Christian evangelist Kirk Cameron ("Growing Pains," "Left Behind") and his buddy Ray Comfort of the Way of the Master School of Biblical Evangelism and Living Waters Ministry -- the folks who used a banana to prove the existence of god -- have a plan. They call it their Origin Into Schools Project and it goes like this: The 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" is approaching. But guess what? Darwin's book was never copyrighted by the Walt Disney Company, so it is now in the public domain. That means Ray can write a new 50-page Creationist introduction to the book, re-publish it under Darwin's name, and give away thousands of copies of the "new edition" at 50 top schools on the anniversary, November 19!
Kirk and Ray's version is called "Origin of Species 150th Anniversary Edition" on its cover, and "Origin of Species containing the gospel and Intelligent Design" on the Living Waters web site. (The overview does not say which of the four canonical gospels is included.) Here's an explanation of the plan, as explained by Ray (online) and Kirk (in the above clip):
This introduction gives the history of evolution, a timeline of Darwin's life, Hitler's undeniable connections to the theory, Darwin's racism, his disdain for women, and his thoughts on the existence of God. It lists the theory's many hoaxes, exposes the unscientific belief that nothing created everything, points to the incredible structure of DNA, and the absence of any species-to-species transitional forms.
OK then. That should be fun. That paragraph alone promises quite a creative combination of history, science, religion and ad hominem arguments that could be most entertaining! (Click here to download a free .pdf of Ray Comfort's "Origin of Species" intro from Living Waters Ministry.)
I am troubled and puzzled, however, by the claims Kirk Cameron makes at the beginning of the above clip. I was under the impression that Cameron was an American actor, but apparently the country in which he lives is some sort of totalitarian state -- perhaps a non-Christian theocracy -- where, he says, the following infringements on his personal freedoms occur:
Cameron: "One by one, we're being stripped of our God-given liberties. Our kids can no longer pray in public."
Whoa. Where is this happening? Fortunately, in the United States, our populace is protected by law from such tyranny. People -- kids and adults alike -- are guaranteed the right to pray in public places (parks, restaurants, schools) all the time. And to ensure that all religious beliefs are equally protected, teachers and other agents of the state are not given government blessing to lead public school students in prayer, or to make prayer a part of class. That would constitute government interference with religion, under the establishment clause of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights -- which is why so many religious organizations, including the National Council of Churches, the Presbyterian Church and American Baptist Church, oppose government-sponsored or -mandated prayer in schools. As Americans United for the Separation of Church and State reports:
Nothing in the 1962 or 1963 [Supreme Court] rulings makes it unlawful for public school students to pray or read the Bible (or any other religious book) on a voluntary basis during their free time. Later decisions have made this even clearer. In 1990, the high court ruled specifically that high school students may form clubs that meet during "non-instructional" time to pray, read religious texts or discuss religious topics if other student groups are allowed to meet.
The high court has also made it clear, time and again, that objective study about religion in public schools is legal and appropriate. Many public schools offer courses in comparative religion, the Bible as literature or the role of religion in world and U.S. history.
But what else is bothering Kirk Cameron?
Cameron: "They [kids] can no longer freely open a bible in school."
Wow, that is so not true in the United States, where the only time kids would get in trouble for opening a bible would be when they were supposed to be opening a textbook -- or otherwise listening or participating in class. I mean, kids also aren't allowed to "freely" open comic books or make phone calls or listen to iPods or do other things that distract from class time -- but that's not a "right" that has been "stripped away." It's part of sensible classroom discipline.
Cameron: "The Ten Commandments are no longer allowed to be displayed in public places..."
Surprisingly, even though they are blatantly religious (the first four -- depending on which version you choose -- telling people how they should believe in a particular monotheistic deity), that's not true in the U.S., either. As recently as 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that the Ten Commandments could be displayed in a non-religious context on public property. Just last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed a Ten Commandments monument to remain in front of the Everett, WA, City Hall for the same reasons.
Cameron: "... and the Gideons are not even allowed to give away bibles in schools."
Good thing, too, because that would be a blatant form of religious endorsement by the government if bibles or other religious texts were to be given out in public schools! Imagine public schools allowing free distribution of the Koran or the Book of Mormon to students on school grounds. Or even... the Torah! What would happen if school authorities allowed anybody with a religious book(let) to promote their faith on school property?
Cameron: "Did you know that a recent study revealed that in the top 50 universities in our country, in the fields of psychology and biology, 61 percent of the professors described themselves as atheists or agnostics.... An entire generation is being brainwashed by atheistic evolution without even hearing the alternative."
That last sentence wouldn't pass muster in a logic class, but if those are state schools it's too bad his country doesn't have a First Amendment that would prohibit those profs from teaching their own religious views. He does have a point, though: Why do so many of the country's foremost experts in psychology and biology put so little stock in religious faith? Does he think it's attributable to their education?
Perhaps a religious introduction tucked into "The Origin of Species" is just the ticket to heaven Cameron is looking for... But, meanwhile, he should consider moving back to the United States of America. It's a good place for religious freedom.
(tip: Bilge Ebiri)
Nicely done, Jim. I must say it's rather scary and sad that these nuts have the resources to give out 50,000 free books. Imagine all the good that could be accomplished if those resources were directed towards something positive. Sigh.
