For God’s sake, can our MPs just stick to their day jobs

David says:

01:32pm | 12/03/10

Oh Chris. The Multiplication Rule of Probability can be applied to anything and everything with a connective parthway of events to result in fantastically large numbers.

In order to apply it to our own evolution (or the evolution of any creature) you have to justify the being in question is the intended target of evolution. The example on the page you listed was the chance of spelling the phrase ‘the theory of evolution’ from randomly picking letters as 1once every 8.3x10^32 times. However, this is equally improbable for any combination of letters of the same length. The phrase only has meaning to us because of the English language.

This line of thinking is further undermined in its application to evolution when you understand the theory doesn’t rest on chance, natural selection is the very opposite of chance. Educate yourself from sources outside your own religious preference and open your mind - it won’t hurt your God one bit.

Then again you did say “I will never change my view” - last I checked the only infallible being is a God.

iansand says:

01:19pm | 12/03/10

Chris - Don’t run away just yet.  Point out where you have set out the experiment that establishes creationism as an explanation of the diversity of life*.

*Note to Chris - saying you don’t understand it doesn’t count, nor do attempts to debunk evolution.  Even if you do that, Genesis and the Dreamtime legends are still there as equally valid theories.  You need something positive.

Andrew Goff says:

07:42pm | 11/03/10

Chris… you’ve answered your own question: “Honors level in physical and inorganic chemistry…”

So in other words, he has no qualifications at all to talk about biology. It would be like me talking about how to launch rockets or construct a building to withstand an earthquake.

Evolution is an incomplete, but so far never disproven theory… only a theory, not a fact (unlike natural selection, which is indeed a fact of life). It could be wrong.

The idea the Earth has only been around for less than 10,000 years is simply scientifically wrong, and is in any case on such flimsy theological ground that only biblical literalists even consider it.

chris says:

04:55pm | 11/03/10

John, you clearly think I too am an idiot as you are taking a contrary position to mine, so how does it feel “down here”?

Betelnut, God designed and implemented all physical laws, therefore science discovers nothing. it simply re-discovers what God created and knows infinitely more about than any Scientist. We should keep our views
“out of the science classroom’? I wonder what the ultimate Science Teacher thinks of that.

But I digress, do you really think Dawkins is doing himself a favour
by not debating Creation Scientists? At the very least it gives a perception of fear.

Dawkins V Sarfati, now there is a prizefight i can only dream about. By the way the insinuation is always there that our people aren’t “real” scientists, every one of them are. FYI Sarfati’s bio reads in part:

“Honors level in physical and inorganic chemistry, as well as in condensed matter physics and nuclear physics. He received his Ph.D. in physical chemistry in 1995 on the topic of spectroscopy, especially vibrational. He has co-authored various technical papers on such things as high temperature superconductors and sulfur- and selenium-containing ring and cage molecules.”

Journeyman says:

03:40pm | 11/03/10

Chris,
A belief in creationism is akin to believing the world is flat. It’s hard having a serious debate with an adult who has the reasoning capacity of a small child. Blind faith clouds objectivity, you’re a case in point.

Betelnut says:

02:50pm | 11/03/10

@Chris

The problem is if evolution is truly shown scientifically to be BS, then all scientists will be happy to adjust to the new paradigm, as this is how the scientific method works.  If however, creationism is shown to be BS scientifically (i.e. the world is older than 6000 years, all the animals couldn’t fit on the ark etc etc) then i somewhat doubt that all creationists will give up their faith.

You are conflating atheism and evolution, as Dawkins is involved in both.  One, evolutionary biology, is science and beholden to the scientific method and you are free to debate the scientific underpinnings of the theory as much as you like, on this blog if necessary.

The other, i.e. the existence and nature of “God” is not a scientific question, and both you (and Dawkins for that matter) do empirical science a disservice by trying to use the cloak of “scientific research” to justify what are essentially philophical beliefs. 

You can both believe wahtever you want, just keep it out of the science classroom!!

John says:

12:43pm | 11/03/10

Chris there’s an old saying. Never argue with an idiot, they will only bring you down their level. Dawkins is very wise.

John says:

11:50am | 11/03/10

Thank you, that sums it perfectly.

David says:

01:26am | 11/03/10

This comment reveals a common misunderstanding of the terms “atheist” and “agnostic”. A-theism is a lack of theistic belief, that being a belief in god. It is a term that states a belief position, or lacktherof. If one is gnostic about God then you think that we can know that exists, this is distinct from faith that god exists. Conversely, a-gnostic (sadly mispronounced as ag-nostic) is a position that we can’t know if God exists.

As a result you can draw a 2x2 table with theist and atheist across one axis and gnostic and agnostic across the other. All for combinations are possible. You can be a gnostic atheist or agnostic atheist. Also a gnostic theist or agnostic theist.

The reality is most atheists are agnostic too and many theists as well.

So saying somone is agnostic really doesn’t say anything abou their actual position on whether god exists of not.

This link shows the table I speak of:
http://religiouscartoons.goditself.com/displayimage.php?album=4&pos=5

chris says:

11:59am | 11/03/10

The Australian constitution (our ultimate law) says our nation was created “humbly relying on the blessing of God”.

Our politicians are obeying the constitution.

Bob says:

02:28pm | 10/03/10

“There was but one Christian, and he was crucified.” -  Nietzsche

matt stewart says:

02:08pm | 10/03/10

Well, I guess a little self-loathing is good for soul.

Rick says:

02:02pm | 12/03/10

Hmm.. you might be right. My claims were maybe a little spurious. Thanks for such reasoned respones.

David says:

01:01pm | 11/03/10

Well Rick then by those standards of assessing an individual’s religiosity we may never know if anyone truly believes simply because they have a potential motivation in appealing to other people’s preferences. Nevermind all those religious people who carried out the executions and staffed concentration camps or the celebration of Hitler’s birthday in churches (perhaps under duress, perhaps not). Nevermind the long history of Christian persecution and hatred towards jewish people who were descendants of those who killed their God (although this was supposedly necessary). Even if there is a balanced divergence of historical opinion (and not one that could possibly be coloured by the religious beliefs of historians) you still chose to mention Nazi Germany as an example of atheism and politics.

You did ignore the other fascist dictatorships of Europe in the first half of the 20th century and mayhaps a perusal of the Vatican’s support of all of these regimes to varying degrees (and a distinct lack of opposition). Furthermore, what does it say about religion if it is not immune from being twisted to such abhorrent ends as holocausts violent political oppression? The reality is that religious institutions of any weight have only opposed “radical” ideology when it threatens their own influence and power.

I simply do not accept the proposition that radical ideology can arise more easily under an “atheistic” government (simply because no atheistic government has existed without radical ideology putting it there). You lack a causative pathway and correlation is not sufficient.

I would also point out that atheistic government is not what the majority of atheists are vocal in asking for. There is a distinct difference between atheistic government and secular. It is very important to note that within secular government freedom of religion is highly valued - but also freedom from religion. Australia only scores well on this issue from a point of apathy but poorly in terms of constitution and law which is truly the pathway under which theocracies AND radical ideologies that are anti-theistic can arise, much like the rise of Nazi’s in Germany.

Rick says:

08:47pm | 10/03/10

I believe historians hold divergent views on the religious views of Hitler. Yes, it is true that Hitler used Christian themes etc. to manipulate the ‘intrinsically Christian’ culture around him ie. propaganda.  He also sought to suppress religion. It would be naive to assume that just because a political leader appeals to religious themes or makes claims about what they believe that this is actually reflects their true beliefs - particularly where there is political gain to be made.

Re: communist regimes and dictatorships - no, atheism was not the defining feature of these regimes, My claim was not intended to be that atheism was the cause of said atrocities but that radical ideologies and regimes arise just as, if not more, readily under atheistic government and leadership as they do under religious ones. Incidentally I’ve been fortunate enough spend some time in China including a visit Mao’s tomb.

Faith/religious belief often militates more against the rise or excesses of radical ideologies than it feeds them.

papachango says:

04:44pm | 10/03/10

Dawkins answered that point on the show. All through history atrocities were conducted under the guise of an extreme ideology. Sometimes that ideology was religious - the current lot of Islamicst terrorists, or going back a few hunderd years the Crusades.

Other times the ideology was something else - Communism and Facism in the examples above. But not ‘belligerent athiesm’ - e.g. Mao banned religion because he saw it as a competitor to Communist ideology. Ditto Stalin and the Orthodox Church.

