Monday, February 16, 2009

Teaching Darwin to Voodoo Evangelicals & Other Darwinophobes

by Omyma

If the Theory of Evolution were on sale at Wal-Mart, these would be Darwin Days. For the coincidental 200th birthday of Charles D plus the 150th birthday of the publishing of his Origin of the Species, many around the world celebrate by publishing articles, books, blogs and exhibitions on the importance of the man and his breakthrough ideas. But for some 25% of Americans, according to a CNN poll, and possibly more from the 36% undecided/don't know group, evolution is not true, not fact, not even important. Evangelicals and their conservative brethren consider it a dangerous lie.

It is not just 'evolution' but the foundations of scientific enquiry that inspires their rage. It is ironic that in this technologically-advanced nation, a large section of the population does not believe the very basis on which much of that technology, the core processes and investigations upon which much of modern civilization and advancement, is based. They are are not passive dissenters. They exert political pressure and take other actions to prevent the free dissemination of scientific ideas.

One would expect a better result in the UK, Darwin's home turf. But that's not exactly the case.
Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.
With about 50% of Britons believing in evolution to varying degrees, this is somewhat better than the U.S., where only 39% believe in evolution (just slightly more than the undecideds), but it is far below where one would think. Even stranger is this fact:
..around 10% of people chose young Earth creationism – the belief that God created the world some time in the last 10,000 years – over evolution.
About 12% preferred intelligent design, the idea that evolution alone is not enough to explain the structures of living organisms. The remainder were unsure, often mixing evolution, intelligent design and creationism together. The survey was conducted by the polling agency ComRes on behalf of the Theos thinktank.
Why is this? Even if you take into consideration the recent hype about so-called "intelligent design", we're still left wondering what was going on in the last, say, 150 years... I was fully expecting the UK to be different, not the least because Darwin is a native son, and the whole idea should give Britons a sort of patriotic high - just in case rationality is a non-starter.

But when you consider that both the U.S. and Briton are running at roughly half for and half against, maybe we should consider something else.

Robert Haston's book The Origin of the Political Species presents the view that in fact, people are evolved to be "two tribes" or to have two political leanings - and we're talking hard-wired, in the genes. This would mean possibly roughly half of homo sapiens are liberal, and half conservative. Although it's not really that simple, the striking point here is that looking at the number of people tending to accept evolution as scientific fact vs. the number of those rejecting it outright, you get a similar rough 50-50 breakdown.

The "political species" theory goes that two opposing tendencies, genetically expressed, have evolved in our struggle for survival: the "conservative", alpha male, authoritarian, hierarchical, tradition-preserving, paternalistic, militaristic, "rule from the gut", macho, emotional (especially fear and anger), "in-group" protecting type on the one hand; and the "liberal", forward-looking, rational, empathetic, universal-thinking, peace and diplomacy-bringing, "outside-the-box" looking, artistic, egalitarian and compassionate type on the other hand.

Of course, these labels are somewhat simplistic, because everyone has a mix of each type of gene. But some people are definitely more on one side and some are definitely more on the other. Then there are the folks on the fence; the in-betweens, the people targeted in elections, the swing voters.

So what's this got to do with evangelicals and their intrusion of religion into politics? Religion, especially and particularly evangelical Christianity, which involves voodoo-like trances, speaking in tongues, and other obvious examples of irrationality, is a hotbed of conservatism. It gives their world view, their "tribe", a double-whammy: it appeals to the emotions and creates a bonded "in-group", and simultaneously numbs the sensibilities of those people to rational, progressive governance, thus paving the way for typical conservative top-down, hierarchical, paternalistic government. And so atheist Karl Rove harnessed the power of evangelical Christianity to numb millions of rural, relatively uneducated, unempowered people into rallying behind their own subjugation to the Bush regime's heavy-handed, militaristic, undemocratic, authoritarian-style government.

President Obama's rise to power is not only a direct blow to conservatism, but shows that conservatism has completely lost its bearings, having nothing but "gut-instinct" to go on and a set of irrational, but strongly felt, slogans, usually starting with the instinctive expression, "NO!" and "We gotta win!" So you have the scenario of all Republicans still standing lining up and crying "No!", with the "reasoning" being repetition of platitudes about tax-cutting that their own gurus have been shamed into admitting were all wrong. The only "yes"-sayers were women: who often have a certain ability to think progressively, when pushed to the wall. But the problem is the basic conservative mind-set is not going to change.

