Scott Ott, "Kansas Evolution Ruling Chases Jobs Away" (2005) :-)

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2059

November 9, 2005

Kansas Evolution Ruling Chases Jobs Away

(2005-11-09) — A coalition of major corporations based in Kansas today announced they would close their operations in the state and move to places where high schools can still teach “that old time evolution” without challenge from alternative theories like intelligent design.

The decision came in the wake of the Kansas Board of Education’s 6-4 vote to approve science standards that introduce questions and challenges to the theory of evolution.

According to an unnamed spokesman for the corporate coalition, the businesses plan to relocate to communities in states “where faith in evolution helps to build strong families and produces workers who know the value of slow, undirected change over vast spans of time.”

“The last thing our companies need is a wave of employees who use logic to question orthodoxy and demand proof for dogmatic assertions,” the spokesman said. “Kansas employers are saying, ‘Give me that old time evolution. It was good enough for our mothers and it’s good enough for me’.”

Link | Login | Read Comments | Post Comment |

73 Comments | Post Your Comment

Goodmorning Boberin !! ( as soon as you get over here from the last thread ! )

Comment by Jackie — November 9, 2005 @ 7:54 am

> <li>
They’re going to allow students to ask questions?

Comment by Shelly — November 9, 2005 @ 7:54 am

> <li>
Goodmornin’ Shelly and Hwy………………I know Shelly, WHAT is becoming of our schools. This could be the start of something ugly, like critical thinking.

Comment by Jackie — November 9, 2005 @ 8:00 am

> <li>
Funny Scott, no free thinkers wanted

Good morning on this thread gang!

Comment by boberin — November 9, 2005 @ 8:14 am

> <li>
I love that Old Rugged Evolution, brings tears to my eyes every time I think that Darwin died for me. Took away my sins and senses all in one swoop.

Comment by Ms RightWing, Ink — November 9, 2005 @ 8:25 am

> <li>
Public Education….students, check your questions at the door with the jack booted attendant.

Comment by BienHoaBaby — November 9, 2005 @ 8:26 am

> <li>
Morning all,
> I don’t believe in evolution. You can’t see it, smell it, touch it, or measure it. It must not exist. I also don’t believe atheists exist, I have never seen one. 
Comment by Libby Gone — November 9, 2005 @ 8:29 am

> <li>
Good Morning all…I ususally only get to post after ll:00PM, but here I am. Great post, once again, Mr. Scott. (from previous thread) Ms RWInc, we’re all just as happy down here in Cap City as everyone else that BowelMovement On got whipped so soundly. Even us Briars can figure out when we’re being had!

Comment by Just the Facts, Ma'am — November 9, 2005 @ 8:38 am

> <li>
Did I hear that some city council members (8 I believe) were voted out of office because they had voted to have an “intelligent design” paper read in their school? Anyone have an update or more infor on that? (I hate rumors!)

Comment by Just the Facts, Ma'am — November 9, 2005 @ 8:42 am

> <li>
“Lost another post to Geico”

Comment by Just the Facts, Ma'am — November 9, 2005 @ 8:44 am

> <li>
No, there it is…Cyber space must be thick today…takes a long time to get to…where does it go?

Comment by Just the Facts, Ma'am — November 9, 2005 @ 8:45 am

> <li>
No, there it is…Cyber space must be thick today…takes a long time to get to…where does it go? OK, I’m gone. Read all your great comments tonight after 11:00 Pm.

Comment by Just the Facts, Ma'am — November 9, 2005 @ 8:47 am

> <li>
Just the facts

er….that is Dytech(O)

Comment by Maggie — November 9, 2005 @ 8:56 am

> <li>
Slow day in scrappledom. I’m betting Scott expected a stronger debate but it appears we all know that no one on either side of this issue could change the others thinking

Comment by boberin — November 9, 2005 @ 10:48 am

> <li>
That is funny Boberin, I was also just thinking that this thread would be more active. I have noticed though that when there is more than one post at a time, the top one seems to get more activity.

Comment by nylecoj — November 9, 2005 @ 10:56 am

> <li>
This is vindication for Mark Twain who said, “God made an idiot as practice, then he made a school board.”

Congratulations to Kansas for taking a bold leap into the 19th Century.

Next on the agenda: refuting the Copernican view of the Solar System.

Comment by Eric Henninger — November 9, 2005 @ 11:07 am

> <li>
Eric,
> Even I can prove that he was nuts. The sun comes up over there, goes over the earth and down over there. Plain as “day” do to speak 
Comment by boberin — November 9, 2005 @ 11:24 am

> <li>
Calvin and Hobbes explanation:

Calvin: Where does the sun go when it sets?
> Dad: The sun sets in the west. In Arizona actually, near Flagstaff.
Calvin: Oh.
> Dad: That’s why the rocks there are so red. Calvin: Don’t the people get burned up?
> Dad: No, the sun goes out as it sets. That’s why it is dark at night.
Calvin: Doesn’t the sun crush the whole state when it lands?
> Dad: Ha ha, of course not. Hold a quarter up. See, the sun’s just about the same size.
This is the alternative explanation to the Copernican and Intelligent Design explanation debate.

Comment by BienHoaBaby — November 9, 2005 @ 11:45 am

> <li>
Great article Scott!

“where faith in evolution helps to build strong families and produces workers who know the value of slow, undirected change over vast spans of time.”

Love it! I’ve worked in a few places with employees like that.

Comment by Hawkeye — November 9, 2005 @ 12:18 pm

> <li>
Maggie, thanks for the correction. Knew it had to do with insurance…just couldn’t get my fingers to type the right company. Hate it when that happens.

Comment by Just the Facts, Ma'am — November 9, 2005 @ 1:29 pm

> <li>
bienhoa
> I love that explanation! 
Comment by boberin — November 9, 2005 @ 2:22 pm

> <li>
♪ ♪ ♪ NARROW-MINDED EDUCRATIC CLODS ♪ ♪ ♪

[Hymn: “Standing on the Promises”, music and lyrics by R. Kelso Carter, sung by countless church choirs since its composition]

[Verse]
> Standing on the evanescent Darwin scheme “Evolution orthodoxy!” educrats scream
> Thought control’s the goal of all their hopes and dreams They’re narrow-minded educratic clods

[Chorus]
> Standing, standing Standing on the Swiss-cheese claims of evolution
> Standing, standing… They’re standing firm on Darwin’s quicksand sod

[Verse]
> In secularist dogma, evolution’s king Educrats, with closed minds, to that idol cling
> At the Kansas Board they shriek, invective fling Educrats are scientific frauds

[Chorus]
> Branding, branding: “Only heretics espouse creationism!”
> Branding, branding… They’re narrow-minded educratic clods

[Verse]
> In their missionary zeal, they cannot fail Any nonconformity’s attacked, assailed
> Rack and thumbscrew use, pronounce auto-da-fe
> Lethal evolution demi-gods (Oops, lose that “g”-word!)

[Chorus]
> Landing, landing Landing truncheon blows on those who seek to differ
> Landing, landing… Diversity’s bete-noire of one-way snobs

[Verse]
> Men have promulgated lies since Adam’s fall Evolution’s just another Sirens’ call
> Provides a lame excuse for disregarding God For narrow-minded educratic clods

[Chorus]
> Notwithstanding Their thoughts ossified there in the fossil record
> They keep grandstanding… Cuts no ice with the Almighty God!

