Ben Stein’s “Expelled” coming in February
August 23rd, 2007
Ben Stein’s “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is coming in February. According to the movie’s web site:
Ben realizes that he has been “Expelled,” and that educators and scientists are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired – for the “crime” of merely believing that there might be evidence of “design” in nature, and that perhaps life is not just the result of accidental, random chance.
This is going to be interesting.
Hat tip: Tom
It is the opinion of one of my co-workers (a faculty member who holds a PhD in Biochemistry, and is an atheist/agnostic) that prospective doctors and scientists should be asked if they accept GTE (General Theory of Evolution) before entering undergraduate work. It is his sentiment that anyone who does not accept GTE should be denied entrance (even if qualified) to such programs.
I know this is just one researcher’s opinion, but it does make me wonder how representative it is of others in our field.
In speaking with another co-worker (who holds a PhD in Biology and is a Christian creationist), he has expressed concerns in regards to him not receiving a faculty appointment on the basis of him being a creationist.
There are Christian creationists conducting valid (in the eyes of the scientific establishment) research at academic institutions, I personally know 3 (besides the one cited above) of them here in the institution where I am employed.
I have had the privilege of working directly with 3 of these highly intelligent and deeply devoted individuals.
This is not to say that my atheist/agnostic co-worker isn’t intelligent, in fact he is highly intelligent but refuses to see the wonder of Creation.
This is a scam!
Guess what? The interview was actually for the movie “Expelled.”
Read about it here, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php#more
“Why were they so dishonest about it? If Mathis had said outright that he wants to interview an atheist and outspoken critic of Intelligent Design for a film he was making about how ID is unfairly excluded from academe, I would have said, “bring it on!” We would have had a good, pugnacious argument on tape that directly addresses the claims of his movie, and it would have been a better (at least, more honest and more relevant) sequence. He would have also been more likely to get that good ol’ wild-haired, bulgy-eyed furious John Brown of the Godless vision than the usual mild-mannered professor that he did tape. And I probably would have been more aggressive with a plainly stated disagreement between us.
I mean, seriously, not telling one of the sides in a debate about what the subject might be and then leading him around randomly to various topics, with the intent of later editing it down to the parts that just make the points you want, is the video version of quote-mining and is fundamentally dishonest.”
Here is the blurb about the “Crossroads” movie which is actually the “Expelled” movie. Talk about a bait and switch!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/upload/2007/08/crossroads.gif
The concerns and opinions of the people I work with are real.
I cannot, of course, speak of the motives or actions of the makers of this film.
Bait and switch. This is what happens in public school science classes every day.
We tell our students that we want them to well rounded and well informed. Then when it comes to the varied explanations for how the earth and everything in it came to be, we’re going to leave one of those explanations out of the mix all together.
THAT is bait and switch!
Tony, please read this. As you can see, creation myths are a dime a dozen.
Cineaste-
I’m famililar with creation myths. They are taught daily in public school science lessons.
Please read this
http://www.josh.org/apologetics/
I wish you had enough integrity to admit that we both come at the issue of origins from a faith bias.
I have faith in God and His Word. You have faith in “science”.
Cineaste,
I’ll go one step further.
If you’ll agree to read one of Josh McDowell’s titles from the apologetics page, I’ll purchase it for you.
“I wish you had enough integrity to admit that we both come at the issue of origins from a faith bias.”
Well, if I give you my honest answer, that your faith is true faith and my “faith” is based upon induction, then I don’t have integrity. If I tell you something I honestly don’t believe, that we have the same type of faith, then I have integrity. Do you want my dishonest but “with integrity” answer or do you want my honest but “lacking integrity” answer?
Just getting back to the subject of this post, the people who actually demonstrate a lack of integrity are the makers of “Expelled.” Can we at least agree on that?
Tony, I’ll take you up on this. Is there an online copy I can read so that neither of us have to spend money on it? Would you be willing to watch a lecture from the opposite perspective in return?
Not sure about the online title or not. I’m more than willing to purchase the hard copy title of your choice.
It would only be fair for me to watch a lecture from the opposite perspective.
This will just expose for a wider audience to see that the ‘tolerant’ crowd is anything but. Whether it will make any difference remains to be seen.
Funny since there are so many ‘facts’ out there to refute these ‘creation myths’ that the evolutionist become so apoplectic when anyone disagrees with them. Seems like they’d want to just aim all their factual cannons at these followers of myths in a very public battle and end this discussion once and for all.
Guess if they could they would.
I might point out that Triablogue has, in point of fact, reviewed and responded to many representative works on this subject Cineaste and explored many issues.
It is rather apparent to us that those who question Darwinianism are the ones who are actually interacting with the other side while the other can’t be bothered to represent the opposing position properly.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/evidence-for-evolution.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/evolutionary-mirror-reading.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/evolutionary-mirror-reading.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/pining-for-darwin.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/06/disappointed.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/evidence-for-evolution.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/in-search-of-evolution.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/04/intelligent-design-or-secular-moonshine.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/05/naturalistic-evolutionary-ethics.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/02/arguments-for-evolution.html
In scientific terms, how does creationism work specifically? What is the scientific process?
I’d also point out that none of the links you provided has anything to do with Mark Mathis’ dishonest bait and switch tactics for the “Expelled” interviews.
I don’t claim to know anything about the background of “Crossroads”/”Expelled,” but, judging from Rampant Films’ website, it’s possible they are one in the same. Movies often have working titles that change for marketing’s sake. As well, having worked in newspapers for 20 years, I know something about the news media. I would include most documentaries as being news products, even if they have a point of view, which is of course always the case in the news media. I have seen many big projects come and go that changed in the middle when the reporting didn’t fit the original concept. This is honest journalism, and when a reporter finds information that is more compelling even if it doesn’t fit the original agenda, it is reasonable to switch gears. This may or may not have been the case with this movie. Once the movie is seen, I would be interested to know if Mr. Myers thinks his statements made in the interview were misrepresented.
In scientific terms how does (macro) evolution work specifically? What is the scientific process?
Isn’t the creationist theory simply, “God did it?” “God did it” is not a scientific explanation. This ground has been covered previously here…
http://ruanole2.blogspot.com/2007/06/evolution-creation-discussion-thread.html
Please have a look if interested.
cineaste —
the publicity for “expelled” indicates that stein set out to see if there was valid, non-religious, academic support for any kind of “design” argument, either within or opposed to darwinism (which, let us remember, is a theory, and will remain so for the next few thousand years). the publicity further indicates that, once stein had begun his research, he discovered this fundamental materialism, this darwinian inquisition. it was NOT his original intent to draw out raging debates on the issue. this may account for the letter from mathis and the approach that was taken in that (and other) interviews.
and although i find it highly important to keep things in context, the emotional attachment to one’s opinions (as exacerbated by the stakes of a fight) seems hardly as important as the straight-forward opinions of the individuals.
