Welcome to Sonafide.com
« Baking day zero hour | Main | What I want for Christmas this year »

Wednesday December 21, 2005

On science, religion, and dirty-dealing disciples

I'm reading the legal brief from the Pennsylvania court case today regarding the teaching of intelligent design in science class. For those living under a rock, a school board in Dover, PA tried to force science teachers to promote intelligent design as a legitimate scientific theory, as well as attack evolution as a controversial, unsupported opinion (teachers were told to refer to evolution as "Darwin's view"). Neither, of course, are actually true.

The judge ruled today in favor of families who were unhappy with the school board's decision. As a member of the scientific community, I feel relieved that someone in a position of authority, i.e. the judge, finally understands that undermining science in science class is a bad idea. Evolution is not "just a theory," as the school board tried to portray. Actually, it's not really a fact either, because it's much bigger than that. It's a whole bunch of facts, collected together and assembled in a way that makes sense. Kids shouldn't be told otherwise, regardless of how some religious people feel about it.

As a member of the Christian community, though, I feel saddened that some Christians feel so threatened by science that they would resort to any means necessary to destroy it. I'm struck by the dishonesty of the defendants of intelligent design in this case. As the legal brief points out, at every turn they distorted their position, in an attempt to make intelligent design look like a legitimate scientific theory. In reality, it's a religious belief in disguise.

The brief talks about how the intelligent design proponents, all Christian fundamentalists, twisted the facts and covered their tracks. The religious group that produced the book Of Pandas and People (the one that teachers would have been forced to suggest to their students) replaced all of the references to "creation" with "intelligent design" after teaching creationism was ruled unconstitutional promotion of religion in 1987. And yet they insist that this is not creationism.

Is that not deceitful?

Even the Discovery Institute (a creationist/intelligent design activist group) admitted that its agenda focused on replacing science with "theistic and Christian science." They knew that intelligent design is a religious belief, but tried to trick the country into thinking otherwise. And the most vocal leaders of Christian fundamentalism went along with them.

It's frustrating that these people are representing Christianity to the world. Because they claim that they have the fullness of truth, yet lie and scheme to promote a political agenda. And what could onlookers possible think, besides that Christians are a bunch of deceitful, power-hungry scoundrels? Probably that they're a bunch of stupid, deceitful, power-hungry scoundrels. Even the relief the verdict gives me can't overshadow the shame I feel.

It's equally frustrating that any of them would feel so threatened in the first place. Science is the study of reality. It looks for the truth about how the world works, and is not satisfied by the non-answer, "because that's just the way it is." Science helps the religious community to weed out its errors and let go of superstition. It does not, and can not, prove that God doesn't exist.

I know that this isn't the last of this story. For now, the science curriculum may be safe in Dover, but it's being attacked all over the United States. Christian fundamentalists, feeling threatened by science, are trying to undermine it, redefine it, or replace it all together. It's been that way for a long time. Longer than the United States has existed, really.

Hundreds of years ago, Christian fundamentalists attacked Copernicus for teaching that the Earth revolved around the sun, rather than the other way around. They insisted that his teaching was heretical and used Bible verses (Psalm 93:1, Joshua 10:12-14) to justify their assault. Galileo had to deal with the same thing, and was treated like a criminal for teaching the truth. Scientists have been persecuted for centuries for making discoveries that challenge religious beliefs about the natural world.

What was happening then is happening now, except that the attack strategies are different, more savvy. In the end, though, I think the result from this fight will be the same as those from years past. Scientists will keep discovering and Christian fundamentalists will keep fighting them. And after a few centuries the attacks will subside and Biblical interpretations will adapt. In the end, science will give us an even better understanding of the world, and Christians will come to appreciate it, at least until they find something new to rage about.

As they say, same you-know-what, different day. I just wish the Dover school board (and all of the others who rage against science) would wise up and realize that.


Drina-diva, first off, Merry Christmas to you and your loved ones. This'll be Maria's first Christmas--ya gotta get us some pix!

On to the topic--you're right that "intelligent design" isn't real science. I accept evolution as fact; I have faith that the LORD had His good reasons for leaving the origin of the universe and the life it contains to unguided natural processes. Perhaps, in the next life, I can learn those reasons--I suspect they bear some resemblance to Mr.
Roddenberry's Prime Directive.

Some people who oppose evolution fear that accepting Darwinian biology ineluctably leads to SOCIAL Darwinism--the belief that the "losers" of society are "unfit" and should be allowed to perish, and/or that those who are strong enough have the right to dominate others forcibly. (To my knowledge, Darwin never endorsed that)

William Jennings Bryan, a sincere Christian who believed the government should not leave the poor behind, became convinced that evolution could not be disconnected from Social Darwinism, which is why he turned against evolution, although he had no quarrel with the theory when he first encountered it. That's why he ended up defending Tennessee's anti-evolution law in the Scopes Trial of 1925. I read about that in Garry Wills's 1990(?) book UNDER GOD: RELIGION AND AMERICAN POLITICS, which I recommend.

Ironically, many modern right-wing "Christians" who oppose evolution accept Social Darwinism, as shown by their hatred of the welfare state and their fawning near-idolatry of their obscenely wealthy leaders (Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, barf--a fawning that reaches full idolatry in their reverence for the Chimperor--megabarf! ) Also, their implicit, even explicit at times, belief that the USA is God's chosen nation, that it's our right and duty to rule the world, and that all those inconvenient brown people sitting on "our" petroleum should be converted to their (phony-as-hell Pharisaic) Christianity or exterminated. In truth, they worship the filthy, blood-smeared idols of earthly power and wealth. One would think these folks had never read the account of the Last Judgement in Matthew 25:31-46. One thing I like about that passage is that Jesus, as judge, does not say ONE WORD about whether or not you believed in Him or His Father in Heaven, or about what you and other consenting adults did with your genitals. No, His concern is "What did you do to look out for your less fortunate fellow humans?"

