Once upon a time
April 8, 2005 2:28 PM Subscribe
Evolution - a fairytale for grownups! "Clearly" proving that such amazing inventions must have been designed. Silly Darwin.
I can only shake my head in wonderment at these people.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:31 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:31 PM on April 8, 2005
Too many people have too much time on their hands with which to parade their ignorance. And it's as if that ignorance was a source of pride for them.
posted by fossil_human at 2:39 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by fossil_human at 2:39 PM on April 8, 2005
From the site bio: "I became interested in the creation/evolution debate in 1996, after a brief discussion at work with a friend and fellow engineer who confidently told me that evolution was a proven fact."
And that 1983 B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla? Fuck off, Stephen Jay Gould!
posted by chasing at 2:49 PM on April 8, 2005
And that 1983 B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla? Fuck off, Stephen Jay Gould!
posted by chasing at 2:49 PM on April 8, 2005
Wait a second - so creationism isn't a fairytale but evolution is? Ok, that clears up SO MUCH for me.
posted by billysumday at 2:55 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by billysumday at 2:55 PM on April 8, 2005
I really just can't wait until we find life on other planets. That should finally shut these idiots up.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:00 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by Smedleyman at 3:00 PM on April 8, 2005
Uh, wow. I was pretty surprised by this. Explicit cranial explosion indeed.
Smedleyman, nothing is going to shut these idiots up, save the slow but inevitable eradication of religion from society.
posted by borkingchikapa at 3:02 PM on April 8, 2005
Smedleyman, nothing is going to shut these idiots up, save the slow but inevitable eradication of religion from society.
posted by borkingchikapa at 3:02 PM on April 8, 2005
Sites like this make me want to kick puppies.
posted by twiggy at 2:30 PM PST on April 8 [!]
Sites like this makes me want to make Baby Jesus cry.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:04 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by twiggy at 2:30 PM PST on April 8 [!]
Sites like this makes me want to make Baby Jesus cry.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 3:04 PM on April 8, 2005
Speaking as a Christian of the "nonliteral theistic evolutionist" variety, I have long since accepted a modern compromise solution to the creation/evolution debate.
posted by brownpau at 3:07 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by brownpau at 3:07 PM on April 8, 2005
No wonder the christian right hates smart people. It just messes up years of brainwashing and supression of critical thought when someone using their brain comes along and starts talking about trilobites and the cambrian explosion.
These are the kinds of fascist morons that are going to lead to our extinction.
posted by n9 at 3:07 PM on April 8, 2005
These are the kinds of fascist morons that are going to lead to our extinction.
posted by n9 at 3:07 PM on April 8, 2005
On the contrary, Smedleyman! Life on other planets would prove the existence of a Designer (specifically, it would prove the existence of an all-powerful Designer who wants you to go to church on Sunday and who thinks gay marriage is bad)! I mean, what are the chances that life could "evolve", by "chance", not once but twice? I rest my case!
Now if you'll excuse me I need to go check that my giraffe's head isn't exploding.
posted by hattifattener at 3:09 PM on April 8, 2005
Now if you'll excuse me I need to go check that my giraffe's head isn't exploding.
posted by hattifattener at 3:09 PM on April 8, 2005
Wow, I've never actually seen the phrase "The Darwinist Media" before.
The Media sure must have a lot of meetings to keep all its agendas straight.
posted by Wolfdog at 3:09 PM on April 8, 2005
The Media sure must have a lot of meetings to keep all its agendas straight.
posted by Wolfdog at 3:09 PM on April 8, 2005
Sites like this make Baby Jesus cry.
posted by basicchannel at 3:10 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by basicchannel at 3:10 PM on April 8, 2005
That's classic brownpau. And nicely disposes of the inbred conundrum of EveAdam's offspring.
posted by peacay at 3:12 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by peacay at 3:12 PM on April 8, 2005
Summary of website content: "Stupid evolutionists!"