To cineaste–
The creationist theory is more than simply “God did it.” It’s how He did it that is scientific. Einstein provided the key–God, who is omnipotent, converted His energy into matter. Evolution, on the other hand, begins with the very unscientific premise that life originated from lifeless matter. Science is based on what is observable and repeatable. Life giving birth to life can be observed millions of times every day; life generating spontaneously from lifeless matter has never been observed. Which is more scientific?
“Einstein provided the key–God, who is omnipotent, converted His energy into matter.”
Translation: God did it. You make my point.
“Evolution, on the other hand, begins with the very unscientific premise that life originated from lifeless matter.”
No, this is a common misconception of creationists. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That’s creationism. All evolution says is that all species originate from one or a few common ancestors. That’s why it’s possible to be a theistic evolutionist.
“…life generating spontaneously from lifeless matter has never been observed. Which is more scientific?”
Does this video accurately express creationist sentiment? Peanut Butter, The Atheist’s Nightmare! I’d say the term “creation science” is an oxymoron.
Evolution, “(which, let us remember, is a theory, and will remain so for the next few thousand years)”
So is gravity.
“The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.”
Then you’re not very familar with it if I do say so. Richard Dawkins would strongly disagree with you in fact. Theistic evolution is a Frankenstein’s monster built from left over parts of two different and mutually exclusive belief systems. No committed evolutionist or Christian takes that position seriously.
However, even after we get past origins, the evolutionist must show how mutations ADD information to the genes in order to get from very simple life forms to much more complex ones. Unless you have the addition of genetic information for feathers for example, you can’t get from the genetic information in a reptile to a bird.
Just as life coming from non-life has never been observed, gene mutations have never been observed which add information.
“Then you’re not very familiar with it if I do say so.”
I repeat, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. All evolution says is that all species originate from one or a few common ancestors. That’s why it’s possible to be a theistic evolutionist.
“However, even after we get past origins, the evolutionist must show how mutations ADD information to the genes in order to get from very simple life forms to much more complex ones.”
Scientists have shown this. What is the purpose of mutations otherwise?
“That’s why it’s possible to be a theistic evolutionist.”
Yeah, its possible but again, no serious adherent of either belief system takes that position.
“Scientists have shown this” (mutations adding information)
Name one and point me to his/her findings.
“Yeah, its possible but again, no serious adherent of either belief system takes that position.”
I don’t think that’s true.
“Name one and point me to his/her findings.”
But what’s the use in explaining things to you? We both know that you can’t accept the science presented. I’ll give you the information anyway.
Claim:
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Response:
1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term “information” undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
* Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
* RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
* Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on “gene duplication” gives more than 3000 references.
3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism’s genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
Links:
Max, Edward E., 1999. The evolution of improved fitness by random mutation plus selection. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness
Musgrave, Ian, 2001. The Period gene of Drosophila. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr01.html
References:
1. Adami et al., 2000. (see below)
2. Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
3. Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf
4. Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
5. Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
6. Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
7. Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
8. Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
9. Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
10. Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
11. Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
12. Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
13. Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799. http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
14. Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments. http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/2002/Feb02/r022802b.html
Further Reading:
Adami, C., C. Ofria and T. C. Collier, 2000. Evolution of biological complexity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 97(9): 4463-4468. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463 (technical)
Hillis, D. M., J. J. Bull, M. E. White, M. R. Badgett, and I. J. Molineux. 1992. Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny. Science 255: 589-92. (technical)
“Name one and point me to his/her findings.”
Larry, I posted too many references. You’ll just have to trust me that I tried.
Cineaste,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
Is this where you cut and pasted your information?
I could just as easy cut and paste responses such as:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp
I guess we could go back and forth cutting and pasting from the internet views based upon our own presuppositions. I also seriously doubt that any of us in this forum have the scientific background to answer this question thoroughly unless we have an advanced degree in science. But you are actually proving the point of this strand. Those scientists who have an opposing of view of the “established” scientific view of evolution are being ostracized and relegated at the universities in which they teach because they are challenging the status quo. Where is the academic freedom in that?
Cineaste,
Have you answered Larry’ F.’s previous question on Tim’s other strand entitled “Adams: Keep your laws off my doggie?”
Larry F. says:
August 27th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
“I believe killing deformed or handicapped newborns is wrong.” (Cineaste)
Why? (Larry F.)
I would be interested to know how you would answer this.
“Is this where you cut and pasted your information?”
Yes it is. The numerous links to that site should leave no doubt in anyone’s mind. This is what Larry requested. I just gave him much more than one reference.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp
Richard, I don’t know if you read through the AIG response or not, I did, but as my reference predicts, they quibble over what “information” means.
“I guess we could go back and forth cutting and pasting from the internet views based upon our own presuppositions.”
I’m providing the most explicit answers I can. If you disagreed with me that the sky is blue and demanded a scientific explanation as to why, I’d do the same thing. I can’t explain why the sky is blue very well off the top of my head and there is no way I can change your mind about it if the bible says the sky is red. I’d imagine it has something to do with water molecules in the air scattering blue light. But these sorts of questions have been asked before by blue sky deniers and answered already by scientists who can explain why the sky is blue far better than I can. So why should I take the time and effort to regurgitate the same information when scientists can provide you with a better explanation than the little I am able to personally convey here? If you ask for a scientific explanation, I will give it to you. Now, I’d like to see a detailed scientific explanation, feel free to cut and paste from AIG, about the scientific basis of creationism. What I am looking for is details on how exactly the creation process works like how exactly does a man’s rib become a woman. If you ask me, the only thing you can answer with is “God did it” and that’s not a scientific explanation. So, feel free to cut and paste away.
“Those scientists who have an opposing of view of the “established” scientific view of evolution are being ostracized and relegated at the universities in which they teach because they are challenging the status quo. Where is the academic freedom in that?”
Because there is no such thing as a credible creationist scientist. A creationist scientist is like a pastor who does not believe in God, a navigator who does not believe the Earth is round, or a Medical Doctor who believes in faith healing instead of surgery. Maybe all these were compatible in the past but not anymore. Here, biblical literalism and science collide and are incompatible.
“I would be interested to know how you would answer this.” (Why I believe killing deformed or handicapped newborns is wrong)
Well, I was concerned that Larry didn’t know why and had to ask. I thought the question was meant as a joke.
