Darwin-Free Fun for Creationists

New York Times ^ | 05/01/2004 | ABBY GOODNOUGH

[Junior]

Listen, bubba, one can love someone and still show contempt for their intellectual abilities. I love my dogs, but I wouldn't trust them with decision making.

Now, as for "Bible believing Protestants who have not even declared any animosity to" me, I grew up in the deep South. You've never known animosity until you've lived as a "papist" surrounded by Bible thumpers.

[ovrtaxt]

Creationists are like the last servant in the Parable of the Talents, who hid the talents given to him because he was afraid the master wouldn't approve of his investing them.

Actually, he hid them because he knew the Master would require the profit, and the original investment. (The Luke 19 version casts more light on the motivations of the third servant.)He was not willing to work for what he saw as no reward. That's why Jesus calls him 'wicked', no tjust fearful or lazy. (Of course, he missed the part where the master promoted the faithful servants.)

An interesting story in light of what just happened with Zaccheus directly before he spoke it.

The scariest thing about that parable is that there were ten servants mentioned in the beginning, and Jeses never even addressed the other seven! At least the third guy didn't consume the original investment upon himself, perhaps that's what happened with the other guys....

[ovrtaxt]

You've never known animosity until you've lived as a "papist" surrounded by Bible thumpers.

Brother, I feel your pain! But please, don't go as far as equating religious junk like that to Sharia law.

[longshadow]

"Festival of Blue Intellectual Flatulence" memorial placemarker

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[balrog666]

The bear returns for thee!

[Dimensio]

There's a term for people who insist that truth is what "feels good" rather than "that which corresponds to reality". Starts with "L", ends with "L". Can't think of it. It's on the tip of my tongue...

[Dimensio]

Also, do count up the number of people in the list who made advances in the field of biology. Consider that someone could have a brilliant grasp of the mechanics of the laws of physics and still be totally ignorant as to biological evolution.

[Dimensio]

Second,I do not know if anyone has ever been able to prove that Darwinian evolution is "true." If you can point me to such proof, please do so.

No theory in science is ever "proven true". If you understood the scientific method, you would know this.

Even if Darwinian evolution is considered "true" today, it could certainly be proven "untrue" tomorrow.

If it could be falsified, then it certainly hasn't been "proven true".

The central point in this whole debate is whether the Bible is true or not.

Why is it always the Bible? Why is that particular religious text? There are a lot of other religious story collections out there, with their own creation myths, so why is it always a test to see if the Bible is true when the subject of evolution comes up? Evolution raises some serious theological questions.

Mayne. That's an issue with certain interpretations of scripture not matching up with observed reality, however. It is not an attempt on evolution to challenge religion.

First, the Bible says the wages of sin is death. If there were billions of years preceding the rise of humans and the introduction of sin into the world, what accounted for all of that death?

I'm not a Christian, so don't consider my answers to be from an "expert" (and I'm sure that someone will use that fact to dismiss anything I say without comment, because that's so much easier than addressing facts), but I have heard it argued that the "death" referenced is a "spiritual death". As evolution does not address spirituality in any way, there is no conflict.

Second, other places in the Bible refer to the creation of the world. Exodus 20 for example says that God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh. If that statement is not true, then how can you establish the truth of any biblical statement. For example, how can one establish the validity of the virgin birth of Christ, His resurrection, His divinity, His promised return, or the promise of eternity?

I dunno. I guess that you've got a problem, because there is absolutely no physical evidence that the world was created in six days, and in fact there is quite a bit of evidence that this planet came about over a process of millions of years.

I wonder why you bring that up, however. The evolution does not address, in any way, how the earth came to exist.

If texts referring to origins are debatable because of relatively modern theories that seem cogent and are accepted by "scientists," why should any of these biblical ideas be accepted? They certainly seem to be contrary to "scientific" principles. Should they be discarded as well? If so, you would be left with a Bible that is eviscerated.

You do bring up interesting points, though I'm not sure why. None of it has any bearing on the validity of evolution theory. I'll leave it to the Christians here who accept evolution to answer your concerns on that matter further, as I've never cared to give it much thought (since I'm not a believer).

The only relevant inquiry in the end is what is the source of "truth?" Is it something determined by the finite minds of feeble men, or does it reside in the Almighty?

False dichotomy fallacy.

In order for us to know truth, we must possess omniscience and omnipresence. You must be able to be everywhere to find truth and have the ability to truly know everything.

True. As such, the best that we can do is to establish with as much certainty as possible -- which, of course, will never be 100% certainty -- the nature of reality through the most reliable methods available. We must also keep in mind that anything that we think that we "know" may be wrong, so we must have a method for revising our pool of "knowledge" should observed facts contradict what we have currently established as "truth". Fortunately, the scientific method does exactly that.

I do not think that any mere man could make such a claim. Therefore, it would be simply impossible for mortal finite men to establish truth.

Yes, which is why, as I said, we have a means for revising what we consider truth when our current "truths" are contradicted. I'm not sure what your point here is.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The Word you are looking for is PostModernNewAger. P & R make one feel as good as Ls do.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Instead of Disney land they could have visited the (most pleonastically and reduntantly named) The La Brea Tar Pits. Then they could have asked Hovind why the dire wolf and mastodon fossils are layered so neatly in the tar. Also, what did the Mastodons browse on while sailing with the various animals. Were there enough mammoths to feed the sabretooths for a month or so?

[PatrickHenry]

P L A C E M A R K E R

[general_re]

Don't have to pay taxes when you are bankrupt!

Hovind's not bankrupt - his Chapter 13 filing was tossed out of court for being a blatant attempt to manipulate the tax system. Besides, even if you are bankrupt, tax liabilities are not discharged if your returns are fraudulent or you haven't filed your returns, and by his own admission, Hovind hasn't filed a return any time in at least the last decade or so...

[RightWingNilla]

However, the fact that many scientists take Darwin for a kook shouldn't call into question their intelligence or commitment to the scientific process.

Many scientists? I dont think so.

And unless people who think Darwin was a "kook" come forth with any actual scientific evidence to refute his ideas, then their "commitment to the scientific process" most certainly should be called into question.

[RightWingNilla]

The Word you are looking for is PostModernNewAger. P & R make one feel as good as Ls do.

Arguing with a socialist/marxist/deconstructionist evokes almost the same exact feelings as dealing with a young earth creationist. They had a brief encounter with reality, and to their horror found it at odds with their pathetically narrow view of world.

[furball4paws]

Fear drives most men.