Some of the aversion to evolution is the realization that we share a common ancestor with apes and monkeys. Sometimes people mistake common ancestor with "we evolved from monkeys". Oh silly human monkeys, denying your nature, denying your humble roots! Be not ashamed to be cousin to the mighty gorillas and the screeching monkeys, or to the sex-crazed bonobos. Accept who and what you are, and point out the cute ears on chimps that stick out all funny-like. Yes, there is much to enjoy about being a monkey. Eating fruit all day, swinging through the trees. Using those opposable digits and stereoscopic vision. Thank our common ancestors for all those things that make humans what we are. Be proud to be a monkey.

"Since watches are the products of intelligent design, and living things are like watches in having complicated mechanisms which serve a purpose (e.g., having eyeballs to enable sight), living things are probably the products of intelligent design as well."

The above is a quote from William Paley, widely regarded as the father of intelligent design theory.

First, I would be remiss not to point out that the father of the theory felt obliged to insert "probably" in his conclusion that the creator of humans has an intellect in some way analagous to the human intellect. This should serve as ample tonic to all those who would describe this theory as scientific fact. I don't seem to remember Newton concluding that F probably equaled mass times acceleration.

Second, if we cast a skeptical eye upon the above Paley quote, the analogy seems less than apt. Because if we take a hard look at the nuts and bolts of human intelligence and the process by which it creates objects of complexity, we see that all obects of human contrivance are created a posteriori. To use Paley's watch example, all watchmakers, even the first watchmaker, must know a great deal about gears, wheels and pinions and the laws that govern their actions in order to create working watches. Without a perception of how these watch constituents function in an orderly, law-abiding and therefore predictable universe, there could be no watches. This is no more than to say that our experience of an orderly, law-abiding and uniform universe is the stuff that human intelligence is made of. Therefore it is impossible to see how an entity with a mind analagous to the human mind could create an orderly, law-abiding universe without prior experience of an orderly, law-abiding universe. To conclude, since the cause of order in the universe, by definition, can't experience an ordered, law-abiding universe prior to its creation of order in it, the analogy to human intelligence falls apart.

Lastly, let us assume for a moment that intelligent design could prove scientically the existence of God and that we, as living things, are the product of his intelligent design. What then? Is this sufficient bedrock upon which to found an entire religion? I ask you, what good is a religion that can only claim that the creator of the universe, and by extension, living things within it, created it via intelligent design? It cannot serve as a basis for morals, it cannot promise an afterlife, it cannot even promise a more enjoyable earthly life for its adherents.

Hmmm. Much of what you write, Borgia, is accurate but I don't think it gets to the heart of the matter, since it lacks context.

Paley died in 1805. He was very much a product of the rationalism of his time. His interest was in seeing if he could find proofs for Christianity that didn't depend on divine revelation. Your assumption that this theory necessitates a mind analogous to ours is a premise that you have not proven and cannot, I don't think.

I don't see how this follows on what you have written: I ask you, what good is a religion that can only claim that the creator of the universe, and by extension, living things within it, created it via intelligent design? The "religion" makes no such claim and doesn't depend on it. The claims are made by men in the 18th -21st centuries trying to see if they can find ways outside of the biblical account to explain the origin of life in this world.

The rest of the paragraph makes no sense to me at all and doesn't follow on anything you have argued.

Chirality?

There is an article out in the Times Online today announcing a new document by the Catholic Church that specifies which part of the Bible is true and which part is not. I can't wait to see their take on ID. And I would like to know what Steve G thinks of this new development.

Jennifer: I think I can help but I cannot speak for Steve G.

This is not a new development, though the document will be. The Church has always held that the Bible is made up of many kinds of literature. Some of it is poetry, some of it is history, some of it is chronicles, some of it fable (no serious person thinks that Job is literally true. I mean the book starts out with a sort of "once upon a time..." introduction.) some of it is rather like reportage (Gospels, Acts).

Some very strict fundamentalist sects do seem unable to make or understand these distinctions but they are way out in left field and do not speak for the rest of us.

So 'strict fundamentalists' do not speak for the rest of you? That is why you never hear fundamentalist views from the religious right, the republican party, and most right wing commentators..............

for them not speaking for you, they sure do most the speaking for religion these days.

