Creationism

I'm curious about where this statistic is from.

Exactly what I was going to say. I believe this is being referred to as the "intelligent design" theory?

As long as you don't take the Bible literally, which most people outside of the US don't, then you can have your evolution and your Jesus.

Obviously every American who doesn't post to ILX is a blithering bible-thumping idiot, like those Japanese with the bad teeth

fletrejet, you should really get out of the house some more

I'm not equating any desire for easy answers with being stupid, FWIW. It's just what it is; a desire for a place and a kind of logic and foundation for life. If you have the need, it's there, and it probably doesn't even matter a whole lot whether it's true or not.

I have no doubt that belief in "creationism" (not the same thing as belief in the Biblical account(s) of creation) is common in the U.S. But here is an alternative interpretation.

Millar, fuck you.

I didn't say anything about "easy, catch all answers".

And the link Stuart provided showed around 44-50% belief in creationism. And if thinking that nearly half of the people in the US in 2003 believing some dumb shit about noah's ark is sad = I am ILX elitist, well fuck you.

Oh yeah, fuck you.

Like a lot of polls, the results seem to vary depending on how the questions are phrased. I think the most important thing is that we need to keep religion out of politics. I believe that a majority of Americans are with me on that.

that said creationism should be debunked at every opportunity - the drive behind it has nothing to do with science and little to do with religion. as for debunking that 'stat' (the science behind it's as shady as the science behind creationism), break it up - do 50% of American Muslims believe in creationism? clearly no. do 50% of Jews? clearly no. do 50% of Catholics believe in creationism? clearly no. do 50% of Methodists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc.? clearly no. even with your more stridently evangelical branches - Southern Baptists, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists - I don't think the number would reach 50%, and even if it reached 100% those branches hardly equal a large enough sector of the American public to tilt the overall poll to 30%, nevermind 50%.

Nick, I think I saw that doco as well. Did it feature Christian bands putting the boot into crazy ol' Darwin with ROCK?

So in this case, all you have is the imperfect tool of surveys, which put the number at 30%-50%. Even if they are imperfect, they are far better than your argument, which boils down "No way that many people believe that shit!". Apparently they do.

There are many flavours of creationism - one kind, the day-age theory, says that the "days" in the Bible are actually periods of time lasting millions of years. This allows you to have an old earth, and dinosaurs long dead before humans.

I think is fairly reasonable form someone to be skeptical about single cell organisms slowly morphing into fish slowly morphing into hippos into spiders into monkeys into people over many generations. Personally I think is pretty astonding that there is a large amount of people that totally believe evolution is full answer. There are too many 'missing links.'

a good debunk from talk.origins FAQ:

Q How do you know the earth is really old? Lots of evidence says it's young.

A According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs.

this is not a serious country any more. 4 more years of this horseshit.

Sure, as long as you balance Interstellar Physics 101 with Star Wars.

wait, they didnt??

We'd be cute if we weren't armed.

JUST four more years? Woohoo! That means they'll all magically believe in evolution after the next election? Why are we bitchin' then? That's about as long as it takes some bands to make an album or two. I can wait it out.

This doesn't even make sense, where the hell did he get his proof that this is "far larger than any other industrialized country"? England, France, Germany? Sure, ok, I can see that without asking for proof. ANY industrialized country? Why am I posting this to a poster who no longer posts here? The mind is a mystery.

their lies are a danger to science and education.

they want to legally coerce students into their ignorance.

etc

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. " You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

Of course, the Preznit being the Preznit, he also does the pussy move of advocating that ID/creationism being taught in schools, which throws a bone to his fundie/rightwing supporters, but doesn't actually state what he thinks about it all, just so he can't take any flak for his beliefs.

then again, i like how the question of how it should be taught is rarely raised; should it be taught in the intro-to-biology class that i had to take when i was 14? should it be in more of a religion/philosophy class? Of course, supporters naturally assume it to be in your regular science class, which is why they never tend to mention it.

and, once again, to clarify(from the article):

...The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have both concluded that there's no scientific basis for intelligent design and oppose its inclusion in school science classes.

"The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted," the academy said in a 1999 assessment. "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science..."

but, as Wonkette pointed out today, the Preznit isn't so reluctant to voice his open support for some other questionable beliefs:

Missile defense flights to resume

then again, guess which advisor's PDBs are ignored...

I think an important thing to consider is that Naturalism breaks down when you ask "How can we explain the trustworthiness of out senses?" A logically consistant answer for this question would be that a Creator designed our mental capacities to function reliably in the world He created. Looking at reason and experience (or common sense) Christianity is the only logically consistant worldview. Only when reason is altered or experience is neglected do other worldviews become believable.

and once again, Fred at Slacktivist offers up several Snapshots of Creationism, from science teachers who somehow working Y.E.Creationism into their doctrine, to folks who couldn't handle the fact that some of the structures at Jericho are thousands of years older than the Biblical tale. In other words, if you have a massive psychological dependence on the stuff in your Book being that "literal", your belief system has got problems, son.

meanwhile, Fundamentalist Aesopians Interpret Fox-Grapes Parable Literally

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005/08/overwhelming-scientific-proof.html

Yeah, that's a problem. The frame is religious vs. secular (or religious vs. atheist, even) which is silly, because there are lots and lots and lots of Christians who totally have no problem with science and evolution. And since we all know that almost everybody in America identifies as Christian according to these polls (although sometimes I think I must just know the entire other 15 percent personally), that means that the real fight here is between Christians who aren't afraid of science and Christians who are, which would be a much more interesting and productive frame for the media to pursue.

That is the most fucking ballsarsed mentalbolocks statement I've seen all week.

Let's start with the trustworthiness of the senses; to what extent are our senses 'trustworthy' the very nature of how the brain work relies on the little decptions of synestheasia to operate, read or listen to these lectures by Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and understand what an inane statement that is.

In fact the very nature of the brain, the fact that relies on the interconnection of very generalised processing centres to operate and the fact that they can go wrong in the case of synesthetes points to the evolution of conciousness itself and to a continuing of this process.

As for the 'logical consistency' of the christian worldview, for fuck's sake, there isn't even a homogeneous consistentt christian worldview let alone anything in any ideology that relies on blind faith that could be concieved of as logical.

(huray for Ramachandran too. He's great, as are those lectures.)

I was going to try to point out Nairn's mistakes, but Ed has done it with more swearing than I would ever have managed.

-- Trayce (spamspanke...), August 3rd, 2005.

i dunno, there seem to be way more reasonable religious people ILX than A. Nairn!

anyone who says that christianity is 'the only logicaly consistant worldview' is kinda asking for it.

Religion doesn't seem to be the kind of National debate here as it is in the former colonies. Anyone who seriously suggested that Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution in schools would be laughed at. Possibly one of the reasons that the fundies keep their heads down over here.

Which is why islam will soon be taught in all Sunday schools across the USA! Hurray for the President!

Apart from those foundation schools run by that fundamentalist fucknut in middlesborough, and I'm sure in other Islamic and Christian fucknut faith schools as well.

Which is why islam will soon be taught in all Sunday schools across the USA! Hurray for the President!

Exactly what I was thinking.

i had an otherwise reasonably intelligent arty person say to me recently 'there is no evidence for natural selection'. umm - what about all those gazillion papers that have been published on the subject of natural selection since darwin?

this was obviously some creationist 'fact' that he had absorbed from the ether. this is why creationism is dangerous - it's much easier for the average non-scientist to understand 'god did it' and other such medieval simplicity than darwin's idea. especially when most scientists are so bad at explaining it in simple terms.

Good point, but they usually have to make some sort of opt-out contract and they still have to meet national standards - which they've been conspicuously failing to do recently - in order to remain open. It's unlikely however that state schools would have to undergo this sort of indignity [the teaching of Creationism].

Hell, I went to a barking mad Catholic School run by nuns [for cryin' out loud!] and even we didn't get the Creationist indoctrination.

i think this is true, but it's applied to different areas. Both mindsets have their bugaboos and their fears, and so don't ken to science around there.

I am asking for it. Because Christianity is in direct conflict with other worldviews, I don't think I could be a sincere Christian presenting my beliefs and not be asking for it.

Banana, I do start with the assumptions you mentioned. That is what a Christian should start with. Naturalism starts with other assumptions. I am not engaging in a debate under those other assumptions, but the Christian's. I am questioning Naturalism's assumptions, being skeptical about them. I don't think it is biased to think the All-powerful is all-powerful and gives reason and fundamental assumtions as He sees fit. I do think it is biased (or a logical fallacy) to think Man can reason through Naturalism his own fundamental assumptions without God's help.

I am starting with the fundamental assumption that the Bible is true. You just started with the fundamental assumption that Man through his own thinking can prove or disprove the trueness of the Bible without outside (God's) help.

I think it's more about what does man's faith do for God that man's knowledge wouldn't.

If you start from the assumption of the existence of God, anything that disagrees with your particular interpretation of this has to be wrong. If you start from the position that the world is explainable by and through the use of reason then the idea of a God is an irrelevance at best and a hindrance at worst.

