1. Comment #44907 by Coelacanth on May 25, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Does anyone know anything about Gore's religious beliefs or lack thereof? He seems too intellegient to fall for the god delusion.

Other Comments by Coelacanth

2. Comment #44911 by Disumbrationist on May 25, 2007 at 2:43 pm

It's pretty ironic that a religious creationist would title his book "The Assault on Reason."

http://blog.antidelusionist.com/2007/04/23/al-gores-slideshow.aspx

Other Comments by Disumbrationist

3. Comment #44917 by Rtambree on May 25, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Gore was in power for 8 years (92 - 99)

What did his administration do? Bomb other countries, sell arms to other countries, do nothing on global warming, and impose harsh sanctions on the Iraq people killing hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps more innocent victims than Bush's invasion.

Other Comments by Rtambree

4. Comment #44918 by carnitine on May 25, 2007 at 3:11 pm

I'm not convinced that he's actually a creationist. He does at least pander to creationists, however. I discussed this earlier this week at http://secularskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/05/al-gores-battle-for-reason.html

Other Comments by carnitine

5. Comment #44921 by cassdenata on May 25, 2007 at 3:22 pm

I call total bullshit on the creationist claim.

Other Comments by cassdenata

6. Comment #44922 by sgr79 on May 25, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Well, in "An Inconvenient Truth" he does say that he does not believe that evolution and the Bible are incompatible. Perhaps it is pandering, but at least it's a diplomatic way of avoiding an issue essentially unrelated to his point about global warming (he was presenting a timeline about the increase of carbon in the atmosphere and was placing a tic on the timeline for "modern man, or Adam & Eve").

Also, in response to Rtambree, I would say to read George Stephanopoulus' autobiography, which covers much of what Clinton and Gore tried to do but did not succeed in doing... I do know that they wrote some basic books about the environment together that would be appropriate to use as teaching materials for elementary school...

Other Comments by sgr79

7. Comment #44924 by MIND_REBEL on May 25, 2007 at 3:28 pm

Al Gore is indeed a creationist. He believes in god, and it's impossible to believe in god and evolution. That only leaves creationism or Lamarkism.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

8. Comment #44925 by carnitine on May 25, 2007 at 3:32 pm

"...it's impossible to believe in god and evolution. That only leaves creationism or Lamarkism."

That's an absolutely indefensible statement. You're just completely wrong on that one.

Other Comments by carnitine

9. Comment #44927 by MIND_REBEL on May 25, 2007 at 3:38 pm

No, i think, perhaps,you're misinformed. Theistic evolution is just as insane as creationism. The idea that a god guided evolution is just wrong and unscientific. Tell me, where did this god come from? They can't answer that so they're twisting evolution to fit thier religious beliefs.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

10. Comment #44931 by _J_ on May 25, 2007 at 3:41 pm

8. Comment #44925 by carnitine on May 25, 2007 at 3:32 pm
"...it's impossible to believe in god and evolution. That only leaves creationism or Lamarkism."

That's an absolutely indefensible statement. You're just completely wrong on that one.

I agree, carnitine. It may be true that, if you have the commitment to deep, rational consideration that Dawkins has (and encourages), you come to recognise that God and evolution don't sensibly co-exist. But most people just don't interrogate their own beliefs that deeply. And the human mind is impressive in its ability to hold beliefs that are logically contradictory without letting them get out and tear each other to shreds. The religion of many, many people relies heavily on this ability. (Mine sure did.)

Maybe Gore is some sort of weak creationist and an evolutionist. Perhaps, if he was drip-fed The Blind Watchmaker for a couple of months, he could be cured of this.

Anyone want to sign a petition to get this done...?

Other Comments by _J_

11. Comment #44932 by sgr79 on May 25, 2007 at 3:41 pm

In response to MIND_REBEL:
Yeah, but at least they're giving evolution a chance and not denying it altogether :-)

Other Comments by sgr79

12. Comment #44933 by steve99 on May 25, 2007 at 3:42 pm

mind_rebel: That is a pretty silly statement. Dawkins makes mention of Pope John Paul II's acceptance of evolution as evidence that believers in God can also believe in evolution.

