New post! My response is to Mike's post on Board 3:

MikeC,

Christians believe that the earth goes around the sun. That is equivalent to saying: "Your evolutionary belief will be gone someday. And people will still be breathing oxygen." The two statements are not related.

I guess R was referring to the historic fact that until recently, for Christians the sun went around the Earth, because the Bible said so (according to the Pope's and Rome's interpretation of it.)

Since they now declared that Galileo was indeed right, the question arises: If the Holy Spirit was guiding the one and only true Catholic Roman Church - where was he during that time? Taking a nap? Or were all the previous popes hard of hearing, to misunderstand him?

If the church erred on one thing, they can be wrong on others. Which is why they never want to admit it. Which makes discussions so difficult if people rely on the Holy spirit, instead of using science to discus the Bible first (and then seperately see how those findings affect their personal faith).

One can see numerous examples of Christians and the Church not being guided by the Holy Spirit. The fact that there was a Pope Borgia makes that much clearer than the church being wrong on the issue of the sun. I should also point out that I am not Catholic and cannot testify as to whether or not the Holy Spirit was guiding the church at that time anyway.

Also, "recently"? You make it sound as it if was two years ago or so. The church (note: the Catholic Church) has also admitted itself to be wrong on several issues. The previous Pope said he was willing to accept some tenets of evolution even. I think you're being a little harsh on the church.

Recently: because Galileo's trial was several centuries ago, but was declared to be wrong only in the 1990s. (Do I have to look up the years? I guess Luigi has them at his fingertips, he's better organized with details than I am. )

I didn't say you were Catholic, but the Catholic Church itself claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation of the Bible which they teach as Do's and Don'ts. (Many of the private sects claim that, too. It crops up again and again when trying to discuss things rationally).

Pope Borgia was an immoral person, but the Church has always maintained (for good reason, there were many more bad Popes besides Borgia) that a bad person as Pope doesn't affect his teachings or blessings or the other spiritual things.

However, the Earth revolving around the Sun can be resolved objectively for everybody to prove, and therefore, the error of the Church is obvious and documented.

Other, moral, questions, like not letting priests marry, or women be priests, don't have a right or wrong answer, so we can only note that on some positions, the Catholic Church has completly reversed positions several times over the centuries. (E.g: it used to be forbidden throughout the Middle Ages for Christians to lend or borrow money. Only the heathen Jews were allowed. Today, the Vatican has a big bank, which only takes baptized people as customers, and was connected to a big Mafia/financial scandal).

AFAIK, the Catholic Church has (besides Galileo) never declared to be wrong in one of her teachings, only in what they did in history. Which leads back to the Holy Spirit. And of course, if they did admit that what they taught 5 centuries ago was morally relative and not absolute because they've changed their mind about it, then everybody will claim to change the other stuff, too.

As for being harsh on the Church... the Catholic Church is a well-documented example, and an established Church. In some questions, it's even more modern than many of the fundie churches in the US. That a fundie cult founded by some guy who privately reads the Bible without any prior knowledge (because the Holy Spirit will guide him) and is good at teaching may be off with their interpretation is easy to believe.
That an established institution with lots of universities and research and educated people around is still so backward and dogmatic and old-fashioned is harder to explain.

But constanze, how do you distinguish between "teachings" and "what it's done in history"? Isn't teaching an action? For example, didn't the Church at one time teach that Jews should either be pitied or hated? Didn't Pope John Paul II reverse that? (I'm going on memory here, so if someone can clarify, please do so.)

"Won’t that violate my First Amendment rights to freedom of religion if that teacher’s religion is not my own?"

Indeed, and my rights have been violated many times with teachers humiliating me and failing me because of my religious beliefs.

The picture of Ganesh was in the computer lab.

"If the church erred on one thing, they can be wrong on others. Which is why they never want to admit it. Which makes discussions so difficult if people rely on the Holy spirit, instead of using science to discus the Bible first (and then seperately see how those findings affect their personal faith). "

Of course the church errs on many subjects, but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is the One that erred, merely the people trying to interpret what the Spirit is saying.
BTW, how do I make sentences change color?

\ + the color you want + { sentence you wish to color + }, as in \ red { sentence you wish to color } (minus all the spaces, of course) = sentence you wish to color. Clear enough?

Indeed, and my rights have been violated many times with teachers humiliating me and failing me because of my religious beliefs

No, your rights have not been violated for being failed. Your religious beliefs are your religious beliefs. They are not the correct answer in a science classroom. That is why you were failed.

That's only partly true, R. The concept of Jesus the Christ is roughly 2,000 years old. The concept of the Judeo-Christian God (God the Father), on the other hand, is much older than that.
Well it seems to me that jesus has/had in many ways supplanted the God of the Judeo-Christian mythos. A subtle differentiation I know but religion is full of them. So basically the gods of old then the God then came Jesus and thats the family tree of christianity. It seems like. It has been a few years since I was in bible study. Of course that does not address the other equally valid gods that are equal to God. Allah, Budda, The Hindu ones etc.....

I guess R was referring to the historic fact that until recently, for Christians the sun went around the Earth, because the Bible said so (according to the Pope's and Rome's interpretation of it.)
That is one of the things I was thinking of. The refusal to accept basic scientific fact and deny it and kill (not done nowadays but definately in the time of the inquisition), ridicule (done quite a bit now) or otherwise silence any dissent is one of the problem I have with religion.

with teachers humiliating me I am sorry for that if they actually did that and it was not just your perception of things. Teachers should never humiliate their students. They should motivate and encourage not humiliate.

and failing me because of my religious beliefs. But I have to say that if on a science test I asked about evolution or other scientific facts and truths that you where supposed to learn and you gave me a religious answer I would fail you too and do not feel sorry for you in the slightest. I also do not feel like your freedom of religion was violated as you where apparently not told you couldnt believe in your religion but must know the scientific truth of the world around you. I am just spitting in the wind here but thats what I am guessing happened.

Well it seems to me that jesus has/had in many ways supplanted the God of the Judeo-Christian mythos. A subtle differentiation I know but religion is full of them... - R, part I

Um, nope. I don't believe it is true that Jesus has supplanted or replaced God as far as Christians are concerned. They still worship God. They still pray to God. ("Dear God" is probably the beginning of more prayers than "Dear Jesus".) The actual theology is that God and Jesus are the same person. But Christians, the last I checked, still worship God. I think Jesus is somewhat an extension of God according to most Christian doctrine.

So basically the gods of old then the God then came Jesus and thats the family tree of christianity. It seems like. It has been a few years since I was in bible study. Of course that does not address the other equally valid gods that are equal to God. Allah, Budda, The Hindu ones etc..... - R, part deux

Again, I think this is a slight misrepresentation. "The gods of old", for the most part, existed simultaneously with God (Yahweh, Jehovah, whatever you wanna call him). It depended upon a culture's religion. I'll admit it's possible that prior to the creation of God, the people who became the Hebrews worshipped other gods, but basically (and in general), belief in Yahweh co-existed with beliefs in other gods.

Sorry for turning this into "Religious Musings". Also, keep in mind I could be wrong. I'm not the religious sort at all. So I may have a lot of stuff completely (or maybe even partially) wrong.

(Also, R, I'm not picking on you. Just what I see as nits in your posts. )

"But as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

Indeed, and my rights have been violated many times with teachers humiliating me and failing me because of my religious beliefs.
Luigi Novi: How so? What were the circumstances? What do you religious beliefs have to do with them failing you?

Benn is correct; Christians believe that God has been around eternally (since he created everything) and Jesus has always been part of God, but took human form about 2,000 years ago, give or a take.

Regarding a science class, I think that science teachers can (and should) teach evolution without denigrating someone's religious beliefs. I do agree that the person should know and be willing to answer questions about evolution on a test; you can always treat it in a conceptual fashion (i.e., you are being tested not on truth, but on what evolutionary theory is about).

USA Today on ID.

Ok. I see what you are saying. Like I said it has been some time since I had to think hard about the holy trinity and the various aspects of the christian god. When i was growing up the episcopal church taught that all three where the one and the same and all the aspects where of equal value and power. In some ways I was just going off second hand information and with the behavior of my exfriends it had seemed to me that the jesus avatar was becoming a more important aspect of the trinity than the other two. I apologize for any misunderstandings on my part. My daily life doesnt touch on such theoretical stuff like that.

When i said the gods of old I was referring to the Babylonian, Sumerian, and Egyptian gods mainly who predated the invention of the judeo christian god God. But for a long period the protoGod did seem to exists contempourously with many of the other gods. Of course most if not all pantheons had a father god or all god leading their pantheon (Zeus and Odin for example) which helped ease the transition into the monotheistic All gods as one God theory. But for the most part since we all create God in our image each culture has had their own interpretation of what the god God was until it became more unified by the hebraic cultures and then the eventual catholic/christian church. Also you will note that I use the small g when referring to gods in general of which the judeochristian God is but one of. That seperates the god God from another god.

