As a high school and university student forced to learn about evolution I was never told there were credible scientists who harbor significant skepticism toward Darwinian Theory. I easily recall a full semester at SOSU where my English 1 professor forced us to write almost every paper over the “facts” of evolution. That professor had a deep appreciation for me by semester end due to our many respectful debates as I chose to not be blindly led. I specifically remember asking how in 4,000 years of recorded history how we have yet to see the ongoing evidence of evolution (i.e. a monkey jumping out of a tree and putting on a business suit).
Following a 2001 PBS television series, which stressed the “fact” of evolution, approximately 100 physicists, anthropologists, biologists, zoologists, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists and other scientists organized a rebuttal. So much disagreement arose from this one sided TV depiction that this group produced a 151 page rebuttal stating how the program, “failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the Darwinian evolution”. These weren’t narrow minded fundamentalists, backwoods professors or rabid religious radicals; these were respected world class scientists like Nobel nominee Henry Schafer, the third most cited chemist in the world and Fred Figworth, professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School.
Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth. Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. That’s where we should have problems with state dollars only depicting one side of a multifaceted issue. Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings is incomplete and unacceptable. For years liberals have decried how they want to give students both sides of an argument so they can decide for themselves, however when it comes to evolution vs. creation in the classroom, the rules somehow change. Their beliefs shift, may I say... evolve to suit their ideology.
We must discuss the most recognizable icons of the evolution religion. Darwin sketched for The Origin of Species a visual to explain his hypothesis that all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor. The tree of life scenario, engrained upon most of our memories, depicts gue transitioning into a hunched over monkey which then turns into a business suit.
Darwin himself knew the biggest problem with his visual (cornerstone concept of his hypothesis) was the fossil record itself. He acknowledged major groups of animals, he coined “divisions” (now called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record. The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over). Even Christians believe in biological change from species to species (adaption) over time. The taxonomic hierarchy which includes species, genus, family, order and class must be visualized for understanding separation from phyla and species classifications. As an OSU Animal Science graduate I readily admit the adaption of animal species from interbreeding such as Santa Gertrudis cattle, a “weenie” dog or even a fruit fly. Even the difference among lions, tigers and cougars could be attributed to species adaption and interbreeding if one so decried. Additionally, human differences seen notable in ethnicity proves that change among species is real but this is NOT evolution, its adaption. Changes with the classification of species is DRAMATICALLY different then changes among Phyla. Phyla changes would be if an insect, with its skeleton located on the outside of soft tissue (arthropods), transformed into a mammal, with its skeleton at the core of soft tissue (chordates). Phyla changes must be verified for Darwin’s common ancestor hypothesis to be accurate.
The rapid appearance of today’s known phylum-level differences, at about 540 million years ago, debunks the tree of life (common ancestor) scenario. This biological big bang of fully developed animal phyla is called the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion’s phyla fossils and the phyla of today are basically one in the same. These phyla fossils of that era are fully developed, not in a transitional form. In fact we don’t have a transitional form fossil crossing phyla classification after hundreds of years of research looking at sediment beds spawning the ages. There are certainly plenty of good sedimentary rocks from before the Cambrian era to have preserved ancestors if there are any. As for pre-Cambrian fossils being too tiny or soft for secured preservation there are microfossils of bacteria in rocks dating back beyond three billion years. Absolutely ZERO phyla evidence supporting Darwin’s hypothesis has been discovered after millions of fossil discoveries. Darwin’s cornerstone hypothesis where invertebrate’s transition into vertebrates is majorly lacking and so is Darwin’s “theory”.
I will be introducing legislation this session to ensure our school children have all the facts.
This discussion is to be continued in next week’s column..
Josh Brecheen
To put that in a way that you yourself can understand Mr. Brecheen, your article makes it painfully clear that as far as evolution goes, you were a very poor student.
Having said that, I greatly look forward to reading your views on the topic of creationism, evolution or any other theories you care to share with the public. You are a humorous man Mr. Brecheen, albeit for all the wrong reasons.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=041012_Ne_A5_Cobur2390&archive=yes
My daughter is a graduate of Coalgate High School, as are all my kids, and she was personally deeply offended and disgusted by Mr. Brecheen's remarks that all girls at CHS are lesbians and while at school had to be escorted back and forth to the restrooms to prevent incidents, etc.
While not in this article, Mr. Brecheen is also known to have said, not surprisingly, that all CHS football players are on steroids.