As Sam Harris contends, it is the fact that 'moderates' accept portions of the worlds holy books to be true and the fact that it is not proper to question someones beliefs (no matter how idiotic and down right evil they may be) that allows the fundamentalists to not only exist but to flourish...

A large number of the worlds problems would be solved if we all viewed the bible, torah, and koran in the same light as Greek myths.

Based on their comments in another thread, it looks like the theists have pretty much conceded the fact of evolution, at least on this blog. Daphne’s mom scoffs at the idea that anyone should question authority with this remark: “I mean, just because there is scientific consensus that the sun rises in the east is no reason we should base our beliefs on that. Be a free thinker, man (or woMAN)! Question authority!”

It’s simple: the overwhelming consensus among the experts is that evolution occurred, and since, as the following quotes indicate, theists defer to authority when there is a consensus, evolution is a fact.

Lurker: “But that doesn't mean appealing to authority is a logical fallacy because (I dare say)most authorities regularly demonstrate good understanding and good logic.”

Daphne’s mom: “The fact that so many people here dismiss serious, scholarly consensus, for the weirdest mix of reasons I have ever heard makes me wonder about their sanity.”

Steve G posts this any several other comments in support of accepting an expert consensus: “Shall we discuss what the consensus regarding the existence of Jesus is amongst serious historians? Is there anyone of substance other than Doherty who makes even a moderately compelling case that Jesus didn't exist? Since you claim you are a historian as well, can you tell me, what is the consensus?”

True, Mookie. When I come across a rabid anti-monkeyist and haven't the energy to reason with her/him/it, I tend to say "Be a Homo if you want; I'm a Pan and proud of it".

Great post, Tim. Much above RA's usual standard.

We'll definitely try and keep things around here up to the standards on your blog, Viole. Just as soon as we can invent some more characters and a complete fantasy language to go around with it.

Jennifer:
Daphne’s mom does indeed speak for me on this. I couldn’t have said it better. What’s shocking to me is that this is seen as a ‘new’ development. This has been my understanding of what the Church teaches since the time I actually considered becoming Catholic. St. Jerome said roughly 1600 years ago that the creation account in Genesis is told "after the manner of a popular poet". So in fact this is just a restatement and clarification of what’s always been held.

As regards evolution vs. ID, JPII, Benedict and yes even Schonberg have all been fairly clear that there is no problem with the idea of evolution as the mechanics of how things happen to the extent that it doesn’t try to exclude the possibility that God was the creative force behind it.

Joe:
So 'strict fundamentalists' do not speak for the rest of you? That is why you never hear fundamentalist views from the religious right, the republican party, and most right wing commentators

The problem is that in America this true, but since fundamentalism is a relatively modern invention (since roughly the 1800’s), and is somewhat localized to the U.S., this loud voice is by far the minority in Christendom. I could get you some hard numbers if you like, but I’d be willing to posit that this type of thinking accounts for no more than 10% of all Christians.

Note: Jim, lest you think you need to reprimand me for daring to post on RA’s site, I’ll clear up my comments in the former thread (go reread them if you need to). The fact that I said you aren’t worth responding too, does not mean that no one here is. I am perfectly happy to engage with more reasonable people (Jennifer, Viole to name but a few) who’s first reaction to a poster in another thread was not to call them retarded. Any ‘offers’ you think I made in the former discussion applied to you, and that thread alone, and they still apply.

Nice logical fallacy, Jim. What I do elsewhere has no bearing on what I do here, and writing fiction does not require a tenuous grip on reality.

"I’d be willing to posit that this type of thinking accounts for no more than 10% of all Christians."

I think you're kidding yourself. I've worked for two major coroporations where this kind of thinking is held by the majority of college educated Christians with which I've come into contact --a good 60%. This number goes up as education level goes down. Granted, since I live in the Bible Belt, this figure would not apply to the entire country, but there are enough of these people out there to make them dangerous.

According to the UK Guardian: "American pollsters believe that 15-18% of US voters belong to churches or movements which subscribe to these teachings. A survey in 1999 suggested that this figure included 33% of Republicans. " This number only applies to people who believe in the Rapture, so the number of fundamentalists sharing other beliefs but not the Rapture is much higher. Even more scary is the claim that people who think this way now comprise about 40% of the US military.

These nutters have just about taken over the Republican party, and so have a political influence vastly disproportionate to their actual numbers. And by the way, the people I know who believe this stuff all openly refer to Catholics as idol worshippers or worse.