As for the "Christian" leaders I mentioned above, their toxic doctrines oughta make this guy REAL happy! Actually, I wonder if some of them KNOW they aren't really serving Jesus and are just out for power and wealth. I hear that Falwell is beholden to cult leader Sun Myung Moon for bailing out Falwell's little empire before it could founder. Worse than that, did you know Neil Bush, the Chimperor's brother, has been touring around with Moon lately? Moon owns the Washington Times, one of the principal right-wing papers in the USA. Much of the right wing is funded partly by Moon, and/or is connected to him in other ways. I wonder if our corporate-fascist masters aren't planning to wait until Moon dies--I think he's in his 80s--and then use his cult to infiltrate the right-wing churches (Moon claims to be the successor to Jesus--AS IF!) and convert them to Moonie churches. Moon's cult has developed proven techniques for leaching the independence out of people's minds and making docile drones out of them, which is just the sort of thing the fascists would like to use on the rest of us.

Jesus warned us about false messiahs and false teachers. May the LORD forgive them, but give us wisdom to see through them.

Sorry to get off on a rant.

Your nodding acquaintance , Kid Charlemagne

Kid Charlemagne on December 24, 2005 03:56 AM

Why do we have to attack those who believe in intelligent design when many in the scientific community believe in intelligent dessign? Also, it took science for scientist to believe in intelligent design. I have read much science that points to this and facts are there as well. It is a matter of predisposition of those facts. Heck, I know many scientists who came to Christ after looking at the Mt. St. Helens fossils. These fossils were taken 10 years after the explosion and were sent to a university on the East coast with no information about them by the sender. The scientists from the university spoke with the founder and said these were old fossils and the founder said "I hate to say this but these were created from Mt St. Helens over a 10 year period." These scientists from the east coast accepted Christ for they understood the fact that fossils don't need to be created over a long time.

dh on January 6, 2006 05:12 PM

Again Christ's concern is what we did for Him in thought, word and dead. These include for the less fortunate and the poor as well as how we lived our lives for Him morally as evident by Jesus telling the ex-adulterer who repented "go and sin no more". Remember, she was caught in the act between "consenting adults".

dh on January 6, 2006 05:15 PM


I did not attack those who believe in intelligent design. I simply voiced my frustration with Christians who lie and scheme to destroy science. Intelligent Design is not a valid scientific theory based on facts; it's an untestable religious belief. And it's okay to believe in untestable religious beliefs... that's called faith. But science ought to be taught in science class. Nothing more, nothing less. And for you to accuse me of attacking believers is nothing short of bearing false witness.

Your second post had nothing to do with this discussion. I'm not really sure why you went off on such a tangent.

Drina on January 6, 2006 11:32 PM

Drina-diva, I think his second post was some kind of response to my post; I'm not sure what he was getting at, either.


Kid Charlemagne on January 7, 2006 02:06 AM

All I was saying is that how can you say those who believe in ID is not based on science when many, many scientists believe in ID? No one is trying to destroy science. I know much science that supports ID.

What I was getting at Kid is that to say ID is not base don science is a misnomer when many scientists believe in ID not from Faith although some it is but science. Many come to this conclusion based on science.

On a side note Kid I was addressing this post "One thing I like about that passage is that Jesus, as judge, does not say ONE WORD about whether or not you believed in Him or His Father in Heaven, or about what you and other consenting adults did with your genitals. No, His concern is "What did you do to look out for your less fortunate fellow humans" by answering with this: "Again Christ's concern is what we did for Him in thought, word and dead. These include for the less fortunate and the poor as well as how we lived our lives for Him morally as evident by Jesus telling the ex-adulterer who repented "go and sin no more". Remember, she was caught in the act between "consenting adults"."

dh on January 9, 2006 02:47 PM

Why not teach ID along wide Evolution. No one is trying to keep teachers from teaching evolution altogether. They just want ID WITh Evolution especially when propoents of ID are scientists and the conclusions by these particular scientists are based on science not Faith.

dh on January 9, 2006 02:49 PM


I know how badly Christian fundamentalists want to believe that ID is a scientific theory. It's natural to cling to that, and I understand. But the fact is it's a religious belief, not a scientific theory. Sure, there may be a very small handful of people in the scientific community who dishonestly assert that ID is science; it's no coincidence that these few individuals are all Christian fundamentalists... ones whose actions have made clear their ulterior motives. If you carefully examine the history of ID, you'll see that it springs directly from Biblical creationism, and that religious groups are behind the effort to force it into the science classroom. There's a reason why Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are ID's biggest proponents... because it's religion in disguise.

Although some Christian fundamentalists make claims that ID is backed by scientific findings, there is no such support in the data. Often creationist and ID groups will claim certain facts support their beliefs, but these few assertions fall apart when critically examined. But creationist and ID suporters don't critically examine them.

Now, as I've said before, I think it's wonderful for people to have faith in God, and believe that he alone created the universe. This is what I believe. But science is not concerned with my beliefs or yours. It is concerned only with data, facts, research, and hypotheses that can be put to the test. And this is why evolution is taught in schools, and ID is not. It's hard as a Christian to accept that, I know, but it's the truth. ID is not science, and simply claiming such does not make it so.