His beliefs about these two topics apparently are grounded upon faith instead of science. There is no supporting data that would indicate a reduction in Coal County's birth rate implicit in widespread lesbianism; on the contrary, there was an increase in the birth rate during and immediately after Mr. Brecheen's tenure at Coalgate. Must have been a whole lot of immaculate conceptions, if Mr. Brecheen is to be believed.
Likewise, no adverse health effects among Coalgate athletes have been noted by Law Enforcement, the medical community or school adminstrators that could be explained by widespread steroid usage. Nothing! Nada!
I know of no reasonable explanation as to why Mr. Brecheen would be so derogatory towards his peers, his school and his background. Well, on second thought, maybe I do. It's all politics. Mr. Brecheen long ago sold his soul to the devil to get ahead in the world of politics.
Just as guilty? How many people have been painfully burned to death for not accepting that the Big Bang happened? How many people refuse to accept special relativity because it contradicted the divine authority of Newton and Galileo? I think you will find that the proportions differ strongly. Why do you adhere to this false dilemma, where science is either perfect or not very reliable? Do you not realize that advancing evolution is not due to thinking that science is infallible and religion heresy, but rather because science is discernibly connected to the elements of reality that we all experience whereas mythology is usually not literally true?
"And what is a 'skeptical Atheist"? We used to call them Agnostic."
When I said "skeptical atheist", it wasn't a technical term, I just meant "an atheist who also follows rational skepticism". The atheist community is full of them, people who aren't convinced by religious claims (be they Hindu or Muslim or Christian) for the same reasons that they aren't convinced by UFO sightings or psychics. And actually, the word "agnostic" originally meant someone who thought that the existence of God was an unresolvable question, and as a consequence that all religious claims about him were groundless. Many famous agnostics (in the philosophical sense) were also atheist (in the practical/social sense), such as Bertrand Russell.
"I thought an Atheist had the Big Question all figured out."
Some do and some don't, but I don't think most atheists think it's such a big question anyway. I'm sure the God question is very important to people who run their whole lives the way they think God wants them to, but if you think of Yahweh as a mythological question, it's no more the Big Question than the existence of elves or Vishnu or something.
Actually, speaking of Russell, if you are, perhaps, in need of information on this subject, look at Russell's "Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic" from way back in 1947. It's short; you can probably read it in 5 or 10 minutes.
Link: http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm
When did Oklahoma start electing shaved apes to their legislature?
Oh, actually, shaved apes would be an upgrade from Josh Brecheen, who is more like a shaved and bipedal member of the subgenus Asinus. He's a new legislator who has announced his intention to introduce creationism into Oklahoma schools (or, as perhaps I should refer to them, "skools") for a set of reasons he laid out in anotably ignorant column in the Durant Daily Democrat.
His column is amazing. The faculty of Southeastern Oklahoma State University are covering their eyes in shame right now, since apparently this creationist-cliche-spewing plagiarist and professional goober managed to successfully graduate from their institution. My students ought to be worried, too, because now I feel like I've got to tighten up my standards and start flunking more students out lest they come back and haunt me from positions of power. Seriously, it's a remarkable work he's posted: it's largely cribbed from the creationist Lee Strobel, but at the same time, he's managed to make standard creationist arguments worse. Here's his whole column, with a little helpful annotation from me.
One of the bills I will file this year may be dismissed as inferior by "intellectuals" [It's not a promising beginning when you're discussing a scientific topic and immediately dismiss intellectuals] so I wanted to devote particular time in discussing it's [sic] merits. It doesn't address state waste, economic development, workers comp reform or lawsuit reform (although I have filed bills concerning each) [I dread learning about their quality, given the dreck espoused here] but it is nonetheless worthy of consideration. It is an attempt to bring parity [a familiar refrain, in which a fringe belief is undeservedly promoted to equal time with well-established science] to subject matter taught in our public schools, paid for by the taxpayers and driven by a religious ideology [says the guy who wants to promote a religious ideology] . I'm talking about the religion of evolution [eyes roll everywhere]. Yes, it is a religion [No, it isn't]. The religion of evolution [Seriously. It isn't. It's a scientific theory that explains a large body of confirmable facts, and that provides a useful framework for new research. It has no resemblance to any faith of any kind.] requires as much faith as the belief in a loving God [God: no evidence, no math, no experiments, no observations. Evolution: evidence, math, experiments, observations. Case closed.], when all the facts are considered (mainly the statistical impossibility of key factors [Here comes the bad math]). Gasp! Someone reading this just fell out of their enlightened seat!!! [Only at the sight of three exclamation points…we're all wondering if he typed this while wearing his underpants on his head] "It's not a religion as it's agreed upon by the entire scientific community," some are saying at this very moment [No, we're not, because its status as a science rather than a religion is determined by its properties, not some kind of consensus or vote]. Are you sure? Let's explore the facts. [As if Brecheen has any.]
