How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[GodGunsGuts]

The paper’s authors chose members of the National Academy of Sciences to represent the “greater” scientists. The membership list of the NAS includes just over 2000 scientists from a variety of disciplines.

[tacticalogic]

Are you comfortable extrapolating those figures to all scientists, right down to the ones doing the mundane lab work?

[GodGunsGuts]

The table doesn’t represent scientists in general. It represents the elite scientists of the NAS. I have seen a number of studies that all point in the same direction. The higher scientists rise through the scientific ranks, the greater the percentage that idenfify themselves as atheists.

[GodGunsGuts]

See my last.

[tacticalogic]

Does presenting that data in the context of a question about the religious beliefs of scientists in general have to potential to leave people with a skewed perception of the situation?

[GodGunsGuts]

I'm not sure what you're driving at. But like I said, I have read a number of polls that all show the same trend. The ideology of science is currently controlled by Darwinist-materialists. It should therefore come as no surprise that the higher a scientist progresses through the ranks of the science establishment, the greater the chance that they will become thoroughgoing materialists.

[YHAOS]

”As for Jefferson, perhaps nothing illustrates his attitude toward Christianity better than the "Jefferson Bible," where he literally took a knife, cut out and pasted up those portions of the Bible he found agreeable, while discarding all the rest!”

With Jefferson it is always particularly reckless to assign his beliefs to one act or one thing written. His intellect was much too powerful to be confined to such a small box.

In a letter directed to Doctor Benjamin Rush, and dated April 21, 1803, he specifically embraces the teachings of Christ and announces himself a Christian (“I am a Christian”). To be sure, Jefferson was very much an unconventional Christian in that he eschewed most of the formalism of any particular Christian sect and concentrated his thoughts on the actual words of Christ. His views were rather, “the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions.” It is as though Jefferson is speaking as much to this day as to 1803. The experience of having views imputed to him that were very different from what he held by people who knew nothing of his real opinions, were no different then than today.

. . . . . Thomas Jefferson, letter to Doctor Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, in 19 volumes, Memorial Edition, edited by Albert Ellery Burgh, Vol 10, pg 379

Jefferson was not an atheist; he worshiped the Christian God (to Adams: “. . . the God whom you and I acknowledge and adore”). This is quite a blow to those who slander Jefferson as ‘Godless’ (i e. the Baptists) because his Christian doctrine was not the same as theirs, and therefore not entirely to their liking. It is equally a blow to those who are today eager to declare him either Atheist or Deist in an effort to put distance between the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Anglo-American tradition of constitutional government. They will just have to bear up under this disappointment as best they can, for there is worse to come.

In a letter to John Adams, dated April 11, 1823, Jefferson not only makes clear his faith in Christianity, but also in Creationism. Moreover, he argues ID (Intelligent Design). He makes clear, beyond any dispute, both his support of Christianity and of Creationism: “The argument which they [the disciples of Ocellus, Timaeus, Spinosa, Diderot and D'Holbach] rest on as triumphant and unanswerable is, that in every hypothesis of cosmogony, you must admit an eternal pre-existence of something; and according to the rule of sound philosophy, you are never to employ two principles to solve a difficulty when one will suffice. They say then, 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.”

[By 141 years Jefferson anticipates the detection of the cosmic microwave background radiation signaling the beginning of the universe. Amazing!]

He continues: “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 centripetal forces; the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere; animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest 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 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.”

. . . . . Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, in 19 volumes, Memorial Edition, edited by Albert Ellery Burgh, Vol 15, pg 425

A letter dated November 2, 1822 directed to Dr. Thomas Cooper, explodes more common myths that have circulated about Jefferson when he relates the sharing of a courthouse by various Christian sects, as a common temple of worship. What is surprising is not that different Christian sects proved to be willing to share in common worship, taking turns in leading the services, but that their place of common worship was the very seat of local government itself, the court-house, and that this event was reported, with equanimity, by ole’ Mr. ‘wall of separation’ himself. Jefferson then goes on to confound us further by relating how he and his fellow Visitors (directors) of the University of Virginia, including former presidents James Madison and James Monroe, provided space on the university grounds and the sharing of certain facilities for formal religious instruction by various Christian sects. Not exactly the attitude which we have been lead to believe is to be expected of Mr. Jefferson (nor of Mr. Madison)

. . . . . Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, November 2, 1822, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, in 19 volumes, Memorial Edition, edited by Albert Ellery Burgh, Vol 15, pg 403

So, in the space of but three letters Thomas Jefferson explodes numerous myths about his attitudes on Christianity and church/state relations. And, there are nineteen volumes of letters, papers and documents in Mr. Burgh’s magnificent work!

[YHAOS]

”I don't believe I've ever seen anyone else respond in such a manner to remarks presented to them and accepted as being in a kindly and good=humored fashion. It doesn't seem like it would be very condusive [sic] to civil discourse.”

