Abyssal Discusses Theistic Evolution with BobXXX

Gitmocha Joe’s Freedom Cafe recently requested some perspective on the subject of theistic evolution.

I didn’t feel like spending a lot of effort articulating my own opinion on the subject, but since the first reply was from a rather strident critic, I felt a need to respond in defense of theistic evolution. The rest of this post is a transcript of our discussion.

---

I would like to chime in on behalf of theistic evolution (or thevo). I don’t have a whole lot to say, but I would like to respond to Bob.

BobXXX says…
In my opinion biological evolution has major religious implications. Evolution makes the insane of ideas of Christianity look even more insane.

There are Christian biologists like Ken Miller but I don’t think Miller would ever use the words “theistic evolution”. He would never invoke God to explain the history of life, and I think he would agree that calling evolution “theistic” is as dumb as calling gravity “theistic”.

No, I’m pretty sure he would. Search for “Kenneth Miller” and “theistic evolution” and the first site that comes up is Dr. Miller’s personal site. Its description, interestingly enough, says “… of links to articles by Dr. Miller supporting theistic evolution and some articles critical of Intelligent … Resources (Kenneth R. Miller) return to: Ken Miller’s …”

BobXXX says…
When people talk about theistic evolution they are implying that supernatural magic is a mechanism of evolution. Biologists know that’s nonsense.

Well as a theistic evolutionist, I would say that’s not true. Every thevo supporter I ever met accepted the accepted mechanisms of evolution. It’s true that we accept supernatural involvement on some level, whether through providence or direct interaction, but the first one would not alter the mechanisms, and the second doesn’t necessarily alter the mechanisms. Basically, we don’t reject any of mainstream evolutionary biology’s findings.

BobXXX says…
Only 13% of Americans agree that people developed from other animals and God did NOT guide this process. That means 87% of Americans don’t understand evolution.

That’s pretty damned condescending there, Chief. Everyone who disagrees with you only does so because they’re ignorant? Ya kinda came out of nowhere with this, too. Did you just feel a random need to rant or something? You sound bitter.

BobXXX says…
That’s disgraceful and the reason for this massive ignorance is Christianity.

Give me a break. Every theistic evolutionist I’ve ever met had a satisfactory understanding of evolution. Not to mention the thousands of scientists who hold both Christianity and evolution in high esteem. Are you blaming scientists for ignorance of evolution?

Not to mention that evolution isn’t all that highly thought of in a lot of Muslim countries, too. Do you think us Americans would have a better understanding of evolution if we were a Muslim-majority nation?

---

Sadly, Bob never replied, so the discussion stopped there, but I figured it was worth reproducing anyway. Hope it was some benefit to someone. Adios!

The Survival Value of Friendship

If you’ve been regular reader of this blog, you may have noticed that I used to have some pages dedicated to collecting quotes that I liked on various subjects, like religion, politics, science, or whatever. You may also notice that those pages are absent now, as I’ve deleted them.

I have decided to just post quotes as normal blog entries instead of using pages, which is something else regulars would have noticed. In my zeal to create the original quote pages, though, I added a few to the list that didn’t exactly deserve to be there for one reason or another. Normally I’ve been reposting quotes here because I like them, but this one… not so much.

C. S. Lewis
“Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art… It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things that give value to survival.”

Where the hell did Lewis come up with that one? Friendship has no survival value?

I wonder how a soldier would feel about that! “Hey, Marine, would you rather be up against the enemy with a bunch of your comrades or all by yourself?” Wonder what he’d say?

Really, I find this quote to be kind of depressing. Considering how famous he is, I would expect Lewis to at least demonstrate basic intellectual competence. And yet he goes off and says something stupid like that.

What makes this worse, is if he’s making the argument I think he is: “since friendship has no survival value it couldn’t originate through evolution, and since people have features that couldn’t have originated through evolution, then they must have been specially created.” Give me a friggin’ break.

I hope I’m just being paranoid. That could very well be the case, that little quote is short and apparently only part of a passage, as the ellipsis indicates. But I’ve heard that argument before, so it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what Lewis was driving at.

Anyway, taking that assumption and running with it, I’d like to respond to the idea. Friendship, a feeling of fondness aimed at another person. A simplistic definition, but would you agree that that’s the gist of the idea? Okay, now think about a stranger, you don’t know them, you don’t have any fondness for them, but you also have no reason to dislike them either.

Abyssal wonders…
Would you be more likely to share food with in a time of famine with your friend or some stranger, who for all you know could be waiting to kill you in your sleep?

Still have that image? Good. Now, imagine your best friend standing next to Stranger. Who would you be more likely to share food with in a time of famine, your friend, who you share a bond of friendship with, or, some stranger, who for all you know could be waiting to kill you in your sleep?

Who are you more likely to risk your life for to help if he’s being attacked? On the flip side, do you think Stranger is more likely than your friend to offer you shelter if your house burnt down?

Seeing that when it comes down to the brass tacks, having friends can affect your ability to acquire the basic necessities; food, safety, water, shelter, and all the rest. Now when you reflect on this, can it really be sanely asserted that friendship offers “no survival value,” and that there would be no evolutionary advantage given?

More info can be found at Wikipedia’s article on altruism.

Re: Back to Genesis #2 [Part II]

Note:
This is the second part of a response to Back to Genesis #2, an article by famed creationist, Ken Ham.