It’s a natural reaction I have. I just find the notion of killing deformed and handicapped newborns repellent. Maybe it’s the way I was raised, maybe it’s genetic, maybe it’s a combination of the two. One thing I am sure of, I don’t need the bible to tell me any more than I need the bible to tell me setting myself on fire is wrong. I’ll add this too, no one else does either.
Now let me ask a similar question of you. Do you believe killing deformed or handicapped newborns is wrong because biblical teachings tell you so or is your repulsion, your gut reaction against of killing babies from somewhere else?
Richard, where does morality come from is a subject I’ve researched a lot, and I’d love to discuss it with everyone, but I think on this thread it’s getting off topic. My original comment was about how deceptive and dishonest the makers of “Expelled” were with their interviews.
“It’s a natural reaction I have.”
So if I DON’T have that ‘natural reaction’ it’s not wrong in my case? That’s the point Cineaste. If there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, then there is no right and wrong - period.
The bottom line is what is your truth source? In your case your truth source is you (the way I was raised, something in my genes, etc.)
The problem is, if your truth source is you then Hitler’s truth source is him and Stalin’s truth source is him, etc., etc. No one who denies the God of the Bible can claim anyone or anything is wrong. Apart from God, there is no morality.
You’re welcome to believe what you want, just do so consistently. Don’t use the borrowed capital of Christian morality when you have no bases for such things in your world view.
As to all your ‘evidence’ for increased genetic information, Richard is correct, we could go back and forth forever. The bottom line is, this has NEVER been observed to add the information necessary to change one species to another. THAT’S what I mean by information. In fact, one species has NEVER been observed changing into another. Belief in such a thing is pure fantasy and must be taken completely on faith.
What I am looking for is details on how exactly the evolution process works like how exactly does a reptile become a bird?
Cineaste,
I think we can all agree that the sky is blue. I don’t need a scientist to tell me that. I can OBSERVE that myself. I imagine that humans in all ages of time will agree that the sky is blue with no need for scientific explanation. However, evolution is not settled as much as you and fundamentalist evolution scientists in the world would like us to believe. Evolution is simply an inductive assumption based on limited observations on a micro level. Can someone disagree with these assumptions (with provided scientific doubts)and still be considered a scientist? I assume the answer from you would be an emphatic “NO” since they have provided no evidence to support another explanation. This is not even good logic. The burden of proof has always been on the evolutionist in this discussion. Once the evolutionist proves their theory with as much observational certainty as a blue sky or the law of gravity then people will begin to believe it is true.
Rather interesting:
“The constraints it reveals raise serious problems for the evolutionary paradigm, calling into question the likelihood that biological evolution could proceed as a creative process unattended in nature.”
http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2001issue05/index.shtml#evolving_robots
Those who deny God had any role in creation use the following logic….
“D” is a logical conclusion because “C” is true.
And what of “C”?
Well, “C” is a logical conclusion because “B” is true.
And what of “B”?
Well, “B” is the conclusion naturally drawn because “A” is true.
But what of “A”? And here’s the rub!
Scientists can’t prove that “A” (their starting point) is factually true.
So they have to “believe” that “A” is true. And if they believe it, then it’s a faith-based system.
And if schools are going to teach one “faith-based” system, then they need to teach all of the faith-based systems.
Two observations:
“Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution …” The yeast may have mutated multiple times at a microscopic level, but in the end it was still yeast. Demonstrating a cause that can’t produce an effect does not prove that the effect you can’t demonstrate exists anyway.
“… I don’t need the bible to tell me (the notion of killing deformed and handicapped newborns [is] repellent) any more than I need the bible to tell me setting myself on fire is wrong. I’ll add this too, no one else does either.” The historical record proves you to be wrong. Many ancient cultures, notably Carthage, fed their babies into furnaces to appease false gods.
Very true Craig. In all cases where cultures abandon God (Robspeirre’s France, Hitler’s Germany, Communist Russia and China, etc.) the killing reaches epic proportions.
Cineaste,
If I may jump back a day, you missed my point. Yes, when it comes to creation, “God did it.” You asked for a scientific explanation, and I gave it to you based on Einstein’s theory of relativity. That’s science. Again I ask, where’s the science behind life originating from lifeless matter?
I agree that evolution is not about the origin of life, it’s about how life has developed. But the subject at hand was the science behind creation, and without creation (or intelligent design), the only other alternative is life coming from lifeless matter.
But then, what about the science behind the development, or evolution, of life forms that are present today? Another basic principle of science (what we know from what we can observe as it is repeated over and over again) is that species give birth to the same species. Ducks give birth to ducks, giraffes to giraffes, ants to ants, humans to humans, apples to apples, and so on. Again, it’s something that can be observed millions of times a day. Evolution takes the position that not only can a species give birth to another species, but that EVERY species alive today originated from some other species. Again, I see creation as the more scientific alternative.
“So if I DON’T have that ‘natural reaction’ it’s not wrong in my case?”
But, you DO have a natural reaction against killing newborns don’t you? You have empathy. People who don’t are known as psychopaths.
“The bottom line is what is your truth source? In your case your truth source is you (the way I was raised, something in my genes, etc.)”
And you are too. As I said it not the bible. You don’t need to consult the bible to tell you that boiling babies for pleasure is wrong. Am I correct? It’s you!
“If there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, then there is no right and wrong - period.”
I had addressed this in an earlier post:
“There is no objective standard for morality. But there are standards. No, it isn’t the Bible because the morality in the Bible is flawed. If it was perfect, it’s perfection would be as obvious to everyone as 2 + 2 = 4. Math is the only purely objective discipline that comes to mind. Everything else, including morality, is subject to Hume’s Is/Ought problem.”
“No one who denies the God of the Bible can claim anyone or anything is wrong.”
So if someone murders a Muslim woman’s baby she can’t claim it was wrong to do so?
“Don’t use the borrowed capital of Christian morality when you have no bases for such things in your world view.”
Like I said, repulsion to killing newborns is a natural reaction I have, not a borrowed one. Isn’t it natural to you as well?
“Richard is correct, we could go back and forth forever.”
Not really. I’m the only one who has put something forth. You haven’t provided a response to my request yet. Is it because, as I suspect, you can’t? Cut and paste it at least.
“I can OBSERVE that (the sky is blue) myself.”
And if you were blind? How would I go about proving it to you? If you were blind and the bible said the sky was red you wouldn’t listen to any blue sky propaganda. It’s a similar situation with creationists. They say, “this has NEVER been observed.” Yet, I can infer that you have a heart beating inside your chest having never directly observed it. The problem is creationists don’t accept the mountains of evidence for evolution because it conflicts with a literal interpretation the bible, of a man being created from dirt and a woman from the man’s bones.
