Another step closer

My book (Going Ape: Florida’s Battles over Evolution in the Classroom) has inched a bit closer to the publishing finish line. The copy editor had hacked and slashed my writing to bits and shipped it to me to stitch back together. After a couple of weeks full of crying and cursing, including a week-long “vacation” from the office that was spent slaving away from dawn to past dusk, I finally revived my creation. It looks much better now. The wordy fat is trimmed away. Meandering narratives are straightened and strengthened. And all the embarrassing errors are rooted out, hopefully. Today I shipped the manuscript back to the copy editor who will do a final bit of tweaking. Then it will be shipped off for typesetting!

About Brandon Haught

Communications Director for Florida Citizens for Science.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Another step closer

  1. Ivorygirl says:

    Brandon, (Going Ape: Florida’s Battles over Evolution in the Classroom)that was not the original title. Did you change it or did the publishers come up with that?

  2. Chris says:

    Brandon, I’m looking forward to your book. Do you have any idea when it will be available?

  3. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl, Don’t you think Going Ape fits appropriately?

  4. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,
    You should read Brandon’s book, then you can see that you are not as unique as you think you are. There has been mindless idiots who lie for Jesus for a hundred years.

  5. Brandon Haught says:

    Ivorygirl, My working title was Florida’s Greatest Menace. But the marketing folks thought that was too broad. Menace could refer to anything. Going Ape is more direct.

  6. Brandon Haught says:

    Chris, my Amazon page says April 25, 2014. I have an Amazon page! Isn’t that cool!?

    http://www.amazon.com/Going-Ape-Floridas-Evolution-Classroom/dp/0813049431

  7. Chris says:

    Brandon, Very, very cool.

  8. Jonathan Smith says:

    Brandon, Great news, I will expect you to sign my copy.

  9. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl,

    I’ll be reading Brandon’s book as soon as its available. I’m sure its well done and it sounds like it will be an excellent history source on the subject.

    On another note, the evolutionary farce actually goes back much further than a few hundred years. From what I’ve found, Epicurus might be the first who had similar views, around 300 BC. Epicureans believed if gods existed they had no interest in human activity. The belief that randomly moving particles called atoms coalesced by chance to form everything from sand gnats to monkey butts has a familiar ring with todays tale of evolution.

    Paul encounters some Epicureans in Acts chapter 17. He declares there is a spiritual realm beyond their materialistic ideas, and he identifies the Creator God who made everything. He also tells them there was a time when God overlooked such ignorance, but now its time to repent. What is even more comical to me is Paul’s warning to Timothy. “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
    Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” There is little doubt the vain babblings here are the philosophical beliefs of the Epicureans and yours.

  10. Joe Wolf says:

    Good editors are priceless. Painful but priceless.

  11. Joe Wolf says:

    Chris
    That is a really interesting idea from the Epicureans. It seems to me to have much more to do with atomic theory than evolution. Or do you deny that all material things are made out of the same kinds of a limited number of atoms?
    WOW! what an idea!
    I am not even sure I can count how many hundreds of years you want to set back science. Physics, chemistry, biology, geology and every other science I can’t even think of, you have denied them all.

  12. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,

    You spewed “The belief that randomly moving particles called atoms coalesced by chance to form everything from sand gnats to monkey butts has a familiar ring with todays tale of evolution.”

    How many times do I have to explain to you that evolution is NOT a random act of chance, before it gets embedded into your babble clouded brain?

    Who gives a rats ass what Paul said about a “spiritual realm beyond the materialistic”? Did Paul present the scientific evidence to back that 2000 year old statement up? NO and neither can you 2000 years later.

    Once again I will ask you the same question that you never answer. Show us scientific proof that there is a creator and that creator is the god of the bible.
    Otherwise quit posting your creationist crap on this site

  13. Chris says:

    Joe

    I’d have to agree there is quite a bit of difference between the two thoughts. But the underlying method of formation is the same, in that organisms appear by chance and are not the product of a creator.

    I’m not sure how you could demonstrate that the sciences would be adversely affected if one questions the possibility of how matter and living organisms could have arrived unassisted. Correct me if I missed it, but I see no examples where any science has successfully developed matter from non matter or a living organism from non living matter.