No one commits a murder explicitly in the name of athiesm.

You could argue that if people don’t believe in an afterlife they might do evil things because they think they can get away with it, but it’s a weaker argument and in my view doesn’t balance the downsides to dogmatic religious moral codes. Anyway even if you had a theocracy some people would still be athiestic and commit crimes, others would be religious, commit crimes then seek forgiveness.

David says:

04:30pm | 10/03/10

It is probably also worth correcting your assertions. Nazi germany (and other early 20th century fascist regimes) were intrinsically Christian, most often Catholic. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, his first treaty as leader of Germany was with the Vatican, not to mention his book Mien Kampf includes a variety of passages expressing his Christianity. Then there are his speeches… The majority of German people were Christian as were those who staffed and operated the various machinations of the holocaust. Your view on Nazism and Hitler may be common in society but it is not consistent with accepted historical facts. The internet is a fantastic resource for confirming or denying this position.

Yes, communist regimes and dictatorships were atheistic however this was hardly their defining feature. These dicatorships and regimes were strongly motivated by the us and them ideology centering around the workers against the wealthy upperclass. Additionally the utopian dreams of marxist communism and planned/managed economy. Obviously these were hijacked and manipulated by some of the worst human beings known to history. It wasn’t just that these men were atheists and unanswerable to a God, they were also unanswerable to other people after they had established personality cults. A visit to Mao’s tomb or Lenin’s body serve as monuments to these cults in the same way a church from the dark ages does today.

It takes more than a lack of belief in something to arrive at the atrocities of communism. It also takes more than a lack of belief to achieve the advances in liberal secular societies we know today. It takes ideologies and values to take a sociopolitical velocity.

Are atheists and secularists today advocating for communism and fascism? Or are they campaigning for a more robust liberal society?

Tell me. Does your lack of belief in unicorns dictate that you engage in any particular behaviour or activity?

iansand says:

07:10pm | 10/03/10

Patrick - That is pretty mainstream stuff these days.  Without doubt at the level of viruses and single celled organisms, and with a reasonable level of certainty at more complex levels.  And the idea of mitochondria as being separate organisms incorporated into cells is also mainstream.

The main rrequirement for creationists is lack of imagination.

Patrick says:

02:52pm | 10/03/10

I read some weird theory that large chunks of the human genome are thought to be ancient retroviruses that managed to transcribe themselves into our DNA, and that even the mitochondria in our bodies just sorta rocked up and set up shop, and we never kicked them out because they do us so much good.

When you really look into evolution you see just how insanely complex it is, and why it is such a much more reasoned argument than one from a 2000 year old book written by illiterate Jews translated by illiterate Anglos and edited at various times along the way (Dead Sea scrolls etc.)

Matt Stewart says:

01:33pm | 10/03/10

A classic example of someone criticising evolution when they clearly have absolutely no understanding of how it works.

PS, Dawkins comprehensively deals with eye evolution in some of his books.  It has happened at least eleven times.  Wings have evolved at least four times (fewer than eyes), but if you expect evolution to happen within 60 years for one generation, you don’t know what evolutions is.

Lee from WA says:

10:38am | 11/03/10

Matt: Are you kidding me? Have you even read what I wrote?

Of course I believe that it is the indisputable word of God. The Bible is God’s Word given to man. However, it isn’t to be all understood the same. For example, Psalms has parts when the author encourages the trees to sing their praise to God. Does that mean the author actually believes that trees can sing? No, its because Psalms is poetry and should be understood as that. If you treat like you would 1 Samuel, a history book, you’ll get yourself in a real bind.

What is Genesis 1 - 12? Is it poetry, which I think it is, or is it history, which what Young Earthers believe it to be? Well, it isn’t an issue that determines who is saved and who isn’t so we can agree to disagree. Its called being responsible adults.

What I want to know from you Matt: do all evolutionist agree on every point of evolutionary theory? Does anyone within the scientific community disagree someone else with the finer points of evolutionary theory? The answer is of course. People are always going to disagree. Does that make evolution wrong? No, of course not.

Also, who censored the Bible? Who edited it? Since you atheist make much of evidence, where is the evidence for your assertions. Otherwise you are as bad as the theists you so clearly despise.

Matt Stewart says:

07:11pm | 10/03/10

You don’t have the freedom of picking and choosing the bits you like Lee, it’s all the undisputable word of an omnipotent god.  Unless you dispute the bit where it says it’s the word of god.  And if you dispute that bit, then you have no choice to look at the whole thing as a historical account and/or a source of moral guidance.  And on those counts, it fails miserably.  On those counts, it is an absurd, ridiculous and schizophrenic collection of rubbish.  Sure it has some good bits, but monkeys with typewriters could probably do better.

Christianity is an absurd and unecessary construct, largely propogated as tool of control by far more earthly powers.  The bible is the extensively censored and edited book of that absurd constuct, and treating it as something more than a pretty poor work of fiction is pointless.  Sure, some people get comfort from their faith, but then some people get comfort from Lady Gaga songs.  That doesn’t make Lady Gaga divine.

Lee from WA says:

05:47pm | 10/03/10

Matt: It is one thing to agree on the fundamentals and another on peripheral issues. So I agree with YEC that the Bible is inspired and that God is the Creator of the whole universe but I don’t agree with their understanding of Genesis 1. Do we have to agree? No.

Do all evolutionists agree on every aspect of the theory of evolution? No. Does that mean evolutionists are wrong? No.

iansand says:

05:37pm | 10/03/10

Gosh chris.  I believe that creationism is bullshit.  As far as I am concerned, my belief trumps your belief.  That is not very convincing is it?

Now - Can you nominate one experiment or observation that positively establishes creationism or intelligent design as legitimate explanations for anything?  You are entitled to believe whatever you want.  Just don’t pretend it has any connection with science.

Matt stewart says:

04:15pm | 10/03/10

I’m not a scientist, never claimed to be.  However, when you say something completely unsubstantiated like “Almost all of the world’s great Scientists (I notice you capitalise it, like you see it as some kind of religion in itself, showing you don’t understand it at all) believed in a Creator God”, then I am quite justified in calling it nonsense.  And there is nothing unscientific in doing so.  Scientists, and others, are perfectly justified in calling a spade a spade.

chris says:

02:58pm | 10/03/10

Iansand ( a great and prolific defender of the evolutionary faith on this and other sites) asks this question of me: “Can you nominate one experiment or observation that positively establishes creationism or intelligent design as legitimate explanations for anything?” The book of Genesis gives the answer simply without any need for repetitive verbiage. The experiment in question was to create time, space and all matter, I believe the observational evidence that in fact that occurred is all around us, although feel free to challenge it if you like.

Read the material…thoroughly. My creation story comes from a loving God, yours from, not just an atheistic, but actively anti-God view.

I am prepared to read the material from both sides thoroughly from a scientific perspective. You have merely “looked at” the site I refer to, another berates it as tailored to “cloud and confuse the issue” so obviously hasn’t read the site as it takes the opposite approach.
Another dismisses it as “ridiculous” and adds that what I have written, in part,  is “nonsense”.

Do these responses sound like Scientists with open minds prepared to follow the evidence courageously to wherever it leads them? That is my ultimate observation.

Matt Stewart says:

02:44pm | 10/03/10

Well if you can’t decide what a text actually says, I can’t see how you think it is worth living by the word of that text.

Lee from WA says:

02:22pm | 10/03/10

Matt stewart: most evangelicals would say that the Bible correctly understood is always right - the problem for us is in the correctly understood. Some things are obvious -that God is the Creator; others less so - does Gen 1 contradict the theory of evolution?

So for example, you can get guys like Phillip Jensen, one of the most conservative evangelical Anglicans going round at the moment, believing there is a sovereign Creator God and believing that evolution is true.

And the Pope, well, Protestants would say that he is wrong on some very serious issues. I’m pretty sure that even the Catholics don’t believe in papal infallibility since Vatican II.

I don’t think that Genesis 1 leads inevitably to Youth Earth Creationism. Having said that, evolution has a theological problem with how death could be present before humanity rejecting God as their ruler (sin).

Matt stewart says:

01:44pm | 10/03/10

I’ve read the material.  I’ve read the bible, I’ve read Darwin’s work and I’ve read the ridiculous creation.com.

The thing a lot of people don’t understand about science is simultaneously it’s greatest weakness and it’s greatest strength.  The bible (and the pope) is always right, as it is the word of god.  Science is frequently wrong, and it embraces the fact that it is frequently wrong. 