When you’re looking for a fight, it’s natural to regard what anyone says as being fighting words. When a poster begins his message by announcing that he is going to “straighten out” his correspondents, that has to be thought of as containing at least some hostility or the assuming of a certain air of alpha male superiority. Perhaps I was looking for a fight and read more into it than was there. Or, perhaps you were looking for a fight, and read something into my words that wasn’t there. I’m going to examine my own internal state. Recommend you do the same.

[YHAOS]

Thanks for the info. Since you sent it, I assume you believe it to be quite valid and reliable. Right?

Thanks again.

[tacticalogic]

I'm not sure what you're driving at. But like I said, I have read a number of polls that all show the same trend. The ideology of science is currently controlled by Darwinist-materialists. It should therefore come as no surprise that the higher a scientist progresses through the ranks of the science establishment, the greater the chance that they will become thoroughgoing materialists.

Science doesn't have an ideology. Scientists do, and they aren't a homongenous collective. Many of them are people of good faith and character.

[tacticalogic]

When you’re looking for a fight, it’s natural to regard what anyone says as being fighting words. When a poster begins his message by announcing that he is going to “straighten out” his correspondents, that has to be thought of as containing at least some hostility or the assuming of a certain air of alpha male superiority. Perhaps I was looking for a fight and read more into it than was there. Or, perhaps you were looking for a fight, and read something into my words that wasn’t there. I’m going to examine my own internal state. Recommend you do the same.

The comments at the beginning of the post didn't seem consistent with assuming that what you're responding to was meant in a kindly and good-humored fashion, and tended to make the claim of that assumption appear to be intended as sarcasm. I may have misunderstood.

[YHAOS]

"I may have misunderstood."

You may have. Or I may have been quite inelegant in my choice of words. Perhaps a cautionary tale for us both.

[BroJoeK]

BroJoeK: "Adams was certainly a Unitarian"

betty boop: "Certainly? How do you know that? Given where he was from — a section of Braintree, Mass., now incorporated into the Town of Quincy — in that time period, I'd say he was a Congregationalist."

You are right, of course. He was a Congregationalist, but later became Unitarian.

religion of John Adams

You might also take note of this particularly curious wording, in a Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, during the presidency of John Adams:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Of course, we can understand the necessity for diplomatic niceties, but this is a bit unusual, wouldn't you agree?

[BroJoeK]

"Adams did not believe that "reason alone could overcome all problems." But then, neither did he disparage reason."

I was speaking here of what is usually called the "Age of Enlightenment," basically the 1700s (or, if you wish more precision: 1637 to 1804 according to Wikipedia). It is distinguished from the "Age of Faith" which preceded it, and the "Romantic Era" which followed it, by the Enlightenment's emphasis on the power of reason. John Adams was certainly a man of his times -- indeed one of the preiminent men of his time.

Btw, I have McCullough's book right here, read it when it first came out, and went back to see what McCullough says about Adams' religion -- literally nothing I could find.

So all of the discussion about Adams' Congregationalism, Unitarianism and possible Deistic leanings comes from other sources. Curious...

[BroJoeK]

"I think that’s what Karl Marx said to Frédéric Bastiat. "

You seem to enjoy being insulting, just for your own entertainment. ;-)

#1509 - What credentials or accomplishments do you possess that gives you the cachet to dismiss the considered professional judgments of distinguished scientists as mere “personal opinion”?

Everyone including scientists has personal opinions, which we are free to express any time.

Working scientists who do actual research, also publish their peer-reviewed scientific results in recognized journals. These articles are not intended to be mere expressions of personal opinion, but actual scientific findings. When a debate concerns "science," these articles carry more weight that mere personal opinions, I'd say.

To my knowledge, none of those so-called "considered professional judgements" are any more than personal opinions. When they can produce recognized scientific results THEN we will have a much different debate.

Furthermore, for every one of your "distinguished scientists," there are at least a hundred others whose "considered professional judgement" goes the other way.

Bottom line: our Intelligent Designers claim they have invented a new "scientific theory," but it is not recognized as even "scientific," much less a "theory," by any real scientific group.

"#1496 - You are a self-proclaimed rank scientific amateur, yet you seem to regard your grasp of science to be superior to many of the most accomplished and distinguished scientists in the world (Dawkins, Weinberg, Provine, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Hauser, Stenger, et al). Explain that glaring discrepancy if you can."

It is very curious to me, how often what you seem to say, YHAOS, and what you actually say may be two different things. Consider these names -- what are you really asking about? Are you suggesting these are somehow anti-evolutionist Intelligent Designers?

• Richard Dawkins: evolutionist Richard Dawkins

• Steven Weinberg: evolutionist Steven Weinberg

• Will Provine: evolutionist Will Provine

• Steven Pinker: evolutionist Stephen Pinker

• Stephen Jay Gould: evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould

• Frederick Sanger: evolutionist Frederick Sanger

• Michael Tooley (?): philosopher theologian Michael Tooley

• Jacques Monad (?): biologist, philosopher, atheist Jacques Monad

• Richard Lewinton: evolutionary biologist Richard Lewinton

• Carl Sagan: billions and billions! Carl Sagan

• Mark Hauser: evolutionary biologist Marc Hauser

• Victor Stenger: evolutionist Victor Stenger

Bottom line: my "grasp of science" is in no way "superior" to those who work in the field. But I think I know the difference between science and religion.