    The only affect which might be altered with questions for a science might be a theoretical explanation, not physical. The speed of light would be measured the same if the light appeared by chance or if it was created by a designer. Various medications would have the same effect on a particular disease regardless if the same person or animal was originally created or appeared after millions of years of mutation and natural selection. The present composition of elements wouldn’t change one iota if originally created or if they spontaneously generated from nowhere.

    I feel you have failed to demonstrate how the basic root question of how nothing can do anything denies every aspect of science.

  14. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl

    How’s the Kool-Aid?

  15. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris

    The Kool-Aid is fine. How’s that zombie wine and cracker these days,still taste like a dead Jewish carpenter?

  16. Joe Wolf says:

    Chris
    Interesting comments. By no one having developed matter from non-matter I assume you are not referring to the interchangeability of matter and energy. That has been done many times by lots of people. I am also willing to assume that you don’t think that every time a hydrogen ion bumps into an electron to form a hydrogen atom or a hydrogen ion bumps into an OH ion to form water it does not take a special act of God. Or do you? If so, then the laws of nature just do not exist for you.

    So that brings us back to where do matter/energy come from. Science does not know, at least to the best of my knowledge. But because we don’t know does not mean we have to postulate the existence of God or super-being aliens. For me, the existence of God is beyond the reach of science. Science cannot prove it one way or another – by definition.

    If you want to believe in God that is fine, but that does not mean we have to postulate that it takes a special act of God for every little thing that happens in the universe. If you do, then this God acts just like the laws of nature so that we cannot tell them apart.

    Chris, you use the word “creator” a lot, why don’t you just say God, unless you mean something else by the word. If so, let us know for it opens up a whole lot of other interesting discussions.

  17. Chris says:

    Joe

    I would say you’re correct. Matter can power or be used in an unknown number of applications. But within the laws of nature we see matter being manipulated by intelligence, but we don’t see matter producing intelligence on its own.

    You say science doesn’t know where matter comes from. I think that is completely accurate. As I said earlier science has not demonstrated how to produce matter from non matter nor how to construct a living organism from non living matter.

    Another point alone the same line is the inability of matter to produce intelligent information. What is seen suggest that intelligence only comes from intelligence. I can think of no examples where intelligence has independently arisen to produce anything as complex as a thumb tack. Considering the enormous pile of intelligent information required to produce a single tack, the idea that randomly moving particles can produce complex organisms , or non existent information can produce a higher level of information independently without intelligence can only come from ignorance or deception.

    Coming to a conclusion based on the known possibilities, I find it necessary to accept the reality that dirt doesn’t have the ability or instructional information to make itself. Even having identified many of the components, I find no examples where science has duplicated any complex life form, such as a tomato seed. The arrangement of facts to suggest what is unknown is know because it happened long long ago and far far away has convinced me science has no clue as to the origin or component called life.

    Having or not having to postulate the existence of God or super beings is not the issue. What is the best answer to the question would be my thought. As you say science had no idea where matter comes from, no way to prove or disprove a creator or God and by its very nature science is restricted to a limited materialistic view. So suggesting science can produce the best answers to many questions becomes a matter of faith not fact.

    Just look in a mirror and you’ll see complexity and design far beyond any and all science can explain. For me I see the evidence of creative intelligence throughout the universe. And the best explanation for it is a creator or creators. Having to choose between nothing doing something or someone doing something is a simple choice for me.

    Sure I can say God is the creator. And specifically the God of the bible. Of the choices available there is no comparison. I see history and science conferming the book. Its true that the book doesn’t fit well with today’s evolutionary assumptions or secular humanist doctrine. But we’re not talking about assumptions or doctrines.

