In the United States, opposition to the teaching of evolution in public schools has largely been fuelled by the religious right, particularly Protestant fundamentalism.
Now another voice is entering the debate, in dramatic fashion. He is Adnan Oktar, from Turkey, who under the name Harun Yahya has produced numerous books. One of his books, Atlas Of Creation, is turning up unsolicited in the mailboxes of scientists and members of the US Congress, and at science museums around the country.
The lavishly illustrated 800-page book is one of the most significant creationist challenges to Charles Darwin’s theory, which Yahya calls a feeble and perverted ideology contradicted by the Koran.
Kevin Padian, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, who, like colleagues there, found a copy in his mailbox, said people who had received copies were “just astounded at its size and production values and equally astonished at what a load of crap it is.”
Sadly – as there is for most of the dross printed and distributed as revealed knowledge – there will be True Believers waiting in line to join the march backwards to True Ignorance.
[edit: oops!]
Ooops, I pasted comment #34 for another thread. Editor, if you please, as this is totally irrelevant to the discussion, … What I meant to post is:
#25, David
Very good point. Actually, two very well made points.
Ben, you certainly present yourself as engagingly open to new ideas, yet still proclaim yourself “religious” in some non-standard way.
Bobbo (and others):
I wouldn’t really say that I am religious in some non-standard way. I believe that many people on here have a tainted view or what being religious means. I think you will find that most religious people are actually open to new ideas, are very much interested in exploring new ideas and gaining a deeper understand of everything, including their own religiosity. The Jesuits (also known as the Society of Jesus) are a well known Roman Catholic order that study for 12 years before they start engaging in any priestly activities. Many Baptists spend a lot of time in study, starting with a deep study of the Bible then moving onto other things. There was an Anglican bishop (can’t remember where now) who urged all his congregation to spent time during lent reading the Koran to gain a deeper understanding of other religions. I know seen likes that religious types of a bunch crack-pots hell bent on teaching creationism, but its not actually the case. There certainly are a lot of crack pots, and unfortunately these types tend to be most heard (probably because they make the best headlines), but that doesn’t mean everyone with a religious inkling is half-baked.
I have talked a fair bit recently on this blog (I really need to get another hobby) in a few topics about tolerating religious views and haven’t taken up any of the argument for people saying “ya, but the whole idea of God is a bunch of bollocks”. The reason for this is simple: I have no argument to prove that God exists. My own faith is based more on a gut feeling than anything else. It well be my own subconscious playing tricks on me, I could be a nut-job in denial, I don’t know what it is, but I have a compulsion towards the idea that there is a God even though I can’t pin point what this ‘God’ is. Maybe the God is a bacteria, maybe the God is some form of collective conciousnes, I really can’t tell you. All I can say is that over the years of thinking about God and trying finds way of understanding this compulsion I’ve found that reading through various writings of mystics and religious writers through the ages, from people like Thomas A Kempis in medieval times to the more modern CS Lewis, and through my involvement in various churches etc, I’ve come to believe that others, like me, have had very similar views. It may be worth noting here that neither of my parents where religious and non of the places I grew up in where particular religious.
It seems that I ‘gell’ more with Christians than any other religion I’ve encountered, although I couldn’t say that I’d think Christianity is any better than other religion. Its just the religion has best helped me understand what this whole God thing is all about.
So its all fine and dandy to say ‘well logically’ etc etc etc or ‘there is no proof’ when talking about God, but all that really says to me is that there may be some proof that something I don’t really understand and cannot really define doesn’t seem to be able to exists because its not demonstratable. That just doesn’t help me explain to myself why I feel like there is some sort of ‘thing’ out there that calls itself God and has some sort of control. Hell, as far I know, maybe its just some telepathic alien having a joke or a neurological disorder.
