1. Comment #94876 by MuNky82 on December 6, 2007 at 11:49 pm

Common ground needs to be found with Faithheads, it is called reason.

Other Comments by MuNky82

2. Comment #94880 by Verylee on December 7, 2007 at 12:16 am

"Anybody who says intelligent design should be taught on the same footing as evolution is coming from a place that has no legal backing"...So let's change tack. Trojans and horses spring to mind!

Other Comments by Verylee

3. Comment #94881 by Bonzai on December 7, 2007 at 12:36 am

That creativity didn't exist at the beginning of time, making everything like a potter makes a pot, but exists through the universe in a nested sense. God, Goddess, Allah -- they're just proper names for that ultimate reality. God is a sacred proper name for 'largest nesting doll.' You may choose to call it by another name. Many people just call it the universe.

This guy sounds more like a pantheist or atheist than a Christian.

Other Comments by Bonzai

4. Comment #94885 by ADH on December 7, 2007 at 12:49 am

I was just about to make the same point Bonzai, but you beat me to it. To be fair though, he is not stating his own position at that point. I understand him to be saying that this transcendent self-sufficient, eternally existing reality whom Christians (probably including himself) believe to be the God of the Bible is called by many other names in other faiths and belief systems. I don't think he is saying that it doesn't matter what or who you call him her or it. For the atheist the eternally existing reality whose coming into existence requires no explanation is matter+energy, or the universe.

I really think this guy might be onto something. But I think it might be as much of a a mistake for Christians to uncritically embrace evolution as a scientific paradigm as it is to embrace Intelligent Design or Big Bang consmology. Who knows how much mileage there is in these paradigms? The bottom line is that nothing has yet emerged that rules out the existence of a Creator God who somehow breathed or spoke the whole shabang into existence.

Other Comments by ADH

5. Comment #94888 by agg on December 7, 2007 at 12:58 am

Bonzai, exactly what I was going to say: This looks like the god of Spinoza and Einstein and nothing like the Christian god.

I have no problem with this guy preaching his "new revelation". In fact, more power to him! We badly need people like him.

Other Comments by agg

6. Comment #94889 by Flagellant on December 7, 2007 at 1:01 am

I would love this quote of Dowd's to be given greater prominence

Who of us would let a first-century dentist fix our children's teeth? Yet every day we let first-century theologians fill our children's brains.

Hasn't RD said something similar? Something for the presidential candidates, among others, to ponder...


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

7. Comment #94893 by YssiBoo on December 7, 2007 at 1:04 am

Isn't "Evolution Theology" an oxymoron?

Other Comments by YssiBoo

8. Comment #94895 by PJG on December 7, 2007 at 1:10 am

Maybe he watched this and had a change of heart...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA

Enjoy!

Other Comments by PJG

9. Comment #94916 by quill on December 7, 2007 at 1:59 am

I liked this quote:

"A holy understanding of evolution will usher the world's religions into their greatness in the 21st century."

Now that he thinks the churches can actually use evolution for something, it's not evil anymore.

Other Comments by quill

10. Comment #94926 by RascoHeldall on December 7, 2007 at 2:32 am

The trouble with this sort of thing, though, is that it's ultimately dishonest. Simply re-naming the universe 'God' doesn't magically make science compatible with fairytales of an interventist, prayer answering psychopath who hates women and homosexuals. It is like renaming Volvos 'cheese' and then claiming that cheese is the safest type of car.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

11. Comment #94935 by Haymoon on December 7, 2007 at 2:53 am

Religion (specifically Christianity) has adapted itself down through the centuries - usually after a prolonged period - to the prevailing Zietgiest. The Copernican universe, evolution have all been accepted.
Apropos Benedict's latest encyclical; if you remove the "God" content, there is not much to disagree with. Excessive materialism/consumerism is anti human.

