"So many evolutionists are incredibly arrogant and give the impression that only fools believe in creation" – The Reverend William Gardner
Yes we are, and yes, only they do. Scary article overall, from the department of Shit, I Thought That Was Only Happening In Jesusland…
It’s as if I wrote just for you. :)
Hmm that’s odd. "this post" should have been a link, and "just for you" not. Instead, "just for you" is a link, and "this post" has been deleted. Go figure.
I can see where it went wrong; I’m astonished that the link worked. Peter, I think you missed the " in your link code.
I think this excellent comment on an amazon.com book review is most appropriate here.
"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flys back to its flock to claim victory."
I’m sure the many modern scientists who believe in creation, not to mention the spirits of Galileo, Descartes, Malebranche, Newton, Locke, Leibniz, and the many other great thinkers of the scientific age who believed in creation and every miracle of the New Testament, will be duly chastened at being called "fools" by you, John.
This, from someone who accused *me* of condescension.
Jimmy,
Not quite sure why I’m bothering, but how many of those people you quote believed that the world was flat, or that the Earth was the centre of the universe, or that Newtonian mechanics was completely correct, etc. etc. You, I hope, get my point. Argument from authority in science is a particularly crap idea.
You’ll also find rather few *biological* scientists alive today who do not think the basic tenants of evolution are correct.
–Matt
Matt,
Completely bewildered as to why I’m bothering, but (a) I didn’t quote anyone; (b) number of people I cited who believed the earth was flat: zero; (c) number who believed the earth was the centre of the universe: zero (the earliest of the figures I mentioned was GALILEO — geddit?) (d) Well, I guess Newton thought that Newtonian mechanics was correct; Descartes certainly didn’t, but then he was almost as great a genius at physical science as Newton himself; not sure about the rest — your point would be what, exactly? Do you think string theory is "completely correct"? If so, what does that say about you? (e) Obviously biologists believe in the basic tenets of evolution (once the basic "tenants" have been evicted) — but a number of them also believe in creation. This is because there is no contradiction between believing in creation and believing in evolution. The only people who suppose there is a contradiction are fundamentalists (a small minority among Christians) and the equally ignorant but (in this country) far more numerous anti-religious zealots who cannot distinguish between fundamentalisma and other forms of Christianity.
Jimmy – it seems to be you who can’t distinguish between fundamentalism and other forms of Christianity.
By "creation" both The Reverend William Gardner and John meant something much stronger than merely the idea that God created the universe (which is compatible with evolution), namely the idea that life on earth is as it is because it was created like that, and not as a result of evolution. This is "creation" as in "creationism", and anyone alive today (remote tribal-types excepted) who believes in it is a fool.
And by the way, Newton was both a monumental scientific genius, and a complete fool: he stuck pins in his eyes to see what colours he would see – if you don’t consider that to be foolish behaviour then can you give me an example of something which might qualify?
number who believed the earth was the centre of the universe: zero (the earliest of the figures I mentioned was GALILEO — geddit?)
You’re proving the point here. It’s because the scentists you name were pre-Darwin that they weren’t Darwinists. If you produced a remotely equivalent list of respected scientists, where the earliest of the figures you mentioned was Darwin rather than Galileo, you’d get the same thing: total agreement with the first man listed.
Jimmy, I think Peter and Larry make my points for me! Newton was a massive alchemist: I think you’d be a bit foolish to take this as a good reason for messing about with some lead and urine in the hope of making some gold. Also, did you actually read the article John linked to? It’s pretty clear that the "creationism" we’re talking about here is completely at odds with evolution (not to mention most of modern science, in the case of young Earth creationists). We are not talking about the, say, official Catholic position on creation/evolution.
It’s sort of like it would be if me, John and Albert Einstein were looking for Einstein’s socks. Maybe Einstein thought that they were in the washing machine, so we all looked there. But suddenly, they turned up behind the sofa.
If John continued to look in the washing machine, saying "no really they must be in here somewhere", I would probably say something like "John, don’t be a bloody idiot, the socks have been found". If he then replied "well Einstein thought they were in here, are you telling me you’re cleverer than him?", I would probably consider starting to set the wheels in motion to have him sectioned. I think this is analogous to people believing in creationism these days.
Jimmy,
sorry to kick a man who’s down, but you have sort of lined yourself up as an apologist for creationism, and they’re not many (though still too many) of those around. So with regard to your first post, I wanted add that I believe that everyone who speaks Shakespearian English all the time *is* a pretentious twat. This emphatically does not imply that I think that Shakespeare *was* a pretentious twat. As for Shakespeare’s ghost, I don’t think that it *is* anything at all.