Comment by The Great Santini — November 9, 2005 @ 3:52 pm

> <li>
Santini, spot on as usual! We’ve been missing you…how dare you have a life outside Scrappleville! ;o)

Comment by upnorthlurkin — November 9, 2005 @ 4:31 pm

> <li>
Santini, so glad to see your back…or your front depending on which way you’re standing. When are you going to record a CD?

Comment by Just the Facts, Ma'am — November 9, 2005 @ 4:45 pm

> <li>
Questioning evolution (or any scientific theory) is a good and healthy thing–constant scrutiny is how scientific knowledge evolves. Proposing the teaching of “alternative theories” like intelligent design as if they are actual science does a grave disservice to students who deserve education rather than indoctrination.

Hopefully the folks on the Kansas Board of Education will take note of the rout in Dover (where voters yesterday replaced eight Republicans who had cast pro-ID votes) and leave their religion at home where it belongs.

Comment by Godfrey — November 9, 2005 @ 5:05 pm

> <li>
upnorthlurkin’:

Thank you—I credit Scott’s use of “That Old-Time Religion” in his satire as the inspiration for that one.

I’m with tomg. Dese schmucks expect me t’ woik! Da noive o’ dose guys!

Just the Facts, Ma’am:

I can’t say on the CD. You know what flakes musicians and singers are. Um, better add parodistas to that list, too.

Godfrey:

With as many holes as science has drilled in evolutionism, only the doctrinaire “scientists” are proceeding with the Inquisition. As long as “science” suppresses the unthinkable alternative to evolutionism, I’m sure you’re fine with the “science” establishment’s resort to Torquemada.

In any event, you’re a professed atheist. Sanctimony does not become you. Evolutionists would disapprove of that sort of religious display.

Comment by The Great Santini — November 9, 2005 @ 5:50 pm

> <li>
Santini–I agree that science should not suppress alternatives. And I also agree that some scientists allow themselves to become dogmatic on certain issues. They’re only human, after all.

But the scientific method easily negates philosophical constructs such as intelligent design. ID is therefore not science and should not be represented as such, especially to children who don’t know the difference between science and philosophy.

Your manipulative language aside, I don’t see you defending Intelligent Design as a science–you merely mock the established theory because it is imperfect. Anyone can do that.

I’ve seen your posts many times–you’re obviously intelligent, so why use such a mundane tactic if your position has merit?

Or does it?

Comment by Godfrey — November 9, 2005 @ 6:13 pm

> <li>
Hello Godfrey,

You seem to forget that everything came from something…something can’t come from nothing…and nothing produces nothing. THAT is science. Yet evolutionists say everything ultimately derives from nothing…or if it came from something, we don’t and probably won’t ever know what it was. So admit it or not but “take it on faith” is ultimately just as much the bottom line for evolutionary theory as it is for ID. Evolution - as it’s taught to kids in schools, since that’s what we’re talking about here - is at its very root just as much an unscientific philosophy as ID is said to be. Both ultimately come down - not to proven, watertight scientific fact - but to FAITH.

Forgive my pointing it out but it’s not the ID side that wants to force people to hear only its carefully spun evidence while excluding any competing interpretations of that evidence - that’s something only done by small, cowardly people with no integrity and what they know is a weak case. Many on your side of this issue remind me of the medieval church of Rome: believe what we tell you to believe or we’ll see to it you suffer for it. The only difference between the old inquisitors and the children of Darwin is, Darwin’s kids don’t have the power to burn dissidents. But they have hindered and destroyed them professionally, or tried to. Any cause that has to resort to such tactics is not a cause worth defending.

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 9, 2005 @ 6:50 pm

> <li>
All they requested is that lies aren’t in the textbooks. Is taht a bad thing? And when the known and proven lies are removed, there isnothing left to support their religion (evolution). Why should taxpayers finance the evolution religion? Good for Kansas.
> ~BL 
Comment by BrianL. — November 9, 2005 @ 6:52 pm

> <li>
Forgot: I suspect evolutionists defend their government school territory so fiercely for the same reason homosexual activists have, in some areas, begun to do so: converting the young and easily misled is the easiest and, all too often, the only way they can “reproduce,” philosophically speaking, and to Hell with whatever the parents might think. Sorry to put it in such ugly terms but it’s an ugly fact.

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 9, 2005 @ 7:00 pm

> <li>
hoyvinmavin: first of all, the something-from-nothing argument doesn’t really apply; biogenesis and evolution may be related but they are not the same thing.

As for faith, well, you are correct that both positions (any position on anything, in fact) requires some degree of faith. In fact the very universality of the “faith” argument makes it irrelevant, but I’ll humor you.

Faith is a thing of degrees–the question that you should be addressing is not whether it takes faith to believe in evolution or intelligent design but how much faith is required for each. Without getting too intricate here, evolution has a plethora of supporting evidence and a strong foundation in scientific theory while intelligent design has only a philosophical basis–no evidence whatsoever. Which should reasonably be taught in science class?

I understand that religious people have an emotional investment in intelligent design and I understand why they might feel threatened by evolution. I support your right to believe as you will–but calling intelligent design a scientific theory smacks of desperation.

The real answer is to separate science and theology–for each has its place–and to resent neither.

Comment by Godfrey — November 9, 2005 @ 7:17 pm

> <li>
hoyvinmaven: re; “the only way they can “reproduce”.

Funny how combative assertions such as this can be used by both sides, a fact which illustrates their fecklessness. Are not most religious people religious because they were raised as such? Would you have it otherwise?

Comment by Godfrey — November 9, 2005 @ 7:24 pm

> <li>
Godfrey - to you it takes more faith to believe in ID and less to believe in Evolution. To those that hold to ID, the opposite is true. Therefore, that argument does not hold water either.

Secondly, ID has EVERYTHING to do with science. The Bible, in its very text, describes science very clearly and supports it. It would make sense that the God of the universe, who created everything, would also create science. It is a common misconception from evolutionists that people who hold on to ED fear science, or are afraid of evolution, or have an “emotional” tie to ID. Well, that is just not true. At least not with the scientist who subscribe to this theory. Many people who hold on to ID do so because evolution has WAY too many holes in it. Evolution violates certain proven LAWS, so by definition it cannot be true. ID does not violate any scientific law. Galleleo once said “Mathematics is the language in which God created the universe”. He said that because everything in the universe is so orderly, it fits together so well, that it could not have happened by chance. It’s not an emotional thing; to many it is a better alternative.

To repeat: we are not proposing that only ID be taught, we are proposing that ID be taught as a possible altervative. How would that harm children? Give them the facts on both theories and let them decide. It’s funny, ID is one theory some scientists are unwilling to discuss. And I can give you my theory as to why: if ID is true, and there is an all-powerful being that put us here, then we will then be required to be subject to him - his morals, values, etc. That is something that some people do not want to do. So, the best way to get out of something we do not want to do is to avoid it, deny it, ignore it. That is our human nature handles undesirable things. It’s unfortunate that atheists refuse to get to know the God of the Bible. He is so loving, so forgiving, so generous, so incredibly majestic - we do not serve the Lord because of Heaven. We serve the Lord because he is so WORTHY of it. God owes me nothing, and if all there was after life was death, I would still serve him and follow him. The Bible speaks that, one day, every knee will bow to Christ. I have chosen to do that BEFORE I breathe my last. But one day, everyone will be doing that. Whether you believe it or not. Your faith says that God does not exist. My faith says he does. But, we are both operating under faith.