The theory of evolution could be overturned in an instant by one genuine example of irreducible complexity.  But there are none.  Scientists develop theories and then look for ways to test them.  If the results don’t fit the theory, the theory is discarded or updated.  Science will make many many mistakes before it finds all the answers, and quite frankly there is no better way to pursue knowledge.  Is everything in evolutionary theory proven?  No.  But many fine minds are working to prove and disprove many elements of it. Many elements have been established, and others have been rejected.  Lamarkian evolution, for example, has been comprehensively rejected.

Compare this to creation - It’s in the bible, so it’s the word of god, so it’s true.  That’s no way to find answers.

Your final paragraph is nonsense.

Shane says:

01:21pm | 10/03/10

I like how you spend the first two paragraphs of your post telling evolutionist that they don’t understand the evidence, and that they should do more research on what I’m positive is a creationalist website specifically tailored to cloud and confuse the issue.

And then in your last paragraph, you go ahead and do away with all evidence based argument with the completely unevidence statement that “almost all of the world’s greatest…...”

Oh, by the way, your clever reverse pyschology wordplay didn’t work on me.

Jeff says:

01:06pm | 10/03/10

Well said Chris, could not agree more.

iansand says:

12:57pm | 10/03/10

chris - I have looked at that site before.  All it is is a series of criticisms (pretty pathetic criticisms) of evolution.  It does nothing to demonstrate the reality of creationism or intelligent design.  Can you nominate one experiment or observation that positively establishes creationism or intelligent design as legitimate explanations for anything?

H of SA says:

12:31pm | 12/03/10

Iansand,

My personal view is that any immoral behaviour you find inside the church is found outside the church - being a Christian doesn’t make one stop doing bad things, just as doing bad things doesn’ stop one being a Christian.

The difference this is more profoundly seen on this side of the grave in that a Christian believes that, though they are guilty as anyone - Christ actually took the punishment we deserve on himself so we don’t have to take it. Like a good friend helping you pay that bill you can’t afford to stop you going to jail - even though its completely your fault you couldn’t pay the bill.

So a Christian lives in forgiveness, not sure how the non Christians or people of other beliefs in the divine would talk about their state of living. The viewpoints probably have a lot of variety.

But the point I’m getting at is the utility of faith, I don’t think is soley about stopping people from doing bad things immediately, though we could say that the experience of forgiveness begins to take away the desire to continue ill deeds. Forgiveness also facilitates relationship, just as in human relationships forgiveness draws people together, so it does with the divine. I guess I would see accepting the Christian “good news” is accepting forgiveness, which draws a peron closer to God - and its through this relating that the hard and selfish heart (which is the root of our misdeeds really) is softened.

Lee from WA says:

10:45am | 11/03/10

Bob: of course people can be motivated by their own volition to love. I didn’t say atheists can’t love, just that they have no compelling reason. I’m also saying Christians do love people self-sacrificially, just that they are called to do as a critical aspect of their relationship with Jesus.

You seem to suggest that atheists do have a compelling reason for loving other self-sacrificially? What is it then Bob? What reason compels all atheists to love others without any thought to their own needs or wants?

In the end, the only authority in the atheists life is themselves and if they don’t want to live that way, they don’t and no one is in a position to tell them otherwise. If a Christian doesn’t love self-sacrificially, then they are going back on their faith and the Bible calls into question the faith of those who don’t love.

Bob says:

07:26pm | 10/03/10

Lee, people can be motivated to love of their own volition. According to the NT people come to Christ through their own volition, therefore the ability to make a moral choice is acknowledged by your own book. It follows, then, that people can make a similar moral choice without the need for a belief in God. Christianity does not separate the good from the bad, but the saved from the unsaved. I can be unsaved but still be good and love unconditionally. For you to say otherwise would be blasphemous. Hence the argument that one needs to have a belief in god to have a compelling reason to love cannot stand.

And you said: “The only moral compass for an atheist is their own and there is no logical reason for telling them different.” Which does lay claim to an exclusive motivation for love compassion or good works. This is another example of Christian hubris.

Lee from WA says:

05:39pm | 10/03/10

Bob: Who ever said that Christianity was the only wellspring of selfless love? I certainly didn’t. All I’m pointing out is that atheism doesn’t really give me a reason to be selflessly loving. For Christians though, Christ gives them a compelling reason to be so, in fact it is intimately tied to the nature of trusting in Jesus.

DG: Yeah, dogs do work together. Until one of them falls too sick to maintain their standing in that pack and they are either left behind or killed. It makes sense to work together in nature but only until it doesn’t serve me any more.

No enemies? What tosh. What planet do you live on? And in any event, Christ calls his people to love and serve their enemies and models that behaviour. Atheism has no such example.

Even if your logic was true (and I don’t think it is), you have no right to impose that on other atheists and since selfishness is the default position of all people, I cannot see how atheism as a system can really work to achieve the ideals that some (ie Dawkins, Hitchens) believe it can.

iansand says:

05:28pm | 10/03/10

The problem is that there are vast numbers of people who are “good” without the influence of god.  They remain goo for their whole lives.  There are people who are “bad” who profess to (and probably do) believe in god.

Thus proving (empirically if you insist) that god is superfluous.

The peo[ple who scare me are the people who are good because of fear of misery in the afterlife.  If they lose their belief they will become amoral psychopaths.  Actually they won’t (and don’t), again proving that belief in a supreme being is unnecessary for a moral life.

DG says:

04:12pm | 10/03/10

“If my career is furthered by your demise, what reason do I have in backstabbing you and climbing over your body on the way to the top? No reason, in fact it would be unreasonable to do otherwise.”

The reason you wouldn’t back stab me is that it is in your best interests if everyone plays by the same rules. i.e no back stabbing. t the cost of slower advancement you gain security, so long as every one plays by the same rules.

“The natural world around us has no compassion or mercy and is entirely dog eat dog.”

That’s not true and you have used the perfect example. Dogs hunt in packs. They work together because it is in each dog’s interest to work together and take a share of the rewards.

We look after the weak for the same reason.Should we face a moment of weakness, the community will help us, because each member knows that by playing by these mutually beneficial rules, they will be helped if they come on bad times.

“Why not go further and ask ‘why should I love my enemies?’”
Why should you have enemies at all? As an atheist I would suggest that there is no need for enemies. If you are not in direct competition for boor and essential resources why should you have enemies? If they believe differently to you, good for them, there is no need to call them enemies. Why make enemies if there is no need to? What benefit is there from having enemies? Isn’t it better to live and let live (unless there are insufficient resources).

When you are in competition for food you will be enemies and so you should, each will strive for survival. Just because you do not have common views or ideals does not make you enemies. If they attack you, they are an enemy if they seek to deny you of resources they are enemy.

You have no need to love your enemies. Just to ignore them, why would you engage in combat when there is no benefit?

Bob says:

02:55pm | 10/03/10

You don’t get it, do you Lee? Your definition is circular. Your beliefs are consistent only withing themselves.

Besides, the word ‘love’ you are quoting is the Greek ‘agapeo’, which means divine selfless love. The Greeks invented this word, and the concept behind it, long before it was used in the NT.

Listening Christians talk about love is like listening to teenagers talk about sex. They act like they invented it and are the only only ones doing it.

H of SA says:

02:41pm | 10/03/10

Lee, my response was more to J than your original post.

J, neither I believe God is the only one who can change a persons nature, religion itself is not going to help without God. What did you find ridiculous?

Lee from WA says:

02:40pm | 10/03/10

DG: Self-interest? Really? If my career is furthered by your demise, what reason do I have in backstabbing you and climbing over your body on the way to the top? No reason, in fact it would be unreasonable to do otherwise.

Why should tax dollars go towards the handicapped or disabled? They serve no purpose to the community but to take resources and we could divert the money towards things that help those who contribute to the economy.

The natural world around us has no compassion or mercy and is entirely dog eat dog. If we take the atheist’s position that there is nothing to life but the here and now, why not act purely in what serves me and what I want? There is no rational reason why I wouldn’t. Why not go further and ask ‘why should I love my enemies?’ Christ calls his followers to but should atheists do it?

J: The Bible says that no-one is good so it isn’t the case that religion is for good people. Quite the opposite - Christ died for sinners. But when people follow Jesus, they are called to deny themselves, take up their cross (meaning to die) and follow Jesus (Mark 8). Those who follow Jesus are to die to their own self-interest and live for the benefit of others.

