The ayatollah of atheism and Darwin’s altars

Catholic Educators Resource Center ^ | 5/27/08 | PAUL JOHNSON

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Let me put it this way.... With almost every sentence I write, I think, "But I could be wrong," as I write it. But if I wrote that every time, it would clutter up the proceedings... but I could be wrong.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Skepticism is not belief lite. It is a different way of thinking.

I believe God exists. But I am skeptical in that I consider it possible that I am wrong. And, therefore, I consider it immoral to demand or even expect that people live their lives, per my belief in God.

So am I a believer? A skeptic? Both? Am I perverting skepticism by attaching morality to my skepticism? Or are we using the term "skepticism" in different, if related, ways?

[js1138]

Belief in God is an entirely different approach to knowing than belief in a scientific theory. One does not put God to the test. One does not approach knowledge of God through a public, iterative process of observation, conjecture, experimentation and theorizing.

There are non-revealed religions, but progress in them is private rather than public. Each person studying them essentially starts at zero.

Science is a public method for accumulating knowledge. It is possible for a person with a believing temperament to have knowledge of science and to hold this knowledge with a kind of certainty that is indistinguishable from belief.

But this is not science. It is mimicry of science.

[balrog666]

It must be "Delusional Dial-up Day" at the Outpatient Clinic; I haven't seen this many crackpot posts in the same thread since G3k, f-dot, and Splifford the ASCII Bat were the Holy Trinity of anti-Evo posters here on FR.

Indeed. IP spoofing means never really being banned.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Science is a public method for accumulating knowledge. It is possible for a person with a believing temperament to have knowledge of science and to hold this knowledge with a kind of certainty that is indistinguishable from belief.

But this is not science. It is mimicry of science.

And that, I think, is the point of Johnson's article which starts this thread. And if it's not, it is, at least, the point I was trying to get to.

[js1138]

OK. but being a skeptic by temperament does not mean going around empty headed. Science is by temperament skeptical, but it accumulates knowledge like layers of an onion. New knowledge sometimes requires recasting old statements to be less inclusive, but it seldom requires abandoning old knowledge.

There are things in science that most skeptical people would bet their lives on, among them the age of the earth and common descent.

[BnBlFlag]

Gee, Paul. Thanks for equating Southern Baptists with Wahabbi Muslims. You have lost much credibility with that asinine statement. Typical Catholic ignorance of Protestanism.

[Tzimisce]

It's not slander. Communist doctrine mandates Atheism.

Atheists often look to science for their comfort.

I agree that not all Atheists are Communists. However I find your parallel simplistic.

[RightWingAtheist]

I do get worked up because the anti-science nits who call themselves "conservative" are dragging the rest of us down. I tried reading Mooney's book, but I gave up when he realized that he didn't have a good word to say about any Republican politician regarding science, not Vern Ehlers, the first physicist in Congress and a hawk on enviromental issues, not Newt Gingrich, who unlike Al Gore, is genuinely scientific literate and also reigned in the more overzealous members of his party when they tried to slash scientific research-not a single person at all. He was able to drag them all down thanks to the words and deeds of a few, and that's what's happening to all of us.

[ChessExpert]

Atheists have no alter boys, no prayers, no church establishments, no tax-exemption, no record of sex scandals, no pastors, preachers, or priests, no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation, no holidays, no banned books or statements about heresy and blasphemy, no record of burning witches or heretics, no public displays of prayer or piety, no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth', no recited creed, no mythological 'transubstantions', no edifices with crosses.

To listen to you tell it, all problems reside with Christianity and Judaism. Atheists are just wonderful people. But you’ve simply omitted their failings while hyping the failings of others. This is a natural error given our one-party (Democratic party) press.

Atheist communists in the Soviet Union murdered about 60 million, those in China 75 Million. Those two cases together amount to more murders than committed by Christians in 20 centuries, or Jews in all history. It turns out that the Commandment not to kill has had real-world implications (as do the other commandments). Granted, Christians and Jews are hypocrites when they murder; atheists are merely rationale. But the murders have been far less.

[balrog666]

It's not slander.

Okay, it's just stupid.

Communist doctrine mandates Atheism.

Yeah, and we all see how well that worked in Russia, Poland, the Baltic States, China, et al. Or do you require a history lesson on this?

Atheists often look to science for their comfort.

No, they don't. Project much?

I agree that not all Atheists are Communists.

Good, because damn few are. Or ever were.

However I find your parallel simplistic.

Gee, I have an idea about who is simple-minded here, shall I post it or can you figure it out for yourself?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Do you believe that all scientists are atheists?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Mooney's not very good. However he's tame compared to the current fil.

[Donald Meaker]

Adolph Schickelgruber, aka Hitler believed ferverently in Eugenics. It was his belief that he could wipe out offensive genomes by simply killing all the people of a particular type.

This was in line with current medical practice in Germany: People who were crippled by war, disease, accident, or birth defect were killed by the medical establishment. This was done to reduce the "drag on society" and to improve future generations.

They killed polio victims. We elected one president. That was what made Hitler completely irrational when it came to Roosevelt.

[Donald Meaker]

I like John Allegro's book too.

[Donald Meaker]

My favorite example refers to the dream interpreted by Joseph in Genesis.

There are fat years, and lean years. In fat years, competition is in the terms of who reproduces faster. Rabbits win that one. The number of rabbits radically increases, until the vegetation is eaten up. That is essentially what happened in Austrailia when the rabbit was introduced.

In lean years, competition is in terms of ability to get food, or not become food. Coyotes win there because they can eat carrion (even dead rabbits that die of starvation provide a meal to the coyote).

Because of the different nature of competition at different times, the progress of change will come in fits and starts. An ability to reproduce faster would not be much of an advantage in lean times. An advantage in finding and processing food would not be an advantage in fat times.

Hope that helps understand why evolution drives changed features at different rates at different times. Any species, to survive, must survive lean times, but must also take advantage of fat times to occupy more locations. It must also take advantage of fat times to produce many offspring to increase chances of that one crucial new mutation that may mean the difference between survival and extintion in an environment that is different from any past environment, or the environment where the gene first occurs.

A gene may be moderately bad in one environment, but wonderful in another. That understanding also kicks the pins out from under the Eugenics movement.

So in those two situations

[tallhappy]

That Coyoteman is in to stuff like that says a lot.

Coyote, that was by far the most informative post I've ever seen by you and it explains where you are coming from.

Did you read Dick's Timothy Archer book?

[tallhappy]

Hope that helps understand why evolution drives changed features at different rates at different times

Not really at all.

I was thinking in terms of your post and Coyoteman's that maybe something like evidence would come in to play.

Neither of you even came close to answering my question -- both your responses simply reiterated the initial statement but provided nothing or very little in terms of how it is known.

If you were asked such a question in your oral exam and gave either answer you'd fail for lack of substance.

I was expecting scientific responses but I got expository.

[Donald Meaker]

How about this. Point Mugu is a naval base built on the site of a Japanese-American fishing village. They scooped out the muck from a creek, and piled it next to the creek as the foundation for a concrete runway. That left a bay that had different degrees of salinity depending on the tides. At low tide, it is nearly filled by fresh water from the creek. At high tide the water is nearly filled with salt water from the ocean. In between, the water has various degrees of salinity.

What would ID suggest we would find if we looked at crustacians? Would it not suggest that we found only species that were found anywhere else around the world?

[tallhappy]

What would ID suggest we would find if we looked at crustacians?

I have no idea what ID would suggest. I have no interest in ID.

Why is it so difficult for you to answer a question.

You keep trying to reiterate concept, which is given.

I am looking for some substance and disclipine, not exposition on concept.