Louisiana rolls back The Enlightenment.

[skinboy8]

Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the ACLU, will rightly be all over this.

And there is a big difference between a "theory" and a "hypothesis". I suggest all would-be contributors to this thread ensure that they know the difference before making a statement on the matter.

 

[JustAsking]

Memory at the moment isn't facilitating this challenge. But the point is?

You'll have to explain the 'worse theology' bit.

Mainstream Christian denominations believe that a strictly literal interpretation of scripture in the Bible is heretical. They also don't believe that the Bible is inerrant in every passage.

Genesis contains profound wisdom about the relationship between God, Creation, and Man. But it is not a story about talking snakes and making woman from man's body parts, and the last time I looked (and the last time 1.8 billion Christians looked) there is no firmament in the sky that separates the "waters of the earth and the waters of heaven".

It is a literal interpretation of Genesis that includes 'special creation', which is the position that God created all the species in seven days and then quit creating in any way. Mainstream denominations do not support special creation in their doctrine. As far as the Roman Catholic Church, the Presbyterians, the ELCA Lutherans, the Episcopalians, the UCC (Congregationalists), the United Methodist Church, and some others I can't remember, are concerned, Special Creationism is bad theology. This is not a even a new idea. To wit: St. Augustine's writings on a literal Genesis in AD 400.

But if you are complaining about this backlash by the evangelical class it is because science (textbook writers) allowed the idea to promulgate that evolution is a god killer. Any number of h.s. grads and dropouts and many college graduates say that ToE kills God when they say why they are atheists or disbelievers. I'm not justifying the backlash, I'm just explaining.

I know of no science textbooks that make the claim that evolution is a god killer. I would like to see some evidence of this if you can find it. I can't speak for the bogus opinions of high school dropouts and their ignorance. In science textbooks there is no difference between the position on God in the Evolution chapter than there is in the chapter on Optics or the chapter on Newton's Laws of Motion. That is because the subject of God's role in natural laws is appropriately not mentioned in science text books.

As I said before, Dawkins and a few other militant atheists notwithstanding, science is simply going about its business investigating the natural processes in the universe. The major denominations find no conflict with that activity and not only embrace it, but they fund a lot of it.

The behavior of evangelicals is only a response to their own falsely perceived notion that their culture is under attack. This is no difference than their paranoid ravings about "The War on Christmas", or that banning prayer in school is some kind of atheist conspiracy. The evangelical backlash is not a response to abuse from scientists. It is a self-imposed delusion brought on by their insistence that Genesis is to be interpreted literally.

So far I have heard of movements in the legislature of 22 states to alter the public school science curriculum to allow the introduction of religious notions. And so far I know of no proposed legislation to inject scientific notions into the Sunday School curriculum.

So far the score is Evangelicals 22, Scientists 0.

So tell me at what point in time did God evacuate himself from the universe and let creation run uninterrupted as it were? Do you believe in miracles? Does God answer your prayers?

Why are you asking me about God evacuating the universe. I am not a Deist. I believe in miracles in the sense that God can intervene in natural processes anytime he wants to. But I also know that we have no evidence of it. My belief is based purely on faith that God is actively at work in the universe. Yes, I do believe in prayers, not because I have evidence that they work, but because I have faith in Christ's recommendation that we pray frequently.

I think the guy who sat down with a Bible and read all who begat who in the Bible extrapolated the age of Earth from that (5,000 yrs.) would have better spent his time getting laid by his wife.

Yes, Bishop Ussher. I wish he did something else that day. Your suggestion about him and his wife comes to mind.

But as a self-described person of faith who are you to say that it in fact wasn't all spontaneously created 5,000 years ago? Fossil record and all. I don't feel that that is true. Billions of years is more Romantic scale that far better appeals to me, but wtf do I know? :0)

Yes, that is a popular Creationist argument that God could have created the universe 5000 years ago along with the geological, radiological, astronomical, DNA, physiological, and fossil evidence that fools us into thinking the universe is billions of years old.

But for that matter, God could have also created the universe ten seconds ago complete with our memories and all of what I mentioned above in order to trick us according to his grand plan.

There is nothing useful in this direction though especially to science. So I dismiss the Cosmic Trickster God as not very interesting theologically, and useless as a topic for science.