“Evolution is simply an inductive assumption…”
Yes, so is everything else. When I say that the sun will rise tomorrow, I am making an assumption based on induction.
“Once the evolutionist proves their theory with as much observational certainty as a blue sky or the law of gravity then people will begin to believe it is true.”
This has been done. Creationists are the only people in the world who it’s not obvious to. I can tell you as someone from the outside looking in, creationists are viewed by the rest of the world like Medical Doctor who believes in faith healing instead of surgery.
“Those who deny God had any role in creation use the following logic….”
I don’t deny it. Maybe God exists and His hand guided the necessary elements together to form the first microscopic organism. You can believe in God and evolution too. They are not mutually exclusive.
“Demonstrating a cause that can’t produce an effect does not prove that the effect you can’t demonstrate exists anyway.”
Viruses mutate. If you don’t believe me, then people shouldn’t get vaccinated for the flu this year.
“Many ancient cultures, notably Carthage, fed their babies into furnaces to appease false gods.”
Christians slaughtered Jews during the Black Plague to appease Jesus.
“On Saturday that was St. Valentine’s Day, they burnt the Jews on a wooden platform in their cemetery. There were about 2,000 of them. Those who wanted to baptize themselves were spared. Many small children were taken out of the fire and baptized against the will of their fathers and mothers. Everything that was owed to the Jews was cancelled…”
source: Jewish Literacy
Atrocities have been committed by all religions in the name of God and superstition. I still say I don’t need the bible to tell me things like setting myself on fire is wrong, and neither does anyone else. That one should be obvious.
“You asked for a scientific explanation, and I gave it to you based on Einstein’s theory of relativity. That’s science.”
No you didn’t. Here is the problem with your explanation.
“I agree that evolution is not about the origin of life, it’s about how life has developed. But the subject at hand was the science behind creation, and without creation (or intelligent design), the only other alternative is life coming from lifeless matter.”
Scientists don’t know exactly how this happened and they don’t claim to, but can we all agree it did happen somehow? Creationists claim God made man from dust fully formed. I think that it’s more likely that the first organism was microscopic. Even theists admit things are not built from the top down, but from the ground up. Creationists DO claim to have this knowledge that everything popped in existence fully formed. However, it’s not scientific knowledge. It’s from Genesis. Creationists are convincing themselves that their religious beliefs are actually knowledge. It’s not. Your religious beliefs are not knowledge. Your religious beliefs are actually religious beliefs. The truth of the matter is no one know how life came about so when creationists claim otherwise, it comes off as more wishful thinking than actual science.
“Evolution takes the position that not only can a species give birth to another species…”
No it doesn’t. This is impossible. A cat can’t give birth to a dog. Evolution takes the position of common ancestry. If you want to know more, I can refer you to some good books about how evolution really works.
This from Campbell’s Biology 4th Ed (I used the 1st edition in AP Biology, and the 2nd Ed. in College Biology):
Ok, I think I am confused here.
Cine, are we simply debating micro vs. macro evolution?
This article surely goes beyond “God did it”. It’s a study of genetic improbabilty. Pure science. http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm
Here is a good quote: “Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10 to the 300,000 power. If only more Christians had that kind of faith!”
So with the cartoon you posted, wouldn’t the miracle be creation via evolution?
Well, you’ve proved my point again. Atrocities throughout history, regardless of religious affiliation, prove only the natural depravity of man, and nothing else. It was you who said “Nobody needs the bible to tell them what’s right” (paraphrase), not me.
Fact is, the Bible does tell you what’s right, whether you like it or not or even know it. The Judeo-Christian ethic has shaped the culture you live in for more than 3,000 years. It is impossible for you to say what your life or attitudes would be like without it. By denying the moral effect of Scripture, you’re like a goldfish trying to deny the water it lives in.
Laz, agreed.
Zoner, “CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY” ’nuff said.
Craig, “Fact is, the Bible does tell you what’s right.” You’re preaching. Fact is, you don’t need the bible to tell you things like setting yourself on fire is wrong. You agree with me right?
I’m not preaching, I’m telling you the truth about the culture you live in. As for setting yourself on fire, sure it hurts, but is it wrong? Not to a handful of Buddhist monks in the ’60s. Of course, in their culture, Jewish/Christian scriptures were not prevalent.
“You haven’t provided a response to my request yet. Is it because, as I suspect, you can’t? Cut and paste it at least.”
There have been plenty of links for you in this thread and many others. Please see above. The problem is that you will not consider any of them valid because they do not jive with your presuppositions that you hold. As much as you have convinced yourself that your views are based on science and reason, you have presented no proof of macro evolution.
You cherry picked my post in which I stated “Evolution is simply an inductive assumption based on limited observations on a micro level.” My point was that you have not observed a species transitioning into another species (macro). This is obviously not possible. There is clearly a case for “evolution” or “adaptation” on a micro level. I suffered with two bouts of MRSA this year, so I know that it exists. I am not convinced that these mutations lead me to the belief in transitional species on a macro level.
“Zoner, “CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY” ’nuff said.” (Ad Hominem attack. Not an argument)
As to your repeated morality justification, lets pick this apart:
“There is no objective standard for morality. (Is this an absolute truth?) But there are standards.(Based on what?) No, it isn’t the Bible because the morality in the Bible is flawed (Based on what? If morality is subjective, how can you say it is flawed?). If it was perfect (define perfect.), it’s perfection would be as obvious to everyone as 2 + 2 = 4. (Sin nature?) Math is the only purely objective discipline that comes to mind. (I am not sure what this has to do with morality. But I guess you would now agree that science is not purely objective.) Everything else, including morality, is subject to Hume’s Is/Ought problem. (I thought there was no objective standard for morality. Are we to now adopt Hume’s stance?)”
“There have been plenty of links for you in this thread and many others.”
None of which address my request which was…
“Now, I’d like to see a detailed scientific explanation, feel free to cut and paste from AIG, about the scientific basis of creationism. What I am looking for is details on how exactly the creation process works like how exactly does a man’s rib become a woman. If you ask me, the only thing you can answer with is “God did it” and that’s not a scientific explanation. So, feel free to cut and paste away.”
If you cant come up with details, provide a general scientific theory. No one has come up with anything, not even a cut and paste. You’ve all have linked to sites that attack evolution but none of them provide any scientific basis that supports your own creationist position.
“…you have presented no proof of macro evolution.”