I forsee - far in the future - a Godless Christianity more akin to today's secular humanism

Other Comments by Haymoon

12. Comment #94939 by scottishgeologist on December 7, 2007 at 3:05 am

This reminds me of a thread that appeared on the web forum of Wee Fleas church a few years ago. One of the posters (a christian, or at least a "church goer") had posted soemthing about "theistic evolution", the idea that "God" used evolution to bring about the present day species diversity over a long period of time

In other words, evolution, old earth, no YEC, no 6 day creation etc etc. Or if you like a way to fit religion and science into the same bed

However, one of the other posters, who was obviously a lot more conservative, pointed out that theistic evolution drives a coach and horses (his words) right through Christian theology, in particular the idea of Fall - Sin - Redemption. If there is no "Adam" then there was no "Fall". No "FAll" no "SIn" no "Sin" no need for a "Saviour"

And presumably no Hell, no eternal suffering etc

The second poster was actually correct to point this out IMO

If Christians REALLY believe what there holy book tells them, there is no way that theistic evolution can be shoe-horned in. It simplly does not work

Once mionisters start talking about theo-evo, they are well down the road to atheism. It is an inevitable end point

And finally, this very point was picked up on by the Victorian preacher Spurgeon, reckoned to be the greatest evangelical preacher of his day. Spurgeon reckoned that "there was no stopping off point between Calvinism and atheism" Once a church starts to become liberal and starts to move from a fundy position, this process becomes irresistable

This is exactly what we are seeing, and may in part explain the degree to which evangies have become so vociferous and conservative.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

13. Comment #94961 by notsobad on December 7, 2007 at 4:03 am

This guy sounds more like a pantheist or atheist than a Christian.

Many intelligent educated Christians do. It's like they want to keep the tradition but just can't put up with the nonsense.
I find that even more blind that an uneducated simple person believing in that shit.

Other Comments by notsobad

14. Comment #94963 by Incredulous on December 7, 2007 at 4:14 am

It seems to me that it really is only a matter of time before the new avenues of thinking finally opened up by taking an evolutionary approach to religion will have to give way to full blown atheism.

It seems the evangelists are simply looking for a way to stay in business in the light of overwhelming evidence that what has been written in the past about a probably fictional deity's role in our appearance on earth is a disturbing pack of lies.

However, we must acknowledge this attempt to help believers understand that their primitive beliefs do need modernising and maybe the search for objective truth is best left to those who believe in reason and evidenced.

Eventually, religion will adapt itself out of existence.

Other Comments by Incredulous

15. Comment #95004 by FreeThink25 on December 7, 2007 at 6:30 am

Someone send this guy a copy of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea"....and let Dennett's universal acid creep through the remaining shred of his religious convictions.

Other Comments by FreeThink25

16. Comment #95038 by sidfaiwu on December 7, 2007 at 7:59 am

[Intelligent Design is] not science; it's philosophy.

Music to my ears! I'm glad some in the religious community recognize ID for what it is. I've always told ID proponents that if they want to be part of the high school curriculum, they certainly can... in a philosophy course. Of course they'd object to just about everything else taught in the course. Just think of it as 'teaching the controversy'.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

17. Comment #95056 by AdrianT on December 7, 2007 at 9:08 am

This is great news and I wish him well in spreading the Gospel according to "St Charles"!

Actually, I hope he hangs on to his faith! Given that Americans do not trust godless people, I fear if he did become so, his message would not be heard, at all.

Other Comments by AdrianT

18. Comment #95067 by pzmyers on December 7, 2007 at 9:36 am

Dowd is something of a huckster. I'm not surprised he got a collection of endorsements from scientists -- I have never met an author who was more persistent in pushing for reviews and commendations. I actually reviewed the book a while back. I was not enthused.

This is the only book on evolution I have ever read that also gives instructions in how to speak in tongues, and even recommends it.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/thank_god_for_evolution.php


Other Comments by pzmyers

19. Comment #95068 by annabanana on December 7, 2007 at 9:37 am

To me, this guy is a good thing. Anything to take a step in the right direction, especially from someone "credible" to the fundamental audience, is a good thing, in my opinion. Hopefully, as previous posters said, religions will adapt themselves out of existence, but until then, things like this are quite valuable.

