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.
Lets see? Maybe we should create a list of all the identifiable religions with a matrix as to what their mainstream belief is and what their flako extremes think?
Take Catholics. My impression is that they accept old earth but not evolution? Is an unsupportable contradiction better than just pure opposition? And being Pope driven, there is no extreme faction of the Church right? Its just what the Pope says??
Hindus–earth from the regurgitations of a crow ((or whatever)) doesn’t sound consistent with modern science, but in its deeper appreciation, how does it view evolution?
And so forth.
#1 – dude, drink less coffee, read more books.
A religion by definition is irrational so why go to all the trouble of building a matrix? The difference between religious loonies is just a matter of degree. You might as well have a color coded danger list. Hey, wait, that sounds a familiar …
2–You know the downside of a book is its not interactive. Calling for book reading usually means you think there is a lack of knowledge? What books do you think I should read?
3–The Matrix would just be an exercise. While all religions share commonalities, they also differ. Helps to know what one is dealing with and with so many varieties, its hard to keep them straight without a score card. I guess we ought to do “The Mormons” pretty quickly. A “modern birth” of a religion. It would be interesting, if it weren’t religion.
I’ve often wondered how much all the anti-creation rantings are based simply on the premise of being anti-religion due to religion’s apparent conceit, smugness, arrogance, bad press, abuses, etc…
and
how much of the anti-creation rantings are due to an actual weighing of the evolutionary evidence or, alternatively, blind faith in the scientists who say they know.
RBG
Sounds like a damn good idea to me. I for one an sick of everyone assuming that just because you believe in God or have a religion who are creationist gay-hating nut cake.
I believe the Catholic church accepts Darwinism as a legitimate theory ( http://tinyurl.com/29gk47 ), as does the Church of England (see: http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=958&id=448232006). I’d assume that all the other dominations don’t have a solid theological position but would probably believe that its a question that the individual person to decide what they believe in. As far as I understand Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism there is no conflict between Darwinism and those faiths. Haven’t a clue what the Sheik or Muslim view is. Haven’t known that many neo-pagan types who believe their mythology supersedes scientific inquiry.
It seems to me that there is but a small group of nut jobs that really believe in creationism….. the only real issue is that these nut jobs seem to enjoy some very comfortable positions in American politics….
5.
That is actually a good point. Alot of people who believe in evolution are almost as bad as creationists. Alot of the times its just Bible bashers Vs Biology textbook bashers.
there will be True Believers waiting in line to join the march backwards to True Ignorance.
Just imagine if these nutballs ever took over the planet. Civilization would be thrown back into a abyss that would rival the dark ages of Europe.
If you are really interested in seeing the similarities between many of the world’s religions Joseph Campbell did an interesting book called The Power of Myth ( http://tinyurl.com/5x5hk ) where he talks with Bill Moyers (a journalist) about his research into exactly that. An interesting read and aimed for the ‘general public’ so you don’t have to have any real understanding of religion before you read it.
6&9–Ben, I got very lazy and didn’t want to look it up. To accept evolution is pretty much to make Adam and Eve a parable? I hazily didn’t think the Pope had gone that far. Still, the Catholics are becoming pretty corrupted in compromizing their dogma with the rational world?
The Bill Moyers discussions with Bill Campbell was one of the few relgiious programs I could not tolerate. Another was Bill Buckley with Malcolm Mugeridge. Gobbledegook piled on top of itself.
I wonder if the reason you like it and the reason I don’t is exactly the same?—-Why did you like it?
I’ve often wondered how much all the anti-creation rantings are based simply on the premise of being anti-religion and how much of the anti-creation rantings are due to an actual weighing of the evolutionary evidence
Good question.
In fact, 3.6% bash creationism based on knee-jerk hatred of smug religious self-satisfaction, 94.2% bash creationism based on thoughfully weighing the uncontested evidence, and the balance just bash everything.
#5 – bobbo,
I can’t speak for antitheists as a group, but can tell you my reasons for rejecting any and all religious teachings and further, for being outspoken against theism as a whole. For me, there are actually a large number of reasons including, but not limited to:
1) Lots of reading on evolution and what it really means, including its non-predictability and near total lack of directionality. There may be a slight directionality toward simplicity of organisms due to the large number of parasites that lose many of their own organs.