The respect for other people’s beliefs that I talk about, isn’t having to accept that there is a God, or anything of the like (I am sure if it was that important to him, he’d appear to you as a burning bush that doesn’t burn or something equally impressive), its simply respecting that what to you seems like the Great Speghitti Monster in the Sky to someone religious is something different. Fair enough if you think I am nut job, but if I take the time to listen to what you are saying, I may well see that your repulsion to even the vaguest notion of God makes sense especially when I consider that all you’ve probably ever seen of religion is kiddie fiddling priests, money grabbing tele-evangelists and anti-science basket cases, on the other hand, I think if you take the time to try and at least fathom why someone holds a religious belief you may find that not all religious folks are wackos and that while this may not change your view the very notion of god is stupid, you may at least understand what motivates people to be religious and see that it isn’t just reassure dogma or having a faith that is “believing in something you know doesn’t exists” (as Lisa Simpson once said).
F**k me, I really gotta start watching TV or doing else rather than writing hugely long epistles on a blog site…
-Ben.
Sounds like this thread could be closed by everyone reading the book “American Fascists” by Chris Hedges. It really does explain a lot about the Christian movement in America. As soon as everyone in the world realizes the truth – that we are all just a bunch of chemicals that randomly assembled – the sooner we can get to the real issues like how to make sure the human race doesn’t destroy itself.
#30 – I agree. People who think God can affect the world should just pray every time they are sick INSTEAD of going to the doctor. Only when they see that God can’t help them will they finally realize the truth.
36–So, Ben, you are in the religion of the “gut feel?”– – -Like I said==non standard. BUT, I may be tripping up on the valid distinctions between god thoughts and religion and even organized religion?
I’m not interested enough to try and parse thru those distinctions as they mean little to me==all lumped together in the supernatural, non-pragmatic, nonsensical side of the ledger. Were your notions the actual fruits of thinking, or rather the product of thinking about feelings,? A fine line==or not, depending on what process you are actually engaged in.
I keep telling myself to copy and paste anything I find good, but all I do is copy and paste what other people post. Still, not hard to copy and paste any post over one paragraph? It could even substitute as a kind of diary, journal of progress, notes on being stuck?
#33 I humbly stand by my postulation that religion and mysticism are theories lacking supporting evidence. Perhaps I should have said “lacking CURRENT supporting evidence.”
In your statement:
“Lacking supporting evidence, religions, mysticisms, etc, fail to be theories in the scientific definition of the word. There is no class of phenomena that they explain.”
Sorry to disagree but this is EXACTLY how religions and mysticism were developed by ancient man in attempting to explain observational phenomena in their world hundreds and thousands of years ago.
Scientific study overturned the basic tenets of the physical world from religious dogma. Therefore one theory of the makeup of the physical world based on observational evidence within a framework of understanding at the time was overthrown by another theory based on a better understanding of science which further defined the makeup of the physical world.
Regarding the nature of light for years it was understood that light exists as waves or particles depending on how it was observed. Currently there is no universally accepted theory of how a SINGLE photon emitted at a time can interfere with itself passing through the dual slit experiment demonstrating light interference patterns. The jury is well an truly still out on that.
There is also the conundrum of how two (entangled) photons can instantaneously pass information of direction of spin between themselves regardless of the distance in apparent defilement of the speed of light. Is the speed of light not absolute or does it not play a role in this? Is what we observe in our three dimensional world something that occurs in a multi-dimensional universe?
Current theory that our observational universe is merely a three dimensional ‘shadow’ of a multi-dimensional reality. A shadow metaphor is used as it is easy to demonstrate how a three dimensional object can easily project a two dimensional shadow. For entities who live in a two dimensional universe it would be impossible for them to completely explain the observed two dimensional ‘objects’ which are shadows cast by three dimensional objects.
The more we learn the more we need to learn.
The universe was simple to understand when it was comprised of only atoms. When atoms were found to be comprised of three particles (Proton, Neutron & Electron) things became more complicated but understandable. When it was found that even these basic atomic building blocks are not basic with the discovery of quarks everything became more complex and so on. How does one explain how our entire universe exploded from an infinitely small singularity – smaller than atom?
Matter is energy, energy is matter. Our entire universe is simply an illusion, a shadow, created by our brains from the stimulation of our senses just as real and tangible to us as light and colour but still an illusion.
The Red pill or Blue pill? 😉
Cheers
#36 Ben there is certainly no need to explain how or why you have a connection to any religion. These sorts of religious ‘gut feelings’ are natural and I have always defended people’s rights to follow their feelings as long as they don’t attempt to change or otherwise influence my feelings.