It’s already been presented by biologists and geneticists around the world for 150 years. What do you want, more links to the science we both know creationists can’t accept because of religious reasons?
If you were blind and the bible said the sky was red you wouldn’t listen to any blue sky propaganda. It’s a similar situation with creationists.
“My point was that you have not observed a species transitioning into another species (macro).”
Which was already addressed above with this…
“They say, “this has NEVER been observed.” Yet, I can infer that you have a heart beating inside your chest having never directly observed it. The problem is creationists don’t accept the mountains of evidence for evolution because it conflicts with a literal interpretation the bible, of a man being created from dirt and a woman from the man’s bones.”
“I suffered with two bouts of MRSA this year, so I know that it exists. I am not convinced that these mutations lead me to the belief in transitional species on a macro level.”
This is like saying I’ve been to West Virginia so I know gravity works there, but I’m not convinced that it works on Pluto because no one has been there to observe it. There’s no difference between how micro and macro work genetically.
A scientific assumption is that physical laws that work in one place in the universe will also work in other places in our universe. For example, scientists infer that if gravity works on the Earth and the Moon, then it must also work on planets in other galaxies. Now, no scientists have ever been to planets in other galaxies to confirm this, but based upon circumstantial evidence, scientists have concluded that there is gravity on all other planets as well. I can also conclude that you Richard, have a heart, even though I have never seen it. I don’t actually have to see your heart to know that you have one. This is the same principle used to debunk the creationist argument that, “We have not actually OBSERVED one kind of animal turning into another kind right before our eyes.” This kind of expectation to confirm evolution is as unreasonable as expecting someone to travel to the dark side of Pluto to confirm gravity works there also. Even then, we also have mountains of fossil evidence proving that animals change from one species to another over time. The fossil record is JUST one aspect of the evidence for macro evolution. There is also paleontological evidence as well as genetic evidence. Even, creationists admit evolution happens on a “kind” (species) level, like dog breeding. The only difference is, they do not take this to it’s logical conclusion, that if animals evolve within the Species level, then they also evolve in the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus levels as well. The analogy is that creationists think gravity only exists on Earth and not other planets. They want the scientist to actually visit each planet to confirm.
““Zoner, “CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY” ’nuff said.” (Ad Hominem attack. Not an argument)”
Why not consult a 500 pound woman for diet tips?
““There is no objective standard for morality. (Is this an absolute truth?)”
A fact. Morality changes according to time place and circumstance. Is it right or wrong for a woman to be a pastor? I think Verne said it’s wrong in another post. How about eating shellfish? Doesn’t the bible say that’s wrong?
“But there are standards.(Based on what?)”
People, as individuals, societies and cultures. In Japan it’s wrong to wear your shoes in the house. Here, it’s not.
“No, it isn’t the Bible because the morality in the Bible is flawed (Based on what? If morality is subjective, how can you say it is flawed?).”
It’s a natural reaction I have. Abraham was asked to kill his newborn son. I’d say, killing your own son is wrong based on my own subjective view of morality. Would I be objectively and absolutely wrong for refusing to kill my son were I in Abraham’s position?
“If it was perfect (define perfect.)”
per·fect /adj., n. ˈpɜrfɪkt; v. pərˈfɛkt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[adj., n. pur-fikt; v. per-fekt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type: a perfect sphere; a perfect gentleman.
“…it’s perfection would be as obvious to everyone as 2 + 2 = 4. (Sin nature?)
Huh?
“Math is the only purely objective discipline that comes to mind. (I am not sure what this has to do with morality.”
Nothing. I’m talking about purely objective things. Morality is not one of them, obviously.
“But I guess you would now agree that science is not purely objective.)”
Agreed. The statement “the sun will rise tomorrow” is also not purely objective, it’s subjective. 2 + 2 = 4 is objective, not subjective.
“Everything else, including morality, is subject to Hume’s Is/Ought problem. (I thought there was no objective standard for morality. Are we to now adopt Hume’s stance?)””
The is/ought problem is not a moral dilemma, it’s a logical one.
“As for setting yourself on fire, sure it hurts, but is it wrong?”
Yes.
“Not to a handful of Buddhist monks in the ’60s.”
They knew it was wrong too because it meant a horrible death, but didn’t they do it in protest? Perhaps that wrong served a greater good in their minds, like a sacrifice. Like I said, there is no objective standard of morality. Not everything is black and white and simple. There are morally gray areas as well.
“But, you DO have a natural reaction against killing newborns don’t you? You have empathy. People who don’t are known as psychopaths.”
And are you suggesting that in an evolutionary world view where people are just another kind of animal that being a psychopath (perhaps you meant socio-path) is somehow wrong??
Progress! Judging people’s morality is not black and white and simple. Even less so is passing judgment on God’s morality.
Cineaste,
ob·jec·tive/ adj - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion
If science is NOT objective and morality is not objective, you sure are working hard to get this group of blogs to provide you with facts and unbiased reasoning.
Seems to me if it is all subjective, what’s the point?
“‘But there are standards.(Based on what?)
Reply:
“People, as individuals, societies and cultures. In Japan it’s wrong to wear your shoes in the house. Here, it’s not.”
In some cultures they love their neighbors and in others they eat them. Could you not agree that in all cultures it wrong to be a cannibal regardless of the societal influences?
“Even less so is passing judgment on God’s morality.”
I don’t know if you caught what I’ve been saying all along or not, but it’s not God’s morality, it’s yours. Earlier I said, “You don’t need to consult the bible to tell you that boiling babies for pleasure is wrong. Am I correct? It’s you!” Do you understand this point?
If a person doesn’t already understand that boiling babies for pleasure is wrong, and has to consult the bible to confirm it, that’s cause for alarm.
“And are you suggesting that in an evolutionary world view where people are just another kind of animal that being a psychopath (perhaps you meant socio-path) is somehow wrong??”
Larry, I’ve already addressed this when you said, “No one who denies the God of the Bible can claim anyone or anything is wrong. Apart from God, there is no morality.” I replied, “So if someone murders a Muslim woman’s baby she can’t claim it was wrong to do so?” Obviously she can indeed claim it was wrong without believing in the God of the bible. The same goes if she believes in evolution. If a psychopath murders her baby, she IS RIGHT to condemn that act as wrong.
See, we are human beings. We all have a moral sense. Christians do not hold a monopoly on morality. Our moral sense is part of the human condition and is accessible to Christians and non-Christians alike.
I’ll go ahead and tell you guys where I honestly think morality comes from and you make fun of it all you want since it’s not from your Christian God, or Allah, etc…
I believe that all humans have empathy (1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.) I believe human empathy is the source of our morality. I believe empathy is in our DNA. So, morality is our human capacity for reason working upon this innate empathy we have. This is how we know what is right from what is wrong.