As a high school and university student forced to learn about evolution [If only someone had forced him to learn about logic and grammar!] I was never told there were credible scientists who harbor significant skepticism toward Darwinian Theory [Because there aren't any, at least not in the sense Brecheen is talking about. There are critics of aspects of the theory and differences in emphasis, but no credible, knowledgeable scientist has any doubts about the overall fact of evolution]. I easily recall a full semester at SOSU where my English 1 professor forced us to write [What we professors call "teaching", or dumber students call "forcing"] almost every paper over the "facts" of evolution. That professor had a deep appreciation for me [Oh, really?] by semester end due to our many respectful debates [In the classroom, professors tend to avoid expressing what they really think of some of the clowns in our student body. Don't mistake professionalism for intellectual respect] as I chose to not be blindly led [Says the creationist]. I specifically remember asking how in 4,000 years of recorded history how we have yet to see the ongoing evidence of evolution [But we do! Bacterial resistance, new species, observations of changing frequencies of alleles, etc., etc., etc.] (i.e. a monkey jumping out of a tree and putting on a business suit [Jebus. What a maroon. No, evolution does not predict that monkeys will don business suits]).
Following a 2001 PBS television series, which stressed the "fact" of evolution, approximately 100[100 fringe cranks out of a population of about a million scientists] physicists, anthropologists, biologists, zoologists, organic chemists, geologists, astrophysicists and other scientists [Don't forget the dentists! Relatively few on the "Dissent from Darwinism" list were actually qualified biologists, and quite a few have since been very surprised to learn that they were included] organized a rebuttal. So much disagreement arose from this one sided TV depiction that this group produced a 151 page rebuttal stating how the program, "failed to present accurately and fairly the scientific problems with the Darwinian evolution". These weren't narrow minded fundamentalists, backwoods professors or rabid religious radicals [Actually, yeah, they were] ; these were respected world class scientists like Nobel nominee [Anyone can be nominated, and nominations are supposed to be secret; why this is always cited as a qualification is mysterious] Henry Schafer, the third most cited chemist[chemist, no expertise in biology] in the world and Fred Figworth [This is called a plagiarized error. Lee Strobel made this typo, and now it gets echoed in creationist rants everywhere. There is no Figworth at Yale; his name is Sigworth] , professor of cellular and molecular physiology at Yale Graduate School.
Ideologues teaching evolution as undisputed fact are not teaching truth [Yes, they are. Evolution is firmly established.]. Renowned [Fact not shown] scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored [Also laughed at] . That's where we should have problems with state dollars only depicting one side of a multifaceted issue [Oklahoma: mountain state, archipelago, rain forest, or lunar mare? That's a multifaceted issue, too. Shall we teach invented geography with equal time?]. Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings is incomplete and unacceptable [OK, if we're to teach the complete story, we'll rightfully have to invest 179.99 days in teaching the scientific evidence, which all supports evolution, and 3 minutes on creationism on the last day. Fair's fair]. For years liberals have decried how they want to give students both sides of an argument so they can decide for themselves [Both sides doesn't imply a body of evidence is equal to a body of myth and superstition], however when it comes to evolution vs. creation in the classroom, the rules somehow change [Wrong. We're consistent: we want the scientific evidence taught. It's not our fault the creationists haven't provided any]. Their beliefs shift, may I say... evolve to suit their ideology.
We must discuss the most recognizable icons of the evolution religion. Darwin sketched for The Origin of Species a visual [This one? Wrong. It's not in the Origin, it's in Darwin's notes, which I doubt that Brecheen has read. It also looks nothing like what he describes] to explain his hypothesis that all living creatures evolved from a common ancestor. The tree of life scenario, engrained upon most of our memories [What he's about to describe isn't the tree of life, and I don't know where he came up with it, but plucked from his ass seems a reasonable hypothesis], depicts gue transitioning into a hunched over monkey which then turns into a business suit [What's with all the monkeys in business suits?].