Claim #3
Ham spouts some non-sense about how some evil atheist conspiracy has redefined science in order to disprove God.

I’m not even gonna bother. <_<

Claim #4
WARNING: It is not just that these people want evolution accepted they want a total man-centered philosophy.

I must have missed the “Instituting a Man-Centered Philosophy” chapter when I read On The Origin of Species. <_< Or The Beak of the Finch, or The Panda’s Thumb, or any one of countless books on paleontology, fossils, evolutiona, and what-have-you. So where are you coming up with this crap?

Besides, I thought evolution was bad because it debased humanity to the status of meaningless soulless animal? Which is it? Is evolution bad because it debases us, or bad because it puts us on a pedestal?

And why is it even relevant? Humoring your conspiracy theory, just because the idea of evolution is being used to support a philosophy you dislike doesn’t mean the idea itself is wrong, or even that the philosophy you dislike logically follows from evolution!

Ham then goes on spouting random irrelevant Scriptural references in order to distract the reader from realizing how fallacious his reasoning is and just how little substance there is in this tirade. Yawn.

After that he argues against the carnivorous origins of the giant panda. He provides no scientific support against the accepted theory. Instead, his arguments consist of appeals to the bible (or false interpretations thereof) and “You haven’t proven it to me!” type garbage. The will to believe is strong in this one.

Nobody’s proven the virgin birth of Christ either yet Ham accepts that without question. Not that theres anything wrong with that belief, but it seems a tad hypocritical for a man whose worldview is so dependent on faith to criticize people who he claims to live by the same philosophy (just putting their faith in different things). Not that scientists actually do, but that’s beside the point.

Claim #5
Scientists were originally wrong about germs, so they’re probably wrong about evolution, too.

This claim is from one of those fun “Did You Know?” sections where Ham throws down a random historical anecdote to give an air of intelligence about himself in a desperate attempt salvage credibility and to keep reader’s distracted from his failure to give valid criticism of evolution.

He tells us the story of a doctor who used good hygiene and how this cut down on the spread of disease in his hospital. He was mocked by other medical professionals but the germ theory of disease proved him right.

Ham hopes you’ll make the non sequitur connection between the fact that the majority of scientists were wrong at one time and the possibility that they may be wrong now. Apparently if a majority of scientists were once wrong, this is always the case. Riiight. Suuurrre.

I will give him credit for one thing, though; it is possible for a majority of scientists to be wrong. After all, at one point most scientists were creationists.

Later.

Re: Back to Genesis #2 [Part I]

I typed this in Word and when I pasted it my old defunct Myspace blog’s entry form it acquired some weird formatting errors which I was unable to get rid of. Sorry for any inconvenience. Remember when I did a response to Back to Genesis #1? Well I’m back with a few comments on B2G #2.

I don’t have too much to say about this one because the vast bulk of it was aimed at atheist understandings of abiogenesis. Since I’m not an atheist and don’t hold such views I wont give comment except to say that the attacks against atheism were slightly illogical. Ill leave it up to the atheists to defend their viewpoints. Here we go…

Claim #1
In Isaiah 5:20, 21, we read, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!”

Too bad that evolution is not a moral ideology; its a scientific theory. No amount of whining or bullshitting is going to change that. I don’t mind seeing bible quotes in religious debates, but please at least make sure they’re relevant.

Claim #2
EVOLUTION IS BELIEF: I then began to explain that there were no human witnesses to the event, and there was no written record. I explained that we did not have a sample of the original atmosphere or oceans, and there was no way of proving the idea concerning the evolution of life. I also explained that in the dictionary, “science” is defined as “knowledge,” and that which can be “observed and repeatedly tested.” I insisted that evolution was belief not science.

Since when did we need a human witness to know whether or not something happened? Last time I checked most murders aren’t exactly done in the middle of a crowded room in broad daylight. Yet criminals still get put behind bars anyway. Why is this? Ill give you a clue, it starts with “e” and ends with “vidence”. Evidence happens to be the thing that leads people to believe in evolution, too.

By your logic the study of the Barringer Crater in Arizona is non-scientific because you can’t replicate that particular meteor impact. As far as evolution being repeatable, it is possible in theory to replicate all of evolutionary history. Problem is you’d need to be omnipotent and omniscient to do so. Since even creationists will admit that only God has these qualities it seems like they expect too much out of scientists- people they’re ever so fond to point out as being fallible.

And since when was human testimony more accurate than observed phenomena, even when it’s indirectly observed? If you set up a video camera in your backyard to film a rainstorm on Wednesday and ask Bob on Thursday Hey, did it rain yesterday? When Bob tells you it was bright and sunny who are you going to believe? Bob, or the video footage of the storm?

That’s it for now. Stay tuned for part 2!

Re: Sometimes Backsliding Can Be A Good Thing

Creationist JerryK wrote:
A blog entry detailing a conversation he had with an evolutionist. He implied that because Darwin’s famed book contains the subtitle “by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” that evolution naturally led to the conclusion that some human races are superior to others. Thus, under the evolutionary scenario for the origin of biodiversity, racism was justified. His friend, an anti-racist, was understandably stunned by these “revelations” and decided to rethink his perspective on evolution.

I posted the following rebuttal in his comments section:

Do you really not have any clue how evolution works, or are you just being a sophist? Whether you realize it or not, you used the term race much more literally than it was originally meant. Darwin used the term in a loose sense to mean any distinct groups with inherited differences. Obviously human races do qualify technically, but the tone you used implied that Darwin, a British 19th century evolutionary biologist, meant “race” in the same way that an American 21st century layman would mean it.