Viole:

Not only was it a logical fallacy, it was an insult, just more blunt than the one you delivered earlier.

Steve G:

I'm glad to see you back! First you were debating, then you couldn't debate, then we were too crude for you, now *I'm* too crude for you... I don't really care whether your story is straight, and I'm certainly not the gatekeeper of this or any other weblog.

I'm perfectly confident you'll pretend to run off again the moment you're confronted with evidence you can't address... then come back again on your high-horse as soon as you see language that makes you feel like a big boy. When you're done trolling the forums for porn, that is.

I would like to ask how exactly does one decide which parts of the bible are true and which are not true? Do we go by the Pope? Is there an annotated list showing clearly which portions are fact and which are bullshit? Are individual moderate's allowed to pick and choose which parts of the bible are true? I repeat the following:

As Sam Harris contends, it is the fact that 'moderates' accept portions of the worlds holy books to be true and the fact that it is not proper to question someones beliefs (no matter how idiotic and down right evil they may be) that allows the fundamentalists to not only exist but to flourish...

A large number of the worlds problems would be solved if we all viewed the bible, torah, and koran in the same light as Greek myths.

Steve,
ID is a new development in several ways, but it is of course not new in others. ID was born between 1987 and 1990 because of the 1987 supreme court that once again deemed 'creationism' a violation of the establishment clause. ID was specifically designed to circumvent this objection, and it is new in that sense.

Also, the emboldening of american fundamentalists can be directly sourced to a contemporary tide of reactionary conservatism. While this is not new, it comes in cycles. We are approaching a new high tide. So the question is not so much a matter of newness, but of countering the present rising tide to get it going back in the other direction.

Joe said: So 'strict fundamentalists' do not speak for the rest of you? That is why you never hear fundamentalist views from the religious right, the republican party, and most right wing commentators

We agree on many doctrinal issues. We don't agree on everything.

I would have no problem at all with teaching evolution in the schools, if it were taught competently. But if I can judge by what I read and hear every day, it isn't being taught competently. Since coming here I see that neither history nor logic are being taught competently either.

I apologize for being insulting and if there were a tactful way to make that point I would gladly do so. But there isn't. I can only marvel at Steve G.'s patience and on-going attempts to have a coherent, sane discussion with some of you.

Steve refers to evidence; you screech about not accepting other people's opinions (the scholarly consensus no less!) and then start foaming at the mouth. Yet the only evidence you have seems to be based on the state of your digestion. There is nothing else offered. These are the tactics of the asylum and I will not engage them.

Daphnae's Mom,

The assumption that the theory necessitates a mind analagous to ours is Paley's assumption, not mine. If you reread the quote, the analogy constitutes the centerpiece of his argument.

Behind his whole argument is the simple proposition: like effects have like causes. Paley is saying that objects of human contrivance and humans themselves are like effects. Therefore, he is also saying that the creator of objects of human contrivance and the creator of humans are like causes.

As for the last paragraph, my point was that ID can't really say anything about the nature of God such as whether he is mortal, benevolent, omniscient, etc.

Well it looks like there's some advantage in living under an authoritarian government after all- we don't have to worry about crap creeping into our education system like ID.

"Well it looks like there's some advantage in living under an authoritarian government after all- we don't have to worry about crap creeping into our education system like ID."

The problem with this line of thinking is that it depends on the authorities. As the government in the US becomes more authoritarian it will have the opposite effect.

I can offer even more direct evidence of the flaws in Xianghong's statement. During the 1930s to 1960s, Soviet Union embraced a form of pseudoscience known as Lysenkoism, that set back their study of Biology at least 30 years.

Daphne's mom said: Steve refers to evidence; you screech about not accepting other people's opinions (the scholarly consensus no less!) and then start foaming at the mouth. Yet the only evidence you have seems to be based on the state of your digestion.

I'm not sure if you simply haven't read the entire thread, or if your reading comprehension is just not at an adult level. There was no "screeching" done by Steve or anyone about not accepting the scholarly consensus; on the contrary, it was stated that it was a strong one, and evidence was laid out why some of us disagreed with it.

If you missed any of the evidence we laid out, I suspect you might need to re-read the thread, or simply to concentrate a little harder.