Other Comments by annabanana

20. Comment #95070 by annabanana on December 7, 2007 at 9:39 am

hmmm...ok, well I just saw PZ's post, on second thought, maybe I should read the book before deciding whether it's a step in the right direction or not....

Other Comments by annabanana

21. Comment #95126 by Corylus on December 7, 2007 at 11:59 am

I appreciate the heart of what intelligent design people are trying to do, but it's a dead-end road. It's not science; it's philosophy.

Is it bollocks.

I appreciate the heart of what intelligent design people are trying to do, but it's a dead-end road. It's not science; it's philosophy theology.

Fixed.

Philosophy is about working forwards: theology is about working backwards. This is why theologians make fuckwitted mistakes like assuming evolution is teleological...

Evolutionary theology talks about evolution in a way that gives people a sense of purpose as part of something infinitely meaningful.

...and philosophers don't.

Sorry to get grumpy, but really.

Other Comments by Corylus

22. Comment #95140 by Mark Till on December 7, 2007 at 12:31 pm

Is it just me who finds the idea of a Creator using evolution by natural selection as a means of spreading life completely hideous...?

Evolution is blind, bloody and wasteful. The beauty is that it explains life WITHOUT invoking a Creator; it explains the illusion of design. Add a Creator looking on from the side-lines, like some blood-thirsty voyeur, and it becomes almost repulsive.

And as for his 'creatheist' business...

"It's not a belief system. It is based on what we know, not what we believe." (Dowd's quote from PZ's review)

Sounds like atheism, to me.

Other Comments by Mark Till

23. Comment #95160 by Duff on December 7, 2007 at 1:17 pm

This guy is simply hustling the Templeton Foundation. He's tired of living in his van and wants the million bucks.

The evangelicals will never believe in evolution. All the evidence in the world isn't going to make them accept Darwin. They will continue to say, "I didn't evolve from an ape", and "atheism is the root of all evil."

Other Comments by Duff

24. Comment #95174 by justdust on December 7, 2007 at 1:57 pm

I'm with Duff - this smells of huckster - he's found a new angle - but give the man credit he's got some good lines.

Is it really a van though?

Other Comments by justdust

25. Comment #95184 by Corylus on December 7, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Duff said.

This guy is simply hustling the Templeton Foundation. He's tired of living in his van and wants the million bucks.

Agreed Duff he is trying to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. He is using the language of both groups in order to blur the lines, in the hope that neither realise the inconsistency.

In the unlikely event that he is kidding himself and doing this unknowingly he will eventually find himself caught in a snare.

If he is doing this knowingly (I am going for the latter) when pressed he will pull post-modern language out of the hat.

E.g. What is truth? What is a theory? Different paradigms is all.

Sits back and waits...

Other Comments by Corylus

26. Comment #95245 by kraut on December 7, 2007 at 5:38 pm

"Many people just call it the universe."

I thought this was self evident. The universe, as opposed to god, exists, is observable and apparently created itself from a state of uncertainty.

I have no trouble to call a self creating universe a creator.

Other Comments by kraut

27. Comment #95258 by Cartomancer on December 7, 2007 at 6:23 pm

Is it me or does Mr. Dowd look rather like a cross between Tony Blair and Jay Lenno?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

28. Comment #95405 by Jamougha on December 8, 2007 at 9:35 am

I think we should support this guy (although very discreetly). AFAICT from the interview, he's preaching naturalistic pantheism. We can [i]definitely[/i] live with NP replacing current popular theology.

Other Comments by Jamougha

29. Comment #96996 by Rayy on December 11, 2007 at 8:26 am

The Christianity you criticise here is not universal or historical. Your understanding of Christians and the Bible is fundamentalist. You see it the same way as Christian Fundamentalists do, literally. I too criticise Fundamentalism and see it as mistaken.