This subtle bit of dishonesty gave the term a pointed emotional aspect the term otherwise would have lacked. Your discussion is a testament to the effectiveness of such methods in rhetoric, but such verbal manipulation only muddies the water of discourse. Not the attitude of someone interested in the truth, just someone interested in winning arguments. Just like the sophists Socrates held in such low regard.

As for the “favoured human race,” your insinuation that natural selection logically leads to racist conclusions is absurd. Different environments exert different selective pressures. Evolutionary fitness can only be assessed within the context of the given environment and its selective pressure. Adaptive “superiority” is a completely relative phenomenon, and as Dan said, only discernible in retrospect. And by retrospect I mean “Looking back after thousands or millions of years.”

If you want to know what human race has been “favoured” in a given environment, on the other hand, it’s a rather simple task: you only have to observe what race is native to the area. Note how fair-skinned people are native to higher latitudes and darker skinned people tend to have ancestors that lived closer to the equator. Natural selection is directly responsible for the biogeography of human races.

Comparing groups of people in different environments with their differing selective pressures is a useless exercise of the apples-to-oranges variety. Dan is on the right track when he says the Chinese currently hold the closest position to “highest Darwinian fitness level among humans” (well, they did before the One Child Policy anyway).

However, it should be stressed that there is nothing about the Asian race biologically that is increasing its fitness. So really, they don’t have any well-founded claim to being evolutionarily “more advanced” at all. If you study the differences between human races you will find that the differences are so slight and so closely tied to minor environmental differences in their respective places of origin that evolution cannot be sensibly invoked to justify racism. Your obliviousness to this fact betrays your level of understanding of evolution and its implications. I recommend that you invest time into additional study of evolutionary ideas before participating in similar discussions in the future.

Sorry to sound so hostile,
~ Abyssal

Re: Back to Genesis #1: Bishop or Bible? A Question of Authority [Part II]

I am continuing my response to an article called “Bishop or Bible? A Question of Authority” written by Ken Ham for the ICR’s “Back to Genesis” series.

Claim #11: How many different dinosaurs were there? Secular books on dinosaurs give the idea that there were hundreds of different kinds of dinosaurs. Children are indoctrinated to believe that these hundreds of different types of dinosaurs lived during the dinosaur age millions of years ago. Thus, they are led to believe that evolution is true and the Biblical account of creation wrong.

You’re just equating your own interpretations with God’s again. Whatever happened to Christian humility and quaking in awe before God? And you’re denial of the sheer vastness of known dinosaurs is pathetic. Anyone can check out the Wikipedia article on the subject themselves and call your bluff.

Claim #12: However, one begins to lose faith in “science falsely so called” when a careful dinosaur investigation is made.

I think it should be noted that the science falsely so-called verse is from the King James version. It does not refer to the modern institution of science where nature is learned about by observation and experimentation, but rather all types of false knowledge. Note also that other non-KJV bible translations are used in this article. With this Ken Ham is taking advantage of the wording in different translations in order to twist the Bible into fitting his own preconceived ideas.

Not to mention that the science falsely so-called argument is listed in the Answers in Genesis’s “Arguments that Should Not be used Against Evolution” article. Good thing creation scientists are upright moral Christians who would never abuse Scripture when it’s convenient but tell others not to do the same thing just to put up a false front. Hypocrites!

Claim #13: Paleontology should be doubted because new dinosaur species are sometimes described on the basis of fragmentary evidence.

This objection is easily refutable by someone acquainted with paleontology, even if they are only acquainted enough to call it a hobby. Since most people arent even this familiar with the science, Ill instead turn to an analogy from an area of wider reaching appeal: cars. I admit to not being interested in cars myself, but its common sense that you can determine the make or model of a car based on the construction of certain parts. Thus if a knowledgeable mechanic looks at a part he can say, Thats a Ford, or Thats a Mercedes. Its the same way with paleontologists attempting to classify fossils.

To a layman a spark plug is a sparkplug, and to a layman a dromaeosaur tooth and tyrannosaur tooth probably look the same as well. However to an expert, a tooth can almost always be narrowed down to the family level, and sometimes even straight down to species level classification. Thus if a tooth is distinct enough, it would appear to not belong in any known group, and since this tooth is obviously real, and not a hoax on the part of Satan as some people have tried to convince me, it means that it belongs in a category all its own- it is the first known fossil of a previously unknown organism deserving a new binomial.

Claim #14: Paleontology should be doubted because paleontologists sometimes misclassify fossils.

This should hardly be surprising, considering that if creationists are right human reasoning can’t be used to discover truth! Despite this “fact” creationists expect scientists to know the truth about everything all the time with one hundred percent accuracy, while we’re supposed to overlook dozens of hoaxes that have been used to advance creationism, right? Looks like creationists have double standards.

Obviously scientists make mistakes on occasion in identifying fossils. This isn’t to say that they don’t know what they’re doing, however. I’ll return to the automobile analogy. Perhaps a certain type of piston is used primarily used in one model of car. If a piston is discovered that closely resembles it, a mechanic might be forgiven in his misidentification, right? Shouldn’t it be the same with scientists?