  18. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,
    Congratulations, just when I thought you had reached the limits of your stupidity, you spew out this paragraphic gem of poorly written, miss spelt, lunacy.
    “Sure I can say God is the creator. And specifically the God of the bible. Of the choices available there is no comparison. I see history and science conferming the book. Its true that the book doesn’t fit well with today’s evolutionary assumptions or secular humanist doctrine. But we’re not talking about assumptions or doctrines.”
    Not only is your scientific logic cognitively vacuous, your philosophical ignorance would have had the apostle Paul cutting his wrists. ““Sure I can say God is the creator. And specifically the God of the bible. Of the choices available there is no comparison.” You can SAY and think what you will, it doesn’t make it true. What other Gods are you comparing Yahweh to? Are you admitting that other gods exist, I thought there was only one god-yours? .You wrote-” I see history and science conferming the book.” Well I don’t, I see science destroying a 4,000 year old book written by a bunch of ignorant goat herders. I will ask you once again. Show one piece of scientific evidence to support your claim of creation and Yahweh being the creator.
    “But we’re not talking about assumptions or doctrines.” Really? Assumptions and doctrines are ALL you have, that and blind faith. You take cognitive dissonance to the nth degree.

  19. Ivorygirl says:

    Dr Wolf
    You said “For me, the existence of God is beyond the reach of science. Science cannot prove it one way or another – by definition.”
    I think you are standing on a slippery slope here. The scientific method cannot disprove the existence of supernatural effects or the existence of a god. Yet by definition, that method requires that we assume they do not exist. The scientific method is quite capable of testing specific claims and effects of religion, i.e. virgin births, raising the dead, walking on water does it not?

  20. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl

    I see you are unaware of the scientific test underway with my spelling. I’ve decided to give full blown evolution a shot. So we should see these small inadequacies in spelling independently correct themselves given enough time. Just be patient.

    Wile you were foaming at the mouth with mindless dribble, I noticed you mentioned science’s inability to raise the dead or walk on water. Does that mean it can’t be done or they don’t know how?

    Also could you tell us how a 4000 year old goat herder would know that the sun was moving through space on a circuit. Today astronomers estimate the sun and our system is moving around 43,000 mph in the direction of the bright star Vega in the constellation of Lyra.

  21. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,
    A word of advice, it’s not always wise to respond to criticism with attempts at being humorous. More often than not, by so doing you’ll wind up looking worse than ever, just as you’ve done with your last post. As bad as your grammar and spelling is, you should be embarrassed. If you are going to write crap, you would at least gain a modicum of respect if it was well written crap. Perhaps miss spelling “while” wile, – which is defined as “a stratagem or trick intended to deceive or ensnare” was a Fraudulent slip
    So your goat herders knew that the sun rose in one spot and set in another and this happened every day. I wonder if they figured that out for themselves or Yahweh reveled to them in the form of a talking snake. You know how evil science is. Strange that the world’s oldest solar observatory (4900 BCE) is found in Germany; it would seem the Celtic gods knew more about the Universe than the babble god, who you say is the creator

  22. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,

    Read my post to Dr Wolf again, I know you have the comprehension of a 4th grader. I wrote.

    “The scientific method is quite capable of testing specific claims and effects of religion, i.e. virgin births, raising the dead, walking on water does it not?”

    How does your twisted little mind come up with “I noticed you mentioned science’s inability to raise the dead or walk on water.” from that?

  23. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl,

    Scence ya hav know antzors/pucken et me pellenes da be goodast ye con cum dup wit:

    No humor intended. If change over time has the power to produce plants and animals, I’m sure it can handle a few misspelled words.

    “How does your twisted little mind come up with “I noticed you mentioned science’s inability to raise the dead or walk on water.” from that?” Are you suggesting that science has shown the dead cannot be raised, or that they can? Doesn’t science confirm all of the elements for life are here. If that’s the case, my question is valid. By your comments does that mean it can’t be done or science doesn’t know how to do it? And if it could or could not be done would that prove or disprove the existence of God?

  24. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,
    Seems like your spelling is improving.

    You asked.

    Q. Are you suggesting that science has shown the dead cannot be raised, or that they can?
    A. Science would clearly show they cannot be raised if they have been dead long enough to smell. John 11:39.
    Q. And if it could or could not be done would that prove or disprove the existence of God?
    A. No to both parts.
    Q. Doesn’t science confirm all of the elements for life are here?
    A. Yes, or at least life as we currently understand it.

