Free Republic

Only fundamentalist christian mathematicians object to evolution (Dembski), and then only for reasons which they have never been able to enunciate convincingly. All other mathematicians, if they have bothered to think about it at all, recognize biological evolution as an absolute certainty. If you want to get up to date on the subjects of math and evolution you should try reading papers published by actual scientists and mathematicians, not folks whose most important credential is a mail order degree from a fly-by-night divinity school.

You persist in confusing mere quantity of disparate facts with knowledge as understood by Socrates. Words are used to convey ideas -- they are not themselves the idea. You concentrate too completely on a single literal currently common definition of a particular word and you miss entirely the meaning conveyed by the ancient translated sentence. You certainly understand that in Socrates time the quantity of factual knowledge (particularly of natural phenomena) was quite limited so it is unlikely that by knowledge he meant to imply that simply more of something he did not even have was "the only good."

If you understand and use Socrates' idea to evaluate questions of morality you will discover how it may inform your decisions. Why is it immoral to commit murder? Is it because some ancient philosopher or priest wrote in a book that God said so? Or is there a rational principle underlying the common human recognition that murder is immoral? Socrates' phrase elegantly states that rational principle.

Why do you ask, "What is truth?" Everyone knows what truth is even if they don't know what is true. Unfortunately humans crave certainty so where they do not know they substitute belief. In a sense belief serves as an imperfect surrogate for knowledge. Sometimes the believer guesses correctly and possesses the truth and so would have knowledge in Socrates' meaning. Obviously this is not the case with any existing belief system whose followers feel compelled to brazenly and futiley deny what is absolutely known to be true. These attempts to defy logic and dispute long proven facts may be the source of the confusion you describe for it is impossible not to doubt that which others knowingly reject as false. Contrarily, for men whose morality is based on rational principle they need only examine and apply the principle -- there is no confusion as to the principle itself and Socrates' simple principle is irrefutable. One of the great recent Catholic theologians, Cardinal Balthasar, was fond of Socrates' little dictum and spoke of it at length. He understood it and with a little effort you might too.

"Conversely, there is widespread and indisputable evidence that evil and stupidity are often correlated with advanced education. Washington is sure proof." -- WCF

Socrates phrase embodies an eternal truth and the essential foundation of all morality. The knowledge that he refers to is not a mere body of irrelevant facts gleaned from books and stored in the faulty memory of a flawed human being. Only the truth qualifies as knowledge. Possessing and professing "facts" which are not true is the antithesis of knowledge -- it is ignorance.

Knowledge is order, information, and energy -- it is the product of useful work. Ignorance is chaos, darkness, and entropy. This is what Socrates means and there is no other basis for morality than this simple distinction.

"Let's assume there is no God. Then we'll also assume there is no morality - that is there is no morality with any certitude." -- Working Class Filth

Socrates said "The only good is knowledge, the only evil is ignorance."

"This also explains how fossils of clams are found on mountain peaks." -- Uncle Nephilim

Contintents plowing into each other at the rate of 2cm per year is the explanation.

Of course. The facts are mere observations or raw data. The scientist requires verification of his facts and repeatability. Newton's description of gravity is perfectly acceptable to the defender of a keep who is busy dropping rocks on an attacker's head.

"At the same time, science does not use the term fact when it comes to it's theories, or most scientists don't anyway, and shouldn't." -- Ogmios

Theories of evolution purport to explain the fact of evolution. Clearly the vast geological record of fossil species is a fact. The genomes of living species are facts. The explanation (e.g., natural selection) is the theory.

"I have yet to see any scietific textbook that says evolution is a fact." -- Ogmios

In 1974 I heard Stephen P. Hubbell state in front of an audience that "...evolution is the single most thoroughly documented fact known to man." Given what we have learned since then his statement is probably still true. The theorists are still behind the research curve.

"While your "mixing" you might want to try mixing in a little "discernment" in your pot." -- DannyTN

Very funny. Remember to first cast the beam out or your own eye before you remove the mote from you neighbor's eye. If you had any "discernment" at all you would long ago have recognized the difference between ancient myths and actual events.

If you are never confused, you will always be wrong. Certainty of the type that you possess is only held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary by those that have "faith." Again, if you wish to cure yourself of this malady try Eric Hoffer's "True Believers."

Your claim that Toynbee is discredited and a "Jew Hater" because you have read one sentence about him (which you didn't understand) is clearly evidence of neurosis.

"Being well read, doesn't necessarily make you smarter. If you don't discriminate about your sources, it just makes you confused." -- DannyTN

Perhaps you get confused. Most people past the age of twelve are pretty capable of handling a diversity of opinions and information without confusion. Not so with True Believers who use mental compartmentalization in order to avoid mixing disparate facts that might lead them to doubt their faith. The mental effort (largely subconscious) required to maintain the compartments often leads to an impaired intelligence. Mixing, after all, is what intelligence is all about.