Matt: How do Peter and Larry "make your points for you"? Matt had asked how many of the people I cited thought that the earth was the centre of the universe, when I had cited Galileo and a bunch of post-Galilean philosophers and scientists — and *I’m* the one who’s confused? Matt also said "Argument from authority in science is a particularly crap idea." I agree. I wasn’t arguing from authority to make a scientific point; I was pointing out that it was comical for John to be denouncing people like Galileo and Leibniz as "fools." Larry: I understand the difference between believing in creation and believing in creationism. John’s quote refers to the former belief. If he’s quoting out of context and thereby giving a misleading impression, that’s his problem. (D2: I believe that this takes care of half of your comment. If it’s creationism that’s at issue, where that is understood as incompatible with accepting the theory of evolution, I don’t think we disagree.)
I also realise that Newton had many eccentric beliefs — although at that stage in the history of chemistry a belief in alchemy was nowhere near as nutty as it would be today. I still maintain that none of us is in a position to condescend to Newton when it comes to questions about the origin and metaphysical nature of the universe; so sue me. (D2: I believe this takes care of the other half of your point. If it’s a belief in creation that’s at issue, where this has no bearing on the status of the theory of evolution, scoffing at Newton is more like disagreeing with Einstein about the nature of spacetime than it is like disagreeing with him about the location of his socks.)
Peter: How am I "Proving [John’s] point"? You write, "If you produced a remotely equivalent list of respected scientists, where the earliest of the figures you mentioned was Darwin rather than Galileo, you’d get the same thing: total agreement with the first man listed." If you are suggesting that all respectable scientists now believe that the theory of evolution shows that the development of life has a straighforward scientific explanation, that is not true. To take merely the first stage of the process, the origin of life itself, the only thing science has to say about it is that no-one has the slightest idea how it happened.
Larry: I’m not "down," to quote Mick Jones. Regardless of the content of the article John was quoting from, he clearly represented himself as someone who believes that "only fools believe in creation." I said nothing in favour of creationism, where that is understood as incompatible with the theroy of evolution, so I have no idea why you say that I have "sort of lined [myself] up as an apologist for creationism." I’m not sure what your remarks about Shakespeare are supposed to establish. My point was that the fathers of the scientific world view believed in creation, and that nothing in the subsequent development of science has made that view less tenable — if anything, it is *more* tenable now than it was during the early modern era — and that this is attested by the large numbers of ‘respectable’ scientists alive today who believe that the world was created by a supreme being.
Having read the BBC story, I might add that John is innocent of misrepresenting Gardner by quoting him out of context, and therefore guilty of monumental condescension, as I alleged. The immediate context of the quote is:
"So many evolutionists are incredibly arrogant and give the impression that only fools believe in creation, when there are many eminent scientists who say there is some evidence of design there."
That makes it pretty clear that, his own batty views notwithstanding, what he meant by "belief in creation" in the quotation posted by John is pretty much what I understood him to mean. If by belief in "creation" he means a view strongly supported by "any evidence of design," he cannot, in this passage, be talking about creationism (in the batty sense) at all. Even Gardner cannot believe that "many eminent scientists" believe in creationism where this is understood as incompatible with the theory of evolution. So I stand by all my comments. Whether he realised it or not, John really was implying that Galileo & co, and all of the many current scientists who believe that the universe was created by a supreme being, are fools.
Jimmy,
None of the people you mentioned believe in creationism, as they are all long dead, a condition which precludes belief in anything.
You are sadly misinformed regarding abiogenesis, a scientific field with substantially more content than "no-one has the slightest idea how it happened". You might try reading books. They are an excellent way to become acquainted with previously unfamiliar areas of human knowledge.
<I>To take merely the first stage of the process, the origin of life itself, the only thing science has to say about it is that no-one has the slightest idea how it happened.</I>
As Iain notes above, this is not true. He doesn’t recommend a specific book, so I will refer you to Chapter II of Richard Dawkins’ ‘The Selfish Gene’.
Buy even if abiogenesis were as you described it, it is not – as you claim – a part of the evolutionary process, anyway, which is about the heritable changes within living creatures being selected by nature, and has nothing to say on time before life existed. If abiogenesis were disproved tomorrow, it wouldn’t disprove evolution, and if evolution were disproved tomorrow, it wouldn’t disprove abiogenesis.