Drina on January 9, 2006 10:15 PM

I'm sorry Drina I'm not a fundamentalist. I also know many who purpose ID who are not fundamentalist Christans. I also don't understand how Pat and Jerry enter into the mix on this when I never mentioned these people. Also, not all of them are fundamentalist Christians. Remember I said ID not Creation Science. There is a difference. So you are telling me that these scientists in this article below are all fundamentalist christians? thats rather funny.


dh on January 10, 2006 09:43 AM

I'm sorry but the reason why people are able to pursue ID in the classroom is because many non-Christian proponents of ID are putting out some great science. One of the most famous even with math was able to show how ID can be legitamate among the choices. Also, you forget that many of the non-ID scientists set out just to disprove ID. They operate from this predisposition so the results become a self-fulfilled prophesy. We have said our peace. For me it is just sad that particular groups of scientists are considered outcasts when they put their reputations on the line. That is why so many non-ID scientists are not so readily want to debate the ID scientists.

dh on January 10, 2006 09:50 AM

I'm sorry dh, but you are mistaken. Proponents of forcing ID into schools may have told you that it is a scientific theory, and that many scientists support it, but this is simply not true. I'm sorry that you have been lied to, but it is your responsibility to separate fact from fiction.

ID is simply a religious belief that some try and pass off as secular science. But this is not the case. Although I am a Christian, I am also a part of the scientific community. And I, like my colleagues, believe that no religios beliefs ought to be part of a science curriculum. This is why scientists will not teach ID.

Drina on January 10, 2006 11:59 AM

dh, the Discovery Institute is a creationist lobbying group that has been very dishonest in the past. It does not promote science; rather it has a religious agenda. If you critically examine its actions you would see this, but it's a step you choose not to take.

A small handful on publications, some of which have questionable data interpretation and have been exposed for errors, does not amount to scientific support. Even if these few individuals believe in ID, it doesn't make ID scientific. I'm sorry, dh.

Drina on January 10, 2006 12:01 PM

Dishonest? that is your opinion. You forget that many in the non-ID camp operate from a stand point of not wanting to look at facts or come from a predisposition so much that it is a self-fulfilled prophesy.

This dishomest? come on

I'm sorry there are many scientists who are ID advocates. They are a minority but they are there. I have not been lied to.

How about many of the non-Christian proponents of ID or the ones who believe in deism who believe in ID? Are they a bunch of fundamentalists or promoting religion? I don't think so. Do I agree with deism and the like? no but to disregard this in the classroom is a disservice to students who want to be objective. The fact is Evolution has not been proven except within micro evolution within species and an old earth as well is not proven. Even scientists all agree this.

In my opinion ALL issues by ALL scientists need to be taught in the schools and to reject any scientists views is rejecting science.

dh on January 11, 2006 10:54 AM

I'm sorry that you have to be biased. Has evolution between species been replicated? no so it is a theory not a fact. There is scientific evidence for ID. Some scientists don't believe this but just because some scientists don't believe this doesn't mean that it isn't scientists. As you know scientist can have varying opinion but in these days of time people are just closed minded when it comes to ID and the evidence thereof. They don't to take responsibility that ID requires. To me there seems to be too much time on scientists hand that they have to go out and try to disporve new found evidence on ID rather than sticking to their own science. Science to me is a selfulfilled prophesy in many issues what you want to find predispositionally (word?) you will find.

dh on January 11, 2006 11:03 AM

dh, you have been lied to, but your own desire to have ID recognized as science prevents you from seeing this. I'm sorry, but ID is not science, simply put. And aside from an exceptionally small handful of individuals in the scientific community (virtually all who are, in fact, Christian fundamentalists) everyone in science knows this quite well. The Discovery Institute is a deceptive organization, so I would caution you to critically examine everything they claim.

I know that you believe differently, and have conspiracy theories about atheist scientists. But you have the right to believe what you choose, including the right to believe that ID is scientific. You do now, however, have the right to change the definition of science in order for it to validate your religious beliefs. Scientists will not stand for that.

Drina on January 11, 2006 05:05 PM

I respect our differences but I do abhore the term "Christian fundamentalists" with regard to the group. Just because a group believes in ID doesn't make them fundamentalist. The term nodays has too broad a definition and I object to the term being used under this modified definition (Not being harsh just helping you for understanding between us :) )
I guess when you say "Scientists will not stand for it" you mean only your type or certain scientists. I'm also not changing the definition and I have looked at them critictally.

Basically I will stick to this "In my opinion ALL issues by ALL scientists need to be taught in the schools and to reject any scientists views is rejecting science."

Many secular scientists are intrigued by ID that is the only reason why people even in the media and many in the scientific community are concidering it. There are also many unanswered questions in the non-ID side that scientists who are actually non-Christian who hold to ID are intrigued with. Give them a chance rather than reject outright. (We still need to seperate ID from Creation Science, in that I'm not referring to creation science a majority of the time in my responses). Many non-Christian, deistic scientists believe in ID and it is for scientific reasons. When you see the math and the probablities, etc. you can see how someone who was an Evolutionist can change to ID. Why reject this and other science? (said rhetorically

dh on January 11, 2006 05:46 PM

dh, I know it's not easy for those not heavily involved in scientific research to recognize, but a concept is not scientific just because a scientist believed in it. If it were, the concept that Elvis is still alive would be a scientific one, because there are several 'scientists' that believe it.

In order for a theory to be accepted, it has to have massive amounts of supporting data. To say that it has to be thoroughly researched is an understatement. There are thousands upon thousands of studies, papers, and data sets supporting evolution. And consider how difficult it is to publish a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal.

