My letter to a huge number of Americans: Please invade Iran and North Korea, and than swipe your glove across China's face. If you still exist as an economic or political entity try again but with gusto. Perhaps add Russia, Brazil and South Africa to the face swatting list. But please, in the future just don't fucking exist.
I already want to retract that. My April/May study showed that 75% of my unlove for the US is in direct response to it's capacity to criticize and judge itself. Only the Western cultural inheritance gifts that particular power. The US simply exemplifies it.At least the anti-knowledge tip the US is on stops the spending billions of dollars on a large hard-on collider. It's a ridiculous waste of money, I could tell them what happens when two hard-ons come together.
Brownback's exposition seems relatively temperate and reasonable to me. He implicitly denies that God created the world and everything in it in six 24-hour days. He doesn't directly deny (or assert) the truth of evolution, he merely says that those who draw from it the further inference that man has no special place in the cosmos and is not subject to Divine oversight are straying from science into theology (atheistic theology as it happens), and he disagrees.
Is that so bad?
... straying from science into theology moral philosophy, I think.
Is it so bad? Well, it depends on how "man's special position (or otherwise)" is used. If the claim that man is special is used to prevent stem cell research, then yes, I'll say it's a bad thing.
Part of the problem, and Brownback is leveraging this, is that believers expect the burden of proof to be on nonbelievers. So when Brownback denies the right of evolutionists to draw inferences from their theory, he's relying on the primacy (in the sense of first occupying) of theism in the realms of ethics and philosphy. He is perfectly happy to support some of the inferences that have been drawn in the past on the basis of theism. Essentially, he refuses to compete on a level playing field.
It's bad. Those who think that man holds a "special place" in the cosmos need to answer why the cosmos existed for a great many years before mankind, and will continue to exist for a great many years after. The cosmos don't give a hoot whether we're here, or not.
Well, you know my birthday is only like one day. The year exists for many days before it and many days after it, but it still holds a pretty special place in the year for me. In spite of its brief duration. If anything, the more so because of.
Next up: Angels dancing on pins - how many is TOO many??
While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.
To anwer your question, darling, (hee-hee) that statement is very bad. What he's saying is that any scientific theories that don't fit with his Christian religious beliefs should be rejected outright.
Well, you know my birthday is only like one day. The year exists for many days before it and many days after it, but it still holds a pretty special place in the year for me. In spite of its brief duration. If anything, the more so because of.
I think they key phrase there is that it holds a special place in the year for you.
It's not the faith that is the problem. I'm not sure if there is a god or not, but if there is, I'm sure that she/he/it created the universe. Many other people believe this.
But believing in a creator is a world of difference from denying the evidence of scientific research. Like the article says, people like Brownbeck are willing themselves into misunderstanding science, and teaching others to misunderstand how our world works.
Evolution is the bedrock of biological theory and understanding the life on our planet. Trying to understand how the life-systems on our planet function without understanding how they developed would be like trying to understand how stars move without admitting that the sun is the centre of solar system, not the earth.
And where people like me get really upset/worried is when people who themselves deny a part of human knowledge then want to act on their scientific misunderstanding as leaders, and want to deny proper scientific understanding to other people (by keeping it out of the education system). I admit, it doesn't worry me as much as denial of climate change (because evolution isn't related to an immanent disaster), but it does bother me.
I actually get just as upset (or more) about nationalist historical myths, and the damage that they do to the proper understanding of history.
jb, it's interesting you mention the historical myths - we actually had a long discussion in my program recently about which books about Johnny Appleseed were realistic enough to be included on our kids' reading lists.
I still don't get why creationism and evolutionism are exclusive of each other.
If one takes the "created in 7 days" statement in the bible as meaning something other than 7 actual earth-style 24 hour days, as in days might be as millenia to an all-encompassing creator, how hard is it to believe that a creator guided or started the process?
Can't we all just get along?