“ob·jec·tive/ adj - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion”
This is an equivocation Richard. You know full well we have been talking about “objective” vs. “subjective.” I provided the proper definition for you below…
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
“Seems to me if it is all subjective, what’s the point?”
“The sun will rise tomorrow” is a subjective statement. I’d say that’s still important regardless of it’s subjectivity.
“Could you not agree that in all cultures it wrong to be a cannibal regardless of the societal influences?”
No, and neither can you. If you were born into a cannibalistic tribe and that’s what you know, it would be right from your perspective.
Do you know any anthropologists personally? They don’t judge other cultures by their own preconceived notions of what is right and wrong. You can’t get an “ought” from an “is.”
“Cultural relativism involves specific epistemological and methodological claims. Whether or not these claims necessitate a specific ethical stance is a matter of debate. Nevertheless, this principle should not be confused with moral relativism.”
If I may,
I have watched this discussion with great interest and it has merely confirmed what I have said in previous discussions in regards to the natural man. To those of you who have no clue as to what I refer to go to 1 Corinthians 2:4
Christians do not hold a monopoly on morality this is indeed true. There are moral (at least outwardly) atheists, no question about it. Jesus did not introduce a new morality, a more stringent one perhaps but nothing new.
What is clear to me, as a Christian, is that the Bible is not so much concerned with providing rules and regulations, as it is (in its totality) giving us the reason as to why we don’t behave as we know we should.
Clearly, we can all agree that we know the good we ought to do, and we can also agree that we do not do it. Why don’t we?
Well, I believe that Christianity has the best explanation.
Sorry, I forgot to add this to the quote I posted from Campbell’s Biology (this is actually from the 2nd ed.):
I thought this was honest of them.
LOL… it’s “simulations” not “stimulations”
So sue me it’s midnight…
Cineaste, I understand you perfectly about where your morality arises from, and from a natural man’s perspective you are right. Serious Muslims will be some of the most moral people you can know. You imply yourself that every man thinks he’s moral, and that is so, again from a natural man’s perspective. Hitler truly thought he was doing good by wiping out Jews. Unfortunately, through history people who have been considered Christians have also followed their own moralities, but you have to realize that since AD 400, churches have been full of non-Christians. Immorality in the church is a reflection of the people, not scripture nor God. Where you have erred greatly is to compare your morality to God’s and declare yourself superior.
You have conceded that a Buddhist monk’s morality might be on a different plane from yours. You even propose that he sacrificed his physical well-being and even his life for a higher cause. Is it not possible then that God’s morality is on a different plane from yours as well? Could it be that God’s directive to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was for a higher purpose, in order to demonstrate a higher morality?
“See, we are human beings. We all have a moral sense.”
No, if evolution is true we are just another animal. Animals kill each other all the time, no big deal.
The truth is we do indeed have an innate sense of right and wrong, put there by our creator, not our genes. You’re world view will not allow for morality Cineaste. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either there is a source of morality apart from human beings or there is no morality.
“If you were born into a cannibalistic tribe and that’s what you know, it would be right from your perspective.”
What about that ‘empathy gene’? You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.
“Do you know any anthropologists personally? They don’t judge other cultures by their own preconceived notions of what is right and wrong.”
Again, both sides of your mouth. Either there is right and wrong or there is not. If we cannot judge the behavior of other, there is no right and wrong. We should fire all the police and close the courts and stop persecuting people who are just ‘different’ from us in that they like to rape and rob and murder. Who are we to judge?
“Zoner, “CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY” ’nuff said.”
Wow. That’s really weak Cine. I expected a conscientious response to what I posted. You asked for more than “God did it”, you asked for science and I gave it to you.
You have continually linked to sites that support your thoughts. So my linking to CARM shouldn’t be a big deal. It’s the analysis of the content that should matter. But here’s where you are really lazy: the link is merely where the article resides. The excerpt is from the book “The Myth of Natural Origins; How SCIENCE Points to Divine Creation”. And since you did not care to take the time and thought to truly look at and consider it, it’s obvious you have no desire to have an honest, open discussion. I suppose you just like to hear yourself talk.
For Zoner:
“CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY Wow. That’s really weak Cine. I expected a conscientious response to what I posted.”
Zoner, I thought the conflict of interest in your reference would be obvious.
“It’s the analysis of the content that should matter.”
You’re right. Though it’s futile, here is the proper response you requested: Lies, Darned Lies, Statistics,
and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
Now that I’ve sampled your red herring and chased your wild goose, what I’ve been requesting is a detailed scientific explanation, feel free to cut and paste from AIG, about the scientific basis of creationism. What I am looking for is details on how exactly the creation process works like how exactly does a man’s rib become a woman. If you ask me, the only thing you can answer with is “God did it” and that’s not a scientific explanation. So, feel free to cut and paste away. What you’ve been providing are attacks on evolution instead of what I’m actually requesting.
————————————————————–
For Larry:
“No, if evolution is true we are just another animal. Animals kill each other all the time, no big deal.”
Of course we are a species of animal, primate to be exact. From the dictionary…
2. any of various omnivorous mammals of the order Primates, comprising the three suborders Anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old World monkeys, and New World monkeys), Prosimii (lemurs, loris, and their allies), and Tarsioidea (tarsiers), esp. distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability.
Now having established this, humans killing humans is a big deal regardless of our being primates. I don’t see how anyone can deny it.
“The truth is we do indeed have an innate sense of right and wrong, put there by our creator, not our genes.”
So you say, but you have no evidence to support your assertion. You are only asserting morality was put there by a creator but you stop there and don’t explain how. You assert morality is not in our genes but you stop there and don’t explain why. If you want evidence that morality is in our genes I can provide tons. Please substantiate your assertions.
“You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth.”"I suppose you just like to hear yourself talk.”"…you are really lazy”
I’ll accept this as constructive criticism as a demonstration of civility in this conversation. [dashing bow]
“Again, both sides of your mouth. Either there is right and wrong or there is not. If we cannot judge the behavior of other, there is no right and wrong.”
We can judge the behavior of others, but not cultures or circumstances we are ignorant of. You judge cannibalism to be wrong? I agree, but it’s not as black and white as you think. You must take the circumstances into account. What do you say about the cannibalism practiced during The Donner Party and the Andes Plane Crash? Doesn’t that cannibalism differ from say, Jeffery Dalmer’s? That’s why I provided the link, so it would clarify this for you. Try to understand the point I’m making.