2) Lots of reading on cosmology and the evolution of the universe (very different that biological evolution, of course).
3) Lots of reading about theoretical physics.
(Note: all of the above at the level of general audience. I do not claim to be any form of practicing scientist.)
4) An in depth reading of the first N books of the bible years ago that convinced me that not only was it wholly inconsistent, but that such a god, if s/he actually existed would be unworthy of my worship.
5) Enough knowledge of history to recognize that the inherent purpose of and net effect of religion is violent and antithetical to a moral way of life.
6) Experience around chimps, gorillas, and other animals in the wild into whose eyes I have looked and felt clear affinity. Though this is not science by any stretch, it is what gives me not only the knowledge from reading that evolution is correct and makes perfect scientific sense and it proven, but has also given me a deep emotional feeling that these are indeed my cousins. Please note that the former logical conclusion came first. The latter emotions came only when I could afford the type of travel that would get me to see so many relatives of varying affinity in the wild.
7) I am deeply disturbed by the divisiveness inherent in religion, as perfectly embodied in the term sectarian. Religion divides people into Us and Them giving hugely different moral standards to members of the ingroup versus the outgroup, nearly always making it OK to kill Them. I find this abhorrent.
8) The inconsistency in having to choose one particular religious world view when all of the above make equally little (i.e. zero) sense.
9) An ability to admit that there are things I don’t know. I do not need to explain the gaps by inserting some mythical deity.
10) A recognition that death is not the worst thing that can happen to me and a willingness to accept that after my death, I will feel exactly the way I did prior to my conception, i.e. nonexistent.
11) A recognition that rejection the existence of a deity due to a complete lack of evidence is no different than rejecting the tooth fairy and the great pumpkin for the same reason. This one took me the longest to realize. I remained a reformed agnostic for many years before realizing that atheism was not an assertion that there is no god but an assertion that with zero evidence, god need be given no credence. Should evidence appear, I can change my mind about god. This does not make one an agnostic, just a rational human being (if there is such a thing).
I’m sure I will regret missing some huge additional points as soon as I click the submit button. However, this should be enough to make the point that there are a large number of reasons one may be opposed to religion and that they are certainly not mutually exclusive.
#12 – THE POPE,
And, remember, 72.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Dang. I credited (debited?) bobbo with post number 5, when it was in fact RBG who posted 5. I apologize for the error.
#7: Evolution is not a religion; it is a scientific theory backed up by significant volumes of evidence. It does not require a belief system. Either one accepts the premise based on the evidence, or one does not.
[Duplicate post. – ed.]
#6 – Ben Waymark,
In my opinion, when religious organizations state that they accept evolution as a valid theory, they usually seem to accept only that evolution of some animals into others. They may even accept that humans evolved from other apes.
However, it seems to me that most do not accept the theory of natural selection as the mechanism by which evolution happens. They seem to believe that god guided the process and humans were the expected and preordained outcome.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Mutation is random; natural selection is decidedly non-random. However, it cannot be said that natural selection is guided to a particular outcome. The only directionality of evolution is survival, with a possible statistically insignificant bias toward simpler organisms in the form of parasites that lose some of their complexity as they evolve.
If we started the clock over again from even as recently as say 7,000,000 years ago, the evolution of hominids would hardly be guaranteed.
Further, we are not the most complex organisms on the planet. On the assumption that the brain is our most complex organ, attested to by both the huge potential number of brain configurations and our thoughts, the sperm whale is far more complex with its 20 pound brain, the largest on the planet.
If we are to assume that we have been given the dominion of the planet by some deity, then why only the land? Certainly we have a large impact on the oceans. But, we are not amphibious. 70% of the earth’s surface is essentially off limits to us as living quarters. (Yes, I know we can live there for a time. But, few of us really live at sea.) The same can be said of the air.
Further, we like to divide the planet into ages of fish, reptiles, dinosaurs, mammals, etc. This is highly unrepresentative of the real situation. All of multicellular life on this planet makes up a brief time period and less than half of the biomass of the planet. There has only been one true age of life on this planet. It has been the age of bacteria for at least 3.8 billion years. More than half of today’s biomass is still bacteria.
So, if there is a god guiding evolution and creating species in its own image, god must be a bacterium.