You can find Christian traditions going back 2000 years that do not see Adam and Eve or the 6/7 day creation as literal. The same traditions do not accept eternal burning in Hell torment. They also accept evolution as the means of creation. The group that have the most consistent position here as far as I can tell is the Easter Orthodox Church. Unchanged for centuries.

As a UK Anglican most of the people I know accept evolution and as far as I can tell so do most of our clergy.

You have a very narrow understanding of what Christianity is. My other posts show where I am coming from.

Rayy

Other Comments by Rayy

30. Comment #97016 by irate_atheist on December 11, 2007 at 9:30 am

29. Comment #96996 by Rayy -

Well, I can't write for anyone else here, but I suppose going to Sunday School at the local URC, having parents who are on the local CofE Church Council, in-laws including two vicars, three evangelical preachers and and ex-nun, not to mention good friends who are methodist ministers and a kindly Canon in the CofE, doesn't give me a broad enough "...understanding of what Christianity is.".

It is, in effect, a melting pot of bunkum. A mess of random ideas which cannot stand up to honest historical or scientific scrutiny.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

31. Comment #97022 by righton on December 11, 2007 at 9:43 am

You can see what is coming. Eventually and reluctantly the church will have to declare that evolution is true and then they will just "Reinterpret" all the scritptures so that they are compatible.

Evolving religion religion once again.

God sure made the bible hard to interpret.

Other Comments by righton

32. Comment #97028 by righton on December 11, 2007 at 9:56 am

Hey Rayy,

Have you ever been to the United States? You have a narrow understanding of christianity here. Most people here do beleive in adam/eve, 6/7 day creation, and not evolution.

Its nice that you are able to pick which parts of the bible you believe and leave out the others just so you feal better about your rediculous beliefs.

Other Comments by righton

33. Comment #97034 by righton on December 11, 2007 at 10:06 am

Christians who believe in evolution are a small minority compared to the whole. Mostly because it directly contradicts the bible.

Other Comments by righton

34. Comment #97035 by righton on December 11, 2007 at 10:10 am

So your a christian who doesnt believe most of what the bible says?

Other Comments by righton

35. Comment #97700 by Rayy on December 12, 2007 at 2:28 pm

The Jews in Jesus' time did not believe in eternal punishment. The Jews today do not believe in eternal punishment.

What Americans believe and Evangelical Europeans believe is not necessarily what is believed in other parts of the world. The oldest, and original church in the world, the Eastern Orthodox, does not believe in eternal punishment and accepts evolution.

The Bible is instructional not a set of instructions. It does not work as set of instructions. Jesus made that plain.

The Name Adam is also a word that is used to represent mankind. Evolution does not contradict the Bible. Much of the Bible was never intended to be read literally; certainly not the creation story.

As you all keep pointing out, it makes no sense, so why do you insist on reading it literally yourselves; you are intelligent people?

Much of your criticism of religion I agree with, and I criticise you for thinking about religion on the literalists own terms. Get thinking. As one of your colleges said it's the deaf shouting at the deaf.

Rayy

Other Comments by Rayy

36. Comment #97710 by notsobad on December 12, 2007 at 2:37 pm

The Name Adam is also a word that is used to represent mankind. Evolution does not contradict the Bible. Much of the Bible was never intended to be read literally; certainly not the creation story.

Really? You just cherry pick now because the world has moved on rendering the Bible inaccurate and obsolete. And that pick and choose approach confirms that the Bible is indeed inaccurate and now obsolete.
Before 1859, the creation story (and similar stories in other religions) was the only explanation for most people and was taken very seriously. Even today you have many people that believe in it.

Other Comments by notsobad

37. Comment #97722 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Ravy

As a UK Anglican most of the people I know accept evolution and as far as I can tell so do most of our clergy.

Cool :-)

Let's keep it that way.

These idiots are trying to get into the UK. They have American funding and are not to be underestimated.

http://www.newlife.co.uk/delusion/index.html

The (tiny) bit of research I have done is enough to scare me.

You don't like it. I don't like it. Strikes me that we both need to keep our eyes open.