Comment by NY_Joe — November 9, 2005 @ 8:05 pm

> <li>
Godfrey - I was not raised religious. I gave my heart to the Lord when I was 20 years old. I read the Bible and studied it and wanted to know “is this it?”. I read commentaries on both sides - by aethists and by theists. I came to the conclusion that the Christian world view made a whole lot more sense than the aethists world view.

Comment by NY_Joe — November 9, 2005 @ 8:07 pm

> <li>
Godfrey:

Your initial contribution on this subject came across (to me, at least) as humorless. Since this is a satire site, my response was meant to inject some humor, thus lightening the atmosphere. Obviously, you read it as being “manipulative”. Oh, well.

Newton, Kepler, and Copernicus—just for starters—not only believed in ID (”In the beginning, God made heaven and earth”), but their scientific work, using the scientific method, established sufficient evidence of ID to persuade all but the credulous, the tendentious, and the secular. Any of those three scientific heavyweights, on his worst day, was more intelligent—by light years—than you and I on our best days.

It has taken the secular age in which we live to ignore what they established. Today, men worship anyone but God because the alternative is unthinkable, and they will believe just about anything, for the same reason. The Bible is not a science book, but science has not contradicted anything in the Bible, including the Genesis account quoted above, nor will science ever do so.

It’s obvious you’re an intelligent man. That won’t help you after you die and face God’s judgment; that will be a pass-fail test, with no grading on the curve. Millions of intelligent people have been persuaded by the Bible’s evidence that God is exactly who He says He is. I hope, and pray, you will do the same. The alternative is unthinkable.

Comment by The Great Santini — November 9, 2005 @ 8:49 pm

> <li>
“something-from-nothing argument doesn’t really apply; biogenesis and evolution may be related but they are not the same thing.”

A belief in the cause-less, direction-less, spontaneous apperance of inert matter, and that matter later becoming Godfrey, is not merely irrational but is utterly impossible according to the science we DO have. Yet these myths form the fundamental tenet of atheistic evolution. Discard them and there’s nothing left in the whole of evolution - as it’s taught to kids, as a stealth religion - for anyone more than a halfwit to take seriously for more than ten seconds.

Here’s what we know: Life, the universe and everything exists. On that I assume we can agree? Good.

Well, then, if a intelligent, designing Creator did not make it all, then it all happened by itself, without a cause, for no reason. That’s the foundation the whole house o’ cards rests upon, but it’s so absurd and anti-intuitive that neither science nor common sense will have anything to do with it AND I SUSPECT YOU KNOW IT. Hence my earlier claim that evolution = philosophy, ideology and religious faith, but not science.

“As for faith, well, you are correct that both positions (any position on anything, in fact) requires some degree of faith.”

So when you wrote earlier that…

“the scientific method easily negates philosophical constructs such as intelligent design”

…you’re admitting you rely on at least some degree of faith to say that? Wow, you sounded so SURE of yourself at first.

Seriously, tho. Where and how do you draw the line between what you KNOW to be true and what you choose to BELIEVE to be true? I mean, in areas (and there are lots herebouts) where true science is blind, deaf and dumb?

“Faith is a thing of degrees–the question that you should be addressing is not whether it takes faith to believe in evolution or intelligent design but how much faith is required for each.”

Okee-dokee. This is an old observation but it bears repeating here: Since biblical creationism offers a clear, unambiguous, take-it-or-leave-it explanation of where life, the universe and everything came from (Gen 1:1), and since atheistic evolution does not and cannot offer any such explanation (since science can guess but cannot speak with authority on that which it cannot touch), in that sense it actually takes MORE faith to be an athesitic evolutionist than it takes to believe Genesis. In short, Dawkins has WAY more faith than I do, and I’m a fundie to the biblical right of most professing fundies. He’s not as overtly paganistic as Sagan was (who now knows better, as does Gould) but Dawkins is very much a man of faith. He just doesn’t realize it. Or won’t admit it. But he’s currently the Billy Graham of the godless, alright…the godless look to him as a kind of high priest, the one who peers into the dark for them, in whose words they place their faith to quiet their hearts, in whose hands they place their eternal destiny, whatever they think that may be. If that ain’t a religion, Godfrey, I don’t know what is.

“Without getting too intricate here,”

Good, ‘cuz from what I’ve read thus far you’re really not up to intricacies.

“evolution has a plethora of supporting evidence and a strong foundation in scientific theory while intelligent design has only a philosophical basis–no evidence whatsoever.”

This statement, more than any other I’ve read from you, shows how poorly informed you really are. That, or how stupid you think we are.

See, Godfrey, ID uses the EXACT SAME EVIDENCE your side uses. No, really! It does! The only difference is each side’s religious/philosophical/ideological assumption-glasses, thru which the raw, mute evidence is viewed. Naturally this philosophical preloading leads to all sorts of contradictory interpretations and conclusions. BUT THE EVIDENCE ITSELF HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE SAME. And creationists are the only ones I hear admit that regularly. Evolutionists often won’t.

“I understand that religious people have an emotional investment in intelligent
> design and I understand why they might feel threatened by evolution.”
I’m not threatened, I’m insulted that people as intelligent as you actually expect me to take such obviously religious teachings as hard, watertight science. Then again, many do feel threatened - and justifiably - when a paganistic religion (evolution) is forced upon their kids in schools. But you want threatened people? Look no further than the evolutionists who SHRIEK like firehosed chimps for fear losing their stranglehold on the biggest single block of supremely impressionable converts they have: other people’s kids. THEY are the ones truly threatened here! As well they should, since they’re slowly becoming extinct.

“I support your right to believe as you will–”

And I yours.

“but calling intelligent design a scientific theory smacks of desperation.”

You show me your first cause and I’ll show you mine.

“The real answer is to separate science and theology–”

Let’s be really careful here. The first step is for us to separate science and theology, AND RELIGION, AND IDEOLOGY, AND PHILOSOPHY. If that’s our baseline, then evolution goes right out the window, too.

“Funny how combative assertions such as this can be used by both sides, a fact which illustrates their fecklessness.”

I find it even funnier that, again, the same physical evidence is used by both sides, but only creationists tend to admit it.

“Are not most religious people religious because they were raised as such?”

Can’t speak for most, I can only speak for me. I wasn’t raised in a religious home - zip, zero, nada.

Were you brought up in a religious home, Godfrey?

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 9, 2005 @ 8:50 pm

> <li>
This reminds me:

Don’t know if anyone else heard this, but just this morning the popular radio host Neal Boortz - who insists he is a Christian - was openly gleeful that some Republican on a school board somewhere were voted out of office for pushing I.D., tho not to the exclusion of evolution. He (Boortz) also said he did not accept the “fairy tale” of the Genesis account or of the Flood. Yet he’s a good Christian man, according to his definition of “Christian.” FYI.

