• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

People are complicated. Love is not.

This isn’t Democrats spending madly. This is government catching up.

You are either for trump or for democracy. Pick one.

Republicans do not pay their debts.

The low info voters probably won’t even notice or remember by their next lap around the goldfish bowl.

Live so that if you miss a day of work people aren’t hoping you’re dead.

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

I like political parties that aren’t owned by foreign adversaries.

So many bastards, so little time.

The gop is a fucking disgrace.

Everything is totally normal and fine!!!

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

Republican also-rans: four mules fighting over a turnip.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Their freedom requires your slavery.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

Our messy unity will be our strength.

The republican ‘Pastor’ of the House is an odious authoritarian little creep.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

Republicans choose power over democracy, every day.

He wakes up lying, and he lies all day.

Sadly, media malpractice has become standard practice.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Science & Technology / More Creationism

More Creationism

by John Cole|  July 16, 20056:04 pm| 40 Comments

This post is in: Science & Technology

FacebookTweetEmail

Next stop on the creationsim train- South Carolina:

Some might think South Carolina – a staunch Republican state nestled in the Bible Belt – would be an easy sell when it comes to passing a law requiring public schools to teach alternatives to evolution.

State Sen. Mike Fair has found little success so far but is again sponsoring legislation that he says would simply expand theories taught on origin.

A bill filed June 1 – one day before the Legislature adjourned for the year – calls for the State Board of Education to implement science standards that teach “the full range of scientific views” for controversial topics, including evolution.

“If they’re talking about natural selection, it is a fact,” says Fair, R-Greenville. “If they’re talking about a molecule becoming a man over a kazillion years, the probabilities are so, so, so remote, that it is, in fact, scientifically impossible. Scientists have said that, not ministers.”

Despite South Carolina’s deep religious leanings, lawmakers have been slow to try to open debate on evolution in schools…

It’s surprising, Fair said, that questioning aspects of evolution, namely origin, would be so difficult in South Carolina.

“I have no explanation for it, except that people are fearful,” he said. “People are afraid. Some people who are Bible believers are fearful of the subject. Believers and nonbelievers alike are afraid. That’s not setting a good example for students. We should not be afraid of the truth.”

Hang on, Senator Fair! Help is on the way!

ChristianExodus.org is moving thousands of Christians to South Carolina to reestablish constitutionally limited government founded upon Christian principles. This includes the return to South Carolina of all “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.” It is evident that the U.S. Constitution has been abandoned under our current federal system, and the efforts of Christian activism to restore our Godly republic have proven futile over the past three decades. The time has come for Christian Constitutionalists to protect our American principles in a State like South Carolina by interposing the State’s sovereign authority retained under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

We’re gonna party like it’s 1839!

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Sanity… Sort Of
Next Post: Oh No He Didn’t! »

Reader Interactions

40Comments

  1. 1.

    Glenn M.

    July 16, 2005 at 6:13 pm

    It’s not an exodus. It’s an invasion. An exodus would be many people from one area leaving en mass. Ask Merriam-Webster what an invasion is: “the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful”. That seems more accurate to what these people are trying to accomplish.

    Are they actually trying to preform mass relocations of people’s lives just to achieve some bible-thumping legislative victory?

    I can imagine the only people who have a more severe case of delusions than the people who created this idea are the ones that will be following it.

  2. 2.

    Jon H

    July 16, 2005 at 6:18 pm

    “We’re gonna party like it’s 1839!”

    But no dancing.

  3. 3.

    Cynical Nation

    July 16, 2005 at 6:21 pm

    I attended the University of South Carolina during the 1980s, when Mike Fair first made a name for himself by protesting the amount of “illicit sex” that was taking place on campus. A common t-shirt/bumper sticker sentiment at the time was “I wish I was getting as much as Mike Fair thinks I’m getting.”

  4. 4.

    actor212

    July 16, 2005 at 6:25 pm

    “Illicit sex” in South Carolina. Does that mean outside the family?

  5. 5.

    ppgaz

    July 16, 2005 at 6:27 pm

    If they’re talking about a molecule becoming a man over a kazillion years, the probabilities are so, so, so remote, that it is, in fact, scientifically impossible.

    I’m looking forward to Fair’s explanation of how a “remote possibility” is not the same thing as a near certainty, given an open-ended definition for “kazillion years.”

    When time has no boundaries, the remotely possible becomes the likely. Or did I miss something in school?

    (disclaimer: I did not go to a “christian” school)

  6. 6.

    Jack (CommonSenseDesk)

    July 16, 2005 at 7:09 pm

    One less state I might consider relocating to.

  7. 7.

    Mike S

    July 16, 2005 at 7:42 pm

    The Authority and Inerrancy of Scripture

    The Holy Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God, existing as His perfect revelation of absolute truth in all matters in the original manuscripts penned by the biblical authors under the superintending guidance of the Holy Spirit. (John 17:17; 2 Timothy 3:16, 17; 2 Peter 1:20, 21)

    This has always confused me. The idea seems to be that God dictated the bible word for word. No mistakes and no typos. So everything in the bible should be followed to the letter. Every Christian would be stoned in the town square for one transgression or another.

  8. 8.

    Jess

    July 16, 2005 at 7:55 pm

    “Every Christian would be stoned in the town square for one transgression or another.”

    Such as eating shellfish, forbidden somewhere in the Old T.

  9. 9.

    Doug

    July 16, 2005 at 8:00 pm

    Believing in the infallibility of the Bible depends a lot on ignoring the fact that it had editors.

