So the Bush White House endeavors to send out a nice, simple, inclusive holiday card. No different than millions of Americans of all religions send out.
And what happens? The extreme religious right is offended. Hëll, let’s not even call them the extreme religious right, because that makes it sound like extremist Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, etc., are all on the same page. Let’s call it what it is: Extremist Christians.
Here’s the fascinating thing about Extremists: They’re all the same. The philosophy of Extremist Christians is fundamentally no different than, say, that of Extremist Muslims. They believe in the same things: Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance. Ignoring fundamental lessons of their own faith when it runs afoul of extremist thinking. Where is the philosophy of Christian charity and understanding? Where is the writings in the Koran specifically forbidding the killing of innocents? They don’t serve the Extremist viewpoint of exclusion and intolerance and thus are cast aside.
They only differ in degrees of their actions. Some chop off the heads of helpless victims. Others blow up abortion clinics.
And the most consistent link is that trying to accommodate them never, ever works. That’s what Bush is discovering now, having staked his political star to the whims of the Extremists. It’s insufficient for Extremists that eighty percent of this country celebrates Christmas. Instead the ONLY acceptable greeting at this time of year is “Merry Christmas” rather than something inclusive such as “Happy holidays.” It’s insufficient for Extremists that there is already an implicit lack of separation of church and state around the holidays (the government shuts down for Christmas. You see the government shutting down for Yom Kippur? For Ramadan?) They want an EXplicit lack of separation by having the official greeting card from the White House be in celebration of Christmas only.
It’s never enough for Extremists. Never enough. Because the only thing that will really satisfy them–whether they’re walking bombs or just bombasts–is if everyone thinks just like them, believes just like them, and wants the same things as them. Which is never, ever going to happen, which is why they will never, ever be satisfied. Bush has been trying to appease them and hopefully even he is now realizing that it’s hopeless.
One is left shaking one’s head at a people who are claiming their holiday, their very beliefs, are being threatened. No. When Romans were throwing them to the lions, THEN their beliefs were being threatened. Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.
And it’s not enough.
When dealing with Extremists and terrorists…it never is.
PAD
• 
Yup, “Christmas” is a stolen “pagan” holiday… “Easter” the same thing (and I love the expression on the face of certain people when they find out what the “Maypole” ritual really is)…
Apparently, most “Christians” don’t realize that their religion has been co-opting the stories and traditions of earlier and earlier faiths for so many centuries…
Horus, Mithras, etc – half-men, half-god – both killed, and both came back from the dead…
There are so many man-gods around through history… even Hercules fits the “Jesus” myth – a god coming down and impregnating a woman… Zeus just didn’t get as much PR about it…
“This is one of those things that I just can’t figure out. The card opens with one of the Psalms and it’s not religious ENOUGH? Maybe if the Bush dogs had crucifixes dangling from their collars.”
That’s because about 90% of this “War against Christmas” is manufactured by certain fundamentalist groups and Fox News. Fox went as far as recycling a Comedy Central clip from last year to create the impression that the “liberal media” is really waging war against Christmas. O’Riley presented the clip as if it were new and made no mention that it was a year old.
My question to the fundamentalists who are boycotting stores over “Happy Holidays” and writing letters to the President is this: Why are you looking for the true spirit of the baby Jesus in Department stores or the government. Stores are where you go to see crass commercialism. The goverment is where you go to see naked pandering. Any use of religion by either of them would simply be motivated by a desire to maximize their appeal. If you want to see the true spirit of Christmas, go to church.
Oops, that’s right, many of your “megachurches” have cancelled Christmas day services because they didn’t think enough of you would show up.
Craig J. Ries: Why is it acceptable for copies of Chronicles of Narnia to be read by children, but not something like Harry Potter?
Luigi Novi: Where has anyone taken this position?
There are some Christian groups that oppose Potter on the grounds that it will lead children into the hands of Satan. These same groups often hold the Narnia books (as well as the LotR) as “safe” alternatives to Harry Potter. I am aquainted with some of the people who review movies for the Christianity Today website. Every time a new Harry Potter film comes out they are berated for their positive reviews of both the films and books.
Can you name even one such school? I’ve taught at three and attended half a dozen in my time, and not once have I heard of anything of the sort happening in my schools or in neighboring ones. Maybe I’m just fortunate, but I suspect it’s more likely that the propaganda has gotten ahead of the reality here.
Well, it’s a big country. In Plano, Texas, the colors red and green have been banned from the various Plano Independent School District “winter” parties because they are too associated with Christmas. Somewhow I doubt they monitored the colors associated with Hanukkah and Kwanzaa quite so closely.
I take it the contrary assumption would then be that conservatism is relevant in fighting the war on terror?
The contrary assumption would actually be that conservatism is largely relevant in fighting the war on terror, since I originally said that the liberalism was largely irrelevant. Tony Blair, Joe Lieberman—they’re relevant liberals. Pat Buchanan–irrelevant anti-war conservative. The key is to look where the momentum (or Joe-mentum, as Lieberman might say) is. Within liberalism, the momentum is with the anti-war crowd.
First of all, when confronted with the problem of Iraq, who had repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions, sought nuclear weapons in definace of those resolutions, failed to account for the weapons the international community agreed he did have, repeatedly attacked troops policing the no-fly zones, and gave safe harbor to terrorists (all cited by George W. Bush in his pre-war speeches as arguments for war), most of the liberal democracies of Europe essentially punted the ball and said, “Let’s have more inspections, even though they’ve failed to do the trick the last eleven years.” And some of them had no problems helping Saddam violate his sanctions either. So they’re largely irrelevant to the issue, since they’re prone to inertia.
Over here in America, liberals were pretty much split down the middle. The Democratic leaders gave the go-ahead and then naysayed the war even before it started (Jack Murtha, anyone). And after it begun, they nominated a Presidential candidate whose heart clearly was never in the war, given as he was to isolationist pronouncements (like in his convention speech) that we shouldn’t be closing firehouses in the States while we open them in Baghdad (why spend any money on foreign policy then?) and rogue state-coddling in the form of debate talk about how we should’ve given Iran nuclear fuel to see if they’d use it for “peaceful purposes.” Last week, he went on Face The Nation and said this:
There is no reason … that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — of — the historical customs, religious customs.