And if it's not going to change, does this mean that half the population will be literally fighting progress, keeping people in the dark ages, working hard to send humanity farther and farther back in time until we end up with the victory of the "earth is at rest" theory? No, because many conservatives actually already believe in the theory evolution and would support it vigorously if they really knew what it was. But it's been presented to them as a "progressive" and "anti-God" idea, and the fear factor, self-defense thing kicked in. Progressives have also focused the narrative on God vs. evolution, which is patently absurd, instead of on common ground, such as how this "theory" has helped humanity survive. And anything less than common ground is totally useless, impractical, and hence, not all that progressive.

Regardless if one believes liberal and conservative tendencies are in the genes, history does display conflict between them fairly dramatically. Or, as Mr. Haston put it:
Given that the world‘s climate has seesawed back and forth, the engine of evolution has learned to keep plenty of older genes in circulation, ready to be selected when the pendulum swings back and forth. Man‘s culture has done the same, swinging from Dark Age to Renaissance and back with far more fury and speed than the climate. So keeping a balance of traits in play is a good survival strategy. ...

Stop trying to change each other because you won‘t. Take the advice of Sun Tzu: understand yourself and your enemy and win every battle. To be as blunt as possible: Understand the view of those who don‘t agree with you and why they have it, or you are screwed. If your opponent learns to and you refuse to, then you are only screwing yourself.
To scientists, Darwin's theory and the science it generated, which has since morphed considerably (i.e., evolved), is an essential part of the scientific and technological gains which have benefited society and also hold some of the keys to solving projected future problems. In a democratic society, which is essentially a progressive or "liberal" thing, it is almost suicidal to mix religion with science, but that fact has to be presented to conservative minds in a different way that takes their basic mindset into account.

In other words, progressives have been shooting themselves in the foot on this issue by such in-your-face non-starter attitudes as Christopher Hitchens, for example, or Richard Dawkins, who are almost evangelical about atheism. It isn't Christianity per se, or Voodooism per se, that threatens science. It's the politicization of religion. So to get them to back off, we should take a 2-pronged approach, one "liberal" in style and the other "conservative".

For the "liberal" style, present the universal benefits and plusses of evolution, as contrasted to the total disaster that would occur if we were to turn back the progress of free inquiry and impose some sort of religious-based "science". We could start with antibiotics. It's a known fact that bacteria become resistant. They evolve. They become different species. It's just the time-frame is faster, hence more easily understood. Without evolutionary theory, we couldn't have modern medicine or understand why antibiotics started to fail after they were initially successful. Shall we then impose a ban on all medical research, except that which is mentioned specifically in the Bible? Few conservatives would agree to that. Then remind them of the geocentric universe. Shall we cancel those satellites and cell phones and that Devil Internet? I doubt many would follow this route.

In fact, those who would follow this route might consider attending a certain university in Peshawar, Pakistan, where they might find some folks of a similar mindset. Would those evangelicals really like their newfound cameraderie with the Taliban, for example?

For the "conservative" style, bring a religiously respected Wise Man to confer his judgement in a time-honored manner on this issue. To wit, Solomon.

What would Solomon have suggested? Voila:

If you want to impose religious dogma on science, then we must equally impose scientific knowledge and opinion on religion. No sermon, no priest, no pastor, should be allowed to operate without presenting the views of Darwin and others on Natural Selection and Evolution. And while we're at it, the Pope should have Darwin's Origin of the Species on his required reading list. Not only that, they have to give prime-time lectures on the subject - equal time for "equal" views. And, to be even more "fair", we should give equal time to the theory that "the sun revolves around the earth on the ether, or firmament", not to mention the notion that the earth is carried on the back of a giant turtle. Whenever priests read sacred texts, they should supplement those texts with "balancing" readings from scientific literature. If religion is "relevant" to science, then science is equally "relevant" to religion.