    And anyway, regarding evolution, I think it speaks volumes that Bryan died days after the Scopes Monkey Trial. That was God saying, “look, you freak, I put all this evidence in front of you to show you that Genesis is just a story. Now die for being wilfully ignorant.”

    Oh, and is there some standard explanation from Genesis literalists about where Cain got his wife? Was he having sex with his mother or was it his sister? Or just magic?

  10. 10.

    Mike S

    July 16, 2005 at 8:02 pm

    Exactly. As is wearing clothing of mixed fabrics. It seems to me that the Muslim nuts follow the bible better than the Christian ones. But if the Christian ones follow their logic to it’s natural conclusion they will be just as bad as the Muslim extremists.

  11. 11.

    Mike S

    July 16, 2005 at 8:07 pm

    Did anyone see the article a while back in Time about the problems teachers go through? A teacher was showing kids a skeloton and telling the kids that people have x number of ribs. A little boy stood up and said that men had one less than women because Adam gave up one for Eve. The teacher told him that both had the same. The kid went home, told his parents and preacher and the next day he preacher called the teacher a heratic(sp).

    These people are nuts.

  12. 12.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    July 16, 2005 at 8:08 pm

    Try reconciling Gen 1 and Gen 2 literally. Good luck.

  13. 13.

    Hokie

    July 16, 2005 at 8:24 pm

    “Origin” in the sense these clowns are using it is not a part of “evolution.” The only “origin” evolution deals with is that of species (hence the title of Darwin’s book, which is pointedly not “The origin of life.”

    God, I hate these people. Setting them all on fire isn’t enough for them. I really wouldn’t mind so much if they had a semblence of a clue of what they were talking about, but they don’t even have that.

  14. 14.

    srv

    July 16, 2005 at 9:10 pm

    I wonder what level of media work it would take to help evangelize an exodus from purple states to a set of states that we don’t care about.

    If I had Soros’ money, it could be done.

  15. 15.

    Bernard Yomtov

    July 16, 2005 at 10:13 pm

    Actually, the fact that Fair is not getting much support in South Carolina is good news.

  16. 16.

    Steve

    July 17, 2005 at 12:38 am

    How many days did all of you spend in school studying the origins of the human race? Not many, was it?

    It is amazing how we in this country have the ability to obsess over the tiniest non-issues.

  17. 17.

    Sojourner

    July 17, 2005 at 8:03 am

    It is amazing how we in this country have the ability to obsess over the tiniest non-issues.

    Hardly insignificant. The theory of evolution plays a significant role in understanding chemistry and biology. Also, rejection of evolution is also a rejection of the scientific method, which means the same indifference we see in separating cultural belief from fact will inevitably spill over into science. At that point, medical doctors and researchers are free to pass whatever they want off as science. We’re already beginning to see this in the arguments over evidence supporting/not supporting issues such as abstinence only programs.

    Hardly the “tiniest of non-issues”.

  18. 18.

    AlanDownunder

    July 17, 2005 at 8:08 am

    Not a non-issue. Part of a general anti-scientific US calamity. Darwin is not the only subject where the the brains of the religious right turn to mush. You can’t successfully deny global warming like Bush does unless your “believers” outnumber your thinkers.

  19. 19.

    Simon

    July 17, 2005 at 8:57 am

    Andrew:

    Try reconciling Gen 1 and Gen 2 literally. Good luck.

    I am gong to take this on not necessarily because I believe it, but because I wish to demonstrate to you the why we cannot dismiss our opponents’ position by implying they are too stupid to employ simple reason.

    Those who believe in biblical inerrancy do not approach the scriptural texts in the “wooden literal” fashion you may claim of them. They in many cases have quite a sophisticated and varied set of approaches that depend upon textural structure and purpose. The approaches, though varied, seem grounded in a faith that is informed by reason and vice versa. I respect it far more than I respect solitary faith or solitary reason.

    It seems to me solitary faith is blind and is to blame for the rise of cults and the anti-intellectualism that has formerly harmed American Christianity. Nevertheless I think reason alone is powerless and ultimately as blind as solitary faith. With pure reason we are prone to think ourselves mere animals simply because our genome is similar to that of chimps. Similarly, by simple reason we on very little evidence have concluded we evolved from apes by godless causes and therefore have freedom to murder genetic humans via abortion, force homosexual marriage upon the entire nation via the courts and even grow human brains within chimps if ever we can.

    It has been a very long journey for me, but I cannot but conclude that the better humans of history have always combined faith and reason. By combining these two virtues we might acquire their benefits with little of their nonsense. Contrary to how it may appear to you, many biblical literalists understand this very well.

    You have, for example, apparently assumed the literalists are idiots because they find little problem between Genesis chapters 1 & 2. But they see a certain style of writing here that generally covers creation in chapter one and that specifically covers a narrower aspect of creation in chapter two. The view is valid and indeed I think no reasonable person can see it otherwise.

    The indicator of this structure is made very clear in that the general narrative begins in chapter one to describe Creation up to the creation of man (1:26) and then terminates with God

  20. 20.

    AlanDownunder

    July 17, 2005 at 9:45 am

    Here’s the giveaway paragraph:

    It seems to me solitary faith is blind and is to blame for the rise of cults and the anti-intellectualism that has formerly harmed American Christianity. Nevertheless I think reason alone is powerless and ultimately as blind as solitary faith. With pure reason we are prone to think ourselves mere animals simply because our genome is similar to that of chimps. Similarly, by simple reason we on very little evidence have concluded we evolved from apes by godless causes and therefore have freedom to murder genetic humans via abortion, force homosexual marriage upon the entire nation via the courts and even grow human brains within chimps if ever we can.