Other Comments by Corylus

38. Comment #98167 by Wadsworth on December 13, 2007 at 7:12 am

I expect most of you have seen, and are bored by my piece on the subject,--but perhaps not Rev Dowd; so here it is again:

Theistic Evolution

1. Recent research demonstrates higher semen viscosity in primate species that have a high degree of female promiscuity. In such species there is more intense sperm competition between rival male's semen for the female's attention. Natural selection encourages the evolution of increased sperm viscosity as an aid to preventing successful fertilisation of the female by subsequent male lovers. This means that promiscuity is a driving force in primate Evolution. If there is a God in charge of Evolution, then he is therefore condoning immorality by encouraging promiscuity.

2. 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. If God is in charge of Evolution he is therefore either a monumental blunderer, or an evil sadist, or a squanderer of natural resources.

3. All animals, plants, and fungi live by murder and cannibalism,- ie- feeding off each other;- humans are not exempt either. Could God not do better then this?

4. Some animals exhibit deliberate blood-sports lust, by toying with prey, or by unnecessary overkill; eg cats, and foxes. Did God arrange this? New-born pups are carried off by Jackels, Hyenas , birds of prey etc.

5. The new species Homo floresiensis further blurs the boundaries between Man and animal. Is God confused?

6. Chimps have been discovered to have rudimentary culture and language, and tool use, and not to have any qualitatively different attributes from Humankind. They also commit deliberate murder on their fellows. Capuchin monkeys break open nuts with rocks. Corvids also use tools.

7. The whole concept of the Natural selection of random variations ,ie. Darwinian Evolution is a cruel process, relying on violence, suffering, and enormous waste among living things,-including the obviously sentient and human-like "higher" social animals, eg Whales, Dolphins, cats, dogs, and of course primates. The Ichneumon fly lays its eggs in a live caterpillar, and its grubs devour the caterpillar from the inside out. There is the waste of unused sperms, seeds and fruits and massive infant mortality;--and then God condemns Onan for spilling his seed on the ground!

8. Theists try to suggest that there is a purpose, and that God created and guides Evolution. But as Evolution (the Natural Selection of random variations) is therefore a random process (proved by the 99% extinctions as above),-- and the changes in the natural environment which does the selecting are also random, eg solar flares, asteroid and comet strikes, earthquakes and volcanos, hurricanes etc which cause mass extinctions from time to time,- and which all have naturalistic causes,--how then can a God be said to guide such chaotic processes? It is a self-contradiction, and is made with the desperate hope of tacking "God" onto all aspects of Nature, because of the self-interest of the religious establishment. I always thought God was supposed to have created order out of chaos,-not chaos out of order. They ask the question "Why"? There is no "why?",- no purpose. Blind naturalistic Evolution demonstrates that fully. "Why" questions are semantic trickery that can usually be resolved as part of "How "questions. If turns creation stories upon their heads to say in effect that God created chaos out of Order(his own self) so as to re-create order,- when the Bible states clearly that it was the other way round,--order came out of chaos.

9. If God set up Evolution then he knew what he was doing. If he set it up, and continues to "guide" it,-he has exhibited blood lust and lack of compassion for his creation. If he set it up then walked away and washed his hands of it,- then he just shows cruel indifference and irresponsibility.

10. Nearly a million known different species of beetles have been documented. This is compatible with Evolution, but totally absurd if created by a God. One would have to ask him-Why?. Christians would no doubt assert that it is a demonstration of his power and love. So should I follow his example and tip a skip-full of live Cockroaches onto our living-room floor, and explain to my wife that I did it as an act of love?

A successful scientific theory is something that explains and predicts by itself,-it is self-sufficient. A theory which needs to be created and sustained and guided is not a theory at all; it is a contradiction.

Christians like to have their cake and eat it . For the reasons given above, Evolution implies Atheism, so Christians have to choose; they can either have Theism or Evolution, but not Theistic Evolution,- it is a nonsense.

Last edited by Wads4 : November 13, 2004 at 08:21 AM.

Other Comments by Wadsworth