Bobbo:
It has been a very long time since I read the book (about 15 years or so ago). From what I remember there was some bits that I liked, mostly I thought it was quite interesting what he discovered regarding themes that are common throughout various religions and mythologies. If you abstract the mythologicals stories and take away the idea of anyone believing the characters are real, then his work is interesting because it shows the same theme shows up in various stories throughout the world.
If, however, you look at the stories as having characters that people believe exists, then his work starts to fall apart a bit and gets a bit annoying. Its one thing to read the story of the Mohammed and the story of Jesus and see interesting correlations between the two stories, but when you start suggesting, which I seem to remember Campbell seemed to, that Jesus and Mohammed are the same, then I think his argument start to weekend.
If I have a good story, say, a story about me going down to 7-11 and buying a diet coke and menthos and sticking them together and watching the fireworks, that may be an interesting story. Now, if someone else has a story about a guy going down to a Max, buying some diet-pepsi and menthos and sticking them together and watching the fireworks, that makes the story interesting, because its two different stories saying relating the same, or a similar experience. However, that doesn’t mean that me the bloke with the Pepsi are the same person, nor does it mean that 7-11 and Max are the same stores. All says is that sticking menthos into diet colas seems popular.
I got the feeling that Joseph Campbell was saying that they are all the same (although in fairness, it may be people afterwards in the flied of comparative religion that came up with that).
Does this touch on anything that pissed you off about his interview? Or was it something else?
Cheers,
Ben.
19—Ben, I’m not sure. I’m thinking whatever the “ideas” were, the delivery was so vague on Campbell’s part, and so dry in Muggeries part, as to be unapproachable. Sad if there were any good ideas lurking in the chaff.
Its so bad, I find your menthos story far superior to the 2-3 hours of tv I watched before giving up. Keep that good stuff coming.
Misanthropic Scott:
In my opinion, when religious organizations state that they accept evolution as a valid theory, they usually seem to accept only that evolution of some animals into others. They may even accept that humans evolved from other apes.
Interesting opinion, but is based on what religious organizations have stated as their belief? Or this what you think the religious should think because you have preconceived idea? That article I linked to early quotes an Anglican church leader as saying:
“To contrast the first chapters in the Book of Genesis with scientific theory fails to recognise that both are seeking different questions and answers, and there is a danger that we confuse scientific theories with the purpose of Creation.”
Which seems to me to be a pretty clear way of giving an unequivocal nod to Darwinism as a sound scientific theory. The Church of England generally accept that all theological debate should be dictated by scripture, reason and tradition (which I believe the Roman Catholic church agrees with as well). If reason dictates that God is bacteria (and that would make some sense considering that the scriptures suggest that God is unknowable and we are made in his image) then so be it.
-Ben
Bobbo:
Ya, I think you have a good point there. The book can be interesting to read, and its a fairly easy way to get a feeling for what the different religions of the world believe, but he is a bit short of substance….
Another way of learning the basics of a different religion, that is far more entertaining, is to buy kids books about religions. I learnt more about Buddhism and Islam reading a few kids books than I did tried to wade through a dozen academic texts…
Personally, I thinks its always good to get a range of points of views on anything really. Its also one of the reasons why I keep arguing against religious nay-saying. Its not that I think y’all should convert to my faith, its just that I think if the sum total of your understanding comes only from scientific study, you miss something about the ‘spirit’ of life. This has less to do with religion and more to do with broadening one’s mind and recognising that even though something doesn’t make sense to you, doesn’t means it totally without merit.
On the same token I’d judge any Christian who refuses to study science a fool and any theologian or preacher that doesn’t read The God Delusion, The Pagan Christ (another good one for anyone looking for a old dig at Jesus), along side their own devotional reading. It doesn’t hurt to sit down at listen to what the Mormon or the Jahova Witness’ have to say, at least once.
Cheers,
Ben.
You know, I don’t care really. I’m a Darwinist not just bacause of an ever-fading belief in god (but that would have happened anyway – I’ve seen and heard too many negative things about our religion’s history) but because of the fact that there is only a five percent difference between ape and man. Let’s look at that for a second shall we? Of course they can’t speak English. They throw their feces. they like to punch things when they’re angry. Much like apes, we never see the other side often, we (implying general hatred for one another) throw Molotov cocktails at each other and instead of punching things because we’re angry, we try to kill each other. Over little thngs. Like a comic strip.