Darwin himself knew the biggest problem with his visual (cornerstone concept of his hypothesis) was the fossil record itself. He acknowledged major groups of animals, he coined "divisions" (now called phyla) appear suddenly in the fossil record [Fair enough, Darwin does propose this as an issue, saying that there should have been long periods of time prior to the Cambrian, during which life swarmed in the seas. Of course, he's since been shown to have been right.]. The whole basis for evolution is gradual differences and changes to be confirmed by modified fossils (phyla cross-over [What? Never heard of it]). Even Christians believe in biological change from species to species (adaption) over time. The taxonomic hierarchy which includes species, genus, family, order and class must be visualized [What?] for understanding separation from phyla and species classifications. As an OSU Animal Science graduate [I'm so sorry, OSU] I readily admit the adaption of animal species from interbreeding such as Santa Gertrudis cattle, a "weenie" dog or even a fruit fly. Even the difference among lions, tigers and cougars could be attributed to species adaption and interbreeding if one so decried [sic]. Additionally, human differences seen notable in ethnicity proves that change among species is real but this is NOT evolution [No, it is evolution. You don't just get to define away obvious examples of changes over time as non-evolution] , its [sic] adaption. Changes with the classification of species is DRAMATICALLY different then changes among Phyla [Again, I say, what? I've been grading a lot of papers lately. I can tell when a student is trying to BS his way through a topic he doesn't understand, and Brecheen is showing all the signs] . Phyla changes would be if an insect, with its skeleton located on the outside of soft tissue (arthropods), transformed into a mammal, with its skeleton at the core of soft tissue (chordates) [Ah, so that's what he's getting at. An insect must turn into a mammal for evolution to be true. Sorry, guy, such a phenomenon would demonstrate that evolution was wrong — biologists make no such prediction]. Phyla changes must be verified for Darwin's common ancestor hypothesis to be accurate [Nope. This nonsense about "phyla changes" or "phyla cross-over" is simply stuff Brecheen has made up out of whole cloth (or stolen from one of his creationist source). Real biologists argue that mammals and insects evolved from a common ancestor in the pre-Cambrian, which would have been a generalized worm-like creature. Organisms do not suddenly leap across lines of descent; it's like arguing that before you'll believe I'm descended from my grandmother, I have to give birth to my cousin].
The rapid appearance of today's known phylum-level differences, at about 540 million years ago, debunks the tree of life (common ancestor) scenario [No, it doesn't.]. This biological big bang of fully developed [Nonsense. Cambrian organisms were precursors to modern forms, and the full range of extant forms was not present in the Cambrian—there were no bumblebees or birds, no squirrels or snakes.]animal phyla is called the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion's phyla fossils and the phyla of today are basically one in [sic] the same [Nope. The Cambrian chordates, for instance, were represented only by small wormlike swimmers that were spineless and jawless and brainless; modern chordates are significantly more diverse. Mr Brecheen, for instance, possesses a jaw, although he may be lacking in some of the other key characters]. These phyla fossils of that era are fully developed [What does that even mean? Of course they were functional organisms], not in a transitional form ["Transition" refers to an intermediate between two forms. They were transitional between pre-Cambrian forms and modern chordates]. In fact we don't have a transitional form fossil [Of course we do.] crossing phyla classification [Again with this bizarre "phyla crossing" nonsense. We expect no such thing] after hundreds of years of research looking at sediment beds spawning the ages. There are certainly plenty of good sedimentary rocks from before the Cambrian era to have preserved ancestors if there are any [Again, we do! We have fossils from the Vendian/Ediacaran; we have 600 million year old embryos; we have trace fossils and the small shelly fauna. Brecheen's ignorance is not evidence of absence] . As for pre-Cambrian fossils being too tiny or soft for secured preservation there are microfossils of bacteria in rocks dating back beyond three billion years [As I just said, we've got 'em. They're worms and slugs and fans and weird quilted creatures] . Absolutely ZERO phyla evidence supporting Darwin's hypothesis has been discovered after millions of fossil discoveries [Imagine Brecheen closing his eyes real tight right now, sticking his fingers in his ears, and going "lalalalala". What exactly did he learn in that OSU Animal Science program? It sure wasn't any basic biology]. Darwin's cornerstone hypothesis where invertebrate's transition into vertebrates is majorly lacking [No, it isn't. The molecular evidence is robust. Brecheen just doesn't understand it, or more likely, never saw it]and so is Darwin's "theory".