Summary of MeFi comments so far: "Stupid creationists!"
Well, that's not completely accurate. In reality, as I write this, we have one response that leans toward violence, one that suggests exasperation, one that bemoans the ignorance of creationists, and one Appeal to Authority (TM).
What does this presentation do well?
- It communicates a simple message in a simple format.
- It uses eye-catching graphics to communicate its points.
- It breaks its arguments down into easy-to-follow "chunks" that are specifically scaled for screen-by-screen viewing.
Compare to this, this, and this.
Like many others, I'm concerned that we're entering a period of time when religion and superstition are overshadowing science.
However, if we're going to change hearts and minds on this issue, we're going to have to do a better job of making the scientific viewpoint tastier ... more vivid ... and more engaging to Average Joe.
posted by MadeByMark at 3:12 PM on April 8, 2005
Summary of MeFi comments so far: "Stupid creationists!"
Well, that's not completely accurate. In reality, as I write this, we have one response that leans toward violence, one that suggests exasperation, one that bemoans the ignorance of creationists, and one Appeal to Authority (TM).
What does this presentation do well?
- It communicates a simple message in a simple format.
- It uses eye-catching graphics to communicate its points.
- It breaks its arguments down into easy-to-follow "chunks" that are specifically scaled for screen-by-screen viewing.
Compare to this, this, and this.
Like many others, I'm concerned that we're entering a period of time when religion and superstition are overshadowing science.
However, if we're going to change hearts and minds on this issue, we're going to have to do a better job of making the scientific viewpoint tastier ... more vivid ... and more engaging to Average Joe.
posted by MadeByMark at 3:12 PM on April 8, 2005
The scientific "viewpoint"? If you're going to make it seem like science itself is just another viewpoint, you've already given up. The point here is not to cast this issue as a debate between two equally sensible ways of approaching a topic; there is science, which is a way of understanding nature, and there is religious fanaticism, which is a way of controlling people. This is not a debate. It's an instance of several politically-minded groups attempting to manipulate not the scientific discourse itself (because there is virtually no actual scientific debate about whether or not evolution happens, but rather on its mechanisms) but the idea of discourse in such a way that evolutionary science is made to seem like an opinion or "lifestyle" choice (how ironic, the Right's co-opting of that phraseology) rather than a serious and rigorous intellectual endeavor. What we need to do is inculcate a certain amount of respect in people, through schooling and social change, for reality and the actual conditions of life over absurdities and comfortable lies.
posted by clockzero at 3:43 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by clockzero at 3:43 PM on April 8, 2005
Thanks iamck.
I love each and every one of you with all my heart, but some of you need to stop being so easily trolled and recognize parody.
posted by Eamon at 4:48 PM on April 8, 2005
I love each and every one of you with all my heart, but some of you need to stop being so easily trolled and recognize parody.
posted by Eamon at 4:48 PM on April 8, 2005
its not a troll. christians dont deserve any more protection from getting their feelings/ideals hurt than anyone else. get over it.
posted by Satapher at 4:53 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by Satapher at 4:53 PM on April 8, 2005
Please don't lump all religious people / christians in with the zealots and dogmatists. Even atheists like myself have assumptions that we do not reason out.
My main problem with the argument from design is this. The fundamental logical point of it seems to be that: some systems appear too complex to have evolved into that state (especially when we cannot see the intermediate steps), therefore a reduction in complexity is necessitated (occams razor). If we state that a creator god, God, is less complex than the sum of the created systems, doesn't that insult and belittle said God? Aren't we basically saying God is the retard of all possible deities, less complex than his creation? And we are back to the same absurdity we were trying to resolve in the first place; systems of too great a complexity arising from a cause that seems too simple to support said complexity.
