2000 light years away
February 8, 2007 5:45 AM Subscribe
"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it" says Bishop Boniface Adoyo of Nairobi Pentecostal Church, who is championing the 'hide-the-fossils' campaign to force the National Museums of Kenya to not discredit the Christian belief of a universe that is only a few thousand years old.
im in ur cultr hidn ur smartz
Sorry. I'm allowed at least one crack at that meme. At least it wasn't "LOLXTIANS" though "Christ, what an asshole" was sure tempting.
posted by sourwookie at 6:07 AM on February 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
Sorry. I'm allowed at least one crack at that meme. At least it wasn't "LOLXTIANS" though "Christ, what an asshole" was sure tempting.
posted by sourwookie at 6:07 AM on February 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
It's weird how crazy evangelical "christianity" spread from America to africa and basically nowhere else in the world.
posted by nightchrome at 6:13 AM on February 8, 2007
posted by nightchrome at 6:13 AM on February 8, 2007
"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it"Small point of evidence in favor of the good Bishop's position:
Were it explained to him, Turkana Boy probably would've found evolution clear and reasonable.
posted by Flunkie at 6:19 AM on February 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
lol creationists.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:23 AM on February 8, 2007
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:23 AM on February 8, 2007
Ali Chege, public relations manager for the National Museums of Kenya: "But things can get tricky when you have religious beliefs on one side, and intellectuals, scientists, or researchers on the other, saying the opposite."
There's nothing "tricky" about it. One side has peer review, the scientific method and physical evidence, the other side expects to be taken at their word. Embarrassing.
People who claim that evolution is false should, on principle, vow never to avail themselves any medicines, therapies or other technology that has emerged from that school of thought. Make them walk the walk, then we can be rid of them.
posted by Scoo at 6:24 AM on February 8, 2007
There's nothing "tricky" about it. One side has peer review, the scientific method and physical evidence, the other side expects to be taken at their word. Embarrassing.
People who claim that evolution is false should, on principle, vow never to avail themselves any medicines, therapies or other technology that has emerged from that school of thought. Make them walk the walk, then we can be rid of them.
posted by Scoo at 6:24 AM on February 8, 2007
There's nothing "tricky" about it.
Right, because the only thing museum directors have to worry about is SCIENCE. Are you planning to fund the museum yourself if need be?
posted by languagehat at 6:27 AM on February 8, 2007
Right, because the only thing museum directors have to worry about is SCIENCE. Are you planning to fund the museum yourself if need be?
posted by languagehat at 6:27 AM on February 8, 2007
1. This guy is from "Christ is the Answer Ministries", a peripheral group if ever there was one.
2. The fact that this made the news is evidence that it is not the status quo, and is thus unrepresentative of Christianity in Africa.
3. Teh Christian Crazy is well-distributed across the whole world, not just America and Africa.
4. LOLXIANS.
5. Pull down de pants and hide de fossils.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 6:27 AM on February 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
2. The fact that this made the news is evidence that it is not the status quo, and is thus unrepresentative of Christianity in Africa.
3. Teh Christian Crazy is well-distributed across the whole world, not just America and Africa.
4. LOLXIANS.
5. Pull down de pants and hide de fossils.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 6:27 AM on February 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
Didn't Turkana Boy come over on the Mayflower?
It's all so confusing.
posted by parki at 6:28 AM on February 8, 2007
It's all so confusing.
posted by parki at 6:28 AM on February 8, 2007
Right, because the only thing museum directors have to worry about is SCIENCE. Are you planning to fund the museum yourself if need be?
You need to read my whole post, not just the first sentence. If the Pentecostals start bitching about heliocentrism, should he have his PR flak walk on egg shells in that case as well? Museum directors have a great many concerns, appeasing religious nuts should not be one of them.
posted by Scoo at 6:37 AM on February 8, 2007
You need to read my whole post, not just the first sentence. If the Pentecostals start bitching about heliocentrism, should he have his PR flak walk on egg shells in that case as well? Museum directors have a great many concerns, appeasing religious nuts should not be one of them.
posted by Scoo at 6:37 AM on February 8, 2007
Unless the religious nuts have political support, which I'm guessing they do, or else the director wouldn't be walking on eggshells.
posted by languagehat at 6:48 AM on February 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by languagehat at 6:48 AM on February 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it"
"Humans have an infinite capacity for self delusion" - Dr. John Smith, UNIT Scientific Advisor.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 6:58 AM on February 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
"Humans have an infinite capacity for self delusion" - Dr. John Smith, UNIT Scientific Advisor.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 6:58 AM on February 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
The fact that this made the news is evidence that it is not the status quo, and is thus unrepresentative of Christianity in Africa.