They are usually able to classify animals by obscure materials, but creationists don’t talk much about the successes, do they? No, they like to point out the occasion or two when a dinosaur known only by vertebrae is misclassified. Id ask the creationists if they could classify species any better, but since species are just variations within a kind, I doubt they feel a need to give them accurate classifications although they think evolutionists should be required to do this flawlessly.

Claim #15: Supersaurus is possibly a diploma docid (page 119).

There is no such thing as a diploma docid. He is probably referring to the term “diplodocid,” which refers to dinosaurs in the family diplodocidae. Examples of diplodocids include Dicraeosaurus, Apatosaurus (aka “Brontosaurus”), Diplodicus, Barosaurus, Supersaurus and Amphicoelias (this list was roughly in order from smallest to biggest). I dont know why he should even write this here, Supersaurus has been considered a diplodicid from day one as far as I know, its not a big surprise or anything. Except to creationists, I guess.

Claim #16: ICR has some excellent books

Shameless plug. And a lie as well.

Claim #17: This will involve hands on experiments for parents to help them develop skills to teach their children how to understand science from a Christian basis

What? Christian basis? Science and Christianity have nothing to do with each other. Science is done by observation, formation of a hypothesis, experimentation etc.

None of those require, or can be done effectively when you base your research on supernatural assumptions. One can be a “Christian scientist,” but doing “Christian science” is impossible because of the very nature and philosophy of science. Basically what’s happening here is people are being indoctrinated to view science from the assumptions and presuppositions of the ICR, and to base their research and results on this false foundation. And we all know what happens to house not built on sturdy foundations!

Another shameless plug for some seminar.

Claim #18: A wombats pouch could not evolve to face backwards.

A user who knows more about the mutative processs and genetics than me posted a response to this claim on Talk.Origins. Here is what he wrote:

A Talk.Origins poster wrote:
Evidence of the migration of features (ex: the movement of a whales nostrils from its face to the top of its head) do exist in transitional forms. In a recent article by Gould, he discusses a case of inversion where in earlier forms the gut is below the nerve chord, and later cases above. (Or it may be a mouth moving from ventral to dorsal.) Its very likely that the pouch of the wombat developed as follows:

a) Due to unexpressed mutations, the genetic potential for an inverted pouch develops, but is supressed by some of the genes which control embryonic
development.

b) A mutation changes the controling genes, allowing the pouch to develop in an inverted manner. Many quick, or even single generation changes are do[sic] to changes in genes which either cause or hinder the expression of features during fetal development, or which change the rate of development. For instance, the major differences between the skull shapes of various dog breeds is largely due to where in the path of skeletal development the breed halts. All puppies tend to have flat, broad faces. In some breeds the skull elongates more than in others. I suspect that the marsupial pouch embryonically either starts out as a tube open on both ends or attached at one end, but not the sides, and then becomes attached during fetal maturation. One of the problems with traditional natural selection is that, until recent advances in genetics, all change was seen as bit by bit, and gradual. (Even Punk-Eeek is gradual, just faster. (i.e, 100s of generations vs. 10s of thousands.) With the realization that profound morphological differences can result from small changes in some of the genes governing fetal development, its possible that a massive change can take place within a few generations. (Given an isolated population.) Take corn for example. Most of the wild relatives have their ears where a corns tassels are, and vice versa. A single gene controls this. In fact, domestic corn occasional mutates into this form. (cf. Natural History, sometime within the past six months.)

Speculative? Yes, but at least it has some basis in facts, unlike Ham’s mere proclamation that such a feature could never evolve.

Claim #19: “Did you know that the domestic dogs, fox, coyote, wolf, colishe [I can't find much info on this], jackal , fennec, and dingo could be the descendants of a single mating pair of dog-like creatures? If this is the case, Noah would have only needed a pair representing the dog “kind” on board the
Ark that would eventually give rise to the large number of varieties”

Maybe I would believe this if some evidence was cited. But it seems like creationists don’t like to provide evidence for their claims. Maybe since ICR is the
Chosen ministry raised up to spearhead Christianity they don’t have to justify themselves to us mere mortals.

Claim #20: This is variation within a kind, not evolution.

Any change in the gene pool of an organism over time is evolution. So yes, multiple species evolving from one common ancestor is evolution. The idea of species coming from common ancestors is the very basis of the idea of evolution. What is being said here amounts to “this is evolution, not evolution!”

Claim #21: Noah needed only the representative kinds of all the air breathing land dwelling animals.

Actually he would have needed representative fish too if the flood was global. Rain water is fresh and such a large and rapid change in salinity like a global flood would be too much for most fish to take. The Noachian Flood as described by creationists would have emptied our oceans of fish. And dont forget plants. If the Flood was able to carve out the
Grand Canyon rapidly, what effect do you think it would have on the worlds forests? How about the thin layer of topsoil needed by people to grow their crops? Can you honestly say that it would carve out the Grand Canyon, yet leave topsoil unaffected, ready for Noah and his kids to start tilling? Puh-leeze!

Well, thats all I have to say for BtG #1. I’d appreciate to hear your thoughts. See ya.

Re: Back to Genesis #1: Bishop or Bible? A Question of Authority [Part I]

Note:
I wrote the following entry a long time ago (several years) and posted it elsewhere online. I found a copy of it on my harddrive and figured I might as well post it here on my blog after sprucing it up a bit. I’m not going to redo the intro or anything, so just revel in its antique goodness.

