Saw this over at The World Wide Rant:
Kent Hovind can remember when folks didn’t have to lock their front doors.
But then schools began teaching the theory of evolution and all hell broke loose—literally, according to Hovind.
“The devil invented the big-bang theory,” Hovind has said.
This comes from an article titled Seminar debates evolution theory by Breuse Hickman of Florida Today who seems to have forgotten that in order to have a debate you have to have at least two participants in the discussion.
Though modern science rejects creationism, which holds that the human race can be traced to a talking snake and a spare human rib, Hovind stresses it requires even more faith to believe in evolution.
He notes evolution’s failure to explain the origins of gravity or the reason why man has yet to see evidence to support the theory.
It would seem that Mr. Hovind is unaware of the division of sciences or the fact that the theory of evolution was never meant to explain the origins of gravity. That would be covered under the “Theory of Gravity,” which, for those of you keeping score, is not a completely proven theory either yet no one argues about whether we should teach it in schools. For any of you about to suggest that there isn’t any evidence to back up the Theory of Gravity I suggest you prove it wrong by jumping off the roof of your house.
But Hovind says his aim is greater than disproving evolution. He believes students indoctrinated with modern science will eventually lose their fear in God and possibly be prone to breaking common laws. Conscience and a sophisticated understanding of the human condition is not enough.
So now we’re arguing that lack of belief in God leads to crime. You have to have an imaginary old man in the sky threatening you with unending pain and torture for the rest of eternity to prevent crime. If that’s such an effective deterrent then what the hell is up with all these pedophile priests? Could it be that God doesn’t really have a problem with priests molesting children and just hasn’t told anyone outside of the clergy? Surely the fear of Hell should be strongest in those who believe so much that they commit their lives to serve a God willing to damn his creations to such a terrible place, right? So what do they know that the rest of us don’t?
“Hitler killed the Jews because he thought they hadn’t evolved far enough,” Hovind said. “The lion kills the zebra, and evolution teaches kids that they are animals. So how are they going to understand right from wrong?”
Actually Hitler killed the Jews in large part because he felt he was the avenging hand of God taking retribution for what the Jews supposedly did to Jesus.
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
But then, reality and facts have no business with the likes of Creationists.
Jay,
Ummm, I think you’re missing one thing in your dismissal of the Pope and your strict seperation between catholicism and “christianity”. The catholic church is a christian church. In fact it was the first christian church first established by that guy who hung out with Jesus, St. Peter. The rejection of evolutionary theory was initiated by the catholic church and the original proponent of the theory of natural selection was in fact an anglican who was married to the daughter of a minister. So perhaps before you argue that reference to catholicism is irrelevant you should read a little bit of history. The catholic church and its positions are eminently salient to this discussion (especially considering the conservative leanings of the present Holy See).
As a postscript I should note that in his personal correspondence Darwin often noted that he believed that natural selection and belief in God was quite compatible (though he viewed the New Testament as being allegorical and metaphorical, which you might view as heretical or blasphemous).
As a post-postscript I wanted to ask you what you meant about catholicism creating Islam. I don’t get that reference, from what I’ve read islam was started by a guy that had nothing to do with the catholic church and for much of the history of the first two millenia of the common era muslims were persecuted mostly by catholics though perhaps not to the extent that jews were.
Jay, the Gould quotes you provided are not in any way an admission that Evolutionary theory as a whole is wrong. Like many theories, including the theory of Gravity, it’s incomplete and as new ideas come in that attempt to fill in the gaps they are tested, considered, and either adapted or rejected depending on how well they hold up. The quotes you list are Gould addressing a couple of these new ideas and admitting that they didn’t hold up. They’re perfect examples of what others have told you earlier about the nature of science and how it rejects new ideas that don’t hold up under scrutiny and returns to the last known point to try a new approach. You’re once again seeing what you want to see instead of what’s there, but that’s no surprise at this point.