Religion is a personal experience and if someone feels solace in prayer in whatever form who has the right to deny that person this?
The problems arise from people who take it upon themselves to be religious arbitrators – which God is the only God and so on.
It is interesting to observe that all religions have distinct subsets of the fundamental tenet with no agreement between them. Catholics, Protestants, Lutheran, Church or England, Baptists and so on as an example. Islam is the same as well as Buddhists and Judaism and many more. One might say God needs a new marketing plan. 😉
What happened in Kansas is a good example of what is wrong with the system. If the Kansas school board is compelled schools to teach Intelligent Design (Creation) then it must teach ALL creation dogma not only pick one. If this happens what then of the separation of the church and state as a fundamental foundation of society? This is why creationists have lobbied that it is not religious dogma but another scientific theory. (Lawyers…)
This is what I believe has raised everyone’s ire. Creation dogma has no place in non-denominational state schools which teaches scientific creation theories. Students are free to make their own choice of creation dogma to augment scientific theories. If this so worries certain religious social groups of what their children are taught then it is clear they ought to enroll them in schools representative of their religion.
Religious schools need to conform to certain scholastic standards as set out by society so science is still taught. This is nature of a free society with a clear separation of the church and state. Unless America becomes a theocracy like Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Ben, if it religion feels right for you and you don’t impinge on other’s beliefs or rights then be happy and at peace. The world would be a better place if everyone could do this.
Cheers
PS: Yes I agree that I as you need watch more TV LOL!
#31, THIZ_HO, The expansion of the universe is one – it was understood that the universe is expanding at a uniform steady state with evidence to support it (Einstein being one supporter). Along comes Erwin Hubble and oops there goes the steady state theory
1) Einstein inserted the cosmological constant in relativity theory at the time because he and others believed the universe was not expanding. He later rejected it, calling it his greatest mistake.
2) It’s Edwin Hubble, not Erwin Hubble
3) It was Milton Humason who discovered the redshift at Mt. Wilson, not Hubble. Hubble formulated his famous “Hubble’s Law” based on and assisted by the research of Humason. Most references are to the Hubble-Humason redshift.
4) As for the oceans of Mars, recent evidence provided by Mars Global Explorer and ESA’s Mars Express show that they could be locked in the polar ice caps and near the surface in other locations.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=10756
5) EM radiation exists. Color is an artifact of the human eye. The duality wave / particle of EM radiation exists. Einstein formulated the first theories in his “Photoelectric Effect” papers.
http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/waveparticle.htm
Theories work well enough for me to be typing this on a bunch of interwebitubes in living color. Just setting the facts straight.
#41BubbaRay
Ooookay…
1) Was I wrong? He did believed one way and then another.
2) Typo – sorry, mea culpa.
3) Yes, but popular understanding is Hubble is connected to the red shift of the Hydrogen Lyman lines by his measurement of Cepheid Variable Stars in nearby galaxies (where their period is directly related to intrinsic brightness) where upon he developed his “Hubble Constant”. (which is under review) The Hubble Space Telescope is named thusly as its mission is to peer back to the beginning of the universe – or there abouts.
4) MARS: The line of dichotomy separates the lightly cratered northern low lands from the densely cratered southern high lands and is where a vast Martian ocean may have been located – as postulated by some.
There are several theories of what has caused these two distinct geographic features. One is there was an ocean up north so this is why it is not so cratered and it is roughly 5kms lower from datum.
Another is that Hellas basin in the south, a very large impact crater, caused the Tharsis bulge (which is at an antipodal position) and the Valles Marineris canyon system – a bursting of the seams. This impact is said by some to have knocked of 5km of crust from the north thus creating the northern low lands and shifted Mars on its axis. Phobos and Demos are said to be the last of the vast amount of material thrown into obit from the flayed northern crust. Evidence of oval impact cratering not concurrent with the present orbital axis is offered as evidence.
There is still no consensus that Mars had at any time stable oceans or even more than skin of water which was quickly lost.