Sure, anyone with a deep understanding of evolution knows that it is pretty much incompatible with the idea of a God having done things, but you have to take into account that Gore (and John Paul II) almost certainly don't have thet deep understanding.

Gore is a believer, but he is not a creationist.

Other Comments by steve99

13. Comment #44934 by Coelacanth on May 25, 2007 at 3:46 pm

I agree with Carnitine (# 4 above) . . . I don't think he's stupid enough to be a creationist. Remember, he is a politician and pandering is his art.

It reminds me of the republican debate a few weeks back when the question was posed to senator McCain about his belief in Evolution. McCain answered in the affirmative but quickly qualified his response by saying he also recognizes the "hand of god" at work in the world. Again, I think McCain (and probably many other leaders) are closet atheists or agnostics.

Dawkins is right on the mark when he discusses this in TGD.

Other Comments by Coelacanth

14. Comment #44935 by plastictowel on May 25, 2007 at 3:46 pm

Mind_rebel every time I see you make a post on here or the forums it's an extremely crude, ignorant, usually wrong, bigoted statement. Why is this?

Other Comments by plastictowel

15. Comment #44936 by carnitine on May 25, 2007 at 3:47 pm

You're really confused Mind_rebel.

Saying it's not logically sound is arguing a point that wasn't made. It's an absolute fact that many people believe in God and evolution.

Also, theistic evolution fits into the gaps nicely, and therefore is not directly falsifiable, like creationism.

Quit letting your views get in the way of the facts.

Other Comments by carnitine

16. Comment #44939 by Coelacanth on May 25, 2007 at 3:54 pm

"Mind Rebel" tarnishes the image of rationalism and atheism. He reinforces the stereotype that atheists are just frustrated and angry at god.

Will someone please show "Mind Rebel" to the kiddie table?

Other Comments by Coelacanth

17. Comment #44943 by plastictowel on May 25, 2007 at 4:03 pm

Carnitine I fully agree, and there is even room for "god" outside theistic evolution. After all, although I'm atheist, I can easily fathom that although evolution may be blind, deism is still perfectible plausible for the creation of the cosmos in which our evolution occurred.

Other Comments by plastictowel

18. Comment #44944 by Gustaf Sjoblom on May 25, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Gore is a baptist, as far as creationst I'm pretty sure that he would agree that evolution happened and you only need to read his book (or watch the movie) to be certain that he isn't a "young earth" creationst.

My guess is that he, like most in politics, is reluctant to answer question about his faith as he is bound to lie.

Its a tragic situation overall.

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

19. Comment #44945 by MIND_REBEL on May 25, 2007 at 4:09 pm

First, i'm not as articulate as you guys. Second, i haven't had access to a rich science education like you guys. You guys need to understand that not everyone is super smart, and that everyday folk, like myself, can play an active role in the movement towards postive social change.

Whats important is that i don't believe in god. If it wasn't for Dawkins and groups like the Rational Response squad i would still be a theist. I might not be a genius thats great with words but i'm smart enough to know that athiesm, science, and evolution are really true and that religion is a lie. And yes, i'm am angry, my freethinking has caused me a great deal of strife with my family and friends and i do have a grudge against people of faith.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

20. Comment #44951 by carnitine on May 25, 2007 at 4:16 pm

I respect your personal opinions, and it sounds like they're similar to mine. However, until you gain a better understanding of the actual issues, it might be better to just read the words of others.

Saying that "atheism, science, and evolution are really true and religion is a lie" is also a gross oversimplification. Even though, again, I agree with you in principle, these are complicated issues that require a more nuanced approach.