There. I’ve addressed the Gould quotes for you. Now you can address my question asking you to explain the scientific method. If you have any functioning brain cells at all you should be able to figure out how to look it up in Google and be able to provide at least the illusion you have a clue. As for attacking the person instead of the argument all I can say is you haven’t produced anything in the way of a credible argument worth attacking. Your arguments so far have been, to use your own words, “retarted.
And that’s probably because of “scripture only”. I’m amazed they can use a PC even though scripture is silent on that topic.
Well in fairness to Jay, Protestant fundamentalist doctrine holds that the Catholic church is corrupt and false, and is an invention of Satan to deceive the elect (thus it closely resembles Christianity.)
Catholic doctrine holds that St. Peter was its founder but that is disputed by Protestant fundamentalists. Catholic doctrine used to hold that Protestantism is corrupt and false, and is an invention of Satan to deceive the elect. (My mother was the only Protestant in a Catholic high school back in the ‘30’s. Her classmates, reflecting their parents’ understanding, used to ask her: “Aren’t you afraid of going to hell?”)
So it’s unlikely you’d find a Protestant defender of creationism who would equate the Catholic and Protestant churches. (and there are a zillion Protestant churches.) That perspective would be more likely to come from outside either one.
Elwed’s right – not much point in engaging them on issues where they already know the Absolute Truth. Something science never claims to have – hence the progress it has made.
Absolute Truth is the crack cocaine of debate, destroying rationality.
Unless you play Devil’s advocate for the flat earth creationists.
That reminded me of a song by Bad Religion (oddly appropriate no?).
“The flat earth society is meeting here today, singing happy little lies….”
On a side note, it’s too bad that Greg Graffin’s gone so down hill lately. I guess when you’ve been in a band for 23 years you start running out of ideas.
Bible makes it clear the earth is not flat.
In case you havent noticed…science is fallible…your right it changes all the time. I mean its hard to call a textbook (for example) reliable these days. for instance, the history textbooks our campus has…it talks about the kingdom of Greece being divided after the death of Alexander the great. textbook says 3 kingdoms…The book of Daniel (Bible) says 4. Was that deliberately to discredit the Bible? Im not sure…But apparently there was a 4th kingdom in Asia. But yea.
This is a posting on Hovind’s website:
Debate #18: “Berkeley Finally Hears the Truth!
Sorry the last paragraph was me not Hovind.
Uh, they don’t want to debate him for the same reason that cosmologists don’t have debates with flat-earthers.
Hovind isn’t a scientist. He’s a showman, a snake-oil salesman. . .
A clown.
Just because someone stops arguing with you doesn’t mean that they’ve conceded. It’s quite possible they’ve just realized that they are completely wasting their time. Case in point, you. At some point, you will either stop posting utter rubbish, or people will become sooooo used to your posting of utter rubbish that it will no longer be novel or amusing.
And then they’ll stop responding to your posts.
Hovind has yet to win a debate with a scientist. Many of the claims that he has made in those debates, while they seemed compelling at the time, have been found to be utterly false. For a scientist, that’s a stacked deck. How do you debate someone who will simply manufacture false evidence to support their point? *Anyone can -win- a debate, while proving absolutely nothing. It’s called rhetoric, and it’s an art, not a science.*
Here’s an idea. Hovind should try doing what -real- scientists do; he should submit articles to scientific journals of his choice. If his assertions can’t stand up to the scrutiny of his scientific peers (damn, I actually gagged while typing that), then it’s pretty clear that what he really is is a sham, not a scientist.
It amazes me that you’re so confident in Hovind’s ideas, and yet I have yet to see you post in the internet infidels forum on evolution. If you really think his ideas can stand the heat, then lay them out for the people who are both inclined and equipped to challenge them.
I double-dog-dare ya!
Jay, I think you’ve done a poor job of presenting creationism as a viable explanation of how we came to be but I’m willing to consider your views if you will only give them.
Why exactly does a creation scenario seem correct to you and an evolutionary one does not?
Also, if one god created the universe, where did this god come from?
