Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, June 5, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document The Expelled Evolutionist

by Cosmic Log

Thanks to Aaron Boruff for the link.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/03/1101860.aspx

THE EXPELLED EVOLUTIONIST
by Alan Boyle

(check the original article for many embedded links)

P.Z. Myers is the evolutionist creationists love to hate: They hate him so much that he was expelled from an advance screening of "Expelled," even though the anti-evolution movie includes an interview with him.

During a visit to Seattle, the biology professor, blogger and "godless liberal" recounted the tale with relish - and then predicted that old-time creationism will be making a comeback.

Not that he's looking forward to that: Myers bases that prediction on his view that efforts to undermine evolutionary theory without referring to religion, using a concept known as intelligent design, have fallen short. Back in 2005, a federal judge ruled that intelligent design was basically a religious concept, and thus should not be taught in public-school science classes.

He said the secular version of intelligent design was no longer "a big factor in the wars here."

"This," he said, pointing to an classroom-friendly illustration from Answers in Genesis comparing Noah's Ark with a Boeing 747 jet, "is a much bigger factor. People want to believe in biblical creationism, not that secular intelligent-design stuff."

The proponents of intelligent design might take issue with that view. The folks at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute keep track of all the twists and turns in the evolution debate, including my wacky ramblings in Cosmic Log. The intelligent-design concept - that is, the idea that some complex things in nature are best explained by an intelligent cause - figures quite a bit on their side of the debate.

Even at the Discovery Institute, however, the debate is increasingly being cast on different grounds, as an argument for academic freedom rather than for an intelligent designer per se. Teachers should have the right to teach what they believe is right, even if it runs counter to the scientific mainstream. It's hard to take issue with that in the abstract, and not even Myers would assert that Charles Darwin's 150-year-old views should be accepted as gospel.

"Often we put too much emphasis on Charles Darwin," he said.

The problem comes when folks want to teach in science class that the entire edifice of evolutionary biology should be torn down because some chinks are still unfilled or out of place. Usually the reason for doing that is not out of a sense of scientific integrity, but because the edifice seems to stand in the way of the dissenters' moral or religious views.

Myers believes that the religious underpinnings beneath the intelligent-design argument will become more visible as the secular strategy falls short. "They're not going to be hiding the fact that they've got a religious motivation behind their goals," he predicted.

A fair number of public high-school science teachers might be sympathetic to that motivation, based on findings published last month by the open-access journal PLoS Biology. A survey of 939 teachers, conducted by mail and online between March and May, showed that 16 percent believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."

That doesn't mean all those teachers want to bring Genesis (or the Koran) into the classroom. In fact, there need not be any linkage between a teacher's personal beliefs and what's taught in public school. Nevertheless, it's a statistic that worries Myers.

"One out of six of our high-school science teachers are young-earth creationists," he observed.

You'll never find Myers, a biology professor at the University of Minnesota at Morris, in league with that 16 percent. He's as well-known for his atheism as he is for his work in evolutionary biology - and he didn't mince words during his Monday night talk at Seattle's Pacific Science Center.

"I personally feel that religion itself is a lie and a danger," he said. In his view, even those who hold to religious faith at the same time that they hold to evolutionary theory are being "wishy-washy" in one way or another.

One questioner asked Myers whether that meant Brown University biologist Ken Miller, who has often said his passionate defense of evolution doesn't conflict with his religious beliefs, was being a wishy-washy scientist?

"No," Myers answered wryly, "I think Ken Miller is a wishy-washy Catholic."

Myers acknowledged that scientists sometimes have a hard time getting their perspective across forcefully, and so he provided a five-point prescription for wishy-washiness:

* Show passion and personality.
* Be a patient instructor.
* Be an advocate, and shun caution.
* Be positive.
* Argue, argue, argue.

That last piece of advice is something close to Myers' heart. He recalled one time recently when he argued with a creationist for two hours straight. "He was so mad at me," Myers said.

Expelled from 'Expelled'
Which brings us to the "Expelled" episode: Last year, he agreed to be interviewed for a project called "Crossroads," which was portrayed as a documentary about the intersection of religion and science - going so far as to sign a release and accept payment for his time and trouble. Weeks later, he was worried to learn that the project was actually a diatribe against Darwin.

"I got fooled," he admitted.