  25. Joe Wolf says:

    Ivorygirl, it is not doctor, but thank you for the thought. My daughter and my sister are Dr. Wolf.

    I do not believe that science requires we deny the existence of God, but it does demand that we do not postulate the existence of God to explain nature. If God exists, he/she/it is outside the natural world, being supernatural; science can only deal with the natural world. I realize that is not the most comfortable place to stand, black and white rules are always easier, but it is the way I understand the philosophy of science.

    Chris, I think you are very close to saying, “if we don’t understand some phenomenon, god must be responsible”. That is know as “god of the gaps”. For a religious person it is a very dangerous place to be as we keep learning new things that explain previously unexplained phenomenon, and god gets squeezed out.

    Sorry not to have replied earlier, but I have been busy with some other things.

  26. Chris says:

    Joe Wolf

    No problem. I know what busy is. Thanks for your thoughts.

    I think there is a misconception that when science theorize o discovers something, God is removed from the equation and that somehow proves He had no part in it.

    I completely understand where science does not demand we postulate the existence of God. I’m not sure where God as god of the gaps fits in the Bible; He has been used to for that purpose. Today God has been replaced with a new god. Where unexplained or unexplainable phenomenon is recognized, today’s science postulates evolution as the god of the gaps. Since God as a first cause is unacceptable, evolution must be inserted, regardless of the claim. Let me give you an example. Definition of chemical evolution: “The formation of complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions in the oceans during the early history of the Earth; the first step in the development of life on this planet. The period of chemical evolution lasted less than a billion years.” Here the definition tries to offer a scientific explanation for abiogenesis. But in reality, can any of the claims here can be truly called scientific, they are all supposition? Sure, you can use the standard talking point that this theory is documented through multiple lines of evidence. But the problem I have with that is that the definition of chemical evolution posted here would be considered part of that evidence. None of this can be repeated, tested or observed.

    The claim being made here ‘evolution did it’ is no different than saying God did it. Both require a level of faith. In this case, talking snakes, walking on water and chemical evolution can all fit well together.

  27. Ivorygirl says:

    Joe Wolf,

    Sorry about that. I know you are the President of the Florida Citizens for Science and I thought you had a PhD, I must have misunderstood some thing I have read about you.

    Chris, Your total lack of scientific understanding and your inability to grasp the simplest logic leaves me speechless

  28. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl

    Humor me. Yes, I have a lack of understanding. I’m one of the 86% here in the US who question or reject evolutions full blown story. So help me out with the scientific process for chemical evolution so I can make something out of nothing. All I need is the details, so it can be done here at my house.

    With this information I should have no problem walking on water.

  29. Joe Wolf says:

    Chris,you stated “I completely understand where science does not demand we postulate the existence of God”. I would say it a little differently “Science demands that we do not postulate the existence of God”. These are not the same.

    I agree with you, I don’t see how the god of the gaps fits into the bible. But then I did not say that. I said YOU are close to using the god of the gaps: not the bible. And don’t tell me you only use the bible.

  30. Chris says:

    Joe

    No, you didn’t say the god of the gaps fits with the bible. But you did say, “I think you are very close to saying, “if we don’t understand some phenomenon, god must be responsible.” That is known as “god of the gaps”. For a religious person it is a very dangerous place to be as we keep learning new things that explain previously unexplained phenomenon and god gets squeezed out.”

    I’m sure you have something in mind where God gets squeezed out of a previously unexplained phenomenon. But I fail to see such an example. Observation is not creation. The changing theoretical proposals of science may not fit with the absolute fixed claims of the bible. But how does that diminish those indisputable facts that do fit with the bible?

    I think the bible is quite clear in its claims. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and so on. There is a lot of detail, not all by any means, given in the process He used. The book identifies a very powerful creator who by our time frame created everything in a very short moment. These are true or false claims, not negotiable. And while the claims may have scientific relevance, many are not testable by science.

