NationStates Jolt Archive

I got bored so wrote an essay. Enjoy.

Evolution, God and Me
A Short Essay by Huw Lemmey

"Never were so many facts explained by so few assumptions. Not only does the Darwinian Theory command superabundant power to explain. Its economy in doing so has a sinewy elegance, a poetic beauty that outclasses even the most haunting of the world's origin myths... ... There is more beauty in Mitochondrial Eve than in her mythological namesake"

"Theologians worry away at the 'problem of evil' and a related 'problem of suffering.' ON the day I originally wrote this paragraph, the British newspapers all carried a terrible story about a bus of children from a Roman Catholic school that crashed for no obvious reason, with wholesale loss of life. Not for the first time, clerics were in paroxysms over the theological question that a writer on a London newspaper ( The Sunday Telegraph) framed this way: 'How can you believe in a loving, all powerful God who allows such a tragedy?' The article went on to quote one priest's reply: 'The simple answer is that we do not know why there should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe was just elctrons, there would be no problem of evil and suffering.'
On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. AS that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

Both quotes are from Richard Dawkins- God's Utility Function.
My next few self-pitying paragraphs make more sense if you've read Dawkins, but a basic knowledge in evolution and selfish genes will suffice.




Acceptance of evolution is hindered by one thing- fear of the lack of after-life. To accept that we are merely gene carriers means we must accept that we have no pre-destined 'life path' mapped out for us by God means we must map out our own life, accept their own decisions, and thier own faliures and mistakes. We must accept that we are not a 'chosen species', merely a tiny, insignificant individual in a tiny, insignificant species. We have no quest, no role, no purpose, no use, no meaning. There is no point to us as individuals, except as containers for genes fighting for their own survival. I can see how scary this is.


Take a person out of their historical, cultural, religious and social context, take them away from the notion of death being the end, and their logical thought processes will lead them to conclude that the Theory of Evolution is obvious, evidential and logical. This wont neccessarily lead them to athiesm, but it will lead them to a rejection of Biblical teachings. For a person whose moral code, life pattern, social life and theological safety net is all in this book, to be forced to accept that it is flawed is to mean that the person has to question ALL the teachings of the Bible.
To overturn ones belief structure,to have to re-examine all one holds sacred is just too much for someone who is so ingrained in societies religion. It'd mean changing ones life, if only for a little while.
This is why its easier to blindly not believe, to not analyse ones beliefs, than it is to accept what is logical and supported by evidence. Its easier to blindly argue, and to condemn those with opposite viewpoints, than to question ones own. This is why it is vital to make all people thoroughly analyse and dissect their whole social and religious belief structure before they are too 'dug in' to a social setting. The best age for this- the late teenage years/ early 20s. For this is the only time when we are able to have free and rebellious thoughts. Even if you are too stuck into your socio-religoius context to question your beliefs, please, strive to make sure your children question it all. Its the best thing a parent can do. And then accept whatever conclusions they make. Offer them your viewpoint,by all means. But offer them other views, and let them choose.

I don't expect you to agree, and I can't blame you for your belief in God. I wish I believed in God. My life is full of torment, pain and depression because I believe in evolution not Creation. I see most Christians are far more content, happy, successful and joyful than me. I blame this on the nihlistic consequences of my belief in Evolution (and the fact I'm 17 and gay). I wish I could go back, but I can't. Its much like a complex Father Christmas. When you're a child, you believe. When you weigh up the evidence, you come the conclusion that hey, there is no Father Christmas. Its just some dumb drunk tramp in a suit. And you gain more knowledge, you understand the world better. But theres always a part of you that wishes you still believed, and in times of torment, grief and pain (or Christmas Eve in Father Christmas' case) you are tempted even more to believe, and sometimes, you can slip back into those beliefs. I wish I could. I wish I still believed.


I still find Evolution beautiful.

not too shabby. i agree with a lot of it, though my life certainly isn't full of pain simply because i refuse to delude myself into a false belief in the supernatural...sure, life is harder without that security blanket, but i think it is far more rewarding and valuable to me.

Most inciteful, defenetly a joy to read in comparision to the mind numbingly annoying debunking thread!
However you shouldn't look on it as a bad thing, we're free of the insanity that is religion we do things for the good of ourselves, and those that we care about. For some that is just a single person or prehaps people they have never met.
I'm not exactly the happiest kid on Earth 23 single and somewhere between goth - cyberpunk and heavy metaler (very annoyed when I was at school I was the only none standard kid now for my lil brother it's all the range *shrugs*). Much of life sucks, but we live it for those happy moments that oh so must be out there!
I find my lack of religious feavour empowering it allows me to analyse the universe from a far more interesting detached philosphical view point and escape the rabid tribal nature of mankind! We're free where as so many are trapped by their own fear....

In an uncharacterstic moment of hippydom I had a "revelation" last night. I realised that all life marches in time and that when tragedy happens it is because it was unavoidable in terms of the larger destiny of the world.

Then I realised I was thinking crap and went back to my base, unspirtual money driven world. :wink:

not too shabby. i agree with a lot of it, though my life certainly isn't full of pain simply because i refuse to delude myself into a false belief in the supernatural...sure, life is harder without that security blanket, but i think it is far more rewarding and valuable to me.

Cheers. I agree, its harder, but more rewarding. After all, when religion says that all good comes from God, and all evil comes from Human free will- well, its hardly a cheery message. At least when I succeed in life, I know its because I have got their (unless its some random piece of good fortune).

Most inciteful, defenetly a joy to read in comparision to the mind numbingly annoying debunking thread!
Thanks. I hope you mean insightful, not inciteful, though :?

The thing that really gets people sucked into religion is the cosmic heeby-geebies- you know, the flags and songs and visions and passions and miracles and shrines. Its the same reason people like Fascism and Communism- it looks damn cool. I think its up to people to convince people how truely beautiful Darwinism is. So much simplicity explains so much complexity so truthfully. What we have come from, where we are going.

Truth is Beauty, my friends.

Of course, Ignorance is Bliss
:?

Bravo, bravo, bravo, a very enjoyable read and i would like to suggest that it be put in the archive and would like to ask for permission to repost it onto another forum for my BF42 clan, to read, with full dignities and acknowledgments for you.

happy days and once again, bravo to you 8)

This is a funny conversation. (Most people always say i have a twisted sense of humor.)

If god exists he has a cynical sense of humor.

OK, just two things.

1. Why *believe* in evolution? It's like believing in the postman. It just is. It's a good working hypothesis for how the world is the way it is today. It is metaphysically neutral. (Which is one of the reasons I think Dawkins is a dickhead. He's as bad as the rabid fundamentalists on the other side).

2. Please do not equate Creationism with Christianity. There are those of us who accept evolution and think that Creationists are misguided.

All right, I lied. 3 things.

3. A *Christian* faith (I'm being carefully explicit here. I mean Christian faith, not religion, not another flavour of faith) that depends on Creationism triumphing over evolutionary theory is no faith at all. Christian faith is based on Knowledge of Christ Jesus. Which nicely sidesteps the whole question of proof, but wait: It's like . . . me saying I'm married, and you saying 'prove it'.

I could show you pictures, I could show you a post from her - but you can claim they're faked.

Until you meet my wife, I can't prove a thing. You have to take it on trust.

i agree with a lot of it, though my life certainly isn't full of pain simply because i refuse to delude myself into a false belief in the supernatural :D

But i'm here and real although even i don't beleive on all that god mumbo jumbo. Evolution is the only explanation for the platypus, no-one could have dreamed that up. I think that the free will to make up your own mind is the biggest freedom we have. my parents didn't like it when i said nah there is no god, but they had to accept it

Dear Pyreness,

I'm going to post later so keep watching this. I'd post now but the server is being all gay on me so I can't do it right now. If this topic disappaers or others start going crazy on it I'll just telegram you my thoughts.

OK, just two things.

1. Why *believe* in evolution? It's like believing in the postman. It just is. It's a good working hypothesis for how the world is the way it is today. It is metaphysically neutral. (Which is one of the reasons I think Dawkins is a dickhead. He's as bad as the rabid fundamentalists on the other side).


Because if someone says my post is delivered by Jaques Chirac, then calls me evil for denying it, then starts a religion and persecutes me for it, I feel I have a right to tell them I think my postman delivers my post. As for Dawkins- so he believes in something passionately. He loves his subject. Don't blame him for it.




2. Please do not equate Creationism with Christianity. There are those of us who accept evolution and think that Creationists are misguided.


I'm sorry, my mistake. Although God fits in with my piece.


All right, I lied. 3 things.

3. A *Christian* faith (I'm being carefully explicit here. I mean Christian faith, not religion, not another flavour of faith) that depends on Creationism triumphing over evolutionary theory is no faith at all. Christian faith is based on Knowledge of Christ Jesus. Which nicely sidesteps the whole question of proof, but wait: It's like . . . me saying I'm married, and you saying 'prove it'.

I could show you pictures, I could show you a post from her - but you can claim they're faked.

Until you meet my wife, I can't prove a thing. You have to take it on trust.

But you aren't claiming your wife was sent my God by virgin birth to save us for our sins. And if I wanted to, I could meet your wife.

Bravo, bravo, bravo, a very enjoyable read and i would like to suggest that it be put in the archive and would like to ask for permission to repost it onto another forum for my BF42 clan, to read, with full dignities and acknowledgments for you.

happy days and once again, bravo to you 8)

Sure, and thanks. Just telegram me the link :D

Good to read, and close to my own views (though personally I'm Daoist rather than Christian, and evolution fits rather snugly into Daoism anyway). I spent quite some time last night examining the facile, blinkered arguments in the creation-science sites, taking them to bits, and then throwing up my hands in despair at creationist recalcitrance and deleting the draft. Nice to see someone came up with a better approach.

Good to read, and close to my own views (though personally I'm Daoist rather than Christian, and evolution fits rather snugly into Daoism anyway). I spent quite some time last night examining the facile, blinkered arguments in the creation-science sites, taking them to bits, and then throwing up my hands in despair at creationist recalcitrance and deleting the draft. Nice to see someone came up with a better approach.

The thing that irritates me is when they try to destroy the evolution argument with science, when they don't subject their own argument to the same scrutiny.

Well, if we're talking about Christianity here, the Bible does not claim that there will be no strife on earth. Quite the contrary, the Bible tells all of its followers that they will face a lot of horrible, horrible tragedy. Next time anyone wants to debate against Christianity, try to actually learn its teaching instead of basing things on cultural stereotypes.

Well, if we're talking about Christianity here, the Bible does not claim that there will be no strife on earth. Quite the contrary, the Bible tells all of its followers that they will face a lot of horrible, horrible tragedy. Next time anyone wants to debate against Christianity, try to actually learn its teaching instead of basing things on cultural stereotypes.

:roll:
Thats right, it was based on stereotypes. Did you even read it?

Because if someone says my post is delivered by Jaques Chirac, then calls me evil for denying it, then starts a religion and persecutes me for it, I feel I have a right to tell them I think my postman delivers my post.


Of course if your post is delivered by Jacques Chirac then you look a little silly ;)

And it doesn't excuse the persecution, etc.


As for Dawkins- so he believes in something passionately. He loves his subject. Don't blame him for it.


s/Dawkins/$CREATIONIST/ and get back to me.

Seriously, he does his cause a lot of harm by making it a 'religious' issue.

And he and you fall into the same trap - the strawman argument beloved of evolutionists - let's call them fundamentalist evolutionists - that if we can find a way of explaining how we're here we don't need the idea of God. But faith doesn't start with that as a question anyway. Religion(s) do(es), but faith comes from a revelation.