When the party leaders of the most relevant liberal party in the world start sounding like the terrorists themselves, then you know something’s gone wrong. And that’s why I think they’re irrelevant. They’re too busy fighting their own side to fight the other side.
-Dave OConnell
In re: the argument over ID – I found this an interesting article (and it contains a link to an equally interesting article about creation “science”)…
http://www.skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
(Sorry, I can never get the links to work, so I’ve stopped trying.) 🙂
The Democratic leaders gave the go-ahead and then naysayed the war even before it started (Jack Murtha, anyone).
Actually, Murtha was a big supporter of the war until just recently, so he didn’t naysay it “even before it started.”
But why let facts get in the way of your hater, right?
Reading some of Iowa Jim’s posts underscores why I’ve come to believe that it’s just pointless to argue evolution with an ardent creationist. Jim at least is honest enough to admit that he is a creationist rather than hiding behind the pseudo-scientific idea of intelligent design.
But, as long as creationists start with the assumption that evolution and science in general is some kind of “creed” that is intended to tear down all belief in God, there is no point in discussing it. Faith and science are two different things. Science is about studying what can be observed (except in Kansas) while faith is about believing in something that is unobservable. There are scientists who believe in one religion or another, but they understand that religion and science do not belong in the same classroom together.
Can you name even one such school? I’ve taught at three and attended half a dozen in my time, and not once have I heard of anything of the sort happening in my schools or in neighboring ones. Maybe I’m just fortunate, but I suspect it’s more likely that the propaganda has gotten ahead of the reality here.
Well, it’s a big country. In Plano, Texas, the colors red and green have been banned from the various Plano Independent School District “winter” parties because they are too associated with Christmas. Somewhow I doubt they monitored the colors associated with Hanukkah and Kwanzaa quite so closely.
I’d like to know more details on this. If they said that the colors cannot be *exclusively* red and green, then I can understand that position. If they said simply “red and green are banned” without paying any attention to other colors, then I think that’s absurd, and I can already see that various first-amendment groups are justifiably fighting it.
How exactly this relates to your thesis that liberals are apparently the next best thing to Judas Iscariot seems a bit murky to me, though.
Tony Blair, Joe Lieberman—they’re relevant liberals.
If you think Joe Lieberman is even REMOTELY liberal, then we have no common ground upon which to base any discussion. Combine that with your flat-out lies about Jack Murtha, and I think you’re waaaaaaay too busy regurgitating conservative agitprop to actually have a discussion. Seeya around.
TWL
With regards to the proper greeting for atheists during this season, per Dave Barry’s Guide To Holiday Shopping:
“In the old days, it was not called the Holiday Season; the Christians called it ‘Christmas’ and went to church; the Jews called it ‘Hanukkah’ and went to synagogue; the atheists went to parties and drank. People passing each other on the street would say ‘Merry Christmas!’ or ‘Happy Hanukkah!’ or (to the atheists) ‘Look out for the wall!'”
Alas, as a non-drinking atheist, that doesn’t quite work for me.
naysayed the war even before it started (Jack Murtha, anyone)
I thought the Liberals were the ones “rewriting history”?
Iraq, who had repeatedly defied U.N. resolutions
So have Israel & Turkey. As have other countries.
sought nuclear weapons in definace of those resolutions
no non-forged proof provided for this.
failed to account for the weapons the international community agreed he did have
Agreement he has them does not equal proof he has them. Especially since none have ever been found even after 3 years of occupation.
safe harbor to terrorists
Terrorists who got safe harbor were in areas where Saddam had no control. i.e. the no-flight zones. Where he did have control, there were no terrorists.
And some of them had no problems helping Saddam violate his sanctions either
Like Haliburton while Cheney was chairman & CEO. Or other oil companies (U.s. & foreign) who likewise profited selling Iraqi oil
isolationist pronouncements … that we shouldn’t be closing firehouses in the States while we open them in Baghdad
What, you’re in favor of closing firehouses in the U.S.?
debate talk about how we should’ve given Iran nuclear fuel to see if they’d use it for “peaceful purposes.”
I haven’t heard anyone say this. Please provide a name & source.
American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women
&
party leaders of the most relevant liberal party in the world start sounding like the terrorists themselves
In school I was taught that this was the sort of thing done in Communist Russia & Nazi Germany, and that America was the ‘good guy’ because we didn’t do things like this. And opposing such tactics is terrorist talk? If so, your concept of freedom & democracy is way different from mine.
Is there a source, perhaps some place where they condemn Potter but praise Narnia?
Here’s a link to a story regarding Narnia & Harry Potter comparisons.
The article talks to an individual about it, then mentions later on that the Christians that have a problem with Potter are a minority (but, like the Robertsons and Falwells, they can be a very vocal minority).
Actually, Murtha was a big supporter of the war until just recently, so he didn’t naysay it “even before it started.”
It is incorrect to say he naysayed it “even before it started.”
It is also, however, incorrect to say he was a big supporter of the war “until just recently.”
Here’s Murtha in May, 2004: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_192988.html
Murtha: ‘We cannot prevail in this war’
WASHINGTON (AP) — A statement from a pro-defense Democrat that the Pentagon’s current military strategy in Iraq makes the war unwinnable drew a sharp rebuke Thursday from Republicans, who accused Democrats of using the war for political gain.
Whether he was ever a “big supporter” is open to debate. he did vote for the initial vote that allowed us to go in but I’ve been told by people here in this forum that such votes were simply from cowardice. From what little I know of Murtha he seems like a good man and hardly deserving of such a label but I have no idea what was in his heart. Certainly though, nobody can honestly say that his opposition to the war is a recent development, though the media reporting sure made it seem that way.
