I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Random thoughts about theistic evolutionism and "accommodationism"

I recently posted the following random thoughts on "The Intersection" blog of the Discovery magazine website. Most of these ideas have previously been posted on this blog but I decided to post all these ideas again here because they are now together in one place.

"Accommodationism" is the idea that the scientific community should be friendly towards the religious beliefs of theistic evolutionists.

==================================

The National Center for Science Education not only does not present the atheists’ views on the issue of the compatibility of science and religion, but does not present the fundies’ views on that issue. The NCSE is no good as a one-stop source of information about that issue.

The conclusion section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion says, “[evolution theory] in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.” That is a personal religious or philosophical belief that has no place in a judicial opinion. The Darwinists lucked out in the Dover case by getting a crackpot activist judge. They may not be so lucky next time.

Here is PZ Myers’ blunt opinion of accommodationism:
.
What I really object to is the goofy “if you don’t be nice to god belief, the churchy scientists will take their ball home”. I metaphorically puke on the shoes of anyone who tries to make that argument.

William Jennings Bryan on theistic evolutionists [link]:
If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists, but are merely interpreting the Bible differently from orthodox Christians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense?

The following quotation from Winston Churchill is a good description of theistic evolutionists who try to appease the atheistic evolution establishment: “An appeaser is someone who feeds a crocodile in the hope that it will eat him last.”

Someone who interprets the gospel literally but does not interpret the bible’s creation story literally is a kind of “cafeteria Christian.” To be interpreted literally, both the creation story and the gospel require belief in the supernatural. However, whereas the creation story is straightforward, the gospel is full of illogic, inconsistencies, ambiguities, and unintelligibility. Also, the creation story is consistent with a belief in an all-powerful god but the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world. Hence, an otherwise rational person who believes in the supernatural should have a greater tendency to interpret the creation story literally than interpret the gospel literally.

Geocentrism, like creationism, is supported by the bible, but the fundies accept heliocentrisn but not evolution because they find the scientific evidence to be persuasive for heliocentrism but not for evolution. There is a lot of evidence for an old earth and some evidence for common descent, but the net evidence is actually against an evolutionary process that was driven solely by natural genetic variation and natural selection.
.
Darwinists believe that the fundies reject evolution in order to maintain a belief in the inerrancy of the bible. But that belief in biblical inerrancy has already been undermined by the bible’s erroneous teaching of geocentrism.

Another Darwinist myth is that all they have to do is persuade the clergy that evolution is compatible with religion and then the faithful will follow the clergy like sheep following a Judas goat. The infamous Clergy Letter Project is an example of this kind of thinking. But, for example, a lot of Catholics don’t follow the church’s very strict teachings about abortion, so why should Catholics follow the church’s teaching about evolution?

With all of this talk about the relationship between evolution and religion, it is going to be difficult for Darwinists at the next monkey trial to argue that evolution has no religious implications.

I believe that the religious implications of evolution are so strong that it is unconstitutional to dogmatically teach it in public schools without at least a disclaimer statement. Unfortunately, evolution-disclaimer statements were struck down in three court cases — Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, Selman v. Cobb County, and Kitzmiller v. Dover. However, Kitzmiller was not appealed and the other two decisions came close to being reversed on appeal.

IMO one of the big reasons why some Darwinists are telling other Darwinists who are discussing this issue of the compatibility of evolution and religion to shut their big fat mouths the hell up is a fear that the mere fact that Darwinists are even discussing this issue could be used against them in a future monkey trial.
.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

> The National Center for Science Education not only does not present the atheists’ views on the issue of the compatibility of science and religion, but does not present the fundies’ views on that issue. The NCSE is no good as a one-stop source of information about that issue. <

Nor does the NCSE present recipes for rutabagas or eggplant. The key word is "science". They are interested in science education, not education about the attitudes of religions about science.

This has nothing to do with accomodationism. Being "friendly" towards religious beliefs does not mean that those beliefs should be covered in science classes.