    The issue here is not the bible or God. The issue is the big myth that science knows everything about everything. Scientists now stand as the new priests of the new god, science. There is no need for religion, God, or a creator; science has all the answers, just trust it. And if you don’t accept everything hook line and sinker science has to say, you’re an idiot. But then there are those little morsels of unknown stuff where it can be said that science doesn’t know how it happened yet – but we do know how it didn’t happen. Period.

    I ran across this tidbit of humor while pondering the subject. ‘Creation science’ is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism–it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms.” Scientific American Magazine, July 2002. Go ahead, show us the tested natural mechanism which brought about the universe. Not even a vegetable head could suck this up.

    What ever political, atheistic or sadistic agenda that is being supplemented here as science obviously has nothing to do with science.

  31. Joe Wolf says:

    I would say that if you say science disagrees with the bible, it is your interpretation of the bible that is a fault. You just are not understanding the bible correctly. I realize you claim that the bible is without error, but I hope you do not claim you are.

    Science has not explained everything, and I have never heard any scientist say that it has. It does, however, explain many natural phenomenon, and we use those explanations every day. In fact, modern life would be impossible without them.

    Chris, I take offence at your last sentence. Florida Citizens for Science is neither political, atheistic or sadistic.

  32. Chris says:

    Joe Wolf

    Please accept my apology for not being clear in the word ‘here’ in the last sentences. In no way was I referring to FCS or anyone here.

    There appears to be an ulterior motive when a theory attributed to science is held up as a god or the only explanation. To me that’s when science ends and faith begins. Some of your earlier comments would suggest you would disagree with some of that, but that’s how I see it.

    I’m still a little curious about the unexplained phenomenon. Could you give a few examples where science has squeezed out God as you say. Thanks.

  33. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris babbled,

    “Humor me. Yes, I have a lack of understanding. I’m one of the 86% here in the US who question or reject evolutions full blown story”

    Thats because 86% of the US are as scientifically illiterate as you are.

    ” So help me out with the scientific process for chemical evolution so I can make something out of nothing. All I need is the details, so it can be done here at my house.”

    You should have no problem understanding the concept “something from nothing’ it happens every time you open your mouth.

    I will explain “chemical evolution” (I suspect you mean Abiogenesis) after you present scientific evidence for Creationism and that the god of the bible is the creator.

  34. Chris says:

    Ivorygirl

    “Thats because 86% of the US are as scientifically illiterate as you are.” You’ve got to be the cream of the crop. Karl Marx would kiss you feet.

    “I will explain “chemical evolution” (I suspect you mean Abiogenesis) after you present scientific evidence for Creationism and that the god of the bible is the creator.”
    I’m not claiming to have scientific evidence, you are. I take it you don’t have any.

  35. Ivorygirl says:

    Chris,

    “You’ve got to be the cream of the crop. Karl Marx would kiss you feet.”

    And metaphorically speaking you can kiss my ass !!!!!

    “I’m not claiming to have scientific evidence”

    BINGO, You don’t have any evidence, of any kind, period. Yet you come here acting dumb, presenting your worn out creationist arguments, disregarding the fact that this is a blog about science and not about mindless religious fantasies.
    Just do us all a favor, go away and Lie for Jesus some place else

  36. Chris says:

    Yep, cream of the crop.

  37. Joe Wolf says:

    Chris, Sorry I have been busy again.
    I think there are many examples of science explaining natural phenomena where once people said “God did it”. My problem is thinking of something that you might understand and agree with. Certainly recently explained phenomena fit that category.

    Evolution vs creationism is one of the best example of replacing a god explanation for a natural scientific one. But we already know you will not accept that. The beginning of the universe is another and you will not accept that either.

    So maybe we need to go back to things everyone just accepts. At one time people thought God kept the planets in the sky; now since Newtons time, we know it is gravity.

    How about the weather? In ancient Greece people thought lightening was caused by the gods, now we know it is caused by different electoral potential between clouds and earth (no god necessary).

    When I was younger I attended a couple of small churches. Every year there was a church picnic. Before the picnic the minister and congregation prayed that it did not rain that day. They thought God controlled the weather. We understand the weather much better now and no longer need god to control it. The same is true of major storms like hurricanes. People thought that god controlled them and it they prayed hard enough that the hurricane would turn aside at the last minute. Now we can see hurricanes forming in the gulf or over the Atlantic and even study some of the blocking high or low pressure cells. We don’t need god for that either.