Other Comments by carnitine

21. Comment #44952 by Gustaf Sjoblom on May 25, 2007 at 4:17 pm

I have to redraw my previous post, having read the article linked by Disumbrationist: http://blog.antidelusionist.com/2007/04/23/al-gores-slideshow.aspx

I'm truly disgusted by this. To read that a man who arguably has done a lot to make the world react to a worldwide problem in the same breath promotes dogma over reason.

The title of his book is an insult to reason.

Other Comments by Gustaf Sjoblom

22. Comment #44956 by plastictowel on May 25, 2007 at 4:35 pm

[quote]Whats important is that i don't believe in god.[/quote]
Even that isn't "important" per say. Really reason and rationality in my humble opinion take precedent over a bright future/movement than belief in a deity.

Other Comments by plastictowel

23. Comment #44960 by _J_ on May 25, 2007 at 4:52 pm

19. Comment #44945 by MIND_REBEL on May 25, 2007 at 4:09 pm

You're right - it's easy to get worked up and shoot from the hip around here. Please don't be put off posting and discussing by it. It's not a useful debate anymore when people are forced into silence. Ain't it nice to be in a community where we do solidarity by active criticism, rather than just stupefying mutual backslapping?

No offence, anyway, I hope.

Other Comments by _J_

24. Comment #44963 by Vinelectric on May 25, 2007 at 5:11 pm

mind-rebel writes: god guided evolution is wrong and unscientifc

steve 99 replies: ...anyone with a deep understanding of evolution knows that it is incompatible with God, but you have to take into account that Gore (and John Paul II) almost certainly don't have thet deep understanding...

In other words steve is saying that theism and evolution can be wrongly perceived as compatible when one's understanding of evolution is deficient.

doesn't that just support Mind_Rebel's statement? i.e that evolution-theism is unscientific"

Carrnitine writes:

Saying it's not logically sound is arguing a point that wasn't made.

Indeed it's a shame the point was not raised. As if it's not crucial to reflect on the validity of any belief.

It's an absolute fact that many people believe in God and evolution.

And the point being?

Bear in mind that nowadays many believers would also fall within the domain of some monotheistic religion. According to the scriptures modern man was created directly from clay.

For once I agree with Mind_Rebel: to accept God (as depicted in religious scripture) is not truly compatible with evolution unless the theist concedes to a compromise.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

25. Comment #44965 by plastictowel on May 25, 2007 at 5:14 pm

Vinelectric he said you can't believe in god and evolution, he didn't say the judeo-christian Yahweh. Again Deism and Evolution can go hand and hand. God caused the big bang, subsequently leading to evolution, even if it was blind. You can even form a dichotomy here where one branch can claim that secretly it was all deterministic to lead to man, or that man really isn't special in the grand scheme of the cosmos, even if a deity created the cosmos. Either way "a belief in god and evolution" IS compatible.
And I'm bloody atheist here and even I can see it's okay.

Other Comments by plastictowel

26. Comment #44967 by steve99 on May 25, 2007 at 5:28 pm

doesn't that just support Mind_Rebel's statement? i.e that evolution-theism is unscientific

It does. But that was not the statement I was arguing about, which was:

it's impossible to believe in god and evolution

This is obviously incorrect, because many people do believe both in God and evolution. Sure, I agree this is believing something that is false, but that does not mean people can't believe it!

Why did I argue this point? Because REBEL was setting up a false dichotomy: Either Gore is an atheist and believes in Evolution, or he is a Creationist or Lamarkist.

Other Comments by steve99

27. Comment #44974 by Bonzai on May 25, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Certainly God is compatible with evolution.

Indeed it can be concieved in such a way that it is compatible with anything. The trick is to turn it into something completely devoid of emperical content so that theology won't be caught in contradiction with evidence. In this way the belief in God is compatible with science in a trivial way. This is pretty much the tactic adopted by more sophisticated theists these days. With liberal interpretations of the scriptures God becomes very nebulous and ceases to have any relevance to the observable world.

This can certainly be done. Whether there is a point in doing that is a seperate issue.