Peter: How am I "Proving the point"?
By saying that "the earliest of the figures I mentioned was GALILEO — geddit?" you acknowledged that Galileo’s contribution to science could obviously be appreciated only by those who lived during or after his time, not before. This is the same reason it’s a silly idea to list pre-Darwinian scientists when asked for scientists who don’t believe in Darwinism. Of course someone who lived in the 1600s isn’t going to believe in a theory published in 1859.
I’m not "down," to quote Mick Jones
Well, James Brown said "Everybody get down". Are you trying to tell me he’s an idiot?
Even Gardner cannot believe that "many eminent scientists" believe in creationism where this is understood as incompatible with the theory of evolution.
Why not? This is exactly the view he appears to hold.
I assume he’s fallen for the claims of the charlatans, liars and lawyers who represent themselves as scientists and wrap young-earth Creationism in a thin layer of ‘intelligent design’.
Even Gardner cannot believe that "many eminent scientists" believe in creationism where this is understood as incompatible with the theory of evolution.
Gardner does believe this. You obviously haven’t been exposed to much creationist literature – they are always claiming they have loads of "eminent scientists" on their side.
Iain: "You are sadly misinformed regarding abiogenesis, a scientific field with substantially more content than "no-one has the slightest idea how it happened". The field may have more "content" than "no-one has the slightest idea how it happened". But none of this "content" counts as anything approaching an explanation of the origins of life. The fact remains that no-one has the slightest idea how it happened.
"You might try reading books. They are an excellent way to become acquainted with previously unfamiliar areas of human knowledge." Wow. That’s, um, sarcasm — right?
Peter: "even if abiogenesis were as you described it, it is not – as you claim – a part of the evolutionary process, anyway." I don’t claim this. It is clear from my preceding sentence that the "process" whose first stage I characterise as the origin of life is the development of life, not evolution. That the origin of life is the first stage of the development of life ought, I think, to be pretty uncontroversial. Next.
"it’s a silly idea to list pre-Darwinian scientists when asked for scientists who don’t believe in Darwinism." You are still missing the point. The issue in John’s quote from Gardner is creation, not creationism (where the latter is understood as incompatible with the theory of evolution). My purpose was not to list "scientists who don’t believe in Darwinism," but to list scientists who believe that the world was created by God.
John and David: Whatever US creationists may be in the habit of saying, I still don’t see the grounds for attributing to Gardner the view that many eminent scientists repudiate the theory of evolution.
D2: I would never say that the GFOS is an idiot. But he’s made some pretty dodgy choices in his time.
Jimmy,
I now consider your argument to be a dead horse, but I shall flog it anyway. Your assertion to which I am objecting is this: "Whether he realised it or not, John really was implying that Galileo & co, and all of the many current scientists who believe that the universe was created by a supreme being, are fools."
The point my comments about Shakespeare were addressing is the following: John said anyone who *believes* in creation is a fool. The tense is of the verb is highly relevant, because the foolishness of a belief needs to be judged by reference to its historical context. This takes care of the historical figures you erroneously claim that John is slandering.
The other point is that you are misrepresenting John and generally muddying the water by using the term "creation" in a weaker sense than everyone else involved in this discussion. In fact you are falling into The Reverend William Gardner’s trap: he is uses the term "creation" because it sounds like something which all religious people can associate with, but in fact by it he means the unadultreated rubbish that only creationists believe.
You are not being reasonable about this: John’s comment was in direct regard to an article about creationism, and should be understood in that light. But you didn’t bother to read the article, and instead wilfully misinterpreted his comment as "anyone who believes in God is a fool".
Jimmy,
"it’s a silly idea to list pre-Darwinian scientists when asked for scientists who don’t believe in Darwinism." You are still missing the point. The issue in John’s quote from Gardner is creation, not creationism (where the latter is understood as incompatible with the theory of evolution). My purpose was not to list "scientists who don’t believe in Darwinism," but to list scientists who believe that the world was created by God.
… and how many pre-Galilean ‘scientists’ believed that in flatworldism? None, but they all believed the Earth was flat. Perhaps, just perhaps, if Galileo could have travelled back in time and said "look chaps, here’s my evidence that the world is round", those pre-Galilean scholars would have changed their mind…
John and David: Whatever US creationists may be in the habit of saying, I still don’t see the grounds for attributing to Gardner the view that many eminent scientists repudiate the theory of evolution.