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:13 PM on April 8, 2005
My main problem with the argument from design is this. The fundamental logical point of it seems to be that: some systems appear too complex to have evolved into that state (especially when we cannot see the intermediate steps), therefore a reduction in complexity is necessitated (occams razor). If we state that a creator god, God, is less complex than the sum of the created systems, doesn't that insult and belittle said God? Aren't we basically saying God is the retard of all possible deities, less complex than his creation? And we are back to the same absurdity we were trying to resolve in the first place; systems of too great a complexity arising from a cause that seems too simple to support said complexity.
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:13 PM on April 8, 2005
What we need to do is inculcate a certain amount of respect in people, through schooling and social change, for reality and the actual conditions of life over absurdities and comfortable lies.
Which is probably best accomplished by doing "a better job of making the scientific viewpoint tastier ... more vivid ... and more engaging to Average Joe."
Also: If there is disagreement, there is debate, if for no other reason then to attract the people sitting on the fence.
posted by catachresoid at 5:25 PM on April 8, 2005
Which is probably best accomplished by doing "a better job of making the scientific viewpoint tastier ... more vivid ... and more engaging to Average Joe."
Also: If there is disagreement, there is debate, if for no other reason then to attract the people sitting on the fence.
posted by catachresoid at 5:25 PM on April 8, 2005
Brother, I think you threw a straw man in there...."If we state that a creator, God, is less complex...." Who states that? I feel like your argument is based on this premise, but I can't figure out where you got the premise from.
As a Christian, the thing I keep thinking is, why do I care? There's no reason for me to believe all of the work of Moses remains, was translated properly, or was even written by him. Arguing about the specifics of creation is basically taking the oldest and least verifiable document on Earth (the Torah) and pitting it against an expanding, working network of scientists that actively look for any available solution, solutions that can help us understand our modern world as well as our past. It's idiotic.
The big secret: All of Christianity's growth since about 33 AD has been a series of distractions and activities invented to make Christians think they're DOING something instead of just avoiding Jesus' explicit teachings. That why you can't reason with so many of us. It's very important for us to be good Christians, but we're not too keen on loving our neighbors or giving our things to the poor. So, we make up new shit to do and call it God's Work, so we can sleep at night.
Any fellow Christian who's willing to take me up, word for word, on the exact methods God used to create the Earth had better be willing to explain why "Thou shalt not kill" has become optional for us.
*kicks us*
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 5:42 PM on April 8, 2005
As a Christian, the thing I keep thinking is, why do I care? There's no reason for me to believe all of the work of Moses remains, was translated properly, or was even written by him. Arguing about the specifics of creation is basically taking the oldest and least verifiable document on Earth (the Torah) and pitting it against an expanding, working network of scientists that actively look for any available solution, solutions that can help us understand our modern world as well as our past. It's idiotic.
The big secret: All of Christianity's growth since about 33 AD has been a series of distractions and activities invented to make Christians think they're DOING something instead of just avoiding Jesus' explicit teachings. That why you can't reason with so many of us. It's very important for us to be good Christians, but we're not too keen on loving our neighbors or giving our things to the poor. So, we make up new shit to do and call it God's Work, so we can sleep at night.
Any fellow Christian who's willing to take me up, word for word, on the exact methods God used to create the Earth had better be willing to explain why "Thou shalt not kill" has become optional for us.
*kicks us*
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 5:42 PM on April 8, 2005
Aaaugh! I am greatly annoyed. I should have a copy of that book somewhere. The website's missing some of the better jokes in it. (Well, the creationism/evolution joke is the best, but rrrgh.) Also, all of a sudden it's selling for 46 bucks! Teeth-gnashing.
posted by furiousthought at 5:44 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by furiousthought at 5:44 PM on April 8, 2005
great link, brownpau!
posted by madamjujujive at 5:52 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by madamjujujive at 5:52 PM on April 8, 2005
I'm with BrotherCaine on this. Why is it these dolts can't just say "Ok, God invented evolution" - too Spinozan?
Rather than shouting them down or trying to seduce the smoothbrains into believing science works, I think we would be better served figuring out what Machiavellian ends are served with these silly arguments.