Yeah, as long as you don't allow belief in how unicorns and fairies want us to behave to trump science when it comes to making policy.
what "policy"? I think creationism is silliness but, really, if people want to believe it, so what? It's not like they can bury the idea of evolution - it's OUT, man! That cat is so far out of the bag, it's now a civet :) I can't imagine that there is a group of people out there that are still weighing the evidence in the great creation vs. evolution debate. There are evolutionists and creationists, and they just don't change sides based on "new" evidence, or goofy museums where Jesus is shown riding a triceratops into Galilee.
The worst case scenario is that local people exercise their rights over, what, the school board? And the curriculum changes to a creationist-based science. Are they doing their kids a disservice? Sure. But that's their right. Like I say: the idea of evolution is out there, and has the weight of scientific study and experiment behind it. There's no way that Creationists can get around that. The "debate" is an exercise in futility and only enhances the position of the creationists.
What? You're telling me I can't tell people that they're wrong? It's all I have left.
Oh, and you're wrong.
The idiot thing about this is that theology and science are readily reconciliable when people understand the basic ideas that each deals with. Science attempts to describe and understand the physical world. Theology attempts to describe and understand the spiritual world. The two are mutually exclusive. There should never be any debates between them, because they deal with utterly different things.
this is now. Back in the old days, the gods were a lot closer. Since western civ adopted monotheism, Capital-G God is a rather distant sort of fella. Now like the ancients, in whom the gods had a personal interest, or the animists, whose ancestors watched over them with keem eyes.
Beliefs or not - I don't understand how you can deny the obvious.
I'm tempted to do so nearly every day :)
Oh Fes.....
(~_^)
Next up: Angels dancing on pins - how many is TOO many??
Are we talking Judeo-Christian angels mainly, or do we also include the Islamic malaikah, the Japanese tenshi, the Klingon clones of Kahless and Molor, etc.?
Wait a minute -- it's the right of misguided local majorities to fuck up their neighbors' kids' education? Huh?
This debate seems to be beneath some of us, but meanwhile, three mainstream presidential candidates don't "believe in" evolution. Would this have been thinkable 30 years ago?
The time is nigh for mixing metaphors! The sky's not falling yet, but I hear you can get fiddle lessons cheap online!
Democracy is always subject to the tyranny of the majority, which is why we have checks and balances, and regular, frequent elections. Short term, it can be occasionally problematic, but long-term, it's self-correcting.
But yes. Ostensibly, the local elected majorities express the will of the majority of people, and if the majority wants creationism in school, then that is what they should propose. Those that don't may lobby for their point of view, debate with local majority authorities, or seek alternate schooling but really, HW, that's exaclty how it's supposed to work.
three mainstream presidential candidates don't "believe in" evolution.
From a personal standpoint, I don't care what they believe. From a "Fes picking someone to vote for" standpoint, by stating this these candidates have effectively put themselves out of MY presidential race :)
Not because they're christians or whatever, but because by stating this the are effectively saying they will discount scientific evidence in favor of... something else. I think that's foolish.
three mainstream presidential candidates don't "believe in" evolution.
This assumes that they're presenting their beliefs honestly.
The body politic seems to be far more religious on an individual basis than is the population as a whole -- so, logically, either religion has a quality that leads some people to be more successful at politics, or the perception of politicians' religious beliefs does not align with the religious beliefs as a population. I'm inclined to believe the latter.
Someone who is openly not religious, much less someone who is an athiest, would have a very diffult time getting elected. I'm sure that in the pool of American politicians, there are a fair number of those who present themselves as being more religious than they really are.
Perhaps not for these three, but perhaps indeed. I'd guess that more than a couple of them have exaggerated the scope of their faith for political purposes. Maybe their 'disbelief' in evolution has more to do with temporal gain than the eternal...
IMHO, IANAD, YMMV, etc., etc.
Some reasonable cynicism there, mon capitaine.
Those that don't may lobby for their point of view, debate with local majority authorities
Which is exactly the point of bringing it up, here and elsewhere, even if some are tired of discussing it. To each to our part to make sure the pressure stays on those who'd deny scientific truth.
