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.�? Just like the person making them.

Swine, it’s an example of how delusional Jay and his buddies are that they don’t realize the Catholics were the first major Christian denomination and that the Protestants didn’t come around until quite a few centuries later. I suspect that history, much like science, is going to be a topic he’s largely ignorant of.

I suspect that history, much like science, is going to be a topic he’s largely ignorant of.

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.

not much point in engaging them on issues where they already know the Absolute Truth.

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.

flat earth creationists.

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!�?
Over 150 professors at Berkeley refused to debate so Dr. Hovind spoke for an hour about the lies used to support evolution and then took questions. Watch the hostile reaction as evolutionists see their world-view crumble during this 2¼ hour long discussion and see for yourself why they won’t debate!

Im serious guys these professors dont want to debate…I remember my friend’s mom showing me a posting of a long list of professors that dont want to debate him.

Heres what he has to say about the IRS thing Les:

IRS?
I don’t see how it got to be news since the IRS does audits and collects information all the time. It amazes me how fast rumors get spread, and how they grow so big! (See Veggie Tales – “The Fib From Outer Space!�?) So, only to prevent false rumors from hurting the cause of Christ, here’s the real story of the IRS raid of our ministry:

Someone called a few days ago and said, “I heard the IRS raided your place and you are shut down and going to jail!�? I said, “What? Where did you hear that? All that happened was, the IRS came to get records about me (that they could have just asked for in the right way) and they took boxes of church records and cash instead. The elders of the church contacted the IRS to explain the mistake and are working to get the records and cash back. I am not charged with any wrongdoing, nor is there any crime being committed here, nor am I in jail, nor are we shut down. Aside from the obvious embarrassment that comes with being falsely accused, we are running fine. Come visit to see for yourself.�? The caller said there were articles in Christianity Today, Fox News, CNN and all over the internet about it! I said, “People get audits and investigations all the time, why would this be news? I never got a call from any of those places. Do they care about truth or just selling news? I know the answer for CNN and Fox but why Christianity Today?�?

The money is good (about the offer for evidence) guys. Im thinking though…if the evidence is so overwhelming, why hasnt someone scored this yet? Someone tried to get it by saying his evidence is a soybean plant that is resistant to frost(shady memory). He got rejected because he started with and ended with soybean plants. Creation definately doesnt have a problem with micro evolution as you well know from watching Hovind seminars.

Sorry the last paragraph was me not Hovind.

Im serious guys these professors dont want to debate…I remember my friend’s mom showing me a posting of a long list of professors that dont want to debate him

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.

If this god knew that Satan would go bad and cause the fall of man why did he create Satan to begin with?

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.

What did this god do for fun before he decided to create and torture life forms?

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.

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.

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.

Where in the Bible does it say “Do you want fries with that?�?

Right after Thou shalt marry your first cousin if she hath no teeth.

and

Thou shalt suffer none amoungst you who have an IQ greater than the ambient room temperature

(couldn’t resist ... troll food)

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.