Whether he was ever a “big supporter” is open to debate. he did vote for the initial vote that allowed us to go in but I’ve been told by people here in this forum that such votes were simply from cowardice. From what little I know of Murtha he seems like a good man and hardly deserving of such a label but I have no idea what was in his heart. Certainly though, nobody can honestly say that his opposition to the war is a recent development, though the media reporting sure made it seem that way.
I would think that his combat experience would be relevant here, but that’s just me….
Murtha has been criticizing the administration’s handling of the war for some time now, but until about a year ago, he had been firm in his stance that pulling out would be a disaster. Until then, he had been a strong believer that we must stay in.
Criticizing the imcompetence of this administration’s execution of the war is not the same thing as calling for a pullout.
I would think that his combat experience would be relevant here, but that’s just me….
Only in that anyone who actual combat experience has been routinely ignored by the chickenhawks in this administration in every step of the planning and execution of Bush’s Big Adventure.
One more thing about Murtha: From his record in Congress, he has been regarded as one of the Pentagon’s biggest supporters. In fact, Ðìçk Cheney actually sought him out for advice in the 80s when he was Secretary of Defense because of his complete lack of military experience.
Now, like most veterans who have found the courage to speak their honest opinion about Operation Fix Daddy’s mistake, he gets villified in the media and called a coward on the floor of Congress. Even though his initial statement was a gradual pullout over six months, he gets attacked for calling on us to “cut and run.” Whenever I hear a republican trying to take the moral high road in a debate, I think about people like Murtha and Max Cleland, who have sacrificed much for this country and how they get treated by the chickenhawks on the right if they dare disagree with the administration.
Bill (& Tim),
The use of the word “fraud” had implications I did not consider. My thought at the time was that evolution has far bigger implications than just the biology class. The implications of the theory influence our whole culture, and as such, has deceived our culture into believing a lie.
That said, after consideration, I would not use the word because Tim was right, the term normally means the person involved in knowingly trying to deceive. I don’t believe that to be the case. Based on their (and my) presuppositions, we interpret the data differently.
James
Luigi Novi: Evolution is not a foundation of any worldview.
Are you serious? Go read the history of pragmatists here in America, people like Oliver Wendel Holmes and John Dewey. Have you not heard of sociobiology? There is a whole branch of psychology that is based on the principle that we evolved and our morality comes from the influence of natural selection. Not everyone agrees on these issues, but to say evolution is not a foundation of any worldview is demonstrably false.
I will go check out the website you mentioned. Thanks.
Iowa Jim
Jim,
While that’s not really an apology, I think it’s pretty close — so thank you, and accepted.
As for evolution not being the foundation of a worldview…
Are you serious? Go read the history of pragmatists here in America, people like Oliver Wendel Holmes and John Dewey
You’re mixing up cause and effect. Sure, evolutionary theory has been used by people to justify some other weird ideas. That does not make it a core part of evolutionary theory; after all, Christianity has been used to justify seventeen shitloads of weird ideas, some of which sparked wars. Evolution is not a worldview itself, and evolutionary theory did not come about because of anyone’s desire to change worldviews. Evolution is a set of scientific observations — the fact that you feel it’s a threat to your own personal worldview is, with all respect, not the biologists’ problem. They’re just reporting what is.
As Den said, science does not have a pre-eminent “creed”. It’s like the anecdote I’ve reported before, where a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses, upon hearing that Lisa was an atheist, asked her if she “followed the teachings of I-zay-ack Asimov.” You seem to have difficulty with the idea that someone can pursue scientific discovery for its own sake, rather than being part of a hierarchical system trying to topple religious thought as you know it. I don’t expect you’ll listen to this, but —
I know a heck of a lot more working scientists than you do, I’ll wager. Not one of them — not ONE — has expressed a hope that their work would help topple religious thought. They haven’t expressed it verbally, they haven’t expressed it in deed.
They do not think it in a car. They do not think it in a bar. They do not think it in their hearts, they do not put it in their charts.
They do not dream it late at night, they are not looking for a fight.
Please, Jim. If you learn nothing else from the myriad of discussions you’ve had here on the topic, learn that.
TWL
Jim,
I second what Tim said.
And while you are correct that evolution has been the foundation of worldviews, Tim is also correct that this has little to say about evolution. Bad stuff has been based on all manner of good and correct things.
And here’s something to ponder; suppose it’s true that scientists secretly know the evolution is false and that the only explanation that makes sense is a creator. Basically that means that scientists, can prove that there is a God.
And they are keeping this a secret because…? because they are afraid of other scientists being mad and not letting them play any scientist games? BFD! The one who writes the book Hey, I Got Your God Right Here! instantly becomes the most famous, popular, wealthy and beloved scientist of all time. Good grief.
It’s analogous to those who think that doctors secretly could cure AIDS or cancer but don’t because they make so much money treating the diseases they could cure. Uh huh. Because, after all, they wouldn’t be able to charge MONEY for a cure, right? You’d think that just one guy would break ranks and announce that he had the cure for AIDS and was willing to sell it for a generous $1000 a pop, giving him a potential windfall of about 40 billion dollars. Which is more than what most doctors I know made last year.
(I know you didn’t actually claim that scientists know that evolution is false but why do you suppose that the vast majority are so sure that this supposedly weak theory is obvious truth?)
Whenever I hear a republican trying to take the moral high road in a debate, I think about people like Murtha and Max Cleland, who have sacrificed much for this country and how they get treated by the chickenhawks on the right if they dare disagree with the administration.
Well Den, keep in mind that I never called Murtha a coward. You, on the other hand…
From Nov 29
Bill- Is there anyway we can distinguish between Democrats who voted for it because they actually felt it was the right thing to do and those who did so because they are timorous cowards? I’d hate to paint them all with a broad brush but how do we know which is which?
Den- Simple those that voted for it were timorous cowards. Those that thought it was the right thing to do – do not exist.
Simple enough for you?
Since Murtha is one of those Democrats who initially voted to approve the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, by your own reckoning he is (or at least was) a “timorous coward”.