Is it that it must be part of the propaganda? The simplicity of it? Is it that it must conform to the bible in some way? If so I don't see a problem with genesis & evolution.
Obviously control of people is the end here, but why such a silly story?
Let's face it, symbiosis clearly points to a Designer.
Perhaps it's a feedback mechanism - once they parrot your goofball story you know you have them. (?) I dunno.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:00 PM on April 8, 2005
Rather than shouting them down or trying to seduce the smoothbrains into believing science works, I think we would be better served figuring out what Machiavellian ends are served with these silly arguments.
Is it that it must be part of the propaganda? The simplicity of it? Is it that it must conform to the bible in some way? If so I don't see a problem with genesis & evolution.
Obviously control of people is the end here, but why such a silly story?
Let's face it, symbiosis clearly points to a Designer.
Perhaps it's a feedback mechanism - once they parrot your goofball story you know you have them. (?) I dunno.
posted by Smedleyman at 6:00 PM on April 8, 2005
Wait, you're saying God meant for all this to happen, that everything was designed?
That lets me know all I need to know about God then - he's obviously insane or has a socipath's sense of humor: men have nipples.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:04 PM on April 8, 2005
That lets me know all I need to know about God then - he's obviously insane or has a socipath's sense of humor: men have nipples.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:04 PM on April 8, 2005
Religious people calling evolution a fairytale. Hmmm... pot, kettle... ?
posted by SirOmega at 8:13 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by SirOmega at 8:13 PM on April 8, 2005
The whole thing is like a one person fight. Evolution is just one more part of 'science', but to some Christians, it is a call to arms. One part of biology is picked out for this kind of attack. Why not dispute gravity?
I swear, it's the whole 'monkey' thing that some Christians just can't live with (though that in itself is a huge misunderstanding of evolution on their part because no one is saying humanity came from monkey. RTFScience!!
posted by UseyurBrain at 8:42 PM on April 8, 2005
I swear, it's the whole 'monkey' thing that some Christians just can't live with (though that in itself is a huge misunderstanding of evolution on their part because no one is saying humanity came from monkey. RTFScience!!
posted by UseyurBrain at 8:42 PM on April 8, 2005
I am a little disappointed that this was overlooked.
Not overlooked; just ignored- cherry-picked quotes from scientists and conspiracy theories from the likes of Phillip Johnson. Boring when it's not outrageous. Like this one:
The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution.
It couldn't be because "purely negative argumentation" doesn't prove anything in any context, no... It must be a conspiracy... For a law professor, he sure doesn't know much about logic.
Quick! Prove to me conclusively that dragons don't exist. Ah, but you cannot! Therefore they do exist and your pitiful attempts to keep this conversation on some rational level are just a vast anti-dragon consipiracy.
Logical Fallacies: Designed to silence the creationists.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:45 PM on April 8, 2005
Not overlooked; just ignored- cherry-picked quotes from scientists and conspiracy theories from the likes of Phillip Johnson. Boring when it's not outrageous. Like this one:
The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution.
It couldn't be because "purely negative argumentation" doesn't prove anything in any context, no... It must be a conspiracy... For a law professor, he sure doesn't know much about logic.
Quick! Prove to me conclusively that dragons don't exist. Ah, but you cannot! Therefore they do exist and your pitiful attempts to keep this conversation on some rational level are just a vast anti-dragon consipiracy.
Logical Fallacies: Designed to silence the creationists.
posted by eustacescrubb at 8:45 PM on April 8, 2005
Why is it these dolts can't just say "Ok, God invented evolution"
i think it has something to do with believing in invisible people who dont eat sleep or shit.
posted by Satapher at 9:32 PM on April 8, 2005
i think it has something to do with believing in invisible people who dont eat sleep or shit.
posted by Satapher at 9:32 PM on April 8, 2005
eustacescrubb
Not overlooked; just ignored- cherry-picked quotes from scientists and conspiracy theories from the likes of Phillip Johnson. Boring when it's not outrageous. Like this one:
Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence." ~ Phillip Johnson
It couldn't be because "purely negative argumentation" doesn't prove anything in any context
What did Johnson claim negative argumentation proved?