Other Comments by Bonzai

28. Comment #44975 by Bonzai on May 25, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Mr. Man Pig Bear. Hehe.

Other Comments by Bonzai

29. Comment #44976 by ricey on May 25, 2007 at 5:44 pm

MIND-REBEL:

Many of us are new to this idea of leaving our family's deepest convictions and, effectively, dismissing them as ignorant nonsense. It is an emotional thing. It is f**king hard to do.

So don't be afraid to express your views on this site - why should you be?

Not all of us are well educated; that dosn't make us dumb! One thing that intimidates me about this site is the philosophical claptrap you need to wade through in some of the threads.

Blah-de-blah-de-blah ...

I don't understand much of it. (Honestly, I don't think many of the contributers do either.)
This isn't a cleverest person competition - and I think Dawkin's promotion of atheists as brights is bullshit, and counter-productive.

So let's hear it for the uncouth, off-the-cuff gobshite (as we say in this part of Ireland)! Go for it!! Just don't get caught in the self-same trap - one man's fool is another's prophet ... as we know to our cost.

Other Comments by ricey

30. Comment #44981 by BaronOchs on May 25, 2007 at 5:53 pm

I'm going to stick up for MIND_REBEL here.

ok you can believe in god and evolution, but there really is no room for divine action within the theory of evolution, it is simply random variation and natural selection. So examine closely someone who believes in theistic evolution. There is only a place for god as a sort of lord mayor of evolution, an entirely redundant and ceremonial figure.

So he's right there are really three main possibilities for the origin of life: a genuine role for god, a lamarckian process, or a darwinian process.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

31. Comment #44982 by godlessgay on May 25, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Politics aside, Al Gore supported the teaching of creationism in schools in the 2000 run for president.

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/evol5.htm

Back to politics, I know many of you WANT to love Al Gore but when you look at his dubious history on everything from abortion and gay rights to granting Bob Jones University tax exempt status which he voted in favor of five times from 1978-1981 and his support of the first Gulf War he seems more politician than anything else to me.

Other Comments by godlessgay

32. Comment #44985 by Bonzai on May 25, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Comment #44981 by BaronOchs

So he's right there are really three main possibilities for the origin of life: a genuine role for god, a lamarckian process, or a darwinian process.

Well as a devil's advocate what do you say to the possibility that God intervenes through random mutations and through adjusting the enviromental parameters to permit certain selective processes to come about?

There is no apriori reason why natural selection would be "gentle" enough to permit life to evolve in the first place. It is concievable that the enviroment is so hostile to life that nothing get selected. The explanation lies outside biology and Darwinism.

This is not a real theory because it doesn't explain anything. But there is certainly room for a sufficently "useless" God, like some kind of absentee God or a God who intervenes just in the right way to reproduce the observational data even though there is no need for such a God.

I am making this point not because I believe in God. But it is important to pay attention to subtle issues when making arguments. M_R strikes me as very crude (and often intolerent) in his posts, almost like bumper sticker slogans. I sometimes think he is a caricature atheist created by religionists.

Other Comments by Bonzai

33. Comment #44986 by nerdfiles on May 25, 2007 at 6:11 pm

Many people believe a lot of scientific theories, but that doesn't mean they actually understand them intimately the way scientists or the better reasoned do. Simply saying "I believe in evolution" doesn't mean much if you don't understand what it does for explaining the origin and make-up of intelligent life.

Evolution and creationism are fundamentally mutually exclusive theories which are absolutely incompatible. To say that someone can believe in evolution and Christianity (creationism) is saying that you grant them their latter belief true, and evolution can fill in the blanks.

Do not diminish, or I should go so far as to say insult, the austere and enlightening beauty of theory that is the scientific theory of evolution with rubbish compatibilism with the most inane of theories that is Christian science, ID, Christianity, any sort of theism, etc.. They are all rooted in good feelings, zero evidence, and most importantly zero reason.

And in any case, you do not BELIEVE in the scientific theory of evolution. You ACCEPT it as a truth pending--the best possible explanation.