It's nice to see that Kirk Cameron's sanity continues to unravel. How many people will buy this book, I wonder? If I had to guess, I'd say that it will probably be a number one best seller for weeks...
But nicely done, Jim. Critical thinking and logic prevails once again.
Well, at least to sane people who think critically and logically.
Jim,
Have you seen this response?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHN3JtyUXg&feature=player_embedded
Sigh...this is just really sad. This kind of thinking is so archaic (the tactics are, too). And what is Cameron talking about? I've worked at a public school and I distinctly remember mornings walking into work where students would be gathered on a knoll outside of the school praying together...it's not that abnormal of a sight.
I have to believe that the percentage of Christians that Cameron is speaking to is a continually shrinking number. Most intelligent Christians have no qualms with evolution because there's nothing to debate. Evolution does not diminish what's at the heart of religion.
One of my favorite authors Mircea Eliade kind of touches on this with what he calls "cosmic symbolism". To suggest that saying we've come from dirt is profane is to say that we are not open to the world -- therefore for those who partake in religion cannot be one with the world...which is kind of a basic tenet in world religions.
Eliade says: Openness to the world enables religious man to know himself in the knowing world -- and this knowledge is prescious to him because it is religious, because it pertains to being.
So, Mr. Cameron, why would you want to take away this knowledge? I'm becoming more and more convinced that the fundamentalist Christian sect fears knowledge; they don't know how to combat a well thought out, logical argument. It's sad, really.
JE: I looked over the intro and that's pretty sad, too. Same outdated, long-disproved arguments (still talking about the human eye in isolation from other ways eyes have evolved), selective misquotations of Einstein and others (not that anyone else's belief or nonbelief is relevant), smears by tenuous association (Hitler!), ad hominem attacks (that racist Darwin!), and loads of other garbage that has absolutely nothing to do with Darwin or his work. Above all, there's the damning argument that Darwin does not explain why there is something rather than nothing. That's right. Darwin does not explain it, and doesn't pretend to. It is beyond the scope of his book. Perhaps in their next intro (to a volume of Sherlock Holmes stories, maybe? -- they're public domain, too!), Kirk and Ray will criticize Marxist theory for failing to prove the existence of gravity. But, for now, Ray gives you a choice of the world's "four major religions" (Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity -- forget Judaism, even though, ahem, that's the source of his beloved, much-quoted "Ten Commandments" -- or a King James Version of them, anyway). He explains why, logically, you should pick Christianity because it's the only one that will solve your problems. "Now believe in God," Ray writes. Just do it. Believe whether you do or not because, Ray says, some form of Evangelical Protestantism is the most pragmatic religion there is. Then visit his web site.
Do you think Kirk Cameron and Ben Stein hang out and talk about how many different ways they can recast the same tired "connections" between Darwin and Hitler?
Great line about Sherlock Holmes being public domain, too. I would love to see these guys tackle that material. It can't be any worse than Guy Ritchie's interpretation of it.
Something I've never understood (and something I struggled with my entire upbringing in a Christian home) is why do people like Kirk and Ray (and people of their ilk) damn Darwin for not explaining something that can’t be explained? Must everything be explained? Doesn't that fly in the face of the very thing they hold most dear: faith? And really...what does knowing have to do with religion...the ancient religions have creation story after creation story that begin "Now I don't know if this is how it happened, but someone once told me..." It's called the wonderment of myth in relation to religion, and I don’t understand why these people want remove the power of myth in religion by trying to prove or disprove Darwin. Leave it alone already. Does the fact that evolution is a fact really affect someone’s religious beliefs? If it does then it seems that person needs to re-evaluate the philosophies of that guy they fashion their religion after…oh yeah, Jesus…I think he focused his attention on much more relevant issues like the marginalized and social injustices.
Will the people spearheading this project ever realize the irony here: their omitting things, too. At least Darwin knew why he was omitting what he was...because as you so aptly state, he doesn't pretend to explain what cannot be explained.
This almost goes hand in hand with what we were talking about yesterday and how "realism" (literal/factual storytelling) in film is overtaking myth or metaphor – the movieness of movies and how the formal elements of a shot go about progressing those metaphorical themes (which has wrongly become synonymous with false).
Man…I rarely get this fired up over these kinds of things…but you lit a fire under me here, Jim. Haha. Nice work.
JE: Thanks, Kevin. I have never been able to understand why people want to apply the scientific method to religious thinking or vice-versa. If you think your faith can be validated or invalidated by history or science then it's not terribly religious to begin with, is it? The standards, and the methodology, are incompatible. Empirical religion: what a concept.
Sorry I forgot to add this to my last post...I thought you might enjoy this:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1275125-dailymotion-simpsons-creationism-vs-evolution-a-video-from-piglips-simpsons-darwin-evolution-creationism
The whole thing is great, but the video they have Lisa's class watch at the two minute mark is priceless. I still get a chuckle out of seeing Darwin making out with Satan...Kirk and Ray wouldn't be opposed to this at all!
You know, if I was at one of these universities, I would totally seek this out. I mean, as long as they don't alter Darwin's actual text, I'd accept a free book.
I'd probably completely deface the first fifty pages, but hey, free is free.