"That's not to be trivialized or disrespected. And there certainly is a place in education - a history class, a philosophy class, a study of comparative religions - for a discussion of the ways various cultures have attempted to explain the miracle of life on earth. It's appropriate for teachers to note that though nearly all scholars and researchers accept evolution, it has been and remains controversial."

Exactly.

On another note, exactly when does ID become such a neutered concept that it fails to hold any relevance for Christians anyway?

Evolution is generally only controversial to those outside the realm of science. Within science evolution is the answer to the daily double alex.

WIT,

The picture of Ganesh was in the computer lab.

Ah! That makes sense - I guess he was there because everybody working with computers needs three hands at least to press Crtl+Alt+Del.

Indeed, and my rights have been violated many times with teachers humiliating me and failing me because of my religious beliefs.

I'm sorry to hear that - teachers shouldn't humilitate you for that. Though I don't know in what manner and context you brought it up: did you debate against evolution in science class; mention it in social studies or histories class? Did you fail a lit. class because you had to write an essay about a great man, and wrote about Jesus?

Of course the church errs on many subjects, but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit is the One that erred, merely the people trying to interpret what the Spirit is saying.

But in many of the current debates - mostly not the Catholic Church, but the fundies in the USA - about morals (esp. those regarding the Gays), the standard argrument is that their interpretation of the Bible is right because the Holy Spirit is telling them so. I always hate that argument, because it's a drop-dead stop.

Luigi,

But constanze, how do you distinguish between "teachings" and "what it's done in history"? Isn't teaching an action? For example, didn't the Church at one time teach that Jews should either be pitied or hated? Didn't Pope John Paul II reverse that? (I'm going on memory here, so if someone can clarify, please do so.)

Well, I'm not an expert on Catholic Church history, but what I read in DeRosas book, the church didn't offically recant most of their bulls or so, they just revised the next edition of their study books, didn't mention the old stuff, or changed the meaning. Example with the jews: John XXIII or John Paul asked the Jews for forgiveness to what had been done to them, but I don't know if the teaching you cited has been officially recalled or just quietly dropped.
Other example: The sentence: "There's no salvation outside the Catholic Church" has quietly changed it's interpretation from "not even other christian denominations can get into heaven" to "all people who are moderately nice might avoid hell fire".
As for actions: the acts of the inquisition are usually apologized with being individuals led astray, or the products of the times (both wrong, of course.)

LOL. This is funny. In response to Jonathan Wells' Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher (which are nicely debunked here), someone came up with Ten Questions to Ask Your History Teacher, which hilariously parodies Wells' approach.

Actually, some of those are fairly good questions. The Revolutionary War (or as I am told, the War for American Independence, the more accurate title) is frequently poorly taught in school.

Non-sequitur: Joseph Ratzinger (Papa Benedict) said on Saturday (on the World Youth day in Köln), that he is for teaching Islam in the schools. I think that's because he's from Germany, and therefore saw the beneficial aspects of teaching religion in school, with governmental control, instead of leaving it to the fundamentalists, who do it uncontrolled. (The problem with Islam, of course, is, that unlike the Roman Catholics, there's no central authority with which the government can go together to talk and set up the outlines of the faith and schedule to be taught.
While the Proestants = Evangelische Kirche in Germany doesn't have a central authority principally, either, there's a central Synod which discusses and agrees about what's taught, and is a kind of official state church.)

It's also a great step forward for the Catholic Church to display such a level of tolerance towards other religions, when just a century ago, they forbade catholics to send their children to secular or mixed-religion schools.

Is Benedict going to encourage teaching Judaism in schools? Wake me up (or disinter me frmo my grave) when that happens.

ScottN,

sadly, there aren't many Jews left in Europe anymore, and those who are, don't tend to be as militant as some Muslim communities. In Germany, there aover 4 million Turkish people, of which at least 3.5 million (figures estimated) are Moslem. France has similar problems with Moslems.

Since so far, there has been only catholic, protestant and ethical religion class, islamic children are taught at the local mosquees, or, if their parents send them there, at some radical organisation.

Therefore, (last summer, I think?), a german university got a group of widely recognized scholars from different islamic groups in germany together and developed a (3 or 4 year) university course for public school teachers to qualify to teach islamic students at school, in accordance with both islmaic faith and democratic-humanistic world view.

Thus, when the kids are approached by fundamentalist and extremists, they hoepfully will know enough about their own religion to refute these extreme distorstions of scriptures, and they will have learned how to live their faith in asceular, democratic, humanistic society without trampling on other people's rights.

I just have no idea what children of jewish faith are taught - I never noticed any at my High school. If they went into Ethics class (for other religions and non-religious kids), and privately received Thorah lessons, I didn't hear about it. Maybe all the children of one district are gathered together for one class - I'd have to try to ask a teacher about the reugaltions in that case.

But in protestant class, we discussed the other main world religions - Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and several atheistic views, and we learned relevant parts about the Jewish religion, too (since the Bible was written by Jews, the Passah feast is important to understand Easter, the different fractions around Jesus time are important to understand the background, etc.)

This isn't really so much a political observation, but I was really fascinated by a program on the evolution of life (last night) on the Discovery Channel. It's really amazing how genetically similar humans are to the rest of the animal world-even to sea slugs! At an early stage of the fetus, humans even resemble fish (sharing the organ which develops into gills in fish ) and even have a vestigal tail.

During a report on religion and science on tv a while ago, I thought I recall the last Pope saying that the theory of evolution was compatible with Christianity. Has the new Pope said anything yet on Evolution?

Rona,

... I thought I recall the last Pope saying that the theory of evolution was compatible with Christianity. Has the new Pope said anything yet on Evolution?

While I haven't followed his announcments closely, I don't think it's necessary (or advisable, or likely) for him to say that the Catholic Church is still accepting evolution. If he said anything against it, there would be a massive problem with the european Catholics, most of which have of course accepted evolution and learned it in school, and can't imagine going back to the literal interpretation.

Rona: I was really fascinated by a program on the evolution of life (last night) on the Discovery Channel.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, that was an awesome show. The part with the newly-born turtle hatchlings struggling to get to the sea before being attacked by predators was pretty cool. I also liked the part right after that where parts of our embryonic anatomy were compared to those of other animals. And I had no idea that jellyfish had no blood or brains. For those of you with the Discovery Channel that missed it but would like to catch it if and when they rerun it, it’s called Journey of Life.

Rona: During a report on religion and science on tv a while ago, I thought I recall the last Pope saying that the theory of evolution was compatible with Christianity. Has the new Pope said anything yet on Evolution?

constanze: I don't think it's necessary (or advisable, or likely) for him to say that the Catholic Church is still accepting evolution. If he said anything against it, there would be a massive problem with the european Catholics, most of which have of course accepted evolution and learned it in school, and can't imagine going back to the literal interpretation.
Luigi Novi: Actually, Pope John Paul II accepted evolution as scientific fact. In an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome on October 7, 1996, where he declared [the Church's] acceptance of evolution as a scientific fact, and noted that there is no war between religion and science, he said:

"Consideration of the method used in diverse orders of knowledge allows for the concordance of two points of view which seem irreconcilable. The science of observation describes with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life…while theology extracts the final meaning according to the Creator’s designs."

As for Pope Benedict, he presided over the Church’s International Theological Commission when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, and the Commission corroborated John Paul’s earlier statement. From pages 62-70 of the Commission’s document:

63. … While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

68. With respect to the evolution of conditions favorable to the emergence of life, Catholic tradition affirms that, as universal transcendent cause, God is the cause not only of existence but also the cause of causes. Gods action does not displace or supplant the activity of creaturely causes, but enables them to act according to their natures and, nonetheless, to bring about the ends he intends. In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation. Although there is scientific debate about the degree of purposiveness or design operative and empirically observable in these developments, they have de facto favored the emergence and flourishing of life. Catholic theologians can see in such reasoning support for the affirmation entailed by faith in divine creation and divine providence. In the providential design of creation, the triune God intended not only to make a place for human beings in the universe but also, and ultimately, to make room for them in his own trinitarian life. Furthermore, operating as real, though secondary causes, human beings contribute to the reshaping and transformation of the universe.