Atheism is the polar opposite. Atheism says that the only person who gives me meaning is me. The only things of any worth are the things I give worth. Atheism leaves people with themselves as the centre of the universe.

Patrick says:

02:36pm | 10/03/10

Again, the argument that without religion exists no morality. . Tired, tired argument.

Education (something religions fail to provide without bias) generally gives people good reasons to be good people, because if everyone is, then the world will be nicer, right? Christianity tells you your gay neighbour is a sinning faggot, and will burn in hell, whereas people without such dogmatic beliefs promote equality to this section of long-abused society.

Women were not allowed to be priests, or have many responsibilities apart from the kids and the kitchen when religion was in full sway, again, once people got over “the book” telling them what to do, the 60’s happened, and women are doing a hell of a lot more that they want to now.

Just because you don’t believe in an invisible friend doesn’t make you a murdering psychopath (in fact it’s quite the opposite).

Lee from WA says:

02:30pm | 10/03/10

H of SA: I don’t think anywhere in that post do I mention that Christians do good things for the pay-offs. All it says that doing good is the natural flow-on from the love of God, ultimately shown to us through the death of Jesus, and from the inherent value of those made in the image of God. You rightly point out that salvation is through grace alone - the unmerited forgiveness of God, received through trusting in Jesus alone.

Bob: In the words of Jesus: greater love has no one but this, that he lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). Every human, apart from Jesus, has rebelled against God and chosen to live their life for themselves, rejecting God as their rightful ruler, and is subject to God’s anger and judgment because of that. Jesus shows us true love by dying in our place to rescue us from God’s judgment, even while we still rejected him. As Paul puts it, ‘someone might be willing to die for a good person. But God shows his love for by this: while we were still rebels, Christ died for us’ (Romans 5:7).

DG says:

02:28pm | 10/03/10

“What is there in the atheist’s perspective that can rationally inspire love and rationally discourage hate?”

Self-interest.

A desire to survive? The pursuit of harmony? An attempt to minimise the risks the face in the natural world?

Consider an example - if you live in the wilderness surrounded by things that would eat you in a heart beat, what would you do? A reasonable suggestion would be some form of alliance and take turns sleeping.

Which is a nicer life, one where you have to struggle on alone or one where you form an alliance where you can rely on others?

Which is an easier way to pass on your genes and ensure that your offspring survive? Convince someone to share that responsibility with you and pair up (the alternative is to spread your seed as far and as wide as possible but, since that is of little benefit to half of the species, the former evolves as a dominant instinct). After all the half that actually have the baby could benefit from having someone to provide for them them while they are looking after the young. 

All of these things would support a propensity to love over hate. Those that had a tendency to go it alone get eaten, killed, or just die when they get ill and there is no one to help.

J says:

02:26pm | 10/03/10

H, that’s ridiculous.  Religion isn’t going to make you a good person if you’re not.  And you can be a good person without religion.  So which is it?

H of SA says:

02:00pm | 10/03/10

You said that that Christians do good because of the pay offs, not wanting to speak for all Christians here but I personally think the idea “do good and you will go to heaven” is about as big a misrepresentation of Christianity you can get.

The causes of this perception of Christianity would be I think some Christian churches and teachers unfortunately teaching that, and also the popular media usually suggests this (I think mainly of the Simpsons here).

My own belief is the reason for doing good is not to -get saved- but to do good because we have been saved. Its pretty clear from the Bible only sinners are going to get into heaven - so its a doctrine of grace not of guilt motivation.

I think C.S. Lewis put it well:

“(The Christian) does not think God will love us because we are good, but that God will make us good because He loves us.”

Its the other way round than the popular portrayal.

Bob says:

01:49pm | 10/03/10

Define God. Define love.

And so we find ourselves back at square one having discovered nothing but the awesome hubris of Christianity.

shane says:

01:10pm | 10/03/10

...how can the decision to love or hate be anything more then a preference…..exactly. It may not be nice, but thats exactly what it is. Everything is relative, including morals and ethics. Good and Bad are Human constructs etc etc etc. I don’t believe in God, but I believe I’m a fairly good person. I can to my value system and beliefs through thought and consideration of the world, which includes religion, various cultures, and looking into the works of great thinkers. The religious on the other hand, are handed their “belief” systems fully formed and grounded in most cases, not on thought, but on faith. Whose belief is more solid, someone who has thought things through and come to considered and rational conclusions, or someone who has rarely/if ever looked beyond the surface of their values at why they even believe what they do.

J says:

01:04pm | 10/03/10

how can the decision to love or hate be anything more than a preference, a product of ‘feelings’ as atheist Bertrand Russell once famously acknowledged?

I fail to see what is wrong with this.  Warm and fuzzies from doing something nice for someone else is great.  What’s wrong with this?

any kind of life is logically compatible with atheism.’

This is true. However, as mentioned above, there have been some serious acts against humanity that have been carried out either in the name of religion, or have perpetrated the persecution of certain religious groups for their beliefs.  I don’t believe the divide between the faithful and the atheists is as great as you make out.

Atheism gives a person no compelling reason for doing otherwise.

Crucial statement.  Christians do good things for a pay-off.  “If I’m a good and kind and God-fearing person in this life, I’ll receive an eternal audience with God in the next life.”

Just exactly how does that make Christians better than atheists?  If God’s existence was disproven tomorrow (I know, it’ll never happen, just go with me on this) - would you abandon your moral compass?

What is wrong with atheists having a moral compass but not believing in spiritual accountability?

Me says:

11:44am | 10/03/10

Of course evolution is more difficult to “believe” than creationism…...it requires you to think, something many people seem to have problems doing.

Jeff says:

11:37am | 10/03/10

That’s the problem with this argument Chris. Those who believe in the theory of evolution don’t seem to be able to argue their case without personal attacks on someone who disagrees. Richard Dawkins illustrated this quite well and so have you.

Bluey says:

12:22pm | 10/03/10

Poor bastard, eh. Yeah, sure.  He’s got his story wrong again. Yeah, again. How many blues is that now? Eh?  And he’s on what, 200 grand plus?  Our dough, too.

Give us a break.  He’s not some roughie spinning a yarn on the grog in the bar at Bourkes.  He’s in the bloody Senate and he’s trying to make our laws. And he’s a complete bloody dill. Jeeze!

Lee from WA says:

02:48pm | 10/03/10

There are ample examples of murderous theists. My contention isn’t that theists = good, atheists = bad. There are good and bad in both camps. My contention is that compared to the horrors of what governments have done in the name of Christ, atheistic regimes leave them for dead.

Something like 3000 people died during the Inquisition over a period of like 20 years. In the space of 4 years, Pol Pot managed to exterminate a third of the population of Cambodia. That is one communist regime alone.

If we are going to do simplistic comparison of who killed more, atheism beats theism hands down. Of course, it is actually more complex than that but prominent atheists, including Dawkins and Hitchens, seem quite happy to say that ‘religion is bad’ without any seeming nuance, something atheists parrot happily.

TeeChange says:

01:15pm | 10/03/10

A horse has four legs. An animal with four legs is therefore a horse. A genocidal lunatic is an atheist. Atheists are therefore genocidal lunatics. Grow up, Lee, your logic could be dismantled by a kindy kiddie.

iansand says:

12:48pm | 10/03/10

Lee from WA - Can you be sure that they would not have killed if they were theists?  There are ample examples of murderous theists.  Your proposition is what we call a non sequitur.

Lee from WA says:

11:41am | 10/03/10

Chenz: So you can strip the beliefs away from an ideology can you? I don’t think so. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot didn’t go around spouting ‘in the name of atheism, I murder thee’ but they had a political ideology which at its core was overtly atheistic. The ideology springs from its beliefs.

Chenz says:

11:23am | 10/03/10

Totally wrong, Lee. They were murdered in the name of ideologies, not athiesm.

SteveB says:

11:39am | 11/03/10

No Lee, just a parliament full of people who understand that their job is to foster our economy and put systems in place to protect people from each other. We have a secular government which we rely on to control the secular aspects of our life, if a parliamentarian feels the need to control the moral/religious aspects of our lives then I would suggest they are in the wrong ‘house’.

Lee from WA says:

10:45am | 11/03/10

So SteveB, who should be in politics then? Should we have a parliament filled with clones of you?

SteveB says:

05:31pm | 10/03/10

And that, I would suggests is where peoples’ problem with religion in politics is based.