And Cap'n, your point is well taken.
To each DO our part...
And as for my quibble over the word "right," I was thinking of the term a la the right to free speech, the right to assembly, etc. -- rights deserving protection even when those demanding them are in the minority. Semantics. I totally hear you on the how-democracy-works front.
Meanwhile, I totally don't want rich, power-beholden, power-hungry white guys who favor theological "truth" over scientific truth to rule my country. Thus the FPP.
"Can't we all just get along?"
It's possible, but not practicable. Every side wants political influence, a very limited resources. Perhaps survival of the thickest?
The article definitely has the ring of truth in that the people I've debated with over evolution IRL seem to have only the vaguest concept of how it works, and how the scientific method on general works.
I don't know if they had a poor science education in school (either as a result of whatever circumstances cause poor education in other subject, or beacuse their parent objected to their learning certain concepts on religious grounds) or if they've just rejected that education as adults.
It's neither. Simple intellectual laziness. Laziness and Narcissim are the roots of all man's problems.
Was a Jesuit priest that told me that one, ironically.
The roots of man's spelling errors, however, go much deeper...
Not to derail, but why would that have been ironic, Fes?
But if we agree that each school district should be able to choose to teach that evolution is not scientific fact, aren't we saying that each school district can choose to teach whatever it wants, whether it's true or not?
Even if that is true, then it won't be a matter of laziness when people argue against evolution, don't know much about it and can't understand it. It will be a direct result of their (poor) education, which is their parents' right.
Ironic in light of this conversation, what with the Catholic Church's reputation on scientific inquiry.
The Jesuits, on the other hand, are not afraid of a truth that includes science and scholarship. Advisedly, I say, Thank God for Jesuits.
My disrespect for Buddhists and Jesuits shrinks the more I hear about them. I think it's gone to low negative numbers of disrespect. {I.E I have a little respect.}
I think the key phrase there is that it holds a special place in the year for you.
Can you explain why, TUM? If I need to make my point more plainly, it's that duration is not a required quality of specialness. No offence to Ralph, but his argument that we cannot be special because the universe existed before and after us seems incoherent to me. Must all special things last for a very long time? I don't think so.
I consider myself a Christian of sorts and I believe in straight-down-the-line Darwinian evolution. Some people, I think, do assert that belief in evolution necessarily implies atheism and a belief that humans are not in any way special. I absolutely deny both propositions and I would suggest that to assert them is to validate the views of those Christians who think that the unchallenged teaching of evolution is a threat to their beliefs.
If we were just triumphalist atheists, that's fine, I guess: but if we want rational science to be upheld, can we not leave the door open to Christian allies?
Not suggesting that Brownback is such an ally, BTW. I know nothing about him except the linked text.
Whatever happened to the concept that religious beliefs should be kept out of the public school system? That was a given through most of my life. There was no argument. If you wanted your kids to shun scientific thinking, or not read literature you might find distasteful, you sent your kids to private schools where they'd be protected from general education. If you didn't do that,you just hoped that they'd be firmly enough grounded in your specific set of prejudices that they'd come out of it ok. I knew some kids who did, like a Christian Scientist who purposfully answered chemistry questions wrong when they were about chemicals' effects on the human body, or religious types who got to hear about things like evolution, but never accepted them.
I believe that the basis for sticking with non-denominational explanations of the world at large was that teaching a particular faith's agenda would violate the rights of people who cleaved to other faiths, or to none. It has not always been the fact that the majority always wins in this area. And, you know what? We don't even know for sure that the "majority" isn't just the majority of those with money and influence.
And, if it's acceptable to always go with the "majority" in a particular locale, doesn't that make it ok for public schools in some areas to teach that minorities shouldn't have the same rights as the gentry? "Slippery slope" is a term that's not been bandied about much lately, but I think we're on one in this instance.
Thinking about all this a bit more, maybe we've already skidded down the slope.