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? ~ Richard Lewontin
These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it... Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold." ~ Karl Popper
posted by bevets at 9:46 PM on April 8, 2005
Not overlooked; just ignored- cherry-picked quotes from scientists and conspiracy theories from the likes of Phillip Johnson. Boring when it's not outrageous. Like this one:
Creationists are disqualified from making a positive case, because science by definition is based upon naturalism. The rules of science also disqualify any purely negative argumentation designed to dilute the persuasiveness of the theory of evolution. Creationism is thus out of court and out of the classroom-before any consideration of evidence. Put yourself in the place of a creationist who has been silenced by that logic, and you may feel like a criminal defendant who has just been told that the law does not recognize so absurd a concept as "innocence." ~ Phillip Johnson
It couldn't be because "purely negative argumentation" doesn't prove anything in any context
What did Johnson claim negative argumentation proved?
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular is hopelessly metaphysical, according to the rules of etiquette laid down in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry and widely believed in by practicing scientists who bother to think about the problem. The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? ~ Richard Lewontin
These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it... Once, in 1919, I reported to him a case which to me did not seem particularly Adlerian, but which he found no difficulty in analysing in terms of his theory of inferiority feelings, although he had not even seen the child. Slightly shocked, I asked him how he could be so sure. "Because of my thousandfold experience," he replied; whereupon I could not help saying: "And with this new case, I suppose, your experience has become thousand-and-one-fold." ~ Karl Popper
posted by bevets at 9:46 PM on April 8, 2005
Here we go again...haven't we already had this discussion?
posted by UseyurBrain at 10:09 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by UseyurBrain at 10:09 PM on April 8, 2005
Here we go again...haven't we already had this discussion?
Yes we have. There's some meta meta thing going on where unresolved 'discussions' tail out around 50 - 150 posts, lie dormant for a short while, then come roaring back at the slightest pretext. I'm starting to think of any post mentioning either Darwin or creationism, Jesus or George Bush, to be basically a troll.
posted by scheptech at 10:55 PM on April 8, 2005
Yes we have. There's some meta meta thing going on where unresolved 'discussions' tail out around 50 - 150 posts, lie dormant for a short while, then come roaring back at the slightest pretext. I'm starting to think of any post mentioning either Darwin or creationism, Jesus or George Bush, to be basically a troll.
posted by scheptech at 10:55 PM on April 8, 2005
where is this bevets-bot located, and how does one kill it?
posted by pmbuko at 11:45 PM on April 8, 2005
posted by pmbuko at 11:45 PM on April 8, 2005
Is this "Darwinist Media" something that one can join, maybe?
posted by cmyk at 12:38 AM on April 9, 2005
posted by cmyk at 12:38 AM on April 9, 2005
It couldn't be because "purely negative argumentation" doesn't prove anything in any context
"Look--I came here for an argument. All you're doing is contradicting me."
"No, I'm not."
"There-You did it again!"
"No I didn't"
Aaaaaaaaaah! (Explicit cranial explosion)
But, I couldn't find the link to Landover Baptist Church that I expected to find buried, somwhere, in that site.
posted by beelzbubba at 6:50 AM on April 9, 2005
"Look--I came here for an argument. All you're doing is contradicting me."
"No, I'm not."
"There-You did it again!"
"No I didn't"
Aaaaaaaaaah! (Explicit cranial explosion)
But, I couldn't find the link to Landover Baptist Church that I expected to find buried, somwhere, in that site.
posted by beelzbubba at 6:50 AM on April 9, 2005
Eustace: This is your fault. Just ignore the scab-picker and he'll have nothing to do but scurry around looking for quotes that do not mean what he thinks they mean (inconceivable!).
posted by klangklangston at 8:05 AM on April 9, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 8:05 AM on April 9, 2005
Brother, I think you threw a straw man in there...."If we state that a creator, God, is less complex...." Who states that? I feel like your argument is based on this premise, but I can't figure out where you got the premise from.
Ok, my wording was awful, this comes from being more of a lurker than poster. To explicate, if the argument against evolution theory is that it is too complex a system to exist without a creator, and the 'solution' is to cite a creator, then said creator would have to be less complex than the system, or we've created a more complex problem than the one we were ostensibly trying to solve. Therefore it's a circular argument, based on the fact that the complexities of evolution are examinable (because we can see them) whereas the complexities of a creation system are not (God is unknowable). To go back to the somewhat tired 'blind watchmaker' analogy; isn't the watchmaker much more complex than the watch? If we embrace the idea that a simplified system can create a more complex system, haven't we justified the central tenets of evolution theory?
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:20 AM on April 9, 2005
Ok, my wording was awful, this comes from being more of a lurker than poster. To explicate, if the argument against evolution theory is that it is too complex a system to exist without a creator, and the 'solution' is to cite a creator, then said creator would have to be less complex than the system, or we've created a more complex problem than the one we were ostensibly trying to solve. Therefore it's a circular argument, based on the fact that the complexities of evolution are examinable (because we can see them) whereas the complexities of a creation system are not (God is unknowable). To go back to the somewhat tired 'blind watchmaker' analogy; isn't the watchmaker much more complex than the watch? If we embrace the idea that a simplified system can create a more complex system, haven't we justified the central tenets of evolution theory?
posted by BrotherCaine at 11:20 AM on April 9, 2005
i think it has something to do with believing in invisible people who don't eat sleep or shit.
What the hell? Did you type that on your phone?
Dougunder hit the nail on the head. "All of Christianity's growth since about 33 AD has been a series of distractions and activities invented to make Christians think they're DOING something instead of just avoiding Jesus' explicit teachings."
If I am a poorly-educated, heterosexual white male, and I am interested in getting to heaven, then I've got to show God that I'm the bee's knees. So...what are some sins that I could never be guilty of?
1. Being gay.
2. Having an abortion.
3. Being from Africa. Or...some other place with dragons.
4. Understanding scientific things.
Bingo! I've just constructed a fail-safe ladder to heaven. Now, if I turned around and said that the real sins listed in the New Testament (avarice, divorce, sexual licentiousness, not helping your neighbor) should be avoided at all cost, we (straight white guys) would be in a world of shit. Because, if you really read the book, it outlines some pretty serious repercussions for being greedy. Doesn't say much about evolution and abortions, though.
One of my ministry friends confided in me recently that, "Darwinism will be remembered as the farce of the 20th century." My heart cried a little bit when he said that, because I know how we must look to the unsaved, running around, babbling on and on, defending the most indefensible element of dogma in the O.T. Idiots. Idiots, idiots, idiots. It is senseless, and will only serve to illustrate people's inability to accept or internalize new information.
As a life-long Christian who converses daily with invisible people in the sky who don't shit and can pull money out of dead fish, I would address the young-earthers and the other creationists and say, "Please. Please stop. You are turning our faith into a bad comic strip. You are reducing our credibility and giving them platform upon platform from which to lob the Molotov cocktail of empirical logic onto our heritage and spiritual culture. Find another issue. Anything but this. The church has adapted to scientific inquiry in the past, please don't make this one issue into the millstone that drags us down for good."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:45 AM on April 9, 2005
What the hell? Did you type that on your phone?
Dougunder hit the nail on the head. "All of Christianity's growth since about 33 AD has been a series of distractions and activities invented to make Christians think they're DOING something instead of just avoiding Jesus' explicit teachings."
If I am a poorly-educated, heterosexual white male, and I am interested in getting to heaven, then I've got to show God that I'm the bee's knees. So...what are some sins that I could never be guilty of?