Unless Africa is more enlightened than America, I find this statement unsupportable.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:02 AM on February 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
Unless Africa is more enlightened than America, I find this statement unsupportable.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 7:02 AM on February 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
John Kenneth Fisher :"Humans have an infinite capacity for self delusion" - Dr. John Smith, UNIT Scientific Advisor.
Don't you think he sorta lost all credibility after what he did to the Robbinson family?
posted by RavinDave at 7:07 AM on February 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
Don't you think he sorta lost all credibility after what he did to the Robbinson family?
posted by RavinDave at 7:07 AM on February 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
Science needs to hurry up and invent a time machine so that we can go back and talk to Jesus and hopefully hear him say, "Christ, what an asshole".
posted by Cat Pie Hurts at 7:10 AM on February 8, 2007
posted by Cat Pie Hurts at 7:10 AM on February 8, 2007
As the Director of the Godwin Museum of Military History, I'm often being asked by my funders not to display certain items, items that these fucking Nazi bastards don't wa-
Sorry, I'll start again.
As the Director of the Godwin Museum of Military History, I'm often being asked by my funders not to display certain items, items that, in their opinion, only obfuscate a number of complex issues surrounding the history of vile fucking Nazi assho-
Sorry - sorry again. Let me try that one more time.
As the Director of the Godwin Museum of Military History, I'm often being asked by my funders not to display certain items, items that, in their opinion, only obfuscate a number of complex issues surrounding the history of the second World War. Hence I can sympathise with the position that the National Museums of Kenya find themselves in.
And, if you don't agree with me, you're a stupid Nazi-fucker who wants to kill Jews.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 7:24 AM on February 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
Sorry, I'll start again.
As the Director of the Godwin Museum of Military History, I'm often being asked by my funders not to display certain items, items that, in their opinion, only obfuscate a number of complex issues surrounding the history of vile fucking Nazi assho-
Sorry - sorry again. Let me try that one more time.
As the Director of the Godwin Museum of Military History, I'm often being asked by my funders not to display certain items, items that, in their opinion, only obfuscate a number of complex issues surrounding the history of the second World War. Hence I can sympathise with the position that the National Museums of Kenya find themselves in.
And, if you don't agree with me, you're a stupid Nazi-fucker who wants to kill Jews.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 7:24 AM on February 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
You people need to shut your dad-damn mouths. Me H. Me!
posted by ColdChef at 7:25 AM on February 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by ColdChef at 7:25 AM on February 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
I don't suppose anyone evolved from poor old Turkana Boy, did they? I mean, the clue's in the name.
Someone should tell the Bishop this is science, which exists in a different realm from religion. Alright, we can't produce any scriptural texts or miracles, or mystic testimony to support our scientific beliefs, but that doesn't mean they aren't aren't true in their own way, quite different from the theologically verifiable items of faith.
posted by Phanx at 7:27 AM on February 8, 2007
Someone should tell the Bishop this is science, which exists in a different realm from religion. Alright, we can't produce any scriptural texts or miracles, or mystic testimony to support our scientific beliefs, but that doesn't mean they aren't aren't true in their own way, quite different from the theologically verifiable items of faith.
posted by Phanx at 7:27 AM on February 8, 2007
aren't most Christians in Africa Catholics, who mostly (other then Michael Behe) believe in evolution?
posted by delmoi at 7:30 AM on February 8, 2007
posted by delmoi at 7:30 AM on February 8, 2007
Some US congregations that are unhappy with their churches' positions on homosexuality are splitting off and alligning with African churches.
I don't begrudge anyone their fantasies, but when they start to impinge on others' rights to describe and advance our understanding of reality... well, I don't know what then. I get frustrated. I guess that's about it.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:30 AM on February 8, 2007
They plan to set up a body called the Anglican District of Virginia under the auspices of the Nigerian primate, Archbishop Peter Akinola, who backs the Nigerian government's plans to make even meetings of gays illegal.Primate. Ha ha!
I don't begrudge anyone their fantasies, but when they start to impinge on others' rights to describe and advance our understanding of reality... well, I don't know what then. I get frustrated. I guess that's about it.
posted by ibmcginty at 7:30 AM on February 8, 2007
in lieu of expresing my outrage, I'll ask: Is the FPP title a reference to Green Day? Hmmm..."Hold my malakite so tight, I'll never let go" If so, bravo.
posted by Brainy at 7:31 AM on February 8, 2007
posted by Brainy at 7:31 AM on February 8, 2007
Someone should tell the Bishop this is science, which exists in a different realm from religion.