I’m a theistic evolutionist, and I thought I’d start throwing in my two cents on the whole origins debate by rebutting the ICR’s “Back to Genesis” article series. I would like more than anything to post annotated copies of the articles here, but I’m not sure if I could get in trouble for violating copyrights. If you know for sure whether or not I can do this please leave me a comment.

Until then I’ll be handling the articles as if they were a list of claims, each of which I will be giving comments on. For the most part these claims will be paraphrased rather than quoted from the article, and will appear in [blockquote]. The original article can be found here. You may find it helpful to read, or at least skim it before reading my comments.

Re: BtG #1: Bishop or Bible? A Question of Authority

Claim #1: The Bible should be trusted more than Bishops and church figures.

I couldn’t agree more! This is truth. Unfortunately a lot of creationists like arguments from authority, and often they themselves fall victim to the same plight as the manager!

Claim #2: The display didnt mention God, and it was therefore atheistic.

Just because it doesn’t say it, doesnt mean it didnt happen, or even that the creator of the display didn’t believe that it happened. It being the creation of the universe by God, of course. Saying “In the beginning the heaven and the earth were created” doesn’t preclude “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. In fact it’s a necessity.

Claim #3: Genesis creation account is the foundation of the rest of the Bibles teaching.

No. Just no. It is indeed important that God created the heaven and the earth, but does it matter how long it took? No. Does it matter the order they were created? No. Does it matter whether Adam had parents or was made from sticks or mud? No. None of those things have any impact on the rest of the bible.

You’re just trying to use scare tactics to bully people into having the same interpretation as yours. “If you dont agree with me about the interpretation of one part, youll be wrong about everything in the bible and go to hell,” is all youre saying, and I’m not buying it. Arguments from intimidation have no place in legitimate discussion, especially between professing Christians.

Claim #4: People esteem man’s wisdom higher than Gods word

Well, creation scientists sure do. That’s why they claim their own personal interpretation of the bible is the same as God’s and everyone else is either a “liberal humanist” or a “compromiser.” No room for debate or discussion with creationists, just a “my way or the highway” declaration as if they had any authority to speak on behalf of God.

Claim #5: Peoples’ reasoning powers cannot be trusted to discover truth.

Thanks for the warning. Now I know never to trust creation scientists when they tell me that they have objective secular scientific findings to support creationism! If I was foolish enough to believe people could reason out truth I might have believed that garbage! And if you really mean that, then any and all arguments put forth by creationists are self-refuting, even those based on Scripture, as Scripture requires human reasoning to be understood. Thanks for sparing me the trouble of rebutting you guys. <3

Claim #6: By doubting the literal interpretations of YECs, you doubt Gods word.

The equating of their own ideas with those of Gods is one of the reasons creationists are perceived as being so arrogant. Doubting the authenticity of a particular interpretation of text is not the same as doubting whether the text itself is true. That’s fallacious reasoning as well as being hopelessly pretentious.

Claim #7: Genesis and Christ’s gospel are one and the same

What? The two have nothing directly to do with each other. This is just more intimidation garbage. “If you reject my interpretation of Genesis, you reject the gospel and will burn in hell.” You’re still not scaring me.

Claim #8: ICR is some
Chosen holy ministry that will revolutionize Christianity and save the world from the Satanic evolutionary humanists!

More underserved egotism. I have the feeling Ill be seeing a lot of arrogance as I refute the “Back to Genesis” archives. [Note that that project has been cancelled.]

Claim #9: Evolutionists are pagans.

Are we godless atheists or idolatrous pagans? Creationists never seem to want to give a definite answer to this one. Surely, we can’t believe in no God and many gods at the same time!

Claim #10: Please support this ministry as much as you can…

…by giving us all your money.

Ha, well I guess that’s it for Part I. See ya.

Creationist Quote of the Day

Glen Peterson
“… If you have never been on a real dinosaur excavation with God-fearing, experienced creationary (not evolutionary) teachers … it is one of the most delightful, meaningful and memorable things you will ever do in your life! The mere idea of unearthing the remains of creatures that have been preserved by sediments laid down during the global flood is stimulating enough. The truly wonderful bonus is to see an unbelieving friend softened toward the Lord as they see and feel the evidence of God’s awesome power revealed in the rocks.”

*snigger*

Creationist Museum Lies About Archaeopteryx

I was going to write a lengthy critique of the blatantly dishonest portrayal of Archaeoptery at the Creation Museum. But, I got tired of it, and it ended up just sitting there and stagnating for month after month. So, I decided to post a short “Cliff’s Notes” version of the original even though the whole Creation Museum thing is old news.

The Creation Museum had a model of a life restoration of Archaeopteryx present in their Garden of Eden exhibit where they deliberately reconstructed its anatomy inaccurately to make it look much more like a modern bird than it actually would have. The following is a list of just a few of the ommissions and alterations of Archaeopteryx’s anatomy present in their model:

Its reptillian jaws were replaced with a beak.

Its teeth were removed.

The place where the neck joins the skull was changed, removing Archaeopteryx’s nice, S-shaped theropod-like neck.

It was given a keeled breast, making its flight muscles look much bigger (and less primitive).

Its legs were shortened to make them look less like a predatory dinosaur’s.

Archaeopteryx’s hyper extensible toe (think Velociraptor’s big claw) was removed.

Archaeopteryx’s long dinosaurian tail was shorted drastically.