The rovers on Mars has shown evidence of sedimentary layering but the causes – water or deposition of debris from impacts – is still debated. The existence of some forms of iron hydrides suggest a wet Mars as this is how they are formed on Earth but it is still not conclusive.
6) I never said the EM radiation does not exist. What I said it until now its nature is still debated. Colour IS NOT an artifact of the human eye. Instead colour exists as an interpretation by our brain of the three receptors sensitive to low middle and high wavelengths RED, GREEN and BLUE (RGB) that we have in our eyes.
I did say that not knowing the technology making up a motor car does not prevent its operation.
Hey BubbaRay, I also like setting the facts straight.but stopped short of writing a thesis (though almost) 😉
I got to get back to work…LOL
Cheers!
PS: An I thought this blog would be all about computer geek stuff! LOL
#39, TIHZ_HO, Our entire universe is simply an illusion, a shadow, created by our brains from the stimulation of our senses just as real and tangible to us as light and colour but still an illusion.
Interesting hypothesis. Any supporting data from peer-reviewed sources? Oh, boy! Metaphysics!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/
[completely off topic]
There is still no consensus that Mars had at any time stable oceans or even more than skin of water which was quickly lost. True. We need more data, but there’s a lot of water in those polar caps. (Nice summary on Martian data, BTW)
Colour IS NOT an artifact of the human eye. Since the optic nerve and retina are extensions of the brain, we’re arguing semantics. OK, your interpretation is valid. “Color” is just wavelength interpreted by the eye / brain.
I still maintain Humason deserves much credit for discovering galactic redshifts with his spectroscopy, and Hubble did, as you say, verify it with the standard candle of Cepheid variables. That’s why it’s the Hubble-Humason redshift. That’s when Einstein said (referring to the cosmological constant) “It was my greatest mistake.”
Don’t preach to the choir, go tell “Man of Leisure” that astronomy / cosmology isn’t boring.
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=12749#comment-718887
“If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it” — John Wheeler
TIHZ_HO (multiple posts),
For someone who has read as much science as you obviously have, you have missed some serious points.
1) Religion does not help to explain things in the way that science does. Rather than starting from data and devising theories, religion starts from assertions and seeks believers. It makes no attempt to actually improve our knowledge of the world. It may be true that it came about as an attempt to explain the inexplicable, but has long since ceased to be that. In fact, it failed to be that the minute that it no longer allowed questioning.
2) Science can explain a great many things. Science can even make use of such bizarre but well proven theories as quantum theory to produce the semiconductors in use by the computer on which you are reading this. Science may never be able to explain everything. Science may never achieve a total understanding of the universe, including the interactions of photons. This is not a supporting statement for religion. This does not mean that god watches every photon to tell it how to behave. Sometimes, the right answer given currently available information is to say “I don’t know.” The idea that any missing information should be filled by god is called “god of the gaps.” Many religious people reject the god of the gaps philosophy as it means that every time science learns the answer to something new, god shrinks.
3) Being unable to disprove a so-called theory does not make it a theory. You really do need to watch the differences in the definitions of the word theory. An hypothesis with no supporting data is not a theory. If it is, then I have a theory that I have an invisible, cold-fire breathing dragon living in my apartment. Since he is both cold blooded and breathes cold fire, he cannot be detected through infrared mechanisms. He is also massless, so causes no disturbance in the air flow as he beats his wings. In fact, he cannot be detected at all. I just know he’s there. Will you admit that this is as coherent a so-called theory as religion? I have deliberately set the conditions to be identical. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of my dragon. He also offers nothing in the way of explaining any phenomenon at all, just like religion. Is this a scientific theory?
[off topic]
#45, Scott, you’ve got one of those darned dragons too? Mine keeps moving my wallet and keys around and continues to scare the cats.
My hypothesis is that I’ve no short-term memory and my pets are just freaky. I’ll let you know about my theory shortly. 🙂
#46 – BubbaRay,
My dragon is more well-behaved than that, hence totally undetectable. He does not explain any phenomenon at all. He just makes me feel good with his mostly unconditional love. But, man does he get pissed if I attempt to deny his existence …
#43 / 44 BubbaRay
LOL I didn’t intend to preach to the choir!