I don’t care how you choose to live your life, but once you are in a position to affect the way I live my life, don’t be basing it on beliefs I don’t share.

the apologist says:

01:52pm | 15/03/10

@Bruce:
my apologies - I was speaking in jest on the DaVinci code (i presumed you would recognise it as such).
I’m not sure how you’re linking your comments to mine. It seems that you didn’t address the points that I raised.

Bruce says:

03:02pm | 12/03/10

Apologist. Certainly did not get my information from “The Da Vinci code”. I am ofended. The movie is rubbish and a “paper chase”, short on any real facts and lots of wankerisms. I have known of the Gnostics bible issue for many years along with many, many other issues as to the political, social reasons for the collective bible. The real issue here is it depends on who’s interpretation is correct. All we have is wrightings from some 1500 to 2000 years ago to have somewhat of an understanding. I am sure no one writing is definative or accurate.

the apologist says:

02:53pm | 11/03/10

@Bruce:
Actually, the Biblical canon as we know it today was never centralised to any where near the degree that would allow Constantine the degree of control required to centrally manipulate its contents. It’s verification and canonisation was a process of copying the contents in many different locations by different churches, and so it was never ‘central’, so to speak. And whilst it’s been a while since i’ve looked at this topic, I believe the Canon of today was already established by Constantine’s day (with ancient texts bearing evidence of that fact). Any of Constantine’s changes would be identifiable against the earlier texts that exist.
The gnostic gospels were collectively rejected by the recognised church leaders of the day (ultimately the Canon was what was agreed on at church coucils by bishops representing the churches in each city - the gnostics were rejected for a number of reasons).
I really hope your text is not the DaVinci code. lol.

Bruce says:

03:11pm | 10/03/10

Andrew: Agree, a number of “books"were omitted. eg Gnostic gospels. The Roman Emperor Constantine had a hugh role in what was to be included in the bible. Plenty of text on this issue.

the apologist says:

12:27pm | 10/03/10

@ Andrew: *if* you’re refering to the Bible, it wasn’t ‘cobbled’ and it wasn’t done in one century. There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that Emperor Constantine somehow manipulated the Bible in the 4th century - it would have been impossible.

Lee from WA says:

11:37am | 10/03/10

If you look at how the Bible came to be what it is, you’ll find the Constantine thing to be a myth. There were lists of accepted Scripture for the NT around 130-150 AD, agreed to by consensus. The reason for this is because in the 2nd century, you had guys (like Marcion) coming through making crazy claims about what constituted as Scripture so they had to get a consensus on what was Scripture. Basically it boiled down to what was known to be authored by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle. Thus we have the NT, sorted out pretty much by 150AD.

the apologist says:

09:08am | 12/03/10

the point behind the tornado example (which as you all rightly challenge as a simplified and non-comprehensive answer - it is merely a mechanism for questioning) is to highlight this: a central thesis of evolution is that blind physical force/blind naturalistic causes is/are ultimately behind all the information that makes up what we know as life. There is no scientific proof to suggest that blind physical force is capable of design.
I think there needs to be a cause that is equal to the effect that is life (can you have an effect that is greater than it’s cause? which we are if our cause is blind forces), and given the intelligence of even our own brains, I agree with Jeff - it takes a lot of faith to accept some of the arguments put forward by naturalistic evolution.

Jeff says:

04:13pm | 10/03/10

Thanks all for your comments. Maybe some facets of evolution are correct, but I simply cannot accept that God is not behind it all. I look around at nature, at people, etc. and I see the work of a living God.

DG says:

01:06pm | 10/03/10

There are several flaws with your theory.

Firstly, who says evolution has anything to do with chance? We know the mechanism for genetic selection. It has very little to do with chance and quite a bit to do with the parents and genetic mutations. Over millions of years, with billions of breeding pairs there have been quite a few genetic mutations shared and carried on, lost to the ravages of time and so forth.

Secondly, your analogy assumes that we are at the epitome of evolution. Why do you make such an assumption? If humans are not the epitome, and evolution is a perpetual process, then the hurricane will never end, hence there will never be your working 747.

Thirdly, your anaolgy assumes that there is a possible epitome of evolution. Why? Evolution continues with every instance of two entities breeding. The child will have attributes of both the mother and the father, while exactly replicating neither.

Read Dawkins “The Blind Watchmaker” for more information.

Having said that I don’t care whether politicians get their guidance from Yahweh, Zeus or tea leaves. So long as they are up front about the basis for their decisions, and the electorate can take that into consideration when deciding whether or not to turf them out into the street come the election.

shane says:

01:01pm | 10/03/10

The oft used example of a tornado passing through a scrap metal yard forming a funtioning 747 is just plan wrong, and shows only that you don’t understand the theory of evolution. For one thing, evolution happens over long periods of time, whilst the tired old tornado example presumably happens in a very short period of time. When you climb a mountain, do you step straight to the top? Or walk up one step at a time. I suggest you do a net search for the arguments discounting that example, because its simplistic and just plain wrong.

Dave says:

11:40am | 10/03/10

Jeff, you might want to take a little read through this before you start pulling that fallacious argument out again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle’s_fallacy

Richard Dawkins definitely seemed the star performer of the night. I was even disappointed that Senator Steve didn’t make more outlandish statements that he might have.

H of SA says:

04:29pm | 10/03/10

I understand Alice, I understand and suppor the division between Church and State (Render onto Caesar what is Caeser’s and onto God what is God’s as Jesus said).

My beef is more with the attitude which I’ve seen on this site a few times that the religious should not be allowed in parliament. Posters making that claim need to back it up with convincing reasons it they wan’t to convert (pun intended) anyone to their worldview.

H of SA says:

03:39pm | 10/03/10

Yup, but then again again its a debate that lasted two millenia for Christianity, not sure how long for other faiths. The Christian church has been claimed to be on the edge of extintion since it began. I won’t be holding my breath for it to happen.

Alice says:

03:34pm | 10/03/10

H of SA - religious parliamentarians are not the problem. It’s only when religion gets in the way of public policy decision making that a problem arises. Faith is deeply personal and non-political. Our country is secular. I really wouldn’t care all that much if my MP was the member of a cult provided that it didn’t influence his/her public duties. Unfortunately there are some elected parliamentarians who seem to have a great deal of difficulty isolating their religion from their politics (Abbott, Fielding et al).

Matt stewart says:

02:39pm | 10/03/10

Clearer now.  Not everyone wants to participate in the political process by running for parliament.  I’ll participate by trying to convince people that certain ideas are important.  I won’t shut up and I wont run either, I have other options.

And yes, you may be right that a majority of parlimentarians have faith, but the percentage is a lot lower than it was 50 years ago.  It’s not a debate that will finish tomorrow.

H of SA says:

02:27pm | 10/03/10

Yup, like I said in my first post, and like you just reiterated, we all want the parliament of our own choosing. But we don’t get it. We have a system where the candidate with the most votes gets into parliament, regardless of religious affiliation or non-affiliation.

I may have been unclear about this, but my comment is not meant to stiffle any debate of performance (for the record Mr. Fielding lost his chance of my vote with his recent comments on Christmas Island) its about the whinging that faithful people can get into parliament in general. They have as much right to stand for election as anyone. And if we don’t want them, we won’t have them. But once a candidate is there - faithful or not - I accept that they have a right to be there as this is what the democratic process has decided. Once they are there, sure if you (universal you) don’t agree say so - more participation the better in my opinion. But don’t winge about the fact they are there - its what democracy has decided. I don’t like my federal candidate, and I openly criticise him. But he has a right to be there - faithful or not.

So we either harden up (live with it), grow up (do something about it, e.g. starting your own political party and putting your views to the democratic test) or shut up (why spend time whinging when you could do something about it).

So if people hate the religious being in parliament then why not do soemthing about it? Stand against them in your seat, start your own party with an atheist platform (see how well that turns out) or join the party and try to convince them not to put forward a candidate on the basis of their being religious.

Make your case, this democratic society has not decided that the faithful should be kept out of parliament. You have some convincing to do - so either do something to convince people (if you argument is the right one then truth will eventually prevail right? Or do atheist believe that it will or not?) or put up with it. So far, by the evidence of the number of faithful in parliament, atheist are doing a pretty poor job of convincing the public. Better work harder.