Ah yes, the British creationist is an altogether more sensible creature than his American counterpart.
See question 1 in the Creation Science Movement (based in Plymouth) FAQ:
http://www.creationsciencemovement.com/faqs.html
There are three groups of people who believe in evolution:
1: Those who understand the theory and have some idea how evolution actually works. This group are eminently qualified to take the piss out of Creationists, and usually do. (In case anyone cares, I’m in group 1.)
2: Those who don’t understand evolution at all but believe it because they recognise that the scientific consensus is usually right — but who recognise that, since they don’t really have a clue about it, they’re in no position to argue with Creationists. In my experience, this group is so tiny it may not even exist.
3: Those who don’t have a clue about evolution, who believe it because they’re told to, but who don’t let that stop them crowing about how stupid and ill-informed Creationists are.
Group 3 can fuck off. Creationists may have reached the wrong conclusion, but they have at least given the matter some thought. Group 3 may believe something that is correct (though only barely: the shite they tend to believe about evolution as good as negates the theory), but they’re still glorifying ignorance.
That’s like saying you need a degree in astronomy before you can take the piss out of Russel Grant.
No, it’s not, because astronomy and astrology address totally different matters, and because I never mentioned degrees or any other academic qualifications. It’s like saying that you need to understand cause and effect before taking the piss out of Russell Grant — which, frankly, you do: if you can’t offer any reason why the movements of planets and the relative positions of stars shouldn’t affect whether your boss will be vindictive towards you this week, who are you to criticise Russell Grant?
In my experience, many people think that animals evolve by some exercise of will, and many people believe that animals evolve within one generation, i.e. that giraffes are descended from animals who strained so hard for the tops of the trees that their necks stretched. These people know less about evolution than most Creationists. More to the point, if Darwin had thought like that, there wouldn’t even be a theory of evolution.
More to the point, if Darwin had thought like that, there wouldn’t even be a theory of evolution.
The C19th debate on evolution was kicked off by the work of Lamarck, who did think like that (not relevant, just mildly interesting).
Maybe spotting bad science is easier than understanding good science. I.e even to someone who doesn’t understand the first thing about evolution, it might be abundantly clear that creationist arguments are bogus, since they are entirely based on the literal interptetation of the book of Genesis.
Also I’d like to unhelpfully point out that it’s very likely that giraffes are indeed descended from animals who strained so hard for the tops of the trees that their necks stretched, just not by very much. Stretching for food probably have worked a bit like the Alexander technique for pre-giraffe beasts. When my dad did the A-technique he greq by 1 inch. And yes I realise this isn’t why giraffes have long necks.
I take ST’s point that ignorance of evolution is a negative thing. However, even if it is as prevalent as as he claims, it is easily mendable by education. Lamarckians can be corrected by referring them to the relevant chapter of "The Blind Watchmaker", as their mistake is based on ignorance or simple misunderstanding. The same cannot be said of creationists, who hold their views with fanatical conviction. There is a big difference between the innocently ignorant and the wilfully ignorant.
Anyway, my point was that you don’t have to understand anything about evolution to criticise creationism. You just have to understand creationism.
Yes, Larry, you’re talking about posture, not size, as well you know, I’m sure. I grew taller as a result of chiropractic treatment a couple of years ago. And I was already bloody tall. We shrink about an inch every day and grow it back every night, fascinatingly.
> Maybe spotting bad science is easier than understanding good science.
Probably is. Anyone who says, for instance, "Creationism isn’t a true science because its claims are unfalsifiable" has given the subject some thought and therefore doesn’t go into group 3 (although that’s only a claim about Creationism, not about Darwinism). Most people who take the piss out of those who reject evolution, in my experience, wouldn’t make a claim anything like that, and wouldn’t understand its implications if they heard it.
> it might be abundantly clear that creationist arguments are bogus, since they are entirely based on the literal interptetation of the book of Genesis.
That doesn’t make them bogus. I’m not religious myself, but there is nothing logically or rationally wrong with the Book of Genesis. What’s wrong with it is that it’s a far inferior explanation to Darwinism. Richard Dawkins himself wrote that, prior to Darwinism, anyone who didn’t believe in God was a fool, because the complexity of biology requires one hell of an explanation. I agree with that. Some people have studied the theory of evolution and found it wanting. That, to me, is a far better informed and more knowledgable position than failing to study it at all yet being arrogant enough to feel superior to those who have.