Lastly, and most absurdly: Archaeopteryx was given the same plumage coloration as a modern pidgeon!

The items on this list, of course, make the claim touted by many creationists that Archaeopteryx was “fully a bird” (instead of a transitional form) seem much more believeable to someone not familiar with the animal’s anatomy.But as someone who is somewhat familiar with Archaeopteryx, I have to just say “Wow.” This level of dishonesty is a new low even for creationists.

Maybe AiG or the sculptor of the model could claim the anatomical inaccuracies were a mistake. That would be convenient, though, as lots of creationist “mistakes” seem to “accidentally” lend support to creationism. More on the Creation Museum’s treatment of Archaeopteryx can be found here.

AiG’s Goals –Proof or Promotion?

By now the $27,000,000 Creation Museum built by creationist organization Answers in Genesis has become old news. I’m sorry I haven’t had time to give comment on it but life has gotten in the way (I have a post about its portrayal of Archaeopteryx which is still incomplete and will probably remain that way) and the main obstacle, of course, being that I’ve never had a chance to visit it.

But a thought occurred to me again, today (well, the day I began typing this anyway): what a waste of money that museum was! Seriously. Twenty seven million dollars wasted on a vapid illogical museum arguing in favor of a vapid illogical belief system. It might as well be flushed down the toilet. Actually it would be better off flushed down the toilet. At least nobody would be being deceived that way. There’s also the theological objection to Christian big-spending like that: think of how many starving children could have been fed, homeless given a place to live, chruches built in impoverished countries, etc.

That’s the stuff I had on mind before, though. Today something completely new occurred to me. I had been clearing away the spam from my blog’s comments (I hope you noticed <_<), when I saw a link left by a creationist commenter. This link led to a bunch of “Dinosaur and Man Living Together: Evolution is a Lie!” type stuff. I browsed it mostly disinterested, but then I had a brief epiphany that helped cement in my own mind the view that the whole young earth movement is a charade and a fraud.

If creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis were really interested in engaging in science and in proving their belief system, why would they spend $27,000,000 of their generous followers’ donations on a propaganda center instead of on research that would help confirm their views?

Well guys, why do you think that is? After all, we all know that the evilutionists are all out to get the creationists and refuse to publish or fund any of their research, you’d think that $27,000,000 in obligation-free funding would be the ultimate godsend for creation science. The ICR’s website says….

Question: “Then why don’t creationists publish in the standard scientific journals?”

Answer: Creationists do publish in the standard scientific journals, in their own respective scientific disciplines, and their publications’ records compare well with any other comparable group.
…
Whenever these articles or books have creationist implications, however, they must be “masked” in order to get them published in secular outlets. So far, at least, all frankly creationist articles or books are simply rejected out of hand by such publishers.

See? Creationism is being squashed by The Establishment. It’s all a big conspiracy. Now, however, they can buck the establishment. They have all the money they need to find that dinosaur in the African jungle or the Loch Ness Monster and prove once and for all that dinosaurs not only cohabited with humans, they still do! They could fund expeditions to faraway lands to scour the globe for geological formations that can only be explained by a gigantic Flood. They could perform genetics tests on people from all over and prove that we had a common hebraic ancestor that lived about 4,500 years ago.

If creationism was true, $27 million would be more than enough to prove it.

Even if you say, “But evolutionists are so closed minded that nothing we ever find would convince them,” you have to acknowledge that one of the evolutionists’ biggest complaints about the creation science movement is how they never seem to end up doing science, and when they do, it doesn’t end up pertaining to creationism, and in the rare instance that it does, it ends up being a huge flop (like the RATE debacle). That criticism could be dispelled in an instant. Just consider what could be done with $27,000,000.

An expedition to find the Ropen? Check.

A voyage into the Congo to find the Mokele Mbembe? Check.

A survey of Loch Ness? Check.

A search for Caddy? Check.

A genetics study to prove that all modern people are descended from Noah? Check.

In fact, they could do all of these things. And then some. So why don’t they? I could think of a few reasons.

1. ) D’OH!- They would love to do this, it’s just that all those PhD scientists just didn’t think of it! D’oh!

2.) They know their research would fail- Maybe the bigshots of the YEC movement don’t
have a whole lot of faith in their system. They may doubt that YECism’s testable predictions would turn out to support it after all. In order to keep their worldview in the good graces of the public they have to prevent their ideas from seeing real testing - and thus disproof.

3.) They don’t care about creation science- I’m sure there may be a dozen other reasons why YECs would want to avoid doing real research but I’m not going to waste your time by listing them, or mine by trying to brainstorm. I’m cutting to the chase and this is it:

The leaders of the creation science movement don’t care about research, science or learning. Their choice to use millions in funding in order to build a fancy shmancy PR and propoganda center is clear evidence that the leaders of the creation science movement care only about increasing the power and influence of the movement for its own sake.

There. I’ve said it. The creation science movement is not about science! It is about pursuing the personal agendas of the significant figures involved, religiously, financially, politically, influentially and otherwise! I don’t mean to insult, or talk down to any creationist reader here. I’m sincerely hoping that you will take this as a wake up call. You are being lied to and cheated, collectively, out of millions of dollars that is used only to spread the influence of a social movement. And one thing is for sure: science is not a part of, nor a pertinent enterprise to this movement.

Thomas Jefferson an Evolutionist?