I'm an atheist. God doesn't exist. The world as it is now came into being through natural processes some of which are understood and some of which that aren't...Yet. Evolution through random mutation and natural selection being one of those processes that is understood. The fact that it can be understood is what's important to me.

I regard belief in the supernatural (And I include adherence to the xtian God in this) as a cop out. By ascribing the universe to this unknowable being you give up ever knowing what it actually is.

You didn't answer the question.

A cop out from what responsibilty?
What makes you believe that man can ever know what the universe actually is?
Why is knowing the universe man's goal?

Man can't prove that the Bible (or any text) is true through his own thinking, but he can prove that some texts aren't true.

If I say: "All cats are entirely black", then you can't prove that that is true without going to look at a cat. However, if I say: "All cats are entirely black, AND all cats are entirely white," then you can immediately disprove that statement purely by the powers of your own mind, because it is internally inconsistant.

Similarly, the Bible contains statements which are internally inconsistant with each other. Therefore, we know it cannot be entirely true even if some parts of it may or may not be.

-- A Nairn (moreta...), August 3rd, 2005 10:58 AM. (moretap) (later) (link)

I'm in the Central Time Zone, thanks, so keep your EST to yourself. Another instance of not being able to see past your own frame of reference?

just for fun, Forest Pines, any chance of providing a specific example of Biblical inconsistency that's akin to the black/white cat analogy?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html

or books like:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879754168/qid=1123086321/sr=8-3/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-9703150-4956113?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879759267/qid=1123086321/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_sbs_1/102-9703150-4956113?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Commandments: Can't remember the references but...
Things like "Don't make graven images" (Exodus) compared to "Go on then, just a couple" (Exodus and somewhere else)

(xpost)

Uh, examples? I don't think this is true. It sounds like the kind of false equivalency people who like to think of themselves as "independent" throw around so they can feel superior to everybody. (Like, "liberals are just as intolerant as conservatives.") So seriously, who are these anti-science liberals, and what science are they attacking?

But sure, there are liberals who don't know a lot about science and probably say silly things at parties, but I'm not convinced that's "anti-science" on anything like a par with creationists -- for whom it's not just a matter of ignorance but a belligerent adversarial stance toward Enlightenment thinking.

Wow, so it's like side 2 of Neu! 2?

Humankind: Tellin' Stories and Makin' Shit Up Since 50,000 BCE

Christian Scientists Ponder Error of Intelligent Design

People are perfectly entitled to their faith but I believe in a strict separation of church and state and I happen to be an atheist, so I'm afraid I would have to try to intervene if it were to be taught in my area. I'd much rather see Islam units in comparative religious studies classes (like I had at my school). I do think human beings are, of all the animals, uniquely able to construct narrative, so it's no surprise that the top narrative is 'where do we come from?' followed closely by 'my story is better than their story and I will PUNISH THEM'.

Schools in America have basically gone to shit, haven't they? The people I studied with would never have stood for this shit - and nor would I have. But I do believe that if I was presently in high school I would probably be on the top of my school's Columbine watch list for being incorrigible whilst dressed in black.

Deep down inside somewhere, you know it, but you won't admit it even to yourself, because you're so, so scared.

This is all there is.

However, i will say this again & again 'til people(who at least will listen) get it: there IS no monolithic, top-to-bottom, all-inclusive-&-covering-all-subjects Christian worldview as such. The main tenets are pretty much that There Is A God, and that Jesus was a Pretty Cool Guy.

EVERYthing else comes from things to do more with your personality and political thoughts. THAT's why we have such disparate groups like Sojourners on the left and then the reactionary fuckheads who hold shit like "Justice Sunday II: the Fristing". BOTH are evagelical Christian organizations, only one of which each of us personally is far more likely to agree with, and scorn the other. Both use FAR different methods in evangelizin', too.

(fun fact: tho he was the headliner of the last one, Bill Frist is now not invited to the next Justice Sunday thing, but Tom Delay is more than happy to step up to the pandering. they didn't like that "stem cell" thing.)

we've just had 30+ years of people saying that They Held the One True Way, and they apply this way to their political slants. It's like somebody rambling on about "well, the Christian way to stain the wood on your back deck is to use more of a dark cherry tone."
When you think your Earthly Authority is based on Moral Authority, and there's only One True Way, you tend to violently rail against tolerating anything That Ain't You(and thus submits to the the Authority the exact same way you do).

This is all there is.

wait a min, what's the point of saying shit like this? stupid bullshit attacks accomplish jack shit except for pissing off whomever you're writing at.

yeah, that can be fun, but ain't much else point to there, is there?

-- RJG (RJ...), August 3rd, 2005.

I good place to look for the main tenets are in creeds.

the apostles creed
nicene creed

-- A Nairn (moreta...), August 3rd, 2005.

I can only assume by this statement that you haven't spent much time studying formal logic or epistemology. If you had, you wouldn't toss off the term "logical fallacy" so carelessly, and might have actually gained a less transparently flawed position to argue your points from.

Either that or you should have spent less time drawing little crosses in the margins of your texts and payed a bit more attention.

sorry but this is 100% grade-A balonium. I suggest you actually read accounts of people who have HAD religious experiences, near-death experiences, shamanism, etc. Fear is often not involved at all.

As for me, I'll try to answer many of your questions or ask some, and I'll try to be logically consistent and rational. I hope to compare what is professed as a belief and what is known from experience. Assuming the fundamentals of Christianity these are consistant.

Made of normal physical matter? So you're saying you don't believe in the whole of the Nicene Creed, then?

OTHER INFORMATION:
General : Admitted parking, Restaurant, domestic Animals, familiar Bars, Garden, Camere/strutture for disabili, Rooms, free Parking, Heating
Attivita' : Field from golf (in a beam of 3km), Park you play for children, Billiards
Services : Spaces for incontri/banchetti, Internet Service, Lunch to the bag, Fax/fotocopiatrice
Location : Close freeway, Campaign, Close airport

ACCEPTED CREDIT CARDS:
American Express, Visa, Euro/Mastercard, JCB, Master, Solo, Switch

That said, I am not religious and creationism is total bullshit so I sympathize with atheists a lot more than I do with Christians.

Nairn, why did you recommend that people read the Nicene Creed to find out what Christians believe when you clearly don't fully believe in it yourself?

(do you even know what the Nicene Creed says?)

(I don't follow what forest pines is trying to get, be clear and make a point.)

WTF is that? do i step on it to kill it, or should i smash it flat with a fire extinguisher?

I good place to look for the main tenets are in creeds.

the nicene creed

You also said that you believe Jesus has a physical body.

The Nicene Creed says that Jesus did not have a physical body.

Why do you recommend that people read the Nicene Creed when you do not fully believe in it yourself?

Verse 1
Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Chorus
Fuck, fuck, fuck,
fuck the Creationists.

Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.

Verse 2
Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, fuck them all motherfuckers.
Fucking punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
Fuck that!
If them superstitious motherfuckers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Fucking creationists.
Fuck them.

--MC Hawking

please quote and link.

Its meaning, theologically, is that Jesus was literally made of the same substance as God Himself, not out of worldly physical matter.

(xpost)

If he is "of one Being with the Father" in the Nicene Creed sense, he can't have had a physical body.

(hint: the Creed isn't *actually* in English. The phrase we're debating is translated from a single word: homoousion, "of the same substance")

Anyway, I don't fully believe in it myself. I am not perfect in faith. I will never be. Hence from the Nicene creed "For our sake he was crucified."

A: God is Almighty
B: Jesus is of the same substance of God
C: Jesus is of the same substance of Man

B and C can be true because A

Most Christians - and Nairn too - don't understand what a lot of the stuff they say in Church actually means. Look at the discussion above. Nairn clearly doesn't understand the Creed, he just parrots it and twists it to support the parts of Christianity seem reasonable to him.

A: God is Almighty
B: Jesus is of the same substance of God
C: Jesus is of the same substance of Man

B and C can be true because A

Now, one thing that most Christian theologians *are* in agreement on is that God is completely and utterly Other. There is, therefore, no way that God can be made of normal physical stuff because it's just not Other enough.

Forest Pines, do you understand total depravity?

xpost Sociah it's 'cause 1) he argues in bad faith and 2) he's a one-issue candidate

well, I dunno about "most", but def. A. Nairn and a lot of other fundies. Hence my main problem is not with Christian theology or well-read theologians, but with ignorant, loud-mouthed morons. I have read and met many deeply moral, thoughtful, perfectly wonderful Christians - Chesterton, CS Lewis, my grandfather, St Francis of Assisi, Johnny Cash, Pops Staples, seminary students in India, on and on and on. To make blanket statements about the inherent evil or stupidity of Christianity is to write off a lot of very incisive and deeply affecting thinkers. On the other hand, you have the vast "unwashed masses" of ignorant believers who are the public face of the religion, and basically give it its "bad name"...

I can't stand A. Nairn because of his behavior on other threads. Behavior which, of course, is repeated here. Its an infuriating unwillingness to actually engage other people and what their saying.

Exactly, Me Too.