Oh, does this strike some young-earthlings as infringing on their freedom of religion? We likewise detest infringement on freedom of scientific inquiry by enforcing totally unrelated concepts, sources, and mythologies on it. If they like their earth young, their dinosaurs recent, and their biological change instantaneous, that's fine for them. But if they want to impose it on the rest of us, we demand the right to impose scientific facts on them. Otherwise, they can enjoy living as their ancestors did when the earth was indeed younger - with stone tools.

And by the way, if God wanted creation instantaneously, magician style - to our human perception, no less - then wouldn't He have created Instant Gestation? Or Instant budding, flowering, and fruition in plants? Why all the mess, the time, the stages? Would these hot-n-heavy evangelicals miss that flowering stage? Or that season for fruit? Did anybody ever read Ecclesiastes? Obviously, all "creation" occurs in stages, in gradual progression, from the birth and death of stars to the birth and death of living creatures, to the birth and death of life itself (as in, say, extinctions). Beyond that, arguing about God is totally useless scientifically.

As for the Darwinophobes, their idiocy has been laid bare. Nobody wants to give up their cell phones in order to have Flat Earth Theory resurrected, except a few crazies. Nobody wants to give up the benefits civilization has attained by scientific discoveries and applications based on Darwin's theory. Meanwhile, scientists and progressives should lay off the pro-atheism, often condescending heavy-hitting when presenting evolution. After all, it just means "gradual change". That happens in the womb before every baby is born. Nobody can argue against that.

The soft-sell worked on Dalai Lama, who looked at Darwin's Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, discovered his abolutionist and compassionate views on humankind, and was won over.
...the father of evolution theorised that emotion and compassion were universal and naturally selected features of humans...

"I am now calling myself a Darwininian," Ekman recalled the Dalai Lama saying, after Ekman read him some passages of Darwin's work.
Meanwhile, when feeling frustrated over Voodoo science and general ignorance created by ultra-conservative mindsets and policies, think about the possibility that this whole controversy may be part of an ongoing evolutionary process that even affects our politics. The best civilizations are those that take the best from both sides, and in this sense Obama stands out as a potentially great leader, balancing as he does without capitulating to a conservative brand that no longer adequately supports even its own constituent conservatives - as Bush has presided over arguably the most profligate government in U.S. history. "Profligate" is not a conservative value. Just as condescension and a confrontational, dogmatic approach to scientific argument is not a liberal one.



19 comments:

AdamS said...

Evolution and intelligent design are not necessarily incompatible. And while evolution has - probably - enough evidence in its support to be generally accepted, it is far from hard fact.

The worst thing about Darwin's theory (which he probably did not intend) is the adaptation of evolution into Social Darwinism, which becomes a warped justification for eugenics.

And do you really believe in the left-right paradigm so far as to accept the idea that we are genetically bent one way or the other? I mean, maybe we are, but the mainstream left vs the mainstream right are two sides of the same elitist, fascist, eugenicist coin. Obama the CFR puppet included. Where does liberty fit on the left-right spectrum?

Unknown said...

AdamS said...

Evolution and intelligent design are not necessarily incompatible.

They are almost completely incompatible. ID assumes the existence of a 'supreme being'; Natural election, the basis for scientific volution, makes no such assumption.

More important --ID was 'cooked up' by a focus group and sold with propaganda. Real science does not, cannot proceed in that manner.

ID is cynical, political propaganda. 'Natural selection' is subject to confirmation via the 'scientific method'.

The worst thing about Darwin's theory (which he probably did not intend) is the adaptation of evolution into Social Darwinism, which becomes a warped justification for eugenics.

You're right! Darwin had no such intention and he is hardly responsible for idiots who draw fallacious conclusions due to their ignorance or their inability to understand the basic principle of natural selection upon which 'evolution' is entirely based. But that does not make it the 'worst thing' about evolution because the 'it' to which you refer is NOT nor was it ever a part of evolution. Darwin cannot be held responsible idiotic conclusions drawn by people who have probably never bothered to read Darwin.

Social Darwinism is neither 'social' nor 'Darwin'. It was, as I have stated in numerous essays, derived from the works of Herbert Spencer --NOT Darwin. Secondly, it was popularized by the rich robber baron class in America who found in it a scientific sounding justification for the accumulation of riches.

That has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Darwin's theories, evolution, or, for that matter findings in the field of genetics by Gregor Mendel.