Because the founding fathers are considered to be among the world’s most foremost scientists, even to this day, they are often quoted by creationists to bolster their arguments. This intellectually sound tactic has met with great success and many scientists have been incited to leave liberal materialist science behind and are now conducting research for the ICR. Of course, being faithful deists our American heros would no doubt support the conclusions being drawn from their statements in favor of rejecting rationalism and replacing it with traditionalist dogmatism. Seriously.

Okay, sarcasm aside, I stumbled on a website a few weeks ago that tried to give the “list of quotes from famous creationists” thing a try in order to make creationism look a bit palatable by attaching the names of popular (almost entirely) pre-Darwinian historical figures to that belief system. Interestingly, an excerpt from a rather lengthy quote penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter made it onto the list. I say interestingly because before I found the list I had been reading one of the site’s other articles about my own position on origins: theistic evolution. Apparently, according to this site, thevos aren’t real Christians.

However, ironically the webmaster then proceeds to use the quote below in order to affirm both the validity of creationism, and of the True Religious Faith^TM of Thomas Jefferson. That’s right. Thomas “remove all the miracle stories from the New Testament” Jefferson was a real Christian. The same guy who ignored the writings of Paul, who dismissed Christian supernatural ideas as mere “spiritualism” (and said he held “materialist” views) and declared the divinity claims about Jesus to be “Platonisms!” The author can’t plead ignorance about this either. He specifically admits that Jefferson gutted the Gospels to make his book and then calls this act of sacrelige one of Jefferson’s “little quirks.” Yep. He used those exact words to describe the defacing of our New Covenent.

Hello! You creationists claim to be the ones really sticking to the Bible and us thevos are evil liberal corrupters! Whatever happened to that quote from Revelation, y’know, the one that you say proves the Bible to be the very infallible word of God and you better not mess with it or you’re gonna get burnt? Oh, yeah, here it is:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

And you say that stripping away the New Testament of its most basic ideas is just a “quirk,” while condemning thevos for “adding” evolution to the Bible when we don’t have to add a jot or tittle to it! The hypocrisy is so glaring that I’m just going to let this rest here.

Now, finally here’s that quote:

I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to atheism by their general dogma, that, without revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a God. Now one-sixth of mankind only are supposed to be Christians; the other five-sixths, then, who do not believe in the Jewish and Christian revelation, are without knowledge of the existence of God! That gives [a basis for the hypothesis]…that it is more simple to believe at once in the eternal pre-existence of the world, as it is now going on, and may forever go on, by the principle of reproduction which we see and witness, than to believe in the eternal pre-existence of an ulterior cause, or Creator of the world, a being whom we see not and know not, of whose form, substance, and mode, or place of existence, or of action, no sense informs us, no power of the mind enables us to delineate or comprehend.

On the contrary, I hold, (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition. The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and cent. metal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters, and atmosphere; animals and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutes” particles; insects, mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organized as man or mammoth; the mineral substances, their generation and uses; it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe, that there is in all of this, design, cause, and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a Fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their Preserver and Regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regeneration into new and other forms.

We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order….So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful Agent, that of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a Creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe.

—Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Notice something? You should have, I bolded it for you. “Regeneration into new and other forms”? Does that sound like creationism to you? Not me. To me it sounds like Thomas Jefferson held views somewhat analogous to evolution. And not just any kind of evolution, he goes out of his way to make it a theistic kind. I might have this wrong, but I don’t see any other interpretation for the bolded statement than an evolutionary one.

So… we have a creationist offering a quote from a famous dead guy instead of scientific evidence when this dead guy was a Bible vandalizer and at the same time held theistic evolutionary views which he had just previously condemned and the quote supports the exact opposite conclusion from what he was using it to support!What was this guy even thinking?

Kent Hovind is Outraged!

To Whom It May Anesthetize,

I am writing today to pontificate my utter PISS-IGNORANT FURY over the fact that Charles Darwin dared to momentarily think the dreaded E-Word.

You see, I am inordinately proud of my religion – and why shouldn’t I be? It took incredible skill and hard work on my part to surrender to primal superstition – not to mention all the determination it took me to master blinking. That’s why pride in my religion constitutes my entire one-dimensional identity – and for that I deserve automatic and constant validation.

Now, I’m a supporter of free speech and all, but when it isn’t gushingly positive about people superficially similar to me, then it’s time for me to seek publicity!

Furthermore, as a vocal pawn of the esteemed International Society of the One-And-Only True God, it is my meal ticket to remind you that only WE are allowed to use the C-Word – as a proud expression of our subconscious subjugation.

You know, growing up Christian in my homogenous mainstream religious cult, it didn’t take long to realize that the problem with today’s world is that people who are different from me are too criminally self-absorbed to fixate entirely on MY feelings. And that’s why when Darwin used the E-Word, I felt I’d been personally appointed judge & jury, and as such hereby formally demand a book deal.

Yours Self-Righteously,

Kent Hovind

PS: I won’t be surprised if you ignore me. That’s just the kind of treatment I’d expect from a typical perverted faggot like YOU!

BTW, you can generate your own fake outraged complaint here.

Astrology Versus Evolution?

I was doing some research for an upcoming post when I stumbled on an, erm, “interesting” banner ad at some creationist website.