69. The current scientific debate about the mechanisms at work in evolution requires theological comment insofar as it sometimes implies a misunderstanding of the nature of divine causality. Many neo-Darwinian scientists, as well as some of their critics, have concluded that, if evolution is a radically contingent materialistic process driven by natural selection and random genetic variation, then there can be no place in it for divine providential causality. A growing body of scientific critics of neo-Darwinism point to evidence of design (e.g., biological structures that exhibit specified complexity) that, in their view, cannot be explained in terms of a purely contingent process and that neo-Darwinians have ignored or misinterpreted. The nub of this currently lively disagreement involves scientific observation and generalization concerning whether the available data support inferences of design or chance, and cannot be settled by theology. But it is important to note that, according to the Catholic understanding of divine causality, true contingency in the created order is not incompatible with a purposeful divine providence. Divine causality and created causality radically differ in kind and not only in degree. Thus, even the outcome of a truly contingent natural process can nonetheless fall within Gods providential plan for creation. According to St. Thomas Aquinas: The effect of divine providence is not only that things should happen somehow, but that they should happen either by necessity or by contingency. Therefore, whatsoever divine providence ordains to happen infallibly and of necessity happens infallibly and of necessity; and that happens from contingency, which the divine providence conceives to happen from contingency (Summa theologiae, I, 22,4 ad 1). In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence simply cannot exist because the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles….It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

However, Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, archbishop of Vienna, asserted last month that "Evolution in the Neo-Darwinian sense...is not true", which has upset some, who want Benedict to clarify the Church’s position.

Sadly, Benedict seems to have taken a step backward from the position that the Commssion he presided over took earlier, as he said, “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.” during his April 24, 2005 innaugural mass.

But read the context in which the Pope said this statement. I'm not sure if he was trying to make a statement on evolution as a SCIENCE, I think he was just assserting the total sovereignty of God, which could still be compatible with evolution if one assumes that God is controlling it and it is not random.

So he was denying evolution and science unless they submitted to the will of the christian god? That the laws of science and genetics as well as random probability coupled with survival capacity are valid only if controlled and guided by a higher principle? Then that sounds less like evolution and more like intelligent design or creationism.

Not necessarily. A creationist would assert that creation was an extremely intimate process, as outlined in the Bible, one that was supernatural inherently. What the Pope SEEMS to be saying (especially in the context of the Commission's report) is that it is possible that creation could have happened through evolution, but that the steps were not random but controlled by God. There is a large difference. A belief like this would agree with everything an evolutionist says and then add "God was in control of it" to the end, as opposed to a creationist or an ID-ist who would inherently disagree with the concept.

Wouldn't the really Orthodox sects of Catholicism, such as the one Mel Gibson belongs to, reject evolution regardless of whether the Pope accepted it or not?

I'm not sure.

Rona, Probably. But they reject a lot of what the last few Popes have done to the church. They want tu return to the old days of the early 20th century and before.

Rona, there have been two really conservative (some might say right-wing) visitors to this site in the past who claimed to be quite religious, and very strict in their religious and political views, and interestingly, they both accepted evolution. Now I don't know if the denominations they belong to are considered "orthodox" (one is the son of a Protestant minister, and is a member of the Conservative Church of Christ, and other is a Protestant), but I found it interesting that they both accepted evolution.

Creationism seems to be an obsession of American Protestant Fundamentalists. Maybe Constanze can fill me in on it, but I don't recall reading that Evolution is controversial in any Church in Europe. I think Creationism/Intelligent Design is mostly a concern for the politicised American Religious Right. Ever since the eighties (with the founding of the Moral Majority), there has been an aggressive attempt by the religious Right to get Creationism into public schools.

I not too thrilled with another development in the Creationism movement. They're constructing a multi-million dollar Creation museum designed to be a major attraction for religious people as well as tourists. News reports show that it includes dinosaurs (a huge draw for the kids). They'll put up exhibits teaching that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time (who knew that Raquel Welsh's "One Million Years B.C." was a 'documentary'). It really is disgusting that they are going to lie to kids.

I fear that the "museum" will resort to another tactic. They'll probably put up an exhibit mentioning the "Piltdown Man" hoax, inferring that the fossil evidence for man's evolution is mostly fraudulent. It's a tactic I've seen before. Jimmy Swaggart ran a week's special on debunking Evolution. One of his focal points of "evidence" against evolution was bringing up the PiltDown Man. Interestingly, the original hoax had political motivations too- the History Channel's "Ape to Man" special ( a couple of weeks ago) reveals that one of the reasons that the hoax was created was England's scientific rivalry with Germany at the time. The English scientists wanted to outdo German scientists who had a Neanderthal skull fragment. The current rivalry between proponents of Intelligent design and Evolutions seems to be more about politics too, and not science.

MikeC your description reminds me of the old SNL gilda radner skit where she would take off on some loud winding rant and then at the end realise she had no clue and would look sheepishly into the camera and say nevermind. BY goign yeah the rules of evolution and science are real and work, because god said so justs truck a cord like that. Sort of saying yeah your right and then dismissing it totally in the very next statement.

Rona,

...Maybe Constanze can fill me in on it, but I don't recall reading that Evolution is controversial in any Church in Europe. I think Creationism/Intelligent Design is mostly a concern for the politicised American Religious Right....

While I can't speak for all European Churches (we have our crazy sects and cults over here, too, but they don't get as much headlines, usually, as the state churches) - the major Churches and most Christians as well as normal citizens don't know what Creationism is. (There isn't even a word for it in the german language; the story of Genesis itself is called "Schöpfungsgeschichte=creation story", but the theory is unknown).

Whenever I tell some of my german friends about it, I have to first explain the term, and then I get astonished looks and comments along the lines of "How can anybody still believe that?" Most people think of the discussion between Evolution and Christians as something that happened in the last 19th century, when Darwin first introduced his theory - there were violent debates, and ridiculing, but then so much evidence in many different fields was found, that nobody with half a brain or half a science education would doubt it today.
Also, people taking the Bible literally as *that* would be considered to be on the wrong track entirely about their faith.

While I haven't polled this, there's never any debate about it on the news, so I'd say, yes, Creationism is a special American problem of American Christians, and their special view of fundamentalism in regards to the Bible. (More on that might belong on RM rather then PM).

No, I don't think it's like that R--I don't see anything in what the Commission report and the Pope said that would flagrantly go against the scientific principles of evolution. It's just that they believe that evolution as a process is under the control of God, which is not exactly provable or disprovable. It's like me saying that gravity exists because God wills it. I'm not denying gravity, I'm not distorting the scientific principle behind it, I'm just saying that gravity works because of God.

Interesting Mike. Still smacking of the nonscientific as it involves a god in anyway and science does not involve deities. But I can see how people might be more comforted with that as it is not giving up the security blanket of religion totally.

Constanze: It is too bad that more american's couldnt get the attitude of europe and learn something.

MikeC,

your gravity analogy makes your position a bit clearer to me. Yes, of course you can posit a force/God behind the final curtain, pulling the strings and controlling everything, but describe it in terms of science (gravimetric particles, strong/weak electromagnetic force etc.)

Since the final curtain is outside the scope and interest and realm of science, it's not unscientific to believe this.

But I would find it a bit difficult to word the explanations as to avoid the misunderstanding - since there are enough other people out there who will talk about God controlling things at an earlier, more direct stage, which contradicts science.

No, science does not involve deities. But it is not inherently atheisitic. You are making it sound as if all scientists are atheists. I just don't see the contradiction between someone saying "Here is the scientific theory. My personal belief is that there is a God behind the scenes."

No, scientists aren't atheistics (=against God), they leave God out of the equation when discussing possible causes.

Scientists aren't against little aliens from Mars, but they don't discuss them as likely cause of gravity.

Instead, they discuss the theory of gravity. Why gravity works - if it's because God is controlling it with his noodly appendage, or because things like falling down - is non sequitur question, when scientists only want to explain how it works.

True. What the pope is saying is that explain how it works (science) and then explain why it works (religion).

Mike

Modern European science began with men who believed that God ordered the universe and that He did so in a sensible way. And that He gave us rational minds. Rational minds that could understand much of the sensible Universe.

The also believed that God could produce miracles if He so chose, but that they were extraordinary events that were outside this sensible ordering of the Universe.

And so if Science is about the ordinary workings of the Universe, it must focus on those, and ignore the extra-ordinary, supernatural events. They are super-natural, above Nature. Scince studies only Nature.

That science ignores God and the supernatural is not evidence for a-theism or anti-theism. It is simply a defined limitation of the pursuit.

As it happens, within science itself there have been found areas where scientific measurement can never reach. (Heisenberg uncertainty, Shroedinger undecidibility, Godel incompleteness, etc.) There is still plenty of room for faith. But true faith does not require denying the real progress made by science in its proper venues.

I agree with that, and I don't see the pope's statements as inherently conflicting with that.

Two from the LA Times

Christian Schools sue UC for discrimination against students taught "Creationism".

Cabazon Dinosaurs and Creationists.