I'll pick the rest of this up on the next post.

[tacticalogic]

You seem to enjoy being insulting, just for your own entertainment. ;-)

He also seems inclined to think he may have been inelegant in his choice of words in that post. Let's let that settle in for awhile.

[BroJoeK]

YHAOS: "And again – In pointing out differences of behavior from one venue to another, I asked you if you had exercised any great care in familiarizing yourself with how scientists characterize their own discipline."

The answer is yes, but your question sounds like something you'd like to answer yourself -- so go ahead, give it a shot. Tell us what your opinion is on this subject.

YHAOS: "And again – In response to your complaint that science was being accused of ‘suppressing alternate views,’ I asked if you had discussed the data and the logic with the accusers, or if you had merely cried “liar!” and galloped on down the pike.

So straighten me out on those issues, if you can."

I note your mischaracterizing my arguments, would merely point out the following:

• Almost anyone is free to publish anything they want at any time. So, there is no way that personal opinions of anti-evolutionists can be "suppressed."

• To be published in a recognized scientific journal requires peer-review, a process intended to weed out the frauds & fakes. So far, anti-evolutionists have never crossed that barrier.

• We should remember that, for fear of the consequences Darwin himself waited over 20 years before publishing his book, and would not have done it then except for a challenge by another biologist. Are there any anti-evolutionist "Darwins" who have been holding back their "brilliant theories" for over 20 years, for fear of being suppressed?

• We should also remember that 100 years ago, when anti-evolutionists had the political power, they OUTLAWED the teaching of evolution. So why should we be especially surprised to now see a different situation?

[BroJoeK]

BroJoeK: "”. . . among religious denominations, "theistic evolutionism" is taught by the Catholic Church, most "mainline" Protestant denominations, and Jewish groups.”

YHAOS: "What do you mean “taught”? Do they spend twenty minutes each week in Conformation or Sunday School teaching something called “theistic evolutionism.”? Or at the Wednesday night prayer gatherings? My grandson attends a parochial school, and they teach Science, not “theistic evolutionism.” And there’s none of this business that Evolution somehow proves that: 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent (per Dawkins, Weinberg, Provine, Pinker, Gould, Sanger, Tooley, Monod, Lewontin, Sagan, Hauser, Stenger, et al). As a matter of doctrine a good number of denominations may, indeed, subscribe to the validity of science, but when certain religious, philosophical, or moral conclusions are derived from science facts, that’s when the fur starts to fly."

Again, I'm doubtful if you understand what you're really arguing against.

"Theistic evolutionism" is the church doctrine of most Christian denominations. Simply put, it does not in any way deny the science of evolution, but assigns to evolution, along with every other natural process, the workings of the Hand of God. Put another way: evolution is God's plan.

Of course I understand your concerns -- that evolution theory supports atheists' claims that God was not involved. Well, that's their opinion, but most people, including most scientists can see the Hand of God working in evolution just as it does in everything else.

[BroJoeK]

"You cite MSNBC as the source for your claim? The first thing I note about that is that it is MSNBC. That’s like asking me to take VP Biden seriously. The second thing I notice is that social scientists have to be included to give a boost to the number of ‘scientists’ who believe in God (God or a god?). Do you understand in what scorn social scientists are held by those in FR who count themselves as scientists or who claim to speak for scientists? This is hardly credible.

"To counter your claim, I offer an equally unreliable source: Time, 5 November 2006, God vs. Science which reports considerably less belief in God on the part of genuine scientists, and considerably greater tension between science and religion. Guess these two 'sources' had differing agendas at the time they produced their respective reports."

This seems to be an extraordinarily important point to you, and I'm baffled by that.

Anyone knows that whenever you take a poll, everything depends on who you select and how you ask the questions. So the percent who "believe in God" can vary all over the map. Some polls show around 90% of Americans believe in God, but as soon as you start narrowing down definitions to any specifics, the percentages drop significantly.

The same is true of scientists. So, maybe it's 2/3 believe in some generalized idea of "God," while only 1/3 believe in YOUR specific definition of God.

Why ever is that a problem for you?

[tacticalogic]

I'm not sure what you're driving at. But like I said, I have read a number of polls that all show the same trend. The ideology of science is currently controlled by Darwinist-materialists. It should therefore come as no surprise that the higher a scientist progresses through the ranks of the science establishment, the greater the chance that they will become thoroughgoing materialists.

If that's the conclusion we come to, then the result will be to discourage people of faith from pursuing scientific professions if they are so inclined, and the situation will just get progressively worse.

Making broad generalizations about scientists based on this data leaves those of good faith in the scientific community in the position of being viewed with mistrust within their profession because of their religious beliefs, and within the religious community because of their profession.