You cannot accept the scientific theory of evolution and believe any sort of theism. No sort of colourful language, religious moderation, or religious tolerance will support the opposite claim. If we start blurring religion into science, then we've ruined scientific progress, especially with a theory as concluding and solidifying as the scientific theory of evolution.

Other Comments by nerdfiles

34. Comment #44989 by Combine_Dave on May 25, 2007 at 6:20 pm

@cassdenata

Nope he is a creationist. From the blog site -"Neurotransmission"

[quote] "I had read blog comments before which indicated that Al Gore is a religious man, which intrigued me, because from his movie, he comes across as a man who is ready to accept science as the proper methodology (versus evangelical faith in biblical literalism). He did not mention any kind of religious beliefs in the movie, and often used graphs plotting data back hundreds of thousands of years. Obviously, he isn't a Young Earth Creationist, who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I assumed that he wasn't an atheist or agnostic, because he's a politician, and according to the polls, it would be near impossible for an atheist or agnostic politician to ever get elected by the public (who apparently, according to the polls, trust homosexuals more than they trust atheists).

During his live slideshow today, however, he showed his true colors. One of his slides was a quote from Genesis, which he used to show that humans are the stewards of biodiversity. I have no problem with people quoting from the bible (as long as it makes sense), but I found it kind of funny that he went out of his way to announce that he did not mean to push his religious beliefs on people by using the scripture in his slideshow. I didn't really see the need for this disclaimer, because I actually agreed with the use of the scripture.

The slide I found particularly interesting/shocking/sad, was his new(?) slide containing a graph of human population growth over the past couple hundred-thousand years. It started off good. He pointed at the beginning of the graph, showing the population of humans on Earth from 200,000 years ago, and referred to the "rise of humans."

Cool beans. So he believes that Homo sapiens evolved from other hominid ancestors, right? Nope. In the very same breath, he then continued to explain that according to his religious beliefs, this "rise of humans" was God's creation of mankind - apparently 200,000 years ago. His graph then changed to include the caption "Adam & Eve" above this starting point.

I started laughing, and I had to consciously blink my eyes and double-check the screen to make sure I was seeing it properly. Let me get this straight...the guy's entire presentation exists in order to present people with the scientific data showing that human-caused climate change is a fact. He does his very best to include references in all of the slides, showing to any thinking person that this data is not made up, that it comes from the forefront of our scientific research (there was many slides containing data from Science journal, and a few from Nature)." [/quote]

Ref:
http://blog.antidelusionist.com/2007/04/23/al-gores-slideshow.aspx

Other Comments by Combine_Dave

35. Comment #44992 by AJ Rae on May 25, 2007 at 6:24 pm

God intervenes through random mutations

They wouldn't be random mutations. It wouldn't be evolution, it would be design.

I think evolution rules out a certain kind of god. A god that made us, or any other organism that evolved.

A god could have created an enviroment to promote certain traits, that would not be counter to evolution, but those traits could still not ever materialize.

Other Comments by AJ Rae

36. Comment #44994 by BaronOchs on May 25, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Bonzai you're suggesting even if evolution is essentially darwinian, god, and perhaps lamarckism might have a residual role. That's a delicate hypothesis but it could be tested.

As for god intervening through mutations I think that would only be meaningful if more mutations turned out to be positive than you would expect from statistics. I do not think the evidence suggests this though.

It is concievable that the enviroment is so hostile to life that nothing get selected.

I suppose you could say there was a natural selection of solar systems and planets and ours was just right for evolution to take place?!

Other Comments by BaronOchs

37. Comment #44995 by carnitine on May 25, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Combine_Dave

The article you quoted isn't new news. Most of us commenting have already seen it, and if you'd read it carefully you'd see that it's still not clear what he meant in adding the Adam & Eve to his graph. It's certainly hokey, but is no basis for coming into a conversation late and speaking in absolutes.