“We should fire all the police and close the courts and stop persecuting people who are just ‘different’ from us in that they like to rape and rob and murder. Who are we to judge?”
This is extreme. My view is more nuanced (see cannibalism example above) than yours. Apparently, your view is black or white. Something is either right or wrong. There is no “in between.”
————————————————————–
For Craig:
“…churches have been full of non-Christians.”
These are the CINO’s I have heard about? The Christians In Name Only?
“Where you have erred greatly is to compare your morality to God’s and declare yourself superior.”
Craig, if I am an atheist, clearly I don’t compare my morality to God’s because I don’t even believe God exists. It’s simply impossible. I simply can’t have erred in the way you accuse. Can you grant me that?
“You have conceded that a Buddhist monk’s morality might be on a different plane from yours.”
No, it’s the same plane. Altruism is not on a “different plane” of morality at all. We all have it in us to sacrifice our lives for others. Even total strangers. We see it so often.
Christians view everyone as a vile sinner. To me, seeing the worst in people is depressing. As an atheist, I try to see the best in people. We are an amazing species, though capable of atrocities, we are also capable of incredible feats of art, love, and genius. I believe we only have this one life. Enjoy it, love life.
“You even propose that he sacrificed his physical well-being and even his life for a higher cause.”
The “higher cause” was not divine but human. Clearly, they sacrificed themselves as a protest for human rights.
“Could it be that God’s directive to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was for a higher purpose, in order to demonstrate a higher morality?”
And, since you can’t know what God is thinking, if you hear God’s voice in your head and he asks you to stab your son in the heart, would you obey the “higher morality” than your own which tells you, “killing my innocent son is wrong?” I couldn’t do it, and if God wants to send me to Hell because I didn’t murder my son, I’ll accept the consequences.
“Now having established this, humans killing humans is a big deal regardless of our being primates. I don’t see how anyone can deny it.”
Many have indeed denied that its a big deal, a great majority of them atheists.
Morality is a belief in what is right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable. It has nothing to do with genes. Genes determine things like eye color and skin color, morally neutral things. What we believe to be “right and to be wrong are not ‘hard wired’ by our genes. To suggest so is to grasp at straws to try to explain something that is unexplainable in your world view.
Robert Wright’s book ‘Why We Are the Way We Are’ makes a similar claim as to the genetic origins of morality. Greg Koukl commenting on the book says this:
“Wright, however, offers no such empirical evidence. He assumes that moral qualities are in the genes because he must; his paradigm would fail otherwise.”
The same is true for you.
Rather than seeing the existence of morality as evidence that your materialistic world view is flawed, you go tilting at windmills trying desperately to come up with an explanation for something your world view will not allow if taken to its logical conclusion.
“We can judge the behavior of others, but not cultures or circumstances we are ignorant of.”
Utter nonsense. The behavior of cultures is nothing more than the aggregate of the behaviors of individuals. If we can judge one we can judge the other.
By the way, is this idea that we cannot judge cultures we don’t understand your judgment about those cultures? Just wondering.
“Many have indeed denied that its a big deal, a great majority of them atheists.”
At least you agree with the dictionary that defines humans as primates. You’re learning!
“Morality is a belief in what is right/wrong, acceptable/unacceptable. It has nothing to do with genes.”
You love to make blanket assertions without backing them up. Do you remember how morality works? Morality is not simply pure rationality. If it was you’d be a Vulcan like from Star Trek. It’s predicated on empathy, which is innate and genetic. Again, I offer you evidence if you want to reach out and take it.
“Genes determine things like eye color and skin color, morally neutral things.”
So you say, but again it’s an empty assertion. Can you deny that children also inherit the temperament of one or both parents? Some inherit a tendency to be emotional, shy, etc. I’m sure you have heard of the saying “Nurture vs. Nature?” Well, you’re asserting it’s ALL nurture and NO nature. Nope, nature also plays a part and the only way to inherit a trait is genetically.
“Utter nonsense. The behavior of cultures is nothing more than the aggregate of the behaviors of individuals. If we can judge one we can judge the other.”
If you were born and raised in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, etc. you would most likely be a Muslim. As a Muslim, would you accept Jesus as your savior? No, of course not. Would you judge yourself as being wrong for not accepting Jesus? NO, because you’re a Muslim. See how your sense of what’s right and what’s wrong shifts according to culture? Still “utter nonsense” to you?
“By the way, is this idea that we cannot judge cultures we don’t understand your judgment about those cultures? Just wondering.”
No my friend, I’m not judging those cultures because I don’t really understand them. From my perspective, yes cannibalism is wrong. Having said that, I’m also not in a situation like the The Donner Party and the Andes Plane Crash. If I was, my judgment on cannibalism might change, and so might yours. Stealing is wrong? What if your child is starving and the only way to feed her is by stealing. Were you wrong to do so? You see? Your morality is somewhat dependent on time, place, culture, and circumstance. There’s no denying it. It’s subjective.
Let’s try to think what a different morality would look like.
CS Lewis wrote,
We are not the Judge, in fact Scripture considers it foolish for us to judge ourselves, why? Because God is the Judge not human beings.
If you are going to critique at least be familiar with what you are critiquing. This whole “accept Jesus” is model is flimsy, for the Bible makes it clear that we are spiritually dead in our natural state (Remember 1 Cor 2:4?).
Just as a corpse cannot raise himself to life, we, being spiritually dead, are also unable to do anything about our condition (including “accepting” anything).
God must renew us to bring us to life and only then can we respond in faith.
You never answered a question I asked in another post, so I’ll ask it again,
When was the last time you spoke to a scientist?
More from Campbell’s Biology, 2nd. Ed
I’m sorry it’s not the 2nd Ed. it’s the Third Edition. The blue cover, this is the textbook I used in both semesters of College Biology.
The 2nd Edition (pink cover) I used in AP Biology.
For anyone interested, PBS companion book to its TV series on evolution, “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea” is a good treatise on this topic.
“At least you agree with the dictionary that defines humans as primates. You’re learning!”
Excellent dodge of the fact that atheists are the biggest mass murderers in history.
“Can you deny that children also inherit the temperament of one or both parents?”
Nope, can’t deny that. Of course that’s not what we’re talking about. Behavior and the belief ABOUT that behavior, whether its right or wrong, are two totally different things.
“See how your sense of what’s right and what’s wrong shifts according to culture?”
That’s the whole point. True right and wrong do not ’shift’. If Christ is who He says He is, then the Muslim is wrong whether he thinks so or not. Right and wrong are not dependent upon circumstances.