Bottom line: it's not worth the hassle, this argument. Really. I've been a Christian for 19 years and a professional scientist for 13. There is more heat than light in this box.

Yeah I know it's frustrating. I feel your pain: I work with computational biologists who get excited because they rediscover evolutionary theory every day. As if the fossil record is in doubt . . .


But you aren't claiming your wife was sent my God by virgin birth to save us for our sins. And if I wanted to, I could meet your wife.

Okay, so now you're learning the advantage of being able to discern the limits of simile and metaphor. That's very useful in discussions such as this. ;)


Peace,

A thoughtful essay, and well worth reading.

However, I'm not sure that being without God is a source of pain in itself. For me, when I was young and a strongly believing Christian, I was terrified of death. That faded with time, and now I'm not religious and (by your standard's :wink: ) old, I have no problem with the idea.

For me it's more about having a purpose in life, even if it means creating your own. If you can set or accept standards for yourself that you can believe in, and meet them; then, in my experience, the existentialist pain will not be there. (Assuming that the world behaves and doesn't kick you in the teeth, which of course happens.)

Because if someone says my post is delivered by Jaques Chirac, then calls me evil for denying it, then starts a religion and persecutes me for it, I feel I have a right to tell them I think my postman delivers my post.


Of course if your post is delivered by Jacques Chirac then you look a little silly ;)

And it doesn't excuse the persecution, etc.


I would. Except all evidence points to my postman being a really cute guy who lives near my newsagents, not Jaques Chirac.



As for Dawkins- so he believes in something passionately. He loves his subject. Don't blame him for it.


s/Dawkins/$CREATIONIST/ and get back to me.

Seriously, he does his cause a lot of harm by making it a 'religious' issue.

And he and you fall into the same trap - the strawman argument beloved of evolutionists - let's call them fundamentalist evolutionists - that if we can find a way of explaining how we're here we don't need the idea of God. But faith doesn't start with that as a question anyway. Religion(s) do(es), but faith comes from a revelation.


I'd say the 'why' question is high up on Faiths FAQ sheet, evolution theory offers an answer just like religion does. Just people choose not to believe evolutions, because a) Its still a theory, in the 'maybe, who knows' sense, so thats fair enough, and b) the theory is 'there is no why'.

Read Gods Utility Function by Dawkins.



But you aren't claiming your wife was sent my God by virgin birth to save us for our sins. And if I wanted to, I could meet your wife.

Okay, so now you're learning the advantage of being able to discern the limits of simile and metaphor. That's very useful in discussions such as this. ;)


Peace,

Yup. I realise as a 17 year old I'm damn naive, but I'm glad to get into a discussion like this based in fact and not the same old slanging match.


I feel I should add some more thoughts to my first post.



Belief in a theory does not imply support for it. In religion, if one 'believes' Christianity, Islam etc, it is assumed they also support the beliefs of that religion. I've yet to find someone who believes in an Omnipotent, omnipresent God yet fights him consciously. A common accusation and something of a strawman fallacy fired against Darwinists is that of social Darwinism- that is, because I believe in Darwins theories, I support their outcome, their triumph and indeed wish to hurry those outcomes along. Many early Darwinists DID support social Darwinism- HG Wells, for example, in 'The New Republic'.
Indeed, I feel quite the opposite. Though I totally reject Christian mythological belief, I support the way it encourages one to behave. Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek etc. All good ways to treat fellow humans. I also think that we should act as if there is some divine judgement to be rained on me if I should do wrong (subjective as that word is).
Just because survival of the fittest is how I believe we evolve, I don't think these actions are pleasant or should be encouraged. Indeed, we fight evolution every time we use contraception.
The irony of this situation doesn't escape me. As I support the actions religion Should make us do, I do no support their reasons for it. Many religious people take the opposite view. Whilst totally rejecting Darwins theories, they encourage it totally with 'survival of the fittest' political beliefs, Catholic views on contraception etc.
I think a world run by 'S.O.T.F' standards would be appalling. The things humans enjoy most are things that do not survive- music and art, for example. Survival of the fittest can encourage racism, religion can encourage beauty. This does not make religion's beliefs correct and Darwins incorrect. This is the very reason we create religion.
Hmm, not sure what conclusions we can draw from this. It certainly is not hypocrisy- it is, as Dawkins says, like understanding cancer yet deploring its effects.

I don't give a hoot about any afterlife, it would be a relief to just crumble into the good earth.

But I care about the ground of my being, and that makes me a religious person.

I believe that if we were not something more than mechanisms for survival we would not feel any grief over such as tragedy as the one described.

Innocent suffering should trouble each of us deeply; if it does not, we are seriously lacking.

Just as you say religious folk set up a straw-man argument in social darwinism (which I feel is still a real and present danger, especially in the new era of genetics), so do rationalists det up a straw-god by demanding that the deity be all-powerful and all-loving and then proving how inconsistent this is.

Of course it's inconsistent. It's also bad theology.

I serve a suffering, vulnerable God, who promises me not victory or dominance or power but companionship, truth, and peace. Not when I die, but right now.

Dear Pyrenees,

May I first commend you on an EXCELLENT post. A very well thought out work of your own and not a simple link of some obscure individual. That said, i do however "disagree" with you. Or believe your thesis lacks to be fully developed. you said

"Take a person out of their historical, cultural, religious and social context, take them away from the notion of death being the end, and their logical thought processes will lead them to conclude that the Theory of Evolution is obvious, evidential and logical."

But without those very factors the "person" is not a person at all. If human beings were not social creatures or were more primative this argument of a pure scientific method logic may work, but humanity and the world is MUCH more dynamic than is comprehensible. And our study of history, religion, culture, and even science are a fraction of what exists. Deitys or theology should be looked and accepted much like the knowledge of the atom...we know it exists, but by our own natural senses have no way of proving it (see forementioned marriage example). As for "Paths", you neglect the universal butterfly theory. That things happen not because some God is sitting on a pedistal and pushing buttons, but instead, that the things that happen must happen for everything else to happen. And to know how EVERYTHING can,does, and will react is what divinity is. Knowing every cause and effect is God. *Think Groundhog Day with Bill Murray* Creationism is merely a tool of the inevitable. and as for right and wrong...

My actions are not the result of religious obligation, but universal necessity which is divine in and of itself.

Tate
The Commonwealth of the Good Old Boys

But I care about the ground of my being, and that makes me a religious person.

I believe that if we were not something more than mechanisms for survival we would not feel any grief over such as tragedy as the one described.

Innocent suffering should trouble each of us deeply; if it does not, we are seriously lacking.

Just as you say religious folk set up a straw-man argument in social darwinism (which I feel is still a real and present danger, especially in the new era of genetics), so do rationalists det up a straw-god by demanding that the deity be all-powerful and all-loving and then proving how inconsistent this is.

Of course it's inconsistent. It's also bad theology.

I serve a suffering, vulnerable God, who promises me not victory or dominance or power but companionship, truth, and peace. Not when I die, but right now.

Sounds good. I would say the bizarre thing about humans is for the first time in evolutionary history, we've actaully manage to develop consciousness of it.
Dobzhansky said
"In giving rise to man, the evolutionary process has, apparantly for the first and only time in the history of the cosmos, become conscious of itself"


Thats not relevant, just scary. Perhaps shows why I think we've created religions for ourselves.
I don't really have a problem with your concept of God. It seems as much a rational belief as mine, and seen as there is no evidence for or against it, and it doesn't people more good than harm, whats the problem? Unfortunately, you're in a minority amongst religious types.

A quibble:
Take a person out of their historical, cultural, religious and social context, take them away from the notion of death being the end, and their logical thought processes will lead them to conclude that the Theory of Evolution is obvious, evidential and logical.
Not necessarily, it depends on which historical, cultural, religious, and social context you put them into. A person that doesn't have such a context is so damaged that they will not conclude anything about the Theory of Evolution. There are cultural axioms and theorems that underlie the logical thought processes that make the Theory of Evolution lobvious, evidential and logical.

A passing thought from Pyrenees' earlier post: don't conflate survival of the fittest with `nature red in tooth and claw'.

I think it's generally accepted now that fittest in this context means `most fit for purpose'. That is, that the reason for our success as a species is not just our intellectual ability or ability to manipulate tools and weapons, but also our qualities of compassion, altruism, aesthetic sensabilities &c. As I understand it, the evolutionary explanation for religion is precisely its socially cohesive aspect.

To take the specific example of contraception: I would see this in evolutionary terms as controlling fertility by preventing inappropriate pregnancies, at the individual level, but with long-term benefits at the society level (cf falling family sizes in `advanced' societies). Animals do it too, for example kangaroos re-absorb their joeys in times of drought, thus maximising the chances of survival of the parent for better times ahead.

Pretty decent post. I'd like to say that I AM AN ATHEIST. It means that I don't believe in God or any of that other supernatural supersticious crap.

Having said that, I'd like to point out that you claimed to me miserable because you believe in evolution (and maybe because you're gay). I think you're feeling teenage angst. I think most of us went through it at one time or another. Experience, knowledge, and wisdom will help it pass.

I'd like to make one point regarding the evolution/creation debate. Science usually says "we aren't really sure yet, but this is what we belive." Science usually readily admits it if something is an unknown.

When people try to tell me that evolution isn't completely proven - that there are still questions - I ask them why it's so important to have everything in a nice pretty box with a little bow on it? Why is the explanation of everything so important that we have to rely on "knowledge" that's thousands of years old? Not much from that long ago has stood up to scientific scrutiny. And if it's so important that everything be explained, then I still would like to know who created God.

So much for my little addition to this post.

-Dave

A passing thought from Pyrenees' earlier post: don't conflate survival of the fittest with `nature red in tooth and claw'.

I think it's generally accepted now that fittest in this context means `most fit for purpose'. That is, that the reason for our success as a species is not just our intellectual ability or ability to manipulate tools and weapons, but also our qualities of compassion, altruism, aesthetic sensabilities &c. As I understand it, the evolutionary explanation for religion is precisely its socially cohesive aspect.

To take the specific example of contraception: I would see this in evolutionary terms as controlling fertility by preventing inappropriate pregnancies, at the individual level, but with long-term benefits at the society level (cf falling family sizes in `advanced' societies). Animals do it too, for example kangaroos re-absorb their joeys in times of drought, thus maximising the chances of survival of the parent for better times ahead.

Re-absorb their joeys? Wow....

Stuff like that is the icing on the cake as far as 'Benevolent God' argument goes. The other one is the digger wasp, which paralyses a caterpillar so it is alive, totally feeling and, most importantly, warm, then lays it larvae in it. This was the larve have fresh, living meat to eat. The caterpillar is therefore aware of itself being eaten to death from the inside out..... gross....

I know there are lots of points making me pissed off- being a teenager, being gay in a very right-wing area of Britain, mother dying etc, I wasn't saying athiesm was the sole cause, just sometimes I'd live to have the comfort blanket of religion. I just have to take advantage of the comfort blanket of knowledge (and patronising fundamentalists :P). I have to say, living in the Lake District, I find evolution so incredibly beautiful, and the destruction is all part of that wonder.

It wasn't a scientific thesis I was writing, rather a musing on my relationship with evolution, religion and science. Hence the title.

Just wanted to get it off my chest, if it made anyone think for a second, all the better.