Herm,
I think your figures are probably correct for the U.S. But I was speaking in a larger context of the entire world. The numbers are a bit skewed here because such high concentrations of fundamentalists are in the U.S. I just finish a post detailing the numbers and when I went to post…..It vanished (crap!). But using the numbers found here….

adherents

…It shows that being very liberal, at most 25% of Christians worldwide could be considered Fundamentalist, but a more reasonable figure would be about 15% (I can try to reproduce the numbers if you like). Both are admittedly higher than my ballpark figure, but still show that fundamentalists are in the minority in Christendom.

crap again! I always mess up my links. here....
adherents

kmisho:
I personally think ID as science is a pretty crummy (from what I've read from both sides and with an admittedly limited abilities in the scientific arena). I think the fundamentals (i.e. irreducible complexity) have been clearly refuted at least with regards to the examples commonly used.

I even concede that at least the founders (Behe and others) of the current movement are a bit disengenious about their intentions (they are pretty clearly on record as to what their intentions are, and they are not about science). I also think that arguments from silence in general (which are what ID boils down to) are not worth much. So in many regards, I agree with you.

And by the way, the people I know who believe this stuff all openly refer to Catholics as idol worshippers or worse.

Yeah, everybody hates us, even other Christians. :-D

I checked in a couple times over the last 4 hours and kept getting a "This account has been suspended" message. Yet I find that there are many more messages than when last I looked. Interesting and disappointing. I was starting to believe that you know who might finally have run out of patience with you.

Even though it is coming late, I shall respond to Joe's earlier message which, while expressed with all the wit and taste you all are noted for, actually has the makings of a legitimate question in it:

I would like to ask how exactly does one decide which parts of the bible are true and which are not true? Do we go by the Pope? Is there an annotated list showing clearly which portions are fact and which are bullshit? Are individual moderate's allowed to pick and choose which parts of the bible are true?

The Bible consists of writings in a variety of genres. They are the same genres you have been reading your whole life (at least some of them). You know a poem when you see one, right? If a piece of writing starts, “Once upon a time there was a man...” you know you are reading a story. It isn’t much more mysterious than that.

Some genres are much less familiar today because they aren’t popular. We don’t see nearly as much apocalyptic literature as other ages did. And that gives the unwary more trouble. In other words, you will find that many people try to understand the Book of Revelation as a straightforward account of the end of the age. That's when the same people who do any literary criticism (only with training in the history and languages of the Biblical writings) enter in and do their thing. Of course, they don't always agree with one another and thus, over time, the dreaded scholar concensus forms around many questions.

Even the strictest fundamentalists (most of them) do know a poem or a story when they see one (I didn’t give them a fair shake above– their literalism annoys me too, sometimes). What I think happens is that they don’t understand that different kinds of writing require different approaches to interpretation. But let there be no misunderstanding here-- I and other Christians may disagree with them on a number of doctrinal issues and on how our beliefs should impact public policy, if at all. But they are my brothers and sisters in Christ and fellow heirs of the kingdom.

Then there was this gem:

As Sam Harris contends, it is the fact that 'moderates' accept portions of the worlds holy books to be true and the fact that it is not proper to question someones beliefs (no matter how idiotic and down right evil they may be) that allows the fundamentalists to not only exist but to flourish...

Sam Harris, who ever he may be, doesn't sound like a profound thinker to me. In fact as someone on another thread put it (quite hilariously, I thought) the inability to draw distinctions (categorize) is a serious cognitive impairment. To suppose that an American Christian "fundamentalist" or a believer in Torah is the equivalent of an islamic fundamentalist is lunacy yet again. When is the last time a Primative Baptist, decapitated anyone? Can't even think of the last time any Rabbi flew a plane into a building. But I nitpick, no doubt.

PS:

Whomever thought it would be clever (and oh, so brave!) to refer Pacific International, Inc. to my work telephone number, please rest assured that the problem in my household is with *wet dreams*, not bedwetting, so they were unable to assist me.

Thanks for the kind thoughts, though.