All I have to say is “…WTF?” o_0

The Baraminology of Negroes

While doing some research for another post, I stopped by CreationWiki’s page on Baraminology. Much to my surprise I found the rather amusing quote which has been included below:

Monobaramin (mono, from the Greek for single or one). The term monobaramin is defined by Walter ReMine (1993, p. 444) as: a group containing only organisms related by common descent, but not necessarily all of them. (A group comprising one entire holobaramin or a portion thereof). It is an ad hoc group of organisms who share common descent. Caucasians and Negros are a monobaramin, as are any group of a holobaramin such as wolves, poodles, and terriers. Holobaramins contain monobaramins; for instance, wolves are a monobaramin of the Dog holobaramin.

XD I thought the word “Negro” fell out of casual use like fifty years ago! Forgive me for stereotyping and all that stuff, but I have the feeling that the guy that penned that line is a white far-rightwing closet racist from Georgia. Seriously, nobody except that kind of person talks like that any more, let alone write something like that in a fundie Christian encyclopedia. The quote’s not actually racist or anything, but that was a weird way for the author to make his point. And it certainly brought a smile to my face.

About Me Comment Response on Theistic Evolution

A dude named Brian Purkiss kindly took the time to reply to my blog’s “About Me” page. He expressed confusion over my dual belief in both God and Evolution. His questions were worthy of a thoughtful reply, and unfortunately it took me a while to compose one. Too long to promptly reply to him. Mr. Purkiss himself may not see this, but his questions are common enough that I feel that I should answer them publicly with a major blog entry in addition to posting a response in the About Me page.

Anyway, as is typical, his comments are in blockquote. Mine in plain text.

That same word was used for Noah and the Ark, some others, and the amount of time that Jesus was in the tomb.

The NT was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Or were you referring to a later translation into that language?

First of all, it seems pretty clear to me that the time in Genesis was truly one literal day, and if not, how can you pick and choose?

It’s not about picking and choosing, it’s about following where evidence leads. And to say that Genesis is “clear” about its time frame being measured in literal days is rediculous.

Genesis 1
The universe is made in 6 days plus a 7th day of rest.

Genesis 2:4
These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Do you see my point? Genesis itself, within a mere two chapter span gives three very contradictory descriptions of time. A day, a week and generations. Literally, these descriptions cannot be reconciled. Either the text is false, or one or more of the timespans given are figurative. There’s no getting around that.

I understand that this doesn’t eliminate YECism from being true, necessarily. After all, it is possible that the later two timespans were the figurative ones. But, the major foundations of YEC Genesis philosophies of interpretation is that the Bible should “interpret itself” and “the Bible says what it means and means what it says.” According to creationists, one should assume a text is literal unless the Bible explicitly states otherwise. 

However, the contradictory time spans given by Genesis shows that these philosophies are misguided. The self-conflicting nature of Genesis itself  is a clear indication that mere literalism is not eough to get at the truth of the passage. This situation demonstrates that we should use reason and yes, sometimes even extrabiblical sources of information in order to understand the Bible. The alternative is confusion when one encounters non-literal passages that are simply cannot be shoe-horned into the literalist perspective..

If in Genesis you believe that it was millions of years for one day, then how long was Noah on the ark and Jesus in the tomb?

Obviously, since there’s no evidence indicating anything other than normal days here, secular or otherwise, they probably were “literal” days. And I put literal in quotes because Jews in the first century had a different conception of days than modern Americans. I forgot the technical details of it, but I do remember that they were considerably shorter than our days. Haven’t you ever wondered how Jesus could have been crucified on Good Friday and Ressurected on Easter Sunday if he was in the tomb for three days?

And when you think about it, it would be strange for God to describe the creation in the universe in terms of days. Different peoples have different conceptions of times and different planets sure as heck have different day lengths! Why would God create the universe in terms of a measurement that is so meaningless in the cosmic scheme of things? Why would God create the universe in spells of creation that correspond to a planet’s rotational period when that planet hasn’t even been made yet? Why would God bother to take so long to create the universe anyway? Why not make it in seven seconds instead of seven days? Why did he make it in the order that he did?

The creationist scenario raises a lot of questions. However, theistic evolution has explanatory power. Since in this scenario God had chosen to use naturalistic method of creation the time span was determined by natural law. The order of life’s creation is also explained by the devleopment of complex organisms from simpler ones by means of evolution. Under the supernatural circumstances of YECism the waters are muddied, but theistic evolution offers clarity.

But putting that aside, it all comes down to “who are you going to trust?” Are you going to trust Science or God?

This is a big, false polarization. If the Bible is true its claims should match up with what is known about the natural world. When one interpretation of scripture contradicts scientific fact, it must be discarded in favor of one that is harmonious with what is known about the world.

 When creationists propose such stark dichotomies, they are not only wrong, but they’re engaging in spiritual and intellectual bullying. I’m not trying to point fingers at you in particular, I’ve heard this kind of things from creationists dozens of times, but for convenience I’ll use “you” to refer to all creationists that give that ultimatum. 

When you say these things, ultimately you are trying to manipulate me using my faith. Your goal is to try to scare me into thinking that if I don’t convert to your views, then I’ve abandoned the Bible and, by implication doomed to hell. Since you already know I’m a believer, I should be easy to bully into accepting your views, right? No. I’m not going to be bullied or manipulated, especially not because of religious faith.

*shrugs*
Those are just some thoughts of mine - take ‘em or leave ‘em.

I’m afraid that I’m going to have to leave them.