Darling, my point re our tiny little speck of existence within the timeline of the cosmos is relevant not only because it is a tiny speck, but also because it is geographically uncentered in this little, not-at-all special side corridor of the Milky Way galaxy, which is itself a pretty unspecial cluster of cosmic stuff. As we know, with our primitive telescopes of today's technology, we can see more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of earth. To presume our little colony is special or divine displays an incredible lack of humility.
The cosmos cares not if we thrive or if we perish.
Can you explain why, TUM? If I need to make my point more plainly, it's that duration is not a required quality of specialness. No offence to Ralph, but his argument that we cannot be special because the universe existed before and after us seems incoherent to me. Must all special things last for a very long time? I don't think so.
Well, I mean that your birthday isn't special to the year itself, or to Time, or to the rest of the people in the world who don't know you. It's special to you and your loved ones because you give it meaning. But if you stopped celebrating your birthday you, and yours would likely be the only ones disappointed.
In the same way, it's not an empirical, observable fact that the human rce holds a notably important place in the eyes of the Universe, or even everything on the planet that isn't human. Some people choose to believe so, but again, it really only matters to them.
(BTW, happy birthday and a great big chocolate cake to you, whenever it is!)
A politician who doesn't "believe" in evolution is no less silly and no more credible than one who doesn't "believe" in gravity or atomic theory. It would be more appropriate to subject them to psychological evaluation than to elect them.
Rushmc speaks truth.
Run him outta here and dispose of him in a graphically ugly manner.
Perhaps crucifixion will do.
The cosmos, or the Universe, doesn't care about us, true; but then it doesn't care about anything. Whereas we do care about things; and that surely makes us special in some kind of way, irrespective of our spatiotemporal tininess (or you could say, our precious rarity). I think so, anyway. Thanks for bearing with me anyhow.
*contemplates cake gratefully, checks calendar, sighs*
It makes us special to ourselves and in our own eyes, certainly.
We shall have both sofa races and rubber ducky races in the Monmkistan Games. Also pie tossing.
Special (spĕsh'əl):
1. Surpassing what is common or usual; exceptional
Eh?
5 billion special birthdays each year.
Since birthdays are only special because we make them so, they are, indeed analogous to creationist thinking.
That really is desperate stuff, you two.
One more time. Ralph asserts that because many centuries elapsed before human beings existed, and many, presumably, will elapse when we're gone, we are not special. That simply does not follow.
If you can't concede that much, then I defer discussion until you join me in the realm of logic.
While I'm on the subject of logic, "atheistic theology" is not an oxymoron, and the joke is on Jerry Coyne for dumbly supposing it is.
I wonder how many special fire-ant birthdays there are each year. Or special snapping-turtle birthdays. Or special spider-monkey birthdays. "The realm of logic." Please.
the·ol·o·gy n. , pl. -gies . The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
Eh?
Okay, I get how you could interpret it so that "atheistic theology" makes sense. But I think your "special" interpretation is wishful thinking. Re-read the definition you posted.
Can I barbeque a few people while we're thinking about this?
I undertake to serve them with brocolli and carrots and other worthy vegetables. Perhaps leeks!
Just a few people barbecued?
Belief in the entirety of the theory of evolution does not conflict with a belief in a creator God. If you're going to believe in an omnipotent creator, there's no reason He couldn't have used evolution as a means to pull off this miracle.
Of course, if you subscribe to one of those religions that come with a pre-conceived creation story (Adam and Eve, Giant Turtle, etc.), i guess you're logically bound to discount evolution.
So what you're saying, roryk, is that people are today's special?
It's a cookbook! Aieee!
Fingers and toes, fingers and toes. In a raspberry-balsamic reduction.
What is sad is that no creationist has shown up on this thread so that we can kick the daylights out of him.
I don't think that science or evolution proves creationism or religion wrong. I think that it just changes the starting point.