And do you really believe in the left-right paradigm so far as to accept the idea that we are genetically bent one way or the other?

Neither the discoveries in genetics by Mendel, nor the theories of 'natural selection' so well articulated by Darwin have anything to do with politics of ANY sort EXCEPT for the fact that it is the RIGHT WING which persists in trying to exclude these valid, proven, tested theories from being taught in publicly financed schools where they OUGHT to be taught.

Secondly, it is the right wing which has tried to REPLACE in public school systems these scientific theories with 'theological doctrine', and that is, on its face, a violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state.

Now --if evolution is to be resolved, it must be done by way of the scientific method. NOT POLITICS.

The truth of Darwin and Mendel --or, for that matter, Einstein --cannot be resolved politically. So --if the right wing should find matters of verifiable science repugant, they might as well shut up about it until it is resolved apolitically in a lab.

I don't care what Ric Santorum (for example) thinks about either evolution or ID. Santorum is an idiot who would not know his peter from a petri dish.

See: Religion Under a 'False Flag'

Teaching Intelligent Design violates First Amendment, says Federal Judge

The Alley Oop Candidate

The Role of American Fundamentalism in the Decline of the West

GOP Invents a New Junk Science: 'Galaxy Warming'!

AdamS said...

Good to read your thoughts on this - mostly I am in agreement with you.

I don't think it's fair to lump together Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism. The latter is totally irrational.

When I said 'evolution and ID are not necessarily incompatible' I meant that proof of evolution does not destroy all ID concepts, just that of intelligent design of species [if that's all you meant by 'Intelligent Design', then my bad]. For example, the Universe operates based on rules, such as the laws of physics - who designed them? Or do they just 'exist'? We don't know. And then comes the debate over the existence of a god or not - another thing we don't know.

Why do we have to proclaim that we know these things for sure, when we do not? Why is creationism (not Christian creationism, creationism based on what science and atheism can and can not explain) considered irrelevant because some religious nuts believe in a totally seperate idea? Perhaps I should have rephrased and said 'evolution and creationism are not necessarily incompatible'.

In addition, I have to ask, what is your take on Obama? (I am sticking with 'CFR Puppet' btw.) You seem to believe the ills of society are the result of a right-wing/Republican conspiracy.

I say, right on the conspiracy, wrong on the conspirators. What about the central banks and globalist groups? These are the people who operate both major parties in the US (yes including Obama and the Democrats) and have control over the issue of fiat currency, the mass media, etc. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws" - NM Rothschild

The left vs right mass manipulation strategy distracts people from peeking behind the curtain and seeing the real masters of society, not elephants or donkeys, but leeches sucking the lifeblood out of the economy via the increasing of the money supply. Both the Bush Banker Bailout and Obama's "stimulus" package are serving their purpose of expanding the (imo deliberate) economic collapse.

Look at the Zionists and/or Globalists around him.
Obama=Bush=Clinton=Bush...the rhetoric is different, some on-the-surface policy is different. But who will end foreign wars and take on the mil-industry complex? Who will return money to gold/silver standards and take back control of the money supply from the central bank? Who will halt globalisation (for America, this begins with the NAU)? Who will stop the devestation of civil liberties? I wish it were different, but the mainstream parties won't touch these issues. Because they are both controlled by the sort of people seen at the Bilderberg Group.

Omyma said...

First, regarding the idea of genetic politics, it is totally unlike the science of eugenics in that it starts with the basic concept of two attitudes necessary for survival, and ends with these tendencies not necessarily expressed along party lines. Eugenics tends to start with presumptions about human behavior, specifically superior/inferior "types", which leads to racism. The other idea has nothing to do with superior/inferior types, but rather concludes that both tendencies in a mix are best for human survival, and argues for mutual tolerance and cooperation without one "side" trying to wipe out the other or force it to conform.

Second, about I.D. Just a side note: it's not about religion, really, either. Belief in God will have to take into account facts evident in the natural world, and trying to force facts according to some dogma means one's concept of God is, what can I say? unnatural, and unreal. Then the belief can "adapt" accordingly. But it's not science's business.

Anonymous said...