 

[Guy-jin]

Perhaps God The Utterly Indifferent is more to your liking? :biggrin1:

 

[Calboner]

you guys are WRONG!, peanut butter is where it's at

I thought at first that the video was a parody, but, good God, these boobs are completely serious! "If the theory of evolution were true, then we would see new life coming into being spontaneously in a sealed jar of peanut butter!" People who are not Biblical literalists themselves but who think that creationists may have some legitimate criticisms of evolutionary biology should see this video, as it seems to show pretty clearly that they have none. If they had legitimate arguments to make, they would not resort to such puerile straw-man attacks.

This book convinced me that my faith was not yet irrational enough and it was more from "God of the Gaps" than I thought. I think I have finally worked it out now to the level of irrationality that it requires. Faith is only truly stable when it is completely irrational, because at that point it is immune from empiricism.

I know you don't subscribe to this at all, but I am guessing that you can see the logic behind it. It's tough being an Enlightenment Christian who is not in denial about anything.

"Irrational"? Surely that is a misleading choice of word. Believing something contrary to evidence is irrational. Believing something that is neither supported nor contradicted by any evidence -- even by any possible evidence -- is not. You seem to be talking about the latter when you talk about an "irrational" faith. But "irrational" means "contrary to reason." It is an important term of criticism. If one uses it in the neutral way that you do, it loses its force: given your way of using the term, people who believe things that really are contrary to reason (e.g., science deniers) can legitimately respond to criticism by saying, "Well, all faith is irrational, so all your arguments are irrelevant to my faith."

I think I can see why you want to use that term. Besides wanting to be provocative, you are contrasting a faith that depends on reasoning -- you give the example of reasoning from a certain understanding of modern cosmology, but I suspect that you mean reasoning from any basis whatever -- with one that is not. You are saying, as I understand you, that a faith that rests on reasoning (at least, reasoning from the findings of natural science) will always be threatened with overthrow as science advances. Therefore, a stable and intellectually mature faith must rest on no reasoning. You call this "irrational," but it seems to me that a more accurate term would be "unreasoned."

But if you are complaining about this backlash by the evangelical class it is because science (textbook writers?) allowed the idea to promulgate that evolution is a god killer. Any number of h.s. grads and dropouts and many college graduates say that ToE kills God when they explain why they are atheists or disbelievers. I'm not justifying the backlash, I'm just explaining it.

The only people who would draw such conclusions from the study of evolutionary biology are people who started out with what JA calls the "God of the gaps" -- the idea that you need to invoke God to explain the diversity of living things. It is Biblical literalism, not science, that makes people think that the theory of evolution "kills God," as you put it. People whose religious education did not include this rather parochial conception of God have no trouble with evolutionary biology or any other part of modern science.

(Whoops: After posting this, I saw that JA had added a post that anticipates much of what I say in the last paragraph.)

 

[B_spiker067]

Mainstream...

Comments many but I'll stick to this. If our science curriculum is taught well why are the products of that system saying that their atheism/disbelief is rooted in their belief that ToE explains how life can just happen no assembly required.

 

[JustAsking]

..."Irrational"? Surely that is a misleading choice of word. Believing something contrary to evidence is irrational. Believing something that is neither supported nor contradicted by any evidence -- even by any possible evidence -- is not. You seem to be talking about the latter when you talk about an "irrational" faith. But "irrational" means "contrary to reason." It is an important term of criticism. If one uses it in the neutral way that you do, it loses its force: given your way of using the term, people who believe things that really are contrary to reason (e.g., science deniers) can legitimately respond to criticism by saying, "Well, all faith is irrational, so all your arguments are irrelevant to my faith."

I think I can see why you want to use that term. Besides wanting to be provocative, you are contrasting a faith that depends on reasoning -- you give the example of reasoning from a certain understanding of modern cosmology, but I suspect that you mean reasoning from any basis whatever -- with one that is not. You are saying, as I understand you, that a faith that rests on reasoning (at least, reasoning from the findings of natural science) will always be threatened with overthrow as science advances. Therefore, a stable and intellectually mature faith must rest on no reasoning. You call this "irrational," but it seems to me that a more accurate term would be "unreasoned."