Personally, I disagree. I think Murtha’s call for an immediate “redeployment” (which I have a bit of trouble distinguishing from an immediate withdrawal…unless they are being immediately redeployed to other places in Iraq…which doesn’t sound very logical) is wrong headed and would be disastrous but I have no reason to doubt that he is sincere in his beliefs. It IS possible to disagree with someone without automatically assuming the worst of their motives.
Evolution has not been the foundation of worldviews. Evolution was developed at a time when several different ideologies and philosophies were trying to gain authority and/or undermine traditional authorities (such as religion) by appealing to science and philosophy. Since evolution was a significant scientific theory, it was co-opted by such ideologies. It was part of a process in which secularized society sought (mistakenly) to use science to replace traditional authority. This process started before evolution. Prior to evolution there were other ways to undermine traditional authority.
I think the technical term for that process and time period is modernism. However we live in post-modern times, and now it is science and some of these ideologies that are undermined.
Fundementalism perceives evolution as a threat not because evolution tries to undermine religion (at least nowadays), but because it does not recognize the authority of religion in dealing with scientific questions. In a way, it is the same mistake that the modernists did when they tried to use science to deal with questions of morality and ideology (which is not to say that religion should have a monopoly on these questions either).
The use of evolution (or other sciences) to study morality as a natural phenomena is reasonable (i.e. socio-biology). To use evolution to make moral decisions is wrong (i.e. social-darwinism and eugenics).
and evolutionary theory did not come about because of anyone’s desire to change worldviews.
Tim,
I beg to differ. For some scientists, it is their stated desire to disprove the existence of God by demonstrating everything came about by natural means. I agree that most scientists are not motivated by this reasoning. They are simply using science to do their job and to discover what is out there. But my high school physics teacher was such a person. We watched every episode of Sagans series “Cosmos.” He was very clear that his belief in evolution was in part because it proved God did not exist.
(While he was not a scientist, my high school government teacher took great glee in mocking Christians, particularly those who believed in Creation. My logic teacher in college did as well. While they were not explicit like my physics teacher, their argument for evolution was more based on it being a way to bash Christians than based on the evidence. In contrast, my chemistry and biology teachers, while they taught evolution, were more as you described. They had no interest in toppling religious thought. So I have encountered both sides.)
I don’t have the time to go research all of the quotes, but here is one that I found intersting by
Richard Dawkins: “Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of Darwinian theory . . . we would still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” Why? Because it is naturalistic — it explains things without having to “invoke” a “god” who created things. If you go back to Darwin’s time, some scientists were more explicit. There search for a mechanism for evolution was specifically to overthrow religious thought. They felt religion was detrimental, but it was hard to completely deny it when they could not explain a natural way for life and the universe to exist. Darwin provided the way.
In one sense “evolution” when referring strictly to the idea of gradual changes over time is not in itself a worldview. But there is a key presupposition that most have in conection to it: “Science” requires there to be a “natural” explanation apart from god. As soon as you make that assumption, you have most definitely moved into the realm of a worldview. That is not a criticism, it is simply a recognition that it is impossible to not have a worldview. Without it, we would not have the context to interpret the data.
I agree that both evolution and Christianity have been used and abused to justify a lot of things both good and bad. But “naturalistic” evolution (meaning life and the universe coming about by natural means) itself is a worldview that does have implications, just as “theistic” creation that says God created the universe and man has implications.
Iowa Jim
// The use of evolution (or other sciences) to study morality as a natural phenomena is reasonable (i.e. socio-biology). To use evolution to make moral decisions is wrong (i.e. social-darwinism and eugenics). //
You would think a decade later we would have learned the lessions of the 1990’s Eugenics War.
Evolution has not been the foundation of worldviews.
I would agree it is not the “origin” of all naturalistic worldview, but I specifically chose the word “foundation” because it is the cornerstone on which many naturalistic worldviews rest.
Again, it is crucial to recognize that the term evolution has come to mean far more than Darwin’s orginal theory. In many uses it has no reference to a particular model but to the concept that the universe and life came about by natural means apart from divine involvement. If science were to discover a naturalistic model that differed greatly from Darwin’s (however unlikely you might think that to be), I am sure we would still use the term “evolution.”
I agree that it was a tool coopted by some to undermine traditional authority. That does not mean it is not now foundational to some worldviews. When I read philosphers, it is clear that evolution is the foundation of how they derive things. You may reject eugenics, but it is a worldview built on darwinian thought.
Fundementalism perceives evolution as a threat not because evolution tries to undermine religion (at least nowadays), but because it does not recognize the authority of religion in dealing with scientific questions.
I would put it differently. “Fundamentalism” sees evolution as a threat because it sees evolution as removing objective authority to deal with the issues of life in the real world, whether that be morals or science. Or to turn it the other way, many who believe in evolution perceive Christianity as a threat because it if true, it holds them to a moral standard that they reject. This is deeper than just a fear of church vs. state.
There are 3 basic questions a worldview has to answer: Where did we come from / Why are we here? Why is there pain, suffering, and problems in the world? How do we correct what is wrong in the world? Naturalistic Evolutionary thought offers very different answers than “fundamentalist” Christianity. And those answers make a difference.
Iowa Jim
I’m neither religious nor a scientist, but I think your statement
“Science” requires there to be a “natural” explanation apart from god.
is a little off.
It seems to me that science requires a natural explanation, regardless of whether or not God exists. That’s not necessarily “apart from;” God’s existence is simply out of science’s purview. Science can’t take something into account that is, by its nature, beyond science. If it were to do so, it would not be science.
I think Murtha’s call for an immediate “redeployment” (which I have a bit of trouble distinguishing from an immediate withdrawal…unless they are being immediately redeployed to other places in Iraq…which doesn’t sound very logical)
Murtha’s call seemed to lean toward the notion of keeping some of our soldiers overseas, just not in Iraq.
Whereas most calls for withdrawal simply mean bringing the troops back home entirely.
To a degree, I agree with Den: it is cowardice (on some level) that all these guys (and gals) who would not stand up to the Bush Administration over Iraq and the Patriot Act are only now doing so because Bush has thrown away all that political capital he said he earned after last year’s election.