Other Comments by carnitine

38. Comment #45014 by HappyPrimate on May 25, 2007 at 7:33 pm

I had entertained the idea of purchasing Mr. Gore's book until I read the above comments. Now I fear it would not be worth the time or money. However, if it can bring some of the yocals out of their stupor enough to actually think a bit for themselves and make a better decision at the voting booth, then I hope the book does well.
On the issue of being able to believe in evolution and theology, those who do are unfortunately under-educated in the actual science of evolution. I wish the scientific community would not use the word theory without fully explaining its scientic meaning. The general public uses theory as an idea - while hypothosis is the correct term for idea. The hair on the back of my neck always stands up and I grit my teeth when I hear someone say that evolution - well it is only a theory anyway. Grrrr.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

39. Comment #45027 by Nick Brennan on May 25, 2007 at 8:23 pm

nerdfiles: "You cannot accept the scientific theory of evolution and believe any sort of theism."

The fact that science/evolution cannot yet explain the origin of the universe and cannot disprove the existence of God logically means that you can accept evolution and be a theist at the same time.

You cannot arrive at both conclusions by the same method (one is by science, one is by faith) but that in itself does not rule out the possibility that they can co-exist. Whether you consider the having faith is valid or invalid does not give rise to being able to make an absolute statement about their compatibility.

Theism is not the conclusion arrived at by science but it is a conclusion that is possible to make.

Other Comments by Nick Brennan

40. Comment #45030 by Dreamer's Dilemma on May 25, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Hopefully, the Mind_Rebel bashing has now concluded and we can get back to the matter at hand, that being Al Gore's pandering to whomever has cash in hand to finance his next campaign. In this case, he was saying whatever the anti-Irag War crowd wanted to hear. He was probably hoping they would all go down to the bookstore and by his Inconvenient Lie extrapolation of data into the realm of infeasibility. At my local Barnes and Noble, the have an entire table devoted to copies of his Inconvenient Lie (sitting next to the help desk, presumably because they obviously don't belong in non-fiction, but they couldn't be put in the fiction section because they're claiming to be true) but they do not offer Christopher Hithchen's "God is not Great" book although it is number 4 in the country? Go Hitch!

Sorry, Mind_Rebel, you seemed to take an unwarranted amount of guff in response to your posts on this article.

Other Comments by Dreamer's Dilemma

41. Comment #45039 by Combine_Dave on May 26, 2007 at 1:11 am

@carnitine

Forgive me if I dare to question the credibility of a professional politician, lecturing the world on "reason".

Particularly a supporter of creationism in US schools.

"Gore supported teaching both creationism and evolution, his running mate Joe Lieberman asserted that belief in a creator is instrumental to "secure the moral future of our nation, and raise the quality of life for all our people" (2005, p. 4). [/quote]

[img] http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/images/commandments.jpg [/img]

Combine_Dave

Ref:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1026182.ece

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/creation082799.htm

http://gusvanhorn.blogspot.com/2007/05/al-gore-creationist.html

Paul, Gregory S. 2005. Cross-national correlations of quantifiable societal health with popular religiosity and secularism in the prosperous democracies. Journal of Religion and Society 7:1.

Other Comments by Combine_Dave

42. Comment #45048 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 3:08 am

I am somewhat disappointed with the extreme nature of some of the views here. There does not seem to be much thinking going on in some cases. Gore is a politician for goodness sake. He uses his considerable experience of politics to promote very important views. That experience of politics is sure to have taught him not to call a major section of his audience (the vast majority in some states) uneducated fools, even if they are, and that to pander to some of their strange beliefs - to sugar-coat his message - it vital to get that very urgent message across. Putting up an Adam&Eve picture as a metaphor at a point in his talk in some parts of the USA is part of that (realising that some of his audience will take it as a metaphor, and others will take it as a friendly nod to their beliefs) is a clever strategy.