I will be introducing legislation this session to ensure our school children have all the facts [So, Oklahoma, you elected this idiot to office. Are you going to stand by and watch him poison your educational system with this garbage?].
'I think it's quite clear that most people have a superficial understanding of how deep the rabbit hole of creationism goes, and that many people actually are so misinformed about what skeptical atheists think'
I think that one of the places where we differ---- I think ALL people have a superficial understanding of how deep the rabbit hole of creation goes. You apparently think some have it figured out. Care to share your references?
And what is a 'skeptical Atheist"? We used to call them Agnostic. Are there 'skeptical Creationists'? I guess you can include me in the number of those who have no idea what a skeptical Atheist thinks. Maybe we should include 'Skeptical Atheists' in that number, too. Skepticism sort of denotes acknowledged ignorance, doesn't it? I thought an Atheist had the Big Question all figured out. Some might think that label to be a little bit pretentious.... perhaps to the point of being bizarrely ironic.
Hippy? Uh, no. Is that what you label people who find freedom of thought and expression as something worth defending?
I am skeptical that you didn't just make these people up (or rather, believe other people who invented this stereotype of the infinitely arrogant professor which describes almost no one). Scientifically-minded atheists usually fall under the heading of "rational skepticism". It's largely the same as your position, only with some degree of optimism that things can be found out over time, even if the process is difficult and fraught with error.
It's this that I mean by pretentiously ignorant, not that you are prideful of being ignorant (which to me is neither something to be proud or ashamed of by itself), but that you feel yourself to be in a superior moderate position because you only know about stereotypical caricatures of the other positions (though tending not to realize this because you are not sufficiently aware of exactly how little you understand about them). Pretension based on ignorance and misinformation. And I'm fully aware that you don't take yourself seriously, but that's what makes your pride all the more bizarrely ironic. You keep patting yourself on the back about being aware that you don't know everything, while equating creationists and atheists you disagree with, as if everyone who isn't perfect is thus equally ridiculous. Was Newton's wrong theory of gravity equal to Aristotle's wrong theory of gravity? Is Einstein's probably-incomplete theory of gravity equal to Newton's incomplete theory of gravity? Is it respectable to pat oneself on the back for being skeptical about anything anyone ever finds out? I'm a fallibilist and I still don't think that's worthwhile; if nothing else, one must act on provisional beliefs, or concede that some beliefs are much better justified than others.
Having been both a creationist and a skeptic, I think it's quite clear that most people have a superficial understanding of how deep the rabbit hole of creationism goes, and that many people actually are so misinformed about what skeptical atheists think that it's debatable whether or not they might have negative knowledge (i.e. that they are so wrong that they would be closer to the truth if they didn't believe anything about atheism at all). After all, I'm sure that the most extreme-sounding statements from famous atheists, or completely fabricated accusations of bigotry, make for fascinating reading, but I think we can agree that this sort of quote mining is not a very good sample of atheist philosophy.
"I would propose including a chapter or introduction into textbooks that would cover religious traditions concerning creation, the history of science and the development and the often following refutation of scientific 'truths' throughout history and point out there are other fields of study for related topics which practical science is ill equipped to address. Then teach some logic and scientific method before diving into the big stuff." Agreed. Let's do that in philosophy rather than biology classes, and let's also include discussions of epistemology in general, and the philosophical arguments for and against traditional religion (which, in my opinion, do ten times the damage to fundamentalism that evolution ever could).
"We may find out that those who some ridicule today should have been given a little more consideration." I suspect that the reverse is far more common, that there are far more ideas that we respect too much than ideas which we ridicule too much. I'm opposed to violence, but I'm not a fan of being nice to people's beliefs just because they are widely held.
I'll make this very short- just a single citation.
Valentine, James W. 2005 “On the Origin of Phyla” University of Chicago Press
Mr. Breechen, to the surprise of no-one, is wrong again. And he has linked his false, and ignorant
opinions with the truth of Christian faith. This has been warned against for many hundreds of years. Aquinas on reason and faith wrote, "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q68. Art 1. (1273).
In this Aquinas has referenced two important scriptural passages, Matthew 18: 7. "Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!” and when the Apostle Paul wrote, "determine this--not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way" (Romans 14:13).
Mr. Breechen should, if he does follow scripture, repent his vain boastings, and empty assertions.
Brecheen makes (copied) some particularly wrong ideas about the pre-Cambrian fossil record. As it happens, a friend and colleague of mine has a new paper in press.