> The conclusion section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion says, “[evolution theory] in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.” That is a personal religious or philosophical belief <

No. It is just a statement of fact.

Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:08:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> They are interested in science education, not education about the attitudes of religions about science. <<<<<<<

Then what in the hell is the NCSE's "Faith Project," you stupid fathead.

>>>>>> This has nothing to do with accomodationism. <<<<<<<

The Faith Project has everything to do with accommodationism, beetlebrain.

>>>>>>> Being "friendly" towards religious beliefs does not mean that those beliefs should be covered in science classes. <<<<<<<

No one ever said that it did, bozo.

>>>>>> The conclusion section of the Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion says, “[evolution theory] in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.” That is a personal religious or philosophical belief <

No. It is just a statement of fact. <<<<<<<<

Wrong, doofus. That is an accommodationist statement and large numbers of both atheists and fundies are disputing it.

I think I may add a new rule to my comment policy -- no stupid comments.

Thursday, June 18, 2009 3:43:00 PM  
Blogger Olorin said...

"The Darwinists lucked out in the Dover case by getting a crackpot activist judge. They may not be so lucky next time."

Au contraire. William Dembski praised Judge Jones up one side and dowen the other beofre the trial: conservative, nominated by flaming creationist Rick Santorum, approved by G.W.B. his own self. In fact, Jones confessed (after the trial) to havin a slight bias toward intelligent design before the trial began.

He was a little steamed, of course, by the fact that all of the defendant's witnesses avoided the questions, and that at least 3 of them flat-out lied.

No, I don't think you can expect any future decisions to be more favorable to creationism. After getting drubbed in Epperson, Aguillard, Kitzmiller, and Selman, do you really want another bite at the judicial apple?

Thursday, June 18, 2009 8:49:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>> Au contraire. William Dembski praised Judge Jones up one side and dowen the other beofre the trial: <<<<<<<

Wrong, you stupid ignoramus, Dembski did not praise Judge Jones. Dembski's co-blogger DaveScot was more optimistic about Jones than Dembski was but even DaveScot did not really praise Jones.

>>>>>> Jones confessed (after the trial) to havin a slight bias toward intelligent design before the trial began. <<<<<<

I never heard that.

>>>>>> He was a little steamed, of course, by the fact that all of the defendant's witnesses avoided the questions, and that at least 3 of them flat-out lied. <<<<<<

None of the defendants' witnesses avoided the questions and none were accused of lying. Two of the defendants, Buckingham and Bonsell, were accused of lying during depositions.

>>>>>After getting drubbed in Epperson, Aguillard, Kitzmiller, and Selman <<<<<<<

Interesting that you would mention Selman, bozo. The appeals court judges in Selman indicated that they were leaning towards reversal but then vacated and remanded the decision because of missing evidence. The school board later took a dive by settling out of court. Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish also came close to being reversed.

>>>>>> do you really want another bite at the judicial apple? <<<<<<<

I want lots of bites at the judicial apple, as you call it, but unfortunately there have not been any for years. We need opportunities to apply what we have learned from past cases. For example, the idea that the scientific questions are non-justiciable could be pushed.

You got just about all of your facts wrong, you stupid ignoramus.

Friday, June 19, 2009 7:46:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> None of the defendants' witnesses avoided the questions and none were accused of lying. Two of the defendants, Buckingham and Bonsell, were accused of lying during depositions. <

You change positions within a single paragraph. Amazing!

Friday, June 19, 2009 8:35:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous barfed,
>>>>>> None of the defendants' witnesses avoided the questions and none were accused of lying. Two of the defendants, Buckingham and Bonsell, were accused of lying during depositions. <

You change positions within a single paragraph. Amazing! <<<<<<<

Wrong, bozo. The first sentence is about "defendants' witnesses," the second sentence is about "defendants." Sheeeesh.

Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:16:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home