I don't get this, because I try to answer every question exactly how I think about it, and I try to do it from a Christian perspective.

It is bad when your logic has a radius and circumference. Please refrain from using "logic" and "reason" in future posts, as it merely illuminates your idiocy.

Assumption: The bible is literal truth.
1) I don't fully believe the Nicene Creed
2) If I don't fully believe the Nicene Creed, then I am flawed.
3) The bible says that men are inherently flawed.
Therefore, the bible is literal truth.

Hmmm....

"Let your light so shine that it may glorify the fact that you are in a deep hole, and unable to be pulled out of it."

I try to answer every question exactly how I think about it, and I try to do it from a Christian perspective.

Well, all I can say to that is that you seem to be an extremely narrow-minded and dogmatic person, who actually knows very little about Christianity and a lot about your own well-hardened mental certainties.

that's it. no more questions will be directed towards the Distinguished Gentleman from Narni A.

M'Lud, do we have other business we can now attend to?

Now that's a gospel I could get behind...

Please prove the fundamental assumptions of Naturalism without using circular logic.

Hey now, you're the one that brought proof into this with this nugget of wisdom:

It is not logically inconsistant.
A: God is Almighty
B: Jesus is of the same substance of God
C: Jesus is of the same substance of Man

B and C can be true because A

-- A Nairn (moreta...), August 3rd, 2005

If this is logically consistent (which it isn't) then so is this:

A: God is Almighty
B: The fundamental assumptions of naturalism are true

B can be true because A.

Stick to arguing with emotion. It suits you better.

T -- total depravity. This doesn't mean people are as bad as they can be. It means that sin is in every part of one's being, including the mind and will, so that a man cannot save himself.

U -- unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.

L -- limited atonement. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross was for the purpose of saving the elect.

I -- irresistible grace. When God has chosen to save someone, He will.

P -- perseverence of the saints. Those people God chooses cannot lose their salvation; they will continue to believe. If they fall away, it will be only for a time.

http://www.thecaveonline.com/APEH/calvinTULIP.html

look out! he's gunna start quoting Santorum's line about how "the Pursuit of Happiness" is wrong & evil!

xpost: yes, it's like saying "my beliefs are entirely logically consistant because i have a trump card that lets me say logic does not have to apply when i don't want it to!"

irresistible grace.

what an odd way to put it. Most folks just say something about "God's Grace is there for all," but i guess not.

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world's largest organization of science educators, said they were "stunned and disappointed" that President Bush endorsed the teaching of intelligent design earlier this week, inviting Biblical creationism into American science classrooms...

NIKI
Do they believe in reincarnation? I
believe in reincarnation.

JAKE
They believe in the 'TULIP.'

NIKI
What the crap?

JAKE
(smiles)
It's an anagram. It comes from the
Canons of Dort. Every letter stands
for a different belief. T-U-L-I-P.
Like -- are you sure you're interested
in this?

NIKI
Yeah, yeah, go on.

JAKE
T stands for Total depravity, that
is, all men, through original sin,
are totally evil and incapable of
good. 'All my works are like filthy
rags in the sight of the Lord.'

NIKI
Shit.

Jake is charmed. He's never been called upon to explain his
beliefs to someone so totally ignorant of them.

JAKE
Be that as it may. U is for
Unconditional Election. God has chosen
a certain number of people to be
saved, The Elect, and He has chosen
them from the beginning of time. L
is for Limited Atonement. Only a
limited number will be atoned, will
go to Heaven.

NIKI
Fuck.

JAKE
I can stop if you want.

NIKI
No, please go on.

The INTERCOM ANNOUNCES a flight: Jake listens for a moment.
It's a flight to Mexico City.

JAKE
I is for Irresistible Grace. God's
grace cannot be resisted or denied.
And P is for the Perseverance of the
Saints. Once you are in Grace you
cannot fall from the number of the
elect. And that's the 'TULIP.'

NIKI
Wait, wait. I'm trying to figure
this out. This is like Rona Barrett.
Before you become saved, God already
knows who you are?

JAKE
He has to. That's Predestination. If
God is omniscient, if He knows
everything -- and He wouldn't be God
if He didn't -- then He must have
known, even before the creation of
the world, the names of those who
would be saved.

NIKI
So it's already worked out. The fix
is in?

JAKE
More or less.

NIKI
Wow. Then why be good? Either you're
saved or you ain't.

JAKE
Out of gratitude for being chosen.
That's where Grace comes in. God
first chooses you, then allows you,
by Grace, to choose Him of your own
free will.

NIKI
(amazed)
You really believe all that?

JAKE
Yeah.
(shrugs)
Well, mostly.

NIKI
I thought I was fucked up.

JAKE
I'll admit it's confusing from the
outside. You've got to see it from
the inside.

NIKI
If you see anything from the inside
it makes sense. You ought to hear
perverts talk. A guy once almost had
me convinced to let his dachshund
fuck me.

JAKE
It's not quite the same thing.

NIKI
It doesn't make any sense to me.

How does that tie in with faith and works? Judgement day?

U -- unconditional election. God chooses to save people unconditionally; that is, they are not chosen on the basis of their own merit.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
--James 2:14-17,24 (KJV)

More contradiction...

I think emotion is also part of it. The Christian use of a trump card in logic makes Christianity reasonable, and Christianity also is consistant with human nature, experience, common sense. Naturalism lacks in it's consistancy with those.

...Adam and Eve, he said, were created as full-grown adults and the entire universe, likewise, was created ex nihilo as a full-grown, ancient-seeming thing.

This perspective has its flaws, not the least of which is what it suggests about the nature of God. But whatever you make of it, it's logic is unassailable. It would be impossible to disprove this claim. Any evidence that the universe is older than creationists like Mr. C. say is simply reinterpreted as part of God's wondrous handiwork in crafting a young universe that appears so fully formed...

[quoting from Avedon Carol]

Look, the theory of evolution is not the theory that there's no god. It's perfectly consistent to believe that whatever design the universe may have, including the Big Bang and evolution, God set it up. The idea that evolutionary theory is necessarily atheistic is a straw man. If God is not big enough to contain evolution, well, it's a pretty small god. But you can't prove God had anything to do with it -- that's why they call it "faith."

The idea that the world was suddenly formed from nothing by a supernatural power is not consistant with experience or common sense.

The idea that people can return from the dead, or turn water into wine, or walk on water, is not consistant with experience or common sense.

The idea that a supernatural being and his angels can appear as humans and walk amongst us is not consistant with experience or common sense.

The idea that the same supernatural being should later tell people that they will die if they see him face-to-face is at least consistant with human nature, because he must have been lying.

....The most dangerous thing about fundamentalism is not that it sometimes teaches wacky ideas, like that the world is barely 6,000 years old or that dancing is sinful. The most dangerous thing is that it insists that such ideas are all inviolably necessary components of the faith. Each such idea, every aspect of their faith, is regarded as a keystone without which everything else they believe -- the existence of a loving God, the assurance of pardon, the possibility of a moral or meaningful life -- crumbles into meaninglessness.

My classmate's church taught him that their supposedly "literal" reading of Genesis 1 was the necessary complement to their "literal" reading of the rest of the Bible, which they regarded as the entire and only basis for their faith. His belief in 6-day, young-earth creationism was not merely some disputable piece of adiaphora, such as ...

Well, for such fundamentalists there is no "such as." This is why they cling to every aspect of their belief system with such desperate ferocity. Should even the smallest piece be cast into doubt, they believe, the entire structure would crumble like the walls of Jericho. If dancing is not a sin, or if the authorship of Isaiah turns out to involve more than a single person at one time, or if the moons of Jupiter present a microcosm that suggests a heliocentric solar system, then suddenly nothing is true, their "whole groundwork cracks, and the earth opens to abysses..."

...The story of the Good Samaritan is a good story, a beautiful and well-crafted story. It is a story that conveys important truths. But it is not a true story. Jesus never claims to be retelling an actual event that actually happened.

It's not the kind of story that anyone could tell as a "true story." There was no journalist present to offer such a report. No one was present to witness all the elements in this story, which is told from the perspective of an omniscient, third-person narrator and not from the perspective of an eyewitness.

If your response to the tenth chapter of Luke is to set out on an archaeological expedition in search of the actual site of the actual Good Samaritan's Inn, then you've completely misunderstood the story. Not only would you have utterly missed the point, but you'd be inflicting other, different meaning on the passage. This is a refined and elaborate form of illiteracy, but it is still illiteracy.

Many Christians insist on this same illiterate approach to the first chapter of Genesis. They insist on reading it "literally," by which they mean taking a story that is not a journalistic eyewitness account and pretending that it is one.

This is the same problem an earlier generation of Christians encountered when their "literal" interpretation of Psalm 19 -- "the sun rises at one end of the heavens and follows its course to the other end" -- required them to reject Galileo and Copernicus.

The late John Paul II's apology to Galileo did not constitute a rejection of Psalm 19 or a dismissal of that passage. It constituted a rejection of the purportedly "literal" interpretation of the Psalm which inflicted on it whole constructs of meaning alien to the text itself...