Matt stewart says:

02:02pm | 10/03/10

I think pretty much everyone who votes want’s the country to be run the way they like it, me included.  And I’ll push for that at the ballot box, and through discussions like this one.  Part of democracy is being able to criticise our elected leaders and fight for better ones.  Funny how you suggest we are being undemocratic by exercising our democratic rights.  We only have to put up with leaders we disagree with for a few years, then we get to choose them again.

“Now, can you please chose one of either hardening up, growing up or shutting up and stop whinging about the fact people you don’t like have as much of a right as people you do like to run?”

Only fools will say they don’t have a right to run.  And only a fool would call someone who constructively engages in political debates a whinger.

PS, not anyone can run for parliament.

H of SA says:

01:47pm | 10/03/10

So its not that at all, but you want your parliament to be run in the way you like and not the way some other people (the religious like it). Well as I said individuals don’t get to decide that - its a democracy.

I don’t see how your post is not saying you want what you want and not what our democratic system has decided. Its basically exactly what I said in my first post, which makes your comment “it’s not that” perplexing, what am I missing? how is it not saying what you want as an individual?

Matt stewart says:

01:21pm | 10/03/10

No it’s not that at all.  I want the the country to be ruled by the people in parliament.  Not some mythical beings with blood on their hands.

Bev says:

11:40am | 10/03/10

I watched the show on Monday night and your thoughts are much the same as my own. I don’t understand why religion is such a protected subject when it comes to an intelligent discussion. Coming from a multigenerational Anglican background with numerous clergy in the family tree I am given the “don’t go there” treatment if I ever question the church and its beliefs. For that reason I will not enter a church - I am old enough and (I think) intelligent not to be made swallow an argument just because the church says I should. I agree Mr Dawkins was not rude, it was that his rational argument brought out the defensive nature of Bishop and Burke. As for Fielding - it scares me that my life is being influenced by such a man.

Ross says:

10:52am | 10/03/10

Thank God for Dawkins he was out numbered by the religious thinkers (I think thats the term) on that panel yet he came across as reasoned.Anyway we all know the world was created by a big bang, It was a bang created by a muslim practicing to be a suicide bomber.Anyway who is picking on Santa it is the Easter bunny I have a problem with.

Sam Chowder says:

04:46pm | 10/03/10

Q&A masquerades as an intelligent news forum and I expect Dawkins was under that impression.  He appeared very shocked to be on “The View” and appeared to be wondering where Whoopi Goldberg was.

Patrick says:

02:22pm | 10/03/10

I especially loved the last question - “Do you believe in an afterlife?” asked to everyone, Dawkins was just looking exasperated as all hell by then by the absolute vacuity of everyone (including the people asking the questions) except perhaps the two Indian blokes who actually asked a couple of good questions and Patrick McGorry, who although probably didn’t belong in a theological debate was still the second-most stimulating person on the bench next to Dawkins.

Also everyone who says Dawkins was rude for pointing out serious flaws in the Bible are just hurt that he can break those tired old arguments down with a single sentence.

Simon the Pieman says:

10:39am | 10/03/10

Dawkins is an important scientist and thinker, he had no place on Q&A which is a light weight newsy type discussion.  His reasoned arguments baffled, and the other panelists could not follow him in order to debate on the fly.  It was embarrassing for us to see the chasm between a genuine thinker and our supposed leaders.  I’m sure Q&A will not be making the same mistake again and go back to topical local issues of the day the guests are more at ease with.

Matt stewart says:

01:31pm | 10/03/10

Not only is “intelligent design” a joke in scientific terms, it is also a joke in theological terms.  If there is a god that created everything, he’ll be sending the ID crowd straight to hell with the scientists.

Simon, it isn’t scientists who support ID, it’s religious Americans (mostly).  Ironically, creation has been so thoroughly shown to be ridiculous, that religious arguments have ‘evolved’ into something that has been gaining more traction - ID.  In other words, ID is more ‘fit’ than creation and the meme is currently more successful.  Isn’t it great how the existence of the intelligent design argument is a metaphor for evolution?

bec says:

11:28am | 10/03/10

*gets popcorn, sits back to watch the lulz*

matt says:

11:08am | 10/03/10

So what sort of fantasy is it then?

jamie says:

10:15am | 10/03/10

because Dawinian Evolution has been found to be without any solid evidence whatsoever

You are kidding aren’t you?

jk says:

10:09am | 10/03/10

There is no huge and passionate debate raging in the scientific community, Simon. At least not on whether evolution is a sound theory. Creationism, by any name, is not science and can never be seriously presented as such. It is a religious belief. If you want to believe that is your choice. Please don’t try and present your faith as reason, for it is not.
As for your contention that “the evidence points to intelligent design”, I think your definition of evidence needs refining.

Daryl says:

10:00am | 10/03/10

Simon it is people like you that give the rest of us Christians a bad name! Intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory! it has been shown over and over again to be flawed - please please I beg you do some independent research - don’t just take the word of ‘answers in genesis’ and other similar ‘creation science’ advocates.  check out
http://iscast.org and http://www.scibel.com for starters.

I_Exist says:

10:34am | 10/03/10

I utilize life experience, wider reading/discussions, and critical thinking as a basis for decision making.  It scares the s%$@ out of me that others only utilize ancient and out dated texts.

Please do not vote or run for government if you are religious.  I respect the JW’s more then other denominations as they actually follow their book and do not partake in voting at elections (so their nutty ideas will never impact upon my life- aside from the friendly knock on the door every few months)…

SR says:

11:37am | 10/03/10

@ Yut - Here is a religious moral for you - Jesus/God famously performed a “miracle” by turning harmless water into a drug which can lead to “alcoholism/addiction”, “violence”, “anxiety”, “depression” and “financial problems”.

But I guess there were no other important “miracles” that he could perform to actually make his point – maybe the kind and gentle “new testament” Jesus/God is still making his point?

Patrick says:

09:52am | 10/03/10

Ah yes, wheel out the whole “Morality without religion is impossible” argument, it’s not like that isn’t a long-deceased and taxidermised horse, proudly displayed on the walls of every religious institute facing decreased relevance in this modern society which wishes to learn for itself rather than be taught by a 2000 year old book.

Keep telling yourself that while you pray to your God for everyone’s forgiveness, they do not know what they do, etc. etc. . . Meanwhile, we’ll just get on with living.

Religion has NEVER made problems with violence, depression, financial problems, or anything like that over the last 2000 years, surely? Oh wait…. Crusades, witchhunts, church stealing property from dying owners so they “won’t go to hell”, condom-demonising, wine for kids. . . Hmm..

matt says:

09:35am | 10/03/10

‘Cause the Crusades were such a good result from having Church and state together…

And if you want to bring faith into Parliament and have Christian principles guide decisions, what do you say to the 35 per cent of Australians who aren’t Christians? Buddhists vote too. As do Muslims and (fully) Sikhs (sorry, couldn’t help myself) and we Jedi.

What do you say? Sorry, bad luck get out of our (your) country?

And if you’re a supporter of Christian lawmaking in Australia, what’s your position on Sharia law in Saudi Arabia?

And the Taliban regime in Afghanistan?

Or does the non-separation of church and state only gain your approval if it’s YOUR church?

Whitemice says:

06:40pm | 10/03/10

I don’t wanna bore you either but if there is a heaven, you better hurry up and get there because its bound to be so full its overflowing by this .Generation after generation have supposedly gone there, must be flying room only left

Bob says:

02:16pm | 10/03/10

No Aitch, not a beat-up, more a compromise.

There is always a problem with translations as language and culture are interwined. You can do a conservative literal translation, and keep the original symbolism even though most people won’t understand it, or do a liberal translation that tries to give the meaning. These are seldom popular as they can colour the translation. It’s a no-win situation.

For example, the number 6 represents man in Jewish numerology. 7 represents God, or completeness, as God rested on the 7th day. Man is incomplete so gets a 6. The beast being numbered 666 is man. Us. We are the jerks ruining the planet, or at least our own corruption. But it’s much more fun to make movies about a little boy with 666 tattooed on his noggin so not many will run with the boring interpretation even though it makes much more sense.

Aitch says:

01:56pm | 10/03/10

So by that reasoning, Bob, could we call modern translations of the Bible a beat-up?

Bob says:

01:12pm | 10/03/10

And, at the risk of boring people, I should also add that ‘fire’ in the Bible refers to God. (burning bush, column of fire, etc). The NT was written by Jews and uses Jewish symbolism and numerology to describe things. So a lake of fire being hell gets reduced to God seperating off the unbelivers into the void, not a burning place of torment. Once you undertstand the symbolism the Bible becomes quite boring, really.