"It appears that the UC system is attempting to secularize Christian schools and prevent them from teaching from a world Christian view," said Patrick H. Tyler, a lawyer with Advocates for Faith and Freedom, which is assisting the plaintiffs.
No it looks like they are attempting to set certian minimum standards for those seeking entrance to their college. Don't wanna teach science then you don't go to Ucal. (Sorry being near cincy there already is a UC in my vocab)

"What we're doing is really for the benefit of the students," she said. "These requirements were established after careful study by faculty and staff to ensure that students who come here are fully prepared with broad knowledge and the critical thinking skills necessary to succeed." so spokeswoman Ravi Poorsina said


All I have to say about the second story is. This is why we need to teach science in the science classroom and not allow travesties like that from happening. I know I wouldn't let any kid I cared about go near one of those disgusting holes of ignorance.

As usual with these articles, I really don't have enough information to say too much. I will say that kind of sucks for kids whose parents put them in religious schools. Couldn't they demonstrate basic science knowledge through a college-administered test or something? Also, if the college approves other religious classes but not Christian, then that is a problem.

As for the second article, I really don't know what to think. I believe that sometimes Christians make God jump through their own hoops ("Dinosaurs HAD to be on Noah's Ark!") for no real reason. This is God, we're talking about here. Nevertheless, I might take my kid to Dinosaur Adventure Land--who can resist a Long Neck Liftasaurus?

Thats what I was thinking too. The college sets minimum standards. Incoming students have to meet these standards. Either from school transcripts, standardized tests (SAT etc...) or admissions tests.

Also a college can and should let the schools know what they would be expecting from students and what they should be getting their students ready for if they want their students to be able to get into that college. Thats what this looks like is happening to me but the relgious folks at those schools want to impose their beliefs on the college and claim they are being attacked. An all too unfortunate occurance.

Oh don't get me wrong I'd take my kids to a dino park too. I mean my daughter loves the natural history museum. She finds the dino exhibits and the giant (to her at least) stuffed polar bear and all that. But they don't lie to the kids about dinosaurs and humans living at the same time.

I wouldnt grace a place that tried to shove creationism and/or break all the rules of science by claiming humans and dinosaurs mingled or the earth is only 6000 years old with my shadow. Much less any of my hard earned money. Now if they have humans and dinosaurs mingling but its more a flintstone's setting funpark thats cool.

That's why we have a standard of accrediting schools (colleges and high school) so that someone can't just teach student's anything regardless of validity. For example if a school teaches kids in history class that the holocaust never happened and the KKK were heroes battling to reclaim the south from the carpetbaggers it would not get an accreditation and the university would not want students entering who went to that school.

That's why we have a standard of accrediting schools (colleges and high school) so that someone can't just teach student's anything regardless of validity...

But why only at college entry level? Not everybody can afford going to college, so who corrects their one-sided view of (history, science, whatever) because they visited a loony school?

Most likely, through life experiences--learning from others, learning on their own to obtain a job. Or they may never learn because it doesn't apply to their life.

Actually accredited schools go as far as Kindergarden. All of the public ones and most of the private ones are are accredited. I knew a girl who found out when she wanted to go to college that her HS was in fact unaccredited and she had to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a GED so she could take the college enterance exams. Since I know that her parents are bible thumpers I'd wager that it's because the school doesn't believe in legit science. Ironically she's a bisexual slut with pierced nipples so all of the work to shield her from the world muct have backfired.

Yep. In L.A., Crenshaw High School just lost its accreditation.

"Ironically she's a bisexual slut with pierced nipples..."

Really!

Cool! How do you know about the nipples?

Umm, unless we are talking about the evolution of nipples or what purpose they serve in creationism can we move past her nipples?
(the mental imagery there.......)

R after this one no more references to from me.

I know because when a bunch of college age resturant people get together to party and drink cloths have been known to come off and skin gets flashed, kinda like those Girls Gone Wild ads they show during Howard Stern. A friend of mine who dated her for like a week even got her to pose for topless pics infront of several friends once.

Thank you Brian. I just kinda thought it might be a good idea to try and steer around any troubles before they get here.

And you have made me miss my college days all that much more and make me feel old. Thanks a lot. ;-)

Two bits of news:

First, scientists have confirmed the precise order of the chimpanzee's genetic code, showing that there is only a 1% difference from humans.

Sadly, John McCain has advocated the teaching of creationism in science classes.

AAAAACCCCKKKKK!! I think Mccain is making up for that 1%

All this week, The Daily Show has a four-part series on the Evolution/Creationism debate, or as they put it "Evolution-Schmevolution". It's not hard to tell where their sympathies lie, with guests such as Chris Mooney, author of "The Repubican War on Science".

Monday's show was interesting. It shows that a tourist business has developed catering to Creationists in the Tenn. town where the Scopes Trial took place. In addition to a museum (of ignorance), there's a Creationist "college"... a church just put a sign up by the road declaring itself to be a college. The museum's director doesn't confine her disapproval to just evolutionists, she also depises "sodomites", proving that her science isn't the only thing confined to the nineteenth century, so are her social terms.

Continued from the Moral Relativism, Absolutism & Subjectivity board.

Zarm Rkeeg: And, while I believe (before we start arguing about it, let's keep in mind: separate board!) that Evolution is sham pseudoscience, I agree that banning it completely would be an intellectual dishonesty.
Luigi Novi: First, can you tell us what the definition of pseudoscience is, and how evolution conforms to that defintion?

Second, if you believe it to be pseudoscientific, then how is banning it from public science classrooms (which is what should be done with pseudoscientific ideas) an intellectual dishonesty?

Hmm, no answer? Wow, what a shocker.

On a slightly more substantial and less arbitrary note, here are some recent devlopments.

It is just too scary sometimes how far the christian taliban will go to try and destroy science, freedom to think or reason isnt it.

Didn't anyone comment on the fact that voters in Dover, PA voted out of office the Republican school board that ordered Intelligent Design to be taught in schools- and voted Pro-Evolution board members in. FOX News downplayed this fact, yet they did give disproportionate airtime to the recent ruling in Kansas allowing Intelligent design to be taught in the school. The FOX pundits said the Kansas decision was evidence that Conservatives are "fed up" and fighting back. Then, can't it be said that voters in Dover were "fed up" too. FOX is trying to make this issue look like part of the culture war in America. Of course, they celebrate the Kansas decision as a victory. Even Pat Robertson has waded into the fray; he's denounced Dover voters for "abandoning God".

Goes to prove that Intelligent Design exists in Dover PA, but not in Kansas . The voters intelligently designed their new school board to emphasize science, not religion.

Many people in Dover were tired of the negative coverage of their community. Many expressed the opinion that the Republican school board decision had made them a "laughing stock" around the world (it had attracted the attention of the international press).

The crazies are running rampant over here, too (article in German): the German TV just had a report on the growing Creationist movement here - growing probably not in numbers, but by catching a few people in important positions. One is a microbiology guy (Scherer) who wrote a school book criticizing evolution in favour of creationism, who also heads a study group called "Word and knowledge" (and I can bet what word that is...). He's got the conservative prime minister of Thüringen (East Germany - maybe they take the Bible literally because they didn't have good theology/religion class under the communists, and therefore, don't know the real score? Or he's just dumb.)

Hopeful, that report will cause enough of a stir that people will oppose the movement and educate themselves better about biology, before we head in the direction of a Gottesstaat like the US is under Bush

Y'know, I'd really like to see this country that everyone is talking about. The Extreme Right who say it is the most decadent country ever, and the Extreme Left who say it is under the control of the Christian Taliban. Which is it, folks?

This just in signs of intelligent life at the Vatican.

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms, the latest high-ranking Roman Catholic official to enter the evolution debate in the United States.


The Rev. George Coyne, the Jesuit director of the Vatican Observatory, said placing intelligent design theory alongside that of evolution in school programs was "wrong" and was akin to mixing apples with oranges.

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be," the ANSA news agency quoted Coyne as saying on the sidelines of a conference in Florence. "If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

Actually, anon, I'd say there were at least signs of intelligent life there in Janurary 1996 when Pope John Paul II publicly accepted evolution as scientific fact when addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome, wouldn't you say?

Sorry I missed that one. So thats what twice and it hasnt even been a hundred years? Thats really rapid change for the vatican.

MikeC: Y'know, I'd really like to see this country that everyone is talking about. The Extreme Right who say it is the most decadent country ever, and the Extreme Left who say it is under the control of the Christian Taliban. Which is it, folks?
Neither, really. The extreme sides just tend to say things like that.

Take a look around the country at the fear and bully tactics the christian taliban have tried and used to get laws passed. Look at how the kansas school boards ahve destroyed the science program for their schools.

Look at the heros of Dover Pa who manage dto thwart the evils of the christian taliban and rescue their schools from ignorance.

Look around.

I am looking, man. And I see a country. I don't see this Christian Taliban demon state that you apparently see.

I see a country as well. A country imperilled by the abundance of religious zealotry such as robertson, phillips from westboro, burris from around here, and all the rest of their ilk who wish to force their interpretations of right and wrong and moral code on everyone else by changing the laws and ignoring the seperation of church and state.