*double post*

What a shame, that such a well-spoken youth has CHOSEN to abandon hope, not to mention abandoning ANY chance for survival of his genes.
It may serve you well to remember that the Father Christmas you so carelessly portray as a drunken tramp actually should represent the love
between a parent and child. One that you will never experience from the parenting end. As for justice, consider that, for instance, if someone were to harm my child, I most CERTAINLY could exact justice upon that individual. Justice, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder.
The truth is you CAN go back...





I got bored so wrote an essay. Enjoy.

Evolution, God and Me
A Short Essay by Huw Lemmey

"Never were so many facts explained by so few assumptions. Not only does the Darwinian Theory command superabundant power to explain. Its economy in doing so has a sinewy elegance, a poetic beauty that outclasses even the most haunting of the world's origin myths... ... There is more beauty in Mitochondrial Eve than in her mythological namesake"

"Theologians worry away at the 'problem of evil' and a related 'problem of suffering.' ON the day I originally wrote this paragraph, the British newspapers all carried a terrible story about a bus of children from a Roman Catholic school that crashed for no obvious reason, with wholesale loss of life. Not for the first time, clerics were in paroxysms over the theological question that a writer on a London newspaper ( The Sunday Telegraph) framed this way: 'How can you believe in a loving, all powerful God who allows such a tragedy?' The article went on to quote one priest's reply: 'The simple answer is that we do not know why there should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe was just elctrons, there would be no problem of evil and suffering.'
On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. AS that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

Both quotes are from Richard Dawkins- God's Utility Function.
My next few self-pitying paragraphs make more sense if you've read Dawkins, but a basic knowledge in evolution and selfish genes will suffice.




Acceptance of evolution is hindered by one thing- fear of the lack of after-life. To accept that we are merely gene carriers means we must accept that we have no pre-destined 'life path' mapped out for us by God means we must map out our own life, accept their own decisions, and thier own faliures and mistakes. We must accept that we are not a 'chosen species', merely a tiny, insignificant individual in a tiny, insignificant species. We have no quest, no role, no purpose, no use, no meaning. There is no point to us as individuals, except as containers for genes fighting for their own survival. I can see how scary this is.


Take a person out of their historical, cultural, religious and social context, take them away from the notion of death being the end, and their logical thought processes will lead them to conclude that the Theory of Evolution is obvious, evidential and logical. This wont neccessarily lead them to athiesm, but it will lead them to a rejection of Biblical teachings. For a person whose moral code, life pattern, social life and theological safety net is all in this book, to be forced to accept that it is flawed is to mean that the person has to question ALL the teachings of the Bible.
To overturn ones belief structure,to have to re-examine all one holds sacred is just too much for someone who is so ingrained in societies religion. It'd mean changing ones life, if only for a little while.
This is why its easier to blindly not believe, to not analyse ones beliefs, than it is to accept what is logical and supported by evidence. Its easier to blindly argue, and to condemn those with opposite viewpoints, than to question ones own. This is why it is vital to make all people thoroughly analyse and dissect their whole social and religious belief structure before they are too 'dug in' to a social setting. The best age for this- the late teenage years/ early 20s. For this is the only time when we are able to have free and rebellious thoughts. Even if you are too stuck into your socio-religoius context to question your beliefs, please, strive to make sure your children question it all. Its the best thing a parent can do. And then accept whatever conclusions they make. Offer them your viewpoint,by all means. But offer them other views, and let them choose.

I don't expect you to agree, and I can't blame you for your belief in God. I wish I believed in God. My life is full of torment, pain and depression because I believe in evolution not Creation. I see most Christians are far more content, happy, successful and joyful than me. I blame this on the nihlistic consequences of my belief in Evolution (and the fact I'm 17 and gay). I wish I could go back, but I can't. Its much like a complex Father Christmas. When you're a child, you believe. When you weigh up the evidence, you come the conclusion that hey, there is no Father Christmas. Its just some dumb drunk tramp in a suit. And you gain more knowledge, you understand the world better. But theres always a part of you that wishes you still believed, and in times of torment, grief and pain (or Christmas Eve in Father Christmas' case) you are tempted even more to believe, and sometimes, you can slip back into those beliefs. I wish I could. I wish I still believed.


I still find Evolution beautiful.

What a shame, that such a well-spoken youth has CHOSEN to abandon hope, not to mention abandoning ANY chance for survival of his genes.
It may serve you well to remember that the Father Christmas you so carelessly portray as a drunken tramp actually should represent the love
between a parent and child. One that you will never experience from the parenting end. As for justice, consider that, for instance, if someone were to harm my child, I most CERTAINLY could exact justice upon that individual. Justice, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder.
The truth is you CAN go back...





I got bored so wrote an essay. Enjoy.

Evolution, God and Me
A Short Essay by Huw Lemmey

"Never were so many facts explained by so few assumptions. Not only does the Darwinian Theory command superabundant power to explain. Its economy in doing so has a sinewy elegance, a poetic beauty that outclasses even the most haunting of the world's origin myths... ... There is more beauty in Mitochondrial Eve than in her mythological namesake"

"Theologians worry away at the 'problem of evil' and a related 'problem of suffering.' ON the day I originally wrote this paragraph, the British newspapers all carried a terrible story about a bus of children from a Roman Catholic school that crashed for no obvious reason, with wholesale loss of life. Not for the first time, clerics were in paroxysms over the theological question that a writer on a London newspaper ( The Sunday Telegraph) framed this way: 'How can you believe in a loving, all powerful God who allows such a tragedy?' The article went on to quote one priest's reply: 'The simple answer is that we do not know why there should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe was just elctrons, there would be no problem of evil and suffering.'
On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. AS that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

Both quotes are from Richard Dawkins- God's Utility Function.
My next few self-pitying paragraphs make more sense if you've read Dawkins, but a basic knowledge in evolution and selfish genes will suffice.




Acceptance of evolution is hindered by one thing- fear of the lack of after-life. To accept that we are merely gene carriers means we must accept that we have no pre-destined 'life path' mapped out for us by God means we must map out our own life, accept their own decisions, and thier own faliures and mistakes. We must accept that we are not a 'chosen species', merely a tiny, insignificant individual in a tiny, insignificant species. We have no quest, no role, no purpose, no use, no meaning. There is no point to us as individuals, except as containers for genes fighting for their own survival. I can see how scary this is.


Take a person out of their historical, cultural, religious and social context, take them away from the notion of death being the end, and their logical thought processes will lead them to conclude that the Theory of Evolution is obvious, evidential and logical. This wont neccessarily lead them to athiesm, but it will lead them to a rejection of Biblical teachings. For a person whose moral code, life pattern, social life and theological safety net is all in this book, to be forced to accept that it is flawed is to mean that the person has to question ALL the teachings of the Bible.
To overturn ones belief structure,to have to re-examine all one holds sacred is just too much for someone who is so ingrained in societies religion. It'd mean changing ones life, if only for a little while.
This is why its easier to blindly not believe, to not analyse ones beliefs, than it is to accept what is logical and supported by evidence. Its easier to blindly argue, and to condemn those with opposite viewpoints, than to question ones own. This is why it is vital to make all people thoroughly analyse and dissect their whole social and religious belief structure before they are too 'dug in' to a social setting. The best age for this- the late teenage years/ early 20s. For this is the only time when we are able to have free and rebellious thoughts. Even if you are too stuck into your socio-religoius context to question your beliefs, please, strive to make sure your children question it all. Its the best thing a parent can do. And then accept whatever conclusions they make. Offer them your viewpoint,by all means. But offer them other views, and let them choose.

I don't expect you to agree, and I can't blame you for your belief in God. I wish I believed in God. My life is full of torment, pain and depression because I believe in evolution not Creation. I see most Christians are far more content, happy, successful and joyful than me. I blame this on the nihlistic consequences of my belief in Evolution (and the fact I'm 17 and gay). I wish I could go back, but I can't. Its much like a complex Father Christmas. When you're a child, you believe. When you weigh up the evidence, you come the conclusion that hey, there is no Father Christmas. Its just some dumb drunk tramp in a suit. And you gain more knowledge, you understand the world better. But theres always a part of you that wishes you still believed, and in times of torment, grief and pain (or Christmas Eve in Father Christmas' case) you are tempted even more to believe, and sometimes, you can slip back into those beliefs. I wish I could. I wish I still believed.


I still find Evolution beautiful.

What a shame, that such a well-spoken youth has CHOSEN to abandon hope, not to mention abandoning ANY chance for survival of his genes.
It may serve you well to remember that the Father Christmas you so carelessly portray as a drunken tramp actually should represent the love
between a parent and child. One that you will never experience from the parenting end. As for justice, consider that, for instance, if someone were to harm my child, I most CERTAINLY could exact justice upon that individual. Justice, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder.
The truth is you CAN go back...





I got bored so wrote an essay. Enjoy.

Evolution, God and Me
A Short Essay by Huw Lemmey

"Never were so many facts explained by so few assumptions. Not only does the Darwinian Theory command superabundant power to explain. Its economy in doing so has a sinewy elegance, a poetic beauty that outclasses even the most haunting of the world's origin myths... ... There is more beauty in Mitochondrial Eve than in her mythological namesake"

"Theologians worry away at the 'problem of evil' and a related 'problem of suffering.' ON the day I originally wrote this paragraph, the British newspapers all carried a terrible story about a bus of children from a Roman Catholic school that crashed for no obvious reason, with wholesale loss of life. Not for the first time, clerics were in paroxysms over the theological question that a writer on a London newspaper ( The Sunday Telegraph) framed this way: 'How can you believe in a loving, all powerful God who allows such a tragedy?' The article went on to quote one priest's reply: 'The simple answer is that we do not know why there should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe was just elctrons, there would be no problem of evil and suffering.'
On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. AS that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

Both quotes are from Richard Dawkins- God's Utility Function.
My next few self-pitying paragraphs make more sense if you've read Dawkins, but a basic knowledge in evolution and selfish genes will suffice.




Acceptance of evolution is hindered by one thing- fear of the lack of after-life. To accept that we are merely gene carriers means we must accept that we have no pre-destined 'life path' mapped out for us by God means we must map out our own life, accept their own decisions, and thier own faliures and mistakes. We must accept that we are not a 'chosen species', merely a tiny, insignificant individual in a tiny, insignificant species. We have no quest, no role, no purpose, no use, no meaning. There is no point to us as individuals, except as containers for genes fighting for their own survival. I can see how scary this is.


Take a person out of their historical, cultural, religious and social context, take them away from the notion of death being the end, and their logical thought processes will lead them to conclude that the Theory of Evolution is obvious, evidential and logical. This wont neccessarily lead them to athiesm, but it will lead them to a rejection of Biblical teachings. For a person whose moral code, life pattern, social life and theological safety net is all in this book, to be forced to accept that it is flawed is to mean that the person has to question ALL the teachings of the Bible.
To overturn ones belief structure,to have to re-examine all one holds sacred is just too much for someone who is so ingrained in societies religion. It'd mean changing ones life, if only for a little while.
This is why its easier to blindly not believe, to not analyse ones beliefs, than it is to accept what is logical and supported by evidence. Its easier to blindly argue, and to condemn those with opposite viewpoints, than to question ones own. This is why it is vital to make all people thoroughly analyse and dissect their whole social and religious belief structure before they are too 'dug in' to a social setting. The best age for this- the late teenage years/ early 20s. For this is the only time when we are able to have free and rebellious thoughts. Even if you are too stuck into your socio-religoius context to question your beliefs, please, strive to make sure your children question it all. Its the best thing a parent can do. And then accept whatever conclusions they make. Offer them your viewpoint,by all means. But offer them other views, and let them choose.

I don't expect you to agree, and I can't blame you for your belief in God. I wish I believed in God. My life is full of torment, pain and depression because I believe in evolution not Creation. I see most Christians are far more content, happy, successful and joyful than me. I blame this on the nihlistic consequences of my belief in Evolution (and the fact I'm 17 and gay). I wish I could go back, but I can't. Its much like a complex Father Christmas. When you're a child, you believe. When you weigh up the evidence, you come the conclusion that hey, there is no Father Christmas. Its just some dumb drunk tramp in a suit. And you gain more knowledge, you understand the world better. But theres always a part of you that wishes you still believed, and in times of torment, grief and pain (or Christmas Eve in Father Christmas' case) you are tempted even more to believe, and sometimes, you can slip back into those beliefs. I wish I could. I wish I still believed.


I still find Evolution beautiful.

What a shame, that such a well-spoken youth has CHOSEN to abandon hope, not to mention abandoning ANY chance for survival of his genes.
It may serve you well to remember that the Father Christmas you so carelessly portray as a drunken tramp actually should represent the love
between a parent and child. One that you will never experience from the parenting end. As for justice, consider that, for instance, if someone were to harm my child, I most CERTAINLY could exact justice upon that individual. Justice, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder.
The truth is you CAN go back...





I got bored so wrote an essay. Enjoy.

Evolution, God and Me
A Short Essay by Huw Lemmey

"Never were so many facts explained by so few assumptions. Not only does the Darwinian Theory command superabundant power to explain. Its economy in doing so has a sinewy elegance, a poetic beauty that outclasses even the most haunting of the world's origin myths... ... There is more beauty in Mitochondrial Eve than in her mythological namesake"

"Theologians worry away at the 'problem of evil' and a related 'problem of suffering.' ON the day I originally wrote this paragraph, the British newspapers all carried a terrible story about a bus of children from a Roman Catholic school that crashed for no obvious reason, with wholesale loss of life. Not for the first time, clerics were in paroxysms over the theological question that a writer on a London newspaper ( The Sunday Telegraph) framed this way: 'How can you believe in a loving, all powerful God who allows such a tragedy?' The article went on to quote one priest's reply: 'The simple answer is that we do not know why there should be a God who lets these awful things happen. But the horror of the crash, to a Christian, confirms the fact that we live in a world of real values: positive and negative. If the universe was just elctrons, there would be no problem of evil and suffering.'
On the contrary, if the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies like the crashing of this bus are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention. It would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, others are going to get lucky, and you won't find rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. AS that unhappy poet A.E. Housman put it:

For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither care nor know.

DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

Both quotes are from Richard Dawkins- God's Utility Function.
My next few self-pitying paragraphs make more sense if you've read Dawkins, but a basic knowledge in evolution and selfish genes will suffice.




Acceptance of evolution is hindered by one thing- fear of the lack of after-life. To accept that we are merely gene carriers means we must accept that we have no pre-destined 'life path' mapped out for us by God means we must map out our own life, accept their own decisions, and thier own faliures and mistakes. We must accept that we are not a 'chosen species', merely a tiny, insignificant individual in a tiny, insignificant species. We have no quest, no role, no purpose, no use, no meaning. There is no point to us as individuals, except as containers for genes fighting for their own survival. I can see how scary this is.


Take a person out of their historical, cultural, religious and social context, take them away from the notion of death being the end, and their logical thought processes will lead them to conclude that the Theory of Evolution is obvious, evidential and logical. This wont neccessarily lead them to athiesm, but it will lead them to a rejection of Biblical teachings. For a person whose moral code, life pattern, social life and theological safety net is all in this book, to be forced to accept that it is flawed is to mean that the person has to question ALL the teachings of the Bible.
To overturn ones belief structure,to have to re-examine all one holds sacred is just too much for someone who is so ingrained in societies religion. It'd mean changing ones life, if only for a little while.
This is why its easier to blindly not believe, to not analyse ones beliefs, than it is to accept what is logical and supported by evidence. Its easier to blindly argue, and to condemn those with opposite viewpoints, than to question ones own. This is why it is vital to make all people thoroughly analyse and dissect their whole social and religious belief structure before they are too 'dug in' to a social setting. The best age for this- the late teenage years/ early 20s. For this is the only time when we are able to have free and rebellious thoughts. Even if you are too stuck into your socio-religoius context to question your beliefs, please, strive to make sure your children question it all. Its the best thing a parent can do. And then accept whatever conclusions they make. Offer them your viewpoint,by all means. But offer them other views, and let them choose.

I don't expect you to agree, and I can't blame you for your belief in God. I wish I believed in God. My life is full of torment, pain and depression because I believe in evolution not Creation. I see most Christians are far more content, happy, successful and joyful than me. I blame this on the nihlistic consequences of my belief in Evolution (and the fact I'm 17 and gay). I wish I could go back, but I can't. Its much like a complex Father Christmas. When you're a child, you believe. When you weigh up the evidence, you come the conclusion that hey, there is no Father Christmas. Its just some dumb drunk tramp in a suit. And you gain more knowledge, you understand the world better. But theres always a part of you that wishes you still believed, and in times of torment, grief and pain (or Christmas Eve in Father Christmas' case) you are tempted even more to believe, and sometimes, you can slip back into those beliefs. I wish I could. I wish I still believed.


I still find Evolution beautiful.

What a shame, that such a well-spoken youth has CHOSEN to abandon hope, not to mention abandoning ANY chance for survival of his genes.
It may serve you well to remember that the Father Christmas you so carelessly portray as a drunken tramp actually should represent the love
between a parent and child. One that you will never experience from the parenting end. As for justice, consider that, for instance, if someone were to harm my child, I most CERTAINLY could exact justice upon that individual. Justice, like beauty, is very much in the eye of the beholder.
The truth is you CAN go back...



What a shame someone is so self-righteous and patronising.
I never said I have abandoned hope. 'Hope' is a typical religious 'hurrah' word- a word that everyone agrees with (like 'Justice'), but all have different ideas about. In my opinion, giving up hope is giving up the idea that one day I'll be happy. Nowhere in my piece did I say I've given up that. If you define 'hope' as 'believing the same cosmic heebie geebies about eternal life as me', then yes, I've given up hope of that, and I'm proud. Its like hoping for Brad Pitt to fall out of a plane at my feet. Its a nice idea, but come on, its not gonna happen.

As for 'abonding a chance to let my genes sruvive'- surely my whole piece shows why this is a pointless idea anyway. The idea of procreating (or even loving) to preserve ones own genes is both pitifully instinctive and very selfish. My piece illustrates my belief that one day I'll be dead anyway, I don't care about my genes. Of course, thats not why you said it. Keep your petty homophobic prejudices to yourself, please.
A) Even if I was straight, I might not want/ be able to have children,
B) Even though I'm gay, I could still have children if I so wished.

As for your justice notion- although its irrelevant in the extreme to the debate on 'divine justice', it lays out my point properly. If someone harms your child, there is no divine justice that will make sure that that child grows up untraumatised.

I'm sickened at your patronising (and irrelevant) statement.

grr, double post, server issues.

While I'm here I'd like to add to my last post something else.

I can't go back, I'd like to, but given the chance after hearing you, I wouldn't. Although it must be nice to be as self-satisfied as you, I fear if I became religious I'd become like you, and the world has enough of people like you. Such ungentlemanly/ unladylike behaviour.

Pray tell, what is so "gentlemanly" about a mislead homosexual who can string together clever words? Or perhaps you were going for "ladylike" all the while...
Homophobic? That would imply fear, and I would not be afraid even if you arrived in an armored tank.
God willing (relevant, even to you, despite your misconceptions) you and your ilk will not procreate.
I never claimed "divine justice" would guarantee anything, let alone protection from "trauma" (victim type mentality word which you used).
However, I myself could exact an extremely satisfying justice, even upon you. Oh, but since I am a man, you may enjoy that.







grr, double post, server issues.

While I'm here I'd like to add to my last post something else.

I can't go back, I'd like to, but given the chance after hearing you, I wouldn't. Although it must be nice to be as self-satisfied as you, I fear if I became religious I'd become like you, and the world has enough of people like you. Such ungentlemanly/ unladylike behaviour.

Gosh, I guess at some point all metaphysical threads on this board turn into something nasty. That's upsetting, but I guess such is the way of the world.

Very nice essay, Pyr. I don't agree with your basic assumptions, but I salute you for questioning and being honest about your fears. Only by asking questions can we achieve understanding and empathy. I think that is very "gentlemanly", Sector 13, the willingness to question basic assumptions and live with the knowledge. While I don't want to trivialize your upset, I do think it may have something to do with the teenage angst many of us go through and, with luck, survive. I would also suggest you not completely base your entire world view on the works of Richard Dawkins. I've noticed a tendency for you to quote him heavily and, while Dawkins is a fascinating theorist and a readable author, his work in no way represents mainstream scientific thought. I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't read him, just you might want to try mixing it up a little. Read some Gould and ignore Sector 13's extremely fey ranting.

I would also suggest you not completely base your entire world view on the works of Richard Dawkins. I've noticed a tendency for you to quote him heavily and, while Dawkins is a fascinating theorist and a readable author, his work in no way represents mainstream scientific thought. I'm certainly not saying you shouldn't read him, just you might want to try mixing it up a little. Read some Gould and ignore Sector 13's extremely fey ranting.

Oh, I don't base my entire world view on Dawkins, I've lots of scientific heroes, but Dawkins- what can I say, he speaks to me. Its nice to see a scientist with ideological balls, so to speak. Someone who won't give in to political correctness about respecting lies.

But thats just my view.
And thanks for sticking up for me.

I may have got this wrong, but wasn't Stephen Jay Gould majorly discredited? I have got that horribly wrong, it was just an impression I picked up. Dawkins defends him, though. I read one of his essays a few months back (my Dads a scientist, I reckon we must be the only house in town with Stephen Jay Gould essays as toilet reading...) on the lavatory, but can't for the life of me remember what it was about. I'll go dig it out and give it another scan.

Pray tell, what is so "gentlemanly" about a mislead homosexual who can string together clever words? Or perhaps you were going for "ladylike" all the while...

Oh hilarious, no-ones ever implied that gay men want to be women at me before. Ho ho ho. I just can't stop laughing.

For you information, I can chop wood, piss up walls and be obnoxiously male with the best of them.

And mislead? Ad Hominem crap.

And I didn't say I was gentlemanly, I just said you weren't. I made no judgment on my 'gentlemanhood'. Just yours.
And can gays not be gentleman? If not, pray tell, explain Noel Coward. Or Oscar Wilde. Or Sir John Gielgud. Or Sir Ian MacKellen. I would like to think, but I doubt, that I am carrying on the great tradition of Gay English Gentlemen.
I would say insulting someone for their sexual proclivities is ungentlemanly. And if not, then commenting on their private lives is.

Homophobic? That would imply fear, and I would not be afraid even if you arrived in an armored tank.

Not scared, then? Just ignorant, I guess.
Of course, some might say that you are scared, not of other homosexuals, but of your own sexuality, which leads you to be so unpleasant. Not me, but some.

God willing (relevant, even to you, despite your misconceptions) you and your ilk will not procreate.

Why? You think homosexuality it genetic? I suggest you read Freud.

I never claimed "divine justice" would guarantee anything, let alone protection from "trauma" (victim type mentality word which you used).
However, I myself could exact an extremely satisfying justice, even upon you. Oh, but since I am a man, you may enjoy that.

Don't be so pathetic. I may be gay, doesn't mean I've lost all sense of taste and self-respect enough to touch you with a big pink flowery barge pole.
"Trauma" isn't a 'victim type" word. Its a certified counselling term, completely objective, relating to a serious incident in life which affects you.

*Emerges from cellar covered in cobwebs, dragging thread behind him.*

Found it for you Pyrenees! :D

Woo-hoo! I was wondering where this thread had gone.

Hmmm, well, Stephen Jay Gould died, so I guess it's possible he's had the Ultimate Debunk. :D

Other than that, I don't think he really has been discredited or anything. Like Dawkins, he enjoys thinking and hypothesizing and then taking the reader on a tour of his process. He and Dawkins represent different view points of evoluntionary theory, the forces behind it and our place in it. They're both theorists rather than research scientists (at least, a majority of their published popular work is more geared toward theory) and even though they tended to disagree rather vociferously, they did defend each other's right to reach their own conclusions.

*hugs thread*
I've missed you so much!

Thank you, White Hats.

*hugs thread some more*

I've found a point I disagree with Dawkins about, just to show I'm not his blind disciple. GMOs- he thinks we should allow them (only after thorough testing). Although I do agree with that point, I think that we just can't test them conclusively enough to call them safe, and after the 'precautions' the governmet has brought in (400 metre exclusion zones and other bizarre idiocies) I'm inclined to think the government scientists are being pushed by a economic and political agenda, therefore I won't accept them at all for a good many years.

*hugs thread*
I've missed you so much!

Thank you, White Hats.

*hugs thread some more*Finally found it? :roll:

*hugs thread*
I've missed you so much!

Thank you, White Hats.

*hugs thread some more*Finally found it? :roll:

Yep. I've still lost 'all sense of self respect'. If anyone could help me find it, I'd be grateful. :P

I've found a point I disagree with Dawkins about, just to show I'm not his blind disciple. GMOs- he thinks we should allow them (only after thorough testing). Although I do agree with that point, I think that we just can't test them conclusively enough to call them safe, and after the 'precautions' the governmet has brought in (400 metre exclusion zones and other bizarre idiocies) I'm inclined to think the government scientists are being pushed by a economic and political agenda, therefore I won't accept them at all for a good many years.

With a couple of notable, and very counterproductive intentional exceptions that irritated me no end, they -are- safe.

I've found a point I disagree with Dawkins about, just to show I'm not his blind disciple. GMOs- he thinks we should allow them (only after thorough testing). Although I do agree with that point, I think that we just can't test them conclusively enough to call them safe, and after the 'precautions' the governmet has brought in (400 metre exclusion zones and other bizarre idiocies) I'm inclined to think the government scientists are being pushed by a economic and political agenda, therefore I won't accept them at all for a good many years.

With a couple of notable, and very counterproductive intentional exceptions that irritated me no end, they -are- safe.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree. There is so many long term problems that could arise,and its such a money driven science, I'm healthily scepitcal.

The fact that the exclusion zone is just 400 metres is laughable. Anyone who has ever visited the Scottish Islands knows pollen travels FAR more than 400 metres. It can float for miles and miles. My Dad does studies of pollen transference in Europe, and he almost cries everytime some Monsanto letch appears on the news saying 'Its perfectly safe, we have a 400 metre exclusion zone around the oil-seed rape'.


Besides all this, the people of Britain just don't want them. They're being forced on them by greedy multi-nationals. This is OUR land, and we should have a say on what is put in it. Just look at the numbers buying organic compared to the numbers going GM.

Its a travesty, it really is.

I've found a point I disagree with Dawkins about, just to show I'm not his blind disciple. GMOs- he thinks we should allow them (only after thorough testing). Although I do agree with that point, I think that we just can't test them conclusively enough to call them safe, and after the 'precautions' the governmet has brought in (400 metre exclusion zones and other bizarre idiocies) I'm inclined to think the government scientists are being pushed by a economic and political agenda, therefore I won't accept them at all for a good many years.

With a couple of notable, and very counterproductive intentional exceptions that irritated me no end, they -are- safe.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree. There is so many long term problems that could arise,and its such a money driven science, I'm healthily scepitcal.

The fact that the exclusion zone is just 400 metres is laughable. Anyone who has ever visited the Scottish Islands knows pollen travels FAR more than 400 metres. It can float for miles and miles. My Dad does studies of pollen transference in Europe, and he almost cries everytime some Monsanto letch appears on the news saying 'Its perfectly safe, we have a 400 metre exclusion zone around the oil-seed rape'.


Besides all this, the people of Britain just don't want them. They're being forced on them by greedy multi-nationals. This is OUR land, and we should have a say on what is put in it. Just look at the numbers buying organic compared to the numbers going GM.

Its a travesty, it really is.

400 metres cuts cross pollenation down to nearly nothing. At 200 metres the rate is 1%.

And then again, frankly, who cares about a bit of cross pollenation? We've been genetically modifying things for thousands of thousands of years.

I've found a point I disagree with Dawkins about, just to show I'm not his blind disciple. GMOs- he thinks we should allow them (only after thorough testing). Although I do agree with that point, I think that we just can't test them conclusively enough to call them safe, and after the 'precautions' the governmet has brought in (400 metre exclusion zones and other bizarre idiocies) I'm inclined to think the government scientists are being pushed by a economic and political agenda, therefore I won't accept them at all for a good many years.

With a couple of notable, and very counterproductive intentional exceptions that irritated me no end, they -are- safe.

I'm sorry, I just don't agree. There is so many long term problems that could arise,and its such a money driven science, I'm healthily scepitcal.

The fact that the exclusion zone is just 400 metres is laughable. Anyone who has ever visited the Scottish Islands knows pollen travels FAR more than 400 metres. It can float for miles and miles. My Dad does studies of pollen transference in Europe, and he almost cries everytime some Monsanto letch appears on the news saying 'Its perfectly safe, we have a 400 metre exclusion zone around the oil-seed rape'.


Besides all this, the people of Britain just don't want them. They're being forced on them by greedy multi-nationals. This is OUR land, and we should have a say on what is put in it. Just look at the numbers buying organic compared to the numbers going GM.

Its a travesty, it really is.

400 metres cuts cross pollenation down to nearly nothing. At 200 metres the rate is 1%.

My father (A scientist on these exact matter) has given me his scientific opinion on that statement. He said 'That is absolute bollocks'.

Examples? more than 400 metres from scottish island to scottish island, yet even SEEDS have manage to travel from island to island in the air, and they're far heavier than pollen.

After a big wind, you have saharan sand on your car. Sand is heavier than pollen, and it travels from North Africa to England.

There is evidence of cross pollenation of plants in California with plants on Hawaai.

He says that pollen can travel thousands and thousands of miles.

The results of the cross pollenation tests in question seem to disagree: The further away you get, the less cross pollenation you get, high winds notwithstanding. In fact, the cross pollenation results be approximately 2% at 60m, 1.1% at 200m and between 0.75 % and 0.5 % at 500m. [Emberlin, J (1999)]

I'd be happy to argue with your father on the matter, if you like.

The results of the cross pollenation tests in question seem to disagree: The further away you get, the less cross pollenation you get, high winds notwithstanding. In fact, the cross pollenation results be approximately 2% at 60m, 1.1% at 200m and between 0.75 % and 0.5 % at 500m. [Emberlin, J (1999)]

I'd be happy to argue with your father on the matter, if you like.

So explain the whole 'Saharan Winds' thing? Can sand magically fly?

Pure common sense evidence suggests otherwise, I don't think its unwise not to trust Monsanto and Government scientists, its obviously science with an agenda.

This is massively off topic, btw.

The results of the cross pollenation tests in question seem to disagree: The further away you get, the less cross pollenation you get, high winds notwithstanding. In fact, the cross pollenation results be approximately 2% at 60m, 1.1% at 200m and between 0.75 % and 0.5 % at 500m. [Emberlin, J (1999)]

I'd be happy to argue with your father on the matter, if you like.

So explain the whole 'Saharan Winds' thing? Can sand magically fly?

Pure common sense evidence suggests otherwise, I don't think its unwise not to trust Monsanto and Government scientists, its obviously science with an agenda.

This is massively off topic, btw.

I'm not saying that neither pollen nor sand can be blown thousands and thousands of kilometers, since it certainly can. I'm saying that cross pollenation is about negligable beyond the exclusion zone. Hell I'm all for increasing them to 5km. that's a 0.1% chance.

And yes it is. Sorry.

The results of the cross pollenation tests in question seem to disagree: The further away you get, the less cross pollenation you get, high winds notwithstanding. In fact, the cross pollenation results be approximately 2% at 60m, 1.1% at 200m and between 0.75 % and 0.5 % at 500m. [Emberlin, J (1999)]

I'd be happy to argue with your father on the matter, if you like.

So explain the whole 'Saharan Winds' thing? Can sand magically fly?

Pure common sense evidence suggests otherwise, I don't think its unwise not to trust Monsanto and Government scientists, its obviously science with an agenda.

This is massively off topic, btw.

I'm not saying that neither pollen nor sand can be blown thousands and thousands of kilometers, since it certainly can. I'm saying that cross pollenation is about negligable beyond the exclusion zone.

So you acknowledge that pollen can travel thousands of miles, yet claim that after 400 metres it suddenly stops being capable of cross-fertilisation?

We're gonna have to agree to disagree and get back on topic, methinks. Nice to chat about it though.

The results of the cross pollenation tests in question seem to disagree: The further away you get, the less cross pollenation you get, high winds notwithstanding. In fact, the cross pollenation results be approximately 2% at 60m, 1.1% at 200m and between 0.75 % and 0.5 % at 500m. [Emberlin, J (1999)]

I'd be happy to argue with your father on the matter, if you like.

So explain the whole 'Saharan Winds' thing? Can sand magically fly?

Pure common sense evidence suggests otherwise, I don't think its unwise not to trust Monsanto and Government scientists, its obviously science with an agenda.

This is massively off topic, btw.

I'm not saying that neither pollen nor sand can be blown thousands and thousands of kilometers, since it certainly can. I'm saying that cross pollenation is about negligable beyond the exclusion zone.

So you acknowledge that pollen can travel thousands of miles, yet claim that after 400 metres it suddenly stops being capable of cross-fertilisation?

We're gonna have to agree to disagree and get back on topic, methinks. Nice to chat about it though.

Never said that either. I said after 400m the incidence of cross pollenation is nearly none.

And yes indeed...perhaps a moderator could split the topics?

And yes indeed...perhaps a moderator could split the topics?

Sounds like a plan. What do you think about the thread anyway? The reason I bought up the whole GMO thing was to show I wasn't a blind disciple of Dawkins, btw.

And yes indeed...perhaps a moderator could split the topics?

Sounds like a plan. What do you think about the thread anyway? The reason I bought up the whole GMO thing was to show I wasn't a blind disciple of Dawkins, btw.

I liked your essay, though it seemed rather nihilistic. The way I see it, life is beautiful and extremely meaningful, even more so because it came about the way it did. Being a god's little playthings would cheapen life to meaninglessness, in my opinion. In the words of Douglas Adams, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

And yes indeed...perhaps a moderator could split the topics?

Sounds like a plan. What do you think about the thread anyway? The reason I bought up the whole GMO thing was to show I wasn't a blind disciple of Dawkins, btw.

I liked your essay, though it seemed rather nihilistic. The way I see it, life is beautiful and extremely meaningful, even more so because it came about the way it did. Being a god's little playthings would cheapen life to meaninglessness, in my opinion. In the words of Douglas Adams, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Too true. I'll have to remember that quote.

Aw, come on. You flamers know the garden would not even BE beautiful without the fairies. I thought you were realists and all.







And yes indeed...perhaps a moderator could split the topics?

Sounds like a plan. What do you think about the thread anyway? The reason I bought up the whole GMO thing was to show I wasn't a blind disciple of Dawkins, btw.

I liked your essay, though it seemed rather nihilistic. The way I see it, life is beautiful and extremely meaningful, even more so because it came about the way it did. Being a god's little playthings would cheapen life to meaninglessness, in my opinion. In the words of Douglas Adams, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Too true. I'll have to remember that quote.

Aw, come on. You flamers know the garden would not even BE beautiful without the fairies. I thought you were realists and all.







And yes indeed...perhaps a moderator could split the topics?

Sounds like a plan. What do you think about the thread anyway? The reason I bought up the whole GMO thing was to show I wasn't a blind disciple of Dawkins, btw.

I liked your essay, though it seemed rather nihilistic. The way I see it, life is beautiful and extremely meaningful, even more so because it came about the way it did. Being a god's little playthings would cheapen life to meaninglessness, in my opinion. In the words of Douglas Adams, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Too true. I'll have to remember that quote.

Aw, come on. You flamers know the garden would not even BE beautiful without the fairies. I thought you were realists and all.







And yes indeed...perhaps a moderator could split the topics?

Sounds like a plan. What do you think about the thread anyway? The reason I bought up the whole GMO thing was to show I wasn't a blind disciple of Dawkins, btw.

I liked your essay, though it seemed rather nihilistic. The way I see it, life is beautiful and extremely meaningful, even more so because it came about the way it did. Being a god's little playthings would cheapen life to meaninglessness, in my opinion. In the words of Douglas Adams, "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

Too true. I'll have to remember that quote.

Aw, come on. You flamers know the garden would not even BE beautiful without the fairies. I thought you were realists and all.



Pardon?

Aw, come on. You flamers know the garden would not even BE beautiful without the fairies. I thought you were realists and all.



Pardon?


Pardon?, pardon is a synthetic word. God certainly will not pardon you for your damnable sin(s).....

Aw, come on. You flamers know the garden would not even BE beautiful without the fairies. I thought you were realists and all.



Pardon?


Pardon?, pardon is a synthetic word. God certainly will not pardon you for your damnable sin(s).....

Easy-peasy, lemon-squeezy!

It seems to me that God will certainly pardon sins, any and all sins, should that pardon be sought. I mean, in the end, it's up to the sinner, right? That whole "freedom-of-choice" thing?

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?". Well, in a sense, yes it is. But only in a sense.

After all...whither beauty? What gives the sense of beauty? What allows us to understand beauty? Why is the understanding of beauty...the asethetic beauty of a garden...useful to us? And if it isn't useful, why still are we able to do it?

Meh...just random thoughts. I've never understood why evolution and religion are supposedly so hard to reconcile. I'm under the impression that in observing evolution, we're just watching God at work anyways.

;) Aiera

After all...whither beauty? What gives the sense of beauty? What allows us to understand beauty? Why is the understanding of beauty...the asethetic beauty of a garden...useful to us? And if it isn't useful, why still are we able to do it?

Because, for the first time in universal history, as far as we know, Evolution has become aware of itself. Humans have developed foresight, and with that comes appreciation of beauty. No-one, as far as I know, knows why we appreciate physical beauty in flowers or anything other than humans. But that doesn't mean we can make up a reason. Just because we don't know why we appreciate beauty, doesn't mean we can create a reason from our imagination.


Meh...just random thoughts. I've never understood why evolution and religion are supposedly so hard to reconcile. I'm under the impression that in observing evolution, we're just watching God at work anyways.

;) Aiera

Because organised religion claims Evolution is a lie, and offers alternative explanations.
And you're under the wrong impression. What gives you reason to believe that in watching evolution, you're watching God at work?

I find evolution far more beautiful and mind-blowing than God. Its truely incredible to think that this world has all evolved from some 'mitocondrial eve'- that a single cell organism has slowly changed and adapted to suit its environment, that huge structures like trees or funghi all evolved from the same single cell organism, that all the systems and functions of animals and plants on this earth have created themselves- isn't that far more incredible than someone with ultimate power creating them in a day?

Because, for the first time in universal history, as far as we know, Evolution has become aware of itself. Humans have developed foresight, and with that comes appreciation of beauty. No-one, as far as I know, knows why we appreciate physical beauty in flowers or anything other than humans. But that doesn't mean we can make up a reason. Just because we don't know why we appreciate beauty, doesn't mean we can create a reason from our imagination.


But what benefit is this to survival, especially since many of the brightly-coloured plants that we find "beautiful" are, in fact, also quite toxic?

If evolution is only about evolving those traits that benefit and further enable our survival, this is either a step backwards or a step sideways...it does nothing to further that goal, and might act against it.

Alternatively, there could be a higher purpose behind it. But what purpose would that be?


Because organised religion claims Evolution is a lie, and offers alternative explanations.


Yes, well, I might point out that organized religion also once claimed that the assertion that the Earth orbited the Sun was a lie, but as we can clearly see...it is not. And the religion has since come around to accept the truth, and to realize that it does not, in fact, conflict with their beliefs.


And you're under the wrong impression. What gives you reason to believe that in watching evolution, you're watching God at work?


Because there is no need to think that God and evolution are not connected in that way, really. Is it not within the realm of consideration that we would observe the actions of some outside deity as a process of this nature...perhaps because this process is the most efficient one?


I find evolution far more beautiful and mind-blowing than God.


I don't. After all, God seems to be running both evolution and the rest of the Universe just fine at the same time. ;)


Its truely incredible to think that this world has all evolved from some 'mitocondrial eve'- that a single cell organism has slowly changed and adapted to suit its environment, that huge structures like trees or funghi all evolved from the same single cell organism, that all the systems and functions of animals and plants on this earth have created themselves- isn't that far more incredible than someone with ultimate power creating them in a day?

But what constitutes a "day"? Don't forget, you're reading a translation of a text that was written many thousands of years before the concept of the 24-hour day emerged! It stands to reason that they were talking about a different period of time than 24 hours. Another thought...God, as revealed through the Bible, exists in eternity. How long is a "Day" in such a place, when translated to the time-scale of our own Universe?

:? Aiera

Because, for the first time in universal history, as far as we know, Evolution has become aware of itself. Humans have developed foresight, and with that comes appreciation of beauty. No-one, as far as I know, knows why we appreciate physical beauty in flowers or anything other than humans. But that doesn't mean we can make up a reason. Just because we don't know why we appreciate beauty, doesn't mean we can create a reason from our imagination.


But what benefit is this to survival, especially since many of the brightly-coloured plants that we find "beautiful" are, in fact, also quite toxic?

If evolution is only about evolving those traits that benefit and further enable our survival, this is either a step backwards or a step sideways...it does nothing to further that goal, and might act against it.

Alternatively, there could be a higher purpose behind it. But what purpose would that be?

There are plenty of things that are surplus to evolutionary requirements/ aren't destroyed by natural selection. Take tongue rolling- it neither benefits or hinders natural selection, some people can and some people can't.
Of course, where do we see pretty flowers? In places where there is the right constituents for healthy living- plenty of rain and sun, good nutrients etc. Where we find flowers, we would have found a nice place to live. So there is an evolutionary benefit to appreciating flowers.



Because organised religion claims Evolution is a lie, and offers alternative explanations.


Yes, well, I might point out that organized religion also once claimed that the assertion that the Earth orbited the Sun was a lie, but as we can clearly see...it is not. And the religion has since come around to accept the truth, and to realize that it does not, in fact, conflict with their beliefs.

But in the Bible it specifically says how we are created- and it ain't evolution. To reconcile evolution and christianity (for example) is to be a hypocrite.



And you're under the wrong impression. What gives you reason to believe that in watching evolution, you're watching God at work?


Because there is no need to think that God and evolution are not connected in that way, really.

Except the total lack of evidence to support that view.


Is it not within the realm of consideration that we would observe the actions of some outside deity as a process of this nature...perhaps because this process is the most efficient one?

Its in the realms of possibility. But until you produce a modicum of evidence to support that view, why should anyone believe you?



I find evolution far more beautiful and mind-blowing than God.


I don't. After all, God seems to be running both evolution and the rest of the Universe just fine at the same time. ;)

Do you have evidence for him doing this? You're whole diatribe is based on the assumption he exists, surely an assumption that needs proving when it is in such doubt.



Its truely incredible to think that this world has all evolved from some 'mitocondrial eve'- that a single cell organism has slowly changed and adapted to suit its environment, that huge structures like trees or funghi all evolved from the same single cell organism, that all the systems and functions of animals and plants on this earth have created themselves- isn't that far more incredible than someone with ultimate power creating them in a day?

But what constitutes a "day"? Don't forget, you're reading a translation of a text that was written many thousands of years before the concept of the 24-hour day emerged! It stands to reason that they were talking about a different period of time than 24 hours. Another thought...God, as revealed through the Bible, exists in eternity. How long is a "Day" in such a place, when translated to the time-scale of our own Universe?

:? Aiera

Ahhh! I love it! 'In the olden days, when we were executing people for saying that God didn't exist, a day meant a day. The Bible was literal. Now someone has proved flaws in the main tenets of the Bible (i.e Genesis)... well, we were being metaphorical all along. Couldn't you tell? We didn't REALLY mean a day, we meant... some other non-specific time period.'

At least be consistent. The one thing fundamentalists have got is consistentcy. They may be wacky, but at least they're not hypocrites.

There are plenty of things that are surplus to evolutionary requirements/ aren't destroyed by natural selection. Take tongue rolling- it neither benefits or hinders natural selection, some people can and some people can't.
Of course, where do we see pretty flowers? In places where there is the right constituents for healthy living- plenty of rain and sun, good nutrients etc. Where we find flowers, we would have found a nice place to live. So there is an evolutionary benefit to appreciating flowers.


That's cool. Of course, some of the prettiest flowers are found in the midst of the thickest jungles, so that's a tenuous reason, at best.


Except the total lack of evidence to support that view.


I could rattle on and on about how there is a total lack of conclusive evidence that God is not involved, but instead I'll just assume you knew that for yourself already. ;)


Its in the realms of possibility. But until you produce a modicum of evidence to support that view, why should anyone believe you?


Well, in the end, that's what faith is for. And I know you could go on all day about what a cop-out that seems to be, but it really is the truth of the matter. I can look at the world around me and understand it as a creation, a creation of something I cannot fully comprehend, of God. I don't need to point to anything more than the Gospels for this, really...I think they're historical, and that's all the evidence I need.

As to whether they are historical...you're welcome to challenge the assertion, but I wouldn't understand the point in doing so. It doesn't change things in terms of this discussion about evolution.


Do you have evidence for him doing this? You're whole diatribe is based on the assumption he exists, surely an assumption that needs proving when it is in such doubt.


I'm not the one launching into diatribes, here! I'm offering an alternative viewpoint that really does nothing to cast down the theory of evolution and instead serves to uphold it, albeit as the toolset by which God creates life on Earth.

And again, what proof would you accept? There are any number of subjective proofs that I could point to, philosophical proofs. There's Aquinas' proof, for example. Or Berkeley's Observation. I could point to the historicity of the Gospels. I doubt, however, that I could ever satisfy your desire for formal proof of God, and I doubt any human being could provide such proof, regardless.

At the end of it all, it still fits. Evolution still happens, and life still goes on. There need not be any conflict here, and I'm not the one courting the creation of conflict, as I see it.


Ahhh! I love it! 'In the olden days, when we were executing people for saying that God didn't exist, a day meant a day. The Bible was literal. Now someone has proved flaws in the main tenets of the Bible (i.e Genesis)... well, we were being metaphorical all along. Couldn't you tell? We didn't REALLY mean a day, we meant... some other non-specific time period.'

At least be consistent. The one thing fundamentalists have got is consistentcy. They may be wacky, but at least they're not hypocrites.


I don't think it's hypocritical at all to go back and re-evaluate what one claims to "know". Scientific advancement demands the ability to do so, and how much of science has changed over the past hundred years? The past thousand?

So too with religious advancement. Did we once regard it all as literal? Yes, we once did. But we were wrong. So what do we do? We go back and look at it again, and try to understand what we once thought as literal in the context of new information. It was like that with the belief that the world is flat, or that the Sun orbits the Earth. It's going to be like that with Evolution.

I think that the major reason, now, for religious opposition to evolution is because there is a major push from the "other side" to hold up evolution as some sort of evidence that God isn't involved. But that's a folly equal in measure to the religious assertion that evolution is false. Evolution doesn't prove either viewpoint, nor is it particularily concerned with either viewpoint. It's the process by which life came to be.

The difference in viewpoints here is simple: you leave it as a process, and I call it a toolset.

The absolutely correct viewpoint, of those two, is not going to be resolved or known to either of us in this life.

:D Aiera

I don't give a hoot about any afterlife, it would be a relief to just crumble into the good earth.

But I care about the ground of my being, and that makes me a religious person.

I believe that if we were not something more than mechanisms for survival we would not feel any grief over such as tragedy as the one described.

Innocent suffering should trouble each of us deeply; if it does not, we are seriously lacking.

Just as you say religious folk set up a straw-man argument in social darwinism (which I feel is still a real and present danger, especially in the new era of genetics), so do rationalists det up a straw-god by demanding that the deity be all-powerful and all-loving and then proving how inconsistent this is.

Of course it's inconsistent. It's also bad theology.

I serve a suffering, vulnerable God, who promises me not victory or dominance or power but companionship, truth, and peace. Not when I die, but right now. :!: :!:

But in the Bible it specifically says how we are created- and it ain't evolution. To reconcile evolution and christianity (for example) is to be a hypocrite.

Not at all, and I find that rather insulting. Many things in the Bible were meant to be metaphorical. The fact that people in parts of history didn't take it that way doesn't make it untrue. If you read Genesis, there are in fact *two* creation stories. One involves the creation of man (and woman at the same time) first, before the other animals and one puts man at the end. The point is simply that God made the world somehow. It made sense to the writers that the sun and earth came first, then the animals, then man. Funny how this is basically how evolution did it....

There is no hypocrasy in being a Christian who recognizes that the Bible was written by fallible human beings and using it as a spiritual guide-book, rather than a set of absolute historical facts. As a scientist and a Christian, I have no problem whatsoever reconciling the two. In fact, the more I learn about this world, the more amazed I am at creation.


And you're under the wrong impression. What gives you reason to believe that in watching evolution, you're watching God at work?

Because there is no need to think that God and evolution are not connected in that way, really.
[/quote]
Except the total lack of evidence to support that view.[/quote]

Where exactly is your evidence that God is not involved? Oh wait, you have none.


I find evolution far more beautiful and mind-blowing than God.

I don't. After all, God seems to be running both evolution and the rest of the Universe just fine at the same time. ;)
[/quote]
Do you have evidence for him doing this? You're whole diatribe is based on the assumption he exists, surely an assumption that needs proving when it is in such doubt.[/quote]

Or perhaps a statement of faith that neither be proven nor disproven?


Ahhh! I love it! 'In the olden days, when we were executing people for saying that God didn't exist, a day meant a day. The Bible was literal. Now someone has proved flaws in the main tenets of the Bible (i.e Genesis)... well, we were being metaphorical all along. Couldn't you tell? We didn't REALLY mean a day, we meant... some other non-specific time period.'

Disputes over the exact interpretation in Christianity has been going on since the church was founded. This is nothing new. People understand things based on their society and the knowledge of the time. Why does the Bible say "the sun stood still in the sky" instead of "the Earth stopped rotating"? - easy, because at the time the story began, no one knew the Earth rotated at all, much less around the sun. When something is presented that is out of touch with a person's view of God, that person must either alter their view of the event, or alter their view of God. Fundamentalist Christians tend to alter their view of the event, but some of us realize that humans are fallible and alter our view of God.

At least be consistent. The one thing fundamentalists have got is consistentcy. They may be wacky, but at least they're not hypocrites.

No, they haven't got consistency. It is much more consistent to come to your own views on things through reflection and examination of every view than to blindly listen to what you are told and pick and choose portions of a document while accusing others of doing so when they don't agree with you. Of course, you're just as bad with your "I don't believe the same thing you do so you must be a hypocrite."

Hi. I dont have anything partcularly insightful to add but I was just wondering, what is that old black and white movie about that teacher that is taken to court by the church for teaching about evoloution?

Is the title really important? I mean, is it one of those things that is just bothering you, not remembering the title, or did you just sneak in a generalization about Christianity? If so, isolating the "church" members who may have brought suit in court, and calling them an example of practical Christianity would be akin to saying all democrats who were instrumental in the re-election of Bill Clinton were happy about that fact later. It happened, but I think most consider it a moral and National Secutrity disaster now.



Hi. I dont have anything partcularly insightful to add but I was just wondering, what is that old black and white movie about that teacher that is taken to court by the church for teaching about evoloution?

Hi. I dont have anything partcularly insightful to add but I was just wondering, what is that old black and white movie about that teacher that is taken to court by the church for teaching about evoloution?

Possibly "inherit the wind"? This is the only movie I know about the Scopes Monkey trials (which I believe is what you're referring to). It's also in black and white, so I'm pretty sure this is what you're looking for.

Of course Darwin's theory of evolution is about change, not creation. So the argument is silly at best.

I don't expect you to agree, and I can't blame you for your belief in God. I wish I believed in God. My life is full of torment, pain and depression because I believe in evolution not Creation. I see most Christians are far more content, happy, successful and joyful than me. I blame this on the nihlistic consequences of my belief in Evolution (and the fact I'm 17 and gay). I wish I could go back, but I can't. Its much like a complex Father Christmas. When you're a child, you believe. When you weigh up the evidence, you come the conclusion that hey, there is no Father Christmas. Its just some dumb drunk tramp in a suit. And you gain more knowledge, you understand the world better. But theres always a part of you that wishes you still believed, and in times of torment, grief and pain (or Christmas Eve in Father Christmas' case) you are tempted even more to believe, and sometimes, you can slip back into those beliefs. I wish I could. I wish I still believed.

Kudos Pyr, on a good essay. Your life is not full of pain because you believe in evolution, it's because you've taken God's place as ruler of your life. If you want to believe, then why not? I garauntee that is where your answer lies.

btw the hebrew word used for "day" in Genesis in "Yom" it means "time period" and has been used inthe context of both long and short time periods. I believe the context indicates a 24-hour day. I think you will find that evolution and the Bible do not mix, even though many Christians believe in it.

Reguards,

Judging from his own statement"(and the fact I'm 17 and gay)", he possesses no true concept of any appropriate mix, be it Creation and evolution or otherwise. I tend to agree; Creation and evolution are opposing views. That Pyrenees stumbled upon this truth is no indication
that he has weighed the evidence, or lack thereof. It smacks of a certain glee he must experience through professing Godlessness. Soon, when he
really is tormented and destitute, he will have nowhere to look but up.






I don't expect you to agree, and I can't blame you for your belief in God. I wish I believed in God. My life is full of torment, pain and depression because I believe in evolution not Creation. I see most Christians are far more content, happy, successful and joyful than me. I blame this on the nihlistic consequences of my belief in Evolution (and the fact I'm 17 and gay). I wish I could go back, but I can't. Its much like a complex Father Christmas. When you're a child, you believe. When you weigh up the evidence, you come the conclusion that hey, there is no Father Christmas. Its just some dumb drunk tramp in a suit. And you gain more knowledge, you understand the world better. But theres always a part of you that wishes you still believed, and in times of torment, grief and pain (or Christmas Eve in Father Christmas' case) you are tempted even more to believe, and sometimes, you can slip back into those beliefs. I wish I could. I wish I still believed.

Kudos Pyr, on a good essay. Your life is not full of pain because you believe in evolution, it's because you've taken God's place as ruler of your life. If you want to believe, then why not? I garauntee that is where your answer lies.

btw the hebrew word used for "day" in Genesis in "Yom" it means "time period" and has been used inthe context of both long and short time periods. I believe the context indicates a 24-hour day. I think you will find that evolution and the Bible do not mix, even though many Christians believe in it.

Reguards,

Judging from his own statement"(and the fact I'm 17 and gay)", he possesses no true concept of any appropriate mix, be it Creation and evolution or otherwise. I tend to agree; Creation and evolution are opposing views. That Pyrenees stumbled upon this truth is no indication
that he has weighed the evidence, or lack thereof. It smacks of a certain glee he must experience through professing Godlessness. Soon, when he
really is tormented and destitute, he will have nowhere to look but up.


And this statement smacks of the exact same contemptuous, smug and blindly self-rightous attitude that makes people mistrust and fear theisim. Well done.

Did you actually read the essay? More importantly, did you understand it? While I don't always agree with what Pyr has to say, I must say he expresses it in a respectful and genuine way. As a young person questioning his beliefs and his place in the world, he manages to be thought provoking and eloquent all at the same time. Instead of opening your mind and explaining why you believe what you believe (although, reading back over this thread, I'm not sure I see where you have actually stated your own beliefs...which is sort of cowardly, to criticize someone else's questioning without offering your own answers for evaluation), you launch all these snarky comments in what I can only assume is some horribly misguided attempt at wit.

If you feel justified in judging Pyr's entire outlook on the basis of him announcing that's he's 17 and gay and somehow read into it that he enjoys having to question and not coming up with answers he likes, then I feel just as justified in say that, on the basis of your statements, you are one of those nightmare theists who only believe what you believe because you are too scared to question it. Your faith is untested, unexamined and unexplored which makes it far too brittle to withstand the legitimate and natural questioning of others. Therefore you lash out with misplaced terror at the mere thought that you might actually have to do a little self examination if you behave like a true believer and accept that other people on this planet may not always have the same answers as you.

This is the exact reason why people see no good in religion. Instead of being a way for people to remind themselves on some fundamental level we are connected, be it through the existance of a divinity, the presence of some sort of animus mundi, or simply the awareness and curiosity to ask the question, "What does it all mean?", religion is used as just another wedge to be driven between us, keeping us apart except when we get close enough to try and rip each other open.

Here is a young man who has presented his ideas in a thoughtful, intelligent way. Perhaps, as an act of good faith, it would be a good idea to approach his questioning in the same manner and explain rather than belittle.

Okay, fair enough. I am a Christian who has come full circle through flirtations with Athiesm, Eastern religions, and just general life purpose questioning back to the Protestant truth under which I was reared. I certainly would not describe my faith as brittle in any sense of the word.
In fact, it is through the school of hard knocks that I have graduated to be the proud God serving man I am today.
I remember all too well the antics of youth: denying God, denying parents, denying myself, etc.... I wish the best for Pyrenees, really, but I do not believe that heaping praise upon his clearly juvenile perceptions and discounting of morals and/or religion helps.
As far as evolution is concerned. I prefer to regard Natural Selection as the chosen process by which God ensured and engineered for that matter, that Nature would be self sufficient, not requiring constant minding.
I suspect that you believe Pyrenees and his ilk might be talked down from their lofty, yet idiotic position, and that stroking his fragile ego might win some time for just such an endeavor(not endeavour) . We happen to differ greatly on that.
Regards(not reguards)-






Judging from his own statement"(and the fact I'm 17 and gay)", he possesses no true concept of any appropriate mix, be it Creation and evolution or otherwise. I tend to agree; Creation and evolution are opposing views. That Pyrenees stumbled upon this truth is no indication
that he has weighed the evidence, or lack thereof. It smacks of a certain glee he must experience through professing Godlessness. Soon, when he
really is tormented and destitute, he will have nowhere to look but up.


And this statement smacks of the exact same contemptuous, smug and blindly self-rightous attitude that makes people mistrust and fear theisim. Well done.

Did you actually read the essay? More importantly, did you understand it? While I don't always agree with what Pyr has to say, I must say he expresses it in a respectful and genuine way. As a young person questioning his beliefs and his place in the world, he manages to be thought provoking and eloquent all at the same time. Instead of opening your mind and explaining why you believe what you believe (although, reading back over this thread, I'm not sure I see where you have actually stated your own beliefs...which is sort of cowardly, to criticize someone else's questioning without offering your own answers for evaluation), you launch all these snarky comments in what I can only assume is some horribly misguided attempt at wit.

If you feel justified in judging Pyr's entire outlook on the basis of him announcing that's he's 17 and gay and somehow read into it that he enjoys having to question and not coming up with answers he likes, then I feel just as justified in say that, on the basis of your statements, you are one of those nightmare theists who only believe what you believe because you are too scared to question it. Your faith is untested, unexamined and unexplored which makes it far too brittle to withstand the legitimate and natural questioning of others. Therefore you lash out with misplaced terror at the mere thought that you might actually have to do a little self examination if you behave like a true believer and accept that other people on this planet may not always have the same answers as you.

This is the exact reason why people see no good in religion. Instead of being a way for people to remind themselves on some fundamental level we are connected, be it through the existance of a divinity, the presence of some sort of animus mundi, or simply the awareness and curiosity to ask the question, "What does it all mean?", religion is used as just another wedge to be driven between us, keeping us apart except when we get close enough to try and rip each other open.

Here is a young man who has presented his ideas in a thoughtful, intelligent way. Perhaps, as an act of good faith, it would be a good idea to approach his questioning in the same manner and explain rather than belittle.

Okay, fair enough. I am a Christian who has come full circle through flirtations with Athiesm, Eastern religions, and just general life purpose questioning back to the Protestant truth under which I was reared. I certainly would not describe my faith as brittle in any sense of the word.

So, even after going through your own period of searching and learning in the most intimate way possible that belief must come from within, you still would deny the validity of someone else's search? I find that difficult to believe. If you had truthfully come to the conclusions you claim to by the means you claim, you would have more respect, tolerance and understanding for the journey's of others.


In fact, it is through the school of hard knocks that I have graduated to be the proud God serving man I am today.

Remember, pride is a sin. Regardless of one's religious convictions.

I remember all too well the antics of youth: denying God, denying parents, denying myself, etc.... I wish the best for Pyrenees, really, but I do not believe that heaping praise upon his clearly juvenile perceptions and discounting of morals and/or religion helps.

Hmmm, there is a difference between "heaping praise" and acknowledging that, as a human being, he has the right to ask the questions he's asking, find the answers he's finding and then congratulating him on beginning his search and eloquently presenting his current findings. As for his "clearly juvenile perceptions", I'm afraid I am unclear as to what you are referring. Is it because he's saying something contrary to your belief system that he's "juvenile" because I see you doing the exact same thing yet claiming some sort of "Age = Wisdom" superiority. I also don't believe he has ever discounted morals. He has simply suggested that religion doesn't necessarily have to be present in order to have them.

As far as evolution is concerned. I prefer to regard Natural Selection as the chosen process by which God ensured and engineered for that matter, that Nature would be self sufficient, not requiring constant minding.

That's great. Got any proof of that? No? Well, good, then, I'm sure you'll understand that that's your opinion and you are entitled to have it. However, you must allow that others are entitled to have their own opinions and, until you can offer some sort of proof (which I don't think either side really can in this question), you must be prepared for disagreement. Now, you can profit from that disagreement and try to understand the opposing viewpoint and grant that, as you yourself have a right to believe what you believe, so do all human beings. Or, you can assume you know everything about everything and discount someone else's opinion on the basis of age/belief/sexuality. However, should you do this, don't expect anyone else to have any respect for your opinion either. Do unto others. Remember that one?


I suspect that you believe Pyrenees and his ilk might be talked down from their lofty, yet idiotic position, and that stroking his fragile ego might win some time for just such an endeavor(not endeavour) .

Sigh. A, I don't think anyone's deserving of the word "ilk" (although, I'm beginning to see why some might). B, no, I don't think they can be "talked down" from their position. I do think we can all try a lot harder to understand each other, though. Theists can practice what they preach and understand that, in God's creation, all parts are essential and worthy of respect and understanding. Athiests can understand that, by sheer, improbable, wonderful chance we are standing here right now, aware of ourselves and each other, and the many bifurcting pathways of evolution that have resulted in each of our own conciousnesses should be respected and understood. Of course, we could just all assume that the other guy's an idiot and sit, safe and snug in our ivory towers and completely miss out on one of the best experiences of our lives, be you atheist or theist. The chance to understand someone who's different than you may be the only point, regardless of god or laws of probability. At the end of the day, if you've pissed that way, then you've either sinned or utterly missed the beauty of evolution.

C, I don't "buy time." I do seek to understand and explore the world around me, including the people in it and their beliefs. Perhaps you should try fearing God a little less and empathizing with your fellow man a little more.

We happen to differ greatly on that.
Regards(not reguards)-

Yes, I think it's fair to say that we represent very different views of Christianity, it's purpose and the place of religion in life.

'C, I don't "buy time." I do seek to understand and explore the world around me, including the people in it and their beliefs. Perhaps you should try fearing God a little less and empathizing with your fellow man a little more.'

Concerning "buy time", maybe you don't, but even though a person should explore and test their beliefs, there must come a point of decision. I agree with you about the empathizing, but I think that would come with a little more "God fearing" in the truest sense.

Oh, I forgot to mention earlier concerning Pyr's essay: Many people may use "religion" as a safty blanket, but those who cling to the knowledge of and relationship with the Living God do so because they have found The Truth.

Concerning "buy time", maybe you don't, but even though a person should explore and test their beliefs, there must come a point of decision.


Very loose paraphrase of a C.S. Lewis quote:

The minute you allow yourself to stop questioning your faith and think you know all the answers, you are wrong and have lost your faith.

Concerning "buy time", maybe you don't, but even though a person should explore and test their beliefs, there must come a point of decision.

I agree, but that point of decision is a highly personal moment and must be respected for each individual with their choice also being respected. Additionally, there is always the opportunity to change one's mind and make a different choice.


I agree with you about the empathizing, but I think that would come with a little more "God fearing" in the truest sense.

But it never seems to. Christianity is particularly bad about this. It seems the more one "fears God" the more one seeks to take it out on their fellow man.

Oh, I forgot to mention earlier concerning Pyr's essay: Many people may use "religion" as a safty blanket, but those who cling to the knowledge of and relationship with the Living God do so because they have found The Truth.

Again, though, it's only "The Truth" for them and it may only be a temporary truth. Everyone has to come by their convictions themselves for them to mean anything. Pyr has come to some and presented them in a rational, well worded way. He may change his mind. I know I believe radically different now from when I was seventeen. Even if he doesn't, though, as a Christian and, more importantly, as a human being, isn't the best thing we can do accept that because he has a different life experience, he has reached different conclusions? Then we can share our experiences and how they shape who we are and what we believe instead of forcing our beliefs down the throats of others because we cannot stand any sort of introspection.

I remember all too well the antics of youth: denying God, denying parents, denying myself, etc....

I wouldn't deny athiesm as an 'antic of youth'. Many people flirt with athiesm, so to speak, and then reject it for their own reasons. We all have our 'theories' on why people do that. They all have their own reasons. But its not a universal concept- that someone is raised with religion, rejects it as part of standard youth rebellion against authoirity figures, and then picks it up in later life. Athiesm is as valid a belief in older people as it is in the young. My Dad, at the tender age of 50, is an Atheist and has been since he was my age. Richard Dawkins, I imagine, is the same. Its hardly a folly of the young, like tongue piercing and tattoos (although I wouldn't describe them as such myself)



I wish the best for Pyrenees, really, but I do not believe that heaping praise upon his clearly juvenile perceptions and discounting of morals and/or religion helps.

And calling someone juvenile for holding different beliefs is so very mature...


As far as evolution is concerned. I prefer to regard Natural Selection as the chosen process by which God ensured and engineered for that matter, that Nature would be self sufficient, not requiring constant minding.

Why believed something so well supported as evolution, yet 'safeguard' it with something so unsupported as God?


I suspect that you believe Pyrenees and his ilk might be talked down from their lofty, yet idiotic position, and that stroking his fragile ego might win some time for just such an endeavor
Lofty? Not my words. Its my belief, I never claimed it as the intellectual high ground. Or the moral highground, unlike some people.... (god I'm childish in debates).
And idiotic? We both believe in natural selection, the only difference between me and you is you claim its devised by a supernatural life force, and I don't. Why is my view idiotic? its just different. But we all know what the church thinks of rebellion and free thought.



(not endeavour).

No if you live in England.


I'm cursed by the fact that, like Dawkins, I'm a very intolerant man in my views towards reason, logic and science. There is only one method of logic. Obey it, or deny it. I have no problem with others holding different religious beliefs, as long as they don't claim they are supported by science. All I want is a bit of honesty and reason in the world. Why does a scientist have to hold incontrovertable evidence for his beliefs (which he can usually do) yet a theist gets away with his belief purely on faith?

I quote from a recent book review on 'The Devils Chaplain' (an awesome book) by Dawkins.



"'I agree with virtually everything he says', a journalist wrote in a recent newspaper profile of Richard Dawkins, 'but I find myself wanting to smack him for his intolerance'. It's a typical reaction. We can't question Dawkins' rationalism, many people feel, but does he really have to be so upfront about it? Does he have to be quite so rude about religion or nasty about alternative medicine? Why can't he loosen up a bit?...
...

At the heart of this collection, however, is Dawkins' unswerving defence of science and reason and a contempt for mysticism of any kind, whether New Age or religious. For Dawkins, ideas are like organisms: only the fittest should survive. Every idea must prove itself in the public arena; none should be accepted simply on faith. That is why he is incredulous that so many people 'meekly acquiesce in the convenient fiction that religious views have some sort of right to be respected automatically and without question'. 'If I want you to respect my views on politics, science or art', writes Dawkins, 'I have to earn that respect by argument, reason, eloquence or relevant knowledge. I have to withstand counter-arguments. But if I have a view that is part of my religion, critics must respectfully tiptoe away or brave the indignation of society at large.'...

...There are many issues on which I disagree with Dawkins, and there are times when his fixations lead him astray. But in an age in which the British Prime Minister takes part in New Age ceremonies, and the American President blocks medical advances because of his reading of the Bible, an obsessive concern with reason seems to me to be a virtue not a vice. We could do with a few more obsessives like him."

http://www.kenanmalik.com/reviews/dawkins_devil.html