The scientific realm is reality, religion is a realm of make-believe. Creationists have no evidence, no explanation for vestigial organs, no comprehensible defintion of the supernatural being they call "God". They have as much credence as those wingnut Raelians.
posted by disgruntled at 7:39 AM on February 8, 2007
The scientific realm is reality, religion is a realm of make-believe. Creationists have no evidence, no explanation for vestigial organs, no comprehensible defintion of the supernatural being they call "God". They have as much credence as those wingnut Raelians.
posted by disgruntled at 7:39 AM on February 8, 2007
the Christian belief of a universe that is only a few thousand years old.
Catholics don't believe that nor, afaik, do Anglicans or the more mainstream Protestant theologies. If you mean "fundamentalist Christian" please say so!
posted by fshgrl at 7:39 AM on February 8, 2007
Catholics don't believe that nor, afaik, do Anglicans or the more mainstream Protestant theologies. If you mean "fundamentalist Christian" please say so!
posted by fshgrl at 7:39 AM on February 8, 2007
You need to read my whole post, not just the first sentence. If the Pentecostals start bitching about heliocentrism, should he have his PR flak walk on egg shells in that case as well? Museum directors have a great many concerns, appeasing religious nuts should not be one of them.
C'mon, that's a lame comparison. I'm as much an evolutionist as they come, but being raised Catholic and working in a Catholic school, it's really not hard to see where this is an issue for museums which languagehat has already touched on.
You can't see evolution like you can see the earth revolve around the sun. Sure, there's fossils and dna and all that jazz. However, evolution is a tab bit more subtle than heliocentrism. It's a process; something which occurs over time and often times takes generations to manifest itself. Heliocentrism is just how things are. Two completely different scientific scenarios we're dealing with.
Like it or not, Evolution is something people in the public sector who need to solicit funds needs to be cognizant of. It boils my blood like no other when I hear a parent rant about evolution and how we should be teaching creationism. However, like the director, there's more kosher ways of approaching the situation than calling him/her an ignorant asshat. There's a very fine line to maintain with keeping integrity of truth and not pissing off the public.
posted by jmd82 at 7:42 AM on February 8, 2007
C'mon, that's a lame comparison. I'm as much an evolutionist as they come, but being raised Catholic and working in a Catholic school, it's really not hard to see where this is an issue for museums which languagehat has already touched on.
You can't see evolution like you can see the earth revolve around the sun. Sure, there's fossils and dna and all that jazz. However, evolution is a tab bit more subtle than heliocentrism. It's a process; something which occurs over time and often times takes generations to manifest itself. Heliocentrism is just how things are. Two completely different scientific scenarios we're dealing with.
Like it or not, Evolution is something people in the public sector who need to solicit funds needs to be cognizant of. It boils my blood like no other when I hear a parent rant about evolution and how we should be teaching creationism. However, like the director, there's more kosher ways of approaching the situation than calling him/her an ignorant asshat. There's a very fine line to maintain with keeping integrity of truth and not pissing off the public.
posted by jmd82 at 7:42 AM on February 8, 2007
"I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything like it"
Who said he was evolved?
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 7:47 AM on February 8, 2007
Who said he was evolved?
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 7:47 AM on February 8, 2007
monju_bosatsu: lol creationists.
lol, creationism.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 7:53 AM on February 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
lol, creationism.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 7:53 AM on February 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
Ah, belief. Where would we be without it.
posted by smallerdemon at 8:04 AM on February 8, 2007
posted by smallerdemon at 8:04 AM on February 8, 2007
Hey, there is absolutely nothing wrong with belief.
It's inflicting that belief on others that is the problem.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:07 AM on February 8, 2007
It's inflicting that belief on others that is the problem.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:07 AM on February 8, 2007
you should qualify that as "religious belief". without belief of any kind, all epistemology goes out the window.
posted by phaedon at 8:22 AM on February 8, 2007
posted by phaedon at 8:22 AM on February 8, 2007
I chose Heliocentrism for historical purposes, as an example of scientific fact long suppressed by religious authorities for it's direct contradiction of scripture.
As for not pissing of the public, the public will get the museum they deserve.
And for the record, I have made no accusations of asshattery.
posted by Scoo at 8:23 AM on February 8, 2007
As for not pissing of the public, the public will get the museum they deserve.
And for the record, I have made no accusations of asshattery.
posted by Scoo at 8:23 AM on February 8, 2007
I'd like to speak up for "Cathloics don't believe that anymore".
One has to distinguish between what the Holy See declares and what Catholics actually do, or believe. This can work both ways: for example, Catholics tend to use birth control, despite it being forbidden.