Why couldn’t the earth have been created by a group of very intelligent entities?
What did this god do for fun before he decided to create and torture life forms?
If this god knew that Satan would go bad and cause the fall of man why did he create Satan to begin with?
If a god did create the universe, why do you believe he still pays any attention to it? How do you know he hasn’t wondered off and is now giving his undivided attention to another group of more deserving life forms?
Try not to use the Bible as a source of your proof and try not to make an appeal to fear.
Finally, why are you afraid to leave your email?Do you think we will send you hate mail or submit your email to a Satanic cult’s mailing list?
Any information you can provide that is logical and pertinent will be appreciated.
That’s a very good point there Nowiser. I don’t want to debate Jerry Falwell on church vs. state but that doesn’t mean that I concede his position.
Jay – Couldn’t God have created the earth in say, 5 days instead of 6? Couldn’t she have also created the earth to appear older/younger than it is? Isn’t it possible that God never even had dinosaurs on the planet at all and just created dinosaur bones to amuse paleontologists? Sure she could have.
Problem is, you have to introduce an unknown, unprovable God into the the beginning of your scenario as the control and then work backward. That is not science. Fun math, fun hypothesis but not science.
If Hovind submits a letter to any scientific journals I recommend that he do it through a ghost writer as he’s already made a complete mockery of any purported studies he’s committed.
Dear Jay,
I’m so sorry I haven’t been here for all the fun the last few days. I really did miss quite a lot!
But now that I’m back in town and I’ve finished reading through all the various posts, I do have a few comments for you:
First I want to assure you that I’m not the least bit worried about having a millstone tied around my neck. They make quite a collectors item and are so difficult to find these days that I doubt anyone would be interested in tossing one into a river—regardless of whether it was attached to my neck.
Seriously, though, I stand by my position that I have no interest in harming my cousin’s faith, and I must say that I have no problem with creationism as religion. If he believes that God created the earth in a literal 6 days, then let him call it something he believes in by faith and leave it at that. His faith undoubtedly provides him with a sense of security and comfort in a world that is more than a little frightening, and I’m all for that.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with religion as psychological comfort. After all, there IS evidence from the scientific community (those evil faith-killers!!!) that strong religious convictions can confer many psychological and social benefits. But I’d also have to point out that when my cousin was quite young and afraid of the dark, I was the one who gave him a green spray-bottle filled with water (“Monster Repellent”) to take to bed at night so he could get to sleep. So, I see nothing wrong with personal beleifs that lower anxiety, depression, and confer a general sense of well-being.
No, the problem that I have with my cousin is his unfailing, rock-solid faith in the word of Kent Hovind himself. In my cousin’s eyes, Mr. Hovind is quite infallible. He believes every single word that comes out of Hovind’s mouth. (He can almost recite his tapes verbatum!). Surely even you can concede that Hovind’s word is not really infallible?
I would argue that, with a faith grounded so very firmly in the reliability of the word of Kent Hovind, this young man (my cousin) is very likely to LOSE his faith altogether when he inevitably discovers that some/any part of what Hovind says is untrue—and I suspect that even you would agree that that would be very sad indeed. (If my cousin WERE to lose his faith, I’d rather he did it the old-fashioned way: by challenging his faith through study, reason, and intelligent questioning.)
No, I’d say that the overwhelming reverence for Mr. Hovind’s words and ideas (both in my cousin and here in some of these posts) is appalling by almost any secular or Christian measure; and this obsession with the ‘evils of evolution’ borders on idolatry. (“Webster” on idolatry: immoderate attachment or devotion to something.)
The second thing I want to say (although nearly everyone has already talked this to death) is that evolution is a theory—This means that it is a system of explanation. The hypotheses generated from evolution are tested through observation and scientific manipulation (experiments). The results of these studies are considered in statistical terms (what is the likelihood that these finding occurred through mere chance?). And the results of these studies are submitted to other scientists (a cut-throat bunch, I’ll tell you), who take great delight in challenging each other’s work.