“No my friend, I’m not judging those cultures because I don’t really understand them.”
Again you miss the point. When you say we cannot judge, that is a judgment. It’s telling me I am wrong for judging a culture I don’t understand. You’re doing the very thing you decry. Something all relativists do.
Cine, you clearly had trouble with the monk’s morality of hurting himself for a higher cause. Your denial now is paper thin. Your whole argument is the subjectivity of morality, then now you claim that it’s all the same. I won’t ignore you alternately promoting then denying your premise.
And you have indeed compared your morality to this God you deny, at least within other strings. Paraphrasing here, because I’m too lazy to look it up, “What if there were one righteous man in Sodom? Would God have spared the city? I would.” You are right, it is better for you to simply deny God rather than compare yourself to Him. But wait! You’ve betrayed yourself again! You say I can’t know what God is thinking, so He must be thinking something. “I think, therefore I am.” Brilliant! But I digress.
Finally, concerning Abraham, God was demonstrating a higher morality than simply putting a life on the line. God had made Abraham specific promises about being father of a multitude of people that would eventually lead to the Christ, beginning specifically with Isaac. Then He tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. This is on one hand a test of how much Abraham believed the promises of God (personally I think Abraham expected to kill Isaac and then see Isaac rise from the dead), and Abraham and Isaac both were obedient not only in beginning the sacrifice but also stopping when God said to. But the greatest purpose of the exercise was as a demonstration of the upcoming event some 2,000 years later when the Father would kill the Son and offer mercy and grace to us vile sinners. For more check out Gal. 3:15-16 and Rom. 4:13-25. This is the highest of all moralities, and the greatest altruism.
Now I really am preaching. You probably skipped over that last paragraph, but I encourage you to read it. It may be the most important thing you’ll read today.
“Dreams in which He reveals Himself to them. You most likely will not believe their testimony due to the reasons you and I have discussed before (remember the wall?)”
I sure do remember that wall, Laz. It separates fantasy from reality. I’ll leave you to play with your demons and witches on your side and I’ll stay over in the real world. Sweet dreams. Say hi to Jesus for me when you see him there.
Good stuff with the Biology quotes so far. It seems you’re learning. Keep up the good work.
“You say I can’t know what God is thinking, so He must be thinking something. “I think, therefore I am.” Brilliant! But I digress.”
What in the world are you talking about? You can’t know what a fairy is thinking either. Can you tell me why?
“Excellent dodge of the fact that atheists are the biggest mass murderers in history.”
Oh, give me a break. Are we going to get into this again? Did you know Hitler was a Christian?
“Right and wrong are not dependent upon circumstances.”
We disagree. I’ve already shown right and wrong depend on the circumstances. What’s right in one situation can be wrong in another.
“When you say we cannot judge, that is a judgment. It’s telling me I am wrong for judging a culture I don’t understand.”
Sorry, I don’t see where I have judged you at all. I don’t agree with you, but I haven’t judged you.
I reject your premise. Fairies don’t exist and therefore don’t think, so there is nothing to not know. If you don’t know what God is thinking, the presupposition is that He is thinking, therefore exists, according to Descartes.
Do you know what Steve and Stacy Puffer of Jackson, TN, think? No, but I assure you they do exist.
“Fairies don’t exist and therefore don’t think”
Exactly. So, we do agree on this at least. Now, equate God to something non-existent, like a fairy, and you have my perspective.
From your perspective, you do think God exists and thinks. Yet, you still can’t know what He thinks can you?
Pointing this out to you does not mean I believe in God.
“Do you know what Steve and Stacy Puffer of Jackson, TN, think? No, but I assure you they do exist.”
That’s good. Are you seriously trying to imply that since I don’t know Steve and Stacy’s thoughts, that I think they don’t exist? I’ll tell you what, if you told be they were fairies, then I’d have doubts.
Have a good weekend all!
That’s where your logic takes you. Therefore, I reject your premise. Trying to prove God doesn’t exist rests on the presupposition that He does exist. You would be better served to simply repeat “God doesn’t exist” and not try to offer proof.
God reveals a small part of what He thinks to those who are ready.
BTW, Hitler wasn’t a Christian, he persecuted Christians.
“Trying to prove God doesn’t exist rests on the presupposition that He does exist.”
Good thing I’m not trying to prove it anymore than I try to prove fairies don’t exist. I simply don’t believe in either. Think about it.
Okay, now I’m out. Peace be with you, Craig.
Cine,
You are spiritually dead and your denial of your condition (my previous condition) will not change that (neither will pedantry). We can only pray for your salvation, nothing more nothing less. Obviously reasoning won’t work since you cannot acknowledge the Source of human reason.
Regarding the ‘biology quotes’, I’m not learning anything new. All this (and more) I was taught starting in high school biology and continuing on my way to earning a Bachelor of Science in Microbiology at the University of Texas (today’s game was closer than it should have been).
My last Campbell quote was actually a textbook (no pun intended) example of a circular argument. I’ll let you try to figure out why.
You still have not answered the question:
When was the last time you spoke with a scientist?
“Did you know Hitler was a Christian?”
Now you’re really grasping at straws. If you knew anything about the history of that era you’d know that to be a lie. The only spiritual aspect of National Socialism was their pursuit of the occult (unless you count their belief in evolution and the ability to use it to develop a ‘master race’ as spiritual.)
“We disagree. I’ve already shown right and wrong depend on the circumstances. What’s right in one situation can be wrong in another.”
You’ve not shown that, you shown that people believe that. Two very different things.
Cineaste your rebuttal came from an evolutionist’s page so I just assumed the conflict of interest in your reference would be obvious. =0p
“What I am looking for is details on how exactly the creation process works like how exactly does a man’s rib become a woman.”
No problem. I’ll go get that and you take care of the problems with your fossil records.
The more science learns about the complexity and sophistication of creation the harder it is to believe that it all happened by chance. DNA and molecular biology show us that.
Bottom line is if you lay it all out scientifically, you need much more faith to be an atheist than a Christian.
And you need even more faith than that to be a Cubs fan!
BA-ZING!!!
Oh, Tony, you don’t have to be faithful to be a Cubs fan.
Only masochistic.
De Cubs…
j razz
Tony you can be so cruel when you’re sober. =0p
This string takes another hairpin turn.
I’m not as think as drunkle peep I am.
Zo- Zo- Zoner! (to be read with Foster Brooks hesitations at each hyphen)
Foster Brooks? That’s old school. We were watching the telethon this weekend and my nephew said “Who’s that guy?”. I said “Uh, Jerry Lewis”. So this is what it’s like to get old…