When submitting a manuscript, established scientists in the same field meticulously pick apart every little detail of the method, data, and conclusions, and the vast majority of the time papers are flat out rejected (they are rarely ever accepted as is). They always have to supplemented, revised, and sometimes scrapped all together. When a paper I co-authored got rejected by reviewers last year, I didn't pretend I was being discriminated against like the ID supporters now do. The lab went back to the drawing board, added more data, and revised the paper. We couldn't just state what we believed; we had to demonstrate it with a series of studies. And that was just a single paper supporting a wee little hypothesis, not a grand theory.

Intelligent Design doesn't have any such support. It may have won over the hearts and minds of a tiny handful of religious scientists, but this does not make it scientific. Four or five papers (the methods and conclusions of which are quite dubious) does not make ID an acceptable scientific theory either, despite what the Discovery Institute has to say. ID belongs in a philosophy or theology class; not science class.

You also cautioned me to distinguish between creationism and intelligent design. I do; creationism is more honest; its supporters aren't trying to trick anyone into believing it's something that it's not. Intelligent design is a trojan horse; it's supporters have a clear religious agenda, but try to convince everyone it's secular science. The Discovery Institute, by the way, is a religious lobbying group that promotes both creationism and it's cousin, intelligent design. A DI publication asserted that its mission was to replace science with "Christian science."

For the record, I do not distinguish everyone who believes that God created the world as "Christian fundamentalists." I, myself, believe that God created the world, but am not a Christian fundamentalist. It just so happens, though, that those who deceitfully push ID in the science classroom are, in fact, Christian fundamentalists.

Drina on January 11, 2006 09:48 PM

Again to call people who believe in ID is just plain wrong. The definition of fundamentalist as young as 10 uears ago never has the definition you prescribe. Therefore, I just feel that this type of attack is unnecessary. How do you respond to the secular ID proponents? Also, I would argue that your paper WAS scientific even if a minority thought your paper needed changing. Maybe you were correct in your analysis and the scientists who critiqued you were wrong? Many, many scientists who prescibe to ID are not religious that is why over the past 5 years it has come to the forfront. It is true that some Cristian ID began carrying the torch but the ball really got running in the public square when secular ID scientists were winning debates against Evolutionists and the like. Also, how can you attack scientists who are Christian who have Ph'd's and who were ex Evolutionists and the like? Are they supposed to reject their analysis and turn back to secularism? Seems ridiculous to me. Again the predisposition by those who don't subscribe to ID is very clear and it appears they have too much time on their hands.

dh on January 12, 2006 05:30 PM

dh, I'm struggling to say this is a way that you will understand: there is nothing wrong with believing in intelligent design. Most people do, myself included. So, please, stop accusing me of attacking intelligent design as a belief.

I will not, however, pretend that Intelligent Design (uppercase, religious belief repackaged as a valid scientific theory) is appropriate for science class. Nor will I pretend that groups like the Discovery Institute are just some honest folks who want kids to get a better science education. They are a deceitful group that intentionally hide their true motives (though often fail). This isn't about ending discrimination against a valid scientific theory; this is about forcing the scientific community to incorporate religious beliefs into their work, and forcing educators to teach religious beliefs in their classrooms.

I can see by your most recent post that you don't really have a firm understanding of how the scientific community operates, or why it views ID the way it does. To be honest, I don't think you are aware of how the scientific community feels about ID, because you seem to be under the impression that many scientists support it, and that many studies support it. But I don't think that's your fault, because this is only what you're being told by groups like the DI.

Evolution is the most firmly establish paradigm in science, and virtually all scientists recognize this. You now have the responsibility to recognize the truth. Until you do, I'm afraid this conversation will go nowhere.

Drina on January 12, 2006 06:48 PM

"virtually" Are we to do majority rule when it comes to science? Scientists have been proved wrong many of times. (I misappropriated attack in my previous post so I'll restate)"Waht can scientists do who have Ph'd's and are ex Evolutionists and the like from the facts presented? Are they supposed to be looked at in a lessor light are they supposed to be looked at as not scientific? I think we have a responsibility to not let majority rule be included in science. firmly established paradigm? the firmly established paradigm 400 years ago was that the world was flat. Is it flat?

dh on January 13, 2006 12:02 PM

What are non-religious ID proponents scientists supposed to do? Be accused of supporting "fundamentalism (when in fact it isn't)" or religious (when these particular scientists are not). Many scientists when looking at the facts can come to multiple conclusions so why are certain conclusions eliminated from particular discussions when certain scientists disagree? Can't we include all of the conclusions? I feel this shows the closed minded. Thank God for those who happened to be non-religious supporters of ID that came to light a few years back or the issues would be the status quo.

P.S. I was responding to you calling me fundamentalist and I'm sorry I don't feel you understand how "attacking" that is when in fact it is NOT fundamentalism under the original definition.

It is just to label non-Christian scientists who don't know between ID and the opposite as fundamentalist seems unnecessarily harsh.

dh on January 13, 2006 12:29 PM

I hate to reiterate, but again your latest posts make it clear to me that you don't have a solid understanding of how the scientific community operates, how research is conducted and published, and how theories and paradigms come to be accepted. The world of science is not based on opinion and beliefs, but on data. It's fundamentally different than the one you're used to. For that reason, I don't think this conversation is going to go anywhere.

Drina on January 13, 2006 12:39 PM

Do you take back your "fundamentalist" term? That is all that made me react the way I did. I too agree we are going no where. You operate from majority rule I don't when it comes to science. I want to be open minded rather than closed when it comes to conclusions that are not definitive. Evolution definitive? you scientifically cannot say that nor do they claim that. Thats all.

dh on January 13, 2006 01:06 PM

dh, when you say "majority rule," you are still thinking in non-scientific terms. Theories and paradigms that become accepted in science do so because they are supported by mountains of data that has withstood the intense scrutiny of the scientific community (review my post on the scientific publishing gauntlet). Personal beliefs and opinions may hold sway in the domains of theology and philosophy, but these are not scientific fields. Science is different, and this is what you seem to be having trouble with.

