Re: Ben Stein: Win His Career

Friar Broccoli <EliasRK@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


In case you need it, here is a reference back to your preceding
post:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d75aa204737aba6a

I'm not sure why, but I just got this email even though it's
dated from Sunday!?

Hmmm, well since Sunday is God's day, maybe He's telling YOU
it's part of His plan !!! Since next Thursday is the Great
Broccoli's day, I would have preferred that but ...

I hadn't intended to do this, but I'm answering you on Thursday, the
Great Broccoli be praised ;-}


As reference, here are two links, both of which go back to
Mark's post:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/8951a4f9c3243425
news:1178885582.649990.290270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

While he obviously was clearing up a "misconception about
what evolution means", I don't believe this precludes the
obvious fact that he was also ""defending" atheism". He very
clearly was.

My interpretation is that he was clearing up misconceptions
about evolution *& atheism in the first part of the post. At
the end of the post he expresses his opinion that atheism
could not exist if God "showed up" and participated in our
personal lives. Admittedly, he gets up a moderate rant of
steam doing it. He then covers his own struggle with the lies
of creationism which include some of the points the OP brought
up.

This seems fair, except for the bit about lies. I am
sufficiently familiar with Mark's posts that I know for sure
that he knows that lying requires a deliberate intent to
misrepresent the truth, and he knows that most fundamentalists
do not have such intent. I found one post where he defended
George Evans (one of our more articulate loons) against that
accusation.

Two things, wait, make that three things:

1. I wasn't accusing any particular person of lying, I said the "lies of
creationism". Most of the factual claims of creationism are demonstrably
false statements. One of the definitions of "lie" is "n. core meaning:
an untrue declaration" from the dictionary on my bookshelf (Webster's II
New Riverside University Dict.-copyright 1984) & here

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

"3. an inaccurate or false statement. "

So you can make a statement that _is_ a lie without deliberate intent
_to_ lie. And if you are repeating these false statements, then you are
spreading lies.

2. Some, if not most, of the so-called leaders of the creationist
movement(s) plus various bloggers & websites have been corrected on
their false statements many times, e.g. quote-mines from scientists that
misrepresent what was said with documentation &/or references to prove
the facts of the matter. If they continue to make those statements or
keep them posted without correction it means that they are intentionally
lying.

3. I do think it is counter-productive to start off calling someone a
liar when what they are is ignorant. Whether to use the words falsehood
or false statement as opposed to calling such things lies is up to each
person to decide. Sometimes the shock value of 'lie' can be useful.


I don't see this as a defense of atheism but rather as an
indictment of (some) interpretations of
Christianity/creationism. His personal experiences with
fundamentalism (similar to my own) can leave you with this
outlook.

I'm sorry, but I don't think this position is coherent. In his
post Mark made repeated positive statements concerning atheism
and its consistency with science. Affirmations of the truth of
atheism are implicit indictments of ALL of Christianity, not
just some interpretations of it.

I can't read Mark's mind as to what he intended, but when I read that
paragraph or two where he is doing his little patter on atheism is
consistent with science, I don't read that as "affirmations of the truth
of atheism", I read that as atheism is consistent with science. Some
forms of Christianity are consistent with science, some forms of Judaism
are consistent with science, etc. I can make those statements without
"affirming the truth" of those beliefs.

Mark never says that ONLY atheism is consistent with science. That
*would be a form of "affirming the truth of atheism." He does make fun
of some old &/or pagan *theistic beliefs wrt explanations of how the
natural world works. None of that is directed toward any mainstream
religious beliefs.


And that is the heart on my position here: Linking science in
general, and evolution in particular with atheism drives ALL
(ok, almost all) christians away from scientific truths.

I really disagree with this. The largest Christian organization in the
world accepts most of science, including evolution, the Catholic Church.
I don't believe that the Anglicans or Episcopalians or Presbyterians or
American Baptists or Orthodox or any of a number of other denominations
have official opposition to science/evolution. It's mainly some of the
evangelical/literalist/fundamentalist denominations that officially
dissent. I'm not trying to say this isn't a significant number of
Chrisitans in the US, but it's not even "almost all" that reject it.