    1. Science declares itself provisional and incomplete. That is the essence of scientific method. Your “pure reason” is a straw man – science unscientifically extrapolated into dogmatic atheism. Any scientific Christian and any true scientist knnows this.

    2. Your human / animals dichotomy is not just unscientific but unChristian. God gave us dominion over the beasts but for stewardship, not tyranny. The lack of that false dichotomy does not lead to treating other humans as God does not want us to treat other species.

    3. No marriage, gay or straight, is forced on anyone (unless by the proverbial shotgun)

    4. All science is falsible. If not falsifiable it is not science. Mainstream biology is falsifiable because it makes testable hypotheses. ID does not make falsifiable hypotheses, so it is not science.

  21. 21.

    capelza

    July 17, 2005 at 10:36 am

    Not even going to touch the evolution debate.

    As for “Christian Exodus”….ask any Oregonian (like myself) about a religious group moving in and taking over an area and the first thing that comes to mind is Antelope, OR and the Rashneeshis….we know how well THAT worked out.

  22. 22.

    Simon

    July 17, 2005 at 1:13 pm

    1. Science declares itself provisional and incomplete. That is the essence of scientific method.

    And as incomplete as it is it nevertheless commands by government force the tax funds of millions who reject it outright because of its inherent demand for godlessness.

    Your “pure reason” is a straw man – science unscientifically extrapolated into dogmatic atheism.

    Dogmatic atheism is by logical necessity tantamount to any science that virulently asserts that godless processes are the cause of human origins. Evolutionary science as it exists today is atheistic indeed because it is profoundly rooted in philosophical materialism, refusing to bow in the least to the prospect that God did anything concerning our development. Indeed, it completely ignores notions of God in all things. That is atheism.

    Any scientific Christian and any true scientist knnows this.

  23. 23.

    Simon

    July 17, 2005 at 1:25 pm

    You can’t successfully deny global warming like Bush does unless your “believers” outnumber your thinkers.

    There is is, yet again. Pure left-winged arrogance. I think most people are interested in continued life. If they really thought the sky was falling as leftists are claiming, they would do all they can to fix the matter. The case for global warming has been too obscured by nonsense and distrust, much of it coming from so-called “scientific minded” people who, when they do not get their way (and tax funding – can’t forget about the taxes!), begin to insult huge populations of unconvinced people.

  24. 24.

    Kimmitt

    July 17, 2005 at 7:04 pm

    The very moment the gaps in the fossil record were brought to light, part of evolutionary science began to whine that

  25. 25.

    JKC

    July 17, 2005 at 8:30 pm

    Hey Simon-

    Is it OK if ID gets taught from a Hindu perspective? Or a Zoroastrian perspective? How about Norse mythology? That work for you?

  26. 26.

    SeesThroughIt

    July 17, 2005 at 8:37 pm

    “We’re gonna party like it’s 1839!”

    But no dancing.

    Q: Why don’t evangelicals fuck while standing?
    A: They’re afraid god might think they’re dancing.

  27. 27.

    Hokie

    July 17, 2005 at 11:03 pm

    Because I’m a masochist, I’ll indulge:

    And as incomplete as it is it nevertheless commands by government force the tax funds of millions who reject it outright because of its inherent demand for godlessness.

    Science does no such thing. There is nothing about science that says a bloody thing about the existence or nonexistence of God in any ontological sense. Where science is naturalistic, it is for the purposes of methodology, since its whole point is to find natural explanations for things. This really ins’t that complicated, and if a couple of wankers like Dawkins made ontological conclusions based on methodological considerations, it doesn’t impeach the entire process. Really, really, really not that complicated, and it doesn’t take a deep understanding of the scientific method to see this.

    Dogmatic atheism is by logical necessity tantamount to any science that virulently asserts that godless processes are the cause of human origins. Evolutionary science as it exists today is atheistic indeed because it is profoundly rooted in philosophical materialism, refusing to bow in the least to the prospect that God did anything concerning our development. Indeed, it completely ignores notions of God in all things. That is atheism.

    This is nothing if not incoherent. See above. Of course it ignores notions of God in all things. It’s SUPPOSED TO. Otherwise one can explain any old thing with “Oh, yeah, God did it,” which is entirely anathema to science.

    It maybe be that there are things science cannot explain. To immediately inject God into the equation finishes the quest, however.

    Why is this so hard? I really would like someone to explain this to me. Methodology is different from ontology. Can you say that after me, Simon?

    This is but one of dozens of ways homosexuality will be forced on the entire nation by law.

    Homosexuality is being “forced” onto the nation because someone might have to (horror upon horror) pay benefits to legally recognized couples? Damn, I didn’t realize people wouldn’t be able to not be homosexual at this point. Man, thanks for the heads up!

    The very moment the gaps in the fossil record were brought to light, part of evolutionary science began to whine that

  28. 28.

    AlanDownunder

    July 18, 2005 at 2:53 am

    Amen, Hokie.

    What atheists and wacko theists alike do not get is science’s inherent humility. The whole edifice is built on extreme scepticism – a relentless effort to falsify itself in order to find ever less falsifiable explanations for the natural world. All that’s left standing as a result is an ever more satisfactory set of provisional beliefs which turn out to be ever more useful useful and which also, dare I suggest, give us an ever less tiny glimpse of the elegance and wonder of God’s creation.

    Science declares itself blind to (as in incapable of either confirming or denying) divinity. That’s why this mainstream Christian has no problems with science. There is no religious or rational basis for these turf wars.