[the firmly established paradigm 400 years ago was that the world was flat. Is it flat?]

This was a belief unsupported by scientific data, very much like Intelligent Design. This example illustrates why we can't just accept an unsupported "theory" just because someone strongly believes in it!

Drina on January 13, 2006 01:17 PM

Drina-diva, ultimately, creationism/ID is neither science nor religion. It's politics, just another way to keep the rubes distracted while the plutocrats pick their pockets.


Kid Charlemagne on January 13, 2006 02:38 PM

"Evolution definitive? you scientifically cannot say that nor do they claim that." That's all

"This example illustrates why we can't just accept an unsupported "theory" just because someone strongly believes in it!" To say it is unsupported is your opinion. I could say the same thing in the opposite. To say that ID has no scientific method for evidence is just a little off. To be honest the determinations of "support" can be opinion. Many groups of scientists can very what is considered support and what isn't. I feel you were originally scientific in your research and you undeestimated yourself. :)

The only reason I kept responding was your use of the "fundamentalist" term. I feel an apology is order. Kid politics? come on.

dh on January 13, 2006 03:00 PM

[To say it is unsupported is your opinion.]

dh, you have placed personal beliefs above data, evidence, research, and critical analysis. And in the context of religion, faith, theology, philosophy, etc. that is perfectly acceptable, but in science it's not. How can I have a reasoned discussion with someone who believes that 2+2=5, and claims that it's no more than mere opinion that it equals 4? For this reason, I can't have a reasoned discussion with you, when you believe that ID has factual support in research, when in fact it does not. That's not my opinion, nor is it anyone else's. It's reality. And no amount of pontificating from the Discovery Institute can change that.

[Many groups of scientists can very what is considered support and what isn't.]

Again, I don't think you have a solid understanding of how the scientific community operates.

[I feel you were originally scientific in your research and you underestimated yourself.]

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific" here, because my paper was most certainly a scientific one, even though it needed to include additional data and some revision before it was published. But if you mean that the reviewers of my manuscript erred when they made note of possible confounds in the experiments, how would you know that? Because you reviewed the research, or because you have faith in me? I think that statement, though made in jest, illustrates why you don't understand the scientific process.

As for my use of the word fundamentalist, it was entirely appropriate. If you are offended by it, I apologize. But I am equally offended by the dishonest efforts of Christian fundamentalists to change the nature of science to incorporate their own sects' dogma.

Drina on January 13, 2006 06:57 PM

How can you say it is appropriate when people? It sure doesn't sound like an apology to me by the nature of you continuing to use the term. Please, your bias is evident by the continued use of the term.

Also, no scientist has made a statement that non-ID is equivilent to 2+2=4. I feel this shows your lack of understanding in what is actually concluded by scientists.

dh on January 16, 2006 08:57 AM

[Also, no scientist has made a statement that non-ID is equivilent to 2+2=4.]

Reread my last post a little more closely. I feel that you're merely skimming them, and missing the actual content completely. It's not easy for me to carry on a discussion with you when you won't take the time to read my posts and don't comprehend my statements. And again, I don't think you have a solid understanding of how the scientific community operates.

As for my use of the word fundamentalist, I realize that it's a term you find aversive, but it's nonetheless an accurate one. I'm sorry you're offended, but if I were to retract my statements to placate you, it would be dishonest thing to do. Fundamentalists are behind this effort and I just can't pretend otherwise, despite the way it would make you feel about me.

Drina on January 16, 2006 01:05 PM

I was mentioning this in that you cannot say that non-ID is equivelent to 2+2=4. To say non-ID is factually true you cannot say not any scientists says. That is propaganda by the non-ID people that is mentioned in the details but for some reason is not mentioned enough.

I see you are just too biased and that is why you can't retract your term fundamentalist. To say it is an accurate one is a misnomer when many non-religious people adhere to ID. Are you going to call them fundamentalist? That seems humorous to me.

dh on January 16, 2006 01:11 PM

[I was mentioning this in that you cannot say that non-ID is equivelent to 2+2=4. To say non-ID is factually true you cannot say not any scientists says.]

Again, you did not read my post very closely. I did not say that evolution was the equivalent to 2+2=4. Please reread what I said, because I will not bother with straw men.

And, I realize that you perceive me as biased because I don't agree with you regarding the terminology I use. I'm comfortable with you feeling this way about me, though. I was honest, and I should expect to be treated negatively for it.

Drina on January 16, 2006 05:34 PM

Drina-diva, just fuhgeddabowdit. Trying to hold a discussion with the fundies is like trying to reason with the Borg.

Your nodding acquaintance , Kid Charlemagne

Kid Charlemagne on January 17, 2006 02:14 AM

It is just I would have never used terms toward you or think terms like you regarding your use of the term fundie or fundamentalist. I feel you are definitely in the use of the term not operating like Christ would want you to and it is very judgemental on your part. I sure haven't done that with you. Saying one is biased is not an attack but fundie and fundamentalist is another story. While I'm not post modern, many post-modern Christians hate putting people into categories. If you are a post-modern Christian you may want to refrain from the term.

dh on January 17, 2006 09:58 AM

You need a dose of sensativity. None of my statements were insensative people can discuss this without condemnation and I have never condemned you but you have to me with the term fundie and fundamentalist inappropriately. My attitude definitely doesn't embody the original definition before 10 years ago of the term which refers to attitude and heart.

dh on January 17, 2006 10:02 AM

dh, Christ himself was unafraid to call a spade a spade. Only he never used the term fundamentalists; that I give you. He simply called them pharisees.