The anti-same-gender-marriage laws which are just the christian taliban's moral code. Intelligent design and creationism in schools and museums instead of science. Censorship of the radio and television, public nudity laws, all in the name of decency and community values, which is just a code word for "christian" values and which christianity is it? Well that depends on which one of the ilk you ask. Each claims they are the one true church with all the answers and have a direct line with the christian god.

So yeah i look around and I see a country too. A country divided and in conflict. A country that needs to sort out and defend itself from the religious zealots of all kinds.

I never got from R that he meant the "state" was a Christian Taliban one, only that he was describing those who do not respect the equality other people who do not share their religious beliefs, or SoCaS.

Exactly Luigi. That is what I am on about. Not every christian, person or american is a christian talibaner. Only those who feel that their moral code is the only code others should live by and go about trying to change the laws to enforce that. Who go about ranting and bullying and condmening any who do not agree with their limited and narrow POV.

Fortunately there is no real organized agreement between the various cults of the christian taliban so it is still possible to defend against their evil and defeat it.

My sig on slashdot:

---

Quote:

People who need the government to enforce their religion must not have very much faith in it.

---

Found this news:

There is currently an exciting and very strong exhibition celebrating the life of Charles Darwin featured at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. It cost three million dollars to organize and set up, but it has failed to find any corporate sponsor support simply because American companies are anxious not to take sides in the present brouhaha between science and fundamentalist Christians over the theory of evolution, which theory the exhibit firmly endorses – as it should. Wealthy individuals and private charitable donations are supporting the show, instead.

This reluctance – refusal! – of American companies to back what is a brilliantly educational exhibition, is believed to be due to the growing influence – in business and in education – of the fundamentalist movement. Adding to the dismay of New Yorkers over this failing, another fact has shocked them; the Creationist Museum near Cincinnati, Ohio, which treats as fact the Biblical story of creation, has recently raised seven million in donations.

From Randis Newsletter

I had no idea you read Randi's Weekly Commentary, Constanze. Nice to know it.

Well, I don't read on a weekly basis... But once in a while I look in there.

That's at least three of our regular posters, then.

Four people as I occasionally check the JREF out to see whats goign on. I used to stay up late and watch him on Carson.

Five, but not regularly.

Doesn't Mark Morgan read it?? And wasn't there another poster here who read it?

Me, I read it every week, and I also get Bob Park's newsletter emailed to me as well. Both come out every Friday.

Now if only Michael Shermer will get his own blog and/or email newsletter...

I've started reading the Bob Park one after you mentioned it on another thread. Very interesting stuff.

I just watched on TV "Evolution - the war of faith" (a documentation from the German TV station ZDF, more here in german)

(Joachim Bublath is a well-known moderator of science shows for laymen in the public TV stations.)

A brief explanation of creationism and Intelligent Design, and a thorough trashing of it.

A few cites:

"To make it clear: this so-called creationism is not in line with the offical churches, who have no problem with science.

Half of the Americans are convinced that creationism is true, and Darwin wrong.

Why do people believe these simply explanation?

They want to establish an antagonistic-of-science worldview...

They brainwash children and want to invade schools

Evolution theory isn't doubted by scientists..."

Three parts explain: Evolution through adaptation (example of snow hares getting white fur)

Evolution of the eye (and if it was designed, it's badly done with many mistakes; if it evolved, it's typical for a compromise which offers enough advantage to survival, while the drawbacks and faults are not enough of a misadvantage in survival.)

Difference between men and apes. (and the many similarities - chimps use tools, and even know sin like unprovoked aggression. And although chimps can't speak, they know how to lie...)

The moderator also mentioned that although creationism and ID are prevalent in the US (and how worrisome it is that Pres. Bush himself is one of these "born-again" Christians, and thus, encourages the teaching of it), it's also starting to spread in countries like Italy and Spain. (I wonder how much the strict hold the Catholic Church had on these countries in the past makes the people more suspectible if absurd ideas and simple explanations are dressed up as matters of faith, although the Catholic Church itself no longer takes Genesis literally, and is against the american form of creationism.)

The final was a warning that if creationists and their unscientific "Intelligent Design" passes into more class rooms, whole generation of children will not learn natural science, and might even hate science, thus depriving us of the chance to advance them.

The last spot told of the meteor which probably extinguished the dinosaurs, and that today, mankind is living over the resources, coming close to a man-made extinction.

Half of Americans? That seems like a bit of an exaggeration. Is it really that many?

I would say a great deal believe in a form of theistic evolution, if that makes sense...

creationism by any other name be it intelligent design, theistic evolution or whatever other BS you wanna call it is still an insult to science.

Of course, as with all polls, wording of the question and sample size and -group are important. If the question was along the lines of "Do you think that Darwin was wrong, and that somebody created/made life on Earth?", I think 50% isn't too high a number. Haven't over 70% of Americans said they believe in a God? (Yes, not all of them are Christian fundies..., but it's still a large number.)

They didn't cite where the figures had come from, since this was an overview and explanation of the movement itself (which is still, thankfully, largely unknown in Germany) and an explanation of how evolution works (for the laypeople who didn't catch it during school and might therefore be confused by the religious claims), all in 45 min.

Since I've already been exposed to the movements (and know basic evolution), only some parts were new or interesting, such as the advanced use of movie-technology in the creationists and ID "museums" to depict the 6-days-account; showing videos of some religious camp where kids sang songs about evolution being wrong. A fun segment was when they used CGI to "design" a human with improvements, e.g. give him a long tail and have him hunch over to prevent the back-pain that comes from walking upright; broaden the jaw to incorporate 3 sets of teeth instead of 2; large, movable ears like a donkey... the result looked funny, but would be better than the current version.

I believe in G-d. However, I also believe in a Deistic interpretation of the universe.

THE FOLLOWING IS PERSONAL BELIEF:

The Big Bang followed naturally from some initial conditions. Everything in the universe flows from that. No divine intervention has occurred since the Big Bang. However, the initial conditions (false vacuum?) were caused by Hakadosh Baruch Hu. He was the prime cause, and we're his "reality show".

But you wouldn't answer that Darwin is wrong in a poll, if I understand you correctly? And all this creationism and ID shouldn't be a problem for you, then?

Correct.

The thing is that:

1. it depends on the wording of the poll. Plenty of scientists personally believe in God and think that the processes of evolution were perhaps guided by him. But they don't feel the need to print it in their reports because it's a personal belief. Someone else could just as easly say they think that it all happened by random chance, or aliens from outer space guided it or whatever else. The problem is that some people on the right have created this idea that people who believe in evolution are a bunch of atheasts and if you believe them it means you have to believe that the bible and everything in it are a bunch of BS.

Court Strikes down ID in Dover case.

And this is no way an activist judge. He was appointed by W in 2002.

Some choice quotes from the ruling:

---

Quote:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

---

---

Quote:

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

---

I don't see how the judge could have ruled any differently. The school board had a very weak case, filled with holes you could drive a Mack truck through.

Continued from the Sci-Fi Hall of Shame board:

MikeB: 'Intelligent Design' does NOT say, 'the God of the Bible created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th, only a few thousand years ago'. THAT would be 'teaching religion in science class'. What 'Intelligent Design' does is, for example, ask, 'Did the Eiffel Tower create itself by a series of accidents, or did someone design it?
Luigi Novi: Well, no, that’s not exactly true, as the ID movement does more than simply “ask”. It flat-out states that we had be created from an intelligent designer, and denies the evidence that we evolved through natural selection.

MikeB: And how many geneticists will deny that every cell in any human body is vastly more complex than the Eiffel Tower?' Another way of stating this is to refer to the astronomer Kepler. When an atheist acquaintance visited Kepler, he asked about a model of the Solar System, very accurate as it was then known. Kepler said, 'Oh, that just formed itself out of the dust in the corner'. The acquaintance replied that surely it must have been made by someone. Kepler said, 'You claim that the real universe, which is vastly more complex, came about by accident; yet you see that this model had to have been made by Someone'.
Luigi Novi: Assuming this anecdote is true, the difference between the two is that the model had specified complexity that was prescribed after the fact, because it was deliberately made to resemble something pre-existing, whereas the universe’s complexity is contingent. Kepler’s notion, therefore, that a model to require a creator means that the universe had to have one (or that complexity cannot exist in nature through natural processes) is no more correct than his belief that the craters on the moon were intelligently designed by moon dwellers.

MikeB: NOTE that all of this Does Not Say WHO the postulated designer was.
Luigi Novi: But we all know that ID proponents believe it is. We know that they are creationists who believe it is the Judeo-Christian God, and that their substitution of an explicit reference to that God with the phrase “Intelligent Designer” is simply a pretext.