Can someone explain to me how one can be a Christ-ian when he/she refuses to follow the teachings of Christ, including His claim that the Law (incl. Genesis) was eternally established and true? Anyone?

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 9, 2005 @ 9:00 pm

> <li>
Edit:

Can someone explain to me how one can be a Christ-ian when he/she REJECTS the teachings of Christ, including His claim that the Law (incl. Genesis) was eternally established and true? Anyone?

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 9, 2005 @ 9:16 pm

> <li>
Joe: You assert that the question of faith is subjective, but it’s really not. Faith by definition is belief in something despite a lack of supporting evidence. It takes more faith to believe in something that has zero supporting evidence than it does to believe in something that has a large body of supporting evidence. Since ID has no supporting evidence, it takes much more faith to believe it than, say, evolution.

As for the scientific value of evolution vs. intelligent design, you couldn’t be more mistaken. Saying evolution is full of holes is ignoring that it is a “theory” and not a “law.” Both of these terms have very specific meanings within the context of scientific methodology, and neither term can legitimately be applied to intelligent design.

At its core, intelligent design is not science because it does not begin with observation or hypothesis but with the conclusion itself. It is reverse-engineered, an attempt to support a conclusion by gathering evidence and conjecture. It is the scientific method in reverse. Abusing the scientific method in this way I could as easily claim that we were all wished into existence by a boy named Billy. But, like the ID’ers, I would have only a fanciful assertion.

Very few legitimate scientists support the notion—and it is nothing more than that, a notion—of intelligent design. So of course real scientists are “unwilling to discuss” ID in any depth. They don’t debate leprechaun theory, either; not because they fear it but because supernatural phenomena don’t lie within their purview.

Intelligent design, like any other idea, would have to earn its acceptance within the scientific community. But because it is unsustainable under even the most rudimentary analytic scrutiny, it never will be accepted. Nor should it be; it is not science.

Comment by Godfrey — November 9, 2005 @ 9:40 pm

> <li>
Santini: I did not mean “manipulative” in a particularly derogatory sense–only in the sense that any advocate’s language would be considered manipulative (calling evolutionists “Inquisitors” for instance). I have great respect for your renowned ability to articulate ideas and to compose epic parodies like the one above–even when you’re as completely mistaken as you are on this matter. J

Advances in science have indeed cast doubt upon many of the claims of Genesis. The non-falsifiable claims aside (i.e. God said “Let there be light”) we have dashed to pieces many of the ignorant assumptions in early Hebrew lore. There is no firmament above our heads, there is not water above this nonexistent firmament that rains down upon us, the sun must have existed before there was light, not after (it’s the source of the light, it turns out), the world does not in fact have “corners”–the list of scientific blunders in the Bible is quite extensive.

It is in fact quite obvious to the disinterested observer that the Bible was written by very primitive people who hadn’t the faintest concept of how the world around them functioned.

To someone with an emotional investment in Christianity, however, these blunders are easy to rationalize because the accuracy of the Bible is secondary to the comfort that they find in its tenets. I’m fine with that—I have respect for that emotional investment, even if I find the belief itself irrational.

But when science is twisted to support these beliefs and when these “scientists” further decide they want to mandate the teaching of it to other people’s children—my children—as science, well, my respect begins to wane a bit. It’s not science and it doesn’t belong in science class.

You say that the alternative to a God’s existence is “unthinkable”. I think that’s a particularly interesting choice of words. Is something “unthinkable” because you cannot think it? Or because you won’t?

Comment by Godfrey — November 9, 2005 @ 10:30 pm

> <li>
Pretend the orphaned “J” after the first paragraph above is a friendly, smiling emoticon shooting us a roguish wink.

Comment by Godfrey — November 9, 2005 @ 10:56 pm

> <li>
Who let the Godfreys back in the house?

Comment by Ms RightWing, Ink — November 9, 2005 @ 11:14 pm

> <li>
RE:BrianL

“All they requested is that lies aren’t in the textbooks. Is taht a bad thing?”

The fact remain that neither you nor a former school teacher with religious vendetta and a doctorate that can be bought for a couple hundred dollars from an unaccredited university have an right to claim these are lies and start bossing the scientific establishment around.

No one who will claim there was fire breathing lizards, or use scripture as science deserves any scientific credit whatsoever. Your session was just a circlejerk of religion with no real science.

“And when the known and proven lies are removed, there isnothing left to support their religion (evolution).”

Sorry home-slice, your back-ass religious beliefs don’t stack up the bulk of the evidence. Citing the issues with Haeckel diagrams and then saying that they are the cause of NAZIism is not disproving evolution.

People like Hovind PREY on people’s ignorance to BASIC geology, biology, physics knowledge. While it may be funny that a living penguin/clam/monkey was dating to 6000 years old, he neglects to tell anyone that carbon dating does not work on living creatures (they are still in exchanging Carbon with their atmosphere), nor does he mention that there is a mathematical foundation to dating, it is not some voodoo practice. How is that for a LIE!

“Why should taxpayers finance the evolution religion? Good for Kansas.”

Hey hey, guess what, guess what! while the bulk of people do not fully believe in evolution, they do support the exclusive teaching of it in school (PFAW survey from 2000). This is evident furthermore in the fact that every single school board member that was a defendant in the Dover, PA case was thrown out of office last night.

I should have asked Dr. Dino about tax fraud.

But here is a plan, I will evolve and you try your best not to.

Comment by collin — November 10, 2005 @ 12:00 am

> <li>
If Newton, Kepler, and Copernicus had lived, been educated, and done their scientific work today I seriously doubt any of them would have supported the Giant Intelligent Alien Brocolli theory (a.k.a. Intelligent Design).
> Einstien himself said that science and religion were both important, but he also knew to keep them seperate.
As for the literalism of Genesis: neither Thomas Aquinas nor Augustine thought it should be taken literally. Neither did Martin Luther.

As for how the universe got started, I don’t know ’cause I wasn’t there. Maybe it was the GIABs, and evolution was the method they chose to produce life.

I’m not completely convinced there was a universe before I became self-aware enough to experience it.

Comment by Eric Henninger — November 10, 2005 @ 12:09 am

> <li>
Ms. RightWing–the doggie door was open, actually. I didn’t think you’d mind.

Eric: People do take Genesis literally, however. Some people insist that the universe is 6000 years old. Aquinas, Augustine and Luther are relatively modern next to the folks who started writing down the old Hebrew oral traditions. Whether Newton and his ilk would have believed in God I cannot say; I’m sure there are many intelligent scientists who believe in God–but, like Einstein, they know that religion and science don’t mix without comical results.

Comment by Godfrey — November 10, 2005 @ 1:01 am

> <li>
Good Morning!

The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man’s questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did: a) Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two- and threecelled intermediates?) b) Single-celled animals evolve? c) Fish change to amphibians? d) Amphibians change to reptiles? e) Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did: a) Whales evolve? b) Sea horses evolve? c) Bats evolve? d) Eyes evolve? e) Ears evolve? f) Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)? a) The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? b) The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? c) The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? d) DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? e) The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? f) The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? g) The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? h) The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? i) The immune system or the need for it?

by Dr. Kent Hovind

Comment by Observer — November 10, 2005 @ 6:12 am

> <li>
“Einstien himself said that science and religion were both important, but he also knew to keep them seperate.”