Drina on January 17, 2006 12:41 PM

Oh come on this is getting ridiculous. I will not go down to your level. I have never said your view of Genesis determines one to be a Christian or not that would be like a Pharisee or fundamentalist but to say what I believe is such is just really different than what Christ was getting at for the term. Me a hypocrite like a Pharisee? How can you know this if you don't even know me? This proves my point on my Jesus statement.

dh on January 17, 2006 01:06 PM

Drina-diva, just let the poor soul have the last word; he (she? I don't know) will get weary and go away.


Kid Charlemagne on January 17, 2006 04:18 PM

[I have never said your view of Genesis determines one to be a Christian or not]

And neither have I. This has nothing to do with one's personal view of Genesis, and it is wrong for you to distort the conversation this way. I have always supported the belief that the Earth is God's creation, and have always believed that such faith is a wonderful thing. And yet in your last post, you have made me out to be an enemy of faith, which is completely in line with the antics of your fundamentalist brethren.

But this discussion is not about the validity of faith. It never has been, though in your last post you pretend that it is. This discussion is about the place of Intelligent Design Theory in science, not faith. More specifically, it's about the deceitful effort of religious fundamentalists to infuse science with religion. And it's wrong.

dh, each time my words are twisted and distorted, I learn to value your input into this conversation less. If you're unable to comprehend my statements, I'm willing to go back and write more plainly. But I will not discuss this with you further so long as you continue to misrepresent my arguments.

Furthermore, the material you've presented me with has convinced me more firmly that those who promote ID as a scientific theory do so for exclusively religious reasons; not scientific ones. Your reference to Genesis, citations by religious groups (e.g. the Discovery Institute, which aims to replace science with "theistic and Christian science" according to their own publications), and lack of understanding of the scientific process only confirms this.

You're a very religious person with a strong belief that God created the Earth, which is wonderful. But your motives in promoting ID are religious in nature; I can tell by the arguments you make that you're not a scientist, and you're not involved in research. You only know as much as the Discovery Institute tells you. You support ID Theory because you have faith in in, not because it has any scientific merit. And though you've adopted the talking points, you haven't offered anything substantial to support them.

Remember, we're not talking about the validity of scripture or Christianity here. I think sometimes you forget this, because you frame the discussion as would a theologian, not a scientist. And for this reason, I don't think this conversation is of any value to either of us.

Drina on January 17, 2006 08:55 PM

I still don't understand how you can continue to lump me into the fundamentalist camp when people who are non-religious believe in ID who are not part of Discovery. In fact I never even heard of Discovery before this conversation. I have read much from other groups that have even more analysis for a longer period of time than Discovery. I heard one guy from Discovery on TV and that was for only 2 minutes, thats it. I would have stopped way earlier in this discussion when you were somewhat civil before you started throwing the fundamentalist term around. I personally feel that labeling scientists as not being scientist's is a disservice to them and to call them fundamentalist Christian actually in many cases is a misrepresentation of them after you read what they actually believe with regard to their religious beliefs some of which are deist. I misrepesent your arguments? You mentioned indirectly Pharisee, hypocrite by the use of the term Pharisee, fundamentalist, etc. Again "Me a hypocrite like a Pharisee? How can you know this if you don't even know me? This proves my point on my Jesus statement."

dh on January 18, 2006 09:36 AM

Again, you've proven to me that you have little understanding of science or the scientific process, and you continue to misunderstand and misrepresent my statements. You have thus offered this conversation little of value, with your insistence on holding personal beliefs above data and research in the context of a scientific discussion. I suggest we end here, because at this point it's only confirming what I've long known about those who promote ID as science.

Drina on January 18, 2006 12:48 PM

So I guess scientists who believe in ID who are deist's are fundamentalist? As you can see it is a total overgeneralization to use the term fundamentalist and ID in the same breath. Also, all science aside, you refuse to address your misrepresentations with regard to Pharisee, fundamentalist and continue to not believe that any non-religious people can believe in ID thereby putting a religious label on people who non-religious.

dh on January 18, 2006 02:16 PM

dh, I see no reason to explain these things over again when you failed to comprehend it the first time. If you want answers to these questions, go back and read what I've already written. And afterward, if you demonstrate that you're able to stay on topic, keep your religious beliefs from influencing the discussion, acknowledge the facts, and refrain from misrepresenting my arguments, then we'll continue.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but based on how little you've actually contributed to this discussion, I'm not very hopeful at this point.

Drina on January 18, 2006 06:16 PM

I have reread and you seem to believe something that is false that all ID proponets are fundamentalist or religious which I can show is not 100% the case. I am staying on topic. You went off topic by saying it is religious and fundamentalist terms.

You do mean to sound harsh by the very nature of labeling some people who are ID who are not-religious as being religious. What is the point to labeling people Pharisee, fundamentalist etc. when you don't even know these people? I have never labeled you nor will I go down to your level of harshness.

You too, have not contributed to the discussion by the continued use of of terms that push people away rather than look at this as a discussion. "pot calling the kettle black" when it comes to not contributing to the discussion. Also, flattery to use the term "don't mean to sound harsh" when in fact you are.

dh on January 19, 2006 12:08 PM

dh, answer me this one question: do your religious beliefs have anything at all to do with your support for Intelligent Design?