The surveys that show such high rejection of evolution ask really bad
&/or ambiguous questions &/or don't have a response for theistic
evolution. Most people don't really know what evolution is. I'm not
saying there isn't a high level of ignorance about the science, but many
of the people who answer these surveys are not married to anti-evolution
the way most of the fundamentalists are.

The ones who *do reject it link atheism to science/evolution as a TACTIC
to scare people off. The way to deal with that is to address it head on.
"Yeah, some atheists accept evolution just like they accept gravity &
meteorology. etc (in a similar way that Mark states it in his post).

You think he is touting atheism, I disagree.


Regardless, that wasn't my primary motivation for voting to
keep the post whole. I really do prefer to see the entire
conversation & context, if possible.

I'm not sure that it matters much, but I don't think these two
sentences (by themselves) are an argument, just a restatement of
what you want.

Well, yeah! I wasn't voting for the unedited post because I thought it
had the best exposition on the fallacy of confounding atheism with
evolution I'd ever seen or, conversely, because I have some deep seated
objection to editing the content of POTM winners (although I do think
there is something to be said for leaving their content alone; it was
the full post that was nominated & voted on after all), or, more
conversely, because I think it's worthless in its present form (just a
little chewed up is all ;).

I never intended to make any kind of argument at all. YOU tracked me
down in another thread to start this discussion. It was kind of
interesting, so I played along. You obviously haven't convinced me that
my reason for keeping it whole (wanting to see the whole context) is
trumped by your reason for editing (hypothetical concern for how someone
else will react to him talking about atheism).


It is as if you said, I like chocolate cake, therefore I want
two pieces. You have not supported your position by reference
to an agreed principle or standard, which could justify it.

Others have use "clarity" as the standard, I am using the likely
effect on the intended audience as the standard.

IMO the intended audience is someone who is ALREADY questioning & has a
more open mind than those who are vehemently tied to the anti-science
stance of their religion.



But since you brought it up, IMO, by editing out the first
part of the post (where Mark is primarily discussing the
mistake in conflating atheism with religion & with
evolution/science), some of the context _is_ lost. The little
truncated post that's left starts with the OP saying:

Again, I am sorry to say so, but I believe the above seriously
misrepresents the content of the deleted elements of Mark's
post. Despite an explicit statement to the contrary, he WAS
actively conflating atheism with religion, while providing
explicit examples showing that "theism" (not creationism) is
incompatible with science.

He made fun of some very old &/or pagan explanations for natural
phenomena. Here's the quote:


start quote
*******************************************
"Ouachita wrote:
Sorry, but evolution is a very compatible belief among atheists

Mark Nutter wrote:
So? The theory of gravity is also very compatible with atheism, as are
the theory that sex has something to do with pregnancy, the theory that
lightning is caused by accumulation of electrical charges in the
atmosphere, and the theory that germs and viruses cause diseases.
Granted, there are theistic alternatives to each of the above, such as
the belief that a fertility god(dess) grants or withholds pregnancy, the
belief that lightning is a weapon of divine retribution, and the belief
that diseases are a judgment sent by God on those who have displeased
Him. That doesn't mean that because atheism is compatible with the
scientific explanations, therefore the scientific explanations are
somehow promoting atheism. It's not reality's fault if it happens to be
consistent with what atheists believe! "

********************************************
end quote

What about this makes you think that Mark is claiming that *all theism
is incompatible with science? How many current religions believe in a
fertility goddess or Zeus & his lightening bolts? Granted the 'disease
is punishment by God is still current in some circles, but, ISTM, he's
just contrasting old superstitious beliefs with the natural causes that
science has discovered. I don't see some blanket indictment of theism.
I've seen others here on t.o. say similar things. *I've said similar
things.

The only part of his post that I see where he clearly takes a shot at
Christianity is here near the end:

start quote
********************************************
"Ouachita wrote:
If there was actual evidence acceptable in the truest sense of science
there would be no more argument.