In advance of the film's opening, Myers and a colleague of his showed up at the theater where a free preview was playing, hoping to find out how he was portrayed in the finished film. Unfortunately, he was recognized by a film producer and was told to leave the premises.

Or was that actually fortunate?

The way Myers tells it, the incident was a plus: He could capitalize on the publicity of being expelled from "Expelled" - while his colleague, the equally atheistic British biologist Richard Dawkins, had to sit through a movie that ended up making him hopping mad.

"I never imagined that they would do the perfect thing," Myers said, "which was to just throw me out, so I didn't have to go see the crappy movie, but Richard Dawkins had to go see it."

More resources
In between the anecdotes, predictions and the hate-mail readings (taken from Myers' in-box), the biologist provided a long reading list of books and blogs. Here's a sampling that could keep you busy for months:

* Myers' recommended books: For evolutionary biology, "Coming to Life" by Christiane Nusslein-Volhard; "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B. Carroll; "Your Inner Fish" by Neil Shubin; "Bones, Rocks and Stars" by Chris Turney. For general science and just for fun, "The Physics of Superheroes" by James Kakalios; "The Physics of the Buffyverse" by Jennifer Ouellette; and Jay Hosler's graphic novels, including "The Sandwalk Adventures," "Clan Apis" and "Optical Allusions." For the history of science: "Science as a Way of Knowing" by John A. Moore.

* Myers' recommended blogs: ScienceBlogs, a network that includes Myers' own blog, Pharyngula; Scientific Blogging; Nature Network; Scientific American's Sciam Observations; New Scientist's blogs; and Research Blogging, which aggregates academic postings from a wide variety of blogs.

Myers urged scientists who felt they had something worth saying to start up their own blogs. The software makes it easy to write a blog entry, he said: "Any idiot can do it."

What are your favorite science blogs? Feel free to contribute your own recommendations (or, for that matter, point us to your own not-so-idiotic blog) as a comment below.

Update for 2 p.m. ET June 4: Michael Bradbury has posted the full podcast of Myers' talk at Real Science. The talk was presented by the Northwest Science Writers Association and the Forum on Science Ethics and Policy.

Comments 1 - 42 of 42 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #189073 by Ansu on June 5, 2008 at 11:08 am

 avatar
Teachers should have the right to teach what they believe is right, even if it runs counter to the scientific mainstream

or logic, or anything that is not what they believe in.

Isnt that the definition of Truthiness?

Other Comments by Ansu

2. Comment #189075 by mordacious1 on June 5, 2008 at 11:13 am

Kind of a rehash of what we already know.

Other Comments by mordacious1

3. Comment #189083 by KRKBAB on June 5, 2008 at 11:30 am

"Teachers should have the right to teach what they believe is right even if it runs counter to the scientific mainstream". Wow. That's horrible. How about if you tag onto the end of that: "as long as they have sufficient evidence that their "beliefs" are on a reasonably level standing with the rigors and integrity of scientific mainstream". A teacher shouldn't be allowed to teach what she/he believes if it flies in the face of rational thought!
P.Z. Meyers says "I personally believe that religion is a lie and a danger". Ayup! (Maine speak) We need more direct statements like this to be made. I think that statement of P.Z.'s rates right up there with Dawkins' frequent remark: "I'm not concerned with (fill in the blank), I'm just interested in whether it's true or not". That one always makes me cheer out loud (looking rather silly I would suspect). He (Dawkins)just re-directs the discussion back to the center after some post-modern bullshit usually tries muddle things up.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

4. Comment #189084 by black wolf on June 5, 2008 at 11:34 am

 avatarThe point is that the 'academic freedom' offense is not about being contrary to the scientific mainstream, which in itself isn't uniform down to the last detail. Their pursuit is to make completely unscientific - in terms of methodology, evidence, logic, parsimony and just about every conceivable other factor - ideas appear as having scientific credibility. Once they get that into place anywhere, pupils will leave school with the impression that there is some sort of science behind the claims. These students then go on to vote on or become school board members, which is precisely the political snowball method creationists want to achieve. It's the wedge to eventually get the very definition of science changed, just as Behe explained at Dover. If they can't do it by force, they'll try to deteriorate and muddy the definition bit by bit. An idea that thrives solely in the realm of politics and propaganda has no place in science classes.