At the same time, in Sunday school the old canard of "well, a day is but a thousand years" was - and, as far as I am aware, stil is - used to account for Genesis. Well after Pope Pius XII's declaration of neutrality on evolution in 1950, and well after Vatican II.
My sister, a strong Catholic, doesn't believe in evolution. Obviously, this changes depending on culture and education. But while it is technically accurate to say that Catholics believe in evolution (given that the Vatican recognises it, however torturously), it is also true that the Vatican can sometimes be more progressive than the majority of the laity.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 8:41 AM on February 8, 2007
One has to distinguish between what the Holy See declares and what Catholics actually do, or believe. This can work both ways: for example, Catholics tend to use birth control, despite it being forbidden.
At the same time, in Sunday school the old canard of "well, a day is but a thousand years" was - and, as far as I am aware, stil is - used to account for Genesis. Well after Pope Pius XII's declaration of neutrality on evolution in 1950, and well after Vatican II.
My sister, a strong Catholic, doesn't believe in evolution. Obviously, this changes depending on culture and education. But while it is technically accurate to say that Catholics believe in evolution (given that the Vatican recognises it, however torturously), it is also true that the Vatican can sometimes be more progressive than the majority of the laity.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 8:41 AM on February 8, 2007
It would be interesting to do a research paper exploring the extent to which this is just another example of Americans screwing over Africans. That is, in this case, through cultural imperialism.
That is, certainly Africans had their own cosmogony (anthrogony?) before the more recent mass shift to Christianity; but would those beliefs have been more or less likely to interfere with the expansion of scientific knowledge?
posted by gurple at 9:17 AM on February 8, 2007
That is, certainly Africans had their own cosmogony (anthrogony?) before the more recent mass shift to Christianity; but would those beliefs have been more or less likely to interfere with the expansion of scientific knowledge?
posted by gurple at 9:17 AM on February 8, 2007
You can't see evolution like you can see the earth revolve around the sun.
Not to be pendantic, but other than some astronauts very few people have actually seen that either. Heliocentrism is accepted because it is the theory that best explains the available data, same as evolution.
posted by InfidelZombie at 9:19 AM on February 8, 2007
Not to be pendantic, but other than some astronauts very few people have actually seen that either. Heliocentrism is accepted because it is the theory that best explains the available data, same as evolution.
posted by InfidelZombie at 9:19 AM on February 8, 2007
What I don't get is how Religious People get to say "This is an insult to Christianity!!" but I've never seen Scientists picketing in front of a place of worship, because "This is an insult to Science!" A lof of scientist are religious, and know that there are holes in what science can explain. One of my professors (a priest) put it this way, "The evolution of the human form is one thing, the soul is another". Lots of people have come to this conclusion, and the idea of evolution hasn't made them question their faith. If someone saying "hey, we think human bodies evolved from ape bodies" can make you wrestle with your faith... well, how does the saying go? "faith that weak needs the excercise".
And don't even get me started on not wanting to expose kids to scientific research... facts! oh no!!
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 9:21 AM on February 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
And don't even get me started on not wanting to expose kids to scientific research... facts! oh no!!
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 9:21 AM on February 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
One time I had a very long conversation with a devout Mormon about religion and science. His single problem with evolution was that, by his understanding, humans have souls but animals don't. If human evolution is a slow progression from non-human animal to human, at what point do these animals start to have souls?
I.e., was there some particular tribe of apes somewhere that crossed some threshold and then, BAM, it's Everybody Gets a Soul Day?
The problem isn't trivial, I don't think, if you buy into the whole God and Soul thing.
posted by gurple at 9:34 AM on February 8, 2007
I.e., was there some particular tribe of apes somewhere that crossed some threshold and then, BAM, it's Everybody Gets a Soul Day?
The problem isn't trivial, I don't think, if you buy into the whole God and Soul thing.
posted by gurple at 9:34 AM on February 8, 2007
I don't see how it's harder to believe "bam! God gives Lucy a soul" than "bam! humans appear out of nowhere with souls included ".
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 9:40 AM on February 8, 2007
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 9:40 AM on February 8, 2007
I don't see how it's harder to believe...
A fancy old book tells you one of those things. It doesn't tell you the other.
I don't agree with either of them, personally, but I sure wish there was an easy way for the more hard-line churches to rationalize away the conflict.
posted by gurple at 9:44 AM on February 8, 2007
A fancy old book tells you one of those things. It doesn't tell you the other.