AdamS, the arguments for Intelligent Design are a variation of old Aristotelian arguments, the argument from Beauty and the argument for a First Cause. One says that with so much beauty or order in nature there necessarily must be an intelligent agent behind it. The second says "what caused the first thing to exist?" Both arguments have been shown to be logically flawed. Physiologists, in particular, have pointed out that perceptions of beauty are identified with heightened neurological activity in particular parts of the brain, activity that can be induced and enhanced by electro-chemical stimulation. In short, strong bodily sensations of "beauty" may well be nothing more than chemically induced misapprehensions. We have to give human sentiment a place but there is a complete failure by many to understand the limitations of human reasoning and the natural complexity that can arise from endlessly repeated simple natural phenomena, such as natural selection. In short, having no explanation for much of the world is far closer to the truth and less likely to cause us needless social upset that trying to fit an omnibus "deus ex machina". You can't argue for God from nature. But you can argue for natural order within nature.

Unknown said...

AdamS sez...

I don't think it's fair to lump together Intelligent Design and Young Earth Creationism. The latter is totally irrational.

'Youth Earth Creationism' is a
religious belief that the Heavens, Earth, and life on Earth were created by direct acts of God during a short period, sometime between 6,000[1] and 10,000 years ago. ID assumes a supreme being of a theological nature, a 'creator'.

Categorize all as 'religion' and leave it to the theologists to debate the fine points among themselves. All rather 'scholastic' in the Medieval sense of the term, it's really of no interest to me whatsoever.

And that, after all, is the point. These are THEOLOGICAL debates and have no place in a publicly financed classroom. Science, on the other hand, DOES NOT proceed from any theological assumptions whatsoever.

Perhaps I should have rephrased and said 'evolution and creationism are not necessarily incompatible'.

The very term --CREATIONISM --implies a 'creator', a theological concept on its face and by definition.

Darwinism would NOT be 'science' if it assumed a theological being called "God" and proceeded thus from that point. 'Darwinism' is the word attributed to the body of work produced by Charles Darwin who put forward an explanation for variation among specie that does NOT assume or require a belief in God. 'Darwinism' does not prove that God does not exist. Rather, a 'GOD' is not required at any point in Darwin's theory.

It is believed that Darwin was not aware of Mendel before writing his 'Descent of Man' and 'Origina of the Species'. Mendel, in my opinion, confirms Darwin. Darwin, recently, has been confirmed by very sophisticated computer models which simulate 'natural selection'. Long before reading Darwin, I had concluded, as a child of about six or seven, that all life had proceeded from simple organisms, the fossils of which I found for myself in the mesas of far West Texas. I explored, as a child, geological features dating from the Permian period --286 to 245 million years ago. I grew up in the middle of what is called the Permian Basin, a geological feature underlying much of western Texas and southeastern New Mexico in the southwestern United States. Sediment from the Permian era are primarily marine in nature; when the Permian period began because the mountains and mesas were, at that time, underwater. In time, of course, the waters there evaporated, ended the so-called Permian age.

I amassed quite a fossil collection and sent some of the samples to the University of Texas for identification. Trilobite fossils were easy to find. My biggest 'discovery', however, were the fossilized 'feet' --larger than those of a turkey today but, I am reasonably sure, smaller than would have been the feet of a Pterodactyl. In any case, I was sure that this 'find' was much, much younger, dating from a period after the Permian seas has receded or evaporated. As both 'feet' were fossilized into a HUGE bolder, they had to remain there. I didn't have a camera at that time and have regretted not having a record of it.

Basically, I am just not interested in any theological explanations at all. They are, by definition, not scientific. What folk believe in their churches is a matter of Freedom of Religion. But none of these 'advocates' have a right to tax moneys and neither do they have a right to influence or coerce publicly finance schools into teaching what are --by definition --theological NOT scientific explanations for any natural phenomena.

Damien sez...

You can't argue for God from nature. But you can argue for natural order within nature.

Precisely!

Unknown said...

A final point --the existence of 'God' cannot be proven empirically. Science is empirical in nature.

Man may 'affirm' God upon 'faith'. But that is a matter of choice. By definition, it is not science.

Secondly, even the religionists preach in every church I've ever set foot in that 'salvation' depended upon one's FAITH in God or Jesus, depending upon which church you happened to be in. Now --if it these theological concepts were PROVEN, there would be no need of faith.