You may see conspiracy in science around you, but scientists are among the most (if not THE most) self-critical groups around and are NOT attached to other scientists’ theories. If there’s a fatal flaw in someone else’s work, they’ll find it, point it out, and publish papers on it. Trust me on this—there’s no conspiracy to hoodwink the public. If you could find credible evidence that evolution could be dismissed as an explanatory system, you’d subject it to scrutiny, run experiments, publish papers and become quite, quite famous.
Third point: Yes, despite the fact that science is self-critical and subject to revision, they teach much of what they know as fact. There are a couple of good reasons for this:
First, we can only teach what we have as our very best understanding based on the current evidence. We still teach the theory of gravity as fact, though there’s much we don’t understand about it, and much of what we do know has been revised over the years. It is the same with nearly every single topic in school. New findings replace old and we learn and teach new things all the time.
Yes, textbooks are subject to constant revision and the results of new findings are added and old ideas eliminated. Most university students quickly learn the error of purchasing old, unrevised versions of textbooks for their courses. (It is a shame Hovind hasn’t learned this, but then, he didn’t go to a real university.)
Second, the ability to critically analyze new information is both a talent and a skill that takes time and practice to develop. I could tell you what we know about Alzheimer’s disease, but unless you’ve studied psychology, biology, and logic, and taken several statistics and research methods courses, you might not have the skills to go to the sources and effectively evaluate that information.
Unless you understand how science works and you’ve either practiced or learned to critically analyze what you read, it is pretty pointless trying to explain to you that all that we know about Alzheimer’s (and about anything else in science) is subject to revision. If we told you all this before you had developed any skills in critical analysis, you might erroneously conclude that we know nothing at all! Oh, wait a minute. Someone already concluded that, didn’t they?
(As an aside, you should note that the idea that we know nothing at all is a valid philosophical position, but not one that can be taken from a position of ignorance of science or the scientific method. See Webster on Ignorance: “destitute of knowledge or education”).
Well, I’d say that’s it for now, Jay. My dog wants walking and I’ve got to get some exercise myself.
Shelley
Shelly, that’s a beautifully written response. Your cousin is lucky to have you on his side.
Shelley’s response is similar to a notion that I’ve long held – there is a type of self-professed Christian that worships the Bible rather than God.
I hope things work out for the cousin. The deeper the belief, the harder the potential fall…
Indeed, Shelley makes some very good points. One of the things I found most disturbing about Hovind was his ‘cult’ like tactics. Following a debate between Dr. Hovind and Dr. Meyers, three teenage boys came forth and announced that they no longer needed to attend college or study Hebrew because all they needed to know could be found in the King James Bible.
Good luck with your cousin Shelley and tell him not to drink any grape cool-aid.
Bible clearly says that God lets fallen man be fallen…There are some things that God cannot do…cant learn (omniscient), cant lie, ect…he also cannot force someone to believe in him or Love him. Jesus says that the creator is reaping…weeding is a very good term he uses. (im not saying you are weeds…its a parable). And because he went through incomprehensible pain and died for the salvation of even his enemies…Im sure you get the picture.
Brock: I cannot explain the origin of God. According to scripture God is eternal and he has always been…he created the dimension of time so he is outside of it.
There is my explanation, now brock, what is your explanation of the origin of the universe? matter? lets start there. Les says that he does not believe the big bang created everything from nothing. So i want to know where you are coming from.
God is torturing no one. God made a perfect earth, no entropy, fair and all, no sickness. Man wrecked it. I notice alot of people hold the position you have about God randomly inflicting pain. But before this campus, I went to secular schools and universities, and I can tell you the texts (english for instance) are very bias. Try thinking about this: Jesus teaches to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you. He also teaches to love your neighbor as yourself and to have mercy. With theft, murder, and aldultery, all things considered sin, running rampant in this world do you think its more of a disobedience problem than God amusing himself? Christians, followers of Christ, (supposed to love their neighbors), try to bring others to accept Christ’s salvation so they may recieve eternal life and they are called haters for trying to press their religion over other people’s. Do you think if we had a 100% obedience to Jesus (who lived without a hint of sin) there would be problems?