Anti-intellectuals : 1 - Intelligence : 0
Quoting Jim:
[i]"I have never been able to understand why people want to apply the scientific method to religious thinking or vice-versa. If you think your faith can be validated or invalidated by history or science then it's not terribly religious to begin with, is it? The standards, and the methodology, are incompatible. Empirical religion: what a concept."[i/]
Well it does effect whether a religious assertion (including ridiculous religious history e.g. Moses and the Red Sea) can constitute genuine knowledge. What science impinges on is the way theists can make legitimate claims about God (and the history of their religion), i.e. is it in the same way they make non-religious, factual claims about the world. An orthodox Jew, if I am not mistaken, has to accept everything contained in the Torah as absolute truth, i.e. a fact. That Moses did do such-and-such - is a fact of the world. The creeping on of scientism threatens whatever queer epistemological framework they are working under in the first place.
You a right in pointing out the peculiarity in a "faith [that] can be validated or invalidated." But, perhaps a psychological explanation of this type of "faith" is due. Frankly, whatever sort of thing this "faith" is, it is not of the sort that we would ascribe to assured and convicted persons. A quasi-rhetorical question: "Insecurity?"
JE: Yes, because if they really understood the history of, say, the bible and how it evolved over the centuries into the English books they know today, they'd understand that it bears no resemblance to what we think of today as "history" -- and was not told and re-told (in the oral tradition), then written and re-written and edited and re-edited and translated and re-translated with the intent of recording historical fact. It's the stories that have mattered to people, and until the rise of modern fundamentalism in last century they were not taken literally. (Karen Armstrong has written several great books about this, including "A History of God.") Cameron, sadly, isn't even familiar with the last half century of American history.
You know if you keep pointing at it at some point you give it creedence. If you're "film" blog contiues to go after actors and ministers rather than real ID "scientists" who are screwing things up then your protests will amount to nothing.
So Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort are complaining about Darwin again. So what! They have less real impact unless those on the other side continue to mock them. Your Mom is actually right.. if you ignore it, it will go away.
JE: I look at it this way: Cameron is using his celebrity to popularize these crazy things to the general public. The "ID 'scientists'" aren't going to influence their audience (actual scientists) because what they're doing isn't science. Their reasoning is "If we can't find an explanation for X in evolution, then the answer must be an Intelligent Designer." I'm not too worried about Intelligent Design catching on because it's useless in the realm of science. Nobody's ever cured a disease or developed a vaccine through principles illuminated by Intelligent Design. But at the beginning of this clip, Cameron directly attacks religious freedom as guaranteed by the US Constitution -- and his paranoid fantasies are easily disproved by actual Supreme Court decisions.
Ah, yes. The comic duo of Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Not since Abbott and Costello... Everybody talks about Ray's phallic descripion of the banana. But there's the potential of a much funnier comedy routine if they were to make a video of them discovering they're on an airplane full of pedophiles. The images of Kirk and Ray going door-to-door warning everybody that their neighbor enjoyed watching the much beloved, Oscar-winning film Little Miss Sunshine while flying Delta airlines would be priceless.
Just for kicks, check out the Way Of The Master site and take what basically amounts to a "Are you going to Hell?" quiz.
It turns out I am. Better bring the sunblock!
Kirk's got the right idea, so when he releases his book, I'll add 50 page intro of my own highlighting the contributions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. May Kirk soon be touched by his Noodly appendage!
The arguments never change because that would be too close to actually modifying what they believe. That's why it's called dogma.
It's not a suprise, in a way, that they see science more as a body of knowledge rather than a process for determining how we know something is so. The former definition fits better with the way they see things generally.
I think Kirk would be rather surprised to discover the number of scientists who accept both Darwin and God, and see no conflict there. If he talked to a couple of them, he might learn something. But I'm betting that's not on his agenda.
Jim, I've sent a link of this to none other than Richard Dawkins to see how (if) he responds:
Richard, this might be old news to you, but if not, I found this distressing news about Ray Comfort's (albeit misguided and likely to misfire) attempt to undermine the 150th anniversary of Origin of Species by publishing his OWN edition of the book (which he says is public domain) with a long introduction in support of Creationism! And (perhaps) because he knows it won't sell well, he plans to hand it out for free to college students who would find it more attractive over the expensive legitimate editions.
So instead of taking up your offer to debate him, THIS is where he has been focusing his efforts. Makes one ask: where does he get the money? Perhaps the Bible, also public domain, is due for a new edition with an appropriate introduction.
Apologies if this is old news.
Here's a link:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/
James Castelli
''Who isn't going to take it and say 'thank you very much'''.......ummmm, me?
He is an engaging speaker, I'll give him that. Or do I mean huckster?
Did you notice he first says that the intro espouses 'creationism', then later says it presents the alternative (the correct one, of course!) to evolution, 'intelligent design'? I thought ID proponents went to great lengths to distance themselves from creationism...
Well, unfortunately, today will be marked as a day when yet another of my childhood heroes was revealed to me to be a raving nutbag. Poor, poor Mike Seaver. In truth, you are just as misguided now as you ever were.
And yet, I take solace in knowing that all will be well as evolution takes its due course. Indeed, it should be expected that there will be some growing pains along the way.