Like most atheists I have zero problem with the existence of believers - they're wrong, obviously, but everyone's allowed that. The problem is that some believers have a problem with the existence of me.

A. Nairn - My point was that by "leaving it to God" you might as well give up trying to find out anything about the nature of the universe. Belief in God implies that the universe is unknowable because, by nature, God is unknowable. You might as well insist that it's God's angels that are moving all the spheres of Creation. Arguing for God as a First Cause is possibly the only reason I could appreciate for believing in God - it makes no sense to me, but I can see why people would do it.

I like to think that I can still be a religious person - if I find one that I like* - whilst still believing that all religions are wrong.

* I started a thread about it, in fact.

God is not unknowable. He makes him self known. The main problem I see with many opponents of Christianity is that they are looking at what it can do for them or how they can discover religion themselves, where from the Christian's point of view the whole point of life and creation is to give glory to God.

If you want to try and reason more like a Christian or understand why they think the way they do start with the fundamental assumption the the Almighty is almighty (you don't have to believe it)

And, so, do you believe that your assumption that God is almighty is wrong too?

Ed, above you seem to contradict yourself.

Where it becomes poisonous is where ideaologies are presented as the truth or a truth denying young people th opportunity to make up their own minds. This goes double when ideologies are presented with the same weight as hundreds of years of painstaking work that has gone into building our scientific understanding of the universe.

people need "opportunity to make up their own minds"
knowledge comes from "building our scientific understanding of the universe."
or the goal of man is to "build our scientific understanding of the universe."

These are two idealologies that are presented as truth that deny the chance to believe in God.

The existance of an allpowerful personal God would mean that
people need to let God make up their minds
and knowledge comes from God
and the goal of man is to give glory to God

Your idealologies are also poisonious.

I don't know God's plan, believe He is Almighty, or trust that the Bible is His word. No human can truly believe those. That is why God needs to take action in my life.

xpost

Nairn, your "it's also an ideology!" schtick is something you Christians are really fond of telling each other, but it's not true. Science doesn't "deny" God or any of that. There just really isn't any evidence, and your feelings, the Bible, etc., aren't "evidence."

OH NO I AM ARGUING WITH NAIRN WHO HAS NEVER LISTENED TO ANYONE EVER

Science doesn't deny God, but saying Science (man's understanding or capacity to understand) is of equal or greater weight is does.

What ARE you talking about? The only threads you post on are ones where you have a chance to do your all-things-through-Christ-which-strengthens-me schtick. Your agenda is draw people into talking about Jesus; my theory is that you think that makes Jesus think kindly of you, but who knows why you proselytize here. Either way, you certainly do have an agenda, and by your fruits I certainly know you.

of course, since there are folks who on both sides who conflate & confuse one with the other, there are those that wind up with the opposite conclusion. in the end, a lot of it comes down to the personality(s) & psychology of the folks involved; there's shit out there we don't know and shit we won't ever know, so how do we go about pondering what to do with them? Even if we put God in the gaps somehow, what do we do then? Do we just throw our hands up and say "that is that and will always be so," or do we keep just keep digging? Again, there are physicists who go about their work they way to they do as a means of finding God.

Amen.

Name names, please.

science in what century?

regardless of that question, i think it's important to realize that there's always two camps tho... the experimental and theoretical crowds. those that get their hands dirty and the folks that spend more time in conceptual land. the first crowd obviously fits the highly empirical mold. lot's of rulers and beakers and reproduction of results. they beautifully fit the archetype that the champions of hard facts cite over and over almost in denial that theory exists. (i'm exaggerating... but still.)

unfortunately, you've got the theoretical crowd that can be much more philosophical... to the point of making the faith-based types think, "IF THIS IS SCIENCE, THEN WHY NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN!!?" they're the ones thrown up as poster children by the creationist crowds.

and so you get this weird problem where people talk about science and scientists and are thinking of RADICALLY different types of people. sometimes i wish that both camps would take a moment to look at the opposite type of science/scientist for a second. both are deeply part of the overall scientific method. both have a place. the supposedly unfaithful need to remember the philosophy and theory inherent in the pursuit. the faith-based need to remember that science's facts/laws are based on hard measurements and reproducable results, not awe/fear/tenure/whatever.

perhaps science class should include a theory/philosophy month or something... you could safely drop intelligent design here along with the big bang, flat earth, crystal spheres, global warming, and some portions of evolution science we haven't figured out yet.
m.

Paranoid as I am, I thought you might be referring to my lame, allusive cut-and-pastery above. Or my fuck-all-go-have-your-ChristoIslamic-religious-wars-somewhere-else rant, also above.

For me, the best response to circular self-justifying arguments is Niki's in the scene I quoted from "Hardcore": "If you see anything from the inside it makes sense."

Nairn must convince me, if at all, on terms common to both of us. Saying he feels the warm glow of God's irresistible grace is a proclamation, not an argument. He must know I do not feel any such glow. TULIP explains this to him to his satisfaction: I am not and from the beginning of time was not one of God's elect. What can one do but sigh and feel a shudder of loathing in the presence of a belief system that despicable. And yet, belief systems that despicable are among the most successful memes on the earth today.

What can one do

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."

It is all man that is despicable and worthy of death, yet grace is available to all. That is hardly a despicable belief system.

That is pretty despicable as belief systems go. Only a self-hating human could come up with that. This is the sort of poisonous bullshit that religioin comes up with to cow humanity with.

How can you know that there *is* an elect in the first place?

Please explain the synthesis between your argument that common sense and experience leads one to the obvious and underlying existence of god with the (also yours) explication that reason and the search for understanding are useless, faith being the only worthwhile way for flawed humanity to reach the ineffable truth.

If you dodge this question, as you have many others, please stop wasting my fucking time. Thanks.

studying history and philosophy of science would indeed let you study ID - as something that was thoroughly discredited in the mid 19th century.

I don't know God's plan, believe He is Almighty, or trust that the Bible is His word. No human can truly believe those. That is why God needs to take action in my life.

-- A Nairn (moreta...), August 4th, 2005.

ok, what constututes god's action in your life? you're just spouting off shit, dude.

if there was truly discrediting evidence then we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
m.

As we've mentioned before, what happens when they find another topic, after having either given up or succeeded. Will they then go after the physics of solar motion thru our galaxy, just cuz a verse talked about "the sun standing still"? in fact, didn't a nairn just mention that?

i'm waiting for them to get to the point where they feel that all science can be replaced with a sufficient amount of faith, and they try a huge construction project. E.g. build a multi-stage rocket designed and powered by faith alone, or a literal tower of babel that can reach the Heavens. I mean, once we get carbon nanotubes under control...

who needs a scientific process? our faith in God alone will keep this rocket aloft or this bridge intact!

now there are at least two approaches to this; one that i mentioned above goes along with the Onion article Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics. (i.e. pig-headed ignorance)

another way to go about it is exampled by this guy's essay: The Second Law of Thermodynamics in the Context of the Christian Faith

...I am an evangelical Christian. I believe the Bible to be entirely trustworthy in conveying God's messages. Where people get into trouble is when, for example, they take the message of Genesis 1 (that God created everything, including us) and try to read it as something it is not (i.e., a science text). I get annoyed at the silly arguments of "creation science," but what is more annoying is when non-Christians see those arguments and get the false impression that such issues (rather than Christ) are what Christianity is all about. I do believe that God created everything, but how and when and to what extent that involved his sovereignty over "natural" processes are secondary questions that should not divide the church.

Finally, I should add that God has given me a passion for truth. Truth in all things, since all truth is God's truth. I therefore welcome correction or constructive criticism on this document...

actually, there's a whole mess of alternately fun & infuriating writing about this, about what happens when folks try to apply their faith to the 2nd Law of Thermo.

by truly discrediting, i'm referring to hard, measurable, reproducable evidence. no opinions necessary. no gut reactions based on a lack of evidence. true observation.

i mean, i think we can both agree that there is no hard evidence to prove that god exists. that absence leads you to conclude that God doesn't exist. somewhere, somehow, through the magic of WHATEVERVISION TM, i chose to believe God exists despite the lack of hard evidence. i saw the soft evidence and said "yes". you said "no". we both have faith.
m.

The idea that the government should tell people that there is or isn't a God behind things and/or should only supply little kids with one answer is bullshit. It's not the government's business to go behind parent's backs about stuff like this and to indoctrinate kids about things like religion or sex or anything so personal. People who go on about the merits of sexual education or certain education about the origins of life and death are missing the point quite badly.

hey, wait a minute, where'd this come from?

The idea that the government should tell people that there is or isn't a God behind things and/or should only supply little kids with one answer is bullshit.

yes, that's exactly what's going on here, isnt' it?

People who go on about the merits of sexual education or certain education about the origins of life and death are missing the point quite badly.

Uhm, i'm not switching the subject to involve sexual education here. that's a whole 'nother thread of yelling.

This guy needs to take it up with those of his fellow Christians who have chosen to make this their big educational battleground (rather than, for example, advocating for teaching about loving enemies, dispensing with worldly goods and turning the other cheek).