Meert, J.G., Gibsher, A.S., Levashova, N.M., Grice, W.C. and Kamenov, G.D., Glaciation and ~770 Ma Ediacara (?) Fossils from the Lesser Karatau Microcontinent, Kazakhstan, Gondwana Research . doi10.1016/j.gr2010.11.008.
(large pdf: http://www.gondwanaresearch.com/hp/nimbia.pdf )
Joe, and his associates were stuck for days in the middle of south Kazakhstan when one of their workers suffered a mild stroke. While waiting, they decided to check the local geology to see what might be interesting. What they found was more than "interesting." It seems that the pre-Cambrian period of the Ediacaran (the 70 million year long "fuse" to the Cambrian explosion) is another 100 million years longer.
The shame is that Brecheen attempts to link his ignorance with being faithful to God. He is a perfect example of the threat foolish men are to Christianity. Consider the following observation made over three hundred years ago, “Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which we had made scripture assert.” Telluris theoria sacra (1684 English edition, “The Sacred Theory of the Earth” Preface, pg. 10), Reverend Thomas Burnett (1635?-1715)
The Reverend Burnett was not the first to issue such a warning. In fact, he is paraphrasing Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) who advised Christians trying to interpret Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim). The following translation is by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.
“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. {Augustine here has referred to 1 Timothy 1.7}”
qt--if I may call you that. 'Pretentiously Ignorant' may become my new logon ID. I intend to use it often. You are to be congratulated for your insight in that, if nothing else. Thanks for the chuckle. My pretentious ignorance suits my live of ostentatious poverty.
Along the knowledge spectrum with abject ignorance on one end and omniscience on the other, the extremes within the human race are indistinguishable from my observation which sometimes makes it hard for me to take anyone too seriously, especially myself. And for the record, I don't find ANY explanation for existence to be rational, nor do I find that to be unpleasant. One of the best things about it is that you can pretty much come to any or no conclusion you want in your own mind and if you feel compelled to ridicule or pity the conclusions of others you can do that,too. At least for here and now though there are some factions on either side who would change that if they could. Let's agree that would not be a good thing and worthy of defending against.
I would propose including a chapter or introduction into textbooks that would cover religious traditions concerning creation, the history of science and the development and the often following refutation of scientific 'truths' throughout history and point out there are other fields of study for related topics which practical science is ill equipped to address. Then teach some logic and scientific method before diving into the big stuff. Teach little minds of mush to think on their own because they have more 'facts' to digest and more ways to access 'facts' than any in human history and in ways few of us can imagine for the future. Our tech evolution far outstrips our own ability to cope, possibly to our detriment. We may find out that those who some ridicule today should have been given a little more consideration. You can be 'wrong' and still be proven right, even if for reasons none understood at the time. Wouldn't be the first time in history that came to be.
Sometimes the only thing more pretentiously ignorant than an Intelligent Design proponent is a quasi-agnostic who thinks that the statement "I can't prove God doesn't exist" somehow makes religion rationally defensible (and yet curiously appears not to apply the same logic to the brain-in-a-jar scenario, the my-whole-life-is-a-dream scenario, or the the-whole-world-is-a-conspiracy-run-by-ants scenario).
You said: "I sort of like looking up at the stars in wonder and feeling blessed. because I don't know a better word for it." I too like looking up at the stars and have the feeling of awe. Same as when I hold my grandson. But I do not draw the conclusion that my emotional connection is supernatural, related to some kind of god, or anything else other it being part of being a human. I enjoy the feeling and enjoy the search for answers through the tools of scientific exploration and reason.
Merry Christmas to you too. FWIW. Contrary to what some Christians believe about atheists, I have no problem with Merry Christmas wishes. Even if it is a co-opted pagan holiday to celebrate that the days are now getting longer!
Why must things be settled in your mind? Why must the Senator fill any gap in our knowledge with divine magic?
The Senator is lying when he equates divine magic from an "Intelligent Designer" with the facts and evidence of evolution. His invocation of "Intelligent Design" alongside evolution is not a matter of belief, it is simply a politically-motivated falsehood.
2000 years ago, the origin of the rocks and trees was a matter of "metaphysics". The nature of the Sun and Moon were "metaphysics". The movement of the air and weather were "metaphysics". The nature of illness - physical and mental - were in the realm of "metaphysics". Metaphysics is all you have before you gain actual knowledge.