I'm yet to meet a student who would pick Origin of the Species and then start off by reading the introduction, especially if written by a non-professional hand and 50-pages long. That is the vast, gaping hole in this cunning plan.
And would there be someone willing to read it at some point (among the student that is), I sincerely doubt that he wouldn't stop just to check who wrote it.
Yep, that's the inherent problem of shutting off your brain to get to your conscience as Ray and Kirk advocate it : basically, eh, you just shut off your brain. Hence the misconception that they will make more than a handful of converts, with 50.000 books, talk about small returns on investment.
You can almost visualize the "aha" moment that Ray and Kirk must have had about putting this concept together - the hubris is pretty striking.
What I find so detestable about this is the amount of resources wasted - the 50,000 books, the time and effort of volunteers handing them out, and the money that is going into this ridiculousness when there are real problems that they could be addressing instead.
I like the response of the woman on YouTube about cutting out the introduction and keeping the book. Everyone who does so should mail it back to Ray.
JE: One of my favorite parts is the appeal to "unskilled workers" in the montage at the end. Hey, how much skill does it take to hand out free Comfort-ized books to unsuspecting students?!
IDers usually massage their message for the intended audience. If the intended audience, is say, well-educated Catholics with a bent towards Theological Evolutionism, then ID suddenly represents some sort of Grand Tinkerer argument (this is essentially the position of one of the formulators of ID, Michael Behe). If they're giving a presentation in a Church basement, well, then it becomes indistinguishable from Creationism.
The fact is that ID is nothing more than a cynical ploy to sneak past the First Amendment. It goes to the root of all the Creationist proponents, that they are a fundamentally immoral bunch, who have essentially taken the position that lying about Darwin, evolution, and even their own agendas is necessary.
As for Kirk Cameron, well, he had his ten minutes of fame the better part of twenty years ago. I'm not sure what qualifies him to talk about Christianity, Evangelical or otherwise, or evolution. But, like Ben Stein, there's money to be made in preaching to the converted.
The thing we need to remember when dealing with these people is that they are not motivated by worldly rationality. For them, faith is their prime determinant of policy. Any opposition is not just misguided, but actually wicked because it violates the word of God and so is destined for failure in this life and damnation in the next.
This is a really medieval view of the world and religion. They know they are right. They know it is their God-given duty to spread the word, by force if necessary. Since they can't do it at the point of a sword anymore, they'll do it with more modern weapons. The book. The webpage.
But with the same sense of Inquisitors doing a distasteful duty in the name of God, these people will lie, cheat, and blithely ignore rational arguments that disprove their positions - because the end result is an extension of God's worship. The ends do justify the means, because they see the same means being used by those who support the atheistic, secular quasi-religious belief in evolution. After all, in their worldview, evolution is false, so anyone supporting it must be lying at worst, mistaken at best.
You can't reason with, persuade or deflate these fools. You can only ridicule them.
JE: As I recall, one of the commandments (in Cameron's preferred King James version of the Old Testament) has to do with bearing false witness against one's neighbor. Maybe Cameron thinks it's OK to lie about life in the United States because Bananaland, where he lives, is not a neighboring state?
The scientific method teaches empirical questioning of hypotheses to discover whether they can coexist with the facts or not. Some insecure religious people feel threatened by the concept of empirical questioning, since questioning faith is anathema to them.
This is as much true of fundamentalist Muslims as Christians, by the way. They want a return to medieval patterns of thought.
A person like Kirk Cameron makes being a Christian in this country a real pain in the butt. If I ever bring my faith up to anyone, I have to spend a good deal of time separating myself from bozo's like him in an attempt to help people understand that what they're doing has almost nothing at all to do with the beliefs taught in the Bible.
My fellow Christians should really do themselves the favor of trying to deal with the Biblical text in a more serious way. They (we've) become so prone to all of the idiotic culture wars promoted by the Evangelical Church (of which I am a part) that we've lost sight of some of the most central teachings of this big, very complex book.
Is Cameron really an actor anymore? I've seen "Left Behind", unfortunately, and I don't know if I would call that acting. I don't know what I would call it.
JE: I'm continually amazed at how simplistic they find both biblical testaments to be. They wrest whatever they like from its context and use it for their own purposes. What they call "the bible" means whatever they want it to mean at any given moment -- something priests and translators and revisers have been doing for centuries. As you can see, Cameron doesn't hesitate to do the same thing with U.S. law.
@Christopher Long: The response by the blond Polish girl (I think she's Polish) is brilliant. I'd want to marry her if I wasn't already married.
In addition to the banana fiasco, didn’t Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort once claim that Evolution is false because life doesn’t evolve out of jars of peanut butter exposed to supermarket lights? (this was either a video they made, or perhaps a video parody of them – not that the former isn’t a parody in a sense anyway).
On a related topic, I remember some years ago catching a retrospective documentary on “Growing Pains” – it might have been an episode of “E! True Hollywood Story” – and it was hilarious hearing about what happened to the show when Kirk Cameron became a Born-Again Christian. He forced the show's producers to transform his character from a mischievous skirt-chaser to a pious do-gooder who adopted street kids, and I think he also made the producers fire the actress who played his on-screen girlfriend (his religious sensibilities were offended by the fact that she posed for “Playboy,” I believe). My memory’s a little vague on this point, but I think there was still a palpable sense of annoyance on the part of the cast and crew of the show when discussing all this years later.