I believe in God. I believe God created everything. I don't know when. It could have been anytime. It could have been a billion years ago, a million years ago, a thousand years ago, or one year ago (and God gave us all false memories). It is a belief in the supernatural.
As such, it is obviously impossible to prove that I am wrong. And it is impossible to prove that I am right. Scientists can prove that they are right, but they can't really prove that I am wrong. And that's okay. My beliefs and faith help me cope with my life, just like they do for billions of people worldwide.
I believe in God and I believe that God made everything. Nothing else really makes sense to me.
I welcome all of the discoveries of scientists. Everything that the scientists prove is probably right. But the one thing they can't prove is that I am wrong.
Which is fine wingnut. They aren't even really interested in proving you wrong, at least not the majority, they just want to discover a workable model that humans can use to describe, predict, and perhaps, if we're really lucky, control the world around us. Some people view this as an usurpation of God's powers, or something similiar.
Since you can't test God, it's scientifically irrelevant whether or not It exists. Same with lots of our other concepts, Truth Justice Good Evil etc. Morality doesn't enter into whether or not gravity keeps me on this rock, nor does it enter into whether or not I'm a descendent of apes.
Where morality comes in is what model I choose to use for the situations that come up. Am I experiencing bad luck, deserved karma, or is random chance tripping me up? Having access to more models is, I'd think, a better option than having access to less. Categorically denying any model is limiting yourself, and frankly I see no advantage to that.
> So what you're saying, roryk, is that people are today's special?
Umm, I was somewhat drunk when posting that, but yes, we're special today and special to us. It's interesting to look back at the list of items that we've used to distinguish us from other animals (language and communication, using tools, culture) and how research has steadily chipped away at this list. I'm at a loss to say what's truly special about humans apart from the bigger brains.
Dinosaurs were pretty special.
I basically agree with wingnut. I would want my children to be taught science properly, ie evolution: but if that entails them also being taught that human life has no special value, I kind of might prefer having them subjected to a few dull sessions on ID. That is similar to one of the points I think Brownback was making (though I don't agree with him - there is an unattractive evasiveness in what he says).
This is no idle debate society matter. I think it was the assumption that human beings have no special value which made the guards at Abu Ghraib feel free to treat their prisoners any nasty way they found amusing, and I wouldn't want our society to evolve any further in that direction.
but if that entails them also being taught that human life has no special value I think it was the assumption that human beings have no special value which made the guards at Abu Ghraib feel free to treat their prisoners any nasty way they found amusing
I don't think there are any science teachers, or even scientists, out there, who advocate that human life has, or should have, no special value TO OTHER HUMANS.
The question is, does it have a special place in the cosmos, over and above any value humans place on their own lives and the lives of other humans. Is a human more special to the force which created it than, say, a gibbon, I think, is closer to the question.
I suppose every species is "special" in that the set of characteristics it has is different than the sets other species have. But as roryk points out, we're hard pressed to come up with a single characteristic held by any one species that isn't also held by at least one other. One can believe that humans have some kind of ineffable "divine spark" not shared by any other animal, if one so chooses. But that sort of thing is awfully hard to empirically observe, isn't it?
we're hard pressed to come up with a single characteristic held by any one species that isn't also held by at least one other
Human beings make donuts.
(I just ate one).
Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the only species observed to exhibit parallel parking behaviour, and the only known species to play the Euphonium with any degree of skill.
When offered liquor, Human Beings, alone of all the lifeforms on Earth, often answer: "Liquor? I hardly even knew 'er!"
WAIT - Kitfisto does that too. Damn.
Well, yes, I believe Pope Paul VI addressed the so-called Donut Dilemma in his encyclical Mysterium Panis Frita.
OH YEAH WELL EXPLAIN THE BANANA SMARTY PANTS!
gotta admit that's a pretty strong argument.
Human beings make donuts.
(I just ate one).
posted by the quidnunc kid at 01:11PM UTC on June 12, 20
Quid ate a human! CANNIBAL!!! RUN!!