"That pretty much descredits Toynbee. What else you got?" -- DannyTN

You have had a very sheltered life. Not only is your grasp of history limited but you display an appalling lack of knowledge of current affairs as well. Toynbee was the greatest historian of his day. Everyone who has ever read any history knows Toynbee. In light of current events Toynbee was clearly correct in his appraisal of the partition of Palestine to create a Jewish homeland. He had extensive knowledge of the effect of the partitions of India and Ireland by the British government. Theft by government mandate is still theft, and oppression always leads to resistance. Hate begets hate and the cycle escalates until there are folks so filled with hate and despair that their only possible response is to become a suicide bomber. Perhaps you are aware that there is today a growing movement within the Israeli military that recognizes the futility of heavy handed oppression of a captive people. Toynbee predicted this almost sixty years ago.

By the way, truth is always stranger than fiction. Everything that I have told you is historically accurate. I simply know more than you do about your religion and its history. You could remedy this by study but you would have to recognize that impartial scholarly investigations must start without preconcieved notions. It also helps if you employ the best sources available and not rely exclusively on children's bedtime story versions of history.

"Provide evidence that Moses didn't exist. Provide evidence that the Hebrews worshipped a volcano prior to YHWH. Your claims are completely unsubstantiated. You are spreading revisionist myths." -- DannyTN

The Hebrews did not worship a volcano. They worshipped the genie that lived there. Big difference.

There are simply no reputable modern historians to support the notion that Moses actually lived. The Exodus is likewise a Hebrew myth as there never was an Egyptian Captivity nor forty years wandering in the desert before settling in the promised land. I know whereof I speak -- having lived with an Israeli woman with a PhD for some time. However, if you require a printed source you might try Arnold Toynbee's ten volume "Study of History." All such assertions will be amply substantiated with copious footnotes and citations.

"But just because Satan knew Jesus would be born as a virgin and went off and created some cults centered around virgin births doesn't mean Judaism and Christianity borrowed from those religions. They borrowed from Judaism." -- DannyTN

We are all born as virgins unless the act of leaving the womb via the vagina deprives us of our virginity, in which case only persons delivered by Caesarean section are born as virgins. I realize, of course, that you meant to say "born of a virgin." This however is illustrative of a typical mistake in biblical interpretation. Virginity was defined by the early Hebrews as the state of a woman who has not yet borne children. Therefore every first birth was a "virgin" birth. Later use of the word by the gentiles to define a woman who has not had sexual intercourse leads to some confusion in doctrine and a clearly mistaken notion of the birth of this type of mythological character.

Be that as it may, the early Church created the doctrine of Diabolical mimicry in a futile attempt to explain away the historical similarities between the innumerable resurrecting god-men of antiquity and their preferred version, the Christ myth. Your explanation was discredited centuries ago. No logical person would ascribe to such a notion today.

Moses is also a mythological character. What do you think the Bedouin Khabiru learned from the more sophisticated and complex Babylonian society during their captivity? It was at that time that they began to develop a monotheistic religion based entirely on a Persian god. Previously the god of the Hebrews had been a genie inhabiting and activating a volcano in northwest Arabia -- just one tribal god among many.

"The priesthood of Judaism also led their people astray numerous times, as is faithfully recorded in the Bible. All that proves is that people need to listen to God rather than man. And it sounds to me like you've been listening to men quite a bit." -- DannyTN

Men write books. The Bible is a book. Therefore it was written by men. There is no disputing this. Claiming divine inspiration for your book is no more valid than claiming divine intervention for something as clearly ridiculous as the Book of Mormon, for example. You must understand that it is not god in which you have faith, rather your faith is in a book about a god. If you trusted this god you would not need the book. Instead you could examine nature with complete freedom to arrive at your own conclusions, trusting your god not to intentionally deceive you for some petty egoistic purpose. In other words, nature is a more reliable store of information about whatever gods may be than all the books ever written.

"The historian has proved nothing of the sort. In fact archeological digs have repeated shown the bible to be true and made various historians who disputed the bible out to be the liars and crackpots they are." -- DannyTN

Are historical novels "true?" It would be fairly easy to demonstrate that the novels of Dickinson were written at a specific point in time with plenty of corroborating evidence to show that many of the events and places described in the writing did in fact occur and exist. A more thorough investigation would quickly reveal that a number of the characters and places described were fictional. The same is true of the Bible, both the old and the new testament. Genesis, for example, was written by a Babylonian born Jew. The Old Testament was written over a period of 1200 years with some adjacent passages separated in time by as much as 700 years. The Phoenician (i.e., Cannanite) influence on the literary devices and content of the Hebrew texts is now apparent. In short, these are books written by men who often recorded events of which they had knowledge but who just as often recorded the myths and beliefs of other cultures with whom they had contact as in the case of the Christ myth. Alexandrian Jews steeped in Greek culture adopted the resurrecting god-man myth popular at the time in that culture. They naturally modified it to fit the Jewish prophecies about the Messiah. These facts are well established and you may discover them for yourself if you will bother to read something besides the pamphlets provided at your church.