He did?

Looking back over his career, Einstein said that his biggest single mistake in all his calculations was not figuring God into his equations.

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 8:52 am

> <li>
Now we’ve reached the point of forehead+brick wall=headache. Godfrey actually wrote:

“At its core, intelligent design is not science because it does not begin with observation or hypothesis but with the conclusion itself. It is reverse-engineered, an attempt to support a conclusion by gathering evidence and conjecture. It is the scientific method in reverse. Abusing the scientific method in this way I could as easily claim that we were all wished into existence by a boy named Billy. But, like the ID’ers, I would have only a fanciful assertion.”

Now watch this:

“At its core, evolution is not science because it does not begin with observation or hypothesis [or first cause] but with the conclusion itself [that whatever happened to lead to Life, The Universe and Everything, it happened entirely by itself and WITHOUT GOD]. It is reverse-engineered, an attempt to support a conclusion [”no need for a Creator”] by gathering evidence and conjecture [which actually works AGAINST the conclusion when looked at honestly and objectively]. It is the scientific method in reverse [it’s not even that, but more akin to the superstition of flies materializing out of rotting meat or the notions of phlogiston and luminous ether]. Abusing the scientific method in this way I could as easily claim that we were all wished into existence by a boy named Billy. But, like the children of Darwin, I would have only a fanciful assertion [but one which, for evolutionists, just HAS to be true, and so causes the observable facts we DO have to be crammed into an irrational, presupposed-to-be-correct framework, thereby negating the evidence’s usefulness to real science].”

Watch how you swing your swords, Godfrey, it cuts both ways.

Godfrey, it’s clear what little science know-how you have is drawn from books on one side of the fence, and what knowledge you have of the other side has been (how to put this politely) misrepresented. You’d be alot better off, and you’d look much less foolish herebouts, if you’d simply take the common sense approach, sit down comfortably, look at your hand and say, “The many different types of cells I know make up my hand function because they are composed of smaller, machine-like particles that are mind-bogglingly complex, consistent, intricate, precisely balanced in a thousand ways, self-repairing and self-reproducing and yet so dad-blamed TINY that we can identify only some of them but can’t really say for sure why they’d even exist in a universe that’s SUPPOSED to be completely random, disordered and directionless.

“Question [Godfrey asks himself]: Could the cells of my body - or, for that matter, the atoms that comprise them - have come into existence with no one to design and make them? Or…given their many intricacies their structures and functions…is it really that unreasonable to think Someone HAD to design them to do what they do so well?

“Or do I have moral problems that will cause me to reject even the notion of a God, no matter what the evidence of my own body structure may suggest to me?”

Try it and you might begin to see atheistic evolution for the crappy, intellectually insulting fairy tale it is.

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 9:24 am

> <li>
Einstein had a great deal to say on the subject of religion. Here’s a sample:

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of theis ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted (this was italicised in the original), in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task.

published in 1941 in “Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium” More on the topic at www.einsteinand religion.com

Comment by Eric Henninger — November 10, 2005 @ 1:26 pm

> <li>
Note that it was the concept of a PERSONAL God that Einstein apparently rejected. From what I’ve read he still was very much a vague, fuzzy deist, which would qualify him as an ID’er. Remember, one need not believe in the Christian/Biblical God to believe in ID; all one has to believe to join that club is that someone of Intelligence Designed it all. Einstein appears to have believed at least that much.

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 2:15 pm

> <li>
Observer: Dr. Kent Hovind has an education in education, not science, so I suppose it makes sense that he’d ask irrelevant questions like “why would a plant want to reproduce?” as if evolution were a conscious decision by simple organisms. The questions he poses above display a fundamental disregard for real evolutionary theory. Plants do not reproduce because they have made a conscious decision to do so, they reproduce because their ancestors did–the ones that didn’t reproduce didn’t survive as a species and so no longer exist.

In any case Hovind’s questions and lectures are carefully tailored to reinforce religious layman views that science is some sort of bogeyman and that scientists are a . None of his assertions hold up to real scrutiny. Pick your favorite and I’ll discuss it further: I cannot address all of them here.

hoyvinmavin: thanks for your adroit illustration of my above comment, that “religion and science don’t mix without comical results.” You claim that my knowledge of science comes from “one side of the fence”. What do you mean, from science books? Guilty as charged.

Science makes no pronouncements about the existence of gods or demons or the like. It is merely a compendium of carefully drawn conclusions based on cautious observation, subject to change as new discoveries are made. It need not be a threat to your religious philosophy.

Comment by Godfrey — November 10, 2005 @ 2:25 pm

> <li>
Anybody can Google the Net to collect quotes, so…

“Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.” Einstein: The Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark, Page 422.

Hm.

Was Einstein a Christian Biblical Creationist? Nope, not even close. Did Einstein accept God’s self-description in the Jewish Scriptures he was raised with? Doesn’t look like it. But if the point of invoking Einstein was to imply he was a purely materialistic, God-ignoring stud of science who’d laugh in the face of poor, moronic ID’ers, it doesn’t look very likely from what ol’ Al himself said.

And by the way:

“I’m not completely convinced there was a universe before I became self-aware enough to experience it.”

Be careful who you say that to. Solipsism is still considered a form of mental derangement and, once upon a time, got you fitted for a nice white jacket with sleeves in the back.

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 2:34 pm

> <li>
Hmm… sentence in second paragraph got chopped. Should read:

“…scientists are an enemy of God rather than merely inquisitive minds seeking verifiable answers”.

Comment by Godfrey — November 10, 2005 @ 2:37 pm

> <li>
“Science makes no pronouncements about the existence of gods or demons or the like.”

True. SCIENCE does not because it cannot. EVOLUTION does by default by eliminating all possibility of the supernatural (something SCIENCE can’t do), which is only to be expected because evolution is a religion, and every religion comments on/attacks the others. The only difference is that evolution is a purely materialistic one that, as we’ve seen, requires a UPS truck-full of faith to swallow.

“It [science] is merely a compendium of carefully drawn conclusions based on cautious observation, subject to change as new discoveries are made.”

I’ll buy that.

“It need not be a threat to your religious philosophy.”

It isn’t. But it IS a threat to YOUR religion, as shown by the refusal of many to even allow reasonable questions to be raised about evolutionary truth-claims they insist be poured into the heads of children. No one (as far as I know) is asking Genesis be taught in science classes; they ask only that the plain inconsistencies in evolutionary thought be brought up at the same time! THAT is TRUE scientific thinking but evolutionists will picket, threaten and sue to prevent it! Why do you think they’re so insecure, if evolution is the indisputable fact you say it is?