Why is evolution the only bit of science this happens with, by the way? If someone who knows nothing about physics takes the piss out of people who reject string theory, we recognise them as an ill-informed pillock. Your average member of the public isn’t expected to express an opinion about whether quantum mechanics will ever be explained deterministically — and, if someone does offer such an opinion, either way, we don’t regard them as totally idiotic. So why is everyone expected to state which origin of species they prefer?
> More to the point, if Darwin had thought like that, there wouldn’t even be a theory of evolution.
I had a big train of thought prior to that sentence, which I didn’t type out, which makes the word "that" a tad ambiguous. Oops. "Thought like that" was meant to refer to accepting the current received knowledge unquestioningly, not to anything to do with giraffes.
By the way, I know it’s just fiction, but every time I watch Master And Commander I get really annoyed that Darwin beat Maturin to it. "You’ll be the first naturalist ever to set foot on the islands, I’ll warrant." Aaaarrgh!
I really ought to shut up now. I should stuck all this ranting on my own blog. Sorry, John.
I reckon that anyone around today (I completely take your point about folk pre-Darwin) with even the very faintest idea about what science is should be able to see that assuming the literal truth of the book of Genesis is a truly unscientific starting point. They might not know why it is, but that would know that it is, and they would be right. Having said which I’d hope that they would then think and read about the subject some more.
It’s not only evolution – as has been pointed out before some young earth creationists believe that the world is only 8000 old (or some such) a view which, as far as I’m concerned, is so fuckwitted that any village idiot is welcome to take the piss. You simply don’t have to know that much to see that it’s obviously wrong: look at the Grand Canyon (or anything else), for instance.
Comparisons to string theory miss the point, a more appropriate analogy from physics would be the belief that all matter is composed of fire, earth, air, and water, in the proper quantities.
"You might try reading books. They are an excellent way to become acquainted with previously unfamiliar areas of human knowledge." Wow. That’s, um, sarcasm — right?
No, it’s condescension.
and how many pre-Galilean ‘scientists’ believed that in flatworldism? None, but they all believed the Earth was flat.
No they didn’t. People have known that the Earth is curved since ancient times, and Eratosthenes measured the radius of the Earth to a remarkable degree of precision around 200 BC.
> I completely take your point about folk pre-Darwin
Anyone who doesn’t understand Darwin is pre-Darwin, mentally.
> Comparisons to string theory miss the point
Which is why I gave the example of determinism.
> some young earth creationists believe that the world is only 8000 old (or some such) a view which, as far as I’m concerned, is so fuckwitted that any village idiot is welcome to take the piss. You simply don’t have to know that much to see that it’s obviously wrong: look at the Grand Canyon (or anything else), for instance.
The idea that an all-powerful miracle-working god can’t make rock appear older than it really is is, if I may say so, so fuckwitted that any village idiot is welcome to take the piss.
Squander Two, that’s an excellent point: the average believer in evolution really isn’t any better informed about science than the average believer in creationism. So as you indicate, any self-congratulatory back-slapping and ‘piss-taking’ because they (undoubtledly) happen to be right is inappropriate.
My God. It’s not often I agree with you, Peter. Must be something in the water.
Ah, but any God who willfully decieves the people that he has created by presenting evidence in his creation that can only lead them to conclude, using God created powers of reasoning, that he doesn’t exist, thus damning them to Hell, is not a good God at all, and thus is not the God most Christians think that they are worshipping.
For someone who is ignorant of science and evolution to take the piss out of a creationist for being ignorant of science and evolution is indeed inappropriate. However, it is quite appropriate for them to take the piss out of a creationist for being a creationist. Indeed it should be encouraged.
For anyone who doesn’t accept David’s comment, how about this one? –
For someone who is ignorant of politics and history to take the piss out of a BNP supporter for being ignorant of politics and history is indeed inappropriate. However, it is quite appropriate for them to take the piss out of a BNP supporter for being a BNP supporter. Indeed it should be encouraged.
S2 – of course it would be ridiculous to believe that an omnipotent God *couldn’t* create the earth over the course of 7 days and make it look millions of years older than it is. My point is that it is just as ridiculous, and transparently unscientific (even to your average village idiot), to believe that this *is* how the earth was formed.
S2 tells us : – "there is nothing logically or rationally wrong with the Book of Genesis"
Er, does that include the two mutually-exclusive creation myths therein?