Other Comments by black wolf

5. Comment #189113 by Quine on June 5, 2008 at 1:33 pm

 avatarPZ:
Often we put too much emphasis on Charles Darwin

Yes, this causes the other side to relate to him (Darwin) as if he were equated with one of their prophets (personally) instead of dealing with the facts and inferences of the ToE. This is why I strongly believe our side needs to adjust (evolve) to their tactics by dropping the terms "Darwinism" and "Darwinist" from our vocabularies, and forcing ourselves to say "Darwinian evolution" when that is what we actually intend.

Other Comments by Quine

6. Comment #189115 by flobear on June 5, 2008 at 1:36 pm

 avatar
Teachers should have the right to teach what they believe is right, even if it runs counter to the scientific mainstream.

Is being an idiot a right? I guess it is. I don't have any ethical problems with idiots as long as they are not teaching my children about science.

edit: So I guess these people wouldn't mind a Muslim science teacher explaining that the Koran is the ultimate truth about the universe. Seriously, these arguments are so inane I can't believe they're spoken by actual adults.

Other Comments by flobear

7. Comment #189122 by jonjermey on June 5, 2008 at 1:44 pm

...and English teachers should have the right to spell words any way they want, and geography teachers should be able to put Alaska on the equator if they want to, and maths teachers who aren't comfortable with the idea that 2 plus 2 = 4 should be able to teach the controversy...

What precisely is it about the words 'It's not true' that they don't understand?

Other Comments by jonjermey

8. Comment #189127 by Corylus on June 5, 2008 at 1:56 pm

 avatar
Teachers should have the right to teach what they believe is right, even if it runs counter to the scientific mainstream. It's hard to take issue with that in the abstract...
Actually, it is very easy to take issue with this in the abstract and this is because of a lack of clarity about the word 'right'...
... what they believe is right....
Now does this mean 'right' the sense of being 'correct'? (i.e. corresponding to reality) or does it imply 'right' as some form of moral injunction?

Of course, teachers must teach what they believe to be correct, however, what they believe to be 'right' has no place in a science classroom.

'Right' is an ambiguous, emotive term: be cautious. When people use ambiguous, emotive terms (when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives available) : be suspicious.

Other Comments by Corylus

9. Comment #189144 by Pathfinder on June 5, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Quite frankly, as a Christian I am appalled at the hubris and arrogance of a number of my fellow "Christians". Science is science, religion is religion. If teachers have the right to teach what they believe is "right", without evidence, just based on instinct and conviction ( "the best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity" - WB Yeats ) then by the same logic it is perfectly acceptable to aver women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals and people who work on the Sabbath (see Exodus) should be punished and even killed. It's this inconsistency which really gets me.

Personal conviction has no place in a science classroom. In history, maybe, you can argue Napoleon had the whole welfare of Europe in mind when he sought to conquer it and impose his Code.
In science, you can only insert God into the gaps, and even then, WHOSE God?

Other Comments by Pathfinder

10. Comment #189148 by robotaholic on June 5, 2008 at 2:34 pm

 avatarin response to Pathfinder - science is science and religion is CRAP-

Quite frankly, as an atheist I'm amazed at a number of your fellow christians.

If teachers have the right to teach what they believe is "right", without evidence, just based on instinct and conviction ( "the best lack all conviction, the worst are full of passionate intensity" - WB Yeats ) then by the same logic it is perfectly acceptable to aver women, ethnic minorities, homosexuals and people who work on the Sabbath (see Exodus) should be punished and even killed. It's this inconsistency which really gets me.

well hmm let's just leave that up to the preachers/priests -right

Other Comments by robotaholic

11. Comment #189150 by Corylus on June 5, 2008 at 2:41 pm

 avatarRobotaholic,

I didn't entirely agree with Pathfinder either, but that was because I do not think that his/hers NOMA position is compatable with an interventionist christian God.

However, s/he is obviously trying to seek areas of agreement. Let's not flame people when they do this.

Other Comments by Corylus

12. Comment #189151 by Pathfinder on June 5, 2008 at 2:42 pm

Robotoholic, Thanks for your point., although I am at a loss to know what it is, save the usual moronic, visceral "religion is crap". Aside from your penetrating insight, have you anything constructive to offer?