I've been reading the transcripts of the Dover trial lately (they can be found at: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day1AMSession.pdf )

The opening statement of the plaintiff's lawyer included the following:

"At this trial, you will hear the parties use the term 'methodological naturalism.' Methodological naturalism is the term used to describe science as self-imposed limitation, that it will only consider natural causes for natural phenomena. Science does not consider supernatural explanations becuase it has no way of observing, measuring, repeating, or testing supernatural events.
But intelligent design will not accept the well-established boundaries of science and openly rejects methodological naturalism, the way science has been practiced for centuries. Why? Because it has to. In the end, no matter how many stones intelligent design throws at the theory of evolution, the only alternative it presents for the development and diversity of life...is a miracle, an abrupt appearance, an act of supernatural creation. That, by itself, establishes intelligetn design as a religious argument, not a scientific argument, for the creation of biological life that cannot be taught to public school students."

I think that sums it up nicely....

to that Mom:

fundie Xtians are diff. from fundie Muslims?

hmmm

Erin Rudolph, Tim McVay, 50-60 diff people involved in abortion bombings and killing doctors...........

I said moderate enable fundie's by accepting the idea that any of our 'great books' are written or inspired by god.........

I would like to ask how exactly does one decide which parts of the bible are true and which are not true? Do we go by the Pope? Is there an annotated list showing clearly which portions are fact and which are bullshit? Are individual moderate's allowed to pick and choose which parts of the bible are true?

Joe, this is an absolutely valid question, and I’ve seen it repeated here often. I’d like to add to what Daphne’s mom says, but the problem is that there is no way to fully explain it in a comments box dialogue. This issue of who has the authority to interpret the bible is at the very heart of the split in Christendom. The best short answer I’ve been able to give was in a discussion I had with Viole in another thread (sorry to reuse it if you already read this, and Viole I hope you don’t mind me incorporating our discussion here) ….

Steve G.
The short answer is neither. I am fully aware of the flaws in the Protestant notion of 'the bible and me'. This is akin to the founding fathers sending a constitution out to each citizen and saying 'figure it out'. That boils down to Christian relativism. As a Catholic, and accepting the premises that a)God exists b)Jesus was who we say he was c) that he established a church to guide us in those areas and d) the institution is protected from teaching error (note: protected from 'teaching error', not from committing sin). The Church is the 'supreme court' as it were with the bible as the constitution. But a living institution needs to interpret the constitution as it can't intepret itself.
But for the person that doesn't accept the premises, it's obviously not sensible. It is however coherent and consistent system given the premises.

Viole:
It's more sensible than the protestant system, I'll give you that. Except for the part where you claim Jesus founded the Catholic church.

Steve G.
That’s a subject for us Protestants and Catholics to debate so you can leave that one to us. ;-) Seriously though, whether you would agree with the claim or not, from a Christian perspective (meaning that the NT ‘at least’ is accepted as somewhat reliable history (even sans the miraculous) regarding what Jesus taught and said-I realize that even that is debated by many), and combining that with writings of the early church fathers, attested tradition, an understanding of ancient near east authority structures during the time of Jesus, etc., etc., etc, a compelling case can be made that this is so. In any event, the case made by Catholics for our system is undoubtedly stronger than the system of Protestantism.

Sam Harris, who ever he may be, doesn't sound like a profound thinker to me. In fact as someone on another thread put it (quite hilariously, I thought) the inability to draw distinctions (categorize) is a serious cognitive impairment. To suppose that an American Christian "fundamentalist" or a believer in Torah is the equivalent of an islamic fundamentalist is lunacy yet again. When is the last time a Primative Baptist, decapitated anyone? Can't even think of the last time any Rabbi flew a plane into a building. But I nitpick, no doubt.

This is off topic, but I have to answer.

Christians can be terrorists, abortion clinic bombers and the IRA for example. I'm not going to speculate on why these things happen, but I have my atheistic suspicions. I think it is entirely fair to say that christianity has its own form of jihad which can be waged at any cost.

Real life more important than metaphysical argument shock horror!!

I've waited a while to see what came up on this as I made the post and I thought I should sit back a bit. I also don't intend to comment agian on this thread. It would be kind of....I dunno....like hogging the limelight or something. God and Steve know that once I get going, I don't tend to shut up. I can't add much useful to what I have already said (although I was prepared to if an ID advocate came along and I had to argue it in detail). I'm not sure it's "better" than TRA's usual - although thanks for the compliment - as I think TRA and I posted to different purposes. TRA aims to provoke as his statement on tolerance (something to do with claw hammers as I recall) makes pretty clear. I was not doing that on this post - I think this is an issue which we should be quite happy to accept support from theists on. It is a real court case, happening right now, with real consequences.