1. Being gay.
2. Having an abortion.
3. Being from Africa. Or...some other place with dragons.
4. Understanding scientific things.
Bingo! I've just constructed a fail-safe ladder to heaven. Now, if I turned around and said that the real sins listed in the New Testament (avarice, divorce, sexual licentiousness, not helping your neighbor) should be avoided at all cost, we (straight white guys) would be in a world of shit. Because, if you really read the book, it outlines some pretty serious repercussions for being greedy. Doesn't say much about evolution and abortions, though.
One of my ministry friends confided in me recently that, "Darwinism will be remembered as the farce of the 20th century." My heart cried a little bit when he said that, because I know how we must look to the unsaved, running around, babbling on and on, defending the most indefensible element of dogma in the O.T. Idiots. Idiots, idiots, idiots. It is senseless, and will only serve to illustrate people's inability to accept or internalize new information.
As a life-long Christian who converses daily with invisible people in the sky who don't shit and can pull money out of dead fish, I would address the young-earthers and the other creationists and say, "Please. Please stop. You are turning our faith into a bad comic strip. You are reducing our credibility and giving them platform upon platform from which to lob the Molotov cocktail of empirical logic onto our heritage and spiritual culture. Find another issue. Anything but this. The church has adapted to scientific inquiry in the past, please don't make this one issue into the millstone that drags us down for good."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 11:45 AM on April 9, 2005
Scientific American: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
I gave up on explaining evolution or even discuss it a long time ago. The aggravation when perfectly intelligent - and normally rational - people just don’t WANT to see anything beyond Christian dogma is just not worth it.
posted by gemmy at 12:28 PM on April 9, 2005
I gave up on explaining evolution or even discuss it a long time ago. The aggravation when perfectly intelligent - and normally rational - people just don’t WANT to see anything beyond Christian dogma is just not worth it.
posted by gemmy at 12:28 PM on April 9, 2005
If this guy has such good proof of a God he should totally get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. That would show us scientists up.
You have to remember that most Christians accept the biological side of evolution and manage to believe in God just fine, as do most other religious people. I work with people who daily reconcile their religious beliefs with their work on natural change in biological systems. That nd their belief in metaphors.
posted by fshgrl at 4:54 PM on April 9, 2005
You have to remember that most Christians accept the biological side of evolution and manage to believe in God just fine, as do most other religious people. I work with people who daily reconcile their religious beliefs with their work on natural change in biological systems. That nd their belief in metaphors.
posted by fshgrl at 4:54 PM on April 9, 2005
I love each and every one of you with all my heart, but some of you need to stop being so easily trolled and recognize parody.
I dunno, I think this one is sincere. The parodies of creationists usually focus on making the creationists look old-fashioned; that one is trying to make fun of the evolutionary theory itself
brownpau, that site is brilliant. I wish I had an extra $46.
posted by mdn at 7:09 PM on April 9, 2005
I dunno, I think this one is sincere. The parodies of creationists usually focus on making the creationists look old-fashioned; that one is trying to make fun of the evolutionary theory itself
brownpau, that site is brilliant. I wish I had an extra $46.
posted by mdn at 7:09 PM on April 9, 2005
What did Johnson claim negative argumentation proved?
He didn't. Pay close attention: he claimed that scientists refusing to accept "purely negative argumentation" was a decision they made for the sole reason of denying creationist arguments. It's an incredibly stupid thing to claim, since not accepting purely negative arguments is and has been a pillar of logical argument for millennia. Johnson wants to be able to use negative arguments to promote creationism because there are no positive arguments for it, and rather than accepting that this means creationism is therefore a belief, not the result of logical resoning or deduction based on evidence*, and being happy with that, as many religious people are, he wants to change the rules of argument so that he can pretend his religious belief is scientific. To do that, he has to make science something other than what it is, which means he cares more for his agenda than for science or the truth.
As for your new cherry-picked quotes, they are more damning to creation "science" than to the theory of evolution, and they're only really pointing out that every discourse has a set of presumptions on which it is based, which are a priori.