    Your main point cannot be repeated often enough: methodology is not ontology. Science will never enlighten us spiritually but it sure comes in handy materially. For example, science gave us the WWW. If those who believe science to be the devil’s work would show the courage of their convictions and get off the WWW it would be a much better place. And dare I commend to them faith-based medecine, or better still aviation?

  29. 29.

    AlanDownunder

    July 18, 2005 at 2:54 am

    Amen, Hokie.

    What atheists and wacko theists alike do not get is science’s inherent humility. The whole edifice is built on extreme scepticism – a relentless effort to falsify itself in order to find ever less falsifiable explanations for the natural world. All that’s left standing as a result is an ever more satisfactory set of provisional beliefs which turn out to be ever more useful useful and which also, dare I suggest, give us an ever less tiny glimpse of the elegance and wonder of God’s creation.

    Science declares itself blind to (as in incapable of either confirming or denying) divinity. That’s why this mainstream Christian has no problems with science. There is no religious or rational basis for these turf wars.

    Your main point cannot be repeated often enough: methodology is not ontology. Science will never enlighten us spiritually but it sure comes in handy materially. For example, science gave us the WWW. If those who believe science to be the devil’s work would show the courage of their convictions and get off the WWW it would be a much better place. And dare I commend to them faith-based medecine, or better still aviation?

  30. 30.

    Simon

    July 18, 2005 at 3:30 am

    This is foolishness; everyone has always agreed that things don’t usually fossilize and that we can expect to have ever-shrinking gaps in the fossil record. This is what was and has been predicted, and this prediction has been consistently bourne out.

    Of course the point was to show the manifold reactions of evolutionary science to a single problem. Surely everyone may have believed in one of the responses, but the real issue is that there were so many of them

  31. 31.

    Simon

    July 18, 2005 at 3:33 am

    Is it OK if ID gets taught from a Hindu perspective? Or a Zoroastrian perspective? How about Norse mythology? That work for you?

    It works for me no more than teaching evolution from a Hindu or Christian perspective. I don

  32. 32.

    Simon

    July 18, 2005 at 3:35 am

    For example, science gave us the WWW.

    Of course it was real empirical and applied science that did this. So I will enjoy it because I respect it. Evolutionary science had not a thing to do with producing the WWW. It is the charlatan of sciences.

  33. 33.

    Simon

    July 18, 2005 at 3:44 am

    Science does no such thing. There is nothing about science that says a bloody thing about the existence or nonexistence of God in any ontological sense. Where science is naturalistic, it is for the purposes of methodology, since its whole point is to find natural explanations for things.

    Yes. And this is soft atheism indeed. The whole point of science is to limit the pursuit of knowledge to materialism. It does not actively deny God. It just treats God as non-sense unless He should deign to speak through materialism. If an Almighty God truly exists, then science refuses to see Him on all terms other than natural ones. God is anathema to science.

    This really ins’t that complicated, and if a couple of wankers like Dawkins made ontological conclusions based on methodological considerations, it doesn’t impeach the entire process.

    Dawkins is only being consistent. He knows that if one assumes naturalism in one

  34. 34.

    AlanDownunder

    July 18, 2005 at 5:39 am

    God is anathema to science.

    Like ice bergs are anathema to camels. As science modestly but rigorously admits, God is beyond science.

    Jump on your charger and level your lance at atheism by all means, but leave science out of it. Atheism is not only irreligious, it’s unscientific.

    Ironically, much atheism is reaction to ludicrously confused religious attacks on science. Not justified, but very understandable.

  35. 35.

    JKC

    July 18, 2005 at 7:11 am

    Simon sez:

    “…if its evidence is not so compelling that I support it willingly, then you really have no right to force me to support it.”

    Does that extend to the laws of thermodynamics? Gravity? Are you going to demand veto power over every piece of scientific fact that doesn’t fit into your religious beliefs?

    No wonder this country is becoming a second-rate power in terms of scientific research.

  36. 36.

    Hokie

    July 18, 2005 at 8:58 am

    The whole point of science is to limit the pursuit of knowledge to materialism.

    That’s an entirely false statement, actually. The whole point of science is to limit the pursuit of scientific knowledge to materialism. Nothing is said about any field of, say, philosophy, theology, sociology, or so on, but purely scientific ones. This is simply because science cannot exist as a well-defined notion without methodological naturalism. It does not treat God as nonsense, and it doesn’t try to exclude God from “knowledge,” but purely that which is accessible by science. You’re engaging in the same sort of rhetorical game Johnson does when he tries conflating methodology and ontology, and it’s rather transparent.

    If an Almighty God truly exists, then science refuses to see Him on all terms other than natural ones. God is anathema to science.

    As to the first, of course it does. As to the second, it’s decidedly not true. Science is agnostic. It doesn’t (though individual scientists may spout off otherwise) make any conclusions as to anything to do with God. For all we know, God is using naturalistic processes to do everything God wants to happen. It’s simply not an addressable issue as far as science is concerned because you cannot experiment or falsify the supernatural.

    Dawkins is only being consistent. He knows that if one assumes naturalism in one

  37. 37.

    True_Believer

    July 18, 2005 at 9:56 am

    http://www.godhatesshrimp.com

    :-)

  38. 38.

    Simon

    July 19, 2005 at 11:20 am

    Does that extend to the laws of thermodynamics? Gravity? Are you going to demand veto power over every piece of scientific fact that doesn’t fit into your religious beliefs?

    Well, I have already explained that physics is real science, unlike evolutionary speculation.