Shelley: I see what your saying about your cousin’s faith. But Hovind is trying to get authentic faith, not psychological comfort. Its better for him to take Hovind’s word because hes teaching him to believe in God’s word. I didnt put the millstone quote out to mock you or anything…Im saying thats something you will regret. and the quote says…“It would be BETTER, for a millstone to be around your neck…drowned…sea”…you wont get a millstone for your collection.
How can Hovind not be debating scientists? Are we saying all of them arent scientists? Professors from all over the US have to have degrees and whatnot.
I turned off the email option because its filling up my inbox…yet it still comes in.
The same could be said brock. Can you tell me 100% that there is absolutely no possiblilty that you have an eternal soul? and that its not going somewhere when you die?
and How can you say Hovind’s evidence is pure imagination when he references all of his quotes, pictures and articles?
And I’m sure all his references can be disproven. Family Research Council, AFA, Focus on the Family. They fund their own groups and their ‘findings’ are just as biased as I believe you think much of the response here is.
Simliar to several researchers (I forget their names) who have a vested interest in proving that homosexuality is harmful.
Paul Cameron is one of them; I remembered that just now in case someone doesn’t believe that last bit.
Where in the Bible does it say “Do you want fries with that?”
Concerning the touted Hovind challenge, a web search like Hovind challenge yields hours of amusement if one has the time to spare.
Hey, Elwed, were you trying to link to a Google results page? If so, I don’t think it’s working (I’m not even sure it’s possible?)
Anyway, I typed in Hovind challenge, and the very first link that I hit was worth at least forty minutes of . . .
“no way,”
“you gotta be shittin me,” and
*insane laughter*
Life would be much less interesting without the likes of Hovind, I must admit.
who cares anyway be nice
Jay, you’ve got all the features of a meme there: the promise of benefit if the meme is embraced, the instructions for passing it on, and the threat of some absolute calamity if it is not. Additional features the meme’s circular reinforcement (“The meme is absolute truth, therefore everything of the meme is true”) and faith in the meme over outside evaluation of it.
It explains a lot to recognize Christianity as a product of social evolution. What began as a Jewish reform movement reproduced itself endlessly in the minds of followers, with certain features reinforced and others deprecated until it evolved into another species entirely: a whole new religion incompatible with its source.
“Bah,” I wouldn’t put too much credence in “nice.” Nice is another word for charming, and charm is an asset, not to be mistaken for a virtue.
To say that decrepid you would have to assume that 3 million years ago primitive man concieved monotheism randomly in their undeveloped brains. You have a point…it looks like it could very well be that way. However it would also explain alot to say that man, from the beginning, knew God and over time a fallen race strayed off into other religions. Eventually Jesus (God) came down and ended the sacraficial system, promting people to follow him, Christianity started. Both are valid explanations I would say.
Jay, this is why people don’t want to debate you on scientific issues: you are “make-sense-impaired” and it quickly starts to seem like a complete waste of time. It seems you aren’t any better at sociology than you are at biology.
Monotheism was a relatively late development as shown by the various polytheisms with which Judaism competed when it arrived. It is probable the first “religions” were variations on animism.
Judaism started around 4,000 or 4,500 years ago and Christianity roughly 2,000 years ago. So no million-year scales are involved in that timeline. Christianity evolved from Judaism. Now before you get all excited about that statement, remember that Jesus was a Jew.
As the first-century church developed its meme, various features (like gnosticism) were rejected and others (like belief in the resurrection) permenantly engraved. Eventually a canon emerged and affixed itself to the meme – not the same canon you believe in, by the way.
