Let’s turn the issue around. What’s on your theological reading list? Apparently you have access to a library which might contain:

John A T Robinson. Honest to God
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Christianity and Evolution.

Chardin was a very well known paleontologist. He had no trouble reconciling his Catholic heritage with evolutionary theory. John Robinson, an Anglican bishop, wanted to make a contemporary understanding of the physical world consistent with the Christian faith. Perhaps instead of either/or you may find that both/and is a possible mode of understanding.

Of course, bringing up your personal commitments on an avowedly nontheistic site doesn’t seem the best way to find a sympathetic hearing. If you use StumbleUpon, you could set one interest to ‘Religion’ — there are a number of interesting both/and sites.

Happy Christmas,

bipolar2

You have done nothing more than state that evolution is somehow a lie. You have not presented the nature of this alleged lie. You have not presented evidence of your claim. You have not provided an alternative theory. You have not provided further evidence of this alternative theory.

All we have to go on is your statement.

Surely you can understand a skeptical reaction to your claims, but to abandon the point without even making an argument? That is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. Do you even believe your own position, or are you just parroting people in a position of power over you? Have you done any independent research, or have you let the clergy do your thinking for you?

Ignorance may be bliss, but Knowledge is power.
Rival

“…so it’s not like I was misrepresenting myself. I don’t see it as faking, either. I learned what he had to teach, so the class requirement on his part was fulfilled.”
===================================================
We’re not talking about the professor’s requirements and what he has fulfilled. But what you don’t fulfill by pretending to believe one thing, while knowing that what you say is a lie – even when its just lying to yourself. Bearing false witness to yourself as opposed to others, is still a lie. But it was a nice try. I’m sure you have to do this quite often.

It would appear to me that you do not have the courage of your religious convictions. If you truly believed as you say that evolution isn’t a fact and you believe this because of religious considerations, then why are you consorting with the enemy? Is it in order to eventually get a good paying job that science can afford you? So now to achieve this, you lie to yourself and say what is demanded of you, in total contradiction of your beliefs just in order to get a good grade. But what do you think will happen in the future once the “real scientists” learn of your duplicity? Will you also end up where this guy is? Working at some religious college where a belief in the facts of science is optional?

Actually, I think you actually DO believe in evolution but you’re afraid to come out and admit it. Because in doing so, you run the risk of losing your religious-support group. That can be quite debilitating to think about. Your family and friends of a lifetime will never see you the same again. And you’ll no doubt deeply disappoint your parents. So you hang on to their beliefs as if they’re yours to keep harmony in your life. We’ve all been there.

But living the life of a lie can drive you nuts eventually. At some point YOU are going to have to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for your OWN THOUGHTS. Something of which religion now does for you. As it stands now, you get to straddle the fence. But if you can’t see, or refuse to accept the fact of evolution after spending all this time educating and immersing yourself in the world of science, then you are either blind or lying to yourself. And I don’t think you’re blind, if as you say you have a 4.0 GPA. And people usually tell themselves lies because they can’t face the consequences of accepting the truth.

What if tomorrow your religion says that they don’t accept the “facts’ of the periodic table. Would that then have to go too? How can you prove that hydrogen has only one electron orbiting its nucleus? How can you even prove it has a nucleus or an electron? The scientific method was devised to study and discover these things. And its now a fact that is taken for granted in science. The same methodology of theorizing and testing that theory resulted in the development of the periodic table – as with the facts of evolution.

So why believe the one, and not the other? The only reason I can see is because unlike the periodic table, evolution directly threatens your religious beliefs which argues a different “theory.” A theory which is deeply entangled into your emotional well and which has been with you since the first day your parents took you to church. Because of the connections to family and related religious social groups, its very difficult to accept the facts of evolution at the risk of jeopardizing all the rest. And because the leaders of religion deny it, and so they want their followers to do the same.

I’m pretty sure that you’ve never tested each of the elements that make up the periodic table just to prove that its correct. Probably never tested a single one. And yet as a Chemistry major, you accept the measurements and descriptions without question, knowing that when you combine sodium with chloride, you end up with a salt. And that this new compound has a different structure than the two elements previously had separately. But how do you know this? The periodic table tells you so. So it would appear that you’re cherry-picking with science in the same way that religion must cherry-pick with its belief system.

Religion has constantly learned to ignore or “disbelieve” certain aspects of its tenets that it once held as sacrosanct — as the word of god. It does this mostly because popular opinion wouldn’t accept some of these things any longer, not because of any “discovery of a truer truth.” Its the reason why we no longer stone adulterers, nor kill disobedient children. These are just a couple of the “facts” that may still be found in the bible which are now no longer held to be “true” by religion’s followers. Religion was “forced” to accept these changes.