As a Christian who reads the Bible literally I think it's important that you all know how the earth was created:
The Lord created the earth in six days. No more. No less. Six shalt be the days He shalt have created, and the days of the creating shall be Six. Seven days shalt He not have created, nor either did he create in five days, excepting that he then proceeded to day six. One point six quadrillion days is right out. Once the day six, being the sixth day, was reached, then, rested he on the seventh day, and the Earth, which, being good in his sight, snuffed it.
Okay, seriously though, I am a Christian. To me though, no where does it say in those first few chapters of Genesis that God literally created the world in 6 days. To me, all it literally says is that God created the world. The rest, is just the poetic expressions of men trying to make sense of a world they didn't quite understand (Though God him/her self could simply be a manifestation of this too). If Genesis had begun thus:
"In the beginning, God Created the Monerans and the Prokaryotes. Now the Nucleus was without form, and the DNA was hovering in the bodies of cytoplasm."
Most at the time would have packed up and left right then and there. Plus it just doesn't have that nice metaphorical ring to it. To me, much of the Bible is simply literal truth expressed through the intertwining of history and fable by people coming to understand their place in the cosmos.
I don't understand everything about my religion or all the historical or literary information surrounding it. But I know enough, and trust enough in the study of more intelligent theologians to be fairly sure that what I believe is true... even if the details might be a bit (or in some cases a lot) wrong. To me faith isn't just a guess, it's an educated one. From the evidence I've been presented and observed, I believe there is a God. It still takes a leap of faith, but it's one I can't help but take.
Likewise, I don't understand all there is to know about Evolution and the paleontological or geological facts. But I know enough, and trust in the work and study of the far more intelligent evolutionary scientists to be sure that evolution is true... I can't deny it. Does evolutionary theory provide all the answers? Certainly not, but it comes as close as we may ever get, and I can't help but believe in the scientific method.
In the end, both sides of the debate annoy me (to say the least). However, it's my fellow Christians that most often get on my nerves. Sometimes you'll get someone like Richard Dawkins (who I respect immensely as a scientist and even some as an a-theologian) who'll poke jokes at religious people without actually saying anything interesting. For the most part though, atheists and agnostics have no problem with people believing what they believe (no matter how ludicrous we may be) so long as we keep to ourselves. Conversely, I often get the feeling from these creationist people that my believe in evolution somehow makes me evil, and a captive of the devil, and must reject what I've thought so hard and carefully about or face eternal hell fire.
Anyway, sorry for making this so long. I don't usually comment (ever actually... first timer here), but sometimes I get frustrated by this whole debate and just need to vent.
Cheers,
Daryl
PS. This made me cry recently...
http://www.deezer.com/en/music/glo/evilution-135529#music/glo/evilution-135529
listen to the last song if you dare.
JE: Whew! You really had me frightened you were going to lob the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch at the beginning there... I'm wondering what part of the title "On the Origin of Species" Creationists don't understand. It's not called "The Origin of the Universe" for good reason.
A man has had a serious change in his life to have gone from a future as a big time hollywood star to rationing that he must do what ever possible to accomplish his mission as a radical christian. The issue makes me why? what? or Who? can be credited with this. Maybe he actually met God. Maybe he actually found out that this life is not all about him and his basic desires. Think people! Cameron is not even demanding that people believe as he does. He wants those in the college of peer-pressure theology to see that, hey maybe the wonderful theory of DARWIN is not necessarily true. It has flaws, It still has never created a REAL beginning (see the movie Expelled with Ben Stein). If it is offensive to you. Maybe that is good. If you were never offended, you may never change your opinion on anything. I would imagine many were offended by Columbus' theory that the earth was not flat. And frankly what really scares me is what the government is forcing us to believe AS A FACT rather than a possible theory.
Always beware of one hand clapping. [one-sided debate]
JE: The problem is that Cameron isn't engaging in debate. He's blowing smoke. You can't actually have an exchange of views with someone who doesn't confront a) what Darwin actually wrote; b) what is actually in the bible; or c) what is actually in U.S. law. I have given detailed examples of his and Comfort's blatant mistakes in reasoning above. The government isn't forcing anyone to believe anything. Science -- the discipline known as the scientific method -- is taught in schools. You can't teach religion AS science, because they do not involve the same kind of empirical methods. That's the fundamental issue Cameron does not seem to understand. If religion were subjected to the scientific method -- repeatable experiments that yield predictable results -- what good would that do? All it proves is that religion isn't science and science isn't religion. Come to think of it, maybe that IS something kids need to be taught in school, so they won't make the risible mistakes that Cameron and Comfort keep making.
Atheists are coming out of the closets. Theists are realizing the err of their ways and coming over to "OUR" side. We will wipe nonsensical religion from this planet. Go ahead, fight the good fight while your numbers dwindle. We will win. (actually, I'm just kiddin' around. Knowledge will win the day).
JE: There's some evidence that humans (as pattern-seeking animals) are hard-wired to create gods they can believe in. Religion isn't going to go away, but perhaps some of the more dogmatic and virulent strains can find ways of adapting to the contemporary world, as religion has done for millennia. The forms that can't adapt along with the rest of human knowledge will wither -- as long as they view knowledge as a threat to their religion.