    Disease is another example. When the potatoes failed in Ireland, back in the 1800’s people thought it as punishment inflicted by god. Now we know it is caused by Late Blight (Phytophthora infestans) a fungus. Other diseases were thought to be caused by god as well or his displeasure. Now we know they are caused by fungus, virus, bacteria, etc.

    So Chris I hope you can accept some of those examples.
    Joe

  38. Chris says:

    Joe

    I think you’re probably right. Evolution vs creationism is one of the best examples of replacing a god explanation for a natural scientific one. I’m not trying to be difficult, but it would appear that the replacing of God is the main reason for evolution, not a natural scientific one. For one thing, the family-to-family change, which is a foundational evolutionary concept, is not a natural thing. It’s never been witnessed and there are no unquestionable examples of the process taking place today. Along with not being observable, evolution’s millions of year methodology cannot be tested. I fail to see how this portion of the theory continues to be considered scientific when it must be accepted on blind faith.

    Suggesting a students ability to hit a blackboard with a spitball as being evidence he could hit the plaque on the moon left by the Apollo 11 with the same spitball is a little far fetched. However, with numerous unobservable, untestable, hypothetical conditions, it can be done on paper. This is the process which can transform a fish into a common ancestor with humans. Here I agree. For those who need it, evolution has provided an alternative explanation for a creator or God.

    I don’t think the bible disagrees with a lot science has discovered about the observable universe. Of course the speculative billions of years doesn’t fit, but the idea that the universe is expanding and had a beginning and will have an end is not only compatible with the bible, the book has some description of the events. If you look, you’ll find plenty of scripture where the God of the bible has and is stretching out and spreading out the heavens. It would appear science is only catching up here; this information is thousands of years old. Correct me if I’m wrong, prior to Einstein’s general relativity theory in early 1900’s, science had thought the universe was constant and fixed in size.

    It looks like a new theory just popped up; ‘Goodbye big bang, hello black hole?’, a new theory of the universe’s creation. http://www.universetoday.com/104863/goodbye-big-bang-hello-hyper-black-hole-a-new-theory-on-universes-creation/ If at first you don’t succeed try and try again.

    “At one time people thought god kept the planets in the sky; now since Newtons time, we know it is gravity.” Here again, gravity is a part of the system. But how can that prove the system wasn’t designed to function as it does? Colossians 1:17 states. “And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” I don’t think you’ve provided anything here that could show the planets are not operating by design. Observation is not creation; they are two entirely different things.

    “How about the weather? In ancient Greece people thought lightning was caused by the gods, now we know it is caused by different electoral potential between clouds and earth (no god necessary),” Didn’t the Greeks have a god for just about everything? They probably did have a god for lightning. Lightning in scripture is used in a lot of places, usually for comparison purposes. Matthew 24:27: “For as the lightning cometh out of the wast, and shineth even unto the west; so shall the coming of the Son of man be.”

    You gave a good example of disease. The discovery of fungus, virus, and bacteria actually gives the 613 commandments of Moses validity way beyond any spiritual or moral purpose. You should know todays science may have recently made the discovery of harmful bacteria etc., but combating these unknown pathogens was common practice for the Jews thousands of years ago. Even though the commandments are called the ‘commandments of Moses’, a word study identifies them as divine commandments. There was nothing divine about Moses, he just passed along to the children of Israel what he was told by God. Check this out. “If you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the LORD, who heals you.” Exodus 15:26

    A very large portion of the 613 laws of Moses can be sited as disease prevention practices; Proper cooking of food, washing hands and utensils, not eating specific animals which might contain and spread trichinosis if not cooked properly, sodomy and sex with animals, incest (the forbidden relationships show extensive knowledge about the combination of bad genes which could produce harmful mutations). And the list goes on and on.

    The mythological gods and goddesses of the past and the new gods of the present cannot be compared to the God of the bible. I know that natural disasters, hurricanes, floods and the like are branded as acts of God. I think the first few chapters of Genesis describes quite well the environment we find ourselves in and why we’re here.