Let me guess: anyone who is not a bona-fide atheist (all agnostics, doubters, Christians, Muslims etc) is a pitiful imbecile. OK. Appreciate your broad-mindedness.

Other Comments by Pathfinder

13. Comment #189152 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 2:44 pm

 avatar
Science is science, religion is religion


I am afraid not. Science is about the investigation of physical reality. Theistic religions make claims about physical reality, therefore theism and science will always overlap and conflict.

In science, you can only insert God into the gaps, and even then, WHOSE God?


Theism is nothing but the insertion of God into gaps in our understanding in all areas. It cannot stand on its own terms, let alone against science.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

14. Comment #189157 by Pathfinder on June 5, 2008 at 3:02 pm

I'm confused: I've got one person (Steve Zara) saying there is no overlap with science (with which I BROADLY agree) and another saying I am in favour or concur with the idea of an interventionist God. Can i have some consistency here?

Let's deal with Steve Zara first. He says with sublime confidence God "cannot stand on its own terms", LET ALONE against science. Whose terms are we talking about? Who decides? Empirical, weighed-up evidence? Has God been conclusively disproved? No. Neither, in Popperian terms, has He/She/It been falsified. I think, in view of your Guru Dawkins saying the existence of God being "highly improbable" (not "impossible", note), you should not rush to judgement. Isn't this what scientists are supposed to do? But then atheists are REALLY frustrated Christians, just as they used to say existentialism was curdled romanticism.

What's the betting on Steve Zara and Robotowhatisname being lapsed Christians? I can smell it from here! Careful, guys/gals: Old Nich has your names on a ledger!

Other Comments by Pathfinder

15. Comment #189160 by Corylus on June 5, 2008 at 3:12 pm

 avatarPathfinder
...another saying I am in favour or concur with the idea of an interventionist God. Can i have some consistency here?
No problem. I came to that conclusion because of your self-declaration as a "Christian."

Christian implies that you believe that god intervened in relation to that resurrection business (even if nowhere else).

If you want to say that God never intervenes then I am, of course, interested to hear you say that. However, if that is the case you need to go sit with the deists and not the theists :-)

Anyway, you wanted to talk to Steve and it is nearly my bedtime...

Other Comments by Corylus

16. Comment #189161 by ricey on June 5, 2008 at 3:14 pm

It's good to get an intelligent perspective from a religious person like Pathfinder, because I'm always open to the possibility that he/she, etc, may be right ... but it needs to be PROVED!

I think Pathfinder (good name by the way - mine's just a nickname I had in school) draws the same conclusions I draw from the creationist mindview expressed by I.D., i.e. that it disregards the observable evidence.

I have to ask you Pathfinder, does this not affect your beliefs? Given that the Bible's account of creation is so radically different from the evidence science has provided, why do you accept anything else that book says?

I am willing to accept evidence, not unquestioning belief systems; though you seem to be of the same mind (paradox). Stick around please!

Other Comments by ricey

17. Comment #189165 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 3:24 pm

 avatarComment #189157 by Pathfinder

Provide me with a single falsifiable prediction that remains from the God Hypothesis, and then we can talk how Popper applies.

Forgive me for being so harsh - I am getting less patient in middle age. Your support for evolution is welcome, but my view is that it is inconsistent to complain about people looking for gaps in evolution to put God in when Christianity does precisely that in terms of biology, physics, philosophy and so on.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

18. Comment #189167 by Pathfinder on June 5, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Ricey and Corylus: Thanks for your response. A couple of corrections, however. Ricey: did you not read what I wrote? Of course the existence of God cannot be proved! I am aware this is insufficient evidence from a scientific standpoint: no falsifiability, no control experiments, no peer-reviewed papers, no (or not much) competing hypotheses apart from the blindingly obvious... And could I hit on the head that old canard about being a Christian, et ergo,
being an ID/Creationist? I despise the ID movement,being, in my view, both mendacious and ill-informed. Whilst I might respect someone like Francis Collins for equivocating on the matter of probability and fine-tuning, I cannot but despise the Behes of this world!