The only thing worse than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer.
The Bible was written by men. We all know that blogs, newspapers, television and radio are full of untruths, yet this particular man-written document is supposed to be 100 percent accurate? Books of the Bible have been added, drafted, rewritten, lost, etc., but this particular version is the truth?
I'm a Christian who supports evolution, and believes creationisms shouldn't be taught in schools. This whole blog makes me feel bad. Not because it's wrong, but because it makes so much sense. I feel like it's embarrassing to be a Christian nowadays.
JE: I understand. You should hear some of the people who call themselves "film critics." Sheesh, it's really embarrassing...
JE: As I recall, one of the commandments (in Cameron's preferred King James version of the Old Testament) has to do with bearing false witness against one's neighbor. Maybe Cameron thinks it's OK to lie about life in the United States because Bananaland, where he lives, is not a neighboring state?
Not necessarily. One of the commandments is "Thou shalt not kill." But soldiers are exempted from this when fighting a just war. No doubt Cameron and Comfort and their ilk are given dispensation because to lie because they're fighting a just war as well.
It's really handy having a simple, closed system that is logically consistent internally. Which is one of the reasons they fight so desperately against the introduction of anything new.
I thought I pretty well covered this during the Scopes "Monkey Trial".
The ironic moment of the year: Kirk Cameron calling anything 'unscientific'. Oh man, I got a good laugh out of that.
To Rob Weers:
Try not to be offended, but Columbus was not trying to prove the world was round:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus#Navigation_plans
To Eric:
The Bible was written by men, but it is still the Word of God! How do we know this? It says so in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16).
See, you can't argue with that logic!
...and the inevitable pitch for send-us-money comes right at the end of the video with some nice fear inducing phrases like "before it's too late!" Same old monkey shine.
If atheism is on the rise, I doubt it has anything to with Darwin, but for the never-ending manipulation found in religion, as displayed in this video.
It really, really scares me that people can follow that kind of logic. Some of the claims he makes would be hilarious if it weren't so sad that someone actually believes that. To a certain extent it's also infuriating, because people like Kirk Cameron brainwash other people into thinking that getting an education and believing what your mind tells you is true is an act that can get you a ticket to Hell.
Albert Einstein never ever endorsed a personal God, or any kind of god. Notice that when Kirk says he has words of scientists, after Einstein all the scientists are archaic scientist, most are shown in portrait form, what does that tell you.
JE: Yes, Eistein complained that his views on god were completely misrepresented by those who had much more conventional anthropomorphic notions of "god" than he did: "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Also, Mr. Weers, try not to be offended when you find out that the "New World" was actually "discovered" by WESTERN cultures well before Columbus, let alone existed (and apparantly wandered into by others, not just the natives) for thousands of people for centuries and centuries before even THAT.
Has anyone noticed recently that anytime a religious nut tries to make a point about someone/thing they bring up Hitler?
Here's a lil something to think about. Darwin's idea is a THEORY and has been taught as so. Just like the creationist's idea is a THEORY
Rob Weers: [Darwinian evolution] has flaws, It still has never created a REAL beginning
Could you clarify what you mean by " REAL beginning"? Evolution theory explains the diversity of life, not its origins (abiogenesis). It definitely makes no claims about the origins of the universe (cosmology).
If Edison had never existed we would still have light bulbs, if Bell had never existed we would still have telephones, and if Darwin had become a plumber we would still have evolution!
So Kirk attacking Darwin as a person is a bit of a waste of time
By phillyvic on September 29, 2009 2:16 PM
Has anyone noticed recently that anytime a religious nut tries to make a point about someone/thing they bring up Hitler?
Here's a lil something to think about. Darwin's idea is a THEORY and has been taught as so. Just like the creationist's idea is a THEORY
Well, when it comes to referring to Hitler as he were some kind...I dunno, disciple?...of Darwin, this is on a par with the anti-religion crowd citing the crusades, the Inquisition, various Jihads, Islam's treatment of women, the treatment of Palestinian Arabs by the Jews in 1948-49 (although that one is tough to blame solely on religion, as ethnicity enters into too), etc. Suffice to say that there is no idea that humanity has come up with that someone, somewhere, has not been able to warp to fit their own agenda and serve their own ends. Some of those ends are not what most of us would call "good".
So while I'm completely against Kirk Cameron and James Comfort and Behe and other IDers and creationists ad nauseum, I think the folks on our side should avoid the equivalent of the argumentum ad hitlerum - the "argument ad inquisitionum"?
This would certainly fit in with the idea of civility in discourse that Jim introduced in a blog entry more recent than this one.
And also, we should all remember the difference between a theory as scientists use the term, and a theory as detectives on Law & Order use it. I can throw out a theory out about who killed the vic and how. But a scientist - say the CSI types back at the lab - will only consider that a hypothesis; they don't consider it a theory until they have determined that the hypothesis matches the phyiscal evidence and that there is no better explanation.
Cameron and Comfort are just preaching to the choir, as usual. No one's mind is going to be changed by their nonsense, unless already in agreement. Fear of death is a powerful thing, and evolution denial is just one of the myriad ways certain humans compensate for that fear.