Bob says:

11:21am | 10/03/10

Daryl is quite right here. The concept of hell being a place of eternal torment is a result of translation errors, the hyperbolic language used and political convenience.

In the OT the Hebrew word Sheol is used, which means grave or pit. In the NT the ancient Greek words Hades, Gehenna and Tartaroo which translate to an unseen place, a rubbish tip and a prison for sinful angels respectively. The last two create the problems as the rubbish tip was usually burning.

Hell was a made up word that amalgamated the three into a burning prison. Such an idea was a useful political device in early times so no effort was made to reverse it. Modern scholars are not so shy but fear is still a powerful meansof persuasion so it will hang around for a long time yet.

Aitch says:

11:23am | 10/03/10

Yeah, yeah, around and around. Semantics though, isn’t it Daryl? Believe in me and you will live forever; don’t believe in me and you’ll die forever. You might call that a choice of free will - I’d call it something else.

Daryl says:

10:42am | 10/03/10

Aitch - You have quoted the right verse but missed the entire point!  The Lake of fire is the ‘second death’.  Those thrown into the lake of fire die a second time - only there is no escaping this death it is eternal - they don’t go anywhere else, they cease to exist.  The fire itself is simply a metaphorical symbol.

Your logic is also flawed, if heaven offers eternal life, the ‘flip side’ is eternal death.

Aitch says:

10:18am | 10/03/10

Daryl, I just had to look it up in the New International version of the Holy Bible and it seems you’re wrong.

Revelations 20:12 - 15 says this:

” ... And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”

So, in fact, it is there in black and white - god throws the non-believers into his lake of fire. Since heaven supposedly promises eternal life, one presumes the flip side is eternal life in hell.

Daryl says:

10:15am | 10/03/10

Matt the point is that you are given every opportunity to find out about and develop a relationship with God - perhaps even after death, after all Jesus descended to the dead and preached to those there after the crucifixion.  It is your choice to live for eternity or to die - if you are an atheist you believe that your conscienciousness ceases to exist at death anyway, so why is it such a terrible thing that this is a possibility in a faith system?

matt says:

09:55am | 10/03/10

Simply cease to exist?

Oh, that’s all right then.

Glad you cleared up all that confusion over a loving God.

Daryl says:

09:48am | 10/03/10

Aitch - No it does not!  Scripture NEVER claims that people will be tortured for eternity! This is something that has been mistranslated and exploited by people for centuries! The word translated as hell in the Old Testament actually means ‘grave’ and the New Testament words translated as hell mean ‘rubbish dump’ or ‘world of the dead’  Finally the Book of Revelation tells us that the punishment for thos not found in the Book of Life at the final judgement is the ‘second death’ - i.e. they cease to exist.

Maq says:

12:14pm | 10/03/10

acker,

Christians believing in evolution is fine and dandy, but it’s a weak position. The central theme of Christianity is the creation of human kind by a ‘god’ - if you take the view that ‘god started evolution’ you’re watering down your own argument. You’re both suggesting agency (in the act of creation) and non-agency (in the process of evolution) which is a virtually untenable position (unless you believe in a very specific kind of ‘god’ (i.e. you’re a deist), which is certainly not the Christian one).

Dawkins doesn’t ‘believe in believing nothing’ - if you’ve not read his arguments you should, and if you have, you should read them again. The obligation is not on atheists to justify their non-belief, it’s up to believers to justify theirs, whether that is the Christian ‘god’, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the tea pot in the other side of the moon. The onus is on you to prove your position - it’s not up to Dawkins to prove to you that something doesn’t exist (i.e affirm the negative).

Dawkins isn’t trying to get you to believe in nothing. He’s trying to urge to you rationally justify your belief. If you can’t then, he argues, that perhaps you shouldn’t hold that belief.

Bob says:

03:09pm | 10/03/10

Hitler was also a vegetarian. Goodness knows how many were killed in the name of the cabbage.

John says:

11:58am | 10/03/10

Yut, you must reading the religious History books. Mine say something different. Hitler remained a member, at least formally, of the Catholic Church until his death. Forget History, today a estimated 500 butchered Christian villagers are buried by the truckload in Nigeria, after being hacked to death by hundreds of devout Muslim machete wielders, who praised Allah as they went about their task. Religion Kills.

yut says:

11:01am | 10/03/10

@ mw,
Stalin and the Nazi’s hated Christianity as much as you and your leaders Dawkins, Hitchens and Roseanne Barr do. The crusades were a response to Muslim expansion in Europe and the Inquisitions killed about 2000 people over 500 years . Any historian will tell you religious societies are less violent than anti-religious societies.

mw says:

09:50am | 10/03/10

@ Yut:
Atheism never gets a following because it doesn’t need one. It doesn’t have leaders or congregations, it has no need for them.

And your crack-pot idea that being a sadist means someone is an aetheist is laughable. In the history of man I assure you far more attrocities have been committed in the name of religion than in the name of aetheism.

Please proceed to burn me at the stake for being a witch…

Yut says:

09:14am | 10/03/10

I see you’re getting pleasure from someone’s pain. You’re an example of why atheism never gets a following.

CJ says:

02:00pm | 10/03/10

No, Jamie, Tony Abbott.

jamie says:

10:09am | 10/03/10

What CJ, unlike Rudd?

CJ says:

09:13am | 10/03/10

Well Jamie, better tell your friends not to vote for worshipper in chief Tony the Mad Monk Abbott.

persephone says:

09:19am | 10/03/10

See my post above, botfly.

Rudd believes in evolution.

John says:

10:25am | 10/03/10

Gordo, I agree. The three politicians were all intellectual lightweights, and if this is indicative of all politicians maybe they need to sit an entry test before going in parliament. Burke and Bishop behaved like they were in the same party their responses were infantile. Dawkins never got out of first gear when dealing the likes of the three amigos Fielding, Burke and Bishop.

Zeta says:

09:17am | 10/03/10

‘It’s like debating with children’...

And what does that say about people who participate in debates with children?

Ella says:

03:06pm | 10/03/10

The reason Dawkins is arguing with them, and the reason we should all be questioning them is because these are the people who are running our country. If they are making decisions to do with running the country based on irrationally held beliefs then that is a cause for concern.
Also a genetic predisposition is just that a predisposition, not an inevitability. Evolution tells us where we have come from, it doesn’t tell us how we should be once we have the intellect and choice to be otherwise.

Marcellus Wallace says:

12:31pm | 10/03/10

Zeta

Dawkins will debate because people will pay to see the debate. Dawkins needs to put food on the table and a roof over his head. Therefore, if debating does this - either through the direct fees earned from the debate or raising his profile to sell more books and extend his tenure - then he will do so.

You can’t chastise the man for being the dollar-slave we all are.

John A Neve says:

09:52am | 10/03/10

Zeta,

I have never read Dawkins’ book, but I’ll take you word on this issue.
Being a non believer myself, I also agree that there is no point in debating the isue with believers.

Where I do have some concerns, is when religion starts to control governmen’ts and their laws.

I think we are fast heading backwards towards a fudimentalist government. I’m no talking party politics rather the nation’s thinking.

crizza says:

02:11pm | 11/03/10

Thanks for the clarification George (NALPM). Just one thing, can you please give me a phonetic spelling of KRudd so I know how you intend me to pronounce it as I read (lips closed, believe it or not). And thanks Rover, I checked and see you’re quite right (maybe Kev thinks he should marry Britt). I never realised what I was missing out on. But now I’ve seen how engrossing his tweets are, I’ll have to follow!

George (not a Liberal Party member) says:

02:45pm | 10/03/10

@Persephone - Apologies in reference to the correct Monday Q&A episode.  Notwithstanding that I hardly relegate reality to just simple assertions, as you fondly assert to it often enough.

So there isn’t a media circus and chest beating about everything that Tony Abbott has said so far?  Pull your head out of your a_ _ _e maybe you’ll see!  If the prevailing obsession with Tony Abbott is just an assertion as you previously pointed out then you are the one who must be imagining things.

@crizza - No I’m not a member of the Liberal Party!  So KRudd!  I do like your ‘pop star’ analogy its so juvenile!

@matt - never claimed to be an intellectual, vocal yes, intellectual no. 

So 60% of the country voted for KRudd, wow!  Can you enumerate which federal electorates had KRudd in the ALP ticket and not the ALP candidate, so we can report those electorates who voted for KRudd and not the local ALP candidate to the AEC, I mean they might be interested in the electoral fraud you are alleging. 