Drina on January 19, 2006 06:28 PM

No. I still need you to answer my questions because as you can see I have and it is apparent that you aren't.

dh on January 20, 2006 10:08 AM

That was a lie, and your heart knows it.

Drina on January 20, 2006 03:39 PM

How dare you accuse me me of lying. I told you the truth and my heart knows it. You still haven't answered my questions.

dh on January 23, 2006 11:18 AM

I have never accused you of anything but how dare you accuse me of something that is honestly the truth.

dh on January 23, 2006 11:18 AM

You say that your religious beliefs has nothing to do with your support for teaching intelligent design in the science classroom? This is a lie and a sin. I know this because you know nothing about the alleged research supporting it, but make religious references to Genesis and use propaganda from religious groups. You are a deceiver like the rest of them, and I can not trust you.

Drina on January 24, 2006 11:35 AM

When I see non-religious people supporting ID then I understand that it isn't as religious as you say. Also, it isn't a lie and a sin because I had misgivings about Evolution and the like when I was asking questions when I was younger about the earth, where did we come from and the like. If you want to talk about religious people how about all those who religiously believe in non-ID and promote their form of religion on to others. How about atheistic humanism. Propaganda? I could bring up athesistic humanism as propaganda but I won't. I also won't bring up how they are the pot calling the kettle black. (please read below)

I was being honest. I had questions and when I read Genesis and I saw Mt. St. Helens research and Dr. D. Russell Humphries explainations and read many other creation scientists I became convinced. When I see Phd Scientists who were orginially atheistic, non ID and the like change to the opposite it intrigues me. My question when I see all of these people changing is if the evidence is so great why would they change? If your so called evidence is so strong then why in light of all of this so-called evidence would they change from believing this to something else? It isn't because there wasn't any evidence on the ID side like you portray but the evidence of ID is what was used for them to change. To say I lied and sinned is a sin on your part for saying I lied when I didn't. My explaination in my above statement explains that.

dh on January 24, 2006 01:27 PM

dh, I know better than to put stock in the things you say. You've exposed yourself to be deceitful like the rest of them. I suggest you move along to the next progressive Christian blog and start trouble there; I'm not gullible enough to believe you.

Drina on January 24, 2006 02:07 PM

I havn't exposed nothing. I told you the truth and I even gave you personal examples of myself and the others who have changed.

Again, I have answered all of your questions and you still never answer any of my questions: I'll try again: "My question when I see all of these people changing is if the evidence is so great why would they change? If your so called evidence is so strong then why in light of all of this so-called evidence would they change from believing this to something else?"

dh on January 24, 2006 02:51 PM

The change is only in your perception. You see what you wish to see, regardless of what is actually occuring. You accept what you wish to accept, regardless of what is actually the case. And you make up your own facts as you go along. You have presented nothing in defense of your support for teaching religion in science class, only deceitfully insisting that religion is not involved. And you have rejected everything that scientists have discovered. You have proven to me that you are, indeed, a fundamentalist, and a dishonest one at that.

Drina on January 24, 2006 04:37 PM

How about you rejecting some of what scientists have discovered as well? To label me a fundamentalist is not the case. You don't even understand what the term is nor do you realize how harsh it is for you to label me that when that is not the case. I also am not dishonest. I have not believed what I want to believe. When I see ex-old earth people and ex-Evolutionists, etc. it makes me wonder how someone could change from something you say as so secure to something they believe now. I don't support teaching religion in class.

It is so sad that you don't recognize how people can accept Christ and happen to change to be new earth seperate from that and say that it isn't a change. That is so sad. I'm not saying it is alot of people but it is a fact that some people who had been atheistic and didn't believe in ID have changed. What would be your explaination for that?

dh on January 24, 2006 05:38 PM

Again you haven't answered my questions "If your so called evidence is so strong then why in light of all of this so-called evidence would they change from believing this to something else?"

Are you saying they never were atheistic or never believed in old earth? That seems very judgemental in light of confirmed testimony of the people involved. Are you going to acknowledge the possibility that people can change from one or the other in light of the evidence? That a person can go from believing old earth to new earth or whatever you want to call it? I'm not a scientists but I have read many non-religious people who believe in ID who are agnostic. It seems to me to label them religious seems strage to me. Unless your a relativist or universalist in which case that would understand you labeling agnostics religious. (didn't mean to go to your level but all posts need a little humor). :)

dh on January 24, 2006 05:41 PM

dh, you are a religious person promoting religious beliefs as science while being dishonest about your underlying motivation. You write as though you know nothing of the scientific process (which I believe to be the case) and seem to be under the impression that the burden of proof regarding ID is on scientists to disprove it, rather than on its proponents to factually support it. If I believe that the Earth hatched out of a large, magical egg laid by an invisible chicken, unless I have factual support, my belief in it doesn't make it scientific (even if I'm a scientist).

Furthermore, you seem to believe that there is a movement within the scientific community to promote intelligent design, which is not the case. ID is the contemporary successor to creationism; it originated from religious circles that were unsuccessful in promoting creationism. ID's chief proponents are religious groups. There is no evidence in support of ID, and evolution remains the only legitimate, supported, and established scientific theory regarding biological development.

How can I reason with someone who rejects reason? Who rejects reality? Who argues that ID is "suported" when it's not? Who believes that scientists support ID when they don't? Who claims religion plays no role in his position but uses propaganda from religious groups to support it? How can I reason with someone who lies, then lies about lying? Someone who accuses me of wrongdoing for holding him accountable for his deceit?

This is the kind of behavior that led me to post this entry about dirty-dealing disciples.