I'm not sure about Steve's caveat about "the extent that it doesn’t try to exclude the possibility that God was the creative force behind it", and I'm even less sure about Benedict and JP2, but I don't really care. If a theist recognises the distortion of science that is taking place (and most theists do - fundies although powerful in America are something of a joke over here) and is prepared to pitch in, I for one am prepared to gratefully accept his or her support and argue the metaphysics later. The case needs to be won NOW. So thankyou Steve.

As an aside, Paley's argument from design does, as Borgia pointed out, have some flaws as made by Paley but I think I would have found it pretty convincing before Darwin. However it only works if there is no alternative to design - as soon as the Origin of Species was published it collapses as a case for the existence of God. I think this is why it is such a focus for some theists - there are plenty of other scientific theories that contradict the bible but none of them also demolish one of the main historical justifications for belief. I would point out that logically the argument from design is a subset of the "God of the gaps" - generally thought these days to be bad theology as well as bad science.

The bottom line, to me, is that although we can have a lot of fun arguing, the whole blog and others like it are not much use if we can't whip up some support when something like this comes up. This case is definitely NOT a fight against all religion, but it is a fight against religion's worst aspects. This is the front line, it's here, it's now.

You will have to try again to get your facts straight: fundie Xtians are diff. from fundie Muslims? hmmm Erin Rudolph, Tim McVay, 50-60 diff people involved in abortion bombings and killing doctors...........

None of these are Christians. Eric Rudolf was repulsed by Christianity and claimed to be a follower of Nietsche. Tim McVey made no such claims or defense.

There have been precious few doctors killed (1 if I remember correctly and the butcher Tiller was wounded). No one can prevent a delusional person from doing whatever he takes it in his head to do. But when you can find a mainstream church of any kind or size that preaches these actions regularly from the pulpit, and has the agreement of vast swatches of the population, maybe then you will have a case that can be discussed.

A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist.......no matter if he is christian, jewish, muslim.....or any other. Look at the statements made by Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. They rank up there with anyway fatwa that has been put out. The only difference is we are lucky enough to live in a secular democracy where the state is not enforcing this idiocy. Hell, there is a state senator from Alabama that said Katrina was punishment from god for our sinful ways..........didn't someone from Al Qeada recently make the same exact statement? And this is an elected US official. All religions are just as bad as one another. Christians, after killing muslims during the crusades, got so bored they decided to split off from one another and kill each other for the past few hundred years (I'm including the present since catholics and protestents are still killing one another in N. Ireland.

My contention, which I ripped off from Sam Harris ( www.samharris.org ), is that by accepting any of our 'holy books' as being factual (ie moderates) simply enables fundamentalists. Why shouldn't they assume it all to be true? The catholic church held the same view for most of its existence. It is only since the development of incontrovertable scientific knowledge has been acquired that the catholic church has changed its view. Funny how the more scientific knowledge we acquire, the less we attribute to god. god just keeps getting smaller and smaller.

And if the bible is the 'inspired' word of god; why didn't god simply 'inspire' the simple truth and have it written like a text book? This way there wouldn't be no problems with interpretations. The simple truth is the bible can, and is, interpreted thousands of different ways. Just because catholics abdicate their own minds and leave it up to others does not make them better then david Koresh (sp?), jerry falwell, or any other christian nutjob.

From Wikipedia

t has been alleged that Rudolph is an adherent of the extremist group Christian Identity, a sect that holds that white Christians are God's chosen people, and that others will be condemned to Hell.

Jennifer: Yes, I am familar with this claim. But in interviews he emphatically denies it. Is it important enough to you for me to look up a cite that you can consult? If so, I will but it will not be til later tonight or tomorrow, as I must feed the kiddies and do other mundane stuff...

The only reason we don't have Christians killing gays, doctors, atheists, other denominations, etc, etc everyday is that we are smart enough to ignore religious nutjobs (or leaders either/or).

Our founding fathers were intellegent enough (after witnessing Europe devolve in an orgy of killing for a few hundred years) to create a seperation between church and state.

So ya'll are catholic? I was raised catholic. Where in the bible does it say raping children is acceptable?

Christian terrorists:

One source reported in late 1996, that there has been "over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings."