I don't agree with either of them, personally, but I sure wish there was an easy way for the more hard-line churches to rationalize away the conflict.
posted by gurple at 9:44 AM on February 8, 2007
These are the same people who believe you can cure AIDS by screwing virgins, right?
posted by gottabefunky at 9:50 AM on February 8, 2007
posted by gottabefunky at 9:50 AM on February 8, 2007
The weird thing is the Bible itself contains two creation stories, and they don't agree. How do these people keep their concept of literal inerrancy alive in the face of actual direct contradictions between parts of the same supposedly inerrant document? They don't actually read it, instead they depend upon the statements of others who claim to have read it and understand it in a special way unavailable to them.
This crap about "When did the soul become infused?" are like quibbling about how high the color red is. Made up stuff to amuse and amaze the children. Because, by all means, don't tell them the truth. They won't stay in line, won't give money, and will take away your power.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:00 AM on February 8, 2007
This crap about "When did the soul become infused?" are like quibbling about how high the color red is. Made up stuff to amuse and amaze the children. Because, by all means, don't tell them the truth. They won't stay in line, won't give money, and will take away your power.
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:00 AM on February 8, 2007
One time I had a very long conversation with a devout Mormon about religion and science. His single problem with evolution was that, by his understanding, humans have souls but animals don't. If human evolution is a slow progression from non-human animal to human, at what point do these animals start to have souls?
I.e., was there some particular tribe of apes somewhere that crossed some threshold and then, BAM, it's Everybody Gets a Soul Day?
The prophet believed a man could become a god, so I don't really see the doctrinal issues with animals becoming ensouled. At least not from the point of view of consistency.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:08 AM on February 8, 2007
I.e., was there some particular tribe of apes somewhere that crossed some threshold and then, BAM, it's Everybody Gets a Soul Day?
The prophet believed a man could become a god, so I don't really see the doctrinal issues with animals becoming ensouled. At least not from the point of view of consistency.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:08 AM on February 8, 2007
"You can't see evolution like you can see the earth revolve around the sun.
Not to be pendantic, but other than some astronauts very few people have actually seen that either."
*blinks*
You can work it out for yourself pretty easily with a $500 telescope, an accurate clock, and a couple of books on algebra, geometry and trigonometry. Hell, you don't even need the telescope, just a decent pair of binoculars on an equatorial mount tripod with the degrees marked on it.
There have apparently been ancient cultures that figured this fact out without any modern tools, too. A pretty smart guy even figured out not only that the world was spherical, but also its circumference to within 1%, using a vertical stick stuck in the ground - about 2,250 years ago.
Just because you're too lazy to verify the evidence for yourself doesn't mean it's not verfiable as fact.
And if you are too lazy to verify things for yourself, you might wanna think about trusting people who work their asses off for their entire lives pursuing such factual, verifiable evidence.
Not saying that describes you, InfidelZombie. I'm offering that generally.
posted by zoogleplex at 10:33 AM on February 8, 2007
Not to be pendantic, but other than some astronauts very few people have actually seen that either."
*blinks*
You can work it out for yourself pretty easily with a $500 telescope, an accurate clock, and a couple of books on algebra, geometry and trigonometry. Hell, you don't even need the telescope, just a decent pair of binoculars on an equatorial mount tripod with the degrees marked on it.
There have apparently been ancient cultures that figured this fact out without any modern tools, too. A pretty smart guy even figured out not only that the world was spherical, but also its circumference to within 1%, using a vertical stick stuck in the ground - about 2,250 years ago.
Just because you're too lazy to verify the evidence for yourself doesn't mean it's not verfiable as fact.
And if you are too lazy to verify things for yourself, you might wanna think about trusting people who work their asses off for their entire lives pursuing such factual, verifiable evidence.
Not saying that describes you, InfidelZombie. I'm offering that generally.
posted by zoogleplex at 10:33 AM on February 8, 2007
Catholics don't believe that nor, afaik, do Anglicans or the more mainstream Protestant theologies. If you mean "fundamentalist Christian" please say so!