"No they don't. Have you studied religions very much? Because I don't see how you could even come close to making that claim." -- DannyTN

Yes, they do! Religious Belief (as with all superstitions) is characterized by a suspension of the critical faculties. In some cases this disease is fatal (e.g.,Jim Jones cult in Guyana, Heaven's Gate, etc.). Do you imagine that these fanatics believed less strongly than you? Do you consider their beliefs false?

There have been many belief systems throughout history that have been discredited and abandoned -- yours included. Why do these beliefs persist in spite of overwhelming refutation? Read Eric Hoffer's little book, "True Believers" if you want some insight into this all too common human weakness.

"Christianity relied on Judaism and it's prophets. You obviously didn't study the origins closely or you wouldn't be making that claim." -- DannyTN

Literalist Roman Christianity relied on brute force and intimidation by roving bands of illiterate monks to destroy the opposition, including benign forms of Christianity. Constantine completed the task of destroying remnants of the pagan and Gnostic traditions and the orthodox Roman hierarchy established the Church as a temporal force to subjugate men for the next millenium. The atrocities were innumerable, the effects devastating, and the lies abundant. You won't find any of this in your typical catechism however because they tend to focus on just one book and ignore everything else. They do this because to study history would prove the falseness of their belief system and leave them without livelihood. Such has ever been the practice of priestcraft.

"The bible is backed up by miracles which demonstrate God's power and prophecies which demonstrate God's foreknowledge. That makes this particular book a lot harder evidence than a mere book. Add to that answered prayer and you have a lot of hard evidence supporting that book." -- DannyTN

All religions, superstitions, and cults make the same claim with the same degree of certainty that you have. Your sacred book is just ancient mythology, many times revised and translated, filled with errors, and demonstrating the influence of cultures with which the ancient Hebrews interacted. The Christian sect of Judaism relied heavily on earlier ancient resurrecting god-men myths melded with the Messiah belief.

It is always a good idea to study the origins of any belief system before deciding to become a "true believer." Believers who fear that evolution discredits their faith are wasting their worry on something that is entirely inconsequential -- the historian have already proven that their literalist faith in an old book is entirely unwarranted.

"Tell me more about this "science" of evolution?" -- Paulsy

There are any number of excellent textbooks and popular books available. Start with Darwin and advance from there. If you have a lot of time on your hands and enjoy lengthy prose you might pick up Stephen Jay Gould's final published work. Otherwise, for more to the point material, Strickberger's text is fine. Visit a library and peruse the Biological Abstracts (millions of entries) for papers pertaining to evolution.

"What is in this ocean of knowledge? Does it tend to prove, or discredit, evolution? And how? Please explain." -- Paulsy

Everything known by mankind serves to validate natural explanations for the origin and evolution of life on this planet.

"Why do all that, when he has a clean copy right there." -- bondserv

No, he doesn't. That was the point of the Chimp reference. The miraculous intervention that you propose required absolutely that the hypothetical god copy Adam's DNA from a pre-exisiting ape or hominid ancestor precisely because the two things are nearly identical.

"Good thing God didn't make a woman first, it would have ended there. And yes the rib bone marrow contains all of the neccessary genetic material to make a woman including the XX." -- bondserv

If this particular god needed DNA to make Eve, where did he get the DNA to make Adam? Might I suggest that because virtually all of the DNA in humans is identical to the DNA in Chimpanzees, this god might well have obtained his original sample from a Chimp with 48 chromosomes (and then he fused two of the Chimp chromosomes to make our 46). Yes, it all makes sense now.

"Man wasn't a dumb hunched over caveman in the past. Adam was our champion, physically and mentally. And of course you know that our champion Adam fell, which is why we need Jesus." -- bondserv

Adam and his genetically identical mate (the rib) somehow gave rise to all the races of men and the incredible variation therein within a few thousand years? And you claim to reject evolution?

"This is one of the difficulties that evolution faces. How does a species evolve into another when what it does best is replicate itself?" -- Boiler Plate

It doesn't replicate perfectly very often if ever. Every sperm that you produce contains at least six of one common type of mutation and there are many different kinds of mutations. Change is inevitable.

"There seems to be broad assumptions made in the theory and until those assumptions can be proven then the theory will remain as a theory and not be considered a standing fact." -- Boiler Plate

The earth is old, life has changed continuously over time, all species are related phylogenetically, DNA is only a molecule, etc., etc. These are not mere assumptions. Evolution is a fact that requires explanation, hence the theories. When you come up with a theory to explain the history of life on earth it will be called a theory of evolution. Theologists do not formulate theories to explain things, they seem to rely exclusively on old books and almost never examine directly the suppositional handiwork of the deity they worship. This, to my way of thinking, is a big mistake. By failing to go where intellect and observation lead them they are tacitly admitting that they do not trust this god they worship. The scientist is more trusting.