If there’s one thing both sides should know, it’s that this Administration can make you look bad if you don’t fall in line. And that’s what alot of these politicans were afraid of after 9/11: of looking soft, regardless of how unjustified the war has become, or how many civil liberties the laws will take away.
Let’s try not to paint with too broad a brush there, Jim. A great many people who believe in evolution, or at least agree that it is the most reasonable theory, given the data, do not see Christianity as a threat, especially considering that a great many scientists and those who understand scientific thought ARE Christians.
The threat is from the Christian extremists (to make a half-assed attempt to bring the thread back on track) who wish to redefine science and abolish rational thought.
-Rex Hondo-
But “naturalistic” evolution (meaning life and the universe coming about by natural means)
Jim, I don’t know how many times it has to be said before one has to reach the conclusion that no amount of evidence will sway you; Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the universe or the origin of life. They are completely separate things. I’ve said this, Tim has said this, others have said this. For all I know God himself placed a cell in a primordial pool. Were that proven to be the case (by what means I have no idea) it would not change the reality of evolution by natural selection. One. Iota.
So much for the origin of life (which, as has been pointed out, is abiogenesis, not evolution. Different words, different theories, etc.) As for the origin of the universe, it isn’t even biology!
Murtha’s call seemed to lean toward the notion of keeping some of our soldiers overseas, just not in Iraq.
Whereas most calls for withdrawal simply mean bringing the troops back home entirely.
Ok…but just so I’m clear, when you have troops in a country and then you pull them out, it’s a witdrawal, isn’t it? Even if they don’t go home? (If I understood Murtha’s argument, it was to station them somewhere on the Iraq border…hmmm, let’s see, Iran? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Jordon? Turkey?…guess it will have to be Kuwait, unless I’m missing someone. And there they will…what? Watch everything fall apart, I guess.)
As I said, I don’t think much of Murtha’s plan. But I do think a lot about the man, certainly more than Den or Jean Schmidt do.
There are 3 basic questions a worldview has to answer: Where did we come from / Why are we here? Why is there pain, suffering, and problems in the world?
In your world maybe, but I seriously doubt most people in the world really care about the first 2 and the 3rd one boils down to a personal view of how do I and my family survive the problems, pain and suffering.
Or to turn it the other way, many who believe in evolution perceive Christianity as a threat because it if true, it holds them to a moral standard that they reject. This is deeper than just a fear of church vs. state.
I read that and couldn’t help but laugh. I seriously doubt any evolution believing person is afraid of Christianity or it being proved right because of moral standards. I know I’m certainly not. What is to be feared, is not religion being proved right in it’s lack of supportable emperical evidence, but religion gaining the upper hand and snuffing out original thought and new ideas, as it even now attempts to do. As to moral standards, well what moral standards does religion really enforce? None…
Throughout recorded human history, moral standards haven’t really changed all that much from before the advent of the three major religions that impact our lives, today. The very powerbrokers within religion, I would argue, thumb their noses probably more so at their own moral standards more than any scientist who pushes evolutionary science.
In reading this entire thread a question poped into my head, the radical religious freaks ultimate goal is to put the church back into the government. I wonder if they realize that every time the church has become part of the government, that the government actually takes control of the church and begins to make religious declaration not based on religion but based on governmental needs and wants. If religion is actually what these people treasure it is better to keep their religion as far away from the government as possible.
Okay I thought I had it figured out, but evidently not. Sorry everyone for my lack of italics on the quotes above. How do you do that?
Three words for anyone (not to single you out, Iowa Jim) who doesn’t give any credibility to evolution.
Have. A. Kid.
It’s 1:30 in the morning, and I just got he who we affectionatley call Cloneboy to finally go to sleep/pass out. And I looked around the room, at all the Brian pictures on the wall, and it made me think that I could, if I wanted to, do an entire video with his pictures, starting from the first sonogram u[ to the picture he just had taken with Santa last week. (No, we don’t have the sonogram pictures on the wall, but they ARE in the computer…) Every day with this guy, something’s different. Now he can write his name, couldn’t do that last week. Sorry if I’m gushing about that, but it’s kinda relevant and it’s also a big kick for me.
Wanna have some fun? Get a creationist and an evolutionary scientist in a room together and tell them to explain the pictures they see. Then show them pictures of:
1.The platypus
2.The flying squirrel
3.The human appendix
I’m sure there are others I could throw in there, either more valid to my point or funnier, but I’m tired, and I think the point is made. Although I would like to know what the story with the appendix is, meself. Now, most creationists I know, evolution is right out. Most, well, non-creationists look at evolution and say “Here ya go. This is how it works. Just don’t ask me to explain where it came from or I’ll hemmorage.”
A while back, my best friend and I were having a conversation before a show. The human species, for being top of the food chain, is not terribly well adapted to this planet. Our upright stance causes all kinds of back problems, our lack of extensive body hair (my ex-girlfriend’s family notwithstanding) makes us especially ill suited for living under the sun, and a whole host of other things that I’ve forgotten. Now, the conversation wasn’t having to do with evolution/creationism per se, but when I thought later, if we’re created in God’s image, why do we have all these problems? And for that matter, isn’t it more likely that an all-powerful God is capable of many images, explaining the many and varied types of life in the world. I suggested that once to a couple overly religious guys that I work with. The one, who is currently writing a book on Christ and the teachings, nodded and said that I was wise. (Yeah, I didn’t buy that one either) The other argued the point with me for three weeks, getting all the more angry and frustrated because “WE are created in God’s image, we look like God, like he always looks!” And that’s the biggest pair of problems I have with strict creationism. The assumption that anyone knows the mind of God along with the strict adherence to what the Bible says about where we came from. Just because Science explains how something works it doesn’t preclude the Designer that put it that way, with all respect to Slartibartfast.
and evolutionary theory did not come about because of anyone’s desire to change worldviews.
I beg to differ.
Beg away. You’re fundamentally incorrect.