How many of those metaphysical questions turned out to have supernatural answers? How many of those shamans and priests and alchemists and astrologers were correct when they described the divine/mystical/spiritual/demonic influences that cause things to happen in nature?
What makes you, B_Will_Derd or Senator Brecheen, smarter than the millions of people throughout history who invoked gods/ghosts/demons? Why were they wrong, but you're right? Isn't it a bit arrogant on your part to imply that "yeah, they were all wrong when they claimed the gods made the rivers flood, but we're right when we say the gods made life start ticking."
You want to know who has the best track record of explaining how things actually work and how they actually happened? Natural philosophers, scientists, and anyone else who sets aside personal beliefs in gods and magic, and just follows the evidence to see where it leads.
That's what we teach our children in science class. ALL the evidence we've EVER found indicates that natural phenomena have natural causes. And science is the search for those causes.
The "metaphysical" questions of 1000 years ago are answered in childrens' "Fun with Science!" books of today. So it is logical to assume that the "metaphysical" questions of today will be in childrens' "Fun with Science" books 1000 years from now.
@B_Will_Derd
Please don't confuse my ridicule of what I find to be ridiculous as being closed minded. If anyone makes any un-substanciated claims I'll call you out. You need to look into Global Warming some more... I don't feel like discussing it. Let's keep you're fine tuning claim.
No. I didn't read it poorly and you explained it just fine and an argument from ignorance only applies if you assert an assumption. I never did. My official answer for everything that is unexplained is simply "I don't know" and one should never make any assumption that might lead away from a valid answer. This is where metaphysics becomes dangerous and NEARLY useless and I don't care what previous great minds think.
Yes, I agree with you. Sometimes it is necessary to contemplate the intangible and unexplained. For instance I accept that there is an objective moral law that exists complete but not fully as a concept and independent of the physical universe and this law exists weather we are aware of it or not, but I also restrain any bias on where it comes from unless there is evidence. I know it exists and to apply any assumption that it exists for the sole purpose of intelligent life is absurd. This is where metaphysics transcends into folly and though my frustration at seeing people fall into that pit of "the need to know" may seem closed minded, I'm actually being diligent to leave ALL options open. When one start to fill in the blank, especially with purpose, or design, then people start piling up syllogism after syllogism until some poor 13 year old is being stoned for adultery for an explanation that should have never been asserted in the first place.
Fine tuned. Yes. Our universe is fine tuned. What are the chances I can answer this with a simple equation 2-1=? Do you know the answer? It's one. Until there is evidence of other universes with different parameters or until someone can provide evidence that whatever existed before the BB could produce any other parameters than what currently exists, any attempt at statistics is dishonest. The honest answer to "What's the likely hood the universe turned out the way it did?" is one. We don't have any data sets to do a statistical analysis and those who do and actually come up with a number are lying or just doing it for fun and picking an arbitrary number of possibilities out of their rectum.
There is randomness in the universe, but that is NOT the dominant driving force that eventually leads to our existence. I know you agree. Your beef is with how did the law come about in the first place. The honest and most accurate answer is--- we don't know.
Now for natural selection and the chance it would create life and all the neats molecular mumbo jumbo.
I'm about to demonstrate the power of natural selection. The specified information that we use in software today... designed from our intelligence is a DIRECT product of natural selection. That's the part the people at DI keep missing. Just because we designed it doesn't exclude it from the natural world. If natural selection figured out a way to develop a mind that can produce digital coding in a few million years with a small population of apes, then why is it so improbable that it couldn't find a way with a bunch of reproducing stands of RNA over a period of a BILLION years on a global scale with an insane population. What is the rate of change once it gets started? We have demonstrated that RNA can form and it forms under very likely conditions. Natural selection is very powerful and those who try to claim that "it's too improbable" don't under stand the power of natural selection. Pick an intricate ecological system and learn all you can about how well balanced everything is. That IS natural selection.
It's important that we try to keep truth as prominent as possible with what we believe in because eventually those beliefs start to inform our actions. If there isn't sufficient evidence then I won't believe in it and it won't influence my actions and yes. I have very little patient towards people to act on unsubstantiated beliefs.