Since 1989:
Murders and attempted murders: 24
Bombing, arson, attemped bombing & arson: 179

Multiple instances of anti-abortion violence in Florida:

Pensacola, FL: This city was a focal point for anti-abortion crime from mid 1984 to mid 1994: 9
1984-JUN: An abortion clinic was bombed
1984-DEC: The same clinic was bombed again
1986-MAR: A second clinic was broken into and vandalized; two female employees were assaulted. John Burt, a former member of the KKK, and his daughter were tried and convicted. John Burt became the local leader of Rescue America.
1993-MAR: Michael Griffin, allegedly a member of Rescue America, killed Dr. David Gunn outside an abortion clinic. Griffin's lawyers claimed that Burt had brainwashed Griffin into committing the killing. (There is a consensus among mental health professionals that this sort of "Manchurian Candidate" programming is impossible). Griffin was convicted and given a life sentence.
1994-JUL: Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and leader in Defensive Action killed a physician and bodyguard outside another abortion clinic; he wounded the wife of the bodyguard. He was sentenced to both life imprisonment on federal charges, and execution on state charges.
1994-AUG: Five KKK groups demonstrated adjacent to an abortion clinic in Melbourne FL. They were opposed to abortions given to whites; they encourage abortions to persons of other races. They named Hill their hero of the month.

hard to tell the difference between christians and muslims.......

So, Daphne's mom, you find Eric Rudolph to be a completely trustworthy individual? Strange you accept what he says, but question science facts...............

to quote myself:
But when you can find a mainstream church of any kind or size that preaches these actions regularly from the pulpit, and has the agreement of vast swatches of the population, maybe then you will have a case that can be discussed

One could say that the catholic church holds sway over vast swaths of US society and actively protects people who rape children..........so aren't they defending child rape?

And to quote myself:
The only reason we don't have Christians killing gays, doctors, atheists, other denominations, etc, etc everyday is that we are smart enough to ignore religious nutjobs (or leaders either/or).
Our founding fathers were intellegent enough (after witnessing Europe devolve in an orgy of killing for a few hundred years) to create a seperation between church and state.

This time I'll quote you:

"American Christian "fundamentalist" or a believer in Torah is the equivalent of an islamic fundamentalist is lunacy yet again."

I then list numerous examples of christian fundamentalists whose actions are just as bad as muslim fundamentalists.

You then reply:
"But when you can find a mainstream church of any kind or size that preaches these actions regularly from the pulpit, and has the agreement of vast swatches of the population, maybe then you will have a case that can be discussed"

This is not what we were discussing. We were discussing fundamentalists. This is what theists always do, can't win an argument, pretend we were arguing something else.

I would contend that the preaching of Falwell and Robertson are just as dangerous as any pscho muslim mulla. I can bet you money that a number of the christian terrorists I referred to earlier were apt followers of Falwell and Robertson.

Daphne's mom:

So Pat Robertson isn't the head of a "mainstream" sect? He called for the murder of the elected leader of a sovereign nation. He's also called for the delivery of a weapon of mass destruction to the headquarters of the United States' own State Department. He's actively supported terrorist movements throughout Central America.

Jim is funny (& angry but that makes sense in our Theist's culture.)

Joe is right on point.

Herm is herm (that's a good & rational thing of course.)

Daphne's Mom... whatever. Have a nice day.

Steve G is, well, lol! You sound like a pretty good guy SG so I don't read much of what you say cuz my only problem with your idea that a god is in charge is that it is baseless and as likely as finding Zues nappin' on Mt Olympus; you just moved his nap-spot off planet. Not very convincing bro. That's why I don't bother repeating it ver' oft'.

Thanks for an excellent post A D T. I have nothing to add but that I always appreciate your comments on here. (Good pick TRA!)

An occasionally Proud & Silly Monke, er, Human (intellectually evolved ape)(Thx Mookie!)

Rob: What if the government is authoritarian about being strictly scientific?

I would contend that the preaching of Falwell and Robertson are just as dangerous as any pscho muslim mulla. I can bet you money that a number of the christian terrorists I referred to earlier were apt followers of Falwell and Robertson. Nonsense

ah, that is a sharp wit you've got there...............you've defeated me with your superior debating skills.........

Joe:

That really is superior, isn't it? That's how Daphne's mom shows us all her background in academia. "Nonsense!" got me really far with my advisor when I was defending.