    Accepting your examples of new scientific discovery is not a problem. However, I don’t believe you’ve proven your point that new scientific discovery has shown that God has no part in the function and creation of the universe. But I would agree that there is an organized effort to restrict and replace the knowledge of God.

  39. Jonathan Smith says:

    Not wishing to address most of your post Chris because I feel I could not change your mind in any way, however your equating science (evolution) with atheism is simply false, a common ploy of the Christian fundies.

  40. Chris says:

    I’m not sure how this could be said any better.

    The evolutionary hypothesis, carried to its logical conclusion, disputes every vital truth of the Bible. Its tendency natural, if not inevitable, is to lead those who really accept it, first to agnosticism and then to atheism. Evolutionists attack the truth of the Bible, not openly at first, but by using weasel-words like “poetical,” “symbolical,” and “allegorical” to suck the meaning out of the inspired record or man’s creation. ~ William Jennings Bryan

  41. Jonathan Smith says:

    Chris,

    My intention is not to engage with you in a theological debate, or whether belief in evolution may lead an individual to atheism, which I’m sure it can. However my point is, there are many prominent Christians who consider evolution the mechanism of God’s creation, (also known as theistic evolution) these would include. Kenneth R. Miller, John Haught, Denis Alexander, Simon Conway Morris, Francis Collins and it is the official position of the Catholic church” and the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, To state as you did that “replacing of God is the main reason for evolution, not a natural scientific one” is merely a personal opinion to which you are entitled. As for you suggesting that there exists some type of “anti God “conspiracy within the science community, well , as someone who spends a great deal of time within that community and engaging scientist from all fields of science, I can tell you with all due respects you are badly mistaken.

  42. Joe Wolf says:

    Chris, most of what you said is irrelevant to my argument. Did the Hebrews do cleansing to prevent disease, or because their god told them to?
    Your quotation form Mathew says nothing about lightening being from god, and I am certain that they did not think all lightening came from the west. This statement is about Christ not lightening and is hardly meant to be literal.

    To say that the purpose of the scientific theory of evolution is to replace god is silly. Emphasis on the work purpose. Darwin certainly did not develop it for that reason. Maybe there were others who did, but then there were even more that didn’t.

    As Jonathan says, there is no “anti-god” agenda in the scientific community. I am sure there are scientists that think that way, but not the community. I also think that there are butcher, and auto machinists and lawyers, etc. that feel they same way. So what!

  43. Chris says:

    Jonathan Smith

    I understand your point. But evolution is a very slippery word and it has multiple meanings. If you were to ask me if I believed that evolution happens, I would have to say yes. But do I believe life orginated from star dust or life has independently evolved from lower life forms to the humans of today, absolutely not.

    You have a valid point, there are many Christians who accept evolution. I’ll read up on the folks you’ve listed. I’m very familiar with Kenneth R. Miller and some of his reasoning. One thing I’ve noticed with all the commentators I’ve heard who claim evolution is compatible with the bible is that they don’t get their information from the bible, they add it in. I’m sure I could get a good story out of an old Sears and Roebuck catalog by changing a little here and a few words there. But then it wouldn’t be the S&R catalog anymore.

    Let me give you an example of the problem I find throughout the book. “Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living. Genesis 3:20. In context, how would this verse identifying the first man and the first woman as being the parents of all living fit with Darwanian theory? I don’t see how it can.

  44. Chris says:

    Joe Wolf

    I’m sure there were people who thought lightning was a direct act of god or God, and there are probably people today who think the same thing.

    All people of the past may not have been as ignorant as you seem to be suggesting. Job 36:27-29
    For He draws up drops of water,
    Which distill as rain from the mist,
    Which the clouds drop down
    And pour abundantly on man.
    Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
    The thunder from His canopy?

    “Can anyone understand the spreading of clouds, the thunder from His canopy?” Yes, science has discovered many more details to the process. Did science make the thunder and lightning, no.