Ricey, you say evidence. I have been on this website before and had my evidence trashed. OK: it was "witness" and what you'd call "hearsay" testimony. From your point of view I'd guess "inadmissible". I understand the "rules of the game", so to speak. What I am really interested in, is dialogue. Unlike Steve Zara, I do not believe a religious and a scientific view of the world are mutually exclusive. I do not say, either, that they are interchangeable, like Rosencrantz and Gildernstern. I'm just... aw, it's up to you if you want to engage. I'm to bed.

Other Comments by Pathfinder

19. Comment #189169 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 3:48 pm

 avatar
Of course the existence of God cannot be proved! I am aware this is insufficient evidence from a scientific standpoint: no falsifiability, no control experiments, no peer-reviewed papers, no (or not much) competing hypotheses apart from the blindingly obvious...


I knew I shouldn't have come back from a break.

Already I am finding dealing with things here frustrating again.

What I don't understand is why it should then be sufficient evidence from any standpoint.

You are making the biggest possible claims about the nature of reality, yet you make them based purely on what has gone on, uncorroborated, in your own mind. You consider yourself some kind of personal expert regarding reality!

However, as you have more to contribute to this discussion than I have, I shall take another break and leave you to it.... your views regarding ID and creationism are admirable. I hope you get the discussions you want here.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

20. Comment #189172 by Goldy on June 5, 2008 at 3:59 pm

 avatar
Of course the existence of God cannot be proved!

Why not? And if this is true, why the worship? See why I am an athiest? This is completely inconsistent with rationality, yet it has been fed to me from an early age by society as totally normal and, yes, rational.

Other Comments by Goldy

21. Comment #189173 by phil rimmer on June 5, 2008 at 4:05 pm

 avatar
I do not believe a religious and a scientific view of the world are mutually exclusive. I do not say, either, that they are interchangeable, like Rosencrantz and Gildernstern. I'm just... aw, it's up to you if you want to engage. I'm to bed.


Damn. damn, DAMN! Now we'll never know. I really think (s)he was going to tell us too.

Its your fault, Steve Zara, asking for those falsifiable predicaments and corroborated whatsits. Nearly two years I've been here and not once have the nice Christians told us their secret. I know it has something to do with feelings and such, but they never tell us HOW THEY KNOW..... Not fair.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

22. Comment #189174 by Bonzai on June 5, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Goldy



Of course the existence of God cannot be proved!



Why not? And if this is true, why the worship? See why I am an athiest? This is completely inconsistent with rationality, yet it has been fed to me from an early age by society as totally normal and, yes, rational.


This is interesting. I am not saying this is pathfinder's position, but in my experience some "sophisticated" theists actually believe in God exactly because it is not provable. To such believers the status of God would be greatly diminished if he can actually be tracked by science and human intellect. It will lose its mystique as a result. They probably wouldn't believe anymore if there is incontrovertible evidence that God exists.

This is kind of perverted and turns the significance of evidence upside down.

Other Comments by Bonzai

23. Comment #189175 by acs on June 5, 2008 at 4:12 pm

What's the betting on Steve Zara and Robotowhatisname being lapsed Christians? I can smell it from here! Careful, guys/gals: Old Nich has your names on a ledger!

Pathfinder, that kind of statement is offensive and is a direct threat against the person of another. Once you reach a certain stage of consciousness, we understand that making such statements is in fact your personal judgement against another person. Please refrain from doing same in the future.

I despise the ID movement,being, in my view, both mendacious and ill-informed. Whilst I might respect someone like Francis Collins for equivocating on the matter of probability and fine-tuning, I cannot but despise the Behes of this world!

Generally, Pathfinder, hate is bad. It is deleterious to the person and can become dangerously overpowering. Please dont feel the need to use that emotion on our behalf. I dont hate Behe et al. They can say whatever they want, they are wrong and they are intentionally manipulating creationism to have a scientific face, but I dont hate them.

At the end of the day we, like all people just want to have the truth heard. Our truth is that the Universe is a logically consistent and explainable phenomenon and that Theism is not logically consistent. I dont want theists to disappear, they are my brothers and sisters. Rather, I want to persuade them that what they tell their children, and themselves, is not true. Hopefully, they will gain from it, not us.

Other Comments by acs

24. Comment #189176 by Pathfinder on June 5, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Steve Zara:regarding your "return" - couldn't have put it better myself!