Gore's mission has an urgency. Climate change is not just a matter of philosophical debate that may never be won, like atheism vs religion, but an argument that has to be won on a timescale of years, not decades. There isn't time for a new generation of Americans to get educated about science before a dramatic change in policy is required.

One could definitely argue that his past support for teaching of Creationism in schools was hugely mistaken, but he was also state that Evolution was also taught at the same time. Yes, this was an unpleasant compromise, but for goodness sake - he was a politician trying to get elected as President in a country where a significant fraction of the population are bilical literalists. And he very, very nearly did get elected. Those who didn't pander to the religious got nowhere.

So please let's deal with the real world - where we realise what slick politicians have to do to get elected and to promote their messages. Gore is doing good and important work. We need him to do this work.

Other Comments by steve99

43. Comment #45049 by Pantore on May 26, 2007 at 3:09 am

Gore is a war-criminal just like all the other US presidents probably the majority in US doesn't even know these things because it happens all far away and will not be reported in your 6 o'clock news.

Other Comments by Pantore

44. Comment #45050 by Canuck#1 on May 26, 2007 at 3:22 am

I can believe any thing I want to believe.... that is what makes me human and free....having facts to support this is good but not necessary.... I believe I am one hell of a stud...that the moon is made of green cheese...we all have our favourite fantasies. If I want to believe in theistic evolution (I don't) that is my privledge as a human.

Other Comments by Canuck#1

45. Comment #45056 by Robert Maynard on May 26, 2007 at 3:49 am

It is honestly disappointing that Mr. Gore is a creationist, despite his admiration for science. It's not surprising, given the demographics, but it's disappointing.

What is unquestionably more disappointing is how vicious the comments here are, criticising him because of personal beliefs which he does not push in the public consciousness (citing that slideshow as an example would only be valid if it was contained in An Inconvenient Truth, which was seen by many millions more than have attended his presentations), and not praising him for consistently pushing critically important issues into the public consciousness.
It's perfectly valid to criticise him for employing a double standard, but the guy is putting the right ideas out there, and mostly keeping the wrong ones to himself. It doesn't help any dialogue, anywhere, to cast him as an enemy of reason - this is plainly not the case, and you should sit down and take a breather.
If he's arming people with the right way to approach questions - with reason, as he is in this book - the religious beliefs are completely incidental to his case, and ultimately harmless, because the outlook he unwaveringly promotes erodes religious belief when fully applied.

If he says in the book, and I read the great excerpt in Time so I know he does, :P

"Faith in the power of reason—the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power—remains the central premise of American democracy."

is this not a good passage for someone, ANYONE, to read? Should people NOT be reading this passage, because they know that the man who wrote it is, say, a deluded hypocrite? Would it be any less correct if it was written by a puppy-raping schizophrenic? No, you idiots!
We should be judging the value of ideas on their own merits, rather than by the merits of the other ideas that co-inhabit Gore's mind. Many of you are essentially saying ideas that we think are good are worth less (or even worthless) if they are accompanied in a persons mind by ideas we think of as bad - even if the ideas we don't like are never particularly salient and the good ones are. An oasis isn't devalued by the surrounding desert - it's even more valuable for its very existence!

Some of you are being unconscionable jerks about someone who is ultimately a great and important public figure, and I for one look forward to the book being sold in Australia.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

46. Comment #45063 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 4:41 am

Robert: well put.

However, Al Gore is not a Creationist. He simply isn't. What seems to have happened is that the term 'Creationist' seems to have become distorted to include those who have a fuzzy belief that 'evolution is God's work'. I suspect Gore believes that, and this is entirely consistent with everything he has said.

But that is NOT creationism. Creationism is the belief that evolution alone is not sufficient for the production of the complexity of life and that God directly intervened. I see no evidence that Gore believes this.