    No wonder this country is becoming a second-rate power in terms of scientific research.

    It is becoming a second rate scientific power because leftists of the sort we see here are creating a society of increasingly debased values and the families of this society are creating undisciplined and unmotivated children. These children are gradually swamping the public schools so that now to baby-sit them is costing upwards of $11,000 per student each and every year.

    I suspect we will see a power shift gradually take place as the children of intellectual but devoted theists begin to take their places of leadership in our society. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/articles/050214/14college.htm

    They are growing quietly and steadily, and have been doing so for the last fifteen years. They are building and establishing their own institutions where finally they need not shirk away from integrating faith in all aspects of knowledge. They are far freer than you and your children – and much more motivated.

    And it shows:

    http://www.phc.edu/news/docs/031103Media.asp
    http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20041210-102053-5960r.htm
    http://www.phc.edu/news/docs/050328Media.asp

    The Evangelical Christians are doing this andit is costing the taxpayers zilch – nada.

    I believe faith and reason together will ultimately trounce truncated secular thinking. And as ID converges with the growing intellectual movement created by the kids mentioned above, evolution is going to have a very tough time of it.

  39. 39.

    Simon

    July 19, 2005 at 11:26 am

    That’s an entirely false statement, actually. The whole point of science is to limit the pursuit of scientific knowledge to materialism. Nothing is said about any field of, say, philosophy, theology, sociology, or so on, but purely scientific ones.

    Of course if science is purely methodological atheism and yet it has power to ultimately and in many cases solely inform the laws that govern my life, then the semantics you employ here are useless. Methodological atheism in society declares ontological atheism. Science by your definition cannot long stand aside should some other “unscientific” discipline asserts that a certain scientific pursuit is immoral. This is in evidence on the issue of cloning and stem cell research, for example. The moment other disciplines declare the moral impropriety of killing an unborn child or some other act, those informed by science overrule on the basis of a ‘lack of materialistic evidence’ and ultimately go on to do as they please.

    As long as science is governed by strict materialism, nothing else but materialism can inform its morality; and this means we will abort children, we will clone humans despite the moral costs, we will grow human brains in chimps if we can. Science effectively supplants all, which in turn forces everyone into philosophical atheism.
    I have no problem with any of this, of course. I am perfectly willing to allow anyone to do as they please. But they should only do it with their own funds and without compelling my children by law to engage in it in any fashion.

    This is simply because science cannot exist as a well-defined notion without methodological naturalism. It does not treat God as nonsense, and it doesn’t try to exclude God from “knowledge,” but purely that which is accessible by science. You’re engaging in the same sort of rhetorical game Johnson does when he tries conflating methodology and ontology, and it’s rather transparent.

    You define science here as “methodological naturalism.” Then you say science (which is methodological naturalism) does not try to ignore God, but rigidly engages only that which is accessible by science (which is methodological naturalism). I think you have said quite a lot of nothing here—except that science is rigidly godless, ignoring the God that vast numbers of theists claim cannot be ignored, even if only methodologically.

    As to the first, of course it does. As to the second, it’s decidedly not true. Science is agnostic.

    You are exactly right that evolutionary science is agnostic (which in my opinion is atheism without courage), and as such it ought not have power to by threat of government weaponry compel theists to embrace it. That is really the point here.

    Bullshit. There is a very stark difference between assuming for the sake of science that God does not play any sort of hand in the world and saying out and out that God does no such thing.

    There is no difference at all when these ‘godless assumptions’ have power to compel others by threat of government weaponry toward their conclusions. No one needs a God that is so worthless He can be ignored even if “only methodologically.” Fancy this: your evolutionary “science,” compels attention and even money from my pocket by force of law. On the other hand, the God is so powerless He can be ignored. Dawkins is only being intellectually honest when he chooses atheism. It is impossible for any evolutionist to do otherwise, considering the obvious power evolutionary science demonstrates as it compels attention and ignores God.

    You’re doing the same thing again, associating things that don’t need to be. There’s a difference between inserting a God of the gaps to explain things we cannot currently explain and believing in a God that might, shock upon shock, use naturalistic processes to accomplish his/her/whatever’s aims. It doesn’t say God isn’t behind anything, it merely says God uses tools other than “Let it be so.”

    It doesn’t say God “uses tools” or anything else. It instead rigidly ignores God to by narrow materialistic speculation declare what exists. Then only on Sunday morning does it attribute the whole speculative mess to the God it has been intensely ignoring other days of the week. I don’t think such a god is worth anything because based upon scientific speculation, every single thing in the universe is ultimately explained without him. There is no need to acknowledge what is unnecessary. Dawkins is right to be an atheist. No consistent evolutionary scientist can be anything else.

    Is this somehow anathema to your conception of the deity so that he’s “of so little value he is unnecessary”? Why can’t God use any tools at his disposal? Why do you limit God as such?

    A God Who can be ignored is no God at all. Yet I do think a God of absolute might would surely allow willful “methodological materialists” to ignore Him. That makes plenty of sense to me.

    It’s the same thing that comes with “origins.” The reason creationists have to press and press on how scientists can’t possibly say anything about the origin of life and that this somehow impeaches evolution is so they can make evolutionary science out to be denying any involvement of God in anything whatsoever, when in reality, it can’t say anything about the origin of life right now because there’s no way to falsify any proposed theory, and evolution doesn’t say a thing about it anyway.

    If evolutionary science can say a thing about origins, then it will. Indeed it is trying to construct, even now, a speculative world wherein all existence, including its origin, is explained by naturalism. It has no choice but to do this. It is godless by definition. Whether you admit it or not the fact of the matter is that if God can be ignored even methodologically, then He is not God, but a little puppy we might take out to play with when we have a mind to do so.

    You’re, again, conflating philosophical materialists (what I have previously referred to as “ontological” naturalists) and scientific materialists (what I have referred to as “methodological” naturalists). “Intellectual life” is hardly limited to science, after all; one can be a naturalist with regard to how one views the small component of the world that is science and not be a naturalist in areas of philosophy, theology, etc.

    Surely you must see the problem with this. The sort of intellectual schizophrenia you are advocating here is why the moral dissonance in our society increases so rapidly. Consider that today people are murdering actual living genetic humans with impunity and by federal law, federal debt is skyrocketing, homosexual “marriage” is the preferred oxymoronic logical distortion of the day, and if ever we can we will by federal law grow human brains within chimps all because methodological science declares it possible. No real political challenge to any of this exists because law is increasingly bound to the terms of methodological naturalism; and on such narrow terms philosophical theism does not have the material evidence to prove the immorality of it.

    The only thing left for philosophical theists is to do precisely what they are trying to do: take greater control of the government that now oppresses them so that law can return to its former moorings in theological consensus integrated with methodological naturalism.

    This is why I don’t resent the protests and boycotts of the Evangelical Christians and those like them who take their God seriously in all pursuits, science and otherwise. They are decidedly not interested in theocracy but in an integrated approach to law and life. Indeed they are the only Americans who think and act in a generally integrated fashion.

    Science consists of fields which are limited entirely to that which can be explained naturally, not “that which can be explained,” period. It’s pretty much a definition of the area along with susceptibility to the scientific method. This is what prevents ID from being a legitimate critique of science; it blurs boundaries that necessarily exist. You simply cannot test and falsify anything involving supernatural forces. Or, if you can, I’d like to hear about your proposed experimental structure…

    ID makes more than a simple claim of a Super Intellect. It claims there are structures that are irreducibly complex, structures that could not possibly have developed by a step-by-step Darwinian evolutionary process. That is the first and foremost claim of ID and it can be falsified simply by providing an evolutionary sequence, with a description of the pressures that brought it to bear, of just one of these irreducibly complex structures. That is the heart of ID, not its claim of Super Intelligence. Super Intelligence is merely the logical conclusion we must entertain should we continue our failure to falsify ID’s claim of irreducibility.

    No, but you’re still defining this notion of “gap” subjectively, in terms of “what would satisfy you,” not with regard to any detail.

    All things here are necessarily subjective. There is no such thing as objective evidence when it comes to evolutionary science. There are anthropologists who look at certain skulls and swear they are proto-humans while others swear they are mere apes. Evolutionary science gets along because ultimately it is based on politics. “Scientists” evaluate the evidence and by struggle arrive at a consensus. The largest group of scientists then berate and ridicule all detractors until they control every cent of tax money earmarked for science research grants. Few scientists can get along without buying into Club Evolution because they would be subjected to withering criticism, abuse and, most importantly, excluded from access to grant money.

    Evolutionary science would absolutely perish were it forced to survive on its own, without sucking the government’s tit. Medical science would thrive, as would physics and applied biology because they do have evidence and everyone can see it. What makes ID so interesting is that it, unlike evolutionary science, is surviving and even thriving without costing taxpayers a single cent. The reason for this is that it is making a claim, showing everyone the irreducible evidence it claims exists and now boldly challenges Club Evolution to produce.

    In other words, answer the following questions: what would be your criteria for something to be a “transitional form,” and what to you is a well-documented transition?

    I sincerely don’t think we even have the ability to reach back billions of years in time to definitively declare that organic forms macro-transitioned in the first place. I am not saying they didn’t transition, but that even if they did we just cannot determine it because we are removed from the evidence by time. I am saying that the structure of evolutionary science is built on a fraudulent claim of possessing powers it simply and obviously does not have.

    Until you answer those explicitly, there’s absolutely no way to have anything resembling a meaningful discussion, which is something most creationists want, but perhaps you don’t.

    Very well. My interests lie in finding whether evolutionary scientists can produce an existing irreducibly complex protein sequence by step-by-step mutative evolution. As they continue to ignore this challenge, I am increasingly hardened against their view. I need no “meaningful discussions” beyond this.

    Uh, you can raise your kids any way you like. If people want to reject science, so be it, though if you reject evolution on the grounds that the scientific method doesn’t lead to conclusions you like, you’ve got to reject it all.

    Quite false. Evolutionary science is not science because it cannot be falsified. Darwin himself declared if anyone can produce a structure that cannot be developed in a step-by-step evolutionary manner, his theory would be proven worthless. Well, ID has now claimed the existence of such structures, and instead of showing how they can be produced by evolution, evolutionists have simply whined about their inherent inabilities to produce them. That shows me that regardless of what is produced, evolutionists will simply find some wishful thinking to prop up their story. Medical science does not do this. If a technique or medicine does not work, it is summarily thrown out for obvious reasons. No one sits around pushing speculation as fact. So I accept it. I reject evolutionary science because its acolytes are too wedded to it to see that it has technically failed.

    Don’t like naturalism? Goodbye quantum mechanics; after all, all interpretations of QM were formed under the naturalistic hypothesis, and, hey, we’ve determined you don’t like that.

    Well I never said I don’t like naturalism. QM stands or falls on utterly mathematical proofs. Evolutionary science does no such thing. I can therefore accept QM and must reject evolutionary science, though should it demonstrate the evolution of an irreducibly complex protein structure I would still be compelled to entertain it.