Mark Nutter wrote:
That's an interesting argument, especially considering how much more
cogent it is to Christianity than to evolution. Evolution is a
scientific topic, and many people lack the interest and educational
background to fully appreciate the nature and value of the evidence. Not
so with Christianity, however.

Christianity claims that there exists a God so loving and so powerful
that He was willing and able to become one of us, dwell among us, and
give His life for us, in order that He and we might share a personal,
face-to-face relationship together for all eternity. The most
fundamental and obvious consequence of such a thing being true would be
that God would show up on at least a regular basis to participate in
that relationship with each of us which He worked so hard to make
possible. If that were true, however, then atheism could not exist,
because God's constant appearances in the real world and in direct,
personal, face-to-face relationships with each of us, would make denying
His existence as silly as denying the existence of the planet Earth.

The existence of atheism, and the existence of any debate about the
existence of the Christian God, are themselves evidence of this God's
non-existence, since no such debate would be possible if such a God
really existed and was willing and able to behave as though He believed
what Christians claim about Him.

Likewise, creationism is evidence of God's non-existence in the real
world, since if God showed up in the real world today, as though He
really loved us and wanted genuine, personal, two-way interaction with
us, then believers would have no need to turn to the ancient past
looking for some technical ambiguity they could exploit as "evidence"
for God's existence. The whole talk.origins group would be a moot point
if God would simply show up and behave as though He believed the Gospel.
Thus, the creation-evolution debate is proof of the absence of any
real-world evidence for the Christian God."
**********************************************
end quote

Here he's not even discussing atheism except for stating it could not
exist (along with t.o. itself) if God showed up. If any editing needed
to be done, this is the section I would have removed. It *is making a
more explicit anti-Christian statement (but not pro-atheism per se) that
is not necessary for clarity.

[little snip]

In editing out his experiences with the lies of creationism
(one of those 'nonsense' religious beliefs you're so
protective of :), some of the negative costs of creationism is
lost. The costs of creationism are more than just damage to
education, you know.

Arguments on
- fixed earth vs gravity/relativity
- germ theory vs casting out of demons
- light from distant galaxies vs recent creation

are ones I frequently make to show that the bible is not a
science book or that it must be interpreted. No one here, least
of all me, is trying to "protect" creationists (as distinguished
from Christians in general) from their nonsensical beliefs.

Please note the use of emoticons. They are included in written
communtications to help convey emotional content that is usually present
in face-to-face conversations. I don't actually think that you want to
defend silly creationist beliefs.


For some of the individuals that can be eventually convinced
to accept the findings of science, the first step to critical
thinking might not come from seeing the positive evidence *for
evolution (because the blinkers are too firmly seated), but
from seeing the negative effects of blind creationism. (For
example, driving people like me & Mark Nutter from their
religion with their lies & intolerance). IIRC there have been
one or two people (posting to TO) who have stated that this
was an initial or deciding influence in changing their views.

I have no problem with any of the above (except that I oppose
calling creationists "liars" because they KNOW they are not
lying [which is intentional misrepresentation]; I prefer
misguided, misinformed etc).

On your second point, you know better than I since both you and
Mark Nutter contributed to this POTM:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov02.html

Apparently you missed my point. Different things may be the tipping
point for different people in their realization that creationism isn't
the "truth". That tipping point may not always be just the facts wrt
evolution. What may open their eyes is finding out that other people
once held creationist views & then found out that those views were not
factual.

I personally thought that Mark's last paragraph was a fairly powerful
example of that:

start quote
**********************************************
"Ouachita wrote:
I took a long look at as much "evidence" as I could find. I also brought
problems upon myself in college for daring to question things that
should be subjected to questioning. You accept the widely accepted
belief system or go outside the circle.