By the standards of every Church of which I have knowledge, there is no 'salvation' without faith. Moreover, in every 'Christian' church of which I have had personal experience, it is held that one must choose 'Christ' freely --upon faith --in order to be saved. By their own standards, then, political coercion of these religions, therefore, ROB individuals of any chance of 'salvation'. Now --I don't believe that. But I am simply holding 'religionists' to their own standards, their own doctrine.

This is the irreconcilable contradiction that is at the very heart of this debate.

CET said...

You are spot on with most of the criticism of religion in this case. But please differentiate between American evangelicalism and traditional Liturgical churches such as the Catholics and Anglicans.

Even in their most conservative manifestations,there has been none of this anti-darwinist silliness.Pope John Paul 2 stated there to be no conflict( as had Popes previous) and Darwin is buried at Westminster Abby.

The tent preachers can panic their followers into sending them checks 'till the cows come home. The big boys of Christianity never had to sign a truce, because they never thought there was a war.

K. Signal Eingang said...

As an aside, "eugenics", at least as an idea, predates Darwin by years certainly, and arguably millenia. Humans have known since the dawn of agriculture that one can selectively breed livestock to encourage good traits or discourage bad, producing dramatic variation over multiple generations (from wild boars to potbelly pigs, wolves to shih tzus, et cetera). It's not surprising that some had the idea that they could apply the same tactics to other humans.

Darwin's big idea was the realization that over the course of hundreds of millions of years, nature could do the same job without the benefit of intelligent, or artificial selection. (The true age of the earth was only beginning to come into focus in his time, thanks to advances in the science of geology). This was the key insight, that a million years of undirected trial and error could do the same job that takes humans a few hundred.

AdamS said...

You are right, Len. Evolution is scientific theory, whereas ID or creationism are religion, as they are hypothetical. But what I object to is the peddling of 'scientific' atheism, which is just as much a religion as any theistic doctrine. Atheistic explanations for the origin of the universe need to either contradict conservation of energy laws or require all energy to be eternal, which sounds a little bit 'godly' anyway.

Personally I would consider myself an agnostic. It's important to note where in history there has been ignorance and opression in the name of religion, and Christianity has often been responsible for holding people back.


All I am saying is that there are many things too big for us, as advanced as we may be at this time, to understand or explain. I just perceive atheism as the new opressive force that religion once was (and in some ways still is).

Anonymous said...

AdamS, you say: "Atheistic explanations for the origin of the universe need to either contradict conservation of energy laws or require all energy to be eternal, which sounds a little bit 'godly' anyway."

Ideally, you need a fair detailed argument to support this case and I don't think you can do it. You still seem to be caught in a linear way of think that gives rise to a First Cause for a causal action or Originating Source for energy. If we think of a big bang universe stretching away endlessly then there appears to be a contradiction. Where does it end? Can it possibly be limitless? But as scientists point out, sometimes boundless things can be quite limited. Humans for a long time believed that the surface of the earth stretched away to "infinity", a contradiction which if accepted at face value would imply the existence of an infinitely sized object. But place us on a ball and it all makes sense: we can go forever in any one direction. Models of the universe have become extraordinarily subtle. Last I looked at string theory the big question was whether there were 11 or 23 dimensions, most of them invisible to us since they occur at the microscopic level. Juan Maldacena at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton has confirmed that the space-time physics taking place on the boundary of our four-dimensional space is the same as that inside a hypothetical universe with five dimensions and shaped like a Pringle! And we may be living in a 3-D hologram formed from 2-D images!

Why should we believe that a complex reality such as the entire universe should be entirely comprehensible to a 3kg blob of grey tissue stacked on the top end of a talking monkey. As Clint Eastwood once put it: "A man's got to know his limitations." Even if one accepts that current science cannot adequately explain energy it is simply unwarranted to put a "God of the Gaps" explanation in place. You revise the scientific model.