You seem to think I have some kind of divinely-inspired (Christian pathology, in your view) plan to deliberately confound and frustrate you. Please do me the favor of reading a little more closely and to avoid putting words into my mouth. I do NOT make any claims about reality that has gone on "uncorroborated... in my own mind". My approach to God could best be described as TENTATIVE, as my last post (March/April?) must have made abundantly clear! Had you not, of course, been so fervidly, rabidly enthusiastic about rooting out a supposed theist you might conceivably have noticed that.

My God is, unconditionally, indubitably, a "God of the gaps". That means I am proceeding from a position of RELATIVE unknowability. Personally, I distrust your adamatine certainty there IS NO GOD. Just as I distrust those on "my side" who insist THERE IS A GOD.

I was brought up an Episcopalian and I still adhere to the spirit, if not always the letter, of that creed. The question as to whether had I been a Delaney or O'Connell in Boston and brought up a Catholic, or a Faisal Darweesh from Afula,
Palestine, brought up a Muslim, etc, still remains. I've no doubt I would stay within those respective faiths, had I been born into them. Why not Allah, why not Marduk, why not Moroni, you ask?

The reason is... actually I think I'll be a bit sadistic and let you hang there! Manana.

Other Comments by Pathfinder

25. Comment #189179 by Goldy on June 5, 2008 at 4:28 pm

 avatarBonzai
To such believers the status of God would be greatly diminished if he can actually be tracked by science and human intellect. It will lose its mystique as a result. They probably wouldn't believe anymore if there is incontrovertible evidence that God exists.

Well, I guess this is the god who had no images of himself, unlike other gods ;-) Did have a telephonic link at one time but that's somewhere else now - Ethiopia or Zimbabwe, I forget which was the more credible.
Pathfinder
My God is, unconditionally, indubitably, a "God of the gaps".
And when the gaps close, he becomes a lesser god. A diminishing god - interesting. Or does your god maintain his stature despite the closing gaps because he is an unknowable god etc, etc?
Personally, I distrust your adamatine certainty there IS NO GOD

There is no god except that which we make within us. I can say there is no god with certainty because I never see anything that gods do that don't happen anyway. There are gods, same as dreams. I know dreams exist - indeed, one can see and hear dreams in others. Yet a dream is from the dreamer only, shared only if remembered and recounted. Bit like gods, eh?

Other Comments by Goldy

26. Comment #189182 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 4:35 pm

 avatarComment #189176 by Pathfinder
You seem to think I have some kind of divinely-inspired (Christian pathology, in your view) plan to deliberately confound and frustrate you.


It isn't all about you.

I do NOT make any claims about reality that has gone on "uncorroborated... in my own mind".


Of course you do. You are proposing that there is a God, based on no evidence apart from what you think.

Personally, I distrust your adamatine certainty there IS NO GOD.


I have no certainty that there is no God. I have close to certainty that all the supposed evidence and arguments used to justify claims of his existence are nonsense. If there were any such evidence, you would put it forward, rather than admitting it's absense.

I have just grown so tired of seeing the same old views. I have been researching and thinking about this matter a lot since cutting back on posting here.

I find myself impatient with the usually unrealised arrogance of theism, especially the Abrahamic religions. That humans are special, that we are able to discern the nature of reality to an extent that we can fill gaps in our knowledge with God, that our inner feelings, our "revelations" are a direct line to cosmic truth. I find the lack of humility really unsettling, especially when people don't realise the implications of what they are saying.

I also find the ignorance of logic annoying - the same old "you can't disprove it, so there" arguments, each time with the person making it thinking they are being clever and somehow witty.

Oh dear. I'll shut up for a while.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #189183 by huzonfurst on June 5, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Acs, all people have emotions, so why do you get judgmental on someone when they admit to having them? At least Pathfinder is being honest (and the word used was "despise" not "hate," unless I missed it somewhere).

I for one both despise and hate these meddling, destructive creationist freaks with a great deal of inspiring passion! That doesn't mean I intend to go around causing them physical harm or that I lose sleep from being fired up about them 24 hours a day, but it does mean I will slaughter them verbally at every opportunity and fight them tooth and nail in whatever venue comes to the fore.

These people are serious threats to civilization itself; if you don't hate and despise them, why not??

Yes, *we* want the truth to be heard, but *all* people do not! How can you say such a thing when you know that's not the motivation with religious be;lievers?

Other Comments by huzonfurst

28. Comment #189184 by Bonzai on June 5, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Pathfinder

That means I am proceeding from a position of RELATIVE unknowability. Personally, I distrust your adamatine certainty there IS NO GOD. Just as I distrust those on "my side" who insist THERE IS A GOD .


The second sentence is interesting, and it should be highlighted as some of your responders may have just read the first sentence. :)

I don't find your position that unreasonable, though it is usually considered "agnostic" rather than theistic. So am I correct in assuming that you are actually an agnostic with some cultural attachment to Christianity?

You mentioned using God as a gap filler, I think that is problematic because without a clear way to describe what God is like and how he
supposedly "did it", this is like calling an unknown in an equation "x", giving the unknown a name doesn't solve the equation. The difference is, at least in algebra calling something "x" there is indeed an algorithm to find the solution, at least approximately (so the the mathematically informed cannot take me to task over the theorem of Abel and Galois theory), but calling an unknown "God" in science serves no purpose other than naming our ignorance,

Can you tell us what role, if any, does Christianity play in your life? That is probably a more meaningful question than to ask you for evidence, since you have already said you have none and are not interested in making claims other than that some God, with no description, may exist.

Other Comments by Bonzai

29. Comment #189185 by Quine on June 5, 2008 at 4:58 pm

 avatarPathfinder:
What's the betting on Steve Zara and Robotowhatisname being lapsed Christians? I can smell it from here! Careful, guys/gals: Old Nich has your names on a ledger!


So, Pathfinder, if they never had been Christians, would they not be on Old Nich's list? What if they had lived 20,000 years ago?

I, myself, have to admit to being a lapsed infant. I can't get away from this because there are still elders around who can invoke the "changed your dipers" evidence on me.

P.S. to Steve Zara: "You'll be back."

Other Comments by Quine

30. Comment #189187 by Steve Zara on June 5, 2008 at 5:06 pm

 avatar
P.S. to Steve Zara: "You'll be back."


I am sure :)

I do feel an increasing need to get away from the same old arguments.

It reminds me of when I was teaching.. there was only so many years I could mark the same essays...

Other Comments by Steve Zara

31. Comment #189188 by phil rimmer on June 5, 2008 at 5:09 pm

 avatar
You seem to think I have some kind of divinely-inspired...

No. Thats the point.
I was brought up an Episcopalian and I...

The reason depends on a person's biography? Ah..
The reason is...

Is..?
actually I think I'll be a bit sadistic and let you hang there! Manana.

Please, let it be different this time!
If it is just about all these different forms of religion, struggling to express the same thing; if it is about the nature of consciousness; or about the the very existence of existence; if it is about purpose, please consider NOT telling us.
Considering there are so many "recovering" once-religious folk here, YOUR reason (whatever it is) is unlikely to be a surprise.
Consider also the possibility of keeping your faith in God always to yourself. You are fully rational enough to justify your own moral position on anything without recourse to spurious authority. You KNOW that free-will makes you alone responsible for your actions. Your duty is to truth and that must lead you to always strive to close those gaps with unsentimental fervor.

What if in proclaiming your faith on the basis of personal experience you lead another into a mistaken certainty?

Why not say, "My faith is my own. The rest of you can just fuck off." and just leave it at that? Carry on the intelligent and interesting discussion and don't imply that you have special insider knowledge that allows you a better view of of the problems at hand.

You don't think that do you?

G'night.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

32. Comment #189190 by Healyhatman on June 5, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Ha! Should have the right to teach what they believe in? What about the children's right to a decent and proper education, should that come second to the teachers wish not be offended by what they have to teach?

And if that sort of bullshit gets in, soon we'll have teachers telling kids not about evolution or even creationism, but about Xenu the Space Emperor

Other Comments by Healyhatman

33. Comment #189196 by Christopher Davis on June 5, 2008 at 6:56 pm

 avatar"I don't find your position that unreasonable, though it is usually considered "agnostic" rather than theistic. So am I correct in assuming that you are actually an agnostic with some cultural attachment to Christianity?"---Bonzai

Good point Bonzai. I think too often many of us on this board pile-on the non-atheists asking them to prove the drivel that their religion expouses, without stopping to ask them what role their religion plays in their life.