Luigi Novi: But we all know that ID proponents believe it is. We know that they are creationists who believe it is the Judeo-Christian God, and that their substitution of an explicit reference to that God with the phrase “Intelligent Designer” is simply a pretext.

No, it's The Flying Spaghetti Monster. May He reach out and touch you with His Noodly Appendage!

Umm can he touch me with another appendage besides his noodly one. I live in ohio and am male so we can't legally touch another noodly appendage.

Besides, the basic assumption "Since life /cells are so complicated, somebody must have designed them" is a logical fallacy in itself. There are other options for complicated things to exist then being designed.

I think Richard Dawkins wrote a book called "The Blind Watchmaker" as counter-argument (the previous statement was that the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker; so the existence of a very badly put-together watch implies a blind /incomptent watchmaker.)

And if the human body was designed, there are major design flaws.

Didn't we have the discussion of "men-made models and things" vs. "real life" already several times?

Proposing a designer as only explanation for complexity also requires one to ignore the scientific evidence for current adaption and selection in short-lived species (fruit flies, bacteria, mice). Or the interesting computer models about complex things developing and evolving from simple ones by using a few simple enviromental rules. (The formation of an eye in a computer model took only 400 generations from "light-sensing cells" to "mammal /human eye" with the rule of small, biological possible mutations, and keeping those that were better then before.)

Or the other examples of self-forming structures in nature.

We know e.g. the process of protein manufacturing in the cell - the ribosome reads the DNA, each codon translates as "attach one specific amino acid" and when the stop codon appears, the protein is finished. But each protein then folds itself into a complicated, very specific shape (which is important for it's work in the body later, fitting to the correct receptors), although it was only a string of amino acids before. We don't yet fully understand or know how it does. Does this mean that some designer is going around folding all the proteins in all the cells on Earth? Or does it simply mean we can't explain it yet? There is some speculation it might be electric forces from different parts of the chain.

Crystals form themselves, too. We can't really explain why snowflakes or salts form crystals. Does this mean somebody goes around designing and creating them everytime snow falls, every time salts form? (Must be an awfully person, this designer/creator). Or does this mean we do not understand it yet?

I just think it's pretty arrogant to claim that because some people with their limited humand minds and current understanding and knowledge don't know how something works, it must have been some superior being.

Y'all stay out of Kansas, Missy. We don't need or want your kind here.

The last theory to finish off both ID and evolution: Moronic Design! (Read the arguments against both for fun.)

LOL. This looks funny.

Anglican Leader blasts creationism.

4. JUST A THEORY: ANGLICAN LEADER SPEAKS OUT ABOUT CREATIONISM.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, told The Guardian on Tuesday that creationism devalues the Bible as "just another theory." His choice of words was ironic in view of the anti-evolution slogan.

Kirk Cameron, bananas, and creationism. Insert your own "that guy is bananas" joke here.

It would be so easy to speculate why he feels that the banana is "perfectly shaped for the human mouth," but I think I'll follow "Don't Ask; Don't Tell."

(Even Kirk gave him an odd look when he said that.)

Video that illustrates why the human eye is not irreducibly complex.

Dover school board defeated in election.

1. THE DARWIN CODE: WILL THE "INTELLIGENT DESIGNER" BE REVEALED?
Our story opens with the grisly defeat of the eight members of the Dover Area School Board who were up for reelection. Behind their demise, we now learn, is a shadowy organization called the Discovery Institute, which is sworn to suppress the secret identity of the "Intelligent Designer." Just "teach the controversy," warns the founder of the Discovery Institute, Bruce Chapman. Otherwise people might think the argument has something to do with religion instead of pure science. He blames the Dover School Board. To convince others not to reveal the identity of the designer, the Discovery Institute has rushed into print with a new book "Traipsing Into Evolution," in which their legal experts analyze the impact of Kitzmiller v. Dover.

Pat Robertson has already suggested that God will not save the voters of Dover. Next, he'll probably proclaim that the Almighty is helping the Discovery Institute. He's helped us understand the moral failings of pro-Evolution folks.

U.S. Lags Behind Europe, Japan in Acceptance of Evolution

I just thought this was interesting..
However, I'd like to see a table involving countries in the middle east and how well they accept it.

Michael Shermer debates Jonathan Wells at the Cato Institute.

Good debate between the two guys.

Shemer argues why Christians should accept evolution in the October 2006 Scientific American. The weekly eSkeptic newsletter I got in my email today also includes 25 letters to the Editor in response to the column, most of them negative, but it is not yet up in the eSkeptic archives. Maybe I'll post a link to it when it's there.

So that's where "inherit the wind" originates. Interesting.

Oh, if only more people would listen to this guy and Stan then they would... agree... with us.

Actually, I agree with most of those points (even if only the first half are specifically directed towards Christians) with the exception of number three. I do not believe evolution explains natural sin, I believe the Bible does. Do I think that there is a way in which evolution and the Biblical account of original sin/Creation can be reconciled? Sure. Do I pretend to know? No.

Since "sin" is a not a scientific concept, it can't be reconciled with science. Give me a scientific definition of "sin" that doesn't involve offending a supernatural being, and then we can try to reconcile them.

Shermer explains in further detail in The Science of Good and Evil how moral and immoral behavior ("sin") is explained by evolution. Sin may not be a scientific concept, but one can look at it as just a different word for something that can be examined scientifically (i.e.: behavior). He also touched upon it in the column, though obviously more briefly.

Pardon me. "Original Sin" is purely a Christian religious concept, and therefore, by definition, cannot be "reconciled" with science.

Why not? I mean, this guy is saying more or less that God, a very supernatural concept can be reconciled with science, so why not original sin? Or is your point that science cannot prove or explain original sin? I agree with that.

But sin in general can be thought of as just a different word for moral or immoral behavior, Scott, which can be explained by science. I don't think Shermer is interested in such specifics as what "type" of sin it is, since it's a moot point in his thesis.

Define "moral" and "immoral". Are you referring to morality as defined by a follower of the Taliban, or the Pope, or maybe a liberal Reform Jew in LA or San Francisco?

"moral" and "immoral" are subjective.

And even if "sin" in general can be reconciled, I was really responding to Mike's post on Original Sin. And in the post above yours, he agreed with my interpretation.

Pardon me. "Original Sin" is purely a Christian religious concept, and therefore, by definition, cannot be "reconciled" with science.

Yes but doesn't sin itself exist in every religion? If not origional sin doesn't every religion have a set of beliefs that says that some things are good to do and others are wrong?

ScottN: Define "moral" and "immoral". Are you referring to morality as defined by a follower of the Taliban, or the Pope, or maybe a liberal Reform Jew in LA or San Francisco? "moral" and "immoral" are subjective.
Luigi Novi: Morality as in the general concept of rightness and wrongness. In his book, Shermer explains how we evolved morality, and points to what he calls "pre-moral behavior" in the animal kingdom. I highly recommend the book. It's the third part of his "Belief" trilogy, the first two having been Why People Believe Weird Things and How We Believe.

And yes, I know you were responding to Mike.

I just checked, and they have posted the Reader Letters sent in response to Shermer's column, which you can read here.

I know I'm a little late jumping in here (see the first paragraph of my post in GLBT Issues), but the way I read it (and I may be reading between the lines, not always the best way to discern the author's intentions), Shermer is claiming that "moral" crises and decisions between "good and evil" come from a conflict between an inherent "selfishness" and an inherent "altruism" both of which can be explained as survival mechanisms which evolution would have re-inforced. He is not, himself, making the claim for any given crisis or decision which should be the "right" path to take. The decisions become moral in context, which would require knowlege of the society in which the person is a member.

It is in this sense alone that evolution produces morality and moral codes.

After reading his article, I think Shermer has demonstrated that he lacks any real understanding of Christian theology. While I agree with his first point that the number of years God used is really irrelevant (though there is a struggle with the phrasing used in Gen 1), the rest of his points seem to diverge into effectively removing God from any activity in the world. He is presenting a view of God consistent with Deism as opposed to Christianity.

His second point, "Calling God a watchmaker is belittling" seems to either misunderstand or grossly distort the meaning of the intelligent design/watchmaker argument. The argument is that life is inherrently too complex to have formed without an intentional design behind it. To demonstrate the meaning, the analogy is used of find a watch in the middle of nowhere and arguing whether it was a natural occurance or the product of a "watchmaker." There is nothing belittling to God in that argument, any more than any of Jesus' parables that cast God as a human being (usually a father) were. Attack the argument all you want, but don't create some straw-man to attack by distorting the opposition.

His 3rd point also demonstrates his lack of understanding regarding Christian teachings. His argument is one of dualism, where man struggles, on his own, between good and evil. As a couple of his respondents said, this is contrary to scripture. Scripture and Christian teachings hold that man is inherrently sinful, due to lack of connection with God. When man is without that connection to God, he goes his own way, which is defined in scripture as "sin."

