Kansas Citizens for Science

[ABO]

Greg Myers

[Greg Myers]

When you call a man a terrorist, for doing something that is both legal and appreciated by many (ending a pregnancy to save a mother's life), you invite just the kind of act that ended Dr. Tiller's life. I understand that there is a passionate debate over abortion - but the debate must remain within the bounds of a civil society.

Throughout the world today, we have desperate examples of what nations become when they reject the rule of law and civil discourse, and turn to justifying violence in the name of their god. You invite just such a holocaust by your intemperate words - as we see in the jubilant reaction to Dr. Tiller's murder.

This is, of course, different only in degree with what you are trying to do to science in your desire to uphold biblical literalism. You don't care that you slander thousands of scientists who have worked hard to understand how the world works, and to create the advances in health and technology that makes modern life possible. No - they are simply liars and worse - because they don't share your reading of the bible. Do you care that this heated rhetoric is driving conservative Christians into an insular ghetto - where, as at Liberty University, you can't be a Christian and a Democrat (evidently, it is OK to lie, kidnap and murder for god, but abortion and same sex partnerships - that is crossing the line).

Dr. Tiller's murder is just a graphic example of the outcome of the self-righteous, "My way or go to hell" polarization that has become de rigueur among conservatives. Far from being ashamed, many conservatives chuckle among themselves and goad one another on to more and more outrageous comments - and then act surprised when someone of their number puts into action what is clearly implied by all the heated language. Even while tutting disapproval, you take the opportunity for a sound bite - and to signal that anyone who crosses you can expect the same rough treatment.

When public discourse spills over to murder, it is a pretty good indication that a line has been crossed - and Christians, surely, should be expected to know that.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799

[Gary S. Gaulin]

[Greg Myers]

So Gary, stop shouting at me about the science. What I see, and what has been made clear in dozens of court cases, and spilled out in crystal clear detail in Dover is that conservative Christians are working hard to introduce biblical literalism into the classroom - even if (like the Dover School Board and the authors of Pandas), they have to lie to do it.

You may have a different agenda, but you have chosen to take up the mantle of ID, which was designed specifically to do an end-run around the Constitution. This is still the agenda of biblical literalists, and they are producing large amounts of heat and noise in their effort to subvert the teaching of science. What you have put together is neither mainstream science nor biblical literalism, so you are in a tough spot. You might expect ID proponents to embrace you - but since what they want is a "science" that supports biblical literalism, I would not get my hopes up.

Gary, in the Bible, Adam and Eve were created at the same time in the first story, and some short period of time apart in the second story. Chromosomal Adam and Eve are 10s of thousands of years apart. This is not the same story - only the names are the same, for the PR value that those names offer. They are not even the first man and woman - just the Most Recent Common Ancestor - as you must know. So a better name for these would be Noah and his daughters .

The creator of ID is the Christian God - Behe admits to that, the DI is even coming out of the closet on this one. Your ideas bear only a linguistic connection to ID or the Adam and Eve story.

This was my original point, and I keep returning to it because you refuse to acknowledge it. You have a theory that, at best, might interest some New Age folks, and yet you keep mentioning the Fundamentalist Kathy Martin as if your ideas would ever be supported by the DI or Behe or any of the various biblical literalists who are driving the fight to get creationism into the schools. You may be imagining warm noises, because the DI is encouraging a "big tent" approach in their efforts to undermine science, but make no mistake, biblical literalism is where they are going. In case you are under any illusion, cellular intelligence and Chromosomal Adam and Eve do not fit into the biblical literalist's worldview.

You've already told me I am too stupid to understand what you have to say about science - so I can't imagine why you care what my view is - but I do know that you are being misleading when you couch your ideas in terms of ID or the fulfilling of the stories in Genesis. And the folks who are driving objections to the teaching of science in public schools, make no mistake, are biblical literalists, not the New Agers you seem to be pitching your ideas at, with your Tommy references and vague recollections of Genesis.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799

[ABO]

Greg, what an imagination, I didn't call this dude anything. It was a question. A question you didn't answer.