That’s fucking sad. I’ve already lost half of my faith in the human race because of that.
But that’s not the point. Humans are so similar to Apes, I’m surprised we’ve actually made progress over the millennium.
Two points.
1. Creationism is not just about ‘evolution’. It’s about ‘instant’ creation of earth (about 6,000 years ago). On this there is NO scientific evidence. Well, 99.99999% of evidence (biological, cosmological, practical and theoretical physics, chemistry, etc) all point to a universe approximately 13 billion years old (plus or minus a few hundred million, but who’s counting). Now if the evidence suddenly tips 60/40 in favor of creationist point of view, I’ll consider it…but until then, they’re just crazy “moon is made of green cheese” or “the earth is flat” folks.
2. The anti-evolution folks, which are closely aligned with pure creationists, always just poke fun at Darwin…never recent/modern science (those big fancy complicated research papers). This is why they’re always laughably wrong. Sure you CAN poke holes in Darwin’s work. He wasn’t 100% correct, just on the right path. You can do the same to Galileo, Copernicus and all the others. They all had one or two good ideas that advanced the current understanding. But even Einstein wasn’t always 100% right. Science, unlike mythology (religion) is always in a constant state of refinement and change and new evidence is discovered…it’s not static. Science today isn’t what it was 100 years ago, and will be different a 100 years from now.
23—Ben, you certainly present yourself as engagingly open to new ideas, yet still proclaim yourself “religious” in some non-standard way. Might be interesting, probably not. We are all interesting to ourselves, and not to others.
I’d make fun of your comment that you get your information from kiddie books, but I have done the same myself. I avoid being a hypocrite when I can identify it. Love it when someone else nails me. Keep your hammer handy.
#22 – Ben Waymark,
Ack. (Geek speak for “point made”)
I have a feeling that most Christians, Catholic or otherwise, don’t really believe the claims of their religion. They actually try not to think logically or reasonably in order to stay in the comfort zone of belonging to what they are told is the “good” side. The non believer has historically been scorned, and degraded and so that stigma prevents the majority of non believers from speaking out. It’s hypocritical of Christians / Muslims when they complain about intolerance, as the non christian movement grows and pushes back..
That said, admire you Ben on your attempt to be logical about your approach to science and religion. It’s about as far a leap as I’ve seen any believer take. But there is a glaring illogical premise to your argument that there IS a reason for life, and that it’s a fact… as illustrated by your agreement with the quote of the Anglican church leader “… there is a danger that we confuse scientific theories with the purpose of Creation.”
I just love the way that the anti-darwin/creationist crowd like to reject one area of science (a basic building block of science/biology) and replace it with their own concocted theory…while still totally embracing medicine, and other areas of science. How does this work?
Seems to me that if you’re going to try and cripple science by censoring the introduction of scientific thought and ideas, then you should excuse yourself from all the sciences. Let’s go back praying and all that superstition-stuff to cure disease, avoid death, and illness. No more relying on fertility treatments to boost your baby-making (and then claiming that “god wanted it” obviously GOD wanted you to not have kids), or any other biology-based treatments.
How in the HELL does creationism explain a virus that mutates, a resistant strain of any disease, or how they change and evolve over time? Is it gods will to create a resistant infection that kills newborns? Or, gets in the surgical wounds of one-out-of-every-ten patients and resists most of the known antibiotics?
These infections are newly evolved. They didn’t exist 10 years ago. What about influenza…it changes each year. It’s always changing and evolving. Some strains are more infective than others. But, if we just teach creationism, and outlaw biology…how will future doctors even explain it, or want to find ways to fight it? It’s “GODS WILL” so we should just lay down and die, right?
The crazy Christians are giving all Christians a bad rap. Seems to me the fundamentalist need to be stopped…THEY ARE terrorizing our country. And, I’m NOT talking about muslims.
Scientific fact?
Nothing scientific can be 100% proven as the proof is based on the evidence which later may be shown to be flawed or incorrect. We exist in a rich tapestry of theories which are ostensibly correct.