The Christian meme contains all the instructions it needs to propogate itself as do the memes of many other religions. What distinguishes Christianity from other religions is… oh, wait, they’re pretty much all alike. “Believe in this and -god- will bless you, don’t believe in this and you will suffer, and reproduce the meme.” Shampoo, rinse, repeat.
Hmmm.
I’ve had professors that believed that Western Europe was ruled by an egalitarian, matriarchal society, long before recorded history. These are people with PhDs. But they’re wrong. At least, they don’t have any compelling evidence.
Just because someone has a job, or a degree, doesn’t mean that they know what they’re doing, or that they are immune from being -led- by what they -want- to believe, rather than what actually is.
Don’t assume that your professor is right, Jay, just because he’s your professor. Ask questions. Like “how does he know this,” “what are his sources,” and “are there alternative perspectives on this, that might be more compelling?”
I’m certainly not a Bible scholar, but I tend to take your assertion that your professor has some “compelling new material” with a grain of salt, because, so far, you haven’t demonstrated the ability to distinguish between a convincing argument, and seriously flawed reasoning. You present pseudoscience as a “challenge” to science.
By the way, internet infidels has -another- forum that is entirely devoted to issues of biblical exegesis and accuracy. Many of the folks who hang out there have a decent command of Hebrew, and know more about history than your average college professor. If you’re truly interested in these kinds of issues (and if you’re pursuing a religious education, you should be) you really should check it out.
Ok, I realize that I didn’t make any insulting personal jokes about paste in this post, but let’s just pretend I did anyway.
Jay, I’ll start at the end of your last response and work backward:
Did you really mean to say that? Or were you just tired and not re-reading what you typed?
I covered it in the previous entry: you jumped timescales. Typically creationists jump timescales from longer to shorter, but in this case you went the other way. I was talking about something that happened in the last 2,000 years and you immediately started talking about our distant hominid ancestors. Have you gone evolutionist on us? Good for you, but you should keep that a secret from your prof.
The history of the early church may be more complex than you’ve been led to believe. There was a lot of give-and-take among competing groups between the time Jesus was wrapped and the Apostles’ Creed was committed to parchment in the early 300’s (it was by no means the first or last of competing creeds.) The church as you know it didn’t just leap into being in 34AD. The first 150 years in particular there was a lot of turmoil and give-and-take. And you may have noticed that there is by no means universal agreement among Christians as to what Jesus meant about anything, even today. Unless, as most doctrinaires do, you simply define anyone who disagrees with them as following a “corrupted faith” or even as “non-Christian.”
So your prof knows who was reigning in Egypt when Moses was around? Good: he reads National Geographic. Seriously, though, he’d better know that much or you should be asking for a refund. But equally important to knowing a lot of facts is being able to put them in the context of the larger body of human knowledge. If you just want to be pumped full of doctrine you do well to latch onto one school of thought (like that represented by your prof, or Kent Hovind) and not let go.
For a broader view, I suggest you pore over A History of the Christian Church by Williston Walker, The Heritage of Biblical Faith, by J. Philip Hyatt, and The New Testament, its background, growth and content, by Bruce M. Metzger. Keep a copy of Documents of the Christian Church by Henry Bettenson handy for reference. These are non-sectarian works of deep Christian scholarship.
Religious meme evolution, like biological evolution, doesn’t all happen at one speed but there are connections. Jesus focused on the minority Hosean tradition and was something of a mystic (hence the many different traditions regarding what he meant.) This didn’t sit too well with the authorities and turned out to be rather unhealthy as Mel Gibson recently illustrated on film.
But he was apparently quite charismatic and his many followers set about re-interpreting Judaism in light of what they could remember from his oral teachings. (Note that even the four Gospels do not agree as to what that teaching was, and a Pauline “spin” emerged after the Apostles’ council depicted in Acts.)
Let me tell you a secret: every academic is working on a book, and it will be a big deal when it is published. I’m sure the world of science little suspects the calamity that will smash their comfortable world view when your prof unleashes his scholarship upon them. What the Bible and Kent Hovind could not defeat, your prof will sweep aside.