Xiahghong, then you might have new scientific hypotheses squelched and gone untested just because they contradict the ruling authoritarian scientists. You'd get exactly the sort of thing such organizations like skepticalinvestigations.org are accusing skeptics of right now. Its difficult for people to radically change ideas, and the ones with the most firmly entrenched ideas would be the ones in power. Furthermore, the amount of skepticism one has is not directly linked to intelligence. The more intelligence you have, the more able you are to defend fallacious ideas. With a democracy, the power of the people defending the entrenched worldviews lessen so new ideas flow more freely than in an authoritarian environment.

Rob.......i think you switched gears on us............so I'll repeat what the lawyer for the plaintiffs said in his opening statement in Dover:

I've been reading the transcripts of the Dover trial lately (they can be found at: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day1AMSession.pdf )

"At this trial, you will hear the parties use the term 'methodological naturalism.' Methodological naturalism is the term used to describe science as self-imposed limitation, that it will only consider natural causes for natural phenomena. Science does not consider supernatural explanations becuase it has no way of observing, measuring, repeating, or testing supernatural events.
But intelligent design will not accept the well-established boundaries of science and openly rejects methodological naturalism, the way science has been practiced for centuries. Why? Because it has to. In the end, no matter how many stones intelligent design throws at the theory of evolution, the only alternative it presents for the development and diversity of life...is a miracle, an abrupt appearance, an act of supernatural creation. That, by itself, establishes intelligetn design as a religious argument, not a scientific argument, for the creation of biological life that cannot be taught to public school students."

I think that sums it up nicely....

Um, sorry Joe. I wasn't switching gears on you, I was answering Xianghong's question which was a response to something earlier. If we had a nested thread system for our comments, it would fall under a different branch from the other comments here.

Re: #42 Joe The only reason we don't have Christians killing gays, doctors, atheists, other denominations, etc, etc everyday is that we are smart enough to ignore religious nutjobs (or leaders either/or).

This is painfully mixed up. Who is we? Who is the "we" smart enough to ignore religious nut jobs? Christians of one sort or another are the majority in this country, so if we really wanted to (which is a doltish idea), who on earth could stop us? You all have already conceded that at least one branch of the military is full of "nutters". The gov, corporations, police depts et al. are filled with us... the only "we" that is smart enough and numerous enough to prevent the mahem is ... us.

Re #44. Jim: Have you ever heard the term Realpolitik? It was outrageous for a man who claims to be a Christian to have said anything of the sort. You have presumably read enough history to know that what he said is how all gov'ts throughout all recorded history have acted. I don't have trouble with him talking about it. I have trouble with him not rejecting it firmly and unambiguously.

Re #48 Jim: If you had brought forth anything that foolish during your defense, they wouldn't have stopped long enough to exclaim "NONSENSE"! They would have kicked your sorry butt out of the room and that would have been the end of your defense and your program.

Re #48 Joe: I didn't defeat you with wit. I merely mocked you. I defeated you with a little knowledge of the facts.

What facts? You have been discounted at every turn.

All govt. call for droping a nuke on their own state dept? (re Robertson).

So christians support murder?

what the hell I'm I doing, I'm debating with a person who takes her orders from people who rape children, protect child rapers, and enable child rapers................

and yes this country is technically christian (of course you would be hard pressed to find anything in our society that remotely reflects the teaching of the book character named christ), but the reason the nut job fringe is kept in check is because our founding fathers wrote a godless constitution...

pedophiles, people who call for nuking their own nation, and those that hate anyone who they do view as being sinful

Why do creationist debate with athesit if they have disproven evolution time and time again, is it to make fun of evolutionist?

(cont.)should never be placed in a position of power...................

and if you think most of the republican party is religious you are half..............the worship money and personal loyalty

and they'll ride the jesus freaks for as long as they can

DM:

Interesting how, once again, you've cherry-picked only the parts of the posts that you feel capable of responding to.

Robertson wasn't participating in governmental Realpolitik (which is also horseshit, btw; we the people elect the officials, and should expect a higher standard); he is the head of a massive Fundamentalist sect who called for the illegal murder of a soverign leader.

Robertson also (which you didn't address) called for a terrorist act involving a nuclear weapon against the diplomatic headquarters of his own country.

Robertson also actively financed terrorist organizations in Central America.

But, of course, this is just "frothing", right?

DM:

Thank you for admitting your own intellectual laziness in the use of "nonsense" as a response tactic.