I wonder what Kirk Cameron would have to say about this:
http://io9.com/5372259/new-fossil-discovery-is-the-closest-weve-come-to-the-missing-link
Indeed wrote,
Fear of death is a powerful thing, and evolution denial is just one of the myriad ways certain humans compensate for that fear. Well...
Conversely:
Fear of GOD is a powerful thing, and EVOLUTION ACCEPTANCE is just one of the myriad ways certain humans compensate for that fear.
Like how they specifically ask for UN-skilled workers.
"Fear of GOD is a powerful thing, and EVOLUTION ACCEPTANCE is just one of the myriad ways certain humans compensate for that fear."
You'd have to believe a god existed in the first place for any fear to matter. People are afraid of monsters in movies while they watch those movies, but they don't believe they're real.
And none of that even matters to evolution, because it's true whether you believe in it because you're afraid of an invisible man or not. It's still factual either way, so what's your point, other than to make a cutesy phrase in lieu of an intelligent argument?
And I disagree entirely with JMW's false comparison. Linking Darwin to Hitler is NOT the same as linking religion to atrocities that religion actually WAS responsible for (and there are way too many of them to count). That's just a silly cop out and a way to worm out of responsibility.
What Hitler did would not receive a blessing from Darwin and neither was it logical from an evolutionary perspective: how does a human choosing to kill other humans qualify as "natural selection?" It doesn't. BUT, even if Darwin did lay out the framework for Hitler's final solution right in his book, once again, it would not affect the truth of evolution. It's just such a silly "argument" to make.
And that's another reason why your comparison is so off the mark: evolution is real, backed up by facts and evidence. Religion is just fairy tales that people have killed for; no evidence, no facts. The theory of evolution and its study has given us wonderful advances in medicine and modern life. What has religion given us? A lot of atrocities and precious little good. Because, after all, as Steven Weinberg said, "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion."
The world would be a much better place if people would admit that their fairy tales are clung to so strongly to stave off their fear of death, fear of thought, and fear of change. I get that it's comforting to you, but it also validates and encourages people like Comfort and Cameron, not to mention the REALLY crazy and dangerous ones out there, who pick up a gun or strap on a bomb because, hey, God is on their side and the end justifies the means to them.
Sorry, Mermaid.
I suppose I need to do a better job of proof-reading, as I thought I had typed, "Fear of GOD'S EXISTENCE is a powerful thing..." da-da-da-dah. Not that that'll change your perspective, of course, just that there is a real, genuine fear of the possibility of God's existence, even in our post-Post modern culture that'll cause some to look for alternative answers for man's origin/destiny. (I once heard Howard Stern tell D. Letterman he'd like to be an atheist-but just in case God's really out there, he figured he'd better err on the side of caution). And this fear is as palpable for a evolutionist as it is for anyone else.
Also, you say evolution is "real, backed up by facts and evidence".
And you don't think religion (Christianity, particularly) ISN'T supported by ANY evidence at all? Not trying to prove anything to you, just stating there is a case for God's existence that's been here far, far, far longer than Darwin's 150 year-old theory. One hundred fifty years? That's just a yawn in terms of human history.
Maybe you're unaware, but the writers of the New Testament stated that they themselves did not follow "cleverly devised myths... but were eyewitnesses". These ancient folks were not the primitive fools some think them to be.
By October Mermaid on October 5, 2009 5:18 PM
...I disagree entirely with JMW's false comparison. Linking Darwin to Hitler is NOT the same as linking religion to atrocities that religion actually WAS responsible for (and there are way too many of them to count). That's just a silly cop out and a way to worm out of responsibility.
I respectfully think you're making a mistake. The mistake you're thinking is to treat organized religion as monolithic.
To my way of thinking, any organized religion - take Luteranism as a sect of christianity as an example - was set up by an individual or a group of people. Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg cathedral and the rest, as they say, is history.
But...when Protestants in Germany were raping catholic women simply because they were catholic, do we imagine that Luther would have approved?
Perhaps. Given the relations between catholicism and other christian sects at the time, it's possible.
But my contention is that Luther did not start the Protestant Reformation for the purpose of raping catholic women.
So my point is that if we are going to ask, nay demand, that religionists stop making Darwin responsible for Hitler, then we as non-religionisits should also avoid making Luther responsible for the rape of German cataholics, etc., etc. The responsibility for all those atrocities lie directly with their instigators, with Hitler, with Leo II (who I think kicked off Crusade I), etc., etc.
What Hitler did would not receive a blessing from Darwin...BUT, even if Darwin did lay out the framework for Hitler's final solution right in his book, once again, it would not affect the truth of evolution.
With this, I can definitely agree, however.
By 2 peace on October 6, 2009 12:13 PM
Maybe you're unaware, but the writers of the New Testament stated that they themselves did not follow "cleverly devised myths... but were eyewitnesses". These ancient folks were not the primitive fools some think them to be.
Eyewitnesses...so are the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens. The unfortunate fact is that the gospels were finally written down around 60-80 AD. If the disciples were the same age as christ, they would have been between 60 and 80 years old, and odds are decent that a fair number of them would have been dead. The gospel of John was written around 100 AD, and the odds that John was around to personally write it down is low.
So the people who wrote the gospels were (at best) most likely the inheritors of the disciples' stories. Hardly eyewitnesses.