Question: does he have a degree in nuclear physics? Does he know the difference between the LIGO project in Louisiana and Hanford, Washington and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN? Most importantly, did he start with the conclusion that the Earth is young and then go cherry-picking “facts” to prove it? Before writing a whole book, why doesn’t he try getting one article published in a peer-reviewed physics journal? Or does your definition of a “big deal” include a guy preaching to the choir?
That’s exactly what’s wrong with this whole discussion. Even if a scientist starts with a theory, he knows another scientist will shoot it down if it isn’t solid. It won’t pass peer review, and it won’t stand the test of corroberating experiments and analysis by other scientists. The scientist knows he doesn’t have Absolute Truth – the best he can hope for is a durable theory.
The religionist starts with a conclusion known as a “doctrine,” and selects supporting facts either in or out of context. Doctrine is immune to criticism and to revision because “God came down” and dropped it in our laps. But despite that immunity, doctrine is quite brittle as it cannot bend or change shape. There are no durable doctrines.
The Absolute Truth of doctrine exerts a powerful gravitational field that bends the space in which the believers’ minds operate. No intellectual convolution will appear too warped to be acceptable as the doctrine bends everything else around it.
So if you’re planning to go running back and forth between your prof and this thread, it’s a waste of time. You are operating in a different gravitational field. There’s no way any of us could possibly carry a discussion with you, nor will your doctrinally-dictated understanding convince anyone here about ID let alone any talking snakes. But cheer up! You’ll have all eternity to laugh at us from heaven while we all sizzle in the barbecue spits of hell, right?
Les, sorry this is so long. Half your bandwidth must come from this one thread.
You know, the first time you said this, I wasn’t quite sure what you were talking about. But I guess memes -do- “evolve.” But does a meme “change” to fit environmental pressures? Kind of a Lamarkian meme? Or can there be multiple different types of meme change—some random, some dependent upon meme “replication errors,” etc? and then the “best” memes are “selected out” on the basis of the environment that they arise in?
Makes me kind of nervous, though, to use evolution as an analogy for meme changes. There’s already plenty of Creationists who talk about the “evolution” of the cosmos, and that just drives me nuts. I certainly don’t want to encourage people to play fast and loose with the idea of evolution.
This link really IS getting way long.
Meme theory is kind of new – I didn’t notice it until 5 years ago. But (Jay take note) it isn’t presented as a “Truth” but as a useful metaphor, a way of envisioning, understanding and discussing social phenomena. Like any other metaphor it can be discarded if it isn’t helpful. The phenomena are the same with or without it.
I have seen studies on how various internet legends (mostly passed around by email) have “evolved” and acquired new features or lost old ones. On a much longer time scale it seems that religious memes do that too.
Certainly memes do change to fit environmental pressures, and then when they’re passed on they carry the change. In this respect the metaphor bends or breaks as individual biological organisms don’t do that. The Principia Cybernetica Web (now there’s an ostentatious name!) has a discussion of meme evolution.
I sure agree with you on that. It could lead to all kinds of new features on the creationist meme!
So? I know who was President of the US when Dorothy went to Oz. What does that prove?
GM – good one!
When I said “meme theory is kind of new” I should say “I am a dullard and only caught on recently.”
The last chapter of The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (you might want to duck; I think Jay’s head just exploded) introduced meme theory 29 years ago but I didn’t get ‘round to reading it until about 10 years ago. But my head was swimming as I got near the end of the book and I just didn’t get it.
Maybe 5 years ago I read a magazine article about meme theory and something clicked: I went and picked Selfish Gene off the shelf and sure enough, there it was.
So I didn’t get infected with the “meme meme” until someone ‘splained it to me in smaller pieces and smaller words. How’s being slow-witted for an immune system?
Finally, I can throw in something sensible into the fray again (people like decrepit or Les intimidate me sometimes because they HAVE read a lot more on most of the topics debated here…)
Jay, you said that if all people lived according to the teachings of Jesus – without sin – we would have a perfect world. No suffering, no God torturing humans.