The charge of atheism as the new religion seems illogical and unreasonable. Science does not permit the installation of needless hypotheses unsupported by evidence, so there is no good reason to posit a God-hypothesis at all, especially since there is no clear working definition of the term. Scientific atheism is the default scientific position for sound scientific reasons. That's not to say there might not exist a God reality but reports of God experience have to be assessed the same way as those for UFO sightings. These things may or may not be true but direct evidence is needed if one wants the God issue to be assessed scientifically. It's not necessary to do that, of course. People should be free to be inspired to kindness or moral excellence by the words of Jesus, Buddha or whoever. But science would be failing itself to accept a God hypothesis as a valid scientific proposition.

Anonymous said...

More disturbing, AdamS, is Len's point:

With about 50% of Britons believing in evolution to varying degrees, this is somewhat better than the U.S., where only 39% believe in evolution (just slightly more than the undecideds), but it is far below where one would think. Even stranger is this fact: ..around 10% of people chose young Earth creationism – the belief that God created the world some time in the last 10,000 years – over evolution.

This is nightmarish stuff that positively demands that religious statements be utterly banished from scientific discourse and from our schools. Those leaders who would tell us that it's ok to believe the world is less than 10,000 years old are the same sort of lunatics who would tell us that Jews, homosexuals and gypsies belong in a gas chamber, or that "God" wants us to destroy 70 million Iranians in nuclear fireball. Remember Hitler with his Aryan race nonsense, grandiose night time, torch lit propaganda rallies? Don't think it can't happen again.

Any school teacher who claims the world is less than 10,000 years old should have their teaching license revoked.

Anonymous said...

Fantastic post. It does make me glad to be an Australian, though.

We don't have to worry about evangelical nutters taking over (yet). It's quite un-Australian to be openly praising the lord.

However, it really does fascinate me that the US, home of so much scientific research, knowledge and innovation, is paradoxically home to people who essentially live in the 16th Century!

Anonymous said...

I find it hilarious that some of you consider atheism to be as oppressive as the religious right has been. I just haven't seen it. We (I am an atheist) are tired of the religious who try to push their beliefs on others, for the most part. Some of the more obnoxious have decided to push back. No matter how well reasoned or heart-felt the belief might be, there will always be someone who can find a way to be obnoxious about it. If intelligent design is viable, with the "you can see the hand of the Designer: in it, where is the hand of that Designer, lately? Is He asleep?

Unknown said...

Damien sez...

Any school teacher who claims the world is less than 10,000 years old should have their teaching license revoked.

Indeed --at the age of about six I held in my hand fossils that I had discovered and gathered on my own that proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the world was much, much, much, much older than a mere 10,000 years. And I understood that at the time.

I agree --anyone believing the age of the world or the universe can be measured and expressed in 'thousands' is just stupid, insane, imbecilic! I have no patience with this kind of deliberate stupid shit --a stupidity of choice.

Those who CHOOSE to be STUPID have a right to do so. But they DO NOT have a right to try to FORCE others to share their goddamn idiocy.

The time has come to fight this idiotic crap with every weapon in the arsenal. That includes lawsuits and aggressive lobbies.

Stupid people have a right to be stupid. They DO NOT have a right to force the rest of us into a life of utter imbecility.

Unknown said...

Anonymous said...

I find it hilarious that some of you consider atheism to be as oppressive as the religious right has been. I just haven't seen it. We (I am an atheist) are tired of the religious who try to push their beliefs on others, for the most part.

It is indeed hilarious but also troublesome.

Maybe the time has come for atheists to fight back.

Personally, I am sick of the wars, the heinous crimes, and the various PERVERSITIES that are practiced and forced upon others in the name of 'God'.

If this is what 'God' wants, then I will have no part of him.

More likely --those who profess 'God' do so because THEY are in need of a 'devine' Ronald Reagan who will make them feel good about being 1) STUPID; 2) PERVERTED and 3) PSYCHOPATHIC.

My position is that unless that the religious right and their various apologists can cite a scintilla of evidence in support of their multitude of STUPID FUCKIN' NONSENSE they should just shut the fuck up! I have it with the stupid bastards.

AdamS said...

Damien says:
"More disturbing, AdamS, is Len's point:

With about 50% of Britons believing in evolution to varying degrees, this is somewhat better than the U.S., where only 39% believe in evolution (just slightly more than the undecideds), but it is far below where one would think. Even stranger is this fact: ..around 10% of people chose young Earth creationism – the belief that God created the world some time in the last 10,000 years – over evolution."