I have yet to see points 4 and 5 contested, nor do they seem to have any real relationship to macro evolution. In fact, general revelation, the concept that God reveals himself through nature (not exclusively, though some may believe otherwise), actually agrees with Shermer here. I'm not sure why he wasted 1/4 of his article addressing phantom arguments that, even if made, would be worthless. If anything he gave his opponents more ammunition against him with phrases like "Subsequently, religions designed moral codes based on our evolved moral natures," effectively claiming religions are not Divinely inspired, but merely human creations.

Finally, point number 6 has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity, and sticks out like a sore thumb. Unless there is some secular conservative movement against evolution that I haven't heard about, he is again wasting time arguing against a vacuum.

So, aside from 1/3 of his points completely misunderstanding or misrepresenting the opposing viewpoint, and 1/2 of his points addressing points no one has actually made, and he presents a model of God contrary to Christian teachings while trying to claim that what he advocates doesn't contradict a Christian view of God, he presented a great article. I mean, I can't find any obvious typos or formatting errors.

I'd suggest that Shermer find a Christian evolutionist (yes, they exist) to discuss how to argue this with Christian, or allow the Christian evolutionist to simply argue the point himself. It should help mitigate some of these glaring errors.

Shermer is a former Born-Again Christian, has read the Bible cover to cover, and has researched religion extensively, as seen in his books. He most certainly utilized material from Christians and evolutionists, including Christian evolutionists (Martin Gardner, for example), and has participated in a number of debates with Christian creationists, secular ID proponents, etc. I’ve read six of his books, including his “Belief” trilogy (and intend to get his newest one Why Darwin Matters, and I don’t see how he could be accused of not understanding Christian theology. Perhaps he has a view or interpretation of it at odds with yours, or perhaps he simply did not make his argument as cogently as he could have. Or perhaps a better understanding of his arguments may lie in having read his previous writings on the subject.

Regarding Point 2, his response to the Watchmaker, argument, I think he was essentially arguing that it is a bad analogy, because Paley’s Watchmaker creates the watch out of parts, which Shermer feels is too mundane an activity for the Creator of the Universe. I don’t think he failed to understand that it is an analogy, especially since he responds to it in greater depth in Why People Believe Weird Things, and in a way that I found far more clear than in Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker.

Regarding Point 3, again, I don’t think this shows an ignorance of Christianity, because he is merely arguing that what Christians think of as sin is explained by evolution, as I pointed out above; not that it precisely correlates to exact Bible scripture, since Shermer isn’t interested in reconciling science to exact scripture or doctrine, since he isn’t a Biblical literalist. Pointing out the exact wording or doctrine of the Bible is probably moot, since most Christians, I’ve noticed, are probably ignorant of it themselves, and tend to configure their “Christianity” to their pre-conceived or indoctrinated attitudes. Some Christians who denounce homosexuality, for example, point to the Leviticus passage calling it an “abomination”, but when asked if they believe the later passage saying that homosexuals should be executed, are surprised to learn about that passage. Shermer is only arguing that evolution explains moral and immoral behavior. Not that there is an exact correlation between scientific phenomena and every single individual dogma in the canon.

The arguments to which Points 4 and 5 are made in response are not “phantom” arguments, since one of the criticisms of evolution leveled by creationists is that it leads to immorality, communism, eugenics, genocide, etc. From page 134-135 of Why People Believe Weird Things:

Nell Segraves, of the Creation-Science Research Center, was no less adamant: “The research conducted by the CSRC has demonstrated that the results of evolutionary interpretations of science data result in a widespread breakdown of law and order. This cause and effect relationship stems from the moral decay of mental health and loss of a sense of well being on the part of those involved with this belief system, i.e., divorce, abortion, and rampant venereal disease” (1977, p. 17). The evolution tree from the Pittsburgh Creation Society (figure 15) sums up this warfare model—evolution must fall, along with the evils of humanism, alcohol, abortion, cults, sex education, communism, homosexuality, suicide, racism, dirty books, relativism, drugs, moral education, terrorism, socialism, crime, inflation, secularism, that evil of all evils, hard rock, and God forbid, women’s and children’s liberation.

As for effectively claiming religions are not Divinely inspired, but merely human creations, well yeah, he has argued as much, and has provided the evidence/reasoning for that contention.

Point 6 most certainly is relevant to Christianity, since those who are most rabid against anything that even resembles communism tend to be right-wing conservatives, and because right-wing conservatives and since the most virulent Christian fundamentalists who deny evolution also tend to be right wing conservatives, the idea that evolution leads to communism is one of the arguments that creationists have made against it, as mentioned above.

You say that he is addressing points “no one has actually made”. Have you read much of creationist arguments? It isn’t hard to find the ones he is responding to. Chapter 10 of Why People Believe…, in fact is titled “Confronting Creationists: Twenty-five Creationist Arguments, Twenty-five Evolutionist Answers”.

>Shermer is a former Born-Again Christian, has read the Bible cover to cover, and has researched religion extensively, as seen in his books.
-Luigi Novi

None of which translate to an understanding of Christian theology or doctrine. As you note, the sad fact is that there is a significant portion of the Born-Again/Evangelical Christian community that don't understand these things either.

>He most certainly utilized material from Christians and evolutionists, including Christian evolutionists (Martin Gardner, for example), and has participated in a number of debates with Christian creationists, secular ID proponents, etc. I’ve read six of his books, including his “Belief” trilogy (and intend to get his newest one Why Darwin Matters, and I don’t see how he could be accused of not understanding Christian theology. Perhaps he has a view or interpretation of it at odds with yours, or perhaps he simply did not make his argument as cogently as he could have. Or perhaps a better understanding of his arguments may lie in having read his previous writings on the subject.
-Luigi Novi

Any argument that requires previous knowledge of the writer's arguments on the subject to understand the argument itself, unless specifically cited, is a horribly weak argument. Whether or not he normally has a better grasp of the subject is irrelevant to whether he displayed any evidence of any understanding here. If you feel he has demonstrated understanding of Christian Theology elsewhere, I will take your word for it, but I still contend he failed to demonstrate it here.

>Regarding Point 2, his response to the Watchmaker, argument, I think he was essentially arguing that it is a bad analogy, because Paley’s Watchmaker creates the watch out of parts, which Shermer feels is too mundane an activity for the Creator of the Universe. I don’t think he failed to understand that it is an analogy, especially since he responds to it in greater depth in Why People Believe Weird Things, and in a way that I found far more clear than in Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker.
-Luigi Novi

Then he needs to work on his composition skills, as well as his understanding of what an analogy is. Nothing in that paragraph even suggests he takes the watchmaker as anything less than literal. As an analogy, there is nothing belittling to God. It does not require or even suggest God used "parts," any more than Jesus calling Peter the "rock I will build my church [on]" was suggesting that Peter was inorganic material suitable for the foundation of a building. Analogies, metaphors and similies are not strict comparisons between all characteristics of items, but on certain, specific characteristics. Pulling in superfluous characteristics only makes you (generic) look foolish.

>Regarding Point 3, again, I don’t think this shows an ignorance of Christianity, because he is merely arguing that what Christians think of as sin is explained by evolution, as I pointed out above; not that it precisely correlates to exact Bible scripture, since Shermer isn’t interested in reconciling science to exact scripture or doctrine, since he isn’t a Biblical literalist. Pointing out the exact wording or doctrine of the Bible is probably moot, since most Christians, I’ve noticed, are probably ignorant of it themselves, and tend to configure their “Christianity” to their pre-conceived or indoctrinated attitudes. Some Christians who denounce homosexuality, for example, point to the Leviticus passage calling it an “abomination”, but when asked if they believe the later passage saying that homosexuals should be executed, are surprised to learn about that passage. Shermer is only arguing that evolution explains moral and immoral behavior. Not that there is an exact correlation between scientific phenomena and every single individual dogma in the canon.
-Luigi Novi

Again, if that is his intent, he needs to phrase it better. As I said above, I know there is a lack of scriptural understanding from most Evangelicals, even if they have read the Bible cover-to-cover a dozen times. While he may not be a biblical literalist, he should recognize that many of his opponents are. If he is honestly trying to address his opponents, than he has to either negate biblical literalism or show how Evolution doesn't conflict with biblical literalism. Otherwise, he's simply wasting his time.

As for arguing that moral and immoral behavior are evolutionary byproducts, he is again contradicting Christian teachings, as I said before. He can't honestly expect people to accept the case that Evolution and Christianity aren't contradictory if he is pulling examples that do contradict Christianity.