But science welcomes challenges to its facts. Just so long as these facts are subject to peer review, are reproducible and can be confirmed. Religion never admits mistakes. Never submits itself to review. And its tenets are not reproducible, so therefore cannot be confirmed. It is the total antithesis of a scientist. Aaron, so if you continue to believe as you do, when you’re done with school, you won’t scientist. You’ll be like this guy. So why are you there at all?

In the old days of the civil rights movement (of which I played my small part), we used to call people who lied just to engender the support and to get into the good graces of people they secretly despised, Uncle Toms. Don’t be one of those Aaron. Think for yourself.

At some point in your life you’re going to have to accept responsibility for your own thoughts and ideas. The church can’t be there everytime with its pat answers for everything. And while the fear of cutting religion loose I’m sure is frighteningly palpable for you right now, it must be done. Just snatch it off like you would do a band-aid that’s been on too long. There’ll be a little pain and maybe a little blood. But the fresh air and sunlight will do you wonders. And you won’t have to hide the wounds anymore.

Because then you’ll be free….

Evolutionary processes have been observed in tens of thousands of organisms, from viruses to blue whales. That is an incontrovertible fact.

Would you mind demonstrating some of the “lies” about evolution? Perhaps you can go one step further and provide some evidence to support your opinion.

Growing bored with extraordinary claims,
Rival

I recall the case of the bar exam flunking would-be lawyer that you mentioned. Like many religionists, both of these guys seeks to re-order the world to fit their beliefs because they cannot make the mental leap to the point of understanding that maybe its their stupid beliefs that’s the problem here. And not the methods used in their erstwhile professions. If they can’t countenance the basis upon which they function, they should try careers in other professions.

This whole attempt on the part of Creationists and the Religious-Right to undermine science and logic are all acts of desperation. Because they are now presented almost daily with more and more evidence that their religious beliefs are so much horseshit. So they seek to now undercut these institutions by invading and adulterating them in such a way as to weaken the laws and processes under which science and logic are defined.

But this asshat’s attempt to cry “religious persecution” will fail, as will all the others. Because no matter what beliefs one may hold, they cannot supersede the scientific method, nor the basis of logic. To do otherwise is simply NOT SCIENCE, NOR LOGIC.

Religion is the only field wherein its adherents freely accept that illogical phenomena happens which is neither understood nor are there any attempts made to do so. Indeed, its a requirement that one do not question unexplained phenomena — but have faith. Such phenomena for them is the “proof” of the existence of their god who acts in mysterious ways. Who are we to question?

But because such phenomena isn’t reproducible, nor can any logical theory be advanced to explain it, it will NEVER be considered science. It is only religionists who are prepared to endow legitimacy upon such phenomena as the acts of an invisible being, and that it is to be accepted without question. Such an approach to discovery is anathema to the methods of science and logic. And they would do well to stop wasting their time, money and energy in trying to bend these institutions to their will, as they have done (somewhat more successfully) with others. Like politics.

But I for one, am not sorry this turd-of-a-scientist blew all that time and energy, and lost his money seeking an education for which he was ill-suited. It is just one more proof that the ability to regurgitate facts does not in and of itself equal intelligence. And I have often found that the only way for some people to advance in life, is for them to have to pay a heavy price for life’s lessons. Sadly, I doubt that this is one of those cases. This guy will now be labeled as a part of the lunatic-fringe and rightly so. And he will not be hired by anyone, save maybe the Creation Museum in Kentucky. Which is probably what prompted his lawsuit. I imagine that he’s pretty financially desperate now. Maybe his church could take up an offering….

As Ibn al-Haytham an early pioneer of the scientific method of the 10th century said:

“Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are engaged upon the quest for anything for its own sake are not interested in other things.”

What he failed to realize is that the Bar exam isn’t about what the lawyer believes – it’s about what the lawyer knows. And if you’re going to be a lawyer in Massachusetts, one of those things that you’ll just have to know is how the gay-marriage rules influence and impact other laws. Common sense – of course, that’s a rare virtue among true believers, especially those of the rabid right-wing variety.

What I want to know is why this guy devoted so much of his adult life to getting a PhD in biology when he doesn’t even believe in it. Is it the same reason I read the bible – to know the enemy? It seems a little excessive to go through all the steps necessary to become a doctor, but maybe he thinks that’s what it will take to get some creationist attention. The end result is that I can’t help but feel a little sad for the guy – all this time (and money – education is expensive!) spent to get a PhD in a field he doesn’t even believe in. And instead of bringing any legitimacy to his creationist claims, all it ends up doing is making him look like a zealot. It’s just sad.

On the other hand, his termination from Woods Hole is just plain wonderful.