Sexual education is much like religious matters in school in that it is often turned into a question of "Well, what should we teach them?" first instead of asking "Is it really our job to teach them this?". It never occurs to people (on both the left and the right) that maybe they shouldn't try to brainwash kids through the government school system.

yes, that's exactly what's going on here, isnt' it?

To a large degree, yes. The idea of "intelligent design" does not automatically equal "The Earth was created 6,000 years ago, evolution sucks, let's go watch Veggie Tales!" but is just a matter bringing up God in a government classroom when discussing the origins of the earth. The idea that the government should mandate either for or against a God is obnoxious.

Wouldn't you agree that a goverment that exclusively teaches that the world was created by a complete accident and tolerates no other viewpoints is perhaps starting to cross the line from teaching facts to teaching ideology and being dogmatic? No one's advocating young-earth creationism here but just recognition that a supreme being creating the world is a popular alternative to the belief that a big bang went down one day for a TBD reason (with no instigator). They're both quasi-religious beliefs so there should be no reason that one is left out while the other one is allowed unlimited access to the ears and minds of young people.

10 ft purple gypsies are not unknowable. They makes themselves known. The main problem I see with many opponents of Gypsianity is that they are looking at what it can do for them or how they can discover religion themselves, where from the Gypsian's point of view the whole point of life and creation is to give glory to 10 ft purple gypsies.

What curriculum out there actually does this?

Mine did in every school. Did your school textbooks not exclusively teach you the big bang and/or mention a God? At least that's how mine were.

Oh aye. But I do think he's illustrating one of the central problems here, which is that some people interpret anything other than explicit endorsement of their religious views as an assault on those views. Therefore, the silence of the curriculum on the subject of God is taken as an anti-God stance rather than as the God-neutral stance it actually is. Which is why no amount of accommodation short of devoting taxpayer time and money to specific evangelism will ever make those people happy. And also why, right, there's no point in arguing.

Exactly. They frame everything according to their views and beliefs and therefore seem incapable of understanding that god and religion aren't central in everyone else's outlook. I'm not anti 10ft purple gypsies, I just don't give them much thought. A person insisting that a lack of mention of 10ft purple gypsies in history class is evidence of intolerance of 10ft purple gypsies is actually evidence only that said person expects everyone else to have God I mean 10ft purple gypsies on their mind. This is why atheist came to mean "against God" rather than the original "without God".

Do schools do this? I thought they taught what we know to be facts; a fact we don't have in our possession is whether the world was created by design. So they don't teach that it was. Which is different than advocating that it wasn't.

haven't read all of this... but thought it might provoke some comment from the peanuts of this gallery.
m.

ps apologies for having to "view the ad".

problem with this is that there is a rather vocal significant minority of folks over here who think that any discussion of another religion is therefore an endorsement of the validity of that religion, and their conceptual framework doesn't allow for anything other than the One True Way.

in other words, not everyone is so open-minded.

"Inasmuch as the creationists want to say openly that both sides are making religious commitments, I have to agree with them on that. I don't think that modern evolutionary theory is necessarily religious. Evolutionary theory was religious, and there's still a large odor of that over and above the professional science. The quasi-religious stuff is still what gets out into the public domain, whether it's Richard Dawkins or Edward O. Wilson or popularizers like Robert Wright. Certainly Stephen Jay Gould. Whether you call it religious or philosophical, I would say these people are presenting a weltanschauung."

i think a lot of what causes confusion in the 'debate' is that the science of evolution is obscured by popular science writers like Dawkins, who confuse their personal conclusions about what evolution means (however reasonable or not) with the data of evolutionary science itself.

Let's be careful not to sprain our wrists now.

oh, i know, i wasn't even arguing that!

Curses! Is there no escape.

Anyhow, it looks like the Catholoics have been infected by the Creationist meme now. Which is a shame, as I'd hoped they'd got that sort of thing out of their system by now (They had when I was at school; I was once told - by a Xaverian Monk, no less - that there was no way any sane person read Genesis literally). I rather like the part at the end of the article where this Jesuit shows up to slap some sense into the discussion. I always knew there was a point to the Counter Reformation.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7801

Everyone has a go at A Nairn, but he's very interesting, that's why so many people are spending so long on this thread. And I'd like to understand him.

A Nairn, can I ask you a question please. It's not a troll and it's very personal to me. From something you quoted:

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you."

I've asked, and I got no response. Why? God has never given me any sign that he exists or any reason to believe in him.

I know that people are just supposed to believe without any evidence but I don't. I've not chosen not to believe, I just don't. Why don't I believe? Why did God choose to make me not believe in him even though he does in fact exist?

Why has he forsaken me like this? It makes my life so hard, a misery on many occasions. Why does God do this to me?

I think your feelings and questions are exactly what many people (and most or all Christians) go through, and not only once.

Asking "why don't I believe" and experiencing a hard life and misery is something even (especially) Christians do frequently.

All I can say is to confront what you believe (don't go against reason and evidence, be honest about it), continue to seek in whatever way you do and just wait. The God that I think exists is also described as merciful.

This website is pretty good (not perfect) for seeing proposed answers to certain questions
http://www.gotquestions.org/

ok, what constututes god's action in your life?
How do you tell God's "action" in your life from schizophrenia?

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-speaking.html

(I still want to respond to John Justen's question, but I want to be clear)

Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations. (from Exodus 3:13)

It is circular. A circle works in this case.

True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred. A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution -- they are still moths. A population of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics does not illustrate evolution -- they are still bacteria. In the biological realm, natural selection (which is operating in these examples) is supposedly the mechanism by which evolution advances, and intelligent design theory certainly does not deny its existence. While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life -- and that is what evolution is.

No, that's not "what evolution is." Evolution is all of those things. It is moths changing their wing color in response to environmental pressure, and it is antibiotic-resistant bacteria, it's incremental changes like that over time that add up to very significant "macro" changes. (Which doesn't discount the possibility of rapid change under particular circumstances either, of course.) I don't understand why this concept is so difficult to grasp. I guess it's because we really have trouble thinking in terms of millions and billions of years.

This website is pretty good (not perfect) for seeing proposed answers to certain questions

It's pretty *biased*

what you claim is not, strictly speaking, true. What has happened is that different groups have given (or misinterpreted) the Jewish God's name at various times - in Judaism the true name of God cannot be spoken, or even written. The "name" used in the Torah is shorthand, an abbreviation, and is understood to not be the "true" name of God, more like a nickname. If you pronounce this shorthand phonetically you get "Yahweh" (tho I have never, EVER, heard this used anywhere in Jewish religious practices - God is more commonly referred to as "Adonai", which I think translates as "Almighty" or "the One", among others). This was the Jews contribution to monotheism - that you can't call our god anything (as opposed to Zeus, or Akhenaten, or Indra), because he is The God, with a capital G. The One, the Word, etc. Everybody else's god is just a lowercase "g", a lesser deity, a graven image...

x-post

Read the Torah in orginal Hebrew and you will notice the name of God is always written as I've described it (the YHVH transliteration). Various translations into other languages have obviously had to get around this - often by subsituting some other name of God that is appropriate to the given verse, chapter, etc.

Still, i always liked finding out about this stuff. Since i like understanding the mechanics of things, i also like finding out how the mechanics of religion work.

what was that book that came out about 10 year ago about this? _The History of God_ or somesuch?

-- gypsy mothra (meetm...), August 9th, 2005.

OTFM

The History Of God by Karen Armstrong.

According to that, the god that Abraham worshipped was the traditional Caananite high god, who was called El. When God appeared to Moses (the Exodus 3:13 passage), he convinced Moses that he was the same god as El.

Abraham's God appears to him in human form, just before destroying Sodom and Gomorrah. The idea that God could take human form would almost be blashphemous to later Jews, though. In other words, God evolves!

Of course, if you're dealing with literalists who insist on six days, Adam's rib etc, that's no help.

so all and every part must be held firm and never, ever altered; otherwise they couldn't believe in anything.

xpost

The evolution side does point this out pretty regularly and doggedly, but the response is, basically, "You're wrong." The current issue of Time magazine has a cover story on all this, and there's a sidebar where they get 4 different people to talk about that very issue (2 on each side, you know, for "balance"), and the most dogmatic creationist is the Southern Baptist honcho who just says that anyone who thinks you can believe in evolution and God is deluded. You can't really "argue" with a guy like that.

i guess i should be more tolerant of intolerant people. pain in the arse tho.
m.

Some more good ol' Santorum for your day:

http://www.santorumexposed.com/serendipity/archives/53-Not-Intelligent,-By-Design....html

and who then completely flip their stances based on polls at the time, the Admin's policy that day, etc.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find basing arguments around statistical probability patently hilarious...? I mean, everything in the universe is wildly improbable, including the existence of the universe itself.

heh. where's that one Bloom County strip where Oliver makes such startling announcements to the open night sky?

Ex post facto

http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000622.php

-life here can't be too easy or too great or we'd be spoiled brats. danger... harshness... etc, these things bring about character. plus, blessed are the poor in spirit... essentially those folks that are down and out need God and will learn to lean on him like we're taught to... where as rich, spoiled types really don't need God. they manufacture their own salvation... until death of course...