Regarding “Our entire universe is simply an illusion, a shadow, created by our brains from the stimulation of our senses just as real and tangible to us as light and colour but still an illusion.”
The classic disembodied brain in a jar. LOL I am not going to even go there – not tonight work is piling up.
#45 Misanthropic Scott
I do not believe I have missed the points you suggest that I have.
Well entrained culture, behavior and beliefs can not be easily dismissed. Religion has endured even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I think it is correct to say the general public does not desire to think about such things but rather have it in a shrink wrapped, easy to follow form. Those who have lost their faith have questioned too much. Not everyone has the desire to become scientists to understand the world around them – its just too much like work.
Religion developed, I say again, from the need to explain the observable world consistent with their level of understanding at the time – primitives. Over time religious dogma did not keep pace with an increased level of physical understanding of the observational world. To paraphrase Tevye from Fiddler on a Roof “Where would we be without traditions? Some are able to dismiss traditions and faith – many do not. So what shall we do – force them too?
3) Yes I see that point. If your dragon does nothing then that is not any explanation for anything – just like God. However BubbaRay says that this is the very same dragon who scares his cats and loses his keys but there still isn’t any evidence to reason that it must be a dragon – unless drugs were involved – Bubba?? Therefore is this an example of how primitive people developed explanations to things they didn’t understand?
In the movie Castaway one can see how a relationship between an inanimate object (a volley ball) develops with our hapless castaway. When all the attempts of creating fire failed it wasn’t until the volley ball which had bloodied palm print which resembled a fire was in attendance that the last attempt at creating fire was successful. We all can see it is a coincidence but to someone in that situation devoid of human contact yearning for companionship the volley ball began to fill the void. I know this was only a movie but it still nicely illustrates human psychology. Don’t forget that trances and drugs played a very important role in primitive people tuning in to spiritualism. It has been reasoned that the uses of drugs and trances were the progenitors for the concept of spirits and the soul.
I see by these posts that it is quite early in the morning so if I might inquire what part of the world are you gentlemen residing? I am in Shanghai, China and it is 9:40 pm.
Cheers
PS Please excuse any typos…
#48 – TIHZ_HO,
My prior post was 6:48AM New York time.
I do not dismiss all that you say about religion. I merely dismiss any attempt to put religion on the same level as science. Scientific theories are well founded on real evidence. Religion is founded on conjecture with no supporting evidence.
Any attempt to equate the two either deliberately or inadvertently furthers a cause I would like to squash like a bug. (Actually, I don’t particularly like squashing bugs. I normally try to evict them from my home without harming them.)
The cause that is furthered by any attempt to put religion and science on equal footing is that of teaching religion in school alongside science. This is a cause with a large and very vocal and powerful minority lobbying heavily in this country.
The obvious problems with teaching these side by side is that even if you teach all that science has learned it becomes physically impossible to actually teach what science is. The scientific method cannot be taught alongside religion with the two as equally valid ways to interrogate the universe for information about its innermost workings.
Religion, by its very nature, forbids the asking of such questions, as evidenced by this blog thread. Many of the most religious individuals in the world are not only fighting against asking questions to determine the workings of the universe, they want to actively repeal the questions and answers that we already have. That is what this thread is all about.
So, spiritualism may have a place for inner soul searching. It may even have a place in the science of the brain. I believe many Eastern philosophies and religions have gone further into researching the workings of the human mind than Western psychology. Current scientific studies of the brain using brain imaging have taught us a lot about the workings of the brain and the function of Eastern philosophies and meditation.
But, spirituality has not produced a single bit of knowledge about the workings of the universe at either the very large or the very small scale or about biological evolution or a host of other sciences. So, regardless of numbers of believers or anything else, religion is not on the same footing as science. When billions of flies eat shit, I need not follow.
So, no, I would not force the masses to throw away their religions. But, I would provide them with an adequate education including the knowledge of the scientific method and many of the subjects it has given us. Do you have a problem with schools requiring classes like biology, chemistry, and physics? Do you think that if taught adequately, people will at least understand what is different about science? In this country, many people quite literally cannot tell the difference between science and intelligent design. I view this as a huge failing in our educational system.