And as Bill has reminded you AGAIN overnight, would you please stop referring to evolution as dealing with the origin of life and/or the universe? All you’re doing is making it clear that you haven’t the slightest clue what evolutionary theory actually DOES address, because those two things aren’t part of the package.
I’m sorry if this sounds harsh, Jim, I really am — but it’s becoming increasingly clear that you simply hear what you want to hear during these discussions and ignore everything else (like most of the actual facts). Your own worldview seems to be that most scientists are anti-Christian because it would hold them to a standard of morality they’d find threatening. I’m not sure whether to find that deeply offensive or just sad — because not only does that worldview stray incredibly far from an accurate portrayal of most scientists, but it’s more an indication of paranoia and ignorance than of Christianity.
Again, I’m sorry, Jim. You seem like a bright guy, but you’ve got blinders on the size of a planet and clearly have no interest in removing them when it comes to science. You talk about people “believing” in evolution, showing that the idea of examining evidence just doesn’t penetrate where you’re concerned. You don’t understand how science works or why people choose to pursue it, and you just as clearly don’t care to.
That’s your call and your right. But it’s sad.
TWL
I was pondering over the last hour or two, mulling over some of the comments in this thread, and it struck me that there seems, at least to me, to be a tremendous, almost ludicrous irony that the proponents of Intelligent Design are the ones displaying the most Socially Darwinistic behaviors. They yell, scream, bite, claw, lie, fabricate, obfuscate, and do just about anything else to push forward their agenda.
-Rex Hondo-
Another thought upon rereading some of last night’s discussion:
Jim said:
My thought at the time was that evolution has far bigger implications than just the biology class.
Yes, it does.
It tells us that we are PART of life on this planet, not separate from it.
It tells us that we have a connection to the world we live on, and that we’d better not screw around with it too much lest we bring about nasty unforeseen consequences.
It tells us to be aware of how we affect other species, because in the end that’s likely to affect us as well.
In short, most of evolution’s “implications” that so disturb you are ones that should make us better stewards of our planet, of our environment, and of our fellows (both humans and not).
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine why this might disturb so many members of the religious right.
TWL
Ok…but just so I’m clear, when you have troops in a country and then you pull them out, it’s a witdrawal, isn’t it?
Pretty much, yes, but all boils down to what the troops would be doing when they leave Iraq. And then how one interprets the words.
Most are just saying the troops should come home; Murtha isn’t.
To many, there is no such line, obviously – leaving Iraq is leaving Iraq.
Although, contrary to comments made by many idiots on the right, Murtha isn’t calling for us to leave Iraq immediately – unless you think 6 months is ‘immediate’ when we’ve been there for 1001 days (which is nearly 3 years).
Since Murtha is one of those Democrats who initially voted to approve the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, by your own reckoning he is (or at least was) a “timorous coward”.
Okay, Bill, I’m going to call you on your bûllšhìŧ right now, because you’re being a dámņ liar, pulling šhìŧ out of context and distorting its meaning. I’d expect this from someone like Sean Hannity, but not you.
Here is that quote you pulled in context:
You:
But calling the Patriot Act a bipartisan measure is like calling a mugging a voluntary donation because you gave the mugger your wallet in exchange for not getting shot.
Is there anyway we can distinguish between Democrats who voted for it because they actually felt it was the right thing to do and those who did so because they are timorous cowards? I’d hate to paint them all with a broad brush but how do we know which is which?
Me:
Simple those that voted for it were timorous cowards. Those that thought it was the right thing to do – do not exist.
So, when I called the Senate democrats (and, last I checked, Murtha was a member of the House, not the Senate) cowards, I was referring to the vote on the Patriot Act, not the invasion of Iraq.
And, yes, Murtha did vote for the Patriot Act and I do think he was wrong for it, but but a single act of political cowardice does not negate several years of honorable service (something our current president would know nothing about) in the military.
So, if you’re not going to be honest about your snippy little comments, then I’m not going to bother talking to you anymore.
In short: Fûçk you, Bill. You’re a liar.
Or to turn it the other way, many who believe in evolution perceive Christianity as a threat because it if true, it holds them to a moral standard that they reject.
I guess that would make sense if you believe that all scientists are immoral atheists. Having worked with many scientists in a variety of fields, but as a student and a professional, I can tell you that such a generalized worldview is not accurate in the least.
Jim, the thing that strikes me about your stance on evolution is that you appear to understand that there are some people that have co-opted evolution and applied and expanded it beyond it’s basic tenents. And some of those have attached evolution to world-views and philosophies, some of which are contrary to and destructive of some religious views. And because of that, you appear to have the opinion that all evolutionary ideas must therefor be wrong.
Because one faction (or a few factions) have accepted evolution, and those factions are anti-christian.
But using that logic (discarding the whole because a part has become corrupted) leads us to discarding just about everything, because every idea and ideal at some point has been corrupted, including Christianity itself.
Jim’s bigger problem seems to be with worldviews that seek to discredit/debunk Christianity. And I don’t see any problem with that. But these worldviews are not opposed to Christianity because of an adherance to the precepts of scientific evolutionary study: rather, the conclusions of evolutionary study simply provide an outlet for these worldviews to attack religious foundations. Evolution doesn’t say “the Biblical story of creation cannot be factually correct because the timeline needed for the Bible to be fact is not supported by the fossil (and geological) record.” People can make that claim. But they can apply the same statement to just about ALL religious/cultural creation myths. But the people making those statements are most likely already predisposed to view those creation stories as myths…evolution just gives them a rational outlet for attacking them. Without evolution, there’d be people saying that God didn’t create the earth in 6 days because the great Firebird created the earth during her 17th circle around the sun. Of just saying “that’s silly…it takes God 10 months to make a baby, yet only 6 days to make the whole planet?”
People have always attacked other religions. There will probably always be such people. But to single out the method of attack is exactly like treating the symptoms and not the disease. Evolution itself is not a worldview any more than the study of gravity is. Or mathematics. It’s just a tool that provides an outlet to attack a particular belief.