And "rationally"? We’re to believe that back then Jewish patriarchs lived to be 900 years old? And they sired a nation of humans who can’t make it past 120, and yet there’s no such thing as evolution? That’s rational?
The B of G is dead neat in all sorts of ways, but rational and logical it isn’t and really that’s not a failing, it wasn’t part of the design spec.
> … is not a good God at all, and thus is not the God most Christians think that they are worshipping.
Actually, that’s exactly the God Christians worship. The ideas behind it are called "faith" and "free will". You may have heard of them, though I don’t hold out much hope. Anyone so woefully ignorant of Christianity should perhaps refrain from criticising it, in case they end up looking really stupid. This is exactly what I’m talking about, you see?
> For someone who is ignorant of politics and history to take the piss out of a BNP supporter …
You’re talking here about someone who has no opinion whatsoever on whether black people should be allowed to live in Britain? Firstly, I’d say that that person has no standing to ridicule a BNP supporter; secondly, and more importantly, I’d say that that person doesn’t exist.
> My point is that it is just as ridiculous, and transparently unscientific …
Sure it’s unscientific. That only makes it ridiculous to scientists.
> Er, does that include the two mutually-exclusive creation myths therein?
Unfortunately, if you accept that logic itself, being part of the universe of existence, is a construct of God’s will, and that omnipotence implies the ability to do the paradoxically impossible — both of which ideas, obvious nonsense though they are to you and me, are accepted by Christians — then yes, it does. Endlessly annoying when you’re trying to argue with the buggers, but there you go. Their beliefs are not inherently illogical; they’re just wrong. (I’ll concede some ground on irrationality: there are irrational bits in The Bible, true. Illogicality, though — no.)
That is to say, yes, there’s illogicality in The Bible, but no, it’s not illogical to believe it, as long as you also believe the other bits of crap that back it up.
Yes, but if free will is God given (indeed, I believe the argument that an omniscient, omnipotent creator God makes ‘free will’, at least without resort to the denial of logic that you argues follows from a belief in an omnipotent God), and the world if God created, and if in this world he systematically places evidence that can only lead the people that he has created to deny the literal truth of His Bible, and then he condemns them to Hell for that, then he is not Good. Very far from it, in fact.
But if we argue that ‘good’ doesn’t mean ‘good’, and logic doesn’t apply anyway – despite it being a God given gift – then we have no reason to trust the Bible. Except faith, yet God has created us to question, and has rewarded this questioning with an increasingly coherent and systematic understanding of the universe – marked by increasing power over nature and the conditions of our existence. Of course, these same character traits – God created – lead us to an eternity (an ETERNITY) of suffering in Hell, then he is not good.
This is not ignorance of Christianity – so don’t insult me this way. I understand people hold to the ideas of faith and free will and the all good, all powerful creator God. It doesn’t mean, because people hold to them, that they make any sense, and the fact that their not making sense is explained away by the invocation of ‘faith’ proves nothing more than the God who demands this is not only a trickster, but is downright wicked.
Andrew,
I agree with everything you say apart from your misuse of the words "any" and "proves" in your last sentence. I absolutely agree with you that, if the God descibed by Christianity exists, he’s a right bastard — but that’s just my judgment of his character, not an absolute proven truth.
Have we broken the comment-thread-length record yet, John?
Yes, I’d agree with the comment as to ‘proves’, and ‘any’. My stridency may stem from the fact that I talk to both my local Baptists and Jehovah’s Witnesses on a regular (door-step) basis. I am polite, mind.
And this is another addition to the thread.
(i) > My point is that it is just as ridiculous, and >transparently unscientific …
>Sure it’s unscientific. That only makes it ridiculous to >scientists.
Not just unscientific, but blatently and transparently very very unscientific, and therefore fair game for
>anyone…with even the very faintest idea about what >science is.
(ii) You guys seem to be talking about "Christianity" as if this is a well-defined system of beliefs. In particular most Christians definitely do not believe in a
>God who willfully decieves the people that he has created >by presenting evidence in his creation that can only lead >them to conclude, using God created powers of reasoning, >that he doesn’t exist, thus damning them to Hell, is not >a good God at all, and thus is not the God most >Christians think that they are worshipping."
Almost all Christians would not accept that God wilfully decieves them, and many (maybe most) don’t believe in hell. Some don’t even believe in God. Of course the sort who come knocking on your door tend to have beliefs at the madder end of the spectrum…
(iii) I’m proud to part of this thread-length record attempt, which has been of quite a high quality since Jimmy left.