Yes, you have it exactly right. But even the term 'unreasoned' doesn't quite capture it. I reasoned myself into this position after many years of wrestling with the problem of theodicy. So let me invent a new term, 'unrational'. In any event, you could definitely call it 'unempirical'.

Or you could simply call it 'faith'.

 

[JustAsking]

Comments many but I'll stick to this. If our science curriculum is taught well why are the products of that system saying that their atheism/disbelief is rooted in their belief that ToE explains how life can just happen no assembly required.

You keep saying that this is true, but you offer no evidence of it besides a few flamboyant writers like Dawkins. For every popular book about how science disproves God (and even Dawkin's book doesn't say that), I can find two books by scientists explaining why science and faith are not in conflict.

Second of all, why don't those same people feel that the teaching of Universal Gravitation, or any teaching of modern medical practices are at the root of their disbelief? Is it because Evolution is taught differently in respect to God or is it because the Bible happens to have a book called Genesis who some interpret literally and consider it a science text.

Also, I never said our science curriculum is taught well. In fact, I think it is atrocious. I happen to heartily agree with your suggestion about a PoS class.

But the conflict you speak of does not come from badly taught science. It comes from people who are exposed to science who have been pre-conditioned to interpret the Bible literally by their evangelical denominations. They come to science already damaged by the doctrines of their denominations. They don't get abused by science teacher, they come to that pre-abused by their Sunday School teachers.

Look, if you are taught by your church that the universe is only 5000 years old, there is no philosophy of science you can teach nor are there any improvements in how science is taught that can help you reconcile that with the evidence that we use to really measure the age of the universe. If you believe the 5000 year old mythology, than you are simply wrong about the age of the universe, and I am sorry if the facts offend you.

I recommend PoS for those who are not being taught such nonsense in their church but who are in the gravitational pull of those who are. Over 50% of the American population believes in some form of Young Earth Creationism. Most of them did not get that from their church. They got that from the shrill and constant harangue of the right wing fundamentalists. There is no hope for the fundamentalists from better teaching of science. But there is hope that we could educate those who are not fundamentalists to recognize the difference between religious knowledge and scientifc knowledge. I place the blame on the way science is taught and the way mainstream theology abstains from the discussion. Both of those institutions should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[B_spiker067]

You keep saying that this is true, but you offer no evidence of it besides a few flamboyant ....

Have you talked to kids graduating from H.S./College who say they are atheists or disbelievers? What is the dominant answer they give as to a reason why they are atheists/disbelievers. For that matter ask ANY atheist/disbeliever and they invariably mention ToE.

The post above better explains that it is the literal interpretation that drives people away. That between choosing 7 days or millions of years they choose millions of years. But the point being they still are atheist/disbelievers. They don't doubt this god or that god, they disbelief that a creator is even required because ToE and Big Bang.

As a 7 year old child I swear I didn't think the world was created in seven days. So I don't think I'm bound to a literal translation of the Bible.

 

[B_spiker067]

I recommend PoS for those who are not being taught such nonsense in their church but who are in the gravitational pull of those who are. Over 50% of the American population believes in some form of Young Earth Creationism. Most of them did not get that from their church. They got that from the shrill and constant harangue of the right wing fundamentalists. There is no hope for the fundamentalists from better teaching of science. But there is hope that we could educate those who are not fundamentalists to recognize the difference between religious knowledge and scientifc knowledge. I place the blame on the way science is taught and the way mainstream theology abstains from the discussion. Both of those institutions should be ashamed of themselves.

How can most mainstream theology be all grown up about evolution and yet 50% of people in the U.S. believe in a young earth? Most people I speak to IRL are at least mildly scientifically minded while still harboring some form of faith. Most see the Bible as not literally true but demure when pressed in order not to have discern literal truth from complete bullshit. And yet in that world 22 out 50 states have people saying enough with the atheist/disbeliever ToE crutch. Why would that be?

 

[Drifterwood]

I'll add one last thing. If people coming from the public school system are using their ToE education to kill God, then science there is being taught extremely poorly and any scientist would want to remedy that.

There is some mixed up logic here, which demonstartes your position, if I may say.

Education is secular. It does not start out with any religious premise or dogma. But you do. So you see science (proper science) as attacking your pov. But it isn't. It couldn't and shouldn't give two cents for your unscientific pov. Science pursues itself for it's own self.

