Okay, We Give Up [Scientific American "Caves" on Evolution]

Scientific American ^ | 01 April 2005 (ponder that) | Editorial staff

[RightWingNilla]

In the academic world, "libertarian" is probably a much more acceptable label than "conservative."

Right. In large part (but not completely) this has to do with the association with creationism/biblical literalism. Especially among scientists.

[RightWingNilla]

500 years ago...

It's a special interest of mine, and evolution heliocentrism does NOT jibe with the Bible.

[clamper1797]

I suppose you also maintain the Earth is 5000 years old

And the earth is flat, the universe rotates around earth and several other idiotic mythologies

[PatrickHenry]

But if you call yourself a libertarian, a lot of people will associate that with drugs, draft-resistance, and the other "hippie" issues that caused Rand to reject them.

[Kozak]

Perfect editorial for April Fools Day: "The fool says in his heart 'There is no God'..." -- Ps. 14:1

There is nothing in Darwins theory that denies a deity or a creator.

[inquest]

heliocentrism does NOT jibe with the Bible.

Chapter and verse, if you don't mind.

[RightWingNilla]

But if you call yourself a libertarian, a lot of people will associate that with drugs, draft-resistance, and the other "hippie" issues that caused Rand to reject them.

True. You see that on FR a lot.

I guess I am not really comfortable with any of these labels.

[PatrickHenry]

Chapter and verse, if you don't mind.

Ecclesiastes:
1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. [Clear, unambiguous description of the sun's orbit around the earth.]

Joshua:
10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

1st Chronicles:
16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalms:
93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.

[ASA Vet]

I am a Turtlist

But are you a Turtle?

I am.

[RightWingNilla]

Youre kidding right?

Ever heard of a guy named Galilieo?

And it wasn't just the Catholic Church...

"This fool (Copernicus) wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." - Martin Luther

[inquest]

The first two citations are just turns of phrase. Even today we speak of the sun going up and going down again, without even thinking about it. The Bible was written in language that people would have understood. So to talk about the earth turning and not turning would have made no sense to them.

The other quotes, from I Chronicles and Psalms, were just as clearly taken out of context. The earth is firm and unmovable from the perspective of the people living on it, and that's obviously what is being referred to.

There's no comparison between those verses and the opening verses in Genesis. Unless you were to make everything so "symbolic" as to be essentially meaningless, Genesis unambiguously states that the earth and sky, all plants and beasts, and man, were "intelligently designed". And there's no turn of phrase that can be invoked to make it mean something different, as with "sun rises, sun sets".

On top of that, there's no theological significance to the earth being the center of the universe, but there's obvious theological significane to man being created by God.

[RightWingNilla]

On top of that, there's no theological significance to the earth being the center of the universe

Wrong. Heliocentrism completely disrupted the "Great Chain of Being".

From Aristotle's perfect celestial spheres down to the lowly insects, medieval man's entire theology and philosophy was based on geocentrism.

[cookcounty]

Well, once again, a peer-reviewed journal has told us an anti-missle defense can't work. Thus Spake the Scientists. I guess the rest of us can go and shut our brains off.

[inquest]

As your post alludes to, medieval philosophy was influenced at least as much (if not moreso) by Aristotle as by the Bible. Much of what are thought of as "theological" problems of the time were really only philosophical, with only tenuous connections to the Bible.

[cookcounty]

"Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon?"

How could they be scientists? They don't believe in Evolution! And we know Evolution is true because there there aren't any scientists who disbelieve it. Am I going in circles? Already?

[RightWingNilla]

Well the Catholic Church and Martin Luther thought pretty strongly about it regardless.

[cookcounty]

"Scientists who are "pro-Creation" are not scientists in that regard. Evolution is supported by a wealth of scientific observation. Creation (as taught in the Bible) is supported by none.'

I've told this story before, but in 1960, My Dad took me on a trip to Yellowstone where we visted Speculator Ridge. The best minds in American geology claimed that we were looking at some 26-odd petrified forests, formed in sequence, one upon the other in ages past.

My Dad, a plumber with an eighth-grade education, pondered this for a moment and started to laugh. "These guys are so full of malarkey" he guffawed. The flower of American geologists, and every one of them a rock-head. Six-dayer Henry Morris was right, the rest of them were laughably wrong.

No, I'm not a 6-day YECker, but it's funny how frequently they're the ones to raise interesting criticisms, (e.g., virtually instant lithification and rootballs in the strata St. Helen).

[RightWingAtheist]

SciAm doesn't get it. People don't object to policy being informed by science. What they object to is pre-held political views being hawked as "scientific", the same way the IDers try to disguise theology with the language of science.

[jennyp]

I'm wise to your game. Let's get this clear right up front. I can go with 1 + 1 = 2. Fine. That's micro addition. But don't go getting carried away and making wild claims about macro addition. That takes more faith than the tooth fairy.

LOL! That made my day.

[jennyp]

Dave, I assure you. They do indeed know, and they don't care. Many threads ago, when I argued Darwinianism was the moral cover for on-demand sexual license frameworks, I was so ridiculed by these folks it was as if I was trapped in DU instead of FR.

It got eerie when they started calling me 'General Ripper' and quoting the movie Dr. Strangelove, line by line.

Leftists LOVE this movie (I rented it, watched it twice - it is not that good, but the subtexts ... very, very revealing, so it was useful enemy intelligence).

It is in the top 10 of leftist cultural touchstones. Why Freepers would know this movie so well, that they would quote it an chortle among themselves about it .... why, 'trollish' is the perfect word to describe that behavior. But on a given crevo thread, you have to stick around a few hundred posts before this tone really starts to be revealed....

Uh-oh, General Gobucks is on to us! Time to implement plan POE. we must not allow creationist infiltration, creationist indoctrination, and the international creationist conspiracy to dilute the purity of our on-demand sexual license frameworks.