JE: Regarding eyewitnesses: What you say is incontestably true. The stories in the gospels, and elsewhere in the bible, were originally part of an oral tradition, and in some cases were generations old by the time they first appeared in the first drafts of the versions now in the bible. (And that doesn't take into consideration the editing, re-writing, and creative translating that was done for centuries thereafter. The English King James version wasn't cobbled together until the early 17th century by the Church of England!) That said, as we now know, eyewitness testimony is about as reliable as dream recollection, anyway -- especially when it comes to matters of faith and religion. But, still, one won't find any eyewitnesses in the bible.
JMW & JE said,
But, still, one won't find any eyewitnesses in the bible.
WOOOWWWWW!
You won't find ANY eyewitnesses in the Bible? A canon of 66 documents written over the course of several hundreds of years by at least 30-40 something different writers while maintaining a distinct continuity and you say NONE of them were eyewitnesses? Look, I'll give you that the Gospels MAY (and that's a BIG MAY) have been written later than sooner, and we have no original documents to examine, true, but as such, the writings we do have are probably more reliable than the works of Homer (which to my knowledge, have never been challenged for their veracity, the fact that they're works of fiction notwithstanding).
Well, then, who wrote these things?
Do you think Saint Paul, who wrote 2/3rds of the New Testament, was lying when he claimed to have been beaten, shipwrecked( and eventually martyred according to the scriptures) for a new sect of the ancient Jewish religion called Christianity, that he himself once PERSECUTED in it's infancy, before becoming a team member thereof? Let me say it again: He PERSECUTED the first CHRISTIANS... then joined their team! And he lied about the whole thing? Or someone else wrote this stuff because they knew it would make 'good reading'?
My friends, this is the most unique, mysterious, examined, critiqued, beloved as well as divisive piece of lit ever and that is a clue for us that its message came from somewhere other than the mind of men.
Again, I'm not here to convert anyone because you guys have already made up your minds. But to say that followers of Christianity(which is what we are really talking about rather than mere religion) are walking in a gaze of fantasy and superstition is absurd, when we know there is a level of historicity there. We aren't talking about Mars and Zeus, gentlemen.
Empirical science is a wonderful thing and any thinking man or woman would be better for approaching anything empirically, but when you guys look through a telescope, you may see a lot of something coming from nothing. When I and so many others like me look through a telescope, we see evidence of an invisible creative source who, if I were to deny his existence, would be like meeting you gentlemen face to face, yet deny the existence of your own parents.
JE: The oral tradition of storytelling -- particularly in the Middle East in the centuries before and after certain stories were eventually written down and anthologized in what we now call the two books of the bible -- did not rely on what we would now call "eyewitnesses." I wrote that one should not look for "eyewitnesses" in the bible, because to do so implies a misunderstanding of what the bible is and how it came to be. These are not strictly works of "history" in the modern sense, but religious tales interpreted and adjusted for many different audiences in different places over centuries. These tales were not written down and anthologized (much less printed for access by laypeople!) for many, many centuries. Think of how these various stories were spread from generation to generation in different populations for different purposes -- diverging into thousands of variations. There were no multi-lingual newspapers reporting the facts of the day. Each group of people heard stories and passed them along. Great line from "Jesus Christ Superstar": "Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication!" So, modern ideas of "eyewitnesses," "reporting" and "history" don't apply to the books of the bible, and were never meant to. Fundamentalism is a uniquely modern phenomenon that tries to retroactively mis-apply those standards to ancient texts. I recommend Karen Armstrong's books, "The History of God" and "The Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam," if you want to learn more.
JE,
Your comments are similar to what I heard in college years ago. And I am aware of the various ways people passed down tales orally, much like the griots did (and still do) in Africa. I never thought the ancient writers meant eyewitness in the modern sense but in the purest sense: they simply claimed to have been there! ( You're treating the word, I think, in an almost pejorative manner) That said, if you read the opening verses of Luke's Gospel, he CLEARLY states his mission and goal, which was to investigate the life and times of a man named Jesus. Obviously, he wasn't an eyewitness as were the disciples, which certainly means he had to research facts as well as interview people who were aware of those things that were "not done in a corner". Also, consider the staunchly rigorous, ceremonial religious instructions of the OT book of Leviticus. Very difficult book to read, especially for our short attention-span culture. Hard to believe that such a didactic document with such rigorous instructions was simply a product of oral storytelling. Lastly, the first translations of the bible were derived from translations of the original Greek/Hebrew language documents, and were not accessible to the masses. But when technology (printing press) finally developed to meet the needs of the masses(necessitating literacy), people were receiving literature that was not the translation of a translation. I'll give you that there were some things were probably lost along the way, but that was usually a misspelling or such, not any of the meat of the documents.
Cameron: "One by one, we're being stripped of our God-given liberties."
He's just pissed because he can't have slaves anymore. I'm glad that morals evolve along with our physical characteristics. Leave religion in the past.
"We need workers. We need unskilled workers. We need you."
Nice connections.
I just love how Kirk uses that clusterf*ck take on Big Bang theory, Abiogenesis, Evolution and paleontology.
As for the 61% of professors who are Atheist or agnostic? At least they don't consider the idea of spitting on a wound as a form of treatment.