You have the issue, science and it's teaching exists on it's own level. Your constitution recognises the importance of allowing it this freedom.

 

[JustAsking]

How can most mainstream theology be all grown up about evolution and yet 50% of people in the U.S. believe in a young earth? Most people I speak to IRL are at least mildly scientifically minded while still harboring some form of faith. Most see the Bible as not literally true but demure when pressed in order not to have discern literal truth from complete bullshit. And yet in that world 22 out 50 states have people saying enough with the atheist/disbeliever ToE crutch. Why would that be?

Yes, that is a very good question. You notice that I made my claim about the doctrine of the denominations, not the 1.8 billion people. The problem here is that most Christians know very little about their own doctrine of their own denominations. Most American Christians personally subscribe to a kind of Bapto-Methodist doctrine that you could say makes up a kind of American folk religion.

When polled, most American Christians would say that the phrase, "God only helps those who helps themselves" is a passage from the Bible. This is particularly telling because nothing could be more anti-Gospel than that. Americans have mixed culture, nationalism and folk religion together and mostly exist in that stew, regardless of where they attend church.

In fact, I believe that YEC polls notwithstanding, Americans know much more about science than they do about the doctrine of their own denominations. The bad thing about this is that it leaves people in the gravitatonal pull of fundamentalists who put out a constant 'sound-byte' style message about a number of things into the media, whereas the mainstream denominations seem to be mute on all of those subjects.

The result is that the average citiizen actually thinks that they have to choose between God or Evolution, so wanting to be good people, they choose God. No one bothers to tell them, not even their own denomination, that they don't have to make that choice.

I say the blame is on the mainstream denominations for being publicly mute on this subject and almost everything else.

It is no surprise that a completely secular teaching of scientific facts interferes with the faith formation of youth but it is not because science is taught badly, it is because their religious instruction is bad.

What kind of Philosophy of Science could be taught that would educate high school kids in the nuances of their church's doctrine? Yes, you could tell kids that science can make no claims about the supernatural, but you are still left with the problem that science seems to deny their immature notions about God.

The problem is not bad science education (although that is a problem of its own), the problem is bad religious instruction.

There is some mixed up logic here, which demonstartes your position, if I may say.

Education is secular. It does not start out with any religious premise or dogma. But you do. So you see science (proper science) as attacking your pov. But it isn't. It couldn't and shouldn't give two cents for your unscientific pov. Science pursues itself for it's own self.

You have the issue, science and it's teaching exists on it's own level. Your constitution recognises the importance of allowing it this freedom.

Yes, thanks. You said it much more efficiently than I did.

 

[JustAsking]

Here is a good example. Read this person's letter to the editor in Louisiana. As far as they are concerned, they think people have to choose between evolution or God.

The reason for this is not because science teaching makes religious claims. It is because fundamentalist religious instruction makes scientific claims (that the world and all life was created 5000 years ago all at once).

On this issue, which teaching needs to be changed or improved? Science or religion?

By the way, here is why I use the world 'irrational' when I describe my faith. The problem that Jerry Coyne is highlighting in the article is easily resolved when you finally declare your faith to be completely irrational. Because if you are completely honest with yourself, you end up with this theodicy:

God created the universe and God continues to be active and creative in the universe. However, there is absolutely no empirical evidence of that and we expect to find none.

 

[B_spiker067]

Here is a good example. Read this person's letter to the editor in Louisiana. As far as they are concerned, they think people have to choose between evolution or God.

The reason for this is not because science teaching makes religious claims. It is because fundamentalist religious instruction makes scientific claims (that the world and all life was created 5000 years ago all at once).

On this issue, which teaching needs to be changed or improved? Science or religion?

By the way, here is why I use the world 'irrational' when I describe my faith. The problem that Jerry Coyne is highlighting in the article is easily resolved when you finally declare your faith to be completely irrational. Because if you are completely honest with yourself, you end up with this theodicy:

Well written article, thanks.

It occurred to me, after re-reading your post last night on your faith being irrational, that your are the opposite side of the same coin. You are the literal believer in science to the literal believer of the Bible. I've been trying to express my point of view from the position in between these two faces but you keep pushing me out towards the other face simply because I don't believe correctly like you do. Funny.

You imply I fill gaps with my God. Here in this interval it is scientific. From here to here is a gap where I stuff in God. And continue with the scientific. Hardly, my God is a boundary values problem God. If I appeal to lack of knowledge argurments ergo God you appeal to expert knowledge be it scientific or ecumenical (which is rational but hardly your own work ( "Saint so an so said blah, blah, and so it is true" :0)

Its ironic that a literal scientist will hear how science has proven the earth is really older (or younger); that the speed of light is slower; or at some future date faster than previously believed. The literal scientist will literally accept this new information shrug his shoulders and move on. Literally accepting it even when outside the purview of his own expertise. Little contemplative of the years or decades where his perception of reality wasn't really real.

I'd also say my faith is totally rational. It may be unfinished but it is rational. Science and faith coexist easily.

 

[B_spiker067]

Education is secular.

Some would argue that a complete education is both secular and spiritual.

 

[Drifterwood]

Some would argue that a complete education is both secular and spiritual.

Perhaps, but they should be in different lessons.

I have always found the scientific easier to understand consciously than the spiritual. If you have the time and inclination, I am always interested to know people's way of descibing the spiritual. But maybe that should be a different thread.

 

[kalipygian]

I don't know that anyone believes that creation was 5000 years ago. By the chronology of Archbishop Ussher, creation was 22 Oct 4004 BC. This was not entirely original with him, it had long been discussed, I think Bede, who left the first known use of AD in Britain, said something about it. There was also a belief that the earth would be in existence for 6,000 years.

The Jewish calendar, which was probably set following the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century BC, and uses Babylonian month names, begins with 3761 BC.

The Byzantine calendar Etos Cosmos in greek, Anno Mundi in Latin, had a creation date of 5493 BC, it was determined in 412AD by Panodorus of Alexandria, it was universal with the Orthodox churches, including Russia, until Peter the Great introduced the Julian calender and AD, the starting point of which had been determined by Dionysus Exiguus @525 ad.

 

[b.c.]

Incidentally, it has come to light (in recent news) that the great state of Texas is also in a political quandary over this same issue.

Texas debates place of evolution in education

One might also note that according to the article, school curriculum standards already exists in Texas that allow for the teaching of the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution theory.

(Though undoubtedly not as newsworthy, Texan bashing being not half as predictably fashionable as, say, lampooning us "poor moronic" Louisianans).

 

[Drifterwood]

The Genome calendar goes somewhat further back.

I wonder why the creationists and ID exponents don't ask who created the first "dateable" organism. That would be more difficult to answer, but then it doesn't tie in with the irrefutable evidence of the sacred texts.

 

[JustAsking]

Well written article, thanks.

It occurred to me, after re-reading your post last night on your faith being irrational, that your are the opposite side of the same coin. You are the literal believer in science to the literal believer of the Bible. I've been trying to express my point of view from the position in between these two faces but you keep pushing me out towards the other face simply because I don't believe correctly like you do. Funny.

You imply I fill gaps with my God. Here in this interval it is scientific. From here to here is a gap where I stuff in God. And continue with the scientific. Hardly, my God is a boundary values problem God. If I appeal to lack of knowledge argurments ergo God you appeal to expert knowledge be it scientific or ecumenical (which is rational but hardly your own work ( "Saint so an so said blah, blah, and so it is true" :0)

Its ironic that a literal scientist will hear how science has proven the earth is really older (or younger); that the speed of light is slower; or at some future date faster than previously believed. The literal scientist will literally accept this new information shrug his shoulders and move on. Literally accepting it even when outside the purview of his own expertise. Little contemplative of the years or decades where his perception of reality wasn't really real.

I'd also say my faith is totally rational. It may be unfinished but it is rational. Science and faith coexist easily.

Spiker
Very interesting post. I think you are onto something here. As for me as a science literalist, you are half right, I think. I believe that there is no intellectual discipline that has ever been as successful as science has been (in its particular narrow pursuit) in the history of man. And I also believe that there has never been a less dogmatic intellectual pursuit in the history of man than science.

Science is a way of knowing something about the natural world. It does not actually seek the truth, but rather it seeks the best explanation that it can create given the evidence (only the independently verifiable evidence) it has at hand at the moment. If you think about it, there is no way to get any closer to what you might call "The Truth" than that.