    You’ve also got to throw out large portions of chemistry and solid-state physics; actually, pretty much the whole shebang.

    Quite wrong. Physics and applied chemistry are all real sciences that produce hard evidence. Either the nuke works, or it doesn’t. Either the medicine works, or it doesn’t. Evolutionary science has no such thing. It can never be falsified because its followers continually morph it into new speculations in response to observable reality – never producing proof of what happened, but only speculations on what may have possibly, perchance most likely perhaps conceivably happened—sort of.

    You can’t pick and choose…

    I most certainly can. Chemistry and physics are real sciences, with testable and mathematically falsifiable hypotheses. Evolutionary science simply morphs into new speculations in response to problems – or it tries to ignore the problems altogether, bringing out government attack dogs whenever it is challenged in the public systems. I am virtually convinced it is not science at all. No real science need defend itself in so degrading a manner.

    Moreover, if science somehow tears apart what once held your family together, I have to ask something about the health of your family.

    Or you might consider asking about the thing destroyed by evolutionary science’s exploitation of government power.

    Ah, so if I don’t want to support the, um, “philosophy” of heterosexuality, I should be able to get out of paying my married employees benefits for their wives?

    Of course being yourself a rugged methodological materialist, it should be quite obvious to you that you have no choice but to support the philosophy of heterosexuality. After all, you are essentially information – information coded in matter that actualizes things like human proteins, enzymes, arms, legs, a heart, a brain, which things actualize such behaviors as breathing, thought, poetry and even this “conversation” we are having here. When we take a look at the information that is Essential You, we see it has a fundamental character, one half of it coming from precisely one male, the other half from precisely one female. That is fundamental heterosexuality – and it is you.

    Moreover, the heterosexual information contributions that are Essential You are not equal. Fantastically, the genetic information itself has a gender pattern, possessing different markers and even expressing differently depending upon the sex of its contributor. Not only is Essential You heterosexual because of the simple origin of the contributions that comprise you, but the genetic contributions themselves have a gender. All humans are genetic heterosexuals to the most fundamental extent possible.

    You have no choice but to support what you are. You do have a choice whether to support what you are not.

    Sweet deal, man, [not supporting heterosexuality will] save a lot of money.

    Indeed, because you would be dead.

    How is “homosexuality” a “philosophy” (well, unless you’re Michel Foucault)?

    There is a logic to humans, a logic in the information that comprises us. Homosexuality has no part in that logic – none at all.

    And hey, next time I have a question about the human genome, you’ll be the first one I ask, because you’re clearly such a master of it that you know what each gene does and how they interplay with each other, so as to be able to conclusively rule out any genetic causes or tendencies towards homosexuality. Good deal.

    Humans are by definition not genetic homosexuals, but heterosexuals. So if homosexuality is influenced by genes, then its influence comes from a logical flaw in those genes – an anomaly.

    A social philosophy that I’m sure the segregationists would’ve been proud of [i.e. individual freedom].

    Perhaps, though I think not.

    And, for the record, speciation has been observed in insects, fungi, and plants. Just sayin’.

    Well. I have read about these at talkorigins and I think most are deeply flawed wishful thinking. The rest leave me unconvinced because they completely ignore three critical facts: 1. They ridiculously imply that polyploidy is an explanation of step-by-step evolution, 2. they avoid the hard definition of “species”, mindlessly choosing to determine the existence of speciation simply because one animal might prefer to mate with a certain animal over another (assortative mating), though being biologically capable of mating with both. 2. they avoid the fact that these instances for the most part took place not under natural selection pressures but as a result of intelligent design in a lab.

    And that is certainly true; it doesn’t address causation.

    It doesn’t even tell me that gross morphological changes from one organism to another took place because you have never once witnessed such changes – and neither has anyone else in human history.

    Absurdity, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. I find quite little to be a priori absurd unless it’s somehow logically incoherent. If you’re prejudging the issue, that’s your own concern. After all, science is trying to explain things, not win your approval.

    The claim is made absurd by the scant evidence marshaled forth in alleged support of it. You actually claim a dog morphed into a whale for crying out loud. Don’t you think this is just a little absurd in view of the evidence presented for it? Well, of course you don’t – and that is the problem with religionists and their precious beliefs.

    It is absolutely what one would expect, you’re correct. This, however, doesn’t mean that we have it.

    Well, it is gratifying to at least have agreement from an evolutionist that the protein sequence I desire is what one should expect. I can accept that you don’t yet have it, and in response to this admission I am prone even mute my skepticism of evolution. But until this discussion with you, most evolutionists I have engaged have claiming I am being ridiculous for even expecting such a thing. It is maddening because intuitively I know I should expect it. It is just plain common sense.

    Moreover, the fact that we don’t have it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, which is what you’re trying to establish.

    Not at all. I am not trying to establish that it does not exist. I am trying to establish that it DOES EXIST. You see, I am not interested in proving ID. I actually have no particular loyalty to the theory. I am interested in DISPROVING it. My frustration here is due to the fact that evolutionists are running wildly from this challenge, leaving me with an almost overwhelming doubt in their honesty, intellectual and now otherwise.

    Does evolutionary theory predict the existence of such a sequence? Yes, it does. However, to falsify, you cannot merely point out that this sequence is unknown; you must show that it is not possible for such a sequence to exist.

    Absolutely. This would be true if I were interested in trying to falsify evolution via a lack of the protein sequence. But I am not trying this. I am trying to falsify ID. The surest way to do this is to marshal forth the forces that have the most interest in destroying ID – evolutionists – but these folks are running. I think they are afraid that the game is up and that ID can be negotiated only by running.