#50 – Ben Waymark,
I think what is particularly important is that religious groups who don’t believe in creationism start making more noise and giving more opposition. At the moment the creationism argument is creating a real sense of tension between science and religion where there really doesn’t need to be.
That would be nice. Currently, with nontheists being a small minority in the U.S. and the least respected minority at that, we have to rely on groups like the ACLU, which is somehow viewed as an ultraliberal fringe group despite the fact that their sole charter is to uphold and defend the constitution and younger smaller groups like this one:
http://ffrf.org/
What more worrying, is that teaching creationism is no longer something that our ‘funny cousins across the Atlantic’ do, it has slowly (and explicitly) found its way into the British educate system too.
On behalf of the U.S., I apologize first for giving you McDonald’s and now for giving you unintelligent design.
Why it is that British Prime Ministers are so friendly with your Presidents? Do we owe you money or something 😀 .
I don’t know. But, if we can dredge up the tea in our harbor, drink it, and pay our taxes on it, can we get in on your medical system?
Sounds like France has some very good ideas (and another really good medical system). Too bad they’re starting to get overrun by their own loud fanatical fundamentalist minority just like we are in the U.S.
I think it’s all due to a misunderstanding or mistranslation. It wasn’t “be fruitful and multiply”. It was supposed to be, “be useful and multiplex.”
#48, TIHZ, Too late again to post, maybe you’ll read this. Even crazy guys with telescopes should have a diversion or two while the photons are collected and stacked. I’m in CDT zone in TX.
To quote Frank Zappa from SNL, ca. the 70’s, “I don’t do drugs, I don’t like the effects it has on some people” Ironically, it was spoken to John Belushi.
Er, the dragon comment was a joke….. And Scott’s reply was on the money. Scott’s the religion expert, not me.
Well actually this is a very, very good thing — because now the heretofore so-called “creationists” will need to clarify that they are Christians pushing a Christian agenda, so that they are not confused with Muslims.
I hope this guy keeps up the good work. The thought have watching theologians count the number angels on the head of a pin thrills me.
BubbaRay,
I knew it was a joke. I’m just the kind of guy that answers rhetorical questions and continues silly trains of thought to their logical complete lack of conclusions.
#49 Misanthropic Scott
LOL! you got me ALL wrong!
Obviously there has been a significant misunderstanding. Semantics me thinks..
My attempt to illuminate the genesis of religions for a better understanding of how they endured to the present even in face of evidence to the contrary has failed.
What I have been saying and defending is that for ancient primitive people their ‘science’ was religion and not that religion is a science.
Ancient primitive people observed a phenomenon(s) which they could not understand and so postulated a ‘theory’ of the existence of God(s) and mysticism. Upon ‘experimentation’ over years and generations these ‘theories’ appeared to be ‘proven’ especially with help from tricks and props from those wanting to help God convert the masses.
Religion pervaded all aspects of life for these people. When to plant, when to harvest, what they should eat, birth, death, lifestyle, science etc. In life there existed no line of demarcation from religious an nonreligious views. A excellent example is the forbiddance of certain foods based on religious beliefs. With no refrigeration and knowledge of parasites and bacteria hygiene was in God’s ward.
Slowly as the understanding of the observational world could be explained without the need of spirits and miracles religion shifted from its seat of all governance to the role of spiritual guidance.
I believe modern society is still in a transition from religion. Beliefs and traditions which developed over thousands of years infiltrating every aspect of life cannot be discarded in a blink of an eye.
In my life time I can recall how blacks in America where not allowed access to white only areas and racial hatred governed many people’s lives. The civil war and slavery ended many generations ago so how was it possible for beliefs from that era able to endure to the present? It was passed down from generation to generation – even today for some.
Global society is not homogeneous as a cursory glance through a copy of National Geographic demonstrates. People are still governed by beliefs and religions and they clash with modern society such as in Afghanistan and Africa.
Over time perhaps another thousand years or so society at large may view our society and religion with curious eyes as we do now with other ancient societies and beliefs.
Bad news – it seems ‘squashing this bug’ may take some time. 😉
Cheers