Mark Nutter wrote:
Yeah, been there, done that. I learned evolution in high school, then
accepted Christ and went to a conservative, evangelical Christian
college and "discovered" creationism (Henry Morris, John C. Whitcomb,
Duane Gish, etc). I studied everything the creationists were saying
about evolution, and all the quotes they quoted from evolutionists, and
concluded that evolution was a religion, a belief system, rooted in
godlessness and contrary to sound science. But I took it a step further.
I went to the first-hand sources and learned what the evolutionists were
actually saying.

The evolutionists (including the theistic evolutionists) are telling the
truth about evolution. You would do well to pay attention to them, and
to not let yourself be led astray by narrow-minded creationists. Giving
species the ability to adapt to changing conditions is a wise and
well-engineered design; a Creator would have to be fairly stupid (for a
creator) to handicap His creatures with an inflexible genetic system
that would guarantee their extinction as soon as the climate changed or
the competition heated up. So how smart is your God really?"
***********************************************
end quote

I thought Mark's experience was a powerful indictment of creationism, as
was his point about how intelligent is the God the creationists tout. An
intelligent Creator would have made sure his creations could adapt. Now
this is buried in google.groups.

[big snip]

If the scientific/evolutionary wagon is tied to an atheistic
horse we will not be encouraging Christians to be more open
to science, we will make them more hostile.

It is the fundamentalist, literalist Christians (& Muslims, et
al.) who have, principally, done the tieing (sp?).

I can't spell worth piss, so I went to the Google search box
and typed: "Define: tying" and it returned: "Did you mean:
'define: tying'".

I think we need to address the misconceptions head-on, not
cat-foot around them or edit them out because they aren't
perfectly composed.

If you are asserting here that we can actually convince
creationists that evolution is true by telling them that they
need to accept (or even are at risk of accepting) atheism in
order to deal with their misconceptions, this just isn't
going to work.

Any book that describes how to convince people to adopt some
new position will tell you that you must convince them that
most of their existing beliefs and interests are compatible
with the new beliefs you are trying to convince them to accept.

Even the Catholic Church used this method when converting the
natives of South America, and before that Europeans. The
alternative is the traditional Muslim practice of giving the
unbeliever a choice between conversion or death. (Ya I know,
the Catholics did that too.)

Unfortunately, the truth is that anyone who is deeply involved in a
creationist, fundamentalist church WILL have to either walk away from
that church, fight an inside (probably losing) battle in that church,
&/or keep quiet about their change of mind. Creationism IS a religious
belief. The leaders of this religious movement have made anti-science
one of the pillars of the religion (along with anti-gay & anti-abortion
& anti-seperation of church/state stands and now anti-global
warming-which is anti-science at its heart). We ARE asking them to give
up some of their religious beliefs & they know it (at least
sub-consciously if nothing else).

I agree, though, that we shouldn't tout atheism (or any religion for
that matter) as an alternative. A persons religious beliefs are their
own business. The only reason atheism comes up is because they bring it
up. You don't like the way Mark handled the conflation. I don't see a
big problem with what he said. It's also not a REALLY big problem that
Mark's remarks were edited out. As you say, the issue is covered in
depth in other posts & other articles in the archive.


For this reason, most people here whose primary interest is
in defending science education avoid open hostility to
expressions of religious faith.

Friar, creationism is an expression of religious faith,
whether those espousing it realize it or not. We here at TO
are often openly hostile to creationism. We are also often
openly hostile to those who express intolerance, bigotry, &
general idiocy in the name of their religion. That doesn't
mean we aren't still primarily (or maybe only secondarily :)
interested in defending science education.

One size does not fit all. People who act arrogantly are
(often) treated with scant courtesy. People who are polite are
(usually) treated pretty well. That's been my experience
anyway.

For the most part I agree with your statement above, however
that statement does not (in my view) deal with the intent of my
comment which was:

An expression of support for atheism is a clear (if implicit)
expression of hostility to Christianity. Tying beliefs hostile
to Christianity to evolution will drive christians away from an
acceptance of evolution.

I agree that we should not be bringing atheism or religion into the
discussion unless it's unavoidable. Not because people shouldn't discuss
such things, but because that isn't the reason we have the Archive or
hang out here at t.o. We want to present the facts about evolution.