Actually, belief in creationism over the evolution of man from monkeys is a majority position in the US. Catholics as a group are a bit less around the bend on this issue than Protestants:
God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible
All: 53%
Men: 45%
Women: 60%
18-29: 54%
30-49: 50%
50-64: 50%
65 and older: 60%
By income level
$75K and up: 37%
$50K-$74.9K: 51%
$30K-$49.9K: 56%
Under 20K: 70%
By religion
Catholic: 38%
Protestant: 66%
Non-Christian: 15%
None: 16%
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:39 AM on February 8, 2007
Actually, belief in creationism over the evolution of man from monkeys is a majority position in the US. Catholics as a group are a bit less around the bend on this issue than Protestants:
God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible
All: 53%
Men: 45%
Women: 60%
18-29: 54%
30-49: 50%
50-64: 50%
65 and older: 60%
By income level
$75K and up: 37%
$50K-$74.9K: 51%
$30K-$49.9K: 56%
Under 20K: 70%
By religion
Catholic: 38%
Protestant: 66%
Non-Christian: 15%
None: 16%
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:39 AM on February 8, 2007
I did not evolve from Turhan Bey. Just thought you should know.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 10:47 AM on February 8, 2007
posted by Horace Rumpole at 10:47 AM on February 8, 2007
God created human beings in their present form exactly as described in the Bible
By religion
Catholic: 38%
Protestant: 66%
Non-Christian: 15%
None: 16%
That last figure... and the one above it... *sobs*
posted by vorfeed at 10:48 AM on February 8, 2007
By religion
Catholic: 38%
Protestant: 66%
Non-Christian: 15%
None: 16%
That last figure... and the one above it... *sobs*
posted by vorfeed at 10:48 AM on February 8, 2007
zoogleplex-- sounds to me like you're describing a pretty good connection between theory and data...
posted by InfidelZombie at 10:54 AM on February 8, 2007
posted by InfidelZombie at 10:54 AM on February 8, 2007
True, but no other theory is as strongly backed by the data. This "theory" is more like what people colloquially call "fact," similar to how most rocks are hard and water is wet.
And btw, you might want to ask some microbiologists about whether you can see evolution happening or not.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:43 AM on February 8, 2007
And btw, you might want to ask some microbiologists about whether you can see evolution happening or not.
posted by zoogleplex at 11:43 AM on February 8, 2007
Isn't it hard to reconcile a loving god and evolution? How many species went extinct, how much pain and fear had to be felt by mammals so that humanity could finaly arise? Very wasteful.
posted by vertriebskonzept at 12:39 PM on February 8, 2007
posted by vertriebskonzept at 12:39 PM on February 8, 2007
From teh article:The Big Bang Theory explains that about 14 billion years ago, a cosmic explosion occurred marking the beginning of universe as life simple cells were transformed to complex creatures.
Top notch reporting of the scientismic knowing.
Bu the scariest thing about this is the possibility of some incensed wingnut taking to the remains with the hammer of righteousness.
posted by Sparx at 12:41 PM on February 8, 2007
Top notch reporting of the scientismic knowing.
Bu the scariest thing about this is the possibility of some incensed wingnut taking to the remains with the hammer of righteousness.
posted by Sparx at 12:41 PM on February 8, 2007
zoogleplex-- do you think I don't believe the earth revolves around the sun? It seems like you're arguing with me, and I'm not sure why. Please read my original comment again, remembering that the italicized part comes from jmd82's comment.
posted by InfidelZombie at 1:13 PM on February 8, 2007
posted by InfidelZombie at 1:13 PM on February 8, 2007
vertribskonzept: Is it not equally hard to reconcile a loving god and twenty minutes of watching local or 24-hour cable news?
posted by absalom at 1:44 PM on February 8, 2007
posted by absalom at 1:44 PM on February 8, 2007
Infidel: I'm speaking to jmd82 and generally as regards seeing evolution. Sorry I didn't make that clear. No argument with you intended.
posted by zoogleplex at 1:52 PM on February 8, 2007
posted by zoogleplex at 1:52 PM on February 8, 2007
Sparx writes "Top notch reporting of the scientismic knowing."
How about this one: "Origin of species explains how animals adapt to the environment. It posits that the fittest animals that are able to adapt to their environment evolve. This is what led Darwin to coin the term 'survival of the fittest'. The book explains that man lost his tail because he did not need it to climb trees anymore."
The journalist is a fucking embarrassment.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:18 PM on February 8, 2007
How about this one: "Origin of species explains how animals adapt to the environment. It posits that the fittest animals that are able to adapt to their environment evolve. This is what led Darwin to coin the term 'survival of the fittest'. The book explains that man lost his tail because he did not need it to climb trees anymore."
The journalist is a fucking embarrassment.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:18 PM on February 8, 2007
It seems that science is just too hard for people, when giving in and accepting doctrine is relatively easy. Of course, the same quantum mechanics that allows for the nuclear weapons chowderheads so desperately desire are also responsible for the radiological dating methods that they so heartily disbelieve in, but consistency has never been a strong point in humans.
Ah, if only we could pass a law wherein people had to register their beliefs and live by them. Against animal testing? Well, we'll just have to leave you out for all medicines ever tested on animals. You think stem cell research is the Devil? Ah, in twenty years, when you'd like that nice new kidney, we'll have to show you the form you signed. Disbelieve in all of that science mumbo-jumbo? Nifty - no technology for you.
posted by adipocere at 5:06 PM on February 8, 2007
Ah, if only we could pass a law wherein people had to register their beliefs and live by them. Against animal testing? Well, we'll just have to leave you out for all medicines ever tested on animals. You think stem cell research is the Devil? Ah, in twenty years, when you'd like that nice new kidney, we'll have to show you the form you signed. Disbelieve in all of that science mumbo-jumbo? Nifty - no technology for you.
posted by adipocere at 5:06 PM on February 8, 2007
I just forwarded this to my Kenyan girlfriend. I think im in trouble. She didnt speak to me for a week after I bought "The God Delusion".
posted by gergtreble at 5:36 PM on February 8, 2007
posted by gergtreble at 5:36 PM on February 8, 2007
To be accurate, the Vatican doesn't actually teach in favor or evolution. Rather, that evolution or creationism are fine in the Church's eyes. What matters is the belief of man's soul is present in the body via God.
That said, I've yet to hear of a Catholic school having an issue of teaching evolution in the science classroom.
And btw, you might want to ask some microbiologists about whether you can see evolution happening or not.
If you're referring to bugs becoming resistant to antibiotics and being more resistant to drugs, that's not commonly taught as evolution. I forget the exact reason why, but there was a good one at the time that convinced me so...hmmmm, anyone know?
Isn't it hard to reconcile a loving god and evolution? How many species went extinct, how much pain and fear had to be felt by mammals so that humanity could finally arise? Very wasteful.
Not really. The official Church response would be animals don't have a soul, so who cares?
Personally, no more pain and fear were inflicted on other animals than would have happened if homo sapiens were POOF created. Evolution doesn't have terribly much to do with pain and fear, but rather certain genetic traits propagating for various reasons.
It seems that science is just too hard for people, when giving in and accepting doctrine is relatively easy.
I think that's fairly accurate. I was thinking about this whole topic today.
I have what used to be a friend until he went batshitinsane. And by that, I mean he's 100% creationist, pre-Vatican II, thinks Catholics shouldn't read CS Lewis because he was too spiritual and not grounded enough in something or another. The thing that gets me is he an extremely book-smart man. I mean, he knows his shit and probably knows more facts about Evolution and most scientists. He studies for fun. Yet, he outright rejects what he reads for some idealogical belief that really has no bearing on the validity of his other beliefs whatsoever. I understand most of the religious-right as I was raised in that atmosphere, but people like him truly puzzle me. The kicker is he is also very charismatic and helps to lead youth groups, and it scares the hell out of me. It's like he has to cling on to something to the death, not due to ignorance, but rather because he can't let go. It's insane. And it sucks because there are a lot like him, whom no matter how much reason you throw at them, will reject it.
posted by jmd82 at 7:21 PM on February 8, 2007
That said, I've yet to hear of a Catholic school having an issue of teaching evolution in the science classroom.
And btw, you might want to ask some microbiologists about whether you can see evolution happening or not.
If you're referring to bugs becoming resistant to antibiotics and being more resistant to drugs, that's not commonly taught as evolution. I forget the exact reason why, but there was a good one at the time that convinced me so...hmmmm, anyone know?
Isn't it hard to reconcile a loving god and evolution? How many species went extinct, how much pain and fear had to be felt by mammals so that humanity could finally arise? Very wasteful.
Not really. The official Church response would be animals don't have a soul, so who cares?
Personally, no more pain and fear were inflicted on other animals than would have happened if homo sapiens were POOF created. Evolution doesn't have terribly much to do with pain and fear, but rather certain genetic traits propagating for various reasons.
It seems that science is just too hard for people, when giving in and accepting doctrine is relatively easy.
I think that's fairly accurate. I was thinking about this whole topic today.
I have what used to be a friend until he went batshitinsane. And by that, I mean he's 100% creationist, pre-Vatican II, thinks Catholics shouldn't read CS Lewis because he was too spiritual and not grounded enough in something or another. The thing that gets me is he an extremely book-smart man. I mean, he knows his shit and probably knows more facts about Evolution and most scientists. He studies for fun. Yet, he outright rejects what he reads for some idealogical belief that really has no bearing on the validity of his other beliefs whatsoever. I understand most of the religious-right as I was raised in that atmosphere, but people like him truly puzzle me. The kicker is he is also very charismatic and helps to lead youth groups, and it scares the hell out of me. It's like he has to cling on to something to the death, not due to ignorance, but rather because he can't let go. It's insane. And it sucks because there are a lot like him, whom no matter how much reason you throw at them, will reject it.
posted by jmd82 at 7:21 PM on February 8, 2007
I believe in a God so Big and Powerful, that SCIENCE! is no threat to the Diety. In fact, like nearly everything else, it simply serves to glorify Him.