    The first does not imply the second. See the problem with trying to positively support ID? It’s a philosophy predicated upon the negative; we cannot explain it at the moment, therefore it must be inexplicable. This is absolutely fallacious (a fallacy of instantiation, though more specifically I suppose it’d be syllogistic).

    I am not trying to support ID. I am trying to destroy it. Go back and read everything I have written on the issue and you will see that I have been trying to destroy it all along. I reject evolution. But I do not yet accept ID kit, cat, and caboodle. But as evolutionists continue to run from the ID challenge, I am growing ever more skeptical of their integrity.

    This is going to require some philosophy here, so bear with me. There is no notion of “proof” in science as one uses the term in logic or in mathematics…

    …or physics, or medicine or chemistry, or automotive repair or plumbing or engineering, etc., etc., etc.

    …even under the old understanding of science as an inductive discipline, as aside from the specific case of mathematical induction, you cannot prove something inductively, as a counterexample might be next around the corner. An inductive hypothesis can only be just not contradicted yet; and this is why Hume pointed out that induction is problematic. Thus, our more recent, deductive notion of science involves falsification; one can never truly affirm a scientific theory, one can merely falsify proposed theories, and the more falsification attempts a theory survives, the stronger it is.

    Evolutionary science survives by the power of “groupthink,” ever shifting speculation, government force and, more recently, running like hell.

    People are afraid to voice the skepticism so many of them have toward evolution, so effectively have evolutionists berated their critics. They are just plain afraid of being ridiculed and will parrot back evolution as long as the “group” does it. Surely you don’t think all the myriad zealous posters here for evolution actually understand the science of the theory. They are intellectual lemmings, maintaining membership in the cult by following their leaders by blind faith.

    Moreover, when encountering a difficulty, evolution changes, often by pure speculation, to accommodate it. The processes involved in Punctuated Equilibrium have never been witnessed. Peripheral isolates indeed! The idea is just an entirely speculative story invented to patch a hole in evolution. No theory so flimsy can ever be falsified. It bends like a river flowing around rocks, ultimately becoming just as crooked.

    Thus, the entire point of employing those fossil sequences is not to “prove,” in the logical or mathematical sense, that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals, but rather to show that the fossil record is consistent with this hypothesis and that Johnson’s attempt to invoke this as a falsifying example is incorrect.

    What the sequences in fact prove is that scientists will interpret as support what most rational beings would completely dismiss were they to look at the evidence with their own eyes and not through evolution colored glasses.

    Moreover, there’s a large problem with the “irreducibility” critique; it’s absolutely irrelevant. Using the term skews the issue. It doesn’t matter if something is irreducible, because, for example, the eye is irreducible in that remove its constituent components and it fails to work, but we have a proposed evolutionary sequence for it beginning with a light sensitive spot that became more and more complex and specialized.

    I have seen the sequence and I think it is unconvincing as support. I think Johnson wrote about this. Surely you’ve read it. You must admit his criticism here is bang on.

    The issue is not irreducibility, it is one of development, and to even describe a system as irreducible in this context is prejudging the issue.

    You see, irreducibility can be shown mathematically. When we look at the bacterial flagellum, for example, and the functions of its protein sub-structures, we aren’t really talking about a lot of stuff here so that we cannot determine irreducibility. We have a flagellum rotary function. Remove a part, any single part, and that function dies. So if evolution is true we know that the structure minus the removed part had to have been useful for some other function, else the structure necessarily would have been unavailable for future selection. I am not prejudging the issue – at least not unfairly.

    To go down this road of killing ID, one would have to be abe to produce such an example for every propoesd irreducible system, even though, as I pointed out above, the very notion of irreducibility is completely irrelevant.

    Quite wrong. You only need to produce a single detailed example of the evolutionary construction of an irreducible system. And you can no longer refer to macro forms because every single one of those forms inexorably depends upon the irreducible biological systems and machines that now fuels ID theory. Show the detailed evolution of just one of these and ID dies a very quick death.

    Nonetheless, fortunately, to really kill ID as a legitimate intellectual approach to science, we don’t need to be able to do this. It’s already dead. ID is legitimate insomuch as its critique of science holds; that is, that allowing for intelligent design creationism is a legitimate alternative approach to science.

    The heart that keeps ID alive has little to do with an Intelligent Designer and everything to do with what ID proponents claim could not have been produced by Darwinian evolution. To shoot ID through the heart, evolutionary science must produce evidence to contrary to ID’s claim. If it continues to run, I predict ID will one day gain a very powerful following, perhaps sometime in the next forty years significantly loosening evolution’s grasp upon the public and perhaps even upon the government.

    We will see.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Gay Orbit says:
    July 18, 2005 at 9:58 am

    Tonight We’re Gonna Party Like it’s 1839!

    LOL!

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - PaulB - Olympic National Park: Lake Quinault 1
Image by PaulB (5/17/25)

Recent Comments

  • Elizabelle on Repubs in Disarray Open Thread (May 18, 2025 @ 2:26am)
  • prostratedragon on Repubs in Disarray Open Thread (May 18, 2025 @ 2:14am)
  • sab on Repubs in Disarray Open Thread (May 18, 2025 @ 1:52am)
  • strange visitor (from another planet) on Repubs in Disarray Open Thread (May 18, 2025 @ 1:22am)
  • prostratedragon on Repubs in Disarray Open Thread (May 18, 2025 @ 1:19am)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!