Science's presumptions include that the world is explainable and that it is worth explaining, and that these explanations can usually be done in naturalistic terms. Intelligent Design is not science partly because it denies all of these on some level. That means that, whatever it is, it is not science, because it denies the foundational claims of science. It would be very like claiming to be Christian but with the caveats that Jesus was unimportant, and God did not exist and redemption was impossible. Such a person might have beliefs about Christianity, but the nature of those beliefs would disqualify them form membership; the same is true of ID - people who promote ID may have ideas about science, but their ideas are antithetical to the foundational claims of scientific discourse, and as such, they are not scientists.
And that's okay, really, until one group tries to be deceptive and pretend it is a part of another group, when its real agenda is to undermine the group in which it's faking membership. That's what ID folks are doing. It's called "lying" and it also bearing false witness against God and creation† since its goal is to pass of lies as truth in the name of upholding a henmenutics that has been made obsolete by the real world.
*It is also the result of sloppy reading of text in the book of Genesis, but since you seem to have reading comprehension issues even with thinkers, like Johnson, with whom you agree, it's probably unfair to expect you to recognize that.
† I am one of those who believe in God and thinks evolution is a mechanism God set in motion.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:39 AM on April 10, 2005
He didn't. Pay close attention: he claimed that scientists refusing to accept "purely negative argumentation" was a decision they made for the sole reason of denying creationist arguments. It's an incredibly stupid thing to claim, since not accepting purely negative arguments is and has been a pillar of logical argument for millennia. Johnson wants to be able to use negative arguments to promote creationism because there are no positive arguments for it, and rather than accepting that this means creationism is therefore a belief, not the result of logical resoning or deduction based on evidence*, and being happy with that, as many religious people are, he wants to change the rules of argument so that he can pretend his religious belief is scientific. To do that, he has to make science something other than what it is, which means he cares more for his agenda than for science or the truth.
As for your new cherry-picked quotes, they are more damning to creation "science" than to the theory of evolution, and they're only really pointing out that every discourse has a set of presumptions on which it is based, which are a priori.
Science's presumptions include that the world is explainable and that it is worth explaining, and that these explanations can usually be done in naturalistic terms. Intelligent Design is not science partly because it denies all of these on some level. That means that, whatever it is, it is not science, because it denies the foundational claims of science. It would be very like claiming to be Christian but with the caveats that Jesus was unimportant, and God did not exist and redemption was impossible. Such a person might have beliefs about Christianity, but the nature of those beliefs would disqualify them form membership; the same is true of ID - people who promote ID may have ideas about science, but their ideas are antithetical to the foundational claims of scientific discourse, and as such, they are not scientists.
And that's okay, really, until one group tries to be deceptive and pretend it is a part of another group, when its real agenda is to undermine the group in which it's faking membership. That's what ID folks are doing. It's called "lying" and it also bearing false witness against God and creation† since its goal is to pass of lies as truth in the name of upholding a henmenutics that has been made obsolete by the real world.
*It is also the result of sloppy reading of text in the book of Genesis, but since you seem to have reading comprehension issues even with thinkers, like Johnson, with whom you agree, it's probably unfair to expect you to recognize that.
† I am one of those who believe in God and thinks evolution is a mechanism God set in motion.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:39 AM on April 10, 2005
that's hermenutics. "Preview" only works if you use it...
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:40 AM on April 10, 2005
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:40 AM on April 10, 2005
Ouch. Talk about handing him his ass on a plate.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:30 PM on April 10, 2005
posted by five fresh fish at 8:30 PM on April 10, 2005
Well, I had to make sure he got his $5 worth...
posted by eustacescrubb at 2:19 AM on April 11, 2005
posted by eustacescrubb at 2:19 AM on April 11, 2005
« Older In your face | Google Maps and Craigslist Sitting in a Tree Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by twiggy at 2:30 PM on April 8, 2005