BTW -

Up to about four years ago I’d seen almost every debate Hovind has engaged in. Being purely objective and fairly good at detecting bad logic when I hear it, Hovind has not lost one debate for one simple reason: he says what many evolutionists already know BUT CANNOT SAY. All Hovind does is point out the obvious weaknesses, errors and flat-out contradictions in evolutionary thought, from the bottom up, thus revealing it to be supestition, not science. That’s why in every debate his opponents will either try to get the discussion bogged down in niggling details, or they’ll go on the attack against the Bible (or Hovind himself, hint hint) because they cannot respond to what he says. If you’ve not seen these debates email me and I’ll send you copies free of charge. All I ask is that you watch them. It’s really quite comical to see self-assured, arrogant PHDs squirm, stammer and tapdance when asked “The Big Bang is supposed to have been a big explosion. Question: What blew up, where did it come from, and why did it blow up?”

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 2:52 pm

> <li>
And unless I missed it, Godfrey, you never did answer the question of whether you had any kind of religious upbringing.

…tick-tock, tick-tock…

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 2:59 pm

> <li>
“Being purely objective and fairly good at detecting bad logic when I hear it…”

With all due respect, your posts so far are rife with faulty logic and emotional tangents (not to mention a whole lot of ad hominem).

This is not such a terrible thing: most people fall prey to emotional bias and illogic at some point, myself included; but it belies your claim to have a superior sense of logic.

Comment by Godfrey — November 10, 2005 @ 3:01 pm

> <li>
As to that last question: my mother was mildly religious and encouraged her kids to attend a nearby Baptist church when we showed an interest in religion.

I remember attending church with her a few times as well, and she did teach Sunday school for a while (mostly afternoon activities and games). She was never forceful one way or the other.

Draw what conclusions you may.

Comment by Godfrey — November 10, 2005 @ 3:04 pm

> <li>
“With all due respect, your posts so far are rife with faulty logic and emotional tangents”

I won’t deny the tangents thing but if you could provide instances of my logic being faulty I’ll thank you.

“As to that last question: my mother was mildly religious and encouraged her kids to attend a nearby Baptist church when we showed an interest in religion. I remember attending church with her a few times as well, and she did teach Sunday school for a while (mostly afternoon activities and games). She was never forceful one way or the other. Draw what conclusions you may.”

Not enough data on which to base a conclusion (there’s some science for ya). But if we might probe a bit further: why’d you quit going?

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 3:20 pm

> <li>
First, I’ll define logic as “the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning” (dictionary.com). I want to be clear that engaging in faulty logic does not mean that you are stupid, which you obviously aren’t. It merely means that you are undisciplined in the way you perceive and present the facts surrounding a particular subject, especially a subject like this one, where you have a significant emotional investment.

You generally fail in even addressing the subject matter directly, instead preferring to use imprecise and emotional language (“…evolutionists who SHRIEK like firehosed chimps for fear losing their stranglehold…” etc.) rather than addressing actual concepts. You use presumption and ad hominem (“it’s clear what little science know-how you have…” etc) to attack me rather than address my points. You do the same with “evolutionists” as a whole, calling evolution a “religion”; metaphor is fine in poetry and literature but it is counterproductive to an honest evaluation of the scientific merit of evolutionary theory.

This is exactly what Hovind does: he appeals to emotions and so-called “common sense” (which, as Twain once remarked, “isn’t”) rather than addressing the issue in scientific terms.

You have made some good points but they are so mired in fiery pronouncements and metaphor as to be useless from a logical standpoint. Particularly the metaphor part makes them seem dishonest, albeit unintentionally.

If you’re really interested in logic I suggest you read a book called “Nonsense” by the late Robert J. Gula (who is religious, by the way). I’m not saying you should turn “Vulcan” on us or start emulating Mr. Spock, only that your arguments would be more credible if they were structured properly. Read that book and then reread this thread; you’ll see exactly what I mean.

As for why I quit going to church, well, I never really went much. I was definitely not inculcated to the point where any alternative to religion was “unthinkable”, which is probably why I was able to break away from it without any severe catalyst or trauma. As I made my way through adolescence it simply became increasingly clear to me that what was being taught in church wasn’t true, regardless of the fervor with which the people around me pretended that it was.

I began to seek out other perspectives and took the drastic step of actually considering their merit rather than just considering how I could prove them wrong. This proved to be the key: prying open a shut mind is very difficult, especially when it is your own. But once I realized that god and giants and demons were not “truth” but the remnants of primitive culture my vision began to clear and I started to see the world for what it is: a wonderful, exciting place in which natural explanations exist for everything, if we have the curiosity, discipline and patience to seek them out.

Comment by Godfrey — November 10, 2005 @ 4:07 pm

> <li>
Tackle some of them Hovind questions while you’re at it.

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 4:36 pm

> <li>
Pick one.

Comment by Godfrey — November 10, 2005 @ 4:42 pm

> <li>
g

Comment by BrianL. — November 10, 2005 @ 7:08 pm

> <li>
First answer why you quit going to church. Then Observer can pick a question, since he/she posted them.

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 9:23 pm

> <li>
Sorry, hadn’t read your response fully.

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 9:25 pm

> <li>
“As for why I quit going to church, well, I never really went much. I was definitely not inculcated to the point where any alternative to religion was “unthinkable”, which is probably why I was able to break away from it without any severe catalyst or trauma. As I made my way through adolescence it simply became increasingly clear to me that what was being taught in church wasn’t true, regardless of the fervor with which the people around me pretended that it was.”

Typical story, and I sympathize. What’s taught in many (if not most) churches is not true, or is truth so mixed with error that it’s near impossible to separate the two. Believe me, I hear you - been there myself.

“I began to seek out other perspectives and took the drastic step of actually considering their merit rather than just considering how I could prove them wrong. This proved to be the key: prying open a shut mind is very difficult, especially when it is your own. But once I realized that god and giants and demons were not “truth” but the remnants of primitive culture my vision began to clear and I started to see the world for what it is: a wonderful, exciting place in which natural explanations exist for everything, if we have the curiosity, discipline and patience to seek them out.”

I appreciate you honesty but it seems you disregarded the baby and the bathwater based on (as far as I know) what was a questionable/dubious Christian-esque experience; again, something all too common. But (I’m speculating here) you might well have never been exposed to the Truth, and so you were innoculated against it by something which, perhaps, was false. It happens a lot, sadly. Possible in your case? I ask because many ’shut the mind’ in response to a Churchian experience without ever knowing anything about that which is truly Christian in substance and not just in name only. I wonder if you ever gave Christ a fair hearing before turning your back on Him.

As to the rest of your post, I think it’s fair to condense it into this statement:

“You have made some good points but they are so mired in fiery pronouncements and metaphor as to be useless from a logical standpoint. Particularly the metaphor part makes them seem dishonest, albeit unintentionally.”

That sounds like an excuse to be lazy, you’ll forgive my saying so. If you’re cognizant enough to notice the difference between my ‘good points’ and my rhetorical flourishes, then it should be simple for you to eat the meat and spit out the bones, so to speak. IOW, respond to the substance you acknowledge is there and ignore the B.S. You’ve not done so…yet?

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 9:36 pm

> <li>
And in case this thread gets locked, but you’re still interested in chatting, feel free to contact me via the website linked to my handle.

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 10, 2005 @ 9:39 pm

> <li>
Au contraire, I was introduced to religion at an early age, participated willingly and ultimately rejected it as untrue. Whether I was exposed to what you consider “true” Christianity is open to interpretation, of course: every Christian sect claims to have exclusive acces to the truth. Only one could possibly be correct, and in my view none of them are.