My concern is exactly this. The blurring between science and religion is dangerous both ways. Because on the one hand, you have Young Earth Creationism being taught as fact. On the other, religious folks get offended because they feel their beliefs are somehow under assault. And then they go out of their way to trash science in the name of 'defending' their faith.

So I think it would be beneficial to emphasise the separation of church and science. I think Einstein said something like, 'the more I learn about the universe the more I believe there is a god'. So even the most brilliant scientists can consider/be interested in religion.

There has been created this false conflict (yes you can blame the religious ones for starting it) between science and religion, when the two need not be fundamentally incompatible. Religion isn't just about the supernatural, the moral aspect is also important, and it is morals that religious people consider themselves to be 'defending' from atheism, which to them is associated with 'depraved modern society'.

The 'opression' I am talking about is the attitude that religion somehow is fundamentally wrong and needs to be scrubbed out. Fighting fire with fire if you will. I just can't see that yielding any breakthrough with the 'religious right'.

AdamS said...

Len said:

"Personally, I am sick of the wars, the heinous crimes, and the various PERVERSITIES that are practiced and forced upon others in the name of 'God'."

100% agree. But the thing is, it's not even close to all religious people. It's a small number of scum who hide behind the 'faith group' and then allow the blame to fall upon the whole group, thus masking in some way their reponsibility.

And even better, when the entire Christan church, for example, is blamed for Bush's foreign wars (why do you think he said God told him to invade Iraq), ordinary Christians then think their faith is under attack (when it's really just the policies of a handful of fraudsters) and they will defend Bush. Classic divide and conquer.

As I see it, the common denominator in all the crimes and perversities, are criminals and perverts, not 'believers'. Remove organised religion and the scum would find other patsies to dress up as.

Anonymous said...

AdamsS, you say "On the other, religious folks get offended because they feel their beliefs are somehow under assault. And then they go out of their way to trash science in the name of 'defending' their faith.

Who cares? There has to be an end to this nonsense. You are talking to someone with a heavy Catholic childhood the good and bad influences of which persist in various psychological forms to this day. My childhood was built on religious tolerance, or rather, social acquiesence to designated authority figures. As an older man I am tolerant enough to allow people their ill-informed and unchallenged opinions -- provided they don't push them on me. The problem is that of necessity religion is a psychological crutch for most people, a left over from their childhood, and that they almost can't help themselves in pushing their barrow. I don't know how many times in my life that, in the name of "niceness", I have accepted people putting bunkum before me merely so they can get to feel good about themselves. It's psychologically draining and an utter waste of time. There is a real need in this world to laugh in the faces of those who espouse religion, to hold them up to public ridicule and to send them on their way with a strong measure of derision. There is nothing cute in grown adults espousing the benefits of an all-powerful imaginary friend to another adult who has no need for such absurdities. It is asinine, childish nonsense. If religious ideas are worth anything then they can stand a good public kicking. As a teacher I used to occasionally come across kids from "born again" evangelical families who possessed a certainty in their idiocies that was just breath-taking. You want to take their parents and throttle them. No, the world was not actually created in seven days or is less than 10,000 years old. No, people who aren't "born again" are not destined to burn forever in hell. And, no, people are not elevated above others because of the special status as "members of the elect". And, finally, the civil laws of the land apply to all people not just the "good" ones. What really needs to be said is "Get that crap out of your life."

Look, I met and mixed with people from all walks of religious life as a young man: Mormons, followers of variou Indian gurus, Catholic groups. Many of my firends were involved with these people and I looked at most of them. They all had interesting things to say up to a point. I read all the scriptures and did some study on Eastern philosophy. I can give you the simple version of my findings about most religious beliefs: THEY'RE A LOAD OF CROCK! Notice I don't say that Budda, Jesus, Socrates, Mohammed, LaoTzu or Confucius might not have something useful to say. But Joe Smith espousing such views is just an idiot in search of a social identity. We reassure children who don't know who they are. Time is too short to waste on reassuring half-assed adults who demand to be accepted as conduits to higher consciousness. If someone tells you they have a special relationship to God then get them to tell you which horse will be winning in the 5th.