-also... if God wants us to choose him of our own free will, leaving hard evidence like "JEHOVAH WUZ HERE" on all raccoons is probably a bad idea. it's a strange, strange thing i know. you get this odd dichotomy between God trying to get our attention and yet this sort of elusive invisible thing. but we're perfectly imperfect. i mean, whose to say humanity won't live to see a day when we're born without appendixes? if we get this genetic modification thing working, that would be tremendously easy. along with avoiding chicken pox automatically, we'd just turn off the appendix switch. i guess my last point is that God, if he exists, would have to be intelligent on a scale that's basically incomprehensible. all these second guessing questions have answers that make sense... i believe at least... but will we ever understand them? i would doubt it. it's like perpetual childhood. if he's the father, there are just things we'll never grasp. i know my three year old doesn't remotely understand what taxes are and yet they fit into the role we play as responsible adults. they pay for things he doesn't realize even cost money which he thinks is mostly just something that's fun to put into his piggy bank.

bullshit? perhaps. but it just goes to show, for every justification on one side, there's a justification on the other.
m.

OH ITS THERE, you just have to decode it like the bible code.

Well sure. Because one side is just patently making shit up. You can attribute pretty much anything to God, and if it makes no sense at all just say something about mysterious ways. Again, the futility of any of these arguments: You can't have any actual debate where one side's whole entire point is that things have to be taken "on faith." Which is why none of this stuff belongs in scientific discussion.

that discussion does belong.

can you see how maybe some religious folks might take your claims about religion and my claims about science and have a hard time making the right decision?

i personally have a hard time finding the clear road through the misunderstanding. i mean, our kids are gonna be pumped with all sorts of lies... it's our job to expose those, whichever sets we choose.

lies i can bet my kids will be told:
-all things colonial
-yay corporate culture!
-yay materialism!
-yay war on terror!
-meat and dairy are good for you. (which, is debateable i know... )
-over-simplified high school chemistry
-[insert awful author here] are GREAT!
-pot is evil!
ETC!

i know my kids are gonna know evolution is scientific fact regardless of what their teacher says. they'll hear about god, although, that's their call and they're gonna hear about that too. it's gonna be one long damage control session until their maybe 16ish or so ... they won't even be listening to me by then, but i figure i'll probably officially stop around then.

so many take this discussion too personal... is it because in some ways, this seems like a last straw of sanity?

Try TRUSTOVISION TM "We've got your Anti-Entropy needs covered, so you don't have to live with the savage chaos of the universe! Comes in both Churchy and Scientific flavors! ACT NOW!!! You'll never argue again because you'll be Happy TM!"
m.

-- A Nairn (moreta...), August 9th, 2005. (later)

No it doesn't. That particular argument's never going to win over us non-believers. What's required is blind faith (Is there any other kind?)

ps. If you're starting from the position of believing God exists, why would you require any kind of argument, however ineffectual, to support that belief?

And the quotes...Well:

*Puff of smoke*
Moses: Yo dude. Gnarly burnin' bush.
JHVH: Hey homes.
Moses: Hey bro, who the hell are you?
JHVH: Who do you think I am, playa?
Moses: You're the God of my Fathers, ain't ya?
JHVH: Yeah, homeboy. *winks* Sure I am. Tell your friends.
Moses: Cool. There's some fatted calf left, if you want some.

I've read your response very carefully and you've not answered any of my questions nor even suggested any possible answers.

Look:

> I think your feelings and questions are exactly what many people
> (and most or all Christians) go through, and not only once.
> Asking "why don't I believe" and experiencing a hard life and misery > is something even (especially) Christians do frequently.

All you're saying here is that other people feel the same as me. That doesn't help me.

(If anything it makes me feel worse, knowing that other people go through the same lows. There's a saying 'misery loves company', but really I'd rather be on my own than have someone feel as bad.)

> All I can say is to confront what you believe (don't go against
> reason and evidence, be honest about it), continue to seek in
> whatever way you do and just wait. The God that I think exists is
> also described as merciful.

I _have_ confronted what I believe, applying reason and looking at evidence as far as it's possible for me to do. By 'seek' I must assume you mean seek God, but this pre-supposes his existence.

What relevance has God being merciful? I've done nothing that I need anyone's mercy for.

I've looked at the website you suggested (though I've not read it all). It doesn't answer any of my questions either.

For example under the title "Why does God allow the innocent to suffer?" it says:

"This question is a particular case that falls under a more general category: Why does God allow “innocent” people to be hurt by the sins of others?"

That's so obviously a deliberate misinterpretation of the question it makes my jaw drop. Most suffering is not caused by the sins of other humans!

The site then goes on to explain why God couldn't do other than he's done because of the consequences. But that assumes God is bound by the same laws as humans, in other words that he isn't GoD!

The point is surely that children should be equipped by their educations at home and in school and everywhere else with critical faculties that enable them to make their own decisions. And I have a hard time reconciling my critical faculties with a hypothesis about omnipotent supernatural beings which has no evidential basis at all.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. (from Romans 1:19)

By 'seek' I must assume you mean seek God, but this pre-supposes his existence.
I just mean seek Truth.

(I want to throw in more of my two cents later, I agree with much of what has just been posted.)

Basically, just try following this statement: "if you want to maintain something is real you have to say what it is, and where it came from."

A Christian should view the world with two methods: The scientific method (general revelation) and looking at God's history of supernatural revelation, including the Bible, actual events in history, or Holy Spirit's interaction (specific revelation).

These can't contradict, but it is not up to man to make them not contradict.

people then mostly automatically believed in God as a matter of their culture. christians were dubbed atheists for not worshipping the roman gods. it was law!

i think applying paul's line of reasoning there is maybe a troublesome thing because we live in such a different time.

what do i know though?
m.

...The new science standards would not eliminate the teaching of evolution entirely, nor would they require that religious views, also known as creationism, be taught, but it would encourage teachers to discuss various viewpoints and eliminate core evolution theory as required curriculum...

[...]

"We think this is a great development ... for the academic freedom of students," said John West, senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design theory...

again, note the framing used: this is all in the name of open debate and "academic freedom."

this could be true, but the problem still remains that this will be taught in a science class. at what point will the drive to put competing claims stop, tho? can i sue so that kids have to be taught that thunder comes from angels bowling? with this ruling, they don't even set a threshold of evidence for what could be included. who decides what's legitimate & what's not, etc.

i still think this is just a part of a larger drive to discredit anything that could question their authority. Science could used to disprove some of the claims of the Powers That Be, so science must be weakened.

It's the same authoritarian drive amongst radicals that who don't like the media, or anybody asking any questions of authority. Of course, when the other guys are in power, their authority is not seen as valid, so the rightwing types feel quite justified in questioning everything.

also, call me a loudmouth-cynical-bastard-wot-posts-in-too-large-blocks-o'-text, but i really don't think that there will be anything resembling a good faith(ha ha) effort to give airtime to non-judeo-christian creation stories. they'll insert their particular Creation version into the material that the local loud fundie groups, and that will be that.

oops, that should read "that will satisfy the local loud fundie groups"

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/6929/darwinwrong3gr.jpg

FULL ARTICLE:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html

All the factual evidence I've seen points to similarites among species and that's all. I'm not saying I am a nonbeliever of evolution, but I sort of sit back in disbelief when people talk about moth's wings changing color... moths that were shown to be covered with soot from pollution in one environment and soot-free in a clean environment.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Peppered_moth

Stone Monkey completely OTM, by the way.

Bacteria and virii mutations? Flawed conclusion for the following reasons:

First, the mutations responsible for antibiotic resistance in bacteria do not arise as a result of the “need” of the organisms. Futumya has noted: “...the adaptive ‘needs’ of the species do not increase the likelihood that an adaptive mutation will occur; mutations are not directed toward the adaptive needs of the moment.... Mutations have causes, but the species’ need to adapt isn’t one of them” (1983, pp. 137,138). What does this mean? Simply put, bacteria did not “mutate” after being exposed to antibiotics; the mutations conferring the resistance were present in the bacterial population even prior to the discovery or use of the antibiotics. The Lederbergs’ experiments in 1952 on streptomycin-resistant bacteria showed that bacteria which had never been exposed to the antibiotic already possessed the mutations responsible for the resistance. Malcolm Bowden has observed: “What is interesting is that bacterial cultures from bodies frozen 140 years ago were found to be resistant to antibiotics that were developed 100 years later. Thus the specific chemical needed for resistance was inherent in the bacteria” (1991, p. 56). These bacteria did not mutate to become resistant to antibiotics. Furthermore, the non-resistant varieties did not become resistant due to mutations.