These silly 'fundamentalists' are no fun, merely mental. Their 'faith' is there only to glorify themselves. They are dangerous only if we allow them to be so. Electing politicians who pander to them is the easiest way to allow them to be dangerous. Oops.
posted by Goofyy at 3:55 AM on February 9, 2007
These silly 'fundamentalists' are no fun, merely mental. Their 'faith' is there only to glorify themselves. They are dangerous only if we allow them to be so. Electing politicians who pander to them is the easiest way to allow them to be dangerous. Oops.
posted by Goofyy at 3:55 AM on February 9, 2007
I forget the exact reason why, but there was a good one at the time that convinced me so...hmmmm, anyone know?
One reason I've had put to me, by slightly more (erm...) "rational" creationists, is that they don't have as much of a problem with microevolution. Small shifts in gene frequencies within one species. They do have a problem with macroevolution, the splitting off of new species, large shifts in the organization of physiology. And to be fair, one of the strongest areas of debate within evolutionary biology is regarding the fact that we tend to see rapid bursts of radiation of species, and sudden shifts in form with a lack of intermediate fossils. Doesn't mean the creationists are right, it's just their justification.
For example, a guy tried to disregard industrial melanism by the fact that the moths changed back to white after the soot was reduced. No new species was formed. No evolution had taken place.
Fortunately, industrial melanism is a pretty pathetic example to use, as is "petri dish" microbiology; we have, in the last 150 years, witnessed the evolution of several species of bird, and one species of snake, that I'm aware of. Probably more, that's just the work I've come across.
posted by Jimbob at 6:21 AM on February 9, 2007
One reason I've had put to me, by slightly more (erm...) "rational" creationists, is that they don't have as much of a problem with microevolution. Small shifts in gene frequencies within one species. They do have a problem with macroevolution, the splitting off of new species, large shifts in the organization of physiology. And to be fair, one of the strongest areas of debate within evolutionary biology is regarding the fact that we tend to see rapid bursts of radiation of species, and sudden shifts in form with a lack of intermediate fossils. Doesn't mean the creationists are right, it's just their justification.
For example, a guy tried to disregard industrial melanism by the fact that the moths changed back to white after the soot was reduced. No new species was formed. No evolution had taken place.
Fortunately, industrial melanism is a pretty pathetic example to use, as is "petri dish" microbiology; we have, in the last 150 years, witnessed the evolution of several species of bird, and one species of snake, that I'm aware of. Probably more, that's just the work I've come across.
posted by Jimbob at 6:21 AM on February 9, 2007
It's also correct, by the way, that the root cause of creationism is the "animals don't have souls" part; humans are considered to have been created separately, as a special case. Creationists object to things that link humans with animals and prove that we're actually one and the same.
I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me. Four limbs. Mammary glands. Two eyes, a nose and mouth. All the right wobbly bits. We're mammals. I don't know why creationists find that so difficult.
Any one have any idea what fundamentalists tell their kids when rover dies? Do they really say "He ain't going to heaven kid, he HAD NO SOUL"?
posted by Jimbob at 6:26 AM on February 9, 2007
I mean, it seems pretty obvious to me. Four limbs. Mammary glands. Two eyes, a nose and mouth. All the right wobbly bits. We're mammals. I don't know why creationists find that so difficult.
Any one have any idea what fundamentalists tell their kids when rover dies? Do they really say "He ain't going to heaven kid, he HAD NO SOUL"?
posted by Jimbob at 6:26 AM on February 9, 2007
Personally, no more pain and fear were inflicted on other animals than would have happened if homo sapiens were POOF created.
I don't understand this, but maybe you mean that under the premise of animals "having no souls". Then yes.
Evolution doesn't have terribly much to do with pain and fear, but rather certain genetic traits propagating for various reasons.
Some of which implement pain and fear. Because those traits reduce the risk of not caring while being devoured.
posted by vertriebskonzept at 6:59 AM on February 9, 2007
I don't understand this, but maybe you mean that under the premise of animals "having no souls". Then yes.
Evolution doesn't have terribly much to do with pain and fear, but rather certain genetic traits propagating for various reasons.
Some of which implement pain and fear. Because those traits reduce the risk of not caring while being devoured.
posted by vertriebskonzept at 6:59 AM on February 9, 2007
« Older 322 pages, 1603 label scans, 954 details, 111... | We're Not Gonna Take It. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"Our doctrine is not that we evolved from apes, and we have grave concerns that the museum wants to enhance the prominence of something presented as fact which is just one theory," the bishop said."
As opposed to presenting... what? Doctrine as fact?
Imbeciles.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 5:56 AM on February 8, 2007