This is especially pertinent when dealing with people such as Pathfinder who seem to be educated/intelligent and don't reject science.

Personally, I'm not a fan of NOMA. However, at this point in time it might be a position that serves a useful purpose. Over 85% of Americans feel the need to affiliate themselves with some type of religion. We won't be able to keep the real crack-pots out of the schools and the government if we don't find some common ground.

Oh, and Pathfinder...."Manana"? As in Pashto for "thank you"?

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

34. Comment #189200 by Quine on June 5, 2008 at 7:21 pm

 avatarI suspect he wanted to type: "mañana"

Other Comments by Quine

35. Comment #189203 by GordonYKWong on June 5, 2008 at 7:28 pm

 avatarPathfinder, you've said:

24. Comment #189176 by Pathfinder on June 5, 2008 at 4:19 pm

My God is, unconditionally, indubitably, a "God of the gaps". That means I am proceeding from a position of RELATIVE unknowability. Personally, I distrust your adamatine certainty there IS NO GOD. Just as I distrust those on "my side" who insist THERE IS A GOD.
My question to you is quite silly but I still think it is worth asking.

Given that there is so much beauty in this world, so much mysteries in life, so many awe inducing grandeur, from our functioning brain and body, our environment, our universe... how probable do you think is the existence of this "God of the gaps"? 90-80%? 50%? 20-10%?

I know it is meaningless to apply something as trivial as percentages to something that could be infinite. But I am not asking for a proof, but a gut-feeling.

To be fair to you, I will give my answer to that question if you ask me the same question.

Other Comments by GordonYKWong

36. Comment #189204 by Christopher Davis on June 5, 2008 at 7:32 pm

 avatar"I suspect he wanted to type: "maƱana"---Quine

As in "tomorrow". Yeah. I feel really dumb now.

I need to get back to civilization.

Other Comments by Christopher Davis

37. Comment #189249 by Macropus on June 5, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Sigh,

What on earth is "relative unknowability"?

What is an "unconditional" god of the gaps?

Why "of course, the existence of god can't be proved"? If god exists, why can't it be demonstrated?

Why must theists always descend to mystical mumbo jumbo?

Is it totally unreasonable to expect a god who has created a universe and takes a personal interest in me to make his existence as obvious as my nose, or perhaps just say hello?

Other Comments by Macropus

38. Comment #189296 by PJG on June 6, 2008 at 1:35 am

 avatar
One questioner asked Myers whether that meant Brown University biologist Ken Miller, who has often said his passionate defense of evolution doesn't conflict with his religious beliefs, was being a wishy-washy scientist?

"No," Myers answered wryly, "I think Ken Miller is a wishy-washy Catholic."


That's good. Very good.

Other Comments by PJG

39. Comment #189376 by Incredulous on June 6, 2008 at 6:36 am

Comment #189187 by Steve Zara

I do feel an increasing need to get away from the same old arguments.


Especially when those argument show no sign of being resolved and simply further entrench the major protagonists further into their polarised views. I can see no meeting place between atheism and theism. As much as I would wish it was possible for the two positions to meet somewhere, it cannot happen for me to remain intellectually honest.

Exploration, truth and evidence based discussion is not within the remit of the theist and whoever suggested that most people are cultural makes sense to me.

Pathfinder's refreshing personal honesty shows me that it is not the soundness of the atheist position that is threatening, but the fragility of the theist belief system which needs to be loudly and constantly re-iterated, as if still clinging on to childhood fantasies.

Ah well, back to work.

Nice to hear from you Steve.

Other Comments by Incredulous

40. Comment #189507 by Tom Coward on June 6, 2008 at 11:29 am

Re comments further up about modern theists wanting to believe only in an unprovable god. Do you recall the Douglas Adams "Babel Fish" proof of the non-existence of god?

Other Comments by Tom Coward

41. Comment #189516 by 7Fred7 on June 6, 2008 at 11:48 am

"Teachers should have the right to teach what they believe is right"

A magnificent pronouncement of idiocy that should be preserved for posterity. Knowledge is nothing. Belief is everything.

It's that dense, we could be looking at a black hole here.

Other Comments by 7Fred7

42. Comment #189562 by Border Collie on June 6, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Don't waste your time arguing with Christians. Don't waste your money on Expelled.

Other Comments by Border Collie
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: