Bigotry
I hear it regularly from the mouths of those who would no doubt consider themselves the very pinnacle of political correctness and tolerance as they bestow from on high all manner of derision upon the people of regions they deem to be unenlightened, ignorant, prejudiced, and backwards. The "fly-over" states or the conservative "backwoods" of the south...any place where rednecks, cowboys, farmers, NRA members, hunters, church-goers, or NASCAR fans may be found in relative abundance are all subject to such derision and disdain. Remember where NBC decided to send their "stunt Muslims" to show how prejudiced Americas are? That's right, NASCAR events, and alas despite their preconceived beliefs they were unable to find any worthy instances of redneck prejudice...funny how they never showed this piece, isn't it? Maybe they should have sent some NASCAR fans adorned richly with #3's to an Al Gore disciple's rally? Yes, I am sure many of "rednecks" return the favor to their coastal elite counterparts, but then again we rather expect that don't we? The extent to which people apparently look down their noses at rural boondockers has come as rather a shock to me lately.
You may recall awhile back during one of the republican presidential debates the questions was asked "is there anyone on the stage that does not believe in evolution?" Now if you stop and think about it, what an odd question to ask a politician! What exactly do the possible replies tell us about a candidate? Besides the fact that to "believe in evolution" is an exceptionally obscure question, as Logan Gage notes in this excellent article when he writes:
What makes the original question difficult to answer yes or no is that “evolution” can mean many things. It can range from simple change over time, which no one disputes, to the specifically Darwinian idea that all of life’s diversity — from bald eagles to newborn baby boys — is owed to the mindless process of natural selection and random mutations and nothing more. As the eminent Harvard Paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson famously summarized it, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.”
So if the questioner meant the latter "mindless process" then I would have to say that I am an evolutionary infidel. And having said so, the bigotry would suddenly be heaped upon me. For you see, being a republican is not quite enough to earn you the label of a backwoods creationist bible-thumper, but to outright deny evolution (no matter how many paragraphs you OUGHT to be allowed to have to explain such a denial) is a cardinal sin...even worse than calling into question the data on global warming. Those who did raise their hands on that stage are now hopelessly lumped into the coastal elitist's stereotypes worthy of their self-righteous disdain.
Well, the world of politics is one thing, but such truly mindless bigotry is not limited to politics. Sadly, more and more, Science is the new church for our age. A brief perusal of news stories ought to quickly convince you that we rather expect that science should be able to provide us with all of the answers we need in life (and indeed some we do not need). Here's a recent example: THIS news story about the increase in teen suicide rates is making the rounds right now and my local paper chose the following title for it: "Teen Suicide Rates Up, But Scientists Can't Discern Why?"
Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe we shouldn't expect scientists to be able discern why? I doubt it. As I said, our society looks to science to entertain us, to explain us, and yes even to save us. Can anything escape the materialistic grasp of holy mother science? Our new church...and this church has about as much mercy on dissenters as the medieval church is perceived to have had on heretics. Don't believe so?
I recently met a scientist who has to live in virtual hiding. In fact I dare not even mention his name or how I know him because he was all but driven from his home and place of employment by the scientific villagers wielding pitchforks and torches. He had dared to suggest that the scientific community should be more open to new ideas and debate, specifically with regard to some very credible data that calls into question many basic assumptions of neo-darwinism. But, just as the medieval Church shut down Galileo, so now dissenting voices in science (no matter that many of them have outstanding credentials, data to support their positions, and seriously well reasoned arguments) are silenced and run out of town. Instead of their data being examined or their ideas being discussed they are simply labeled EXACTLY like the Republican candidates who dared to raise their hands at the debate: creationists, backwoods psuedo-scientists, religious maniacs, or members of bible-thumping "sleeper cells."
Having one's career ruined and their reputation tainted isn't all that happens either: their CV's are ran through with a fine toothed comb, their personal lives examined, their outside of the lab activities monitored as frothing-at-the-mouth opponents search for a smoking gun that will prove their prey isn't a real scientist. Emails are sent out en mass with libelous statements, harassing phone calls, letters, and emails...even physical threats! And in one case a scientist was actually assaulted and seriously hurt.
More and more I think I have never met a more intolerant set of people than lofty coastal elitists who believe they know everything. It's so ironic that they wrap themselves up in garments of peace, love, and tolerance...while they likely have no qualms in branding evolution or global warming dissenting scientists with a scarlet letter, after all they dared to move into their neighborhood.
This elitist bigotry can often be found in Academia of all disciplines. Ben Stein is coming out with a film next year that exposes the intellectual bigotry being experienced by numerous scientists today. Make sure to see it.
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
Check out my latest blog post.
http://flyintheholyoil.blogspot.com/
Cheers!
Basil
And since when has the THEORY of Darwinism (right or wrong) been proven? Logic...what DO they teach them in these schools?
Sign me a conservative religious mouth-breathing computer geek and mathematician, who believes God created everything (in some unprovable way) out of Love.
I recently saw an online discussion by a bunch of academics about that Mormon family with 17 kids. Of course, they were all crying for forced sterilizations after X kids, for the kids to be turned over to the state, etc. It took several pages of discussion for someone to be brave enough to say, "It's her uterus. She chose to have those kids, and it's none of your business. What happened to being pro-choice?" After that, crickets. They couldn't justify their bigotry, and didn't try, but never addressed their rather blatant intolerance either.
http://yya.oca.org/youth/yomail/back-issues/1999-02-15.html
Read it and calm down.
--- Bob k.
Another paper by Dr. George Theokritoff, with his wife Elizabeth (also a PhD, from Oxford, a translator of Orthodox hymns and
the letters of the Athonite Elder Joseph) addresses the problem of Evolution as a "theory":
http://jbburnett.com/resources/theokritoff_rose-svtq.pdf
Particularly page 9 & 10. Both are devout and educated Orthodox laymen, he an emeritus prof of Geology from Rutgers. Orthodox Christians and anyone else have nothing to fear from theories about Evolution. They might from people who run with ideas they *get* (or more likely think they get)from evolutionary theory. Bob K.
It's funny to me that you seem to think that only Christians have an agenda or a preconceived belief system that distorts their ability to do science: NEWSFLASH Bob, atheists have their agendas and their preconceived notions that do as much if not more to color their understanding of science and the natural world.
None of this means I think evolution didn't happen, but if you define it as "random mutations and natural selection" acting alone, then I reject the theory...I even find it to be patently irrational to believe that randomness such as this could possibly lead to such immense complexity. I defy anyone to prove in any way that such has or ever could happen.
If you are a scientist who also happens to see problems in the theory - no matter how small - and you dare to speak about them or worse yet to even present some data, you will be in trouble.
This isn't so much about being a creationist or a evolutionist, its about whether or not we have a sacred and untouchable cow syndrome within science. I think we do.
There are quite a few scientists out there who are throwing rational, data-filled, and good argumentative wrenches into the neo-darwinian system. They do so at their career's peril.
But they are NOT creationists. They are not ignorant and they approach their science with no more bias that any other scientist.
Here's the thing Bob...neo-darwinism is a "threat" to Christians as surely as any other all encompassing belief system would be that denies God's existence, denies the divine image in humanity, and INSISTS that all that is (ALL THAT IS) can be explained and is directly attributable to your DNA, its evolution as defined by random mutations and natural selection...(your love for your wife, your love for your family, your inclination to do good in the world, your irrational belief in a resurrecting man-god...all of these can be explained as exceptionally complex chemical reactions in your brain.)
Yes, Bob, neo-darwinism is founded upon the religion of materialism.
And this is why, if I could presume for a moment to referee the overall Creationist/Darwinist debate, that I would have to judge the Christian side of the debate as committing the greater foul. We need not react to the intentions or motivations of some darwinists. We need instead to consider the massive evidence that has accrued, clearly showing the world to be part of a vast and seemingly timeless universe, and showing our world to be a place where generations of species have replaced one another, where change and evolution seems to be a general rule, as plain as gravity, operating throughout the Creation, in human history, in the development of individual humans, in the history of nations, the history of the church, where the concept of incremental change and/or continuity is critical to understanding anything.
Unfortunately, most Christians active in the debate seem to see evolution as a threat to the authority of scripture, which fundamentally reflects a lack of respect for both the Scripture and Science. Both of these ways of understanding our world (revelation and observation) are important. It's arrogant to try to engineer a convenient, tidy, reconciliation of the two, or rather to just declare the end of the debate, tell the scientists to put away the shovels, because we already have everything we need, i.e. Genesis 1, to understand what is required. It's silly.
The "other side" of this debate, true, isn't interested in the revelation in Scripture, nor do they have to be in order to pursue science, 99.9% of which is conducted by people working on very small and isolated problems, where arguments about the existence of God simply don't affect the results. Over time, science itself evolves to explain the evidence at hand. After 2-3 centuries of Christians offering resistance to the disciplined study of our world, they're sick of it. And they should be. And there's nothing they can find that could possibly disprove the idea that the world was created in an orderly fashion.
- Steve Knowlton
What I hate to see is people who can look at Genesis as a geology text. They rarely keep reading to ch. 30 (?) where Jacob is involved in a sheep breeding experiment to get striped animals. If that method (and it is described as simply as anything you'd hear to instruct a shepherd in animal husbandry) works, then repeat it. I'll instantly become a creationist. There are people who don't realize the chapter is about Jacob, not sheep.
I don't accept that DNA explains everything. That's a Creed though, not science. The creeds have to stop at the lab door. Being a scientist and one who belived Darwin was right didn't stop Pavlov from being an Orthodox layman. It also doesn't stop Dr. Theokritoff. I think the believers understand the world better with Darwinian explanations of species than the poor nonbelieving scientists do. But that's also a statement of faith.
--Bob K.
Evolutionary biologists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) often speculate on BIG overarching issues they deem to be scientific. Have you read any of Dawkins' stuff? You wanna talk about fouls.
Most of his books arguably orbit around atheism and how "random mutations and natural selection" prove that God does not exist. He is in fact an absolute materialist and believes that all facets of human existence can be explained by "The Selfish Gene" and in fact, Dawkins has gone a step further (keep in mind here I am talking about an evolutionary biologist) to write a book called "The God Delusion" in which he explains the title.
