> Greetings and Salutations,
>
> Thomas Moore wrote:
> >120 isn't that long considering how long something much more simple to
> >see in the geological record, that continents move, took to be accepted
> >(and it was rightly rejected at the time, and when the right evidence
> >came along).
>
> Let me ask a question. Was continental drift accepted on the basis of
> new evidence? Or was it accepted on the basis of accumulating evidence?
> What I am driving at is the following. If evidence gathered from some
> new technique (Say some kind of an interferometry measurement showed
> a relative movement of the continents in accordance with the predictions
> of the theory.) tilted the balance in favor of drift theory, then the
> two situations you are comparing here would not be analogous.
Of course, the hoopla regarding the Cambrian explosion that's going on
now is largely because of the recent redating of Cambrian rocks. The
time length of the Cambrian has shrunk considerable in the last 5-10
years. Before that, that Cambrian was 40 million years, or so, longer.
Evidence has been gaining about tectonics for at least 70-80 years, and
anomalous results have been known for much longer than that. So, the
idea that continents move is old, but there was nothing to really support
the concept. The same is true for the Cambrian explosion. In the
60's-70's, paleomag came in and confirmed plate motions. Now, the
shrinking age dates of the Cambrian are confirming an explosion of
sorts. They are analogous.
> >I don't know of anyone who considers abiogenesis a "fact." But then I
> >don't see a preamble to every theory saying that this is the "best
> >naturalistic explanation available." Evolution theory is not a "fact."
> >The paleontological record of change of life throught time _is_ a fact.
> >These data are not just an idea. I do think, though, that the media has
> >trouble in understanding how to present information to the masses (what
> >scientists call "the cringe factor").
>
> The only problem I have here is that secular scientists tend to look the
> other way as simplified versions and explanations of the "facts" are used
> to support political causes with which they are in sympathy. They cringe,
> but they don't correct.
They can't correct everyone all the time. Everyone who uses science to
their political ends intentionally distort the results to favor their
use. I've seen it from the radical enviromentalist to Rush Limbaugh.
The real results are published, if people don't go to the source instead
of depending on the media, then that's the people's and media's problem,
not science's.
[deletions]
> He continues:
> >Christianity has a bad track record as well. Even Hitler wrote that he
> >was doing what he wa doing for God. Remember witch buring, crusades,
> >Northern Ireland, slavery in the US, KKK, etc etc? By your own
> >standards, Christians should stop claiming they have the "facts" or
> >"truth."
>
> This argument is so simplistic that it is infuriating. Even Hitler
> wrote that what he was doing was for God? His whole system was based
> on the superman ideas of Nietsche who made the infamous claim, "God is
> dead." Ceremonies of the Third Reich were based on ancient pagan ceremonies
> and the official "religion" of Nazi Germany was NOT Christianity. Hitler's
> whole idea of God was determined by twisted non-Christian philosophies and
> was, if anything, the logical extension of Darwinism to human societies.
> Not only that, but the secularization of Germany that occurred
> as a result of the "Higher Criticism" of 19th century German theologians also
> contributed to the rise of German paganism and nationalism.
>
Rob totally missed the point I was making. This argument of "logical
extension of Darwinism" is by no means logical. Indeed, Hitler's concept
of a superrace was flawed when compared to evolution theory anyway. He
certainly wasn't driven by evolution. I would also argue that groups
like the KKK are not really Christian, even though they wear that hat.
The point is that misuse of power, hate, etc. were at the root of these
problems. Guilt by association attacks are not warrented.
> But the problem I have with this sentiment goes deeper than this.
> Moore obviously believes that, because religion is unimportant to him, it
> is unimportant. But religions have a tremendous impact on society. Why
Fortunately, Rob is wrong here. I never claimed religion is unimportant,
nor do I believe that.
> do Muslim men treat women as inferiors? Because their religion reinforces
> the cultural bias. Why are Hindus so caste conscious? Because their religion
> tells them that their caste is an unalterable fact of nature. I could go on
> and on, but the point is that religions play a critical role in the behavior
> of society. While Christianity does not have a perfect track record, many
> of the abuses can be traced to contra-Biblical principles. (Sale of
> Indulgences, forbidding the Bible to the laiety etc . . .)
>
Of course, Hitler's view of evolution was also wrong. Christianity is
not perfect, which is probably a good thing. Evolution, on the other
hand, isn't a religion.
> Let me illustrate by making up a conversation between two men, we'll call
> them, "Rob" and "Tom":
[parody of what I don't believe deleted]
>
> Since we have banned the ten commandments from public schools, crime is up
> 800%. Teenage pregnancy is up. Drug use is up. Divorce rates are soaring.
> Test scores are dropping like a stone. (Though SAT scores will soon show
> a big improvement because they have "renormalized" the test.) . . .
Try this correlation, evangelicals are up during the same time -
evangelicals are the cause. There are a lot more correlations one can
make, but I have yet to see any evidence of direct causal relationships.
>
> But, hey, none of this is because we're teaching children that they are
> glorified animals and that nothing they do has any meaning or consequence.
>
No, it isn't. Why? Because evolution is still barely touched on in
schools. Some have more evolution theory than others, yet few have much.
Indeed, look at modern Christians. How many evangelicals are commiting
crimes? Remember Jim Baker? I think it's about time Christians start
looking for a real problem rather than beating up on science.
Christianity has failed us as a country - your argument about teaching in
school proves it. Christianity has access to America's children at least
5-8 hours on a week day and up to 16 hours a day on a weekend (which adds
up to around 3000 hours a year), whereas evolution theory has direct acces
to children maybe 100-200 hours in their school career (that is, at a
system that actually teaches it). It's time for Christianity to start
pointing their finger at themselves if Christians think they have the
answers. Christians shouldn't need to have access to schools to be able
to teach Christianity - you have plenty of time to do so. If the
children are not getting the message, it's the Christian's fault.
Tom
*****************************************************************************
*** Thomas L. Moore mooret@gas.uug.arizona.edu ***
*** Paleoclimatology Research Lab. mooret@aruba.ccit.arizona.edu ***
*** Department of Geosciences mooret@ccit.arizona.edu ***
*** University of Arizona ***
*****************************************************************************