Drina on January 24, 2006 05:59 PM

I get it the agnostic scientists who adhere to ID are people who reject reason? I can't believe you call me a liar. To say NO ONE in the scientific community supports ID is just plain wrong and is a lie as well. It is also a lie to say evolution is the only legitamate, supported, scientific theory. Micro evolution within species? I agree Macro evolution? no no one was there to see this so-called event and it can't be replicated currently. That is one of the criteria for scientific. It is just a theory. Again you will be held accountable for calling me a liar and what I'm saying isn't religious propaganda unless you call some who happen to be agnostic as promoting religious propaganda, for there in fact are agnostic scientist who believe in ID, as believing religious propaganda which really makes me laugh. That is a new one for me. :)

dh on January 25, 2006 01:10 PM

How can I reason with someone when there are some (however small in number) agnostic ID scientists.

dh on January 25, 2006 01:11 PM

dh, double check your posts before you submit them, because you're no longer writing coherent sentences.

I've already answered the question you just posed. Remember, that individual members within the scientific community may 'believe' certain things. Among the tens of thousands of scientists in the United States, you can find a few who believe that Elvis is still alive, that humans are routinely abducted by aliens, or that they can read their cats' minds. Mere belief doesn't make these things scientific; none of these things are factually supported by research, so they aren't taught in science classrooms.

I know you really want to believe that more and more scientists are recognzing ID to be legitimate, but it's just not true. I don't know who told you this, but they are not correct. I'm sorry.

dh, demonstrate to me that ID did not originate from religious circles, that it is not related to or descended from creationism, that its chief proponents are not religious lobbying groups or individuals connected to them, that the underlying motivation to push ID in schools is not religious in nature, that your belief in God has nothing to do with your support for ID, and that it has substantial factual support recognized by non-religious groups. Then, we'll talk.

Drina on January 25, 2006 04:53 PM

I have never "put hoops" in this discussion. You continue to put hoops and I refuse to bow to your tactics. Basically, what you are saying with your answer is that those who are ex-evolutions and ex-old earth people in light of particular evidence as scientists they have found are decieved. Based on that understanding on you, it is evident that you are not generous to those who are ex-evolutionists and ex-old earth scientists in light of their findings outside of the religous community. To put ID in the same breath as Elvis or the like is ridiculous. I never did the same with regard to your belief. I could have but I don't bow to those type of condensneding (spelling) tactics.

dh on January 26, 2006 09:36 AM

No answers? The burden of proof is on you, my friend, to demonstrate that ID is a valid, secular scientific theory, not a religious belief.

By the way, your reference to the age of the Earth is interesting, because the young-Earth concept comes from Biblical Creationism, not ID. But since Creationism and ID are closely related, the fact that you referenced it doesn't surprise me. This says a lot about your motives.

Drina on January 26, 2006 12:43 PM

Okay I misspoke here even bringing up young earth here. I'm sure you have misspoke like we all do. What I meant to say is that many agnostic ex-evolutionist scientists believe in ID. And to say they support it based on religion is just ridiculous. Thank you for just acknowledging that ID doesn't come from Biblical Creationism that has been my point all along. I really appreciate that. You proved my point that it is seperate from the religious.

The burden of proof is also on you.

I'll rephrase: "Basically, what you are saying with your answer is that those who are ex-evolutionists scientists in light of particular evidence as scientists they have found are decieved. Based on that understanding on you, it is evident that you are not generous to those who are ex-evolutionists in light of their findings outside of the religous community."

As you can see there is a motive by you and many scientists to label ID among those who are agnostic as being religious when we all know that agnostics are not religious whatsoever.

dh on January 26, 2006 01:50 PM

You did not misspeak; you merely revealed your true colors and got caught in a lie. As for your comment regarding ID and Creationism not being related, your conclusion is fallacious. They are not identical, certainly, because admitted Creationists are more honest about their motives, while ID is an attempt at making Creationism look scientific. Young-Earth was disgarded to do just that.

You've made lots of claims, but have offered nothing to substantiate them, incuding that ID is supported by scientists with no religious motivation. I hope that you realize that science requires more than an affidavit, and in order for me to accept that argument as legitimate, I'm going to need some factual support.

These are the claims you've made that have thus far gone unsupported:

1. ID did not originate from religious circles

2. ID is not not related to or descended from creationism

3. ID's chief proponents are not religious lobbying groups or individuals connected to them

4. ID is supported by research

5. ID is accepted by scientists that do not have an underlying religious motivation

6. Your belief in God has nothing to do with your support for ID

7. ID is a legitimate, lawful scientific theory like evolution, and therefore as such can make testable predictions

dh, show me that ID is truly scientific.

Drina on January 26, 2006 04:03 PM

I believe that Elvis is alive and routinely abducts alien cats to read their minds.


Kid Charlemagne on January 27, 2006 08:36 AM

I'll start on the lesson plan.

Drina on January 27, 2006 03:38 PM

Condensed biography

Drina What I love:
2. Psychology
3. Gilmore Girls
4. Maria
5. Chin's Pagoda
6. Target
7. Rats
8. Emo/screamo
9. Jim Wallis
10. More...

Contact me

Sonafide family


Search the blog

Ever-growing archives



RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom
XML syndication


« ? # »   grrl nrrd
« ? # »   20th power
« ? # »   blogs by women
« ? # »   dotcom
« ? # »   real girl pages
« ? # »   Liberal Blogs

I'm a fan of One I love rats! Croatia fan
Listed on BlogShares


Favorite links

Amnesty International
Bruderhof Peacemakers Guide
Daily Kos
Emergent Village
Kids Read With Sarah
Media Matters
National Public Radio
Rachel Joy Scott
Relevant Magazine
Street Prophets