>The arguments to which Points 4 and 5 are made in response are not “phantom” arguments, since one of the criticisms of evolution leveled by creationists is that it leads to immorality, communism, eugenics, genocide, etc. From page 134-135 of Why People Believe Weird Things:

>Nell Segraves, of the Creation-Science Research Center, was no less adamant: “The research conducted by the CSRC has demonstrated that the results of evolutionary interpretations of science data result in a widespread breakdown of law and order. This cause and effect relationship stems from the moral decay of mental health and loss of a sense of well being on the part of those involved with this belief system, i.e., divorce, abortion, and rampant venereal disease” (1977, p. 17). The evolution tree from the Pittsburgh Creation Society (figure 15) sums up this warfare model—evolution must fall, along with the evils of humanism, alcohol, abortion, cults, sex education, communism, homosexuality, suicide, racism, dirty books, relativism, drugs, moral education, terrorism, socialism, crime, inflation, secularism, that evil of all evils, hard rock, and God forbid, women’s and children’s liberation.
-Luigi Novi

Well, those arguments aren't worth arguing with. As it is, those are surface issues that merely distract from the core concern that the picture you linked to demonstrates: Evolution = No God. Any attempt to argue the surface without addressing the core concern (which his presentation actually seems to support more than it negates) only hurts the ability for him to convince people to agree with him.

>As for effectively claiming religions are not Divinely inspired, but merely human creations, well yeah, he has argued as much, and has provided the evidence/reasoning for that contention.
-Luigi Novi

Well, he didn't here. More importantly, if you are attempting to convince people that Evolution and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive, offhandedly negating one of the core beliefs of Christianity only hurts your ability to reach your intended audience.

>Point 6 most certainly is relevant to Christianity, since those who are most rabid against anything that even resembles communism tend to be right-wing conservatives, and because right-wing conservatives and since the most virulent Christian fundamentalists who deny evolution also tend to be right wing conservatives, the idea that evolution leads to communism is one of the arguments that creationists have made against it, as mentioned above.
-Luigi Novi

The argument that evolution leads to communism is as vacuous as it sounds. Attempting to counter it with anything other than laughter is giving the argument too much credit. At most, you counter the basis of that belief appropriately(Either Marx/Stalin/whoever believed in Evolution vs The Inquisition, Hitler's proclaimed Christianity, etc. or the aforementioned Evolution = No God), not like it is an actual argument.

In the end, I fail to see the persuasive power in suggesting that your biological beliefs should correlate to your economic beliefs.

>You say that he is addressing points “no one has actually made”. Have you read much of creationist arguments? It isn’t hard to find the ones he is responding to. Chapter 10 of Why People Believe…, in fact is titled “Confronting Creationists: Twenty-five Creationist Arguments, Twenty-five Evolutionist Answers”.
-Luigi Novi

I haven't read a significant portion of creationist material, though I have had quite a few discussions with creationists in person. I have never heard those arguments presented before. As I said before, though, the arguments seem to me to be smoke screens that are hiding the real question. Once he demonstrates that Evolution is not inconsistent with a Christian God (his stated goal), those arguments will disappear, since the core belief feeding the arguments will be changed. However, as long as he is presenting Deist beliefs as Christian Theology, he won't succeed in his goal, whether he addresses those arguments or not.

Dustin Westfall: None of which translate to an understanding of Christian theology or doctrine.
Luigi Novi: Researching religion extensively does not lead to an understanding of Christian theology or doctrine? How do you figure this?

Dustin Westfall: Then he needs to work on his composition skills, as well as his understanding of what an analogy is. Nothing in that paragraph even suggests he takes the watchmaker as anything less than literal. As an analogy, there is nothing belittling to God. It does not require or even suggest God used "parts," any more than Jesus calling Peter the "rock I will build my church [on]" was suggesting that Peter was inorganic material suitable for the foundation of a building.
Luigi Novi: Except that the Peter-rock analogy was a direct metaphor, whereas Paley’s Watchmaker correlates specific activity. Since the Watchmaker’s activity involves assembling pre-existing parts (since Watchmakers probably don’t manufacture the cogs and wheels themselves from scratch), Shermer argued that it was a bad analogy because an omnipotent being would be beyond such things, as he stated in his column. In any event, I got it, you didn’t, so perhaps his composition was good enough for some to understand him, and not for others. To each his own.

Dustin Westfall: Again, if that is his intent, he needs to phrase it better.
Luigi Novi: Again, he phrased it well enough for me to get it. But that’s just me.

Dustin Westfall: As I said above, I know there is a lack of scriptural understanding from most Evangelicals, even if they have read the Bible cover-to-cover a dozen times. While he may not be a biblical literalist, he should recognize that many of his opponents are. If he is honestly trying to address his opponents, than he has to either negate biblical literalism or show how Evolution doesn't conflict with biblical literalism.
Luigi Novi: Only if that’s his point. It wasn’t. His point was to show how science explains moral and immoral behavior. He can’t tailor his arguments to every single persuasion, point or argument simultaneously. Obviously, the argument was made on a general point, and not on to address the specific view of literalism. He has addressed what he sees as problems with literalism elsewhere, but this column was not intended for that.

Dustin Westfall: As for arguing that moral and immoral behavior are evolutionary byproducts, he is again contradicting Christian teachings, as I said before. He can't honestly expect people to accept the case that Evolution and Christianity aren't contradictory if he is pulling examples that do contradict Christianity.
Luigi Novi: He most certainly has stated his belief that evolution and religion are not contradictory, and has argued this before. Even Pope John Paul II accepted evolution as a scientific fact, as he has pointed out. Just because some may not accept this does not mean that he cannot make an attempt to argue that point.

Dustin Westfall: Well, those arguments aren't worth arguing with.
Luigi Novi: Of course they’re worth arguing with. The degree to which any argument is worth addressing is the degree to which it is employed by one’s opponents. Since the communism argument is one that is utilized by prominent creationists, including ones that Shermer has debated, like Duane T. Gish, then what is he to do when that argument is made? Not respond? The fact that such fallacies are promoted is why debunking them becomes necessary.

Dustin Westfall: As it is, those are surface issues that merely distract from the core concern that the picture you linked to demonstrates: Evolution = No God. Any attempt to argue the surface without addressing the core concern (which his presentation actually seems to support more than it negates) only hurts the ability for him to convince people to agree with him.
Luigi Novi: And Shermer most certainly has addressed other arguments against evolution, including the argument that it is inherently atheistic. Why does debunking one point somehow preclude debunking others? Who says it has to be an Either/Or matter?

Luigi Novi: As for effectively claiming religions are not Divinely inspired, but merely human creations, well yeah, he has argued as much, and has provided the evidence/reasoning for that contention.

Dustin Westfall: Well, he didn't here.
Luigi Novi: Again, because it wasn’t relevant. The column was not about that. A book can take an all-encompassing look at a matter. Columns and articles, on the other hand, tend to be more narrow in their focus. This column focused on how he believes Christians can and should accept evolution. Whether religions are divinely inspired are a separate matter. Putting them together in the same column may not only push his word count over a limit that may be imposed on him by his editors, but would blur the focus on the column. You can’t address every single point or argument of a complex issue like this simultaneously.

Dustin Westfall: More importantly, if you are attempting to convince people that Evolution and Christianity aren't mutually exclusive, offhandedly negating one of the core beliefs of Christianity only hurts your ability to reach your intended audience.
Luigi Novi: He doesn’t have to negate a core belief of Christianity, since, as he has argued before, one can believe in God and divinity and still accept evolution, and can even speculate that God used evolution to help develop humanity. One could suggest, for example, that a religion can be divinely inspired, but that its God used evolution to instill morality in us.

Dustin Westfall: The argument that evolution leads to communism is as vacuous as it sounds. Attempting to counter it with anything other than laughter is giving the argument too much credit.
Luigi Novi: Then tell the people making it, since Shermer, as aforementioned, is merely responding to it. Laughable as you may think of it, the degree to which an idea should be addressed is the degree to which it is in danger of being promoted and accepted by a wide audience. Shermer has addressed the argument on the part of his fellow skeptics that creationists should not be debated or responded to at all on the grounds that science is not conducted by opinion polls or democracy, and that responding to them only lends them credence, by arguing this very point. Because creationist belief is so widespread, it is necessary to respond to them. Because the communism argument is a prominent one, he addresses it. This is the right thing to do, because if you pick and choose which fallacies to respond to, those that have not been debunked are in greater danger of widespread acceptance.

Dustin Westfall: In the end, I fail to see the persuasive power in suggesting that your biological beliefs should correlate to your economic beliefs.
Luigi Novi: Again, tell the creationists. Since they believe that the scientific theory leads to communism and all sorts of “ism’s”, then it is reasonable for at least one counterargument to be made that it does not, and that it just might be compatible with the one you favor.

Dustin Westfall: I haven't read a significant portion of creationist material, though I have had quite a few discussions with creationists in person. I have never heard those arguments presented before.
Luigi Novi: I have, and as aforementioned, so has Shermer.