I didn’t have any bad experiences per se regarding Christianity, in fact it was a fun social setting. As a child I believed what I was told without question. But as I grew up I began to realize that it was a rather implausible fantasy and adjusted my worldview accordingly.

Comment by Godfrey — November 11, 2005 @ 12:49 am

> <li>
“Only one could possibly be correct, and in my view none of them are.”

And you accuse me of bad logic? (still waiting for examples, btw). I agree with you that there’s two alternatives: either all the contradictory Christian sects are false, or only one of them is true. But they can’t all be true on those points on which they contradict, the biggest of which, sadly, very often is how one becomes right with God.

However, your estimation that none of them are true - when you cannot have examined all of them - cannot be the result of a reasoned, logical decision but the result of some other process.

I have limits on my time as I’m sure you do, but since you’re replies are getting smaller and smaller I assume this thread is about to die.

“I didn’t have any bad experiences per se regarding Christianity, in fact it was a fun social setting.”

There’s a clue right there, possibly. Then again, you’re looking back at it from the perspective of the child you were at the time.

“As a child I believed what I was told without question. But as I grew up I began to realize that it was a rather implausible fantasy”

Specifics?

“and adjusted my worldview accordingly.”

So you exchanged one implausible fantasy for another even more implausible fantasy? Interesting.

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 12, 2005 @ 10:35 am

> <li>
However, your estimation that none of them are true - when you cannot have examined all of them - cannot be the result of a reasoned, logical decision but the result of some other process.

They all share the same foundation: each form of “Christianity” presumes the existence of a mystical supernatural being, a “god” who winked the entire universe into existence. Since it is their shared foundation that I reject on rational grounds, the logic of finding them all false on the same basis holds.

Whether you agree with my rejection of them or not, the logic of grouping them in such a way should be evident. A man with acrophobia who may not have been to the top of the Chrysler Building would still know that it’s too high for this tastes.

Specifics?

It’s hard to be both specific and brief, but I’ll give you a few. The Bible, while a valuable insight into primitive societies, is far from infallible. Most Christian sects claim it is the direct word of God, yet it is so filled with errors and archaic flights of fancy (some of which I touched on above) that a modern adolescent could write something more convincing.

More to the point, a careful and dispassionate reading of the Bible’s earliest translations shows that its stories are very pagan in nature. For instance the passage Exodus 13:21 says of the Israelites “The Lord Yahweh went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night.” Sounds like quite an impressive god, right? A pillar of cloud surrounded him by day, a pillar of fire at night—neat trick, that.

Perhaps coincidentally (and perhaps not) it also sounds a lot like an active volcano. If you’re walking toward a mountain it “goes before you” as a guide. Now, I have no problem with primitive societies thinking that a volcanic mountain is a “god”—but modern people know what a volcano is and would never consider worshipping one. Christians today would (and do) scoff at the idea that their forebears worshipped a volcano (either Mt. Sinai or Mt. Horeb—it would have to be in what is now Saudi Arabia) and yet it makes perfect sense—the Levites were a tribe of ignorant, uneducated herdsmen who lived near an active volcano.

Another pagan carryover: god-eating (i.e. the “sacrament”), where primitive man partook of his deity’s immortality by eating his “flesh” and drinking his “blood”. Early religions, apparently including Judaism, actually did eat flesh and blood—in the form of a living “sacred king” who was sacrificed and consumed. Later it was a symbolic doll made of local crops like corn that was buried for three days and then “reborn” (sound familiar?). In other words people replaced actual flesh and blood with symbols: like, um, wafers and wine.

Jesus’ birth is celebrated on December 25th—and so were the birthdays of Osiris, Dionysos and Mithra, all “savior-gods” in their own religions, and all of which predate Christ.

Christianity is one of many similar religions with a jealous and vengeful god who has all the attributes of a slavemaster: he exerts complete control, doles out vicious punishment and requires abject fear and worship. If he were a man he would be considered morally repugnant by modern standards.

Whether the Levites worshipped a volcano or ate real flesh I do not pretend to know—I only know that there are so many such pagan references in the Bible as to make it astounding that modern men consider it “holy”. There are so many issues with it—primitive science (based as it was on the knowledge of primitive men), the plethora of contradictions, the various and different accounts of the same events. The fact that its pagan underpinnings have been weeded out through time and translation doesn’t really change things; it is about as credible as Greek mythology (Persephone was the first “savior” who was “reborn”—and she was also a part of a “Trinity” that predated Constantine’s by a millennia).

Most Christians are completely ignorant of the pagan origins of their own mythology. They have an emotional investment in their religion being “unique” and in themselves being “chosen”. But in fact Christianity is rather run-of-the-mill as far as ancient religions go—very, very similar to other religions of its day and before, religions you and your fellow Christians would consider primitive and perhaps even silly.

The only way someone could believe such illogical things is if they really, really wanted to. Men can rationalize everything–anything–and they do. But people who have the courage to take a step back and realize what they’re actually allowing themselves to swallow, the superstitious baloney they are allowing to go unchallenged, eventually see it for what it is.

Barring that, most Christians let their modern sense of morality temper their beliefs: they ignore the more violent and implausible aspects of the Bible and focus on its good parts: generosity, love, community. I have written here before that religion is a reflection of the person who practices it and not vice-versa. People who want to be good will be good, whether they are Christian (like you) or not (like me).

For me, however, there is something that is equally important, and that is knowing and facing the truth. And to do so we must periodically take stock of our own beliefs (or lack of them). My main problem with religion is that it denies its adherents the right to do this.

It is very difficult to view one’s own religion dispassionately, especially when you have been taught that to do so is to risk eternal damnation. I went through this, so I’m aware of the hardship involved. But to continue living in a fog of justification, rationalization and self-imposed ignorance was, to me, a sort of damnation in itself.

Comment by Godfrey — November 12, 2005 @ 10:47 pm

> <li>
um…

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 13, 2005 @ 2:54 pm

> <li>
Hope this post doesn’t duplicate itself.

“They all share the same foundation: each form of “Christianity” presumes the existence of a mystical supernatural being, a “god” who winked the entire universe into existence. Since it is their shared foundation that I reject on rational grounds, the logic of finding them all false on the same basis holds. Whether you agree with my rejection of them or not, the logic of grouping them in such a way should be evident.”

Your reasoning is evident but it is not reasonable. This goes back to evolution, not the Bible. The mere fact that the universe and all within it exist in such a finely tuned and balanced way disproves evolution, the ‘god’ of which is a random, causeless explosion which cannot even begin to explain the Bombadier beetle or the Hovind questions you apparently have no desire or ability to answer.

Your whole position here sums up as someone squeezing his palms to his ears and shutting his eyes while chanting, “No God, no God, no God…” over and over again. Chant it all you want - convince yourself of it if you can - but while the idea of a creating, designing, personal God can be ignored it cannot be rationally refuted or dismissed the way you have done, simply because God cannot be DISproved. Nor can the inescapable need for Him (see Hovind questions, and your own conscience). Yet you do exactly that - ignore that which can’t be ignored. So in a sense - and no insult intended here - you are mad.