Religions, mysticisms cannot be proved and so they are, by scientific definition, a theory lacking supporting evidence. In fact there is very little we know of the physical world which can be proven beyond all doubt. There has been some rather universally accepted scientific ‘truths’ based on evidence which later was well – wrong and vice versa.
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 cause the expansion of the universe came from a single point and is more like spots on an expanding balloon.
To obscure? Here is an example of something whose nature is absolutely not proven but is generally accepted by us all – that is light.
Put simply, light, colour does not exist. It is an illusion, fake, something cooked up by our brains from the simulation of our eyes by a limited spectrum of electromagnetic radiation.
The debate still rages on regarding the true nature of light as well as all electromagnetic radiation. It is still a just a theory and not 100% proven. (Problem: Light; is it particles or waves or both? neither? Damn, particles and matter cannot be proven to actually exist either as matter is fundamentally energy and energy is electromagnetic radiation and the entire universe was farted out from a single point infinitely small…oh damn damn damn). Maybe we all live in the Matrix…what a goof that would be!
Not understanding the science and technology of a motor car does not prevent us from operating it.
I submit that it is not simple to reverse beliefs simply by submitting evidence in support of or contrary to anything be it religion or science. If everyone agrees with a theory based on evidence then everyone is happy. If some do not, then the arguments and evidence to the contrary is promulgated.
Were there oceans on Mars? Geologic evidence found by scientific probes support this while the same evidence can be used to support an opposite view. So which is it? Wet or dry or both?
The Sahara used to be temperate climate with lots of rain – up to about 8800 years ago. The Sphinx shows clear signs of water and rain erosion by textbook geologic evidence. Therefore the Sphinx must be much older than the 4500 years or so Egyptology teaches us. So some or all of the evidence must be wrong. However weather paleontologists all agree on the wet time line for the Sahara. Geologists agree with what constitutes water and rain erosion verses wind and sand erosion.
So why is there still a problem? Scientific evidence is clear…but…Ancient Egypt could not have carved the Sphinx and other other structures dated to the same time. Seems Egyptology need to revise their time line or was it aliens or Atlantis? Too strange…yes, so re-date Ancient Egypt. Not so easy huh?
A practical person would assert that that a belief or theory should have a foundation of proof but this flies in the face of basic human nature and need.
So we’re stuck with what we have and people will believe in exactly what they want.
Therefore only thing which can be proven is that presenting evidence and a winning case to the contrary of some belief or theory quite often has very little effect. 😉
James Randi is dedicated to overturning unfounded beliefs and theories and can be found at http://www.randi.org
Cheers
#29 – JimR,
I have a feeling that most Christians, Catholic or otherwise, don’t really believe the claims of their religion.
If the discussion is going to take this turn, I would not only agree, but also add that anyone who mourns the death of a loved one that was a good (fill in your religion here) rather than celebrating their entry into heaven, as the families of suicide bombers often do, doesn’t really believe quite so whole-heartedly. For those who believe there is a heaven and are confident of their loved one’s adequacy to get in, death should be celebrated. Some people actually do this, no one I know, but some do. Why would death be a sad thing for those who do not really believe in death?
Personally, I believe in death and I don’t fear it. Why people who allegedly do not believe in death often fear it the most, forcing air, water, and food into the meat that was once a loved one in a vain attempt to keep them “alive” (if you call that living) long past the point at which they could achieve any joy in life, is beyond me. But hey, to each his/her own … as long as they don’t force it on me through legislation.
#31 – TIHZ_HO,
Religions, mysticisms cannot be proved and so they are, by scientific definition, a theory lacking supporting evidence.
This is a common confusion between the English word theory as used outside of science and the word as used within science. From dictionary.com, the first two definitions of theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
The first definition is the one used by science. The second is used in the English language to denote conjecture.
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.
Your examples of scientific questioning about expansion of the universe and light tell me that you have read some science. However, you have failed to catch a basic point. The wave particle duality of light, as an example, is a theory precisely because it explains observable phenomena of light, including the quantum minimum of a single photon of light and the wave behavior when light is sent through a pair of slits.
The expansion of the universe as another example came about as scientists noticed red shift for all far away objects. Now they have shown that the universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating. All of this is theory based on observable data.
Religion fails to even be a theory in this context. It explains nothing, makes no predictions, and adds nothing to science.