Den,
Two things:
1- You are absolutely correct that I screwed up and thought that our discussion was on the Iraq vote and not the Patriot Act. Lucky for me it doesn’t matter much since Mr Murtha voted for the Patriot Act as well. Dodged a bullet there.
2- You can hide behind all of the anger and bluster all you want. It doesn’t change what you said. Pulling it out of context? You wish. I said you called Murtha a coward. You agree that you called him a coward–on the basis of no evidence, I might add, just your assumption of what he was secretly thinking.
One of the disadvantages of saying stupid things about people is that they can come back and bite you on the ášš. I considered not throwing your words back in your face but I figured that anyone who could dish out “Whenever I hear a republican trying to take the moral high road in a debate” would have enough guts to take it. It’s one of those things that comes with the territory.
I’ve enjoyed many of our conversations but I’m not going to pull punches with someone who enjoys making big broad generalizations and assumptions about other people’s ethics.
Bill, I said that the vote for the Patriot Act was an act of political cowardice, and I stand by that. However, you took that statement and applied it to a completely different act, and that’s dishonest. I don’t respect that at all. The statement I made weeks ago was about one action taken at one time by one group of people. You can pull it out weeks later and claim that I meant it to apply to someone else as the sum total of their life, but you and I both know that wasn’t what I said or meant at the time.
I also stand by my other statement that the republican party and its lackeys on Fox News have gone out of their way to villify anyone who dares to disagree with them.
Do I think Murtha was being a political coward when he voted for the Patriot Act? Yes, I do. However, he also displayed a great deal of personal courage (again, tell me where Cheney, Bush, and Rummy were in the 60s?) during his service in the marines and political courage in his more recent stand against the administration. Yes, context is important. People don’t always act in a consistent manner. Sometimes they show more courage in certain circumstance, less in others. I can forgive one act of political cowardice in the greater context of his whole life, a trait not shared by this administration who paints anyone who disagrees with their cowboy attitude towards foreign policy as total cowards.
Is that clear enough for you?
Again, this kind of out-of-context quote mining is something I would expect from Hannity or Karl Rove, not someone like you who is capable of making a reasoned, intelligent argument.
You can continue down the road of personal attacks by saying I can dish it out, but can’t take it, but I never took one of your quotes out of context and misrepresented it.
Never.
It’s not evolution, it’s science.
Why is the naturalistic explanation offered by biology for the development of species seems to trouble religious people so much, but geology’s naturalistic explanation for the creation of continents does not? How about a historical explanation of victories andd defeats that explains it without resorting to the will of god?
Look, it all comes down to authority. Authority in general, authority in the realm of morality, politics (state), science, education, esthetics, etc.
In the past, the main source of authority was tradition, including traditional stories of creation.
Another source of authority was revelation.
A third, later source of authority was rational analysis = philosophy or science, which was immediately perceived as a threat to the other two.
Since then religion has been dealing with philosophy/science constantly for thousands of years in order to preserve its authority. This has been going on way before evolution.
This was done in two ways:
a. Attacking science/philosophy
b. Coopting it, and giving it a place inside the authoritative religious system.
A third way would be to set a boundry between what was under the authority of science and what of religion, but that would require science to give up some of the authority it had in these subjects.
Modern science has gone even further than philosophy in requiring a naturalistic/mechanistic explanation without resorting to a god (in science, not in general). At least in philosophy, if an explanation had a god, than religion could say it was its god.
Why modern science does not make use of god in its models? Well, it seems more justified on a scientific/philosophical point of view for its purposes. Sciences also limit their scope. Unlike philosophy, natural sciences don’t deal with moral issues. But had science actually added god to its models, it would have dealt with him in a naturalistic, rationalistic way, which would not have been so good for the authority based on tradition and revelation anyway.
The seperation of church and state, and the democratic systems are other modern examples for the undermining of religious authority.
Multi-culturalism — the acceptance of other religions as equal — is a post-modern threat to the authority of religion. Which is why “happy holiday’s” is considered bad.
Jim said:
“I would put it differently. “Fundamentalism” sees evolution as a threat because it sees evolution as removing objective authority to deal with the issues of life in the real world, whether that be morals or science.”
Actually, science in general, including evolution, is a threat because it presents a different objective authority than religion to deal with scientific issues. Science certainly does not remove objective authority, it is the paragon of objective authority, it only removes the authority religion held. But it does so only in its own realm. Unlike philosophy (or rationalistic thought in general), it does not undermine religion everywhere. In fact, since most of the actively secular ideologies of the past have lost popularity, science does not deal with religion at all if it can avoid it (except for religious comparative study and history).
Science does not perceive christianity as a threat. It does perceive religious establishments as a threat when:
a. a religious establishment attacks them physically or economically or curtails their freedom.
b. When religion tried to undermine science’s authority (or rather reclaim its authority), as with Intelligent-Design. Science is likewise threatened by many new-age and pseudo-scientific ideas.
Jim said:
“There are 3 basic questions a worldview has to answer: Where did we come from / Why are we here? Why is there pain, suffering, and problems in the world? How do we correct what is wrong in the world? Naturalistic Evolutionary thought offers very different answers than “fundamentalist” Christianity. And those answers make a difference.”
Actually, evolution in particular and science in general do not deal with these issues. science deals with two quesions: what are the processes we know of that caused us to be here with all our pains etc.? And how will future processes affect us (or other aspects of the universe). Why, and wrong are not part of science’s vocabulary.
However, a person who rejects the authority of religion but accepts the authority of science may answer the question of why are we here by saying that since science cannot tell us why we are here, and religion’s answer is not scientifically sound, that the question is not relevant. He might then replace it with the question”how can we live best? But science can then only tell him the results of different ways of living, for what is “best” you have to go elsewhere.
At the end, for peace between religion and science and philosophy to take place three things have to happen:
a) religion should not try to reclaim its authority on scientific things, and be satisfied with the power it has in other realms.
b) It must recognize that in a pluralistic society in cannot have absolute authority anymore on anything. It must deal with different ideologies, some of which may include scientific ideas. It must be content with the freedom offered by pluralistic society to promote its ideas as well.
c) Ideologies must never be confused with scienceor misrepresented as science.