And the way it goes about that pursuit is such that anything that is submitted as evidence or as explanation is on constant trial forever by the body of experts in the field whose reference is nothing other than nature itself. Scientific theories are judged not on belief or consensus but on how well they explain the existing body of evidence and how useful they are in predicting the outcome of future experiments (or when put to use in practical application) that produce evidence. So 'truth' in science can only be measured by utility. If you can come up with something better than that, then you will change the world.

It is for this reason that science, which has been outrageously successful in changing the world in only a few hundred years, ironically has reinvented itself more times than any other intellectual discipline. Major revolutions have taken place that have complete replaced hundreds of years of established theories with better ones. So not only are theories refined as new evidence comes in, they are completely replaced when new theories come along that do a better job in explaining the subject matter. (i.e. Quantum Mechanics and Relativity replacing Classical Physics.).

Given all of that, I have to also say that this amazing process can only be carried out in a well established and orderly court of scientific inquiry. What I mean is that your opinion and mine is worth doodly squat to science unless we can submit it to a professional peer reviewed jouirnal in the field such that our findings can be evaluated for the quality and accuracy of the work and it can be independently verified by other workers in the field. And finally, our work will only accumulate weight when it is actually used successfully by other workers in the field in their work or applied successfullly in some practical application.

Given all of that, I have to reiterate that science is the least dogmatic intellectual pursuit in the history of man. So there is where I disagree with you. Where I do agree with you is that I personally am dogmatic about accepting the well established theories from the scientific community because I myself am not an active participant.

In other words, unless you or I submit to the process I just described, our musings on any subject (whether consistent or not with scientific theory) is nothing more than bar room banter. There is only one way to challenge a scientific theory and science itself provides the mechanism and the process in its 24 hour 365 day per year court of inquiry. Anything short of following that process is just you or I outside in the courtroom parking lot handing out the leaflets of idle dilletants.

So yes, I am dogmatic about the fact that ToE has withstood the scrutiny and scepticism of scientists for 150 years and has survived as the best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet. I and science have no way to distinguish any challenge to that theory from the ravings of a crackpot unless they submit their challenge to the court.

As to Truth with a capital T, however, you would be surprised at my opinion about science. I believe that it is impossible for science to find the actual Truth. All they can do is create better theories as judged by their usefulness. If you can figure out a better way of judging whether a theory is correct, then you can change the world.

But given that, after Modern Physics revolution in the early part of the 20th century, people began to rethink the idea about science actually getting to the truth. It was obvious then and it is now that science is 'on to something' because the established theories have predictive powers to umpteen decimal points now about lots of important natural phemomenon. However, it is also recognized that those theories will ultimately be replaced by better ones as the our instruments get better and more evidence is accumulated.

Just like the revolution of the 1920's prevailing theories will ultimately be replaced by theories that bear almost no resemblance to the ones they replaced. And there is nothing to suggest that this won't just go on forever. This implies that science is actually not getting to THE TRUTH, because there seems to be no convergence happening with the successive theories. Their utility grows and they work better, but the nature of them not resembling the previous ones suggest that we are not converging on anything like the Cosmic Truth.

So why am I so dogmatic about it? Because it works orders of magnitude better than any other process, and because it only works when you do it right.

So yes, I believe science is not dogmatic. I believe science is the only thing we have to make sense out of the natural world and the nature of how it is pursued is one of man's most brilliant and successful intellectual pursuits. I don't believe it is converging on cosmic truth. But I believe that no other methodology even comes close to working as well in this narrow pursuit.

So you can go ahead and challenge any theory you want. You will have to line up behind all the other scientists who challenge each others work almost daily within the profession. And you will also have to submit your challenge against the same standards that professional have to live up to. Short of that, you are simply muttering into your beer mug, because there is no way to evaluate what your challenge and distinguish it from idle speculation or delusional hallucination.

 

[B_spiker067]

Good read. Lots to think about and look into.

Here's a little prophesy for you JA:

The world has been warming. The warming has not been proven to be anthropogenic (my opinion, though also held by others). The world will not be able to get it together to cut C02 emissions within the next 8 years to reverse this AnthroGW and yet the world will cool. And in your mind you'll hear me telling you, "I told you so." LPSG bar room banter.

This global warming has been dogmatized and politicized like you wouldn't believe. Science is practiced by humans and their foibles follow.