    The theory of evolution has become a useful tool from it’s beginning to validate and support atheist and communist ideology. You might disagree with that, in which case I would say you’re wrong. I know not all scientist are atheist, communist/progressive or have a hidden agenda. But there are those that do have an agenda and are pushing for the replacement of our freedom and the knowledge of God with the government as god throughout our society.

    As to your question, “Did the Hebrews do cleansing to prevent disease, or because their god told them to?” I would think both.

  45. Joe Wolf says:

    Chris, I think you prove my point with your quote from Job. “He draws up the drops of water”. To me this says, “God creates the rain.” God did it!
    That is what I said people believed. Now people don’t believe that anymore, we know that atmospheric conditions create rain.

    You are right science does not create lightening, I never said it did. But science explains what does create lightening and rain: atmospheric conditions.

    You are branching out here: Are all progressives communists? That is new to me, I have always considered myself a progressive, but I am not a communist. I don’t even have a hidden agenda. I must find one, I must be missing something. Maybe trying to make the world a better placed for all people, especially the poor, is a hidden agenda? I always took that from the Gospels, am I wrong? I did not know it hidden.

  46. Chris says:

    Joe

    I think I may have proven your point. I was thinking like the 1800’s. I suppose if you believe the is no creator and science has unraveled the mystery of what causes lightning, you could use it to convince yourself a creator had no part in it. But on the other hand if there is a creator of our entire weather system then the lightning example might be similar to identifying the source of electricity to a single light socket, not the power plant.

    What’s the difference between the CPUSA and progressive Democrats? Apparently not much.
    http://cpusa.org/convention-discussion-what-s-the-difference-between-the-cpusa-and-progressive-democrats/

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/11/florida-rep-labels-congressional-democrats-as-communists/

    Duck test. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

  47. Joe Wolf says:

    Thanks, Interesting example and an apt one. If you would expand your example to include not only the the socket, but the power plant and the laws of nature that allow the power point to produce electricity we would agree. The God that is outside all of that (the creator) is outside of science, but not the people that study science.

    I believe in a creator, just not one that jumps in and does everything. My God created nature and the laws of nature to run that creation. The purpose and excitement of science is for people to discover these laws themselves. If we are lucky the quest will last as long as our species does.

    In evolution, this position is called “theistic evolution”. Many people that read this blog will agree with this position, many will not.

    On your other point, I have been a Democrat all of my life and was never once a Communist. If the communists want to support the same thing as the Democrats, more power to them. Sorry, I can’t condemn people just because they don’t completely agree with me. I would have to live in a cave if I did that. But that does not mean I will take all of their positions either. I think that is called rejecting guilt by association.

    Now if we could get the Republicans to see the light and support the Democrats, we would have a better country. Boring but better!
    Note: I am kidding here, good healthy debate from 2 sides often produces better results. However this current threat business (my way or the highway), is destructive. Creating your own set of facts is also destructive.

  48. Joe Wolf says:

    I should apologize to everyone for getting into politics. This is a blog about science teaching not politics. We would be better off if we leave politics out of our discussions.

    I would love to leave religion out as well, but since the opposition to evolution is mainly based on religion, we can’t do that.

    Sorry everyone for getting into politics.

    Joe

  49. Chris says:

    Joe

    Theistic evolution is a reasonable belief. The idea that a god or builder could be the first cause for life on the planet and the infrastructure that supports it is a reasonable conclusion. Determining at what point he, she or it pulled out and let evolution take over might be a job. Or If this unidentified deity is still in control of some parts might also be difficult to determine. Mormonism might hold some hope for such a belief. But regardless, the slow gradual evolution of life in comparison to the nearly instantaneous formation of the universe and life described in the bible by an all knowing, unlimited, powerful God stands totally incompatible with theistic evolution. Some suggest biblical interpretation holds the key to the belief. If you ripped the book to shreds you still couldn’t get even a hint of theist evolution. Once again, I don’t believe you can use the God of the bible to support theistic evolution, you’ll have to find another.

    Believe it or not I used to be a Democrat and I’ve never been a communist either. I won’t say anymore than that.

    Debate is good. “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Charles Darwin”

Comments are closed.