Micha
Bill, I said that the vote for the Patriot Act was an act of political cowardice, and I stand by that. However, you took that statement and applied it to a completely different act, and that’s dishonest. I don’t respect that at all.
I made a mistake and admitted it. Obviously, you can choose to believe otherwise. Since it would not have changed my point one single bit to point out that you were calling a Murtha a coward over the Patriot Act rather than the War resolution, it stands to reason that my mixing the two was unintentional. If you had called him a coward over his vote on the Fenwick/Penfold Highway Billboard Act of 2001 it wouldn’t change the point.
When you claim that republicans are not to be taken seriously when they “take the moral high ground” because of the mean things that have been said about Murtha, it kind of rankled, being that YOU were the one who had called him a coward. No, not by name, though you have clearly done so now (And I guess I do have to give you credit for consistency, even though I still say you have no basis to assume that anyone’s vote was based on cowardice).
You can pull it out weeks later and claim that I meant it to apply to someone else as the sum total of their life, but you and I both know that wasn’t what I said or meant at the time.
I did not say that you applied the coward label to the totality of his life. In fact I said ” by your own reckoning he is (or at least was) a “timorous coward”.” Had I left out the “at least was” part you might have a legitimate complaint.
If you object to the statement I made that I think more about Murtha than you do, well, we both agree that he has served this country with distinction. I’m also more willing than you to assume that those decisions he has made that I disagree with are ones made from honest conviction. So yeah, I think I’m on solid ground there as well.
But I’m willing to see that you could have thought that I was claiming that you believed him to BE a coward, not just a good man who made A cowardly choice. There is a difference. That was not my intention and obviously not you opinion.
My complaint was and is over your overstatements and assumptions, which are dangerously close to the same kind of attacks you accuse the administration of doing. It weakens your criticism if you engage in anything like it yourself.
That said, I don’t want there to be anger between us, since I have genuinely enjoyed many of our conversations in the past.
Den queried:
tell me where Cheney, Bush, and Rummy were in the 60s?
From http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html :
President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. He received a bachelor’s degree in history from Yale University in 1968, and then served as an F-102 fighter pilot in the Texas Air National Guard.
From http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/vpbio.html :
Mr. Cheney was born in Lincoln, Nebraska, on January 30, 1941 and grew up in Casper, Wyoming. He earned his bachelor’s and master’s of arts degrees from the University of Wyoming. His career in public service began in 1969 when he joined the Nixon Administration, serving in a number of positions at the Cost of Living Council, at the Office of Economic Opportunity, and within the White House.
From http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html :
Mr. Rumsfeld attended Princeton University on academic and NROTC scholarships (A.B., 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. In 1957, he transferred to the Ready Reserve and continued his Naval service in flying and administrative assignments as a drilling reservist until 1975. He transferred to the Standby Reserve when he became Secretary of Defense in 1975 and to the Retired Reserve with the rank of Captain in 1989.
In 1957, he came to Washington, DC to serve as Administrative Assistant to a Congressman. After a stint with an investment banking firm, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois in 1962, at the age of 30, and was re-elected in 1964, 1966, and 1968.
So, basically two were in school preparing for a life of national service, which included some military for one of them (unless you discount the national guard as not being military, which does a great disservice to national guardsman!) and the third had already finished school, had serve time in the regular military and was an avid member of the Naval Reserves until he retired from the Reserves, and spent the 60’s as a member of the House of Reprensatitives.
Where were you in the 60’s?
It is a stupid question.
Bill, I am angry about this and I’m likely to be angry for a while. Yes, I do find it hard to swallow that you went back through the archives, pulled a quote out of its context, and yet ignored the sentence right above it relating to the Patriot Act. I also disagree with your interpretation that just because I said voting for the Patriot Act was being a coward, that meant that every person who voted for it was a coward for 100% of their life. You distorted something I said out of context to make a cheap shot at me and I resent it.
But, since this is PAD’s blog and not mine, I’m going to show some respect for him and take a break from this forum for a while.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Kwanza, and Happy New Year everyone.
basically two were in school preparing for a life of national service
You misspelled “fleecing the public”. Hope this helps.
TWL
I discount Bush’s national guard “service” since he has yet to prove that he actually completed it.
As for where I was: in 1969, I was “being born.”
Happy Holidays everybody.
Actually, there is no proof that he didn’t complete, no dishonorable discharge or anything like it. There is proof that he was a member and no creditable reason to believe that he did not honorably complete his duty. Except if you consider your personal lack of knowledge of military process and procedures creditable.
I also disagree with your interpretation that just because I said voting for the Patriot Act was being a coward, that meant that every person who voted for it was a coward for 100% of their life. You distorted something I said out of context to make a cheap shot at me and I resent it.
If you find the part where I said anything like I also disagree with your interpretation that anything I said meant that you believed “that meant that every person who voted for it was a coward for 100% of their life.” I’ll apologize for it.
But you won’t because you can’t and all the anger in the world won’t change that. All your doing is trying to pretend I said something I didn’t, the very thing you accuse me of…it’s called projection.
Bill, you said straight out that I said Murtha was a coward, which is not true. You used a circular out of context comment to make that claim.
Again, your dishonesty disgusts me.
Okay, I said I was taking a break and now I mean it.
Merry Chritsmas.
You said any Democrat who voted for the Patriot Act was a “timorous coward”.
Murtha voted for the Patriot Act.
Simple enough for you?
You did not mean that he was ALWAYS a coward, just that he acted cowardly on that particular day.
Fine.
Which does not change the fact that:
You said any Democrat who voted for the Patriot Act was a “timorous coward”.
Murtha voted for the Patriot Act.
You have every reason to be disgusted, though I’d suggest the proper target is closer to home. And if it hurts to have ill chosen words thrown back in your face, maybe you should take considerably more care in choosing them. But that might require acknowledging a mistake, a difficulty you seem to share with the President.