Maybe you're right, TUM, though I feel there is more than a possibility of some teachers taking Ralph's line. And while relative value is much better than none, I'm not sure it's good enough. What do you say to someone like Caligula who sincerely values human life only because it provides the aesthetic spectacle of fresh blood on the grass?
Of course, I'd say you can experience your own 'divine spark' (though I wouldn't use those words) introspectively, and even, dare I say so here, God's if you open up to it. I don't know whether that kind of experience can count as empirical evidence, since it obviously isn't open for public scrutiny.
Again, thanks for bearing with me, in any case.
Well, I don't think Caligula was so much "a scientist" as he was "insane." But I take your point.
gotta admit that's a pretty strong argument.
I'm not sure if you're kidding there, but just in case you're not, you should know it's a terrible argument. For them, anyway. It's a great one for evolution.
Bananas (all foods, really) are the product of very careful human engineering. They didn't start out the way they are now, they were deliberately bred over decades or even centuries.
Bananas are a particularly egregious example of this, as (IIRC) they've become so dependent on human engineering that the plants can't even reproduce without human intervention.
The banana actually turns out to be a great example of the answer to Intelligent Design, one that is very old but for some reason still has to be repeated ad nauseam: Irreducible complexity is a product of evolution. An organism develops something that is advantageous (but not necessary) to its survival and growth, and over time evolves until it makes fuller and fuller use of that advantage. At some point, it evolves to the point where it relies so heavily on that advantage that it will die off without it. In this case, the banana began to rely on human intervention as its adaptive advantage, and nowadays without it, guess what? Bananas are in danger of extinction.
So powerfully destructive is this argument to the ID cause that ol' Ray himself finally gave up the Argument From Banana.
Hmmm... You undermined the banana argument with such ease...
but let's see how you fare against
A JAR OF PEANUT BUTTER!!!!
Jesus Christ.
I really think that some people should be forced to go out in public only if they're wearing a Pointy Hat of Hurf Durf.
Thus spake St. George Washington of Carver.
What's amazing is that in two consecutive elections the electoral college of the US chose to back The Jar of Peanut Butter Candidate, while choosing anything else as President, including a jar of peanut butter, would have been a saner choice.
Hitler.
What's amazing is that in two consecutive elections the electoral college of the US chose to back The Jar of Peanut Butter Candidate
This is a debatable topic. Likely we only chose him once, and perhaps not even then.
But your point is duly noted, of course. I frequently wish someone would force culture-wide intellectualism on my country the way we try to do it with democracy abroad.
but see, that's why I said the Electoral College and not the voters...
culture-wide intellectualism in this country?
Not until we get rid of Bus the wingnuts.
see how I carefully avoided bringing up politics?
we're hard pressed to come up with a single characteristic held by any one species that isn't also held by at least one other
Hey, we are Monkey's with car keys*. We wear pajamas. We tell bad knock-knock jokes. We post captioned pictures of cats.
*And Gomi has MonKeys ON her car keys.
If I had a time machine
A well regulated Militia Intelligensia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms read Books, shall not be infringed.
theologymoral philosophy, I think. Is it so bad? Well, it depends on how "man's special position (or otherwise)" is used. If the claim that man is special is used to prevent stem cell research, then yes, I'll say it's a bad thing. Part of the problem, and Brownback is leveraging this, is that believers expect the burden of proof to be on nonbelievers. So when Brownback denies the right of evolutionists to draw inferences from their theory, he's relying on the primacy (in the sense of first occupying) of theism in the realms of ethics and philosphy. He is perfectly happy to support some of the inferences that have been drawn in the past on the basis of theism. Essentially, he refuses to compete on a level playing field.Busthe wingnuts. see how I carefully avoided bringing up politics? we're hard pressed to come up with a single characteristic held by any one species that isn't also held by at least one other Hey, we are Monkey's with car keys*. We wear pajamas. We tell bad knock-knock jokes. We post captioned pictures of cats. *And Gomi has MonKeys ON her car keys.