The problem is, Steve and Bob, the scientific community is JUST FINE with this. Dawkins isn't ridiculed, or finding himself in danger of losing his tenure (were it even possible). Neither does he have people following him to see if attends Atheistic Materialism religious services (aka meetings)...no one questions him as having biases or preconceived notions that might color his interpretation of data...or worse yet, as religious scientists might be accused of: falsifying data.
Somehow materialists will not have a world view bias, but theists will.
I have never heard a good scientific explanation for Dr. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity. This, in my mind is not a creationist vs. evolution issue...even if young earth creationists hinge on to these arguments. Fact is there are scientists doing good science who believe there are serious problems with what they call "neo-darwinism" which when pressed has all the trappings of a religion we may call materialism.
Evolutionists who insist that macro-evolution takes place exclusively by "random mutations and natural selection" I believe are obliged to explain how such immense complexity (irreducibly, Behe would say) could indeed have come about in tiny little single steps of nucleotide mutations translated into Amino Acid changes in proteins. Each tiny little step of which MUST give the organism a reproductive advantage unless Darwin is wrong.
I simply do not believe this could have happened "naturally" (i.e. "by itself"). Or at least not naturally in the sense that materialism would dictate...there are actually a number of intriguing theories as to how this might have happened...one of which is interesting in that in involves a sort of "biological law" like "laws of physics" that would tend to curb organisms toward a certain "design" which of course is a naughty word especially since no one can explain how such a law might exist. Of course the current "orthodox" default answer is that millions of years of time will allow for...well...anything, and this to me seems like a tremendous statement of faith when there is absolutely NO direct and conclusive evidence to suggest that such complexity can evolve
You see gentlemen, more and more in the scientific community atheism and materialism are the default and accepted belief systems. And there is a growing problem of tolerance. As a scientist, if you want to advance your career these days, it's best not to advertise in any way shape or form that you attend a conservative Christian church regularly. And you dare not...DARE NOT make any sort of claim like "The heavens declare the glory of God."
Whereas, evolutionary biologists everywhere may freely claim that the heavens declare that god is a delusion.
I'm sorry gents, but if you don't believe me then you are not paying close enough attention to the scientific environment around us.
Now that we know that in fact earth's crust consists of tectonic plates constantly in motion, what exactly does knowledge of that verse bring to your study of Science?
If you did try to apply it somehow, can you understand how irritating it would be to someone who just wants to measure the drift? Who wants to predict the next earthquake?
What I'm saying is that you don't have to read Dawkins, you don't have to participate. I don't agree that scientists are an irreligious lot; they're just irritated, as I am, with infantile applications of Scripture. Most of them could care less about Dawkins, either.
- Steve
I don't think one needs to have ANY religious presuppositions to come to the conclusion that the "natural" claim of neo-Darwinism is extraordinary. In fact I would argue that it is desperation to find a godless cause that drives scientists to make such amazing claims. No one can prove that individual base-pair mutations could eventually cause a single cell organism to evolve not only into a mutli-trillion cell organism, but also one with a radically complex system of immunity, energy consumption and production, unique and intricate defense and propulsion mechanisms and a cohesive overall structure with a multiply complex and interrelated system of organs.
I'm not in any way shape or form arguing for creationism here. Heck toss the Bible in a Guantanamo toilet on this topic and let Newsweek print the story. I'm talking about common sense here coupled with an understanding of just how complex biological things are on a molecular level.
Oh, but James, I am told, we are talking about this process taking billions of years! Wow, talk about a faith based statement. Given enough time, anything is possible.
To dismiss my little argument (and also Dr. Behe's) as being comparable to disbelief in tectonic plates because of a psalm then I'm sorry, brother but you are not hearing the argument to begin with.
I highly recommend Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box", which is not a treatise on creationism, but rather an excellent work that will have you saying to neo-darwinists: "You have some 'splaining to do."
Carl Sagan is said to have said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
I say amen. It's double edged sword Carl.
I agree that philosophical materialism seems to be all the rage, if for no other reason that it gives one the illusion of not really having to deal with the rather thorny metaphysics of personality, consciousness, freedom of the will, ethics, and so on.
What would happen to the discussion if some of the paramount Orthodox distinctions came into play? I'm talking about the absolute disjunction between uncreated and created being, for example. THIS is what ex nihilo creation really means, and it's really the only key to appreciating the Incarnation for what it is: The union (without confusion) of the Uncreated and the Created. Another key Orthodox distinctive is that between essence, persons, and energies in God.
The distinction is NOT between nature and supernature, but between God and EVERYTHING else. Once we realize that we can truly participate in God via His uncreated energies, which exist IN creation without being merged with it, and thus are not merely experiencing God symbolically, virtually, or via "created" graces, we're on the only road to understanding creation rightly in the first place. Because God transcends even His own essence, He can really make Himself a participator, and therefore WE in turn can become participants. But that won't happen merely by thinking the right thoughts, nor by excoriating those who express wrong one.