Either I explained it poorly or you read it poorly or there was some collision of the two, but you proved the point I was trying to make. Yes, complexity is an argument from ignorance, and who among us can't make it? You just did. The discussion of Complexity I was referring to is a current discussion of the increasing awareness of the intricacy of the very matter and interactive forces which compose a Universe and which increasingly appears to be infinite in size, both large and small. I probably associated the two in my mind and it may not actually be referred to in those terms by the brains intimately involved in that field of study, but it is a similar argument only on a more basic level. Take away any part or alter the ratio of particles forming matter, types of matter, and forces in the Universe and it all falls apart in every instance where those changes are able to be calculated. And I'll say it again, of course if there are an infinite number of possible ratios of particles and interactive forces between them, then the one possibility we are able to observe is the one where it IS possible to observe making us all big jackpot winners in the infinity lottery if you choose to think of it that way. I find that worthy of awe because it is infinitely far beyond me. I like to appreciate that fact and can't help but feel I owe a debt of appreciation to ? I won't name it out of concern it might upset some. Maybe Random Possibility would make some more comfortable.
In this thread of discussion it appears that sometimes the only thing touchier and more close minded than a Creationist is an Atheist. If you can settle things in your mind without brushing up against metaphysics, you are either kidding yourself or are in possession of a finer mind than the greatest thinkers in human history. Or, at least the ones I'm aware of, and I'm certain I'm not aware of them all. I just can't keep up and will decline to try because I sort of like looking up at the stars in wonder and feeling blessed. because I don't know a better word for it. In no way do I suggest you or anyone else should feel the same way or any other way. Perhaps we should just hum Dust in the Wind to ourselves and feel the tolerance flow.
-"The principle of 'Irreducible Complexity' is one discussed in current science publications and is a continuation of the recognition of observations such as that of Darwin himself that renders the theory Natural selection as the basis for the Origin of -Life seemingly absurd, or beyond potential human comprehension at the very least."
No. It hasn't. Not from Behe. It was mentioned in a publication with the express note that it was being used for a new molecular classification and they specifically noted that they did NOT agree with ID. Irreducible Complexity is an argument from ignorance. If you want to constantly reach into metaphysics to feed this exhaustive desire to know everything and pull out God, then I have every right to reach into metaphysics and claim that unexplainable phenomenon are tautologies and have always existed or were created by magic ninjas that destroyed themselves. For every reason that you do not believing in my Ninjas can be used on your God. That is the most frustrating and absurd argument that theists/hacks make. They poke holes at a theory then try to insert their baseless assertions and ignore the mounds of demonstrable evidence. If your claim is that that is what real scientists are doing... Then we would still be in the dark ages. We wouldn't have even developed the lightbulb.
Because we don't know every single aspect of evolution doesn't mean we just pull the first thing out of the air that is not testable and claim it's science. That's not how science works that is why science continually opens new mysteries. This idea that where human knowledge hasn't reached means there must be something supernatural when every supernatural claim falls apart under scrutiny is absurd. NO supernatural claim has ever been demonstrated to be true under controlled conditions.
Science has shown that it is possible for life to emerge from non-life through natural conditions. There is no consensus because they can't agree on the exact early Earth conditions, but the fact that we can show it is possible through simple experimentation all the way from amino acids through RNA replicating and the formation of a cell wall proves that a being far more complex than the universe itself isn't necessary. I like how creationists claim "It's too improbable to have happened through nature." Without thinking about how improbable a God or Designer that is either equally as complex or more than the universe is improbable. Then they say. "He must have always existed". Well so did the natural laws that directed abiogenesis. You are correct. There is no origin of life theory. There are too many possible routes it could have taken through purely natural mechanisms.
People who claim that life propagating is too improbable don't understand the power of natural selection and don't realize how ancient and vast the universe is. Rare events happen all the time.
Coastie_Wife
"Everything you said just reinforces MICRO evolution. Yeah, horses make horses, dogs make dogs. A wolf evolving into a German Shepard? Sure there's evidence for that. Darwin's finches? Sure. There's evidence for that. Horses turning into dogs, now that's MACRO evolution. Sadly, there is a gaping hole in fossil record where scientists say the "missing links" are. But don't worry, you just keep your faith that someday they'll find the millions of fossils needed to back the flawed theory of evolution.
Read more: Durant Daily Democrat - Your source for local news, classifieds, business listings and events in Durant, Oklahoma.
As for micro/macro evolution. They have both been demonstrated and observed. We have observed over forty speciations in the last fifteen years and we can demonstrate all the mechanisms in the lab that produces genetic variation. The mechanisms that produces various would not work on the creationists imaginary micro level if they didn't work on the macro. Any mechanism that would impede species from developing into different "kinds" (creationist dishonest back-peddling vague term) would also stop the smallest changes on their Micro level.