What we disagree about is the extent to which Mark's post unneccessarily
brought atheism into the discussion. You think he was 'preaching'
atheism, I disagree. I don't think he did that bad of a job of handling
the conflation of evolution & atheism, you disagree. So be it.



[big snip]


Thanks, I already knew how to do this. My concern (not well
expressed, I realize) is that posts which have been edited for
content (not just typos & punctuation), like Mark's post,
should be clearly identified as such. Someone reading the PotM
should be informed that there was more information in the
initial post that they could pursue if they wanted.

This point indirectly raises a lot of messy issues, and
although I accept that I might be wrong, I do not share your
view. As I see it, the POTM has two primary purposes:

1) To encourage people to present high quality posts, and by
extension to encourage people who can and do write such
posts to stick around.

2) To present real world example arguments that can be used by
others to defeat the many silly creationist arguments. As
well, people may, and sometimes do, point creationists
directly at those posts.

I readily acknowledge that chopping up the contents of a
winner's post is likely to work against the first objective,
however, if the bits removed are fundamentally flawed (as well
as irrelevant to the core argument), as I believe those bits
were, then the chopping clearly assists in achieving the second
objective.

I don't agree that parts of Mark's post were either preaching atheism or
stating that no brand of theism is compatible with evolution. I think
part of what was edited out was relevant to the core argument (that a
former creationist, when he investigated the claims of creationism,
found them to be lies). I do see that one section was an explicit shot
at Christianity (at least some forms of it) & could have been edited to
prevent distraction from the relevant arguments. I don't think we are
going to convince each other any further.

You're the only one, AFAIK, that has stated that parts of Mark's post
were 'fundamentally flawed". In the original vote, in the discussion you
started after the original vote in 2007 & in the vote that was just
taken: no flaw was mentioned in the original nomination & vote, no one
else agreed with your stand (in the previous discussion) or, since your
reasons for editing his post were unstated in the current vote, there
was no discussion of flaws and no one else brought up this flaw in the
post when they voted. The vote barely went your way. So I don't think
I'm the only one who thought the original post was acceptable as is.

I would like to respectfully suggest that, in future, you tell people if
you have a philosophical disagreement with a post when you edit it for
content so there can be a discussion. I also suggest that a link to the
original post from the edited post be added for clarity & to be
completely straightforward wrt Mark's statements.


Sorry for being so pig headed on this issue
But a guy's got to be true to his real self.

Same goes. I think we've talked this to death & will have to agree to
disagree, at least in part.

I want to restate that I think you are doing a great job with the POTM &
don't want you to take anything I've said as some blanket criticism. I
happen to disagree with you about this post & some of your reasoning
(not all, though).

[sigsnip]

HTH, HAND

--
My 2¢ ß-}

June
To email me replace 'go' with 'ville' and remove the .spam.jam

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Virginia: Chesterfield School Board takes up debate on different theories of life.
    ... broken record rant describing theories which say God created reality. ... evolution is justified by the evidence, ... "scientific creationism" was not really scientific. ... If God exists then He has to be ultimately responsible for eveything. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genius of Charles Darwin
    ... propaganda than science. ... Tell you what, Ray, summarize the theory of evolution (as advanced by ... precisely where it denies the existence of God or gods.- Hide quoted text - ... Atheism claims of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Genius of Charles Darwin
    ... Tell you what, Ray, summarize the theory of evolution (as advanced by ... precisely where it denies the existence of God or gods.- Hide quoted text - ... pro-Atheism claims of evolution must be denied so that Christian ... Atheism claims of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
    ... never walked on the moon. ... the parallels with creationism are remarkable. ... a place for intelligent design in the evolution of life. ... Francis Collins on "BioLogos" seems to be claiming that God cleverly ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Only True Creationists....
    ... or descent as we understand the concepts since Darwin. ... and he used evolution as his means of creation. ... Evolution is not "pro atheism", not is it anti atheism, or makes any ... Creationism involves looking away, and not ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading