As with a lot of articles like this, a small disclaimer is necessary to hopefully circumvent all the lame comments from people who don’t bother to read the article but jump to conclusions about how *whatever* I am. So… [disclaimer]
~I am a female.  Oh noes.  I was not offended by this video, and you shouldn’t be either.  I will elaborate in future paragraphs.
~I am VERY much against discrimination due to gender / ethnicity / hair color/ religious belief / etc.  I believe I have made this clear in past articles (Arguing Fundies for women’s rights, Thoughts on Equal Opportunity, Fighting against reinforcing cultural norms.  There is also a clear difference between encouraging and propagating stereotypes as reality and playing off them.  When you give little girls pink books and tell them to consider themselves in relation to a man, while giving little boys blue books and telling them to protect the helpless female, that’s encouraging and propagating as reality.  When you make satire about this dichotomy, that’s playing off them, as long as you don’t encourage the spread as “normal” but include either a level point of view (watch “Words” by the Mr. Deity crew, and you’ll see a nearly complete female-male stereotype role reversal) or no intrinsic value judgement.
~To answer a comment on rd.net before it comes up again: I don’t blindly support Mr. Deity or any other “hero” figure such as Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, PZ, or even Carl Sagan.  I am a skeptic.  This means I question every statement by everyone, even those I admire and generally agree with.  Everything must be viewed critically and as objectively as possible.  Especially my own beliefs and those of the ones I admire most.
~Finally, I’m not arguing in favor of the video because I thought it particularly funny or because I’m a Mr. Deity fangirl.  I’m not really a huge fan of the show, just a casual passerby.  I find some episodes funny, more because of the situational irony than the dialogue.  I really don’t care whether or not you found the episode funny or like Mr. Deity, as I am largely neutral on both accounts.

Anyone who makes a statement to the contrary of the above points will immediately be mocked.[/disclaimer]

First let’s walk through the episode and line up exactly where the satire is, how it relates to religion (surprisingly, quite a few commenters don’t understand this), and basically why you should not be offended.

First, the telling moment: 0:32. Larry: “I don’t understand why you’re doing this if we’re going with the organic model.”  By now, you should get it.  Actual Reality = organic model.  Religious “Reality”= Rib-woman Eve.  The very fact that Eve exists in any form indicates that we’re not looking at reality, because reality is the organic model. From here on, you have to view everything in the episode through the scope of NOT REALITY.  This is where religion plays in initially, as the parody is on the twisted perception of our Judeo-Christian culture, NOT the world as it really is.

0:55.  Eve dotes on the first thing she sees.  Remember, in Judeo-Christian culture, women are supposed to be this way.  We are supposed to be defined by and dependent on the male, so to depict the Mr. Deity-programmed woman as reaching for the first male she sees is not out of context and perfectly within the bounds of the religious reality.  I don’t think you need to be reminded that we’re looking at Religion Reality, not Actual Reality.  She’s not SUPPOSED to be autonomous… at least initially.

1:20-40  “From a rib? How sweet!”  She realizes she’s supposed to be equal.  Deity, being the bastard he is, shakes it off and dismisses this idea, but doesn’t really argue against it.  He doesn’t take it seriously.  What was the opinion of women’s rights for the past couple thousand years?  Oh yes, women are not / should not be taken seriously.  This should come as no surprise that he does not necessarily react to this, but the fact that she makes this statement is incredibly leading.  Do we see a future episode plot?  I think so.

2:33 Eve cries and gets emotional.  Deity created an emotionally needy being to serve one purpose, and now he is surprised to find himself out of control and at the whim of his creation.  This is a point of contention amongst commenters but I’ll address that aspect later.  Here we have to realize that the point here is primarily showing that the MALES are at a disadvantage, and that Mr. Deity is NOT in control of his creations.  This is actually an ongoing theme throughout the entire show, as he’s constantly shown to be somewhat of a dorky moron, frequently failing to grasp basic concepts and has to rely on Lucy or Jesse to explain or do things properly.  Like the brushed off equality comment, you can see that the fear and confusion Eve is generating is likely to lead to a future plot, specifically one where all the misogynistic laws of the bible are written, because they don’t understand her and just want to control her and “turn her down”.  Again, it really isn’t her, its them.

3:36 “Are you guys completely clueless?”  The answer is yes.  It’s Mr. Deity losing here as he fails to grasp her set up.  She has outsmarted him with her wily ways.  (Ladies, seriously, don’t tell me you’ve never EVER done something like this, and Guys, don’t say a girl has “never” done this to you (though you probably were just confused at the time).  It’s a very effective trick to get your way and prove a point; make an obviously absurd statement, then when the opponent agrees, display their absurdity.  This trick can defy gender lines but it does tend to be a girl -> guy thing.)

4:33 “What have we done!… I feel so sorry for Adam…”.  Setup for the future.  Reeling from this, he’s going to take precautions.  By this point, Eve has stood up for herself, and Mr. Deity does not like this.  The parallels to scripture should be clear, as well as a rationale.  Interestingly, this is presenting the male as the weak one, as he will need to be protected from the female.  It’s not so much that the woman is behaving emotionally as that she is out of control.  I will address the emotional end later.

4:45 “THIS ISN’T THE ORGANIC MODEL”  Remember that word, satire?  This is further proof that we are, in fact, looking at satire and not a literal depiction of reality.  Don’t forget that Mr. Deity is a show made by the godless, so they don’t believe in the 6-day Genesis model–they accept the ORGANIC MODEL.  So when he says “this isn’t the organic model”, he’s saying “this isn’t a depiction of real women in reality”.  So, “will they all be like this?” NO, because this isn’t the organic model.

5:00 Lucy enters.  Yes, Lucy’s little “OOH she’s going to be so excited” is forced.  That kind of lost it for me, as its somewhat out of character.  The following dialogue starting with “you know what … go get ready”, IS very in-character.  She gets it, she’s being practical and realistic, and as usual, Lucy comes out on top compared to the Deity.  This isn’t unusual for the show, either.  Now think about it.  The Deity pissed off Eve.  Lucy is going to wake her up, and she is going to be angry at the Deity.  The Deity is going to be gone getting ready.  She also hasn’t actually met Adam yet, who was not so bright and fully expects a helper who he has power over… accepting the situation without hesitation due to a sexy photo.  Anyone who remembers the Adam and Eve story can start working up some ideas as to what might happen next.  Two words: Character Development.

Whether you found the execution or jokes themselves funny is irrelevant.  Now you should be able to see that we are NOT talking about a simple, one-sided stereotype or any kind of “belittling” toward women, and it was about more than *just* men/women relations.  Additionally, the whole episode seemed to me more of a set up for the future than a stand-alone skit.  I’m not convinced this is a good move for Mr. Deity unless he makes longer shows to allow the set up to play out.

Now, lets examine some of the reactionary comments from RD.net.  I did not follow the Pharyngula comments or youtube comments simply due to volume.  A cursory glance revealed that this dialogue was largely universal.  One group cries sexism and offense, another laughs at the satire, and the final group is largely nonplussed (eh not the best it was sort of kind of funny maybe i don’t get it).

A quote sampling:

“And just because some people found it funny doesn’t mean it’s not depressing to come to one of the places I should feel accepted and find this ‘women are so irrational’ and ‘women aren’t funny’ crap again”
“Yes, some of you have clever arguments that try to rationalize their choice in humor. Sadly, those arguments do not take away feeling like I have found a place (online) where I can be understood on some level, only to be shown that it is generally o.k. to make fun of me in the standard stereotypical way. No one should be ridiculed due to circumstances of birth, even if the people not being made fun of find it funny.”
“How powerful and in control is a person who relies on passive aggressiveness, who can’t speak openly and reasonably about her wishes, who can’t have a confrontation without breaking into tears? If you think that was such a positive representation, why don’t you try living it for a while?”
“Or you’re taking a cheap shot at a marginalized group.”
“I think what rubs people the wrong way is that your show generally satirizes religion, and in this case, religion only looks bad if women implicitly look worse. The joke, to me, runs: God is a buffoon because he made women. What a blunder! Look at how they behave!
Also, if we run with the creation story, this is not just about SOME women who behave like that SOME of the time; your insinuation is that the PROTOTYPICAL woman INTRINSICALLY behaves that way. This is important.”
“So Anath, next time some black person takes offense at a blatent stereotype, he/she’s just being an anti-white radical, right?”
“I don’t understand why it’s ok to trash women for their sex. It’s not like we chose what genitals we’re born with. To me, it’s no different than trashing black people for the color of their skin. (And there is a difference between picking on white men and picking on women and blacks.)”
“I really enjoy the Mr Deity episodes, but this one, well, I wasn’t sure exactly whether the rather simplistic caricature of a rather vacuous and irrational woman was meant to be funny.”
“There’s me thinking Mr Deity was pretty ordinary comedy from an anti-religion perspective, when it seems to be very ordinary, and derivative, observational bollocks.

It must be about 5 minutes since a comedian, somewhere, did the “woman are hard to work out” routine.”

In light of analyzing the episode, most of these comments fall flat (I’m not going to touch the race comments unless requested; too much potential off-topic debate).  The episode wasn’t ABOUT “ridiculing” women or “taking cheap crack shots at a marginalized group”.  If you think it was, maybe you should actually watch the full episode and pay attention rather than getting angry at her initial behavior and turning it off to rant.  If you’re so sensitive to the portrayal of women (or *insert group here*) that you can’t look past an initial gut reaction, you’re never going to understand whether or not someone is actually making fun of YOU, playing off a stereotype, or using stereotypes as a vehicle to send a greater message.  Godless, think about all the religious people you scorn for being unable to look through the blasphemous face value appearance to see the deeper message.  You can’t say “oh but this issue is different,” because it is not.  Additionally, if you assumed that 2-3 minute clip was the totality of Eve’s character, you’re VERY guilty of negative stereotyping.  Rather than wait and see what she does in different situations to judge her holistically, you’ve taken one brief excerpt and assumed that this excerpt is all she is.

One of the criticisms that is often brought up is that “I don’t behave like that!”  Face it ladies, there is a “2 minute clip” of your life sometime, where you have gotten angry, behaved on impulse, made remarkably similar facial expressions, and so on.  And men, there is an equivalent “2 minute clip” for you being flummoxed by a woman going crazy, as well as your own irrational clip.  It doesn’t really matter what it’s about, clothes, wedding, public transportation, not getting pizza on Friday night or whatever, there’s a universal link.  I’m sure a few readers remember the .999…=1 discussion?  Well, there you go.  My 2 minute clip of irrational insanity.  I am not proud of it, but it proves that even I am not immune to the effect of hormones, so I won’t pretend to be.  We’re all irrational at some point in time, even those of us who fight their hardest against it.  I’ve also been known to adapt some of the 1:00-1:40 tones of voice when confronted with something cute or talking to my cats, and I have occasionally been a little irritated at Cleric’s choice of clothes to various social events (though I deviate from the “standard” reaction quickly, because I remember hating when my Mom did the same thing).  The “manliest” girls I know do the same.  If you’re a female and bucking the stereotype presented because you “don’t behave like that”, I urge you to self examine.

This will not be a popular sentiment, because no one likes harsh self-examination OR positively comparing oneself with a stereotype, but I urge everyone to do this not only for your gender but also for your religious position, and your clique/major at school, and the brand of clothes you buy and your hobbies and political party and your favorite music and region of birth and…  You can’t lessen the power of stereotypes by simply sticking your fingers in your ears and whining.  You have to either fight against them by demonstrating irrefutably that you do not fit, or figure out what the grain of truth is and either exploit it or exaggerate it to eclipse the untrue bits.  You’re not nonconformist when you buy your clothes at Hot Topic, so wake up and have the strength to realize you’re not this amazing exception to every unsavory stereotype thrown at you.  If I’m not, you’re certainly not either.

Additionally, and on an equally unpopular note, what’s all this nonsense where comments about minorities are somehow different than comments about majorities?  If this idea is reinforced, no one should be surprised when the lines between minority / majority, power group / oppressed group do not disappear.  Think about it this way: “Its ok to stereotype and make fun of men but not women” is conceptually identical to “its ok to stereotype and make fun of Christianity but not Atheism”.  Do you really want to support such a sentiment, and reinforce the idea that you’re arrogant, intolerant assholes wanting to step on the rights of the religious?  Similarly, do you really want to support the idea that you’re reactionary, emotional, and unable to stand for yourself?   By whining about jokes, both negative views are actually supported, because it’s easy for the opposition to assume that you fill the more negative parts of the stereotype, because they’re already thinking in those terms, and humans are pattern-recognition machines.

As I learned the hard way in elementary school, the first rule of fighting bullies is not to react to them, as most of them just want a rise.  The second is to laugh it off and respond with good humor, no matter how much it hurts.  This means that if you feel discriminated against, you need to deal with this problem in a constructive way.  Putting off a reactionary, angry response also means you have time to gauge the intention, and responding with humor means that even (and especially) if the intention truly is harmful, you’ll look to be the best in the situation.  You’ll also defy the negative stereotype.  I was seriously blown away by the negative reaction to this silly 5 minute video, it was so impulsively reactionary…

Additionally, we have to distinguish between the “who” and “intent”.  It’s not about “who” is targeted by a specific comment, joke, or derogatory remark, its the intent of the remark that counts.  As stated before, by focusing on the “who”, one risks reinforcing currently existing lines of discrimination, NOT eliminating them.  By focusing on the intent, we remove the unnecessary information and baggage from birth and focus on the fact that being derogatory about ANYONE is not a good thing, and a joke made in good humor is a just joke, whether you personally find it funny or not.  It’s not “better” to mock white, middle class males.  They also bleed.

This leads into the root of the problem.  Frequently people can’t and don’t distinguish between “who” and “intent”, and they personally get insulted by something.   There is also an interesting assumption that stereotypes represent core qualities of a person, but we’re not looking at Actual – Reality when we speak in terms of stereotypes.  Instead, we’re REALLY looking at a product of our culture.  Culture is mutable.  Since a stereotype is not a reflection of intrinsic nature, but rather of perceived qualities, you have the ability to rail against it and behave opposite.  Think about the new stereotypes for women that have emerged in the past century alone!

Let’s make some more–built on Actual Reality instead of 6000 years old of narrow-minded, fearful patriarchy.

Anyway, we left off with typo drama and a bit of bragging.  Now it’s my turn to confront the nonsense.

If you’re new to this series, here’s The Prelude, Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Anath said:
I’m not too frustrated, I’m having a grand time since this sort of thing is very stress relieving and it is finals so I am very stressed. : )

>>Concerning man’s evolutionary descent, I will here remind you of a fact that I am sure you are aware of: not all evolutionists are Darwinists. In my post I mentioned and was speaking of evolutionists, not Darwinists. There are contentions about man’s origins. Perhaps you have merely dealt with the evolutionists that follow Darwin.

I am still waiting for your examples. I have yet to come across one person who believes in either “Darwinian” evolution, or ANY form of the Theory of Evolution who does not assert that we had a common ancestor that was hominid/primate/mammal/animal/eukaryote… Only Creationists and ID proponents do not believe this because they believe for some bizarre reason we were made out of dirt, or are somehow not Apes. EXAMPLES, PLEASE. If you want to make a statement you NEED to back it up.

>>I do not remember claiming that my discussions would be limited to biologic life. In fact, I remember discussing plate tectonics in a much earlier post. Ah, yes, evolutionists do have theories concerning the origin of the universe, do they not? I notice a trend of responses to my posts constantly referring to Darwinism. I never declared that I only would discuss Darwinism.

I will read the stuff on dark matter after finals, but it does seem a bit odd the way you are presenting it.

Now you missed the purpose for this paragraph which I believe you should read again: “Also, evolution says nothing about anything other than life. It says nothing about the universe at large or solar system or the movements of planets or the deaths of stars or the big bang or abiogenesis. It has to do with adapting life, and ONLY adapting life. Discussing the estimation of the age of the universe is in the realm of astronomers and cosmologists, NOT “evolutionists”.”

I did not mean you cannot discuss these topics but let me rephrase for more clarity. It is not “evolutionists” that have theories about the universe (meaning anything other than biological life) as a whole but rather it is ASTRONOMERS and COSMOLOGISTS. Astronomers and Cosmologists may follow the Theory of Evolution or they may not. There is a high correlation between scientists and those believe the theory is true, but remember your order of carts and horses. These scientists are ASTRONOMERS and COSMOLOGISTS before they are “evolutionists”, so to state that “evolutionists” have a theory is erroneous, as there may be astronomers and cosmologists that do not follow evolutionary theory. You would be better off stating that “astronomers and cosmologists” have theories about the universe, because that is true. Also it is erroneous to assume that an issue with these theories impacts the theory of evolution in any way, or can be used as an argument against it. When discussing geology, cosmology/astronomy, or anything OTHER than biological evolution, keep “Evolution” and “Evolutionists” out of it. As stated before, it is fallacious and erroneous.

>> Peer review

I don’t “worship” peer review either, I am skeptical of everything. However I am much more likely to look at an article in a peer-reviewed journal, since it means that there is a higher chance the article is not total nonsense, and any oddities WILL be addressed in the future as more scientists try to repeat the experiment. No peer reviewed paper is gospel, and no scientist reviews peer reviewed papers as gospel. Why do you think they/we do?

And also, look, I know you’re trying to find any way to gain credibility here, but leave out nonsense like this:
>>In my study of science so far, I have experienced a reasonable amount of success. For several years my grade average in general science has been above 95. My average in chemistry was 93.

Your high school grades aren’t going to prove anything and have no bearing on the real world. Displaying actual understanding of the subject proves something. I also got straight A’s in high school, straight A’s in college (including college-level science classes), and even got 100+% A’s in Religion class in private Christian school, which CLEARLY has no connection to my reality. So WHAT? Who CARES? Grades mean NOTHING, just that one can regurgitate and spit for the test. How about you go back and readdress my points on operating “outside” nature and dolphins and antibiotics and predators other things I posted a rebuttal for rather than bragging about how well you did in high school and playing English teacher?

If you want to talk the talk, WALK THE WALK. Running away without addressing serious points and cowering under the shield of “I believe it is true so I’m not listening na na na na!” is, I repeat, foolish.

And now comes the epic posts. Hopefully my “step up or step out” comment inspired him, because Aelnathan breaks the character limit and has to move to using THREE posts to state his argument. However, I’m only going to blockquote once. You can safely skim the first three to five paragraphs though, its just Aelnathan continuing to play English teacher, berating everyone who’s omg so stupids to make and call out typos because its so not helpful for the debate… while insisting he’s being constructive and clever.

I am also going to annotate it in bold, because its too long to have annotations at the end.

Aelnathan said:
First of all, for Cleric’s benefit, I will here declare my understanding that this medium through which we are currently conversing is not intended to be a beacon of grammatically correct English speech. Spelling error is not a fatal sin here, nor is the occasional double negative. Though I have noticed spelling and grammar errors in your previous posts (whether it be your failure to capitalize the first letter of “Noah” in your March 16 post, or your more recent replacement of “theorm” for “theorem” in your May 6 post), I have not previously commented on them, because I realize the casual atmosphere of this discussion. I am sure that anyone could pick out errors in my own posts. However, it is not necessary (nor productive) for one human to label another human a fool in discussions like these. I am not quite sure why the word “fool” was decided upon. Perhaps the person responsible for this word’s utterance was attempting to engender anger in myself, hoping that I would return with some biting remark. However, I do not believe such activity is helpful, and so instead I commented on the confusing layout of the derisive sentence of which I was the target. It is amusing to note that you, Cleric, have used a similar method yourself before. On July 23, 2008, in response to a post R. Schrader had made about your review of Expelled, saying,

“But they deliberately forget that long ago by Gods word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 2 Peter 3:5″,

you said,

“By the way, I like how you pluralized “god” in relation to the creation. This at least shows that you might have a clue about the Hebrew translation of “elohim” in the beginning of Gensis, where it reads “gods”. However, you might just be bad at writing and didn’t make it a possessive. Anyway, if you could get back to me that would be great!”

One could argue that my comment on your post was somewhat fairer, considering that I made it obvious that I understood what you were trying to say. At any rate, English is but a mode of conveying knowledge, whether it be helpful or inflammatory. Science is the discussion here, and the varying nuances of the English language are of neither great concern nor pertinence. When one is being insulted, however, the least one could ask for is a clearly stated deprecation. All in all, it is obvious that grammar is not tantamount to scientific proficiency. If I have skill with it, it makes me no better a person or scientist than the next person. It has not been my intent to disparage you, Cleric. I was merely illustrating yet another occurrence of the “Misspelled Moron” phenomenon that I and others have observed over time. Generally, this singularly amusing principle can be seen when a person proclaims another to be an “ideot” (instead of “idiot) or “moran” (instead of “moron”), botching their attempts to insult another by portraying their own fallacies with spelling. Perhaps theses occurrences have little to do with the subject at hand, yet it is interesting nonetheless.

Now that the “English Incident” has been resolved, it is time to move on to other things. I am happy to hear that you, Anath, have found such a convenient method of stress-relief, and if I am of service, I am glad. However, in many cases, the treatment SRVD (Stress Relief Via Debate) often has seriously frustrating side effects. Side effects may include nausea, dizziness, fatigue, denial, incredulity, disappointment, and stress-generation. If these symptoms should occur, stop using SRVD immediately.

I have quite logically been asked to support my claims of discord among evolutionists concerning man’s ancestry, and thus I now provide my ex-planation. What follows is a quote from the book This View of Life, written by the renowned, Darwin-Wallace Medal-winning paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson: “On this subject, by the way, there has been way too much pus-syfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be the des-cendant of any living ape—-a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility—-and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise (1964, p. 12, This View of Life [New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World]).
I hope this makes my point concerning the contention of man’s origins clear. By Simpson’s comments, we can see that such an argument, at least at one time, existed. That’s right, because the debate about semantics in 1964 is so relevant to our level of knowledge today. Additionally there was a conclusion drawn here, and I think it was the opposite of what he wanted..

In response to the apparently “erroneous” exercise of pointing out fallacies in the biological theories of evolution by means of commonly held astrophysics, I will in turn ask my own question. If it is forbidden to apply astrophysics to theories concerning the dawn of life on Earth, why is it so often used as a method to disprove Creationism? Why do so many scientists ridicule the idea of a young universe (and subsequently a young Earth, and thus recent emergence of biological life, etc.), stating examples such as “It takes over a million years for the light of the Andromeda Galaxy to reach Earth” or that “Since it takes so many billions of years for a star to become a red giant, the fact that there are so many red giants proves that the universe is very old”? If one side of the debate is allowed to use such methods, than it is only fair that the other may also use such methods. I do not see why this item would be so controversial. In addition, much of today’s accepted theories concerning the origin of the universe are “evolutionary” in nature. Stating that the exceedingly complex universe of today arose from the “primeval atom” or whatnot suggests that the universe has evolved to greater complexity in its components and as a whole. Whether it fits within “Darwinism” or “evolutionary biology” is irrelevant. I must apparently clarify my aims of discussion yet further. I never said that I would limit myself to discussing Darwinism or evolutionary biology. I have all along been discussing evolution as a whole—-stellar evolution and related topics included. To harp about my departures from the mysteriously formed rules that only the evo-lution of biological life can here be discussed is immensely absurd.

Concerning your stance on peer-review, have a care! You are in danger of being lambasted by a certain poster in virtually close proximity! You risk being labeled a “fool”! Ah, well, your views on peer-review are pretty much my own (… Cleric holds the same views I do on the topic, I don’t get it.). It is a very real possibility that certain potentially in-cendiary findings may be suppressed indefinitely, however, and consi-dering how much faith is put into this fairly recent system, this possibility is disconcerting to say the least. As said by Dr. Richard Horton, a man much more highly qualified and experienced than myself, the peer-review system is “easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” [see my previous post for a more complete quote, as well as its source]

Your comments on my rather junior education so far are quite right, though to assert that such truly meager achievements have left absolutely no mark on my life is somewhat untrue. My average of 97 in English has certainly shown results, much to the unfortunate chagrin of some. However, I hope this most recent post has imbued my side of the discus-sion some greater measure of credibility (No, it really hasn’t.). If you wish to return to the subject of the bounds of natural evolution, dolphins, and the like, I will most happily oblige.

Concerning the bounds of natural evolution, and man’s apparent transcendence of it, I will ask another question. Why did we ever leave the jungle? Why would an ape ever find the need to evolve to a higher intelligence? You made a rather succinct statement before concerning the evolution of dolphins when you said, “Why would you think they should have developed hands with opposable thumbs? Would that have helped them swim faster and escape predators? NO. They adapted to fit their marine environment. We adapted to our arboreal one. Different solutions for the same problem.” Again, I ask, “Why did we ever leave the jungle?” The gorilla is incredibly well-suited to his arboreal environment. If the dolphin never found the need to evolve to a more complex physical form (to exploit its intelligence) because it was so well suited to its marine environment, why would our ancient “primate ancestor” find the need to evolve to a more complex mental form? Man’s intelligence, in the strictest sense, is unnecessary. Yes, it has led us to become the dominant species, but that is not necessary for us to survive. In many ways it could be argued that man’s “intelligence” will be his downfall, what with the possibility of nuclear war and the like. Other questions also remain. How come man has lost the hairy coat and great strength of other primates? Would not these features have been beneficial to carry on to higher levels of evolution? Please, do not bring up talk about Darwin’s theories of “sexual selection”, or try to say that primates of our intelligence level would find hulking hairy brutes repulsive if our race were hulking hairy brutes. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The perception of beauty is relative. Apes mate just fine without any cosmetic fanfare to speak of. Why does natural selection drop off so many traits beneficial to survival, replacing them with subjective, aesthetic appeal? In this light, the system does not seem very efficient; it seems rather wasteful, to be frank.

I hope that so far I have been found to be walking the walk. However, I am not finished. Yes, I am sure that this will bother some, but I will now return to the subject of the origin of the universe, and how the most commonly held secular view is rather pertinent to evolution as a whole. The Big Bang Theory is the most widely accepted explanation for the origin of the universe by secular scientists. However, the theory’s entire existence depends on two assumptions,

1. That physical laws are universal
2. The cosmological principle, which says that the universe on large scales is ho-mogenous and isotropic.

Yet the claim that the universe arose unaided from some superhot, super-dense clump of matter during the Planck Epoch breaks one of the fundamental physical laws—-the second law of thermodynamics, which in the version relating to entropy states, ” In a system, a process that occurs will tend to increase the total entropy of the universe.” This renders the Big Bang Theory little more than a peculiar paradox, at least when it is expected to occur unaided. Nearly all of the evidence of astro-nomical observation indicates that the universe was certainly once much smaller, but when scientists try to explain its completely “natural” birth, they find that there is only so far they can go before scientific principles literally cease to exist. As demonstrated by such natural processes as photo-synthesis, entropy can be fought in small systems, yet even these events contribute to the greater total entropy of the universe. The only logical explanation for the occurrence of a Big Bang would be that some outside force instigated its activity. From a secular point of view, perhaps this could be attributed to some mysterious, enormous external energy force. But then the question of this external energy’s origin arises.

I believe now I have addressed the questions asked of me. I will now proceed to give an alternative view on the origin of the universe. Perhaps a Creator is involved with the universe. Yes, I know, eyes are rolling, sighs are emerging, but I must proceed to quote Genesis 1:1, which says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now let us ponder this for a moment. This could potentially answer many scientific incongruities on the origin of the universe. If there is a Supreme Being, beyond the reaches of physical law (in fact, with Him being the architect of physical law), He could have easily started an incident much like the Big Bang. Conversely, the supreme power of this Being would also endow Him with the ability to shape the universe to his desire, like the account given in Genesis. With this idea, the variety of life could attribute its existence to a creative Designer, and Man’s intelligence and status as the dominant species could be explained by Genesis 1:28, which says, “And God blessed them [humankind], and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” Perhaps in the early days of Creation, entropy did not exist. Perhaps when man chose to sin, he broke the perfection of the universe, forever altering it so that instead of perpetual paradise, the universe would slowly fall into decay. Yet, fortunately, Christ promises that He shall return before is destroyed. In Mark 13:20 He says, “And except that the Lord had shortened those [end] days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.” Anyway, this is what I believe. In light of the theories concerning the origin of the universe, at some point the physical laws of science cease to exist, whether it be the “scientific” explanation of the Big Bang or the “supernatural” explanation of “Let there be light.” In the case of the Big Bang, we find universal physical laws being applied were they by nature cannot, and with Creation we have a description of hands that transcend the boundaries of science. Both require faith. I believe in the latter explanation, for it depicts the construction of the physical laws of the universe, rather than suggest that they sprang into being out of a substance that did not follow the laws in the first place.

In closing I say this: if there are elements of Creationism that seem lacking, give science enough time. One of the formerly popular theories concerning life’s emergence from the inorganic was the theory of Spontaneous Generation, popularized by Aristotle in such books as his The History of Animals. For around two thousand years this theory was accepted by most scientists, until it was scientifically dispro-ven by Louis Pasteur in the 19th century (who just happened to be a Christian). There are gaps in the Theory of Evolution, most glaringly so perhaps in the fossil record. Assuming that life slowly evolved from one life form to another, there should be hundreds of transitional forms for every single species. It is rather odd that these transitional forms have remained so elusive. Here I quote Darwin medal-winning botanist E. J. H. Corner.

“The theory of evolution is not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only explanation of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy of natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the theory of evolution – from biology, bio-geography and palaeontology, but I still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink. A series of more and more complicated plants is introduced – the alga, the fungus, the bryophyte, and so on, and examples are added eclectically in support of one or another theory – and that is held to be a presentation of evolution. If the world of plants consisted only of these few textbook types of standard botany, the idea of evolution might never have dawned, and the backgrounds of these textbooks are the temperate countries which, at best, are poor places to study world vegetation. The point, of course, is that there are thousands and thousands of living plants, predominantly tropical, which have never entered general botany, yet they are the bricks with which the taxonomist has built his temple of evolution, and where else have we to worship?” (E.J.H. Corner 1961, from ‘Evolution’, p. 97, in “Contemporary Botanical Thought”, Anna M. Macleod and L. S. Cobley (editors), Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical Society of Edinburgh)

You can read the quote yourself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._J._H._Corner

Anyway, I hope now my views—-and the reasons for them—-have been made clear. I bear no ill will toward any of you, and I hope you share the same sentiments. It has been a pleasure having this discussion, though somehow I feel that it is not yet over. In any case, farewell for now.

–Author of the Aelnathan

Pain. in. head.
Cleric made a follow up post indicating that he’d refrain from commenting “at the risk of sending someone on a typo tirade”, so that left me. My reply ended up taking up two posts.

Anath said
.I will try to keep this organized topically.

>>Why did we ever leave the jungle? Why would an ape ever find the need to evolve to a higher intelligence?
>>Yes, it has led us to become the dominant species, but that is not necessary for us to survive. In many ways it could be argued that man’s “intelligence” will be his downfall, what with the possibility of nuclear war and the like.

One of the things that characterizes man is our very efficient form of locomotion, which allowed us to populate every environment. You are thinking in VERY small terms with evolution here. Remember that the whole purpose of evolution is not to benefit an individual, or even an individual species, but the “immortal coil” = our GENETIC CODE. The purpose of anything is more efficient replication of the genetic code. You have to take a step back here and think about evolution on a very large scale. Through trial and error, the code finds ideal solutions for problems it faces in replication. Take a step back for a moment and think of some of the first complex life, and then we’ll fast forward and apply what I am about to say to humans, because it is much easier to understand when we address it on a small scale.

Imagine we have a small pool with the “first” micro organisms containing the “first” DNA. All of these organisms have advanced to the level where they have advanced metabolic processes and self replicate regularly. Currently there is only one strain. This strain replicates enough, and the pool is populated, but there is only ONE common food supply, lets say glucose, to feed thousands of these little microorganisms. Overpopulation kills a certain number of these microorganisms and they are unable to replicate. This presents a problem for the genes–they need to ensure that they replicate properly in order to “survive”, and now they are faced with COMPETITION (key word) from rival strains. They need to adapt NOW or go extinct. Now it so happens that the waste product of the glucose-based metabolic process is a citrate, and since it is the waste product it is in abundance in the environment. This means that in order to beat competition in this environment, the ideal way is to find a competition-free source of “food”… or the citrate. Within a few generations, there will be micro organisms that have developed a mutation that allows them to digest citrate and replicate with significantly less COMPETITION. Sound impossible? This is actually an experiment that has occurred in labs in the past few years. Here is a link to the official site and here is a link to an article explaining the results.

Now that we’ve imagined microorganisms that “solve problems” through developing new traits in order to eliminate COMPETITION and allow themselves to replicate more freely, lets turn back to humans. Why would humans leave the jungle? Why would they come down from trees and seek food and shelter elsewhere, and develop the intelligence and skills needed in order to create our own environment? ELIMINATING COMPETITION. GREATER FREEDOM OF REPLICATION. The jungle is a crowded place. There are panthers and snakes, rival primates, dangerous insects, and so on. We faced a lot of competition in the jungle, so it was highly advantageous for our genes to “solve the problem”, and find a way that we could innovate and skirt the competition, but we are more complex organisms than e coli, so simply changing food source was not enough. The solution our genes found was bipedalism and our efficient form of locomotion. Our intelligence came later. Our ability to walk efficiently for miles on two hind legs and use our forelegs to carry infants and or gathered food is what set us apart and allowed us to spread into any environment worldwide. The gorilla ancestors came up with a different solution to the competition problem.

Further, we are an omnivorous species, which allows us to make use of nearly any food source in our environment that we could catch. An increased intelligence allows us to come up with creative solutions to catch greater game, as the greater intelligence of wolves allows them to collaborate in a hunt. But also remember that brains are VERY “expensive” organs to operate so we see our diet change our physiology, as we eat more meat and higher calorie food, we have more fuel available to run a very expensive brain, which in turn lets us catch more game, find more efficient methods of finding vegetable matter, and thus fuel even more expensive brains. The “smarter” we got, the “smarter” we were able to get, and the more advantageous it was to be “smart”! No, it was not “necessary” to have a brain as advanced as ours is, but remember what was said earlier: The whole purpose of evolution is to benefit the GENETIC CODE and increase chances of replication. Bare survival is the minimum goal of evolution, the “higher” goal is to create “replication machines” that allow for minimum competition and increased replication. Survival helps with this goal, but our genetic code has hit on the solution that makes us the ultimate “replication machine”; adaptable to every environment, able to ELIMINATE competition, able to sustain our own food sources instead of relying on fickle nature… THAT is why we became what we are. But what will come after us? There will most certainly be a more efficient replication machine, but that is the future.

Now for dolphins:
>>If the dolphin never found the need to evolve to a more complex physical form (to exploit its intelligence) because it was so well suited to its marine environment,

Remember again, our physical form came before our intelligence, as did the dolphin’s. Carts come AFTER horses! The dolphin’s solutions to adapt and overcome competition are much different than ours, and involved going back into the water and re-adapting to marine life to become one of the top predators, as remember, it is a mammal and has out-of-water ancestors. Mammal brains are also much more advanced than fish brains so going back to dominate the water with intelligence and speed was a very good “choice”.

>>Other questions also remain. How come man has lost the hairy coat and great strength of other primates? Would not these features have been beneficial to carry on to higher levels of evolution? Please, do not bring up talk about Darwin’s theories of “sexual selection”, or try to say that primates of our intelligence level would find hulking hairy brutes repulsive if our race were hulking hairy brutes. “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” The perception of beauty is relative. Apes mate just fine without any cosmetic fanfare to speak of. Why does natural selection drop off so many traits beneficial to survival, replacing them with subjective, aesthetic appeal? In this light, the system does not seem very efficient; it seems rather wasteful, to be frank.

Genetics is a complex thing. Perhaps the answers are largely genetic, and remember it is not necessarily true that an advantageous trait will continue to be advantageous or is necessarily correlated to another trait. Our ancestors may never have had the “great strength” of other primates in the first place, and an excess of hair may not have been advantageous in certain environments. Why would you presume it would be, or has to be a “cosmetic” loss or gain?

It also appears you do not understand sexual selection at all… it is not about pretty faces but appealing TRAITS, and I’m not sure how you think that natural selection has “dropped beneficial traits to replace them with subjective, aesthetic appeal”? That makes no sense in terms of replication. Advantageous traits and what we might call “aesthetic appeal” correlate in nature, they HAVE to in order for the advantageous traits to replicate, and we are the only species that seem to separate the two due to our capacity for abstract thought. Dominant Bull Sea Lions aren’t “sexy” to Cow Sea Lions, they exhibit their strength and fitness to get mates. Species like Bowerbirds create their elaborate displays to prove that they are “fit” to mate, and some other males present females with gifts to display their hunting prowess and prove that they can care for offspring. None of this has to do with sex appeal or beauty, and most other primates follow these basic guidelines where a “fit” male gets a “fit” female, and they are “fit” not because they’re gorgeous super-models, but because they somehow display the fact that they have a good set of genes. Again, with these creatures (and us, but I’ll get to that), the traits that are beneficial to survival and traits that will gain them mates positively correlate, so it IS efficient, especially for the genes, which is what matters.

Now us… again, natural selection has NOT dropped off beneficial traits to make us “beautiful”. We find certain people beautiful because they display a set of genes that is beneficial and advantageous. (There is a lot of research done on this, so I can provide you with a lot of sources if you’d like.) There are certain visible characteristics that indicate heath and vigor, some that indicate strength, and so on. For example, Symmetry is one of them. If you go through a series of faces, and rate them in terms of how attractive you find them (HONESTLY), the higher rated faces are generally the most symmetrical, and scientists have created composite faces out of features taken from multiple different faces to prove this correlation (so it wasn’t just “Do you think Angelina Jolie is attractive? What about this random person on the street?). Symmetry of body and facial features do indicate that the genes are generally “good”, without major defect, so we are attracted to symmetry in the same way a female bowerbird is attracted to the male bowerbird who creates a very symmetrical nest. It is a genetic solution with its base in our GENES, and is advantageous to our GENES. Similarly, we can also find mates who are good genetic matches by smell, as specific pheromones will smell good to someone who is a good genetic match that will potentially make an good complement in terms of disease immunity among other things, that will ensure future replication. Again, a very highly efficient system for REPLICATION. That’s what it’s all about. It’s not about individuals, or even individual species. Truly advantageous traits are never replaced because the creature will never replicate. We simply overthink the reproductive process because we have the capacity for abstract thought and can actually make of list of “ideal traits” for a mate.

>>Second Law of Thermodynamics.

I have a friend who is making his career studying this, so I will see if he’ll type up a more thorough response later, but for now I guess my explanation will have to do.

You miss one KEY word in your definition. CLOSED. Thermodynamics relates to a closed system. Sticking external energy in makes it an open system, but to our knowledge the universe is not an open system, it is a closed system, and the idea of an infinitely dense amount of material spreading out and cooling fits perfectly with the second law, especially with the idea of energy change. Whatever the initial dense material was, it had a LOT of potential energy, and the expansion was simply taking that potential energy and changing it into other forms. Here’s a site that goes over entropy.

As for the time before, we do not know what happened, but that does NOT imply that “goddidit”. It simply implies that there is a hurdle to overcome. There are alternative ideas to “goddidit” that involve black holes, collapsing and expanding cycles, and so on, but we do not yet have the math needed to prove any of them. We also can not prove the “goddidit” idea either. Now I will address your version of “goddidit”, god-of-the-gaps Creationism.

Remember that I will be using the Bible as literature written by human authors.
Time for point by point.
>>Genesis 1:1, which says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now let us ponder this for a moment. This could potentially answer many scientific incongruities on the origin of the universe.

It would answer nothing in terms of scientific incongruities unless it were an experimentally testable hypothesis. Perhaps there is a chance it is the answer, but it will answer NOTHING in SCIENCE until SCIENCE can confirm it. All it can do is make you feel good and pretend you have an answer that you do not have. The reason I say you are pretending to have an answer is because you can not empirically prove that your answer is the correct one, when you can do that, THEN you will have an answer.

>>If there is a Supreme Being, beyond the reaches of physical law (in fact, with Him being the architect of physical law), He could have easily started an incident much like the Big Bang. Conversely, the supreme power of this Being would also endow Him with the ability to shape the universe to his desire, like the account given in Genesis.

Do you understand that you have provided a cop-out here? This is nothing more than God-of-the-Gaps. “Since we can’t explain it (yet), it must be a being outside the physical laws and ultimately powerful.” This is no different than assuming your house is haunted because the TV keeps flicking off and you can’t figure out why. You haven’t ANSWERED anything, just made up an unfalsifiable statement. If it is unfalsifiable, it can not be a scientific explanation, and thus not an answer. PROVE that your version of a god-being did this with a falsifiable hypothesis. Test it. Report the results. Then we will agree that this solution is plausible. Until then, do NOT propose that your answer is correct, or even plausible. YOU HAVE NO HARD DATA.

>>he variety of life could attribute its existence to a creative Designer, and Man’s intelligence and status as the dominant species could be explained by Genesis 1:28, which says, “And God blessed them [humankind], and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Remember the Bible was written (inspired if you like) when we had already achieved the level of intelligence and other capacities necessary to become the dominant species from natural methods. At the time this was penned, mankind had cities, agriculture, animal husbandry, technology and had thus fulfilled “god’s promise”. This is simply repeating the state of things ex post facto, and thus does not require a supreme being to have inspired it. Other societies made similar statements independently.

>>Perhaps in the early days of Creation, entropy did not exist. Perhaps when man chose to sin, he broke the perfection of the universe, forever altering it so that instead of perpetual paradise, the universe would slowly fall into decay. Yet, fortunately, Christ promises that He shall return before is destroyed. In Mark 13:20 He says, “And except that the Lord had shortened those [end] days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect’s sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.” Anyway, this is what I believe.
PLEASE read the page I linked to you about entropy. If for some reason you believeentropy to be general “disorder” or “chaos” you have GREATLY misunderstood the concept. Even if we take Bible literalism, in order for Adam and Eve to breathe and metabolize nutrients in the first place there HAD TO HAVE BEEN ENTROPY. You may believe it, but your beliefs do not align with reality and are thus wrong. Either change your unfounded belief to align with reality or admit you are living in a deluded fantasy.

>>In light of the theories concerning the origin of the universe, at some point the physical laws of science cease to exist, whether it be the “scientific” explanation of the Big Bang or the “supernatural” explanation of “Let there be light.” In the case of the Big Bang, we find universal physical laws being applied were they by nature cannot, and with Creation we have a description of hands that transcend the boundaries of science. Both require faith. I believe in the latter explanation, for it depicts the construction of the physical laws of the universe, rather than suggest that they sprang into being out of a substance that did not follow the laws in the first place.

Again, we simply have not discovered a viable model yet. THAT DOES NOT MEAN GODDIDIT.

>>In closing I say this: if there are elements of Creationism that seem lacking, give science enough time.

Nonsense. Creationism fails to provide a falsifiable hypothesis, thereby it cannot ever be proven or disproven. Once Creationists step up to the plate and provide the most basic requirements, then scientists can do something about it. The theory of spontaneous generation had a falsifiable hypothesis: “Organisms spontaneously generate”. You CAN prove or disprove that. Creationism lacks this.

>>Transitional forms and quote

Did you even look at the DATE on that quote????? It’s from 1961! A LOT of discovery has been made since then. I am not surprised that a scientist of any kind doubted the evidence for transitional fossils and other aspects of evolution in 1961. If you can find serious, reputable biologists post-2000 making the same claims, then I would be impressed.

Additionally, we are finding fossils of transitional forms all the time. I have also read in a textbook on Evolution of Insects about scientists observing potential transitional forms, that these transitional forms may NOT be obvious in terms of obvious fossil differences. The transitions that we are studying currently are BEHAVIORAL, specifically having to do with mating behavior, or in color, neither of which would appear in fossils. There is no reason to insist that transitional forms do not exist simply because they aren’t obvious in the fossil record when we are observing transitional forms through behavior and color in the field.

This is the insect evolution textbook I was talking about.

Anyway, I’ll try to remember to post next week instead of skipping!
Then you get to see Aelnathan get hung up on wording instead of concept, and make more bizarre statements about thermodynamics. Tasty.

Greetings,

My name is [...]. I’m a 23 year old Christian from Arkansas, and I would like to go ahead and get it out on the table that this letter holds no hostility to whoever reads it or your movement. It’s simply a question that I would like to have your opinion on…

I understand that many horrible things are carried out supposedly in God’s name. I agree with you that it’s wrong. However, every religious group has its “bad apples”. In my opinion, there is no room for extremists in any religion, Christian or other. My question to you is why direct your entire organization towards Christians or any other Abraham based religions?

Waldheri: Allow me to dive right into it. The people who actively participate in this group all come from countries in which Christianity is the predominant religion. It is part of our daily lives, whether we want to or not. Even though a lot of a things we write about are applicable to other religions, is it that surprising that it is mostly centered on Christianity when you realize it is the religion that we come most into contact with? I do not think Christianity is worse than the other Abrahamic religions, if that is what you’re actually trying to ask.

Anath: I generally do not direct my efforts towards extremists but rather towards the good ol’ average Joe churchgoer.  The extremists are entrenched too deeply in their own delusions to be swayed either way, but when someone is a reasonable person, they are more open to seeing from another person’s point of view.  Also, the moderates quietly support the extremists by their sheer presence, and the fact that they do NOT decry the behavior publicly or otherwise.  There are more moderates attending  and funding the megachurches than extremists!  There are more moderates quietly going along with extremist organiztions such as NOM, putting their votes in to legislate their beliefs by attempting to ban gay marriage,  abortion, teach intelligent design and abstinence-only education in schools, and so on.  THIS is deplorable.  It is the moderates, who nod their heads and baa contentedly that we need to shake awake.  Extremists will always be extremists, but the moderates have the ability to either support or condemn their actions.

In this nation, we all have a constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Waldheri: Your right to freedom of religion is certainly extant, and I would never try to take away that freedom. However, being a secularist, I will do my best to pry religion apart from governance. In itself, I do not think religion is a valid reason for passing or obstructing legislation.

Anath: And WE have that right as well.  As I stated above, the attempt to legislate BELIEF is one thing I stand firmly against.  I am an American as well, and I do not want the Church dictating what me or my (potential, future) children do with their bodies, mind, or how our tax money gets spent.  Don’t think this is happening?  Watch more closely, it is.  There’s a saying out there: “Freedom of religion means ALL religion”… including secularism.

Now I’m not saying that there aren’t extremist Christian groups that would lash out, sometimes even violently, against your group or any other like it. That’s a cold hard fact, and it’s gravely unfortunate. But my concern is that you’re attacking the foundation of life as we know it against mostly everyday good people. There are going to be conflicts between groups like ours, and that’s inevitable. However instead of going for the throat, we should be trying to calmly discuss our differences. Most Christians (and all true Christians) don’t believe in hating anyone for any reason. We hate the sin, not the sinner. You also hold a constitutional right to freedom of speech, but with that does it also mean that there is no such thing as common decency between our fellow people anymore? If both of our missions are to promote peace and harmony between all people, than why are we being so ruthless towards one another?

Waldheri: I’m not sure what you mean by the “foundation of life as we know it”, but it is important to remember that people simply might not agree with you on those foundations. To me, the freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms we have. My ideas may sound controversial or even offensive to Christians, but frankly that’s not my problem. I don’t think I’ve ever directly attacked Christians as persons in my posts (and if I have, I apologize) – I have always attacked Christianity. I think its metaphysical ideas (souls, heaven, hell) are ridiculous, its moral character (Old Testament divinely sanctioned bloodshed) deeply dubious, some of its virtues (faith, piety) naive and worthless and its god a spiteful, arrogant tyrant that I would not want to serve even if I did believe he existed. I am honest in my posts and I realize it may offend Christians, but they can’t expect me to simply shut up. Must I keep my deeply held beliefs locked up so that others’ deeply held beliefs can roam free without dissidence? Furthermore, you must understand that some of Christian beliefs are deeply offensive to me. Examples are the idea that when we are born, we already bear the guilt of some crime committed by our forebears; the idea that we are worthless and inherently bad (“sinful”) and need saving; the idea that our actions in a finite time frame are enough to judge us to a fate of infinite timespan.

Anath: I’m going to assume that by “the foundation of life as we know it”, you mean the basic tenents of Christianity; the existence God, the divinity of Jesus, a “plan” for us all, an after life, etc.  Let me turn this around–Christianity is attacking the foundation of life as WE know it.   By that  “attacking that foundation”, I mean inserting causation where none can be proved, denying the reality of evolution  and what it entails, attempting to undermine science on the basis of a 6000 year old book written by patriarchal desert nomads, claiming we have “freedom of choice”–then defining that “freedom” as “choose God or GO TO HELL!”, claiming that we are condemned before we were born for the sins of our greatest ancestors… that there is a strict, black and white dichotomy of “good” and “evil”, and every single action, motivation, person, and so on in this world can be judged by that dichotomy… and so on.  Your belief system attacks the foundation of my reality.  By insisting that your belief system is the only correct one, and asserting the “God or Hell / Good and Evil” dichotomies, you assert that I am Evil and Hellbound.  If that is not an attack, I don’t know what is.  Think about it from the other side of the fence for a while.  You may “hate the sin, not the sinner”, but that doesn’t change where we stand in your worldview.  You dont’ have to “hate” us to condemn us.

Based on your “freedom of speech” bit, I question whether you actually engaged the CONTENT of this site, or became squeamish based on our name alone.  Read some of the articles, we are not overtly hostile and “going for the throat”.  My recent debate with Aelnathan demonstrates that we are willing to be patient and engage Christians and Christian thought.  Our recent “10 Answers from an Antichristian” posts demonstrate what we DO believe, and why we do not follow Christianity, in a very approachable way.  Cleric’s recent “Reasonable vs. Unreasonable Christians” demonstrates that we ARE willing to engage Christians as long as they are reasonable, Lea and Waldheri’s recent posts engage Christian thought and bring up important questions and observations about Christianity in the modern world.  I fail to see how we are “going for the throat”, but if you can bring up a specific example to back up this statement, we will explain the intent, and how you may have potentially misunderstood the content.

Like I said before, I don’t mean any of this offensively, it just had been on my heart. I don’t expect you to censor any of your authors or anything like that. This is just a simple conversation between anyone in your group interested and myself. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

[...]

Waldheri: Nor is my opinion meant to be offensive, but it can be. You need not apologize.

If you remember in our last episode, Aelnathan asked us to go to HIS review if we wanted to continue commenting, as he just can’t keep up with posts on someone else’s review. Whatever. I did it. Previously, Cleric had gone to his review and continued a discussion that was already in the comments section, but we will start with my post, as there is a gap in time and the old debate (The bible promotes genocide! No it doesn’t, there are wars but wars aren’t genocide! Yes it does, God asks them to kill all living beings in a city…! BUT BUT BUT TEH WERE TEH EVULS…) Kind of died. If you would like to read it for yourself you can go to his review here. The content I am posting starts on page 2. There’s also another person who steps in and gives similar arguments to the ones I presented, but all of the previous debates were months old by the time I got there.

Anyway, on with the debate. I will keep it short, 2 posts, because from here on out, the posts become… EPIC.

If you’re new to this series, here’s The Prelude and Part 1.

First it is worth looking at Aelnathan’s review of Expelled. “Headdesk” is a good adjective to describe my thoughts about it.

I just want to thank you for making the documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It takes great courage, wit, and knowledge to take on the anti-scientific Science Establishment. I respect and appreciate people like you, who provide knowledgeable debate on the issues of Evolution and Intelligent Design. Congratulations on a job well done!

And that’s it. Really. Honestly, I’m not sure the word “review” even applies to a blurb like this, but lets move on from writing criticism and see how the debate is going.

Anath Said:
I’ll respond here since you mentioned I should. Admittedly I don’t keep track of Amazon much either, usually Cleric alerts me of replies since I don’t really use the site much.

>>The “decrease in genetic diversity”, as I put it, does not just relate to artificial selection. Case in point; try getting a sun bear cub from breeding polar bears. It is not going to happen (not by natural breeding means, anyway) However, these two bear species descended from some original bear ancestor. They both are better adapted to their respective environments than their ancestors, but they will not be able to produce the range of breeds that their ancenstors produced. That is my point.

But your point is invalid and not accurate to life. Two polar bears cannot produce a sun bear, but their ancestors didn’t spontaneously produce random breeds of bear either. Their common ancestor was only ONE specie and the species diverged over time. The polar bears and the sun bears both have the same potential their ancestors did to generate new species based on adaptations and changes in environment, so imagine that each species spawned two new species, that makes FOUR new species where previously there were only TWO. How exactly is 4<2?

Also there remains this possibility. Imagine that a population of Sun Bears found themselves in an environment that was growing increasingly cold and snowy year round. In order to survive, they will adapt, and their offspring will begin to exhibit different traits than their parents. One good adaptation, found by countless arctic species, is to have a white coat, so imagine that after generations, the Sun Bears have white coats, as a gene from their ancestors is expressed - let's imagine it's incidentally the same gene sequence that turns a polar bear's coat white. Does that mean a Sun Bear has just given birth to a Polar Bear? NO. Did the genetic diversity go down? NO. Do we have a new species? Maybe in a few generations, but not yet. When we do get a new specie from this isolated population, will the genetic diversity go down? NO.

What makes you think that our "modern" animals are incapable of becoming ancestors for future species or are not in the process of doing so? It's like saying that YOU PERSONALLY can't become an ancestor.

>>Concerning the “what good has evolution done for us?”, you make some interesting points. In the case of medicine, however, is not the study of family history called Heredity? Perhaps I am merely splitting hairs here. With Evolution’s effects on computers and such, one could argue that the Evolutionary Algorithm is merely an attempt to mimic human reasoning faculties, despite its inspiration.

Heredity is a branch of Genetics which is under the very large umbrella of Evolution. When you talk about family-history heredity, you are talking about evolution through genetics on a VERY small time line, and when you talk about “Evolution”, you are talking about heredity and genetics on a very LONG time line.

The Evolutionary Algorithm works more like genetics in order to solve problems by elimination. This is DIRECTLY evolutionary theory. The AI program you are thinking of that tries most directly to mimic human reasoning is called the Artificial Neural Network, which attempts to “learn” in a similar method as a human brain. Yes, the goal of all AI is to mimic human intelligence, but to imply that this somehow overrides the fact that the Evolutionary Algorithm was DIRECTLY created due to knowledge of evolutionary theory is confusing the order of carts and horses.

>>P.S.—-Just one last question for Anath, in response to the argument with All-Access Customer. Did man descend from apes??? I have noticed that Evolutionists are so…….not unified on that point.

This depends largely on what one defines as “apes”. If one means the gorillas or orangutans or chimps we currently see in the zoo, then of course not, but if one means a common primate ancestor, then yes. Biologically speaking, homo sapiens–man, didn’t just “descend” from primates, we ARE primates.

I don’t know what “evolutionists” you’ve been talking to that would disagree that we have a common primate ancestor, I haven’t found any yet.

Here’s a couple other points from your posts that I feel should be addressed:
>>so would a dictator have the right to control and cleanse the population he governs by means of abortion, eugenics, and genocide. (and surrounding text)
>>Does sentience thus thrust a species from the bounds of Nature?(and surrounding text) Is there a limit on how far evolution can progress? If all species become sentient, does “Nature” become an obsolete word? Does evolution halt?

“Survival of the fittest” does not necessarily mean survival of the physically strongest or most “powerful”. In many cases, such as our own evolution, the most co-operative can be the “fittest”.

What removes us from the bonds of classic, natural evolutionary theory is our ability to CONTROL our environment. Other animals operate within their parameters, we take charge of ours. Normally the physically infirm die by disease. We are able to keep them alive and help them overcome their handicap and live a full life, or simply give them a chance at it. Normally there is a portion of any species that becomes prey for predators. We have been able to nearly wipe any would-be predator from the face of the earth, and combat any remaining, so we are no longer subject to the predator-prey dynamic that keeps populations in check. But what does this REALLY mean? Does it mean evolution no longer happens to us? NO. It means that we are effectively directing our own evolution instead of natural processes. We are creating our own environment to adapt to, and we are in the process of eliminating as many natural kinks as possible. No one knows where this will lead, but there is a lot of speculation, especially in the realm of neuroscience as our interaction with new technology directly affects the wiring of our brain.

Is sentience unnatural is also an important question. I argue that it is not. We are not the only “sentient” beings on this planet, and we have not been the only sentient beings in the course of history. Dolphins and elephants display a remarkable intelligence and sentience, and even a pigeon is self-aware and can recognize itself in a mirror. The difference is our ability to create and manipulate tools due to being bipedal with opposable thumbs. As a result, a capacity for greater abstract thinking was “fittest”, where other mammals found other advantages, such as size or speed. This does not make them any less sentient.

>>Now about microevolution—-how do my analogies not correlate with the material at hand? I was pointing out that studying one facet of a certain branch of science, and then applying it to the entire branch can lead to erroneous conclusions. (and surrounding text)

I would agree, but none of your analogies ACTUALLY represent microevolution.

A friend of mine once made a very correct analogy on the relation of microevolution and macroevolution. I mean no offense by quoting it here, but try and understand what it is saying:
“Saying that microevolution is a fact but macroevolution is not a fact is like saying that you can pick your nose for 5 seconds but you can’t pick it for a full minute.”

Microevolution and macroevolution are essentially the same thing. All that is different is SCALE. Microevolution talks about a couple genes here and there within a very small time frame. Macroevolution talks about many genes over an extended time frame. Should an alien visit earth and believe that all life here used photosynthesis, that would be due to a small sample size. The “sample size” of macroevolution is ALL life on earth and EVERYTHING that has ever happened in microevolution.

Also as a comment to this
>>I am growing weary of constantly speaking in an ambiguous tone for the sake of argument. I know where you stand, and I believe you know where I stand. I am a Christian and a Creationist, and constantly stating my views in the form of a question is quite grating. Neither of us seem to be getting anywhere.

We are stating facts that you misunderstand and elucidating the areas in which your knowledge or beliefs clearly contradict well-known peer-reviewed scientific fact. Stating that bears today have less genetic diversity than the bears of yesterday IS ERRONEOUS, and while I understand how you have drawn that conclusion, it is incorrect. I can tell you with certainty that it is incorrect because I know the correct answer due to question, study, and evaluation of both sides of the argument. I know the creationist arguments, where they are valid and where they are flawed, and you do not have to give up your Christian belief to understand how evolutionary theory works, despite what others on both sides would have you believe. If you would like, I will help you fill in the gaps and understand where you are being misled.

Or you can just believe that you can pick your nose for five seconds but not for a full minute, and wonder why people keep telling you that you are wrong.

As always, I made my epic post thinking, MUAH HAHA! THERE IS NOTHING HE CAN SAY TO THAT! I CAN’T EVEN IMAGINE WHERE HE’D START ARGUING THAT! But watch him. Its quite sad really. Oh and pad your desks and palms, there are SERIOUS headdesks and facepalms on the way, and lots of them.

Aelnathan said:
I see your point on “decreasing genetic diversity”. Perhaps my arguments have been erroneous, due to my research of the Global Seed Vault ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault ). Here, however, one can see what happens when a person applies one branch of science (in this case, agricultural biodiversity) to a wider field (biodiversity as a whole).

When I said apes, I meant APES, not primates. My question is, did man descend from apes? I have heard of numerous evolutionists argue for and against this theory.

If we can “CONTROL our environment”, why does that remove then from “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Are we not then just “super-evolved”? We are still operating within our “parameters”; we just have more power, a greater ability to “take charge of ours”. It is not like other creatures lack this ability to “take charge”. Take a look at termites, or bees, or ants—-slave-making ants in particular. This species actually goes out of its way to raid other ant colonies, taking their population as “slaves” to work in the slave-maker ant’s colony. In addition, many animals do care for their handicapped. Dolphins lift their wounded to the surface to breath (assisted respiration, anyone?) In one fairly recent case, a dog dragged an injured dog off of a highway and into safety. If you have ever raised dogs, or cats, or horses (as I have), you will see how a mother will care for her young when they are injured. The fact that the most they can do is often merely licking wounds does not change the fact that they are doing all they can to keep their loved ones alive. Regarding predators, how many predators does a polar bear have in its natural habitat? Man. What else? I am sure that you will find this question difficult to answer. Man has his fair share of predators. In addition to the obvious animals (bears, lions, alligators, crocodiles, caimans, etc.), there is also disease. So the idea that man has eliminated nearly all of his predators is—-how shall I say?—-erroneous. We are nowhere near that point. Even the predators that we can “combat”, disease namely, are still oftentimes far beyond our control. It is not like a polar bear can not “combat” his predators (Man), either. It has been successful in many cases. Yes, we are creating our own environments. By the way, termites have air-conditioning. We are not alone.

It is interesting that you should mention dolphins. They can create tools (such as using broken sponges as nose-guards during foraging), and these skills are passed down by education, not by inheritance. Some have also been known to engage in acts that often are unaccountable in relation to the natural order of things. Their still mysterious, occasional killings of porpoises may be do to some discord among their “cultures”. This poses some interesting questions. If dolphins engage in these irrational activities, are they also to be excluded from the scope of “classic, natural evolutionary theory”? Also, considering their apparently extreme intelligence, how come they have never evolved hands with opposable thumbs? I am sure they could find a use for them.

Concerning microevolution and activities involving noses, one could also consider the axes of the planets. Every planet’s axis is aligned in a generally perpendicular position compared to the plane of the Solar System, [here, the speaker's voice lowered to a whisper, a nervousness shading his face, his eyes looking down] except for, uh, Uranus [He kicked the ground, cursing his misfortune]. There are always exceptions to scientific expectations, like the expectation that all planets should rotate in the same direction, due to their alleged emergence from dust swirling after the sun appeared. Yes, I know, Uranus is said to have been hit by a comet, or asteroid, or rogue planet, or so some of the theories go. Also intriguing is the universe’s current rate of expansion. When this is taken into consideration, all of the Solar System’s planets ought to be much farther away from the sun then they currently are, when we take the evolutionist’s estimation of the Solar System’s age. It seems highly unlikely that the speed of this expansion is becoming more and more rapid, especially when entropy is accounted for.

Now I have stated facts that I do not expect you will find reason to “misunderstand”. Personally, I do not worship “peer-reviewed scientific fact.” Aristarchus’ heliocentric model of the solar system was rejected by the science community of his day. As I have said elsewhere, the scientific establishments contemporary to Galileo persecuted him for his discoveries. I appreciate what the scientific community has accomplished, but generally my admiration is with the individual scientists (Aristarchus, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Tesla, etc.) rather than the “establishment”. I think it is clear that neither of us are “scientists”, though we both are interested the workings of the universe. I am afraid I must pass on your generous offer to “fill in the gaps” of my allegedly “misled” understanding. I believe my arguments have been as clear as yours, and have suffered from no more (if perhaps no less) holes in logic. The Bible, English grammar, literature, and science have been my main studies in life so far. I will learn science enough when, Lord willing, I take mechanical engineering in college. Thank you for your time, and the discussion. Good-bye and farewell.

Author of the Aelnathan

That’s right everyone, “Why didn’t dolphins develop opposable thumbs”? After all, we all know that if a creature doesn’t have a human or human-like form it most certainly CAN’T actually be intelligent, and a dog licking its sick puppy is exactly the same as developing and administering antibiotics! Seriously.

Here we also witness one of many attempts to duck out, and the continual denial of the real problem: Aelnathan doesn’t understand evolution in the first place. What’s that AA saying… the first step to recovery is admitting there is problem?

Next time, three epic posts as Cleric comes back, I explain taxonomy, gravity, and technology, while Aelnathan sticks his fingers in his ears and thinks we called him a fool.

Continue the debate? Part 3.

This will be much shorter than the Prelude since we no longer have to catch up.

For those who want to read ahead or look at it in its “native environment”, this section starts on page 30 of Cleric’s review.

Before I get a chance to reply to some of his silliness, Cleric jumps in to point out how silly his mention to survival of the fittest in reference to euthanasia and abortion is. I don’t reappear until we move the debate to Aelnathan’s review.

Cleric Said:
>>Abortion and euthanasia ARE related to this topic. They both are related to the “survival of the fittest mentality”. These items require further questioning—-where does this selective deduction of life end? The unborn are killed “for the health of the mother”, or because it will be a burden to its parents, etc. The old and terminally ill are killed so that medical funds will not be “wasted” on them. Remember, slavery was an accepted institution for thousands of years (and still is in some regions), and that does not mean it was ethical. Just because abortion and euthanasia are accepted by many today does not mean it is right. Perhaps someday more will come to see its evil.

But, as I’ve already pointed out the “survival of the fittest” concept is specifically in relation to a world that is not meddled in, where nature is in control. Mankinds use of murder, abortion, euthanasia or whatever is meddling in nature’s whims and thus the whole notion of “survival of the fittest” doesn’t hold in context of the evolutionary theory. Now you’re just discussing a philosophical aspect. You are taking it out of science and putting it into philosophy, which is why it’s not relevant to the Theory of Evolution. You are just talking about the philosophical concept of “survival of the fittest” as it is removed from the evolutionary system.

>>P.S.—Evolution (Macroevolution) is NOT FACT. It is a theory. Why are people so afraid to say that? We have mathematical theorems that we follow, and nobody is scared to call them theorems. Why not just call Evolution the “Theory of Evolution”?

I’m not afraid to call it the theory of evolution, that is it’s definition when you look it up in a dictionary. However microevolution IS a fact. Just like we accept gravity as a fact. Right you are about the mathematical theorms, but the premise of a lot of those are that they are true and some are unprovable, such as the commutative property of mathematics. We assume this property holds for all numbers at all times. You can’t fully prove it in a testable fashion, because you can’t test all numbers. So we base the assumption that it’s true on the logical fact that some of the tested series work. Same goes for evolution, basically. Microevolution exists and works, therefore it is extrapolated that evolution is the process that dictates the system. If you want to pick and choose what scientific observations you want to believe, that is your prerogative, but that doesn’t mean ignoring it makes it not true.

Aelnathan said:
When has mankind ceased being a part of nature? If a lion kills a gazelle or another lion, it is regarded as a process of nature. If a human kills an animal or another human, is that not part of nature as a whole also? It really is not such an extreme extrapolation to apply the “survival of the fittest” mentality to society. If you hold that man evolved from apes or what have you, than man is basically a very intelligent animal. As such, the strongest of the “herd” of humankind can make decisions concerning the fate of said “herd”. Like the stallion culling the weak and sickly foals from his drove, so would a dictator have the right to control and cleanse the population he governs by means of abortion, eugenics, and genocide. Of course these things are atrocious, but they are not unrelated to the subject at hand. No one is saying that Darwin set out to create such re-gimes (those distinctions fall to Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin), but to ignore their correlations to one another is to choose ignorance.

Do remember that I said “Evolution (Macroevolution) is NOT FACT.” I never said microevolution is not fact. To do so would make me little different than a believer in a flat Earth. Yet that still does not mean that evolution can be applied to the whole without some great errors. It is akin to observing the society of ants, and then believing all animal life to observe the same pattern. It is like unto the expectation that since plants use photosynthesis to produce food, then animals must also do so. It is very much similar to studying geology with the belief that everything has always moved at the same rates, without accounting for the changes that happen over time. Maybe microevolution is but a small facet of biology, that does not explain the existence of life itself. I do not ignore microevolution; rather I do not wish to jump to conclusions in its proper application.

That’s right, “microevolution” exists but “macroevolution” does not with an AMAZINGLY inaccurate analogy, and conveniently forgets the fact that it is ABIOGENESIS that attempts to explain the existence of life, NOT evolution–”macro” or “micro”.

Cleric said:
>>When has mankind ceased being a part of nature? If a lion kills a gazelle or another lion, it is regarded as a process of nature. If a human kills an animal or another human, is that not part of nature as a whole also? It really is not such an extreme extrapolation to apply the “survival of the fittest” mentality to society. If you hold that man evolved from apes or what have you, than man is basically a very intelligent animal. As such, the strongest of the “herd” of humankind can make decisions concerning the fate of said “herd”. Like the stallion culling the weak and sickly foals from his drove, so would a dictator have the right to control and cleanse the population he governs by means of abortion, eugenics, and genocide. Of course these things are atrocious, but they are not unrelated to the subject at hand. No one is saying that Darwin set out to create such re-gimes (those distinctions fall to Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin), but to ignore their correlations to one another is to choose ignorance.

I’m talking about this specifically on how Darwin saw things. Furthermore, animals don’t fall prey to the ridiculous irrational things humans do. Hitler killed off Jews based on their religion and race. This had nothing to do with them being weak by natures standards, but by Hitler’s irrational standards. Stalin and others were despots that wanted absolute control over their territories and populations. That’s not how survival of the fittest works in nature and you should know that. Furthermore a lot of the beliefs in Eugenics were unfounded and proven to do little to improve anything. Thus it is NOT working in conjunction with a concept of survival of the fittest. So, in my opinion, to think there is a correlation is ignorant. You have to learn to differentiate between the excuses people use for these things and the reality of it. You are trying to imply an argument Darwin specifically said didn’t apply in his theory. I think he was pretty on point. He even acknowledged it, why can’t you?

>>Do remember that I said “Evolution (Macroevolution) is NOT FACT.” I never said microevolution is not fact. To do so would make me little different than a believer in a flat Earth. Yet that still does not mean that evolution can be applied to the whole without some great errors. It is akin to observing the society of ants, and then believing all animal life to observe the same pattern. It is like unto the expectation that since plants use photosynthesis to produce food, then animals must also do so. It is very much similar to studying geology with the belief that everything has always moved at the same rates, without accounting for the changes that happen over time. Maybe microevolution is but a small facet of biology, that does not explain the existence of life itself. I do not ignore microevolution; rather I do not wish to jump to conclusions in its proper application.

Do remember I said microevolution is the catalyst for macroevolution. If one is fact then the other is highly likely to be. The case of transitional fossils being found is further proving that fact. Maybe you’re worried about jumping to conclusions, but that doesn’t change the evidence that continues to be found. Though, I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply with the analogies. No one’s asking you to do that, least of all evolution. And no, microevolution will never explain the existence of life, microevolution is a mechanism that allows for small changes over time. Maybe the first things in life used a microevolutionary process…

Aelnathan said:
If you are merely talking about Darwin’s theories, and if he had already excluded humanity from his equation, then my comments do not apply. He was very smart to leave people’s actions out of his theory. Yet the “Theory of Evolution” is not limited to “Darwinism”. I understand your point on dictators misusing Darwin’s theories to further their own agendas. Still, from a purely rhetorical view, can you not see my point about man’s hypothetical state as a “very intelligent animal”? Does sentience thus thrust a species from the bounds of Nature? If man’s actions cannot be accommodated in the natural process of “Evolution”, then where do we fit in? Let us assume that, oh, five million years in the future, sentient, talking horses come to be. Are they therefore no longer part of Nature? What is this quality that separates man from beast? I would think that this very exception to the tenets of “Evolution” would draw into question its feasibility. Is there a limit on how far evolution can progress? If all species become sentient, does “Nature” become an obsolete word? Does evolution halt? Or perhaps, is sentience a gift from our Creator, who planned out the universe’s workings from the beginning? Could He have decided which species are sentient, and which are irrational, and where these creatures stand in existence? These questions are certainly worth consideration.

Now about microevolution—-how do my analogies not correlate with the material at hand? I was pointing out that studying one facet of a certain branch of science, and then applying it to the entire branch can lead to erroneous conclusions. I do not see humans (or much of anything else, for that matter) reproducing by binary fission. But sea anemones do. Let us say for a moment that I were an alien visitor, coming from a world where all creatures are hermaphrodite, and landed on Earth. Sea anemones were first species I studied intently. I might proceed to the conclusion that ALL of the creatures on Earth reproduce in this manner. E.T. just made a big mistake. “Oww-ie.” Anyway, I do not see how I can make my point any clearer. Microevolution could just be a crucial yet limited component of biology.

It seems as if this debate has gone on as far as it can go, with both parties making little or no headway. If you wish to continue, then I will soldier on, yet if you wish to retire, I will second the motion. I am growing weary of constantly speaking in an ambiguous tone for the sake of argument. I know where you stand, and I believe you know where I stand. I am a Christian and a Creationist, and constantly stating my views in the form of a question is quite grating. Neither of us seem to be getting anywhere. I hope my posts have given you some matter for contemplation, in an unoffensive manner (something I have striven with great care to accomplish). Thank you for not resorting to name-calling and insults. If you agree, this here is farewell, and as I have said several times before, may we all find the Truth.

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life.”
—–John 14:6

Cleric said:
>>If you are merely talking about Darwin’s theories, and if he had already excluded humanity from his equation, then my comments do not apply. He was very smart to leave people’s actions out of his theory. Yet the “Theory of Evolution” is not limited to “Darwinism”. I understand your point on dictators misusing Darwin’s theories to further their own agendas. Still, from a purely rhetorical view, can you not see my point about man’s hypothetical state as a “very intelligent animal”? Does sentience thus thrust a species from the bounds of Nature? If man’s actions cannot be accommodated in the natural process of “Evolution”, then where do we fit in? Let us assume that, oh, five million years in the future, sentient, talking horses come to be. Are they therefore no longer part of Nature? What is this quality that separates man from beast? I would think that this very exception to the tenets of “Evolution” would draw into question its feasibility. Is there a limit on how far evolution can progress? If all species become sentient, does “Nature” become an obsolete word? Does evolution halt? Or perhaps, is sentience a gift from our Creator, who planned out the universe’s workings from the beginning? Could He have decided which species are sentient, and which are irrational, and where these creatures stand in existence? These questions are certainly worth consideration.

To be perfectly honest, I’m not qualified to give this a supremely detailed answer. However, I think the whole point of somewhat omitting mankind IS our ability to meddle in a vastly different way than nature does. For all we know sentience could be an anomaly of nature, an exception to the rule. I lean on the side that it is an abnormal state, since we’re the only species that seems to be able to meddle like we do. If you know what I mean?

>>Now about microevolution—-how do my analogies not correlate with the material at hand? I was pointing out that studying one facet of a certain branch of science, and then applying it to the entire branch can lead to erroneous conclusions. I do not see humans (or much of anything else, for that matter) reproducing by binary fission. But sea anemones do. Let us say for a moment that I were an alien visitor, coming from a world where all creatures are hermaphrodite, and landed on Earth. Sea anemones were first species I studied intently. I might proceed to the conclusion that ALL of the creatures on Earth reproduce in this manner. E.T. just made a big mistake. “Oww-ie.” Anyway, I do not see how I can make my point any clearer. Microevolution could just be a crucial yet limited component of biology.

I would agree if microevolution wasn’t found in everything. I do understand your point, but I think you are attacking it from the wrong angle.

>>It seems as if this debate has gone on as far as it can go, with both parties making little or no headway. If you wish to continue, then I will soldier on, yet if you wish to retire, I will second the motion. I am growing weary of constantly speaking in an ambiguous tone for the sake of argument. I know where you stand, and I believe you know where I stand. I am a Christian and a Creationist, and constantly stating my views in the form of a question is quite grating. Neither of us seem to be getting anywhere. I hope my posts have given you some matter for contemplation, in an unoffensive manner (something I have striven with great care to accomplish). Thank you for not resorting to name-calling and insults. If you agree, this here is farewell, and as I have said several times before, may we all find the Truth.

I agree. And maybe we should call it quits here. I also must thank you for not getting all “hell and damnation” on me. Instead we had quite the civil conversation on this matter.

Aelnathan said:
Thanks for the debate. Farewell.

–Author of the Aelnathan

P.S.—-This post is the same one as the one deleted above. I had a little trouble with it. Sorry. After I had posted it, I remembered that I had already said goodbye in my previous post. Wanting to avoid redundancy, I deleted it. I forgot that such an action would leave an empty space with the bracketed words “Deleted by author on____”. Oh, well.

And this is Aelnathan’s first retreat. In the next episode, I confront him on his own territory.

And I’m not nice like Cleric.

Continue the debate:
Part 2

This article records everything from Aelnathan’s first comment up to the time All-Access left for good and Aelnathan got serious and stopped waiting a month between posts.

This first comment needs a little context. This is Aelnathan’s first comment on the Expelled review (starting on page 26 for those who want to read all surrounding comments for themselves). Around this time, a lot of people are discussing Nazis and “Darwinism” and Hitler and how it appeared Stein was giving a biased opinion. Don’t worry, the subject changes quickly.

Aelnathan said
Ben Stein was showing the demoralizing effect of Darwinism. Hitler may or may not have been an atheist, but his practices were certainly ‘logical’ (such a horribly adept adjective) progressions of Darwin’s theories. If the perfection of biological life is the goal of existence, than Hitler would be completely justified in his atrocities. If this truly is the case, Hitler (and Stalin, too) should be praised as benefactors of humanity.
I find this ‘Northern Man’ to have given a pseudo-educated comment. Ah, he has researched Mein Kampf, perhaps, yet I question the reasoning that would provide us with such a comparison as the one he gave. It is obvious that Hitler believed that animals mate only with their kind. It is obvious that Creationists believe that animals mate only with their kind. It is obvious that animals mate only with their kind. It is not ‘creationist innuendo’; it is a fact of the natural world.
Oh, and for Cleric’s knowledge, Stein was not blaming Darwin for the holocaust; he was showing the correllation of the ideals of Evolution and Nazism. Also, I sometimes wonder if this reviewer was watching this film as carefully as it would at first seem. Ben Stein interviewed those responsible for the expellation of persons like Sternberg and Gonzales, to hear their (rather fabricated excuses for) explanations. He interviewed those like Richard Dawkins, to gain an understanding of their support for Evolution and their stand against Intelligent Design. I do not see this as poor hosting. I may be an idiot to think this (highly doubtful), but does it not seem fitting to question those who are expert in their field? Those that fired Sternberg would be those most fit to answer for their actions. Richard Dawkins is the one to ask concerning the views in his book.
In addition to my above remarks, I would like to address the reviewer’s assumption that ‘Intelligent Design cannot provide something observable that can be repeated in a laboratory, that’s a fact, not a belief.’ He is correct. Yet I would like to see Evolution repeated in a laboratory. Someone had better invent an immortality drug, time machine, or something, to observe the mutations over millions of years. Stanley Miller tried to prove it in a laboratory, but ultimately created a simulated environment that made life impossible (If you do not believe me go to wikipedia) . Or, you could work on that time machine, and ask Stan himself). Both theories require faith. Creation requires less faith than Evolution, in fact. I mean, either DaVinci painted the Mona Lisa, or some three-year-old scribbled with crayons long enough. It would be some unfathomable miracle for the ordered universe to arise from random mistakes, constantly leading to greater order and sophistication (entropy and Thermodynamics notwithstanding).

*headdesk* Prove it in a laboratory? Seriously… but we get to that. Though I’d like to mention, I didn’t think of it at the time, that actually “either DaVinci painted the Mona Lisa, or some three-year-old scribbled with crayons long enough” is surprisingly accurate, but not in the way he intends. DaVinci WAS once a three year old scribbling with “crayons” (Though they were conte crayons and charcoal, not the waxy Crayolas we use), and he scribbled long enough and consistently enough, that he… got good at it. His style evolved until he was good enough to paint the Mona Lisa. But I digress.

Also observe how he linked the Talk page about the experiment and not the ACTUAL page which can be found here. Also notice the content, and link to AiG. Seriously. And people wonder why Wikipedia is often not considered a ‘credible’ source.

At this point, All-Access says he’s fed up for the first time, Cleric indicates his frustration, and Aelnathan makes another post.

Aelnathan said:
Just one more thing before you go. I understand the frustration of debate, when you are shouting, “Can’t you see? It is so obvious!”, and nobody sees your point. But this is no mere matter of debate. It hurts my heart to see how hopeless Evolution can make people. But it is not that it just makes people hopeless. Sometimes, the arguments for Evolution just do not make sense. For instance, how come all species on the planet are becoming less and less genetically diverse? If Evolution is true, at least the general trend would be that creatures were becoming more diverse with each coming generation. But here is the funny part. Every ‘mutation’, or whatever title one wants to give the variations in a breed (such as Wolf and Dog [both canines], Lion and Cat [both felines]), signifies a decrease in genetic diversity, even if the breed ‘improves’ in its characteristics. The earliest ancestors of the species contained all of the genetic information necessary for posterity. As time wears on, when subspecies branch off into different sizes and colors, part of their parents’ diversity leaves them. It would at first not seem this way, but for lack of a better analogy, I will compare this to the separation of the colors in white light. When all of the rainbow’s colors are combined, we have white light. This represents complete genetic diversity. When, however, separate the light with a triangular prism, we see Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet. If we look at the Red section, we can at once see that it is more striking in appearance than the white light, and might even think it to be more complex. But the truth is it is but a simpler component of white light. Thus, the colors represent the branching off of a species, resulting in reduced genetic diversity.
This is what frustrates me most about some Evolutionists. They act as if their theory has been proven as fact, when in truth it has not. I am a Christian, and take the Bible literally when it says that God created the earth in six days. I do not expect this to fit inside a test tube. Evolution does not fit there either. And what theory remains more persistent? The Bible, after thousands of years, still says that the earth was created in six days. Evolutionists, on the other hand, change the dates assigned to the geologic collumn, still bicker about whether mankind descended from apes, and remain perplexed by the prospect of the organic rising from the inorganic. Creationism says that God created life out of nothing. That may sound impossible, and ‘un-scientific’, but to me, it sounds more probable than the amoeba arising from ‘soup’ that came from rocks that came from an ity-bity little cube of matter before the Big Bang. And, wait a minute—-where did you say that cube of matter came from? Oh, yes, I am still waiting for an answer.
For those who actually believe Evolution (and are not just using it as a tool for power and/or fame), I do not feel anger. I just hope they take a look at some of the things that point to a Creator.

Cleric comes back exasperated.

Cleric said:
Aelnathan , I must apologize if the following sounds somewhat harsh in response. Maybe I am weary of the debate at hand. I think I’m mostly just tired of explaining my point of view and people very rarely understanding what I’m getting at. I think I am just a poor communicator in this regard, but for what it’s worth, here it goes…

All of the colors combined make Black, not white. So your analogy was incredibly hard to follow for me. White is caused by the absence of color.

Secondly, I’m not saying that a creator is not possible, so I’m not sure where the discussion of “hopelessness” comes from. I also believe a creator is highly likely, so I am not even remotely arguing from that perspective. And species are getting diverse as well, they discovered 70 some odd new species in 2007, if I remember the article date correctly. So if things weren’t still evolving, or are becoming less divergent as you claim, then we wouldn’t discover anything new. We’d see constant extinction with nothing being created.

My issue with the creation story is that it is incredibly contradictory from what people explain to me about the nature of “god” in the Bible. Aside from the fact that the story is just illogical to me, the fact that people say “god” is eternal and everywhere and then in the first paragraph the Bible states there was a void makes no sense. If you’re presence is eternal and everywhere then a void is impossible and your statements aren’t reconciliable to your own book. Therefore there can be limitations to “god’s” presence and existence.

Personally I’ve moved on from evolution, because there is more evidence to support evolution than most other “beliefs” out there. Such as the Theory of Gravity, humans still don’t really understand that much about this. Plus the “it’s just a theory” argument when discussing evolution is a pretty moot point. When you use 2 + 3 = 3 + 2 (commutative property of addition) in mathematics to solve problems the process you go about using these properties is called the Theory of Equations. So if it’s logical that evolution should be dismissed based on the fact that it is called the “Theory of Evolution” then we should very likely dismiss other theories as improbable like the theory of gravity or the theory of equations, regardless of the observations we make and the mathematical models we develop with them.

I guess that’s the major area I come from when I argue against the creationist theory. There is no real physical evidence of anything presented in the creation story from Genesis (and yes I have read the Bible). However, on a philosophical note, beliefs are stronger than facts or anything else depending on how strong your belief is. I could be presenting this wrong, but what I’m trying to say is that if you truly believe it then it’s obviously true for you and nothing science or anything else will change your mind on this if you believe it hard enough. This is essentially what the Bible teaches, so those with a lot of faith in it will not change their minds.

The only reason the Bible hasn’t had a “noticeable” change is because of the development of the printing press. Euclid’s “Thirteen Elements” hasn’t really changed much either and that’s older than any “New Testament” you’ll find written even before the printing press. So you’re statement about how it hasn’t changed is also kind of irrelevant as there are many other documents from ancient times that also haven’t changed much since we’ve printed them and mass produced them. I guess I just don’t understand where your’e coming from on that point. Not to mention at the end of “revelations” it flat out says “you can’t add anything else to this book” or else it will be considered heresy or something along those lines. (I don’t have a Bible with me at work, sorry).

It is actually immediately following this post that my first Smackdown article begins, but Aelnathan disappears for quite some time so he took the back seat. He comes back, pointing out that he was misunderstood with his confusing light=biodiversity analogy and actually meant LIGHT and not PIGMENT, and adds more headdesks. For those interested in reading the original posts, this returns on page 28.

Aelnathan said:
I am sorry, sir, but I was not talking about colors in the sense of pigments (paint, ink, etc.) I was talking about the colors of LIGHT. White LIGHT is a combination of the Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Inidigo, Violet wavelengths of LIGHT. Black (True black, like the black of a Black Hole) comes from the absence of LIGHT. I hope my analogy has taken on somewhat greater meaning.
Concerning man’s never-ending discoveries of ‘new’ animal species, I have this question to ask: When did humans become omniscient? Just because we have never seen a certain species before does not mean it has not existed for millennia. And my point about decreasing GENETIC diversity is precisely what I said. I am not saying that the species themselves are not becoming more diverse, but that their genetic code is becoming less diverse. If you have ever heard about the Global Seed Vault (GSV), you will know what I mean. It is an effort to retain the biodiversity of various strains of seeds, by storing them in seedbanks across the globe (go to Wikipedia again for more info). Take Indian Corn, for instance. It contains more genetic diversity than the modern strains used in agriculture today. It more readily adapts to differing environments. All of our modern breeds come from Indian Corn. This is but one illustration for my point on decreasing genetic diversity.
Concerning your comment on the ‘void’, I could not say it any better than All-access Customer said it. ‘”And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:2). It was the earth that was void–not void of God, but rather nonexistent before He created it.’
Concerning gravity and such, I say this. These theories contribute to the capabilities of man today. ‘Something’ makes apples fall from trees, and at an observable rate of increasing speed. Three marbles plus two marbles equals two marbles plus three marbles. These observations have been put to good use in engineering. What good has evolution done for us?
And I was just using the Bible’s unchanging stand as an illustration of the rather dynamic nature of the Theory of Evolution.

Some of the responses on the first article are edited to remove the points I addressed to Aelnathan in order to focus on All-Access. What I am posting here is the Aelnathan version of these posts.

Anath said:
While the taxonomic tree and the spreading of light coming out of a prism are visually strikingly similar, the deep layer of analogy is entirely misplaced. The spread of “feline ancestor white light” to “lion/tiger/jaguar/serval/fishing cat/cheetah colors” or “canid ancestor white light” to “jackal/wolf/fox/coyote colors” is not representative of what actually occurs. Species are not a simplification of their ancestors. Let me break this down further to illuminate the true lay of the land. Forget your White Light analogy entirely, for it will only serve to confuse the issue for you.

I will use the family canidae, but the specifics of this example are irrelevant as any ancestor at any level or branch of the taxonomic tree can be substituted and the core concept will not change, so I will avoid scientific names and irrelevant details and keep this example in generic terms.

40 million years ago, we see the first common ancestor of canidae. This “ancient wolf” had a specific genetic structure with a specific phenotype and specific alleles that it had inherited from previous ancestors to help it survive in its Eocene environment. This genetic structure varied slightly from individual to individual in order to maintain genetic diversity, and was combined in near infinite combinations during sexual reproduction. These animals were all located in one local area of the globe at first, and began to wander. Geological events and natural disasters occurred over time and gradually isolated various parts of the population for a variety of reasons. This variable recombination occasionally produced individuals with particular alleles that were able to achieve great reproductive success, but since there were pockets of population, these changes were generally unable to spread much farther than their local groups. Now fast forward to the Miocene epoch and we see a split into the genera Canis (wolves, jackals, coyotes), Urocyon (grey foxes), Vulpes (True Foxes) (there is no need to take it all the way to species, the concept still applies on a more local level). This is 30 million years later, and 9-10 million years from the common era. Canids have a litter of pups about every year so we are looking at about 30 million generations from the common ancestor to the genera split, give or take. Now we can analyze the question, did we lose or gain genetic diversity in the split?

How do we define “genetic diversity”? The National Biological Information Infrastructure website says:
>>Genetic diversity refers to the variation at the level of individual genes (polymorphism), and provides a mechanism for populations to adapt to their ever-changing environment.<<

So redefining the question with the definition. At the time of the split, we have 30,000,000 generations of pups, litter size of 1-16 (sometimes more), which is about of 240,000,000 surviving pups assuming we start the family Canidae with one single animal, assuming an average litter of 8 pups that survive to reproduce, and ignoring all potential unusual population variations due to feast-or-famine. (It is more likely that there were anywhere from 5-100+ mated couples that made up the early Canids, and there can be a large number of pups that live to reproductive maturity so you can see my figures are quite conservative. ) This is WELL over 240 million unique arrangements of the original genome. With genetic diversity defined as "variation at the level of individual genes", do you think that 240 million+ variations of the original genome is indicating a DECREASE in diversity? Even as the family "splits" into three genera here, each individual creature still contains a unique set of genes inherited by blending their parent's genes. The genera and subsequent species do not indicate a decline in genetic diversity; they are simply variations on a theme.

A more fitting analogy is that of any standard musical scale. The common ancestor for Canidae is... let's say a C Concert Scale, and the three genera could be an arpeggio, a third, and a minor scale. Same notes, different variation. Think of three different ways to play "Hot Cross Buns" or "Mary had a Little Lamb". Same thing.

>>Take Indian Corn, for instance. It contains more genetic diversity than the modern strains used in agriculture today. <<

You are using a very, very misleading example. Corn is a domesticated plant that has been artificially selected by humans for very specific traits, not producing its own variations in nature. We don't want corn to change because it possesses certain traits, so WE are taking steps to keep it from changing (to the point of genetically engineering and cloning it in laboratories). Left on its own, there would be greater variation, but when a farmer sees a "bad" (read as: different) plant, he removes it from the garden and destroys its possibility of reproduction.

Also your terminology here is also misleading. ALL corn is "Indian Corn". Every single species of corn on the market today derives from maize domesticated in 16th century Mesoamerica. So essentially you are saying there is more genetic diversity in a species as a whole than in an artificially selected, domesticated, modified, and even cloned strain of the species. This is true, but not actually relevant to your point. Its like saying there is a greater genetic diversity in all Amur tigers than just the Amur tigers in the Pittsburgh Zoo.

>>What good has evolution done for us?<<

If you can't think of a single thing knowledge of evolution has done for modern biology, this is incredulity on your part, nothing more. Evolution has entirely restructured the field of biology, to the point where you can not understand biology without it. Natural selection has changed how we view ecosystems as a whole, as well as revealed incredible insights about our own species, from our deep psyche to why our anatomy is structured the way it is. For me there are three outstanding examples of evolution's mark.

The first is the field of genetics. While Darwin knew nothing of genetics when he penned his theory for the first time, its a well-known secret that the theory has grown and been modified as the world of genetics unraveled. HOW does the randomness, and mutation, and natural selection and adaptation work? Genetics. Sexual reproduction. Mutations. Even if we knew what DNA was and how it was composed, even if we had the human genome entirely mapped out, we would be completely unable to utilize any of that information without the knowledge of evolution and its inner workings. We now know how heritability works, among other things, which leads me to my second example...

Medicine. As the knowledge of evolution, genetics, microbiology, and so on grew, we were able to advance our medicine to keep up. We learned about bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms and how to combat them, and more importantly, we learned that they adapt to our antibiotics and other medications, so that we could combat them more effectively. If you have ever had an extremely severe case of the flu, pneumonia, bronchitis, tetanus, rabies (or been potentially exposed to rabies) the common cold, or a dozen other previously life-threatening illnesses, and took any sort of medicine or a preventative shot for it, you may owe your very life to our knowledge of evolution. We also have been able to pinpoint the causes of genetic diseases and we have been able to determine who is more susceptible to other health issues such as high blood pressure or breast cancer based on family history. The benefits of evolution on medicine go on and on, as genetic engineering becomes increasingly integral part... and I haven't even touched on neuroscience.

Also we have integrated the idea of natural selection in computer science and artificial intelligence, creating programs that mimic evolution to optimize programs and solve complex problems. You probably have several devices in your house that are a direct or indirect result of this method. This is a fascinating field but I don't know much about it to be honest, so if you are interested there is lots of information all over the web if you Google it. Wikipedia has an introductory article with lots of links to start you off: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

Hope that helped to clarify some of your misunderstandings.

After this, Aelnathan took some more time off (about a month) and jumped back in when he thought he could smack some morals around.

Aelnathan
Abortion and euthanasia ARE related to this topic. They both are related to the “survival of the fittest mentality”. These items require further questioning—-where does this selective deduction of life end? The unborn are killed “for the health of the mother”, or because it will be a burden to its parents, etc. The old and terminally ill are killed so that medical funds will not be “wasted” on them. Remember, slavery was an accepted institution for thousands of years (and still is in some regions), and that does not mean it was ethical. Just because abortion and euthanasia are accepted by many today does not mean it is right. Perhaps someday more will come to see its evil.

–Aelnathan

P.S.—Evolution (Macroevolution) is NOT FACT. It is a theory. Why are people so afraid to say that? We have mathematical theorems that we follow, and nobody is scared to call them theorems. Why not just call Evolution the “Theory of Evolution”?

Oh classic, “Why not just call Evolution the “Theory of Evolution”?” I don’t know where he gets it, but this had me dying of laughter. Fortunately I didn’t, and lived to read his next response, which he posted immediately after, addressing me.

Aelnathan said:
I am sorry for my late response. I do not very competently keep track of my comments on other people’s reviews.

The “decrease in genetic diversity”, as I put it, does not just relate to artificial selection. Case in point; try getting a sun bear cub from breeding polar bears. It is not going to happen (not by natural breeding means, anyway) However, these two bear species descended from some original bear ancestor. They both are better adapted to their respective environments than their ancestors, but they will not be able to produce the range of breeds that their ancenstors produced. That is my point.

Concerning the “what good has evolution done for us?”, you make some interesting points. In the case of medicine, however, is not the study of family history called Heredity? Perhaps I am merely splitting hairs here. With Evolution’s effects on computers and such, one could argue that the Evolutionary Algorithm is merely an attempt to mimic human reasoning faculties, despite its inspiration.

Due to the fact that I so poorly keep track of my comments, I may not be seen posting here again. Sorry for the inconvenience, but if one wishes to question me, they could comment on my own review of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. I will attempt to stay current on my posts here, but that has so far been achieved with wildly varying results. I close here, wishing that all of us find the Truth.

–Aelnathan

P.S.—-Just one last question for Anath, in response to the argument with All-Access Customer. Did man descend from apes??? I have noticed that Evolutionists are so…….not unified on that point.

Needless to say, we didn’t scare him off that quickly, and he plays a very, very long game of “I’m leaving!” *post* “I’m leaving for REALS” *post* “REALLY I’M LEAVING!” *post*… which I promoted by pushing his buttons, writing responses, and moving to HIS Expelled review like he recommended! He just can’t STAND not to have the last word, but I’ll give it to him here, since we’ve gone slightly past the end of All-Access.

Tune in next week sometime for a short series of responses! This post will be the the longest installation in the series, since it really is just a parallel catch-up.

Continue the debate:
Part 1
Part 2

To understand why, we must first look into how Descartes defined the universe, namely that of the physical and the nonphysical. Everything we can touch, see, smell, feel and taste are of the physical world, everything else not such as thoughts and ideas. Basically a dichotomy made of the abstract vs the concrete. To consider the universe physical, we must also consider it as an object made for study as we can study the physical world but we cannot study the nonphysical (according to old belief, we now know we can study the mind as proven in Psychology and similar sciences).

In science, we are to reject the nonphysical since it cannot be properly reviewed. We look at the physical world as an object, something which can be rationally understood. Not surprisingly we started to reject Christianity and the Church by the time we also started to believe in Liberalism, in personal responsibility and freedom and that every individual matters in comparison to rather seeing a group of people than a group of individuals. To understand why the development of Liberalism is important we must understand that without a Divine Creator who has laid all the rules for us to follow, the only one being able to take responsibility is oneself. Personal resonsiblity, free will and freedom are the underlying foundations of  Liberalism and Atheism too embraces this idea, since if we don’t believe in a Divine Creator and a Holy Scripture then we only have ourselves to blame for our earthly faults and we must learn how to deal with it. Our morals come from ourselves, not from a Creator Mystique. In summary, one can basically say that by the time we really started to believe in the world as an object and rejected the nonphysical during the Enlightenment Era, Liberalism and then Atheism were later to be born. It is also interesting to see that it was at this point when the church was split between Protestantism and Catholicism, the former believing more on individual responsibility than the latter, thus also rejecting ideas such as Original Sin, which claims that we are to be blamed for the faults of our ancestors, thus rather grouping people up in a huge collective than seeing them as free individuals. This strongly opposes the idea of individual freedom and personal responsibility and was easily solved with the idea of baptism. Drop your head in some holy water and voila, the Original Sin is gone.

With the help of the Enlightenment Era we would soon give birth to Industrialism and it is now science is finally is starting to seriously take a spin. Many huge scientific improvements were made around the 19th century or after that time and in fact we all got monsieur Descartes to thank, making us believe that we can actually view the world as an object. In such a sense isn’t it all also very ironical that we now are rejecting his idea of Dualism given that it was his idea of the physical world that planted the first seeds into developing modern science? Regardless, Atheism rejects anything made of the nonphysical and at least claims that if such a nonphysical world would exist, it too is a part of the physical world but not yet properly understood.

In a sense, we can actually say that the Abrahamic religions were doomed when they first introduced the concept of a soul and a nonphysical world. They in fact, planted the ideas which would later spawn Atheism since Atheism is more or less the rejection of the nonphysical, but such a concept cannot exist unless we are to believe in a physical and a nonphysical world, as later laid out and defined by Descartes.  When Christians argue that Atheism then is a necessary evil, maybe we should try to explain to them that they themselves laid the foundation for such a concept and as they continue to believe in a soul and a nonphysical world, and that they will just help Atheism to spread further as it also of course allows the belief of the opposite, which also is equally amusing when you think about it. Therefore I think it’s pretty safe to assume that Atheism will only cease to exist (as Atheism) when we have completely given up the concept of the nonphysical. I just want to clarify that this doesn’t mean that future Atheists will refuse to reject the nonphysical, but as we move more into a belief of a monistic world, then the concept of Atheism isn’t needed anymore as there is no longer a reason to reject of what we today know as a nonphysical world.

His previous silence on the topic was certainly enough that I could not draw a definitive conclusion as to what he was really thinking.   Now that my mom is pretty sure that I’ve “fallen”, even though I’ve never outright admitted my beliefs (or lack of), and the only one currently at arm’s length is my poor sibling, she’s taking on the task of ensuring that he stays the faith, and her efforts are having the opposite effect.  At first I did worry that he was simply being influenced by my cousin and myself, but after a bit of discussion, I’ve determined that he’s reached his own conclusions, and isn’t just copy-catting the cool “big kids”.

Now I’m sending over a huge list of beginner-atheist materials.  Any suggestions for him I may have overlooked?
(Yes, I recommended the God Delusion and God is not Great, so I don’t want to see 20 posts of those)

Congrats, little Jedi.

I have a better one, merely that if we have never known god, how can hell be anything but bad for us if hell means the “absence of god”? I mean, how can you miss something of which you never had and never been exposed to in your life? (Well, some have, but rejected it anyway so I guess it would be a relief for them too.) Nevermind the hellfire thing, it has never been proven anyway and just says “fire and brimstone” in the original, but I guess I wouldn’t mind some warmth. Rather that than freezing aye? Oh yes, I hate winter…

I r redi 2 dai!

I must start with the Old Testament. Anyone who has ever read even part of it will undoubtedly recognize that this collection of books is mostly concerned with he history of the people of Israel. The god found in the Old Testament presents itself as one only concerned with the Israelites. This god completely lacks any sympathy for any other tribe or people and will not hesitate to wipe out any people, city or tribe that are either a threat to his precious, chosen people or who simply piss him off for various petty reasons. It is an angry, tribal god, a boastful bully who enjoys the reek of burnt animals and requires his followers to cut off a part of their penises. Regarding the Israelites themselves, the Old Testament describes how this people was freed from Egyptian slavery and how they consequently, after many a bloody conquest, they established kingdoms (of Judah and Israel). However, these kingdoms were lost after the Israelites were conquered by other peoples, leading the Israelites into Babylonian exile. Of course, this was all the result of disobedience of that wonderful god. However, because the OT god is such a good guy, all hope was not lost, since through Isaiah it was prophesized a king would come who would would restore the kingdom of Israel, rebuild The Temple and other neat things such as reviving the dead and making the OT god the god of all nations and peoples.

This is a very important clash with Christian belief, which is rooted mainly in the New Testament. Jesus did not revive all the dead, nor does the entire world now serve God (look at me!), nor was death abolished since Jesus’ arrival – nay, Jesus even died himself. As the Moshiach (“the Anointed One” who will bring the Messianic age), Jesus utterly fails. Still, Christians swear by him as the Messiah prophesied in the Israelites’ scriptures, even though the Israelites’ themselves disagree (and for good reason). Leaning on the crutch that is the Old Testament, a new dogma developed with Jesus as the center-point. The gospels from the newly formed scriptures claim this Jesus figure spoke of a god of love for everyone; or rather: some new god as it does not match the pattern of our Old Testament friend. Other important theological additions include the concepts of Satan, heaven and hell. All these modifications and additions strike cacophonous chords with the older scriptures, but such seems the nature of Christianity: Reinventing dogma as it goes along. It is this exactly central characteristic that I often find myself entangled in.

To part from the basic level of scriptural discrepancy and move into the realm of Christian theology, we see the aforementioned central characteristic return. There are numerous Christian denominations with varying interpretations of the scriptures and I will concentrate on the prime example: Catholicism. Catholicism stands out among the denominations not just because of its size, but because of its sheer brutality. Over the centuries the Catholic Church made the Judeo-Christian religion into a political machine. This machine has had a firm grip on many powerful nations in the history of the world, with the pope at its head. This political influence brought about extra dogmatic additions and inventions which lead to “holy” wars (and consequential plunderings, one of the factors in the the amassment of the excessive wealth of the Vatican), the Spanish Inquisition, the selling letters of forgiveness “from god”, and so on. One of their more recent dogmatic inventions is papal inerrancy, which as an effect relieves the pope of any responsibility.

The Catholic Church is of course an extreme example of the reinvention of dogma and I am certainly not arguing that this practice will lead to the monstrosities we find in the history of the Catholic Church. To be fair, I will provide you with another example, and it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Mormonism. In addition to the original scriptures this church has the book of Mormon, magically revealed to the church’s founder Joseph Smith, Jr. The book was supposedly translated from golden plates having “unknown characters”, given to Joseph Smith by an angel named Moroni. The plates are, of course, now buried somewhere in the hills near Smith’s house. Mormonism hasn’t lead to anything too disturbing, barring occasional polygamy and the wearing of magical underwear.

You average non-catholic, non-Mormon Christian thinks he has not strayed as far from the Biblical path as those silly Mormons, but nothing less is true. Although they have indeed not built an empire or added any extra books to their precious Bible, they are in fact very unbiblical in just about every aspect of their lives. Most of them simply don’t realise it, because they haven’t actually read the Bible. I have no statistics on this, but time and time again I find myself debating a professed Christian who hasn’t even read “the Holy Book”. I am sure anyone who is active in these kinds of debates have had similar experience. These particular Christians tend to forget that there is a reason why we oppose their religion. It is because we have studied it, through experience and inquiry and have found it not to belong in the world we inhabit this day. Hiding gods whose baseless laws and morality they unverifiably passed to men have no place in modern government. Without actually having read the horrific, inhuman laws found in the New Testament or having realised God’s disgust for us as worthless, sinful mortals you as a self-proclaimed Christian have no right to call “their” God just and loving. These “Christians” have a one-sided conception of the Biblical god. In my experience, especially Christians from largely secular countries have this skewed perspective, and in these countries Christianity has once again reivented its dogma, and a new Christian god is born yet again.

There is but a relative handful of Christians who have actually understood the Bible and its god. A lot of them spend their lifetime trying to piece the biblical puzzle together in such a way that their god can be called loving in the face of his vile deeds – spending their lives studying theology. Some of these Christians write Apologetics, doing just that: thinking of excuses why an all-loving god would do such horrible things – and not to mention finding ways how scripture can be interpreted so that it doesn’t collide with scientific discoveries, but this is largely beside the point. There are also those Christians who do not try to understand the actions of God, but take them for face value. These Christians are abhorred by almost all Christians for giving them a bad image. It is the likes of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church I am speaking of. These Christians show a much better understanding of the Bible and God: God does indeed hate homosexuals, God does hate sinners, and God will punish us for eternity in hell after we have died if we escape the apocalypse. It is ironic that their scriptural knowledge is not applauded by fellow Christians, but rather ignored. Ignored, like Christians have ignored so much else: the maturing of human society, our sobering from our superstitious beliefs and our advancement in the knowledge of the world in which the Bliblical God and Biblical doctrine have no place.