Second, while pre-existing mutations may confer antibiotic resistance, such mutations may also decrease an organism’s viability. For example, “the surviving strains are usually less virulent, and have a reduced metabolism and so grow more slowly. This is hardly a recommendation for ‘improving the species by competition’ (i.e., survival of the fittest)” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). Just because a mutation provides an organism with a certain trait does not mean that the organism as a whole has been helped. For example, in the disease known as sickle-cell anemia (caused by a mutation), people who are “carriers” of the disease do not die from it and are resistant to malaria, which at first would seem to be an excellent example of a good mutation. However, that is not the entire story. While resistant to malaria, these people do not possess the stamina of, and do not live as long as, their non-carrier counterparts. Bacteria may be resistant to a certain antibiotic, but that resistance comes at a price. Thus, in the grand scheme of things, acquiring resistance does not lead necessarily to new species or types of organisms.

Third, regardless of how bacteria acquired their antibiotic resistance (i.e., by mutation, conjugation, or by transposition), they are still exactly the same bacteria after receiving that trait as they were before receiving it. The “evolution” is not vertical macroevolution but horizontal microevolution (i.e., adaptation). In other words, these bacteria “...are still the same bacteria and of the same type, being only a variety that differs from the normal in its resistance to the antibiotic. No new ‘species’ have been produced” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). In commenting on the changing, or sharing, of genetic material, ReMine has suggested: “It has not allowed bacteria to arbitrarily swap major innovations such as the use of chlorophyll or flagella. The major features of microorganisms fall into well-defined groups that seem to have a nested pattern like the rest of life” (1993, p. 404).

Microbiologists have studied extensively two genera of bacteria in their attempts to understand antibiotic resistance: Escherichia and Salmonella. In speaking about Escherichia in an evolutionary context, France’s renowned zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé, observed:

...bacteria, despite their great production of intraspecific varieties, exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago (1977, p. 87).

Although E. coli allegedly has undergone a billion years’ worth of mutations, it still has remained “stabilized” in its “nested pattern.” While mutations and DNA transposition have caused change within the bacterial population, those changes have occurred within narrow limits. No long-term, large-scale evolution has occurred.

CONCLUSION

The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.

This is hardly a recommendation for ‘improving the species by competition’ (i.e., survival of the fittest)” (Bowden, 1991, p. 56). Just because a mutation provides an organism with a certain trait does not mean that the organism as a whole has been helped.

improving? how about just changing at all? you accept mutations, and you accept that some mutations don't help surivival - THAT IS THOSE MUTATIONS MORE LIKELY TO DIE OUT - so at what point do you think evolution isn't happening?

that speciation isn't happening because some species ARE stable? arse. speciation is a fact.

what WOULD you accept as "proving" evolution?

http://www.hutch.demon.co.uk/prom/psypsych.htm

Reading one book isn't generally a problem.

It's reading a second book and discovering that in some respects it actually contradicts the first book; meaning that you have to start thinking about things for yourself and taking responsibility for making personal decisions regarding what to believe and what not to believe, as opposed than just accepting everything you're told at face value; that's when all the difficulties start to arise.

-- n/a (nu...), August 12th, 2005.

"read one book"

Reading one book isn't generally a problem.

It's reading a second book and discovering that in some respects it actually contradicts the first book; meaning that you have to start thinking about things for yourself and taking responsibility for making personal decisions regarding what to believe and what not to believe, as opposed than just accepting everything you're told at face value; that's when all the difficulties start to arise.

-- Stewart Osborne (stewart.osborn...), August 12th, 2005.

OTM

The assumptions that have been leapt to regarding this are kinda interesting 'though.

Like I said: All the factual evidence I've seen points to similarites among species and that's all. I'm not saying I am a nonbeliever of evolution, but I sort of sit back in disbelief when people talk about moth's wings changing color.

The same people that find mountains of proof for evolution in the smallest seeming evidence are the same ones who disregard literal statistical impossibilities that amount to mountains of evidence in favor of an aspect of the self that transcends space and time. They haven't looked at the research. They've merely read the opinion of others and let their opinions speak as fact.

re: sickle cell anaemia, being a carrier of the disease would be advantageous to you from an evolutionary standpoint if malaria is the factor in your environment that is most likely to kill you.
In simple terms; if malaria causes 90% of the deaths in your locale and wild carnivores 10%, it doesn't make all that much difference if you're only good at running away from lions, does it?

As for E. coli: the mechanisms that stabilised so long ago are the one's that are probably as close to optimal as it's possible to get for their particular purpose and environment. ie. They don't "need" to evolve as there is no selection pressure on them to do so. Which would also imply that mutations to them would actually be bad for the organism, so there would be a selection pressure to keep them exactly the way they are.

Another point to make is that most antibiotics are derived from biochemicals already present in nature. A bacterium might have access to a plasmid or some such that contains the genes necessary to confer resistance upon it precisely because one of its ancestors evolved it. Not a good road to take the anti-evolutionary argument along, I should think.

I rather suspect you're approaching this from the wrong angle (confusing cause with effect).

"The same people that find mountains of proof for evolution in the smallest seeming evidence are the same ones who disregard literal statistical impossibilities that amount to mountains of evidence in favor of an aspect of the self that transcends space and time. They haven't looked at the research. They've merely read the opinion of others and let their opinions speak as fact."

There are certainly far more things in heaven and earth....

Whether this is evidence of the existence of some form of deity however; or simply proof of how far our science has still got to go.... who knows?

That is evolution. And speaking of sitting back and shaking my head, people who insist on an artificial distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution make me do that.

I think that's where the problem comes in. Suddenly, the issue of deity pops in and since people don't know what to make of the concept of deity, as there are so many opposing views, they reject it, typically with the concept of a bearded old man in the sky in mind. Deity is not synonymous personified creator god (although who knows?). The term "deity" is interchangable with "numinous" and points to some invisible world that holds up the visible, which for lack of a better word, we term "spiritual." If science can ever make space-time transcendence "visible" that would be great and I think it should be a primary concern among scientists. But, it's having a hard time getting off the ground. All the initial research and evidence seems to have been a wash at convincing people. To me, it seems that creationists reject evolution/science out of fear and science rejects "paranormal" research out of hand for the same reason, regardless of what evidence is presented or by whom.

the same ones who disregard literal statistical impossibilities that amount to mountains of evidence in favor of an aspect of the self that transcends space and time

Not true several times over. Science carries out research of the paranormal and finds it totally without merit. there is not ONE bit of scientific evidence for ESP. and what's more the fact that any evidence for ESP has been totally discredited, and discredited with little effort, has NO knock on consequences for any other bodies of knowledge. you cannot do the same with the overwhelming (to people who understand it) evidence that supports evolution. trying to ignore/conjure it away has all sorts of knock on consequences for the rest of the corpus of scientific knowledge.

going from questioning the real, established, hard won facts of evolution to suggesting that there is real evidence for ESP (when it's flimsy, easily disproved) puts this beyond discourse that is easy to continue online. it comes down to providing evidence.

that evidence exists for evolution is without question

that evidence does NOT exist for ESP is also without question

Lies.

kicker is that many who argue about this repeatedly hold that this cannot be true, and even with that, there are plenty who'd happily argue in bad faith about it. It's like when argument or debate hits that certain point where it leaves the area of "reasoned discussion" and storms into "power struggle/i am RIGHT, godammit."

also, you get into trouble with labels, since "Creationism" has been applied to refer to any situation where a deity is involved in kicking things off. there's a world of difference between holding that "God lit a fuse and off went the Big Bang" to "God did all this in 144 hours and then went off to nap about six to ten thousand years ago"

there is certainly no CONVINCING, hard scientific evidence. but to say that 'there is no question' is inaccurate:

http://www.answers.com/topic/extra-sensory-perception

ANYWAY, can we please, pleeeeease stick to the creationism debate? Dragging Miss Cleo and the Amazing Randi in here will only muddle things further. Though that was perhaps mister ramen noodlez's tactic.

ARRRGH.

exactly, tho these "exact" interps tend to ignore the 2nd chapter of Genesis, to favor the first.

I wanted to throw this out, and see how people think this relates to the discussion. Maybe accepting evidence from both evolutionary science and biblical knowledge could cause conflicting thoughts. This doesn't seem like it would necessarily prevent someone from doing what the law requires. This quote also mentions how conscience and human nature play a role too.

... This quote also mentions how conscience and human nature play a role too."

Conscience and human nature are the only things playing a role here!

All virgin births essentially refer to the birth of spiritual man from the animal man. According to mythology, this occurs at the heart center. In the Hindu chakra system, the basic bottom three chakras are concerned with eating, procreating and conquering and then suddenly, at the heart, you have compassion. "God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus" refers to the conscience of one's own heart. Nirvana and heaven are not places "out there", but psychological positions at which point a person is not controlled by desire or fear. "God" is inside the person. The way to heaven is through Jesus Christ (the father is within you), or becoming compassionate and surrendering to love. Love is painful, God is love. The man in the clouds is you tormenting or saving yourself. At least, this is what it suggests to me via experts of mythology.

if you need a login:

user: readtnronline
pass: read123

So the question is: "How to win?" That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "stick with the most important thing," the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.

OTM

"If science can ever make space-time transcendence "visible" that would be great and I think it should be a primary concern among scientists. But, it's having a hard time getting off the ground. All the initial research and evidence seems to have been a wash at convincing people."