Other Comments by steve99

47. Comment #45065 by chapstick08 on May 26, 2007 at 4:50 am

I do not understand this preoccupation in the above posts with Gore's belief or disbelief in creationism, evolution, and god in gerneral. He is a politician on the left in the United States and therefore has to pander to both the religious and secular crowd. The least surprising find would be to uncover examples where Gore offered opposing statements to crowds on differents sides of the belief spectrum. Secondly, Al's purported love and dedication to the principles of science are nothing more than the results of constant self-promotion in the face of a personal political agenda. Were he to be so fond of objective scientific truth I doubt that he would se easily throw aside the accusations of scientific irregularities and exagerations said to be contained in his film. In science, comunication of truth is paramount, not fear-mongering, no matter what the objective.

Other Comments by chapstick08

48. Comment #45073 by Robert Maynard on May 26, 2007 at 5:24 am

steve99: likewise on your defense :)

However, I actually think you're being overly specific on defining creationism. Deeply inherent in Christian belief is the notion of "special creation" - that one way or another, the earth is here for the benefit of man, it has been especially created for man, who himself has been especially created in the image of his creator.

Sure enough, creationism today exists largely to counteract evolution, but this does not stop at biological evolution and life. For example there are agendas specifically related to poking holes in the theories on stellar and planetary evolution. Creationism is driven by the concept of special creation to oppose the implication of all evolutionary models, which unavoidably conclude that we (and all things) are the result of heartless and discriminatory processes, and we are therefore extraordinarily lucky to be here; Creationists believe that the Universe's existence is contingent on our presence, instead of the other way around.

So when Al Gore puts up a slide with a caption that explicitly delineates a distinct and meaningful transition event from ape to human 200,000 years ago - to an Adam and an Eve (and we can't even say he meant it in the "mitochondrial" sense - Dawkins, The Ancestors Tale, p.55-56), I think it is cause for defining him as a believer - if not in the particulars of modern creationism - at least in the notion of special creation.
If he quotes Genesis 1:28, or 2:15 in a presentation (I'm not sure what he quoted, but these both describe Man's prescribed dominion over and responsibility for preserving the natural world - whatever that even means in the ceaselessly perfect, deathless microcosm of the Garden of Eden), that too demonstrates a belief in special creation.

Besides all this, I am quite willing to believe he inserted these ideas in a very political sense, to win the hearts of his audience while dealing with potentially confrontational facts about human history. But in the nuanced variation the definition of creationism allows for, Al Gore is very likely one.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

49. Comment #45080 by Tim Marsh on May 26, 2007 at 9:42 am

Robert said:

Creationism is driven by the concept of special creation to oppose the implication of all evolutionary models, which unavoidably conclude that we (and all things) are the result of heartless and discriminatory processes, and we are therefore extraordinarily lucky to be here; Creationists believe that the Universe's existence is contingent on our presence, instead of the other way around.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one, good buddy. By your broader definition of 'creationism', there are literally no Christians who are NOT creationists. Now, while in the strictest sense this is how things 'should' be, if all Christians thought their beliefs through to their ultimate conclusion, it is not a useful distinction in terms of describing reality.
The vast majority of Christian moderates simply do not put the thought into their stance necessary to make so bold a claim as 'I believe the scientific consensus on evolution is somehow wrong, and therefore a supernatural explanation is better'. As such when one uses the term 'creationist', one is specifically referring to a Christian who is so unreasonable, and takes this business so seriously, that they are willing to stand in opposition to a wealth of natural science.
Thus, at least for this day and age, I think definitions of 'creationist' should be reserved for those who postulate a great deal of direct supernatural intervention in the origins of life and the world. If only to preserve the utility of the word.

Other Comments by Tim Marsh

50. Comment #45081 by steve99 on May 26, 2007 at 9:47 am

Robert: I see a real problem in using the nuanced definition of creationism you mention. There are important battles being fought in some countries about education. The battle is between those who want to want to teach creationism in science classes and those who want to prevent that. The majority of those who believe in 'special creation' almost certainly don't want science and religion mixed at schools. They are on 'our' side. If we start to label even these moderates as 'Creationists' we will alienate them, and the battle will be much, much harder to win.

Other Comments by steve99