subject to human freedom and choice, then morality is fluid rather than fixed. You are right. History shows this has been true for humans at least since we first learned to communicate with one another and started forming large social groups.
God (or the Gods as the case once was) has, conveniently, always sanctioned what we chose to be right and wrong. In the Old Testament he sanctioned massacres of whole towns, slavery, and polygamy. He doesn’t any more. Did he decide these things were no longer moral or did we make the decision and just project the sanctioning of that decision onto God? What believers in God say is sanctioned by God always eventually follows society’s decision about right and wrong, not the other way around.
So yes, in the cultural (not biological) sense values have evolved as humans have refined and clarified their moral choices over time. Religions collectively and individual believers eventually argue – at least more often than not – God has sanctioned these moral decisions, but that doesn’t change the fact we were the ones that made the moral choice in the first place. Projecting the decision onto God and insisting our choice is divinely sanctioned only enables us to dodge responsibility for making the choices we have. This is done by repressive regimes as well as real humanitarians. It seems the responsibility for our morality that comes with our freedom is often too heavy a cross for us to bear.
Finally, I would agree with you neither of our minds are likely going to be changed significantly by this dialogue. I can’t speak for you of course, but for me it wasn’t a waste of time. These discussions serve to clarify my beliefs and usually provide a clearer understanding of where the other side of the argument is coming from, even if I disagree. Thanks.
I agree whole-heartedly. It’s never a waste of time to engage in this kind of dialog with those who disagree, especially when it can be kept civil (although I will admit to taking some hopefully harmless jabs from time to time…all in good fun).
What saddens me more than anything is how much our emotional commitment to ideology stops us from engaging in this kind of debate in the public forum. Everyone is so hyper-sensitive and hyper-protective of their own egos and ideas that any challenge to them constitutes the kind of imminent threat we’ve already addressed and triggers its subsequent predatory response.
I’ll borrow and slightly modify an over-joked phrase from Rodney King: Can’t we all disagree in the open and still just get along?
I think we’ll both agree that in the end, one of us will be right, or we’ll both be wrong. Our over-arching responsibility is for each of us, individually, to try to be on the right side when the curtain falls. No one can take you there, you gotta want it (“you” being the generic linguistic device meaning “one”).
So thanks, Craig. I do appreciate you engaging in it. It’s been a long time since I’ve had the opportunity.
I’m still going to post the challenge, however, so check back from time to time. Shouldn’t take me more than a day or two to get it ready.
Actually, I’ll probably post the challenge on my own blog and ping back here.
http://www.reasonwithpassion.com
I will eagerly await your posting the challenge/experiment. I agree with everything you wrote in your last response, so that is progress
I never took offense at any “jabs” you made. Any jabs I took were in the same spirit as those you made and I hope were taken the same way.
Sometimes I actually feel bad mocking you, as it seems you have some sort of learning disorder.
But other times, I’m okay with the mocking, so…
You do realize that evolution is more of a “scientist” thing than a “liberal” thing.
Is it possible for you wingnuts to make ANY argument without employing the “us vs. them” mentality?
jasonthe,
Read much?
A careful re-reading of the above article will reveal that the only Liberals to whom I referred were the Journalists in the paragraph preceding the reference.
I know it must be painful to read articles by Conservatives, but it will help prevent silly mistakes like this from occurring in the future.
Oh, and that “us vs. them” comment–please tell us all how the Liberal obsessions with Race, Class, and Gender aren’t all about “us vs. them.” Black v. White, Rich vs. Poor, Male vs. Female, even Evolution vs. Intelligent Design…all Liberal causes, so please, spare us your pretended sanctimony.
Pingback: The Challenge : Reason with Passion
Ryan, I have gone to your blog and bookmarked it so I can check back regularly. While I appreciate your desire to “go big” with a multi-media presentation, given the amount of work you are apparently putting into this challenge I feel I should say something.
I will be looking more at the methodology behind the proposed experiment and whether you actually have developed an experiment that can verify scientifically the existence of God. Multi-media won’t impress me all that much and in and of itself will not make the experiment any more scientifically sound.
I was really just expecting an outline that could be evaluated on its merits. The multi-media, to the extent it is necessary to pull this off, could come later. Also, I was under the impression you already knew what this experiment was. Now it appears you are trying to develop it. Given I have taken the position all along no such experiment can be devised, you may want to save yourself a lot of work if this is something you are developing from scratch. That said, if you feel like putting this much energy into it, knock yourself out.
Oh, don’t misunderstand, Craig, I already do know the experiment. I’m producing the multimedia piece as part of it, but to your point, you’re right, it’s probably not necessary.
So I’ll provide an outline shortly.
I agree that it seems silly to need physical evidence for the theory of evolution. We really can do without the scientific theory. All we need is faith. If you really read an article claiming we could do away with religion, I cannot imagine why you would bring such a thing up. Religion does not hinge on the falsehood of evolution. That would assume that religion was an opposing scientific theory, and as we know, creationism is not a scientific.
Your mistake is in the assumption that Creationism and evolution are two scientific theories about why life on earth exists. Let me help you out: scientific minds laugh at mythology as an explanation for anything. We are not in competition with you. Our rejection of Christian God creating the universe has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, which I totally agree is nothing more than a best guess.
I know this article is very old. I am really only addressing Trenton, who may or may not see my belated comment. If you are not Trenton, I cannot imagine why you read this far.
Sincerely,
JMyste