I understand they had a hard time convincing people that the earth wasn't flat to begin with, particularly since it's flatness had already (ostensibly) been "proven" by such science as existed at the time....

"To me, it seems that creationists reject evolution/science out of fear and science rejects "paranormal" research out of hand for the same reason, regardless of what evidence is presented or by whom."

What one generation considers to be "science" is frequently and regularly discredited and seen as little better than supersticious hokum by subsequent generations.

Who would like to take a guess how much of what we currently believe to have been scientifically proven will be dismissed in the same way in the future?

"Science carries out research of the paranormal and finds it totally without merit. there is not ONE bit of scientific evidence for ESP."

I'm not actually sure that this is entirely true - but even if it is, surely a purist scientific approach must always recognise the possibility for further scientific advances and discoveries?

If it doesn't, then clearly it's become every bit as blinkered and dogmatic and bigoted as just about every other belief system the human race has ever come up with.

"and what's more the fact that any evidence for ESP has been totally discredited, and discredited with little effort, has NO knock on consequences for any other bodies of knowledge."

Again, even if this is true at present, I'm not sure that it actually conclusively proves anything.

"you cannot do the same with the overwhelming (to people who understand it) evidence that supports evolution."

I would certainly agree that evolution is piece of the jigsaw that we've fitted into place and appears to help to make sense of other surrounding pieces of the jigsaw.

I don't believe we've located all the parts of the jigsaw yet 'though by any means - in fact I'm not convinced we even know the size of the jigsaw we're working on (or indeed that we ever will) and I certainly wouldn't be prepared to discount the possibility of any number of other pieces of jigsaw being discovered and us realising how they too slot into place.

MY MOM: "You need a creator to create all this. Otherwise, how did it get here?"

ME: "Who created the Creator?"

MY MOM: "Well, that's the thing. God is beyond human comprehension, you see. That's why in the Bible he says, 'I am the Alpha and the Omega.' You see, that means that God has always existed. There was nothing before him. See?"

ME: "Well, couldn't the Universe just have always existed?"

MY MOM:"But, who created the universe? You see? Someone had to create the universe, right?"

* blows brains out *

"There is another theory which states that this has already happened."

Doulas Adams

...Some evolutionists who claim to be Christians — but also evolutionists who label themselves "theistic evolutionists" — argue that God could have used the evolutionary process hypothesized by Darwin to create the universe. But evolutionism reduces man to an animal. Theism, conversely presents man as made in the image of God. If man is an animal, but man is also made in the image of God, what does that make God?

[...]

Evolutionists claim that their battle against creation-science is primarily a "scientific" issue, not a constitutional question. But our treasured U. S. Constitution is written by persons and for persons. If man is an animal, the Constitution was written by animals and for animals. This preposterous conclusion destroys the Constitution. The Aguillard Humanists leave us with no Constitution and no constitutional rights of any kind if they allow us to teach only that man is an animal.

These subtle and dangerous attacks on God Himself and the Constitution must be repelled.

(Found from Carpetbagger)

It's put out by the conservative Regnery Press, who published all those fun Malkin books.

I love this exchange:

MY MOM: "You need a creator to create all this. Otherwise, how did it get here?"

ME: "Who created the Creator?"


MY MOM: "Well, that's the thing. God is beyond human comprehension, you see. That's why in the Bible he says, 'I am the Alpha and the Omega.' You see, that means that God has always existed. There was nothing before him. See?"

ME: "Well, couldn't the Universe just have always existed?"


MY MOM:"But, who created the universe? You see? Someone had to create the universe, right?"

* blows brains out *

-- Ramen Noodlez, Friday, August 12, 2005 5:02 PM

...as the scientific knowledge of the general public increases(despite the best efforts of some), these assholes have to use increasingly scientific-sounding language to justify their positions, since they can't exactly do so otherwise.

A program requires a programmer

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]

i love this, it's a crazy creationist guy claiming pterosaurs still fly in Papua New Guinea!

http://www.searchingforropens.com

bioluminescent glow?? wha??? where's this video he's talking about? I want to see glow in the dark dinos!

Fun at the Creationism Museum

Early in the museum, the visitor is given advice on the proper mind frame to have for your visit: “Don’t think, just listen and believe”. As you can see in the picture below, Human Reason is the enemy and God’s Word is the hero. Descartes represents Human Reason, saying “I think, therefore I am”. But God tells us there no need to waste your beautiful mind, for God says “I am that I am”.

(with photos!)

I want to see glow in the dark dinos!

this just in, shocking photo straight from Papua New Guinea!

http://dts.ystoretools.com/1270/images/100x500/glowdin.jpg

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wgoodyear16/BNStory/National/home

Canada's science minister, the man at the centre of the controversy over federal funding cuts to researchers, won't say if he believes in evolution.

“I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate,” Gary Goodyear, the federal Minister of State for Science and Technology, said in an interview with The Globe and Mail.

A funding crunch, exacerbated by cuts in the January budget, has left many senior researchers across the county scrambling to find the money to continue their experiments.

Some have expressed concern that Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., is suspicious of science, perhaps because he is a creationist.

When asked about those rumours, Mr. Goodyear said such conversations are not worth having.

“Obviously, I have a background that supports the fact I have read the science on muscle physiology and neural chemistry,” said the minister, who took chemistry and physics courses as an undergraduate at the University of Waterloo.

“I do believe that just because you can't see it under a microscope doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could mean we don't have a powerful enough microscope yet. So I'm not fussy on this business that we already know everything. … I think we need to recognize that we don't know.”

Asked to clarify if he was talking about the role of a creator, Mr. Goodyear said that the interview was getting off topic.

Brian Alters, founder and director of the Evolution Education Research Centre at McGill University in Montreal, was shocked by the minister's comments.

Evolution is a scientific fact, Dr. Alters said, and the foundation of modern biology, genetics and paleontology. It is taught at universities and accepted by many of the world's major religions, he said.

“It is the same as asking the gentleman, ‘Do you believe the world is flat?' and he doesn't answer on religious grounds,” said Dr. Alters. “Or gravity, or plate tectonics, or that the Earth goes around the sun.”

Jim Turk, executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said he was flabbergasted that the minister would invoke his religion when asked about evolution.

“The traditions of science and the reliance on testable and provable knowledge has served us well for several hundred years and have been the basis for most of our advancement. It is inconceivable that a government would have a minister of science that rejects the basis of scientific discovery and traditions,” he said.

Mr. Goodyear's evasive answers on evolution are unlikely to reassure the scientists who are skeptical about him, and they bolster the notion that there is a divide between the minister and the research community.

Many scientists fear 10 years of gains will be wiped out by a government that doesn't understand the importance of basic, curiosity-driven research, which history shows leads to the big discoveries. They worry Canada's best will decamp for the United States, where President Barack Obama has put $10-billion (U.S) into medical research as part of his plan to stimulate economic growth.

But in the interview, Mr. Goodyear defended his government's approach and the January budget, and said it stacks up well when compared to what Mr. Obama is doing.

He also talked about how passionate he is about science and technology – including basic research – and how his life before politics shaped his views.

Now 51, Mr. Goodyear grew up in Cambridge. His parents divorced when he was young. His father was a labourer, his mother a seamstress who worked three jobs to the support her three children.

His first summer job was laying asphalt when he was 12. At 13, he got a part-time job at a garage, pumping gas. At 17, the young entrepreneur started his own company selling asphalt and sealants.

He was in the technical stream at high school, taking welding and automotive mechanics. No one in has family had ever gone to university, but he secretly started taking academic credits at night school so he could get admitted to the University of Waterloo. He didn't want his family to know.

He took chemistry, physics, statistics and kinesiology, and was fascinated by the mechanics of human joints. After three years of university, he was admitted to the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, where he was class president and valedictorian.

He had his own practice in Cambridge, where he settled down with his wife Valerie. He worked as chiropractor for two decades, and set up private clinics to treat people who had been injured in car accidents, sometimes using devices that he invented to help them rebuild their strength and range of motion.

He had sold that business when, before the 2004 federal election, a friend approached him about running for the Conservative nomination in Cambridge. His two children were then in their late teens, so he agreed. He took the nomination and won the seat. He was re-elected in 2006, and again in 2008, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper named him science minister.

“Now I have got a portfolio that I am absolutely passionate about and frankly connected to,” he said, adding that his days of experimenting with engines in high school automotive class gave him an appreciation for what it feels like to come up with something new.

“When I was in high school, we were already tweaking with a coil that would wrap around the upper radiator hose and it got an extra five miles to the gallon. … So I've been there on this discovery stuff.”

Commercializing research – the focus of the government's science and technology policy – is an area where Canada needs to make improvements, he says.

“If we are going to be serious about saving lives and improving life around this planet, if we are serious about helping the environment, then we are going to have to get some of these technologies out of the labs onto the factory floors. Made. Produced. Sold. And that is going to fulfill that talk. So yes, we have to do all of it, we have to do discovery … but it can't end there.”

I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate

IT'S A SCIENCE QUESTION DIPSHIT

Also dude is a chiropractor. That is not good science.