I edited out the bulk of your responses because they weren’t responses. Everything was speculative and was rendered obsolete by your next paragraph:

“Whether the Levites worshipped a volcano or ate real flesh I do not pretend to know”

Then why’d you bring it in the first place? It was honest of you to admit the speculative nature of it all but do you realize how stupid you now look for bringing any of it up?

“I only know that there are so many such pagan references in the Bible as to make it astounding that modern men consider it “holy”. “

Well since you admit the pagan references you DID bring up are purely speculative, I’m still waiting for a real, chapter-and-verse reference that proves the conduct commanded by God in the Bible IS genuinely pagan. Actually I’m not waiting, since you evidently won’t be able to provide one of substance; if you could you would have done so on your first shot, instead of wasting time with volcanoes and cannibalism.

“There are so many issues with it—primitive science (based as it was on the knowledge of primitive men),”

Pre-science… Do I or someone else here have permission to nail you to the wall on this one?

“the plethora of contradictions,”

Name one.

“the various and different accounts of the same events.”

Such as? You promises specifics but I’m beginning to wonder if you even know what that word means.

“The fact that its pagan underpinnings have been weeded out through time and translation doesn’t really change things;”

WHAT pagan underpinnings? You admitted you didn’t know if they were really there or not! Do you actually READ what you write?!? How old are you, anyway? Am I talking to a kid here??

“it is about as credible as Greek mythology (Persephone was the first “savior” who was “reborn”—and she was also a part of a “Trinity” that predated Constantine’s by a millennia).

On the basis of myths you admit you don’t actually know underpin the Bible. You’re looking really foolish right now.

BTW- the Jewish concept of God going all the way back to the revealed Law is one of a single-yet-plural God.

“Most Christians are completely ignorant of the pagan origins of their own mythology.”

Not as ignorant as you are (see above).

{continued}

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 13, 2005 @ 3:04 pm

> <li>
Hope this post doesn’t duplicate itself.

“They all share the same foundation: each form of “Christianity” presumes the existence of a mystical supernatural being, a “god” who winked the entire universe into existence. Since it is their shared foundation that I reject on rational grounds, the logic of finding them all false on the same basis holds. Whether you agree with my rejection of them or not, the logic of grouping them in such a way should be evident.”

Your reasoning is evident but it is not reasonable. This goes back to evolution, not the Bible. The mere fact that the universe and all within it exist in such a finely tuned and balanced way disproves evolution, the ‘god’ of which is a random, causeless explosion which cannot even begin to explain the Bombadier beetle or the Hovind questions you apparently have no desire or ability to answer.

Your whole position here sums up as someone squeezing his palms to his ears and shutting his eyes while chanting, “No God, no God, no God…” over and over again. Chant it all you want - convince yourself of it if you can - but while the idea of a creating, designing, personal God can be ignored it cannot be rationally refuted or dismissed the way you have done, simply because God cannot be DISproved. Nor can the inescapable need for Him (see Hovind questions, and your own conscience). Yet you do exactly that - ignore that which can’t be ignored. So in a sense - and no insult intended here - you are mad.

I edited out the bulk of your responses because they weren’t responses. Everything was speculative and was rendered obsolete by your next paragraph:

“Whether the Levites worshipped a volcano or ate real flesh I do not pretend to know”

Then why’d you bring it in the first place? It was honest of you to admit the speculative nature of it all but do you realize how stupid you now look for bringing any of it up?

“I only know that there are so many such pagan references in the Bible as to make it astounding that modern men consider it “holy”. “

Well since you admit the pagan references you DID bring up are purely speculative, I’m still waiting for a real, chapter-and-verse reference that proves the conduct commanded by God in the Bible IS genuinely pagan. Actually I’m not waiting, since you evidently won’t be able to provide one of substance; if you could you would have done so on your first shot, instead of wasting time with volcanoes and cannibalism.

“There are so many issues with it—primitive science (based as it was on the knowledge of primitive men),”

Pre-science… Do I or someone else here have permission to nail you to the wall on this one?

“the plethora of contradictions,”

Name one.

“the various and different accounts of the same events.”

Such as? You promises specifics but I’m beginning to wonder if you even know what that word means.

“The fact that its pagan underpinnings have been weeded out through time and translation doesn’t really change things;”

WHAT pagan underpinnings? You admitted you didn’t know if they were really there or not! Do you actually READ what you write?!? How old are you, anyway? Am I talking to a kid here??

“it is about as credible as Greek mythology (Persephone was the first “savior” who was “reborn”—and she was also a part of a “Trinity” that predated Constantine’s by a millennia).

On the basis of myths you admit you don’t actually know underpin the Bible. You’re looking really foolish right now.

BTW- the Jewish concept of God going all the way back to the revealed Law is one of a single-yet-plural God.

“Most Christians are completely ignorant of the pagan origins of their own mythology.”

Not as ignorant as you are of yours (see above).

{continued}

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 13, 2005 @ 3:04 pm

> <li>
Pt 2

“Christianity is rather run-of-the-mill as far as ancient religions go—very, very similar to other religions of its day and before, religions you and your fellow Christians would consider primitive and perhaps even silly.”

That’s where you’re dead wrong. ALL religions offer some form of escape from the penalty for sin - either a way to atone for sin or by simply denying sin even exists. Real, biblical Christianity (as expressed in Paul’s writings, the summit and fulness of the revelation of God, Col 1:25, Eph 3:9) express a plan of salvation completely unprecedented and unparalleled in ANY religion before or since - eternally safe salvation by pure grace through simple faith, entirely without works to obtain, maintain or prove one’s salvation. You might know that if you’d heard it in the church you attended (but as an ex-Baptist myself, I know it isn’t always preached in Baptist circles).

“The only way someone could believe such illogical things is if they really, really wanted to.”

Matter coming out of pure nothingness, for no reason? Then organizing itself along minutely orderly lines, from planetary orbits to atomic structure? THEN some of that matter spontaneously becoming ALIVE and eventually becoming Godfrey? You have no room to preach about people believing illogical things. You’re a materialistic mystic.

“Men can rationalize everything–anything–and they do. But people who have the courage to take a step back and realize what they’re actually allowing themselves to swallow, the superstitious baloney they are allowing to go unchallenged, eventually see it for what it is.”

A feat you’re unwilling to perform, or past the point of being able to perform. As irrational as Christianity - and religion in general - might strike you, you (as has been pointed out previously) are even MORE faith-based and religious - and more the enemy of true science - than any theist could ever be. You are the modern equivalent of the medieval Roman Catholic church (and, in some senses, the modern, pro-evolution RCC).

“For me, however, there is something that is equally important, and that is knowing and facing the truth.”

If it’s so important, answer Hovind’s questions. They’re perfectly valid - just pretend an atheist who rejects evolution (and they do exist!) is asking them. Some have.

[cont.}

Comment by hoyvinmavin — November 13, 2005 @ 3:07 pm

> <li>

Sections

Personal tools

Scott Ott, "Kansas Evolution Ruling Chases Jobs Away" (2005) :-)

November 9, 2005

Kansas Evolution Ruling Chases Jobs Away

73 Comments | Post Your Comment

Document Actions