Who knows who killed this guy or what his motives were. But you have already decided that it was a radical self righteous Christian acting on his misguided interpretation of a mystical story. With your ability to know these things perhaps you should contact the law enforcement there and give them a hand.

[Greg Myers]

[Gary S. Gaulin]

[Greg Myers]

[curt]

"When explaining biological questions, such as the evolution of the eye, there is no need to say that God had nothing to do with it. It's an irrelevant comment. I don't think a classroom is an appropriate place to try to create more atheists any more than it is an appropriate place to create more fundamentalist Christians." From Eugenie Scott's recent interview in "Science" magazine.

[Greg Myers]

[Gary S. Gaulin]

[Greg Myers]

Gary, from my perspective, we are in agreement. You are using "Adam and Eve," and "ID" as loose reference points to place your ideas in some vague spiritual realm, to attempt to serve as a bridge between faith and science.

The actual content these words are meant to convey have been replaced by shallow pop-culture references you are using to hang your (quite different) concepts on.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799

[Gary S. Gaulin]

[Greg Myers]

Gary, you are wearing me out!

Scientists did not discover Adam and Eve and sequence their DNA - they analyzed DNA from contemporary humans, and working backwards, they identified the approximate time and place of the MRCA, male and female.

To make it a better story, they named the hypothetical persons so identified "Adam" and "Eve." This research into shared genetic heritage bears no resemblance to the Genesis story, nor was it meant to convey the idea that any scientist had identified biblical Adam and Eve. Further, our MRCA would actually be Noah and his sons and daughters - that is, this is what the study actually reveals, our MRCA, not the first humans.

The fact that you are appropriating the term "ID" for your work does not make it ID, even if Kathy says "Come on in!" ID is a creationist stalking horse. Your activity gives them cover, but what you are working on is doing nothing to demonstrate that the Christian God is the designer - which is their stated aim.

You are the one who said that the fact that Adam was made from the "dust of the earth" fulfilled one of your prerequisites for intelligence - silica. I notice a distinct lack of underwater "black smokers" in the Genesis text. As well, I have already demonstrated that the actual text references the dust from red farmland, which was then shaped into human form - and when god blew into its nostrils, the dirt became a person. This is what the story says, and it has nothing at all to do with your ideas.

Hopefully, we can put this to rest now.
_________________
The sleep of reason produces monsters.
Francisco de Goya, Los Caprichos, 1799

[Gary S. Gaulin]

OK Greg, I am worn out on that one too. Excellent debate though. And I do not know of black smokers but there's fire and brimstone somewhere else somewhere, same thing just shallower water like when ocean was maybe not as deep. But I'll stop there! I'll just say I'm applying Adam and Eve symbolism like others in science did before us, really no big deal. The best it seems we can prove by arguing over it anymore is that people always make of that as they will, including maybe especially us.

The theory is now past all that now that the introduction became a logical construct where one thing led to another then what our brain waves are for fit right in, then detecting the same on the computer model was accomplished with portable radio right after radio cultural exchange across the pond with the most skeptical of the scientists in the forum. Is now going for PhD in evolutionary biology. They made a whole topic just to question me, so as you can expect something real good has to happen in that one too!

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/showthread.php?p=4836810#poststop

For scientists the theory is a way to have much fun and adventure for you to keep it out of science. And I just found a third prediction of a machine that's just as good maybe better on the theory of ID blogger but they don't know yet. I wonder whether they will spot it in the logic on their own. That would show excellent scientist instinct, to me anyway.

In any event, no matter how hard one struggles not to go there all who have science in them are hopelessly drawn into this theory just like I was. That's all the theory needs to live on in science and culture. So I'm not worried about the details right now, getting the theory sorted/shuffled out is making all presentable is working great. Already looks like it has to be reported in Nature, or scientists look behind the Kansas folk too. Hard to pass up a happy ending like that.