One big problem here for you. Cancer.
Or any other disease. Living according to the Bible will not cure us of our physical ills, won’t help against virus or germ. And even if you argue that dying after a long life is acceptable, what about kids dying, slowly, in great suffering. There’s so many fortunately rare diseases we can’t even treat yet.
If God made them, I’m very proud of the doctors and scientists fighting against him. If he didn’t – then he is either uncaring or not ommnipotent.
Or he simply – isn’t.
ingolfson, let’s not get started on theodicy.
Remember, no diseases, decay, no nothing until man disobeyed. Check out the Bible and Health by Hovind. It really opens up your eyes on the whole cancer issue. According to that video and the PhD chick, cancer is a nutrient deficiancy. Then realize this generation’s eating habits. Also realize this generation’s selection, processed food, built for profit.
While im on the issue, I watched a show a while back. A woman had a huge tumor. Then she did something she hadnt done in a while: Turn to the Lord. She then saw that her eating habits werent too good. Baddabim baddaboom Tumor goes away…recovery. And there was a Bible that told her how to take care of herself all along.
Leviticus says that bread is good for the heart (what??). Back in the day it had vitamin E or something like that, and another ingredient that made it spoil fast. Bible says love of money is the root of all evil. Well time passes by and companies want profit and shelf life…what do they do? take out whats good. Now we got white bread which has (practically) no beneficial nutrients whatsoever. Whats the message? Man, not God is wrecking things. God gets the blame when something goes wrong, and man gets it when its good.
Another interesting story here (from my church)…a woman had cervical cancer, just really bad condition. It seemed like there would be no recovery. Lots of people prayed for her after that. ughhh couple Sundays later her friend has a complete recovery as told from her friend who was flat out crying. “There isnt even a trace of it” she said. Message here? of all the people who are sick, how many of them are praying about it and actually believe they are talking to God (and not a wall)?
Boyd isnt writing the book, he has the beta version, I believe he is helping with its progress however. Like I said I would get back to you on this because I would like to get evidence as well about the monotheism deal. peace.
Why? Because we wouldn’t want this thread to become too big?
Addendum: Jay – I’ll provide you with the standard counter on this board. Cite respectable sources (heck cite anything beyond anecdotal evidence)!
Spontaneous cures are not limited to religious people. Heck, I remember a study that playing videogames where the opponent was supposed to represent cancer cells helped raise the recovery rate amongst cancer patients.
So show me a respectable study that shows that religious people have a bigger rate of remission than agnostics or flat-out atheists.
Elwed, I know what you meant. But I just couldn’t resist. Even though I knew this was the way it was going to go…
ingolfson, if you must, can we stick to a multiple choice format.
I don’t want to spoil the entertainment, but this banter should move to a shorter thread or the forums.
And here I was waiting until it hit 400 comments. Oh well.
OK, this thread is once again closed. Take any further bickering or, in the case of Jay nonsensical incoherence, to the SEB forums.
Les, you ignorant slut. Even if I concurred with much of your running commentary I would think that even you are above your own mis-characterization of the Hitler quote you used. Every honest and serious scholar who has studied Hitler concludes that his religious overtures were made to try to appeal to the religious masses and dupe them into following his evil and sadistic plans for the Jews. He was not, by his own admission and according to reams of documentation, a serious follower of Christ.
You weaken your own argument when you resort to this kind of rank amateurish historical error.
Jeff, you incompetent asshole, I’d love to see the reams of documentation showing that Hitler wasn’t a serious follower of Christ. Lots of Christians make that claim and then never bother to provide anything to back it up other than the occasional bit of apologist material which, itself, doesn’t offer anything in the way of proof.
Here, however, is a site that looks at the Hitler wasn’t a Christian myths including your claim that Hitler only pretended to be a Christian to “dupe the masses.” It didn’t even take me long to find it. Surely with all the reams out counter-evidence you have available you can do something similar?