Last I heard 60% of the country voted in members political party which KRudd is the leader of, which you undoubtedly support, even though I suspect you have little understanding of teh process how that came to be.

Rover says:

12:47pm | 10/03/10

He signs his Tweets KRudd, so it mustn’t upset him too much.

matt says:

09:48am | 10/03/10

George,, you’ve just shown up the intellectual void that is the sad lot of the once-proud conservative party these days.

If you’re going to make petty little partisan comments about the Prime Minister, AT LEAST watch the right show…

And I couldn’t agree more with crizza. Using the term KRudd puts you in the same category (if not a slightly lower, more pathetic one) than those of the loony left who used the term Little Johnny.

The man is our Prime Minister. About 60 odd percent of us voted for him, which means he’s earned the right to the title.

It was a vote in the democratic process which you would undoubtedly profess support for, even though I suspect you have little understanding or respect for it. Bit like those in a previous government who moved to close the rolls off as soon as an election was declared to stop young people from voting.

So desist with the childish “KRudd” nonsense. It doesn’t demean the Prime Minister. It demeans you, and it demeans your cause.

persephone says:

09:17am | 10/03/10

Err…Rudd wasn’t on Q&A Monday night.

What on earth are you talking about?

What assertions are you talking about?

The reason there isn’t a media circus and chest beating etc is that what you seem to be talking about only happened in your imagination.

crizza says:

08:56am | 10/03/10

Are you in the Liberal Party, George? It seems the coalition keeps calling the PM KRudd as if it’s some form of anti-brand they’ve dug up for him. No-one else uses it, as far as I can see, and that’s no doubt because it’s bloody stupid. KFed was Brittany Spears husband - a pop celebrity. Is that what you’re trying to do, make him into a pop celebrity? Or do you really think non-partisan voters are going to go round the long way to KRudd, Krudd, crud (which is something unpleasant but not exactly sure what). Bronwyn Bishop uses the term all the time, which is enough for me to know that the term is out of touch with 90 per cent of the population.

matt says:

01:58pm | 10/03/10

Julie just wants one thing. Sharks with frikkin’ laser beams!

iansand says:

12:34pm | 10/03/10

But did the goat die?

Gordo says:

09:09am | 10/03/10

Yes, the 5 second death stare…

I for one was waiting for the lasers to appear and blow the heckler to whatever religious afterlife they were espousing.

That was worth the price of admission alone!

Me says:

09:31am | 10/03/10

Because he isn’t a creationist.

persephone says:

09:14am | 10/03/10

Because he isn’t.

Abbott is far far more strange and more bible bashing than Rudd.

Rudd didn’t train for the priesthood.

Maq says:

11:53am | 10/03/10

Thumbs up to you. I think this is one of Dawkins’ most important messages, and he had the opportunity, particularly when Burke was getting shirty about Dawkins’ ‘rudness’, to press the point (i.e. he should have argued, as he has many times before, that’s it is not ‘rudeness’ to present an argument about a person’s ‘personal’ beliefs).

I realise that the debate was limited by the ‘politics’ of politicans appearing on a QandA program, but I think it’s important to probe whether our politicans can rationally justify a position, be it on policy or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Darren says:

10:35am | 10/03/10

Hi Mick - I think we need to look beyond Bazza to his heir apparent Mike Baird - another creationist who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible

Mick says:

09:34am | 10/03/10

I didn’t know Barry O’Farrell was a “Christian” or are you talking about someone else

eye4aneye says:

01:01pm | 10/03/10

@ Godfree Gordon - Did you hear banjo music when you first read that? I know i did.

I hope god exists I truly do but even if god does exist I very strongly doubt that any religion is actually following the correct “path”. Keep doing what your doing people - if god exists thats obviously what is wanted of us or we wouldn’t be allowed to and if god doesn’t exist at least u were able to do what you wanted while you were alive.

Godfree Gordon says:

11:05am | 10/03/10

Yes Penbo.  Get this blog in front of a few fundos and watch the venom spew forth - its amazing how much chapter and verse will be rendered upon you! I direct you to Jerry Cotne’s excellent blog “Why Evolution is True” and a sample of the invective he received a couple of days ago.

“Hey Jerry Coyne f*%k you. You evolution faggot. Darwinism and evolution are the biggest pile of shit lies ever made on the face of GODS green earth. People in the 1800’s thought Darwin was a dumb ass fucking lunatic. Home school books are lying to children? On no you son of a bitch you and all these liberal piece of shit scum bag evolutionists are lying to children and every public school in the world. . . So go f*%k your self or an ape and evolve some grotesque ape kids you loser f*%k. I beat the shit out of people like you, you c*%k smoking douche nozzle”

...and thats without quoting the Bible!

bec says:

11:23am | 10/03/10

Bob, you’re my new most favourite commenter.

Especially fun: asking creationists to choose their favourite of the two creation stories in Genesis. It breaks their BRAINS.

Bob says:

10:24am | 10/03/10

And if you back up to verse 15 it becomes obvious that God was talking about the Philistines. That’s another favourite tactic of the fire and brimstone set, to quote out of context and apply texts to things never intended. To them, hermeneutics was a character in the Munsters.

Russ says:

09:31am | 10/03/10

Ezekiel 25:17 “And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.”  Authorised King James version (Old Testament, of course).  Much of the stupidity in The Bible is to be found in the Old Testament - a very different God to the New Testament version, but the one who seems to be the favourite of fools like Fielding.

the apologist says:

12:16pm | 10/03/10

good call on the false dichotomy Ben.

papachango says:

04:28pm | 10/03/10

Rudd actually has a bet each way with evolution and creation. From a <a href = “http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/why-i-believe-in-the-other-supreme-being/story-e6freol3-1111117334946”>2008 interview:</a>

“You can’t simply have, in my own judgment, creation simply being a random event because it is so inherently ordered, and the fact that the natural environment is being ordered where it can properly coexist over time.
“If you were simply reducing that to mathematically probabilities I’ve got to say it probably wouldn’t have happened.
“So I think there is an intelligent mind at work.’‘

So he thinks God started it all, but evolution is His tool to keep it going. That or he’s just trying to placate all groups.

Though if you think about it, if you actually belive in God you pretty much have to believe this as a minimum. Otherwise He’s entirely superfluous - it would be ludicrous to belive the universe occured naturally, but then controle was given to som omnipotent deity who came from nowhere.

DaisyMae says:

08:42am | 10/03/10

Rudd believes in evolution

Albie says:

08:11am | 10/03/10

Ditto. Freaking scary - and I have to drive past his house every day! Going to have to hold my breath or something now so the evil spirits don’t get in!

Lipstix says:

06:37pm | 10/03/10

Feilding is in a little world of his own, he verbaled the Rudd by saying he believed in creationism a fact easily disproved Rudd believes in evolution but aligns that with his Christian beliefs. I can see no reason to believe his silly story about Rudd and The Bible either.  Feilding is not on this planet with the rest of us. His electorate must be very strange indeed As for Julia Bishop that stare of hers would terrify a shark she is hard faced old girl

David says:

05:59pm | 10/03/10

@Phaedrus Perhaps s/he is a homosexual who is unsatisfied with Rudd’s position on gay marriage? Or maybe a secularist who is unimpressed by the continuation of the School Chaplaincy program which has immensely religious, specifically Christian, overtones.

However, it is unlikely Rudd’s religious orientation was high on the list of consideration for most Australians when casting their vote.

I think it is worth noting though Christians who actually attend church as regularly as Rudd or Abbott consist of less than 9% of the nation according to the National Church Life Survey. The ABS however says 64% of Australians are Christian. Something tells me the majority of Australian who tick the Christian box in the census would be accurately described as “cultural Christians”. These people possibly give as much weight to theological dogma and institutional religious groups as the 20% of Australians who said they were not religious in the same census.

Unfortunately, Rudd, Abbott and the rest of our pious elected representatives seem to think church communities and the Australian Christian Lobby actually represent the views and values of a majority of Australians. The statistics do not support this but no one is correcting them and I predict a disproportionate amount of time campaigning for these people at the next election. Why do you think Conroy is so committed to his verson of the Great Firewall of China? Or Rudd’s lack of movement on the human rights act issue?

Phaedrus says:

02:36pm | 10/03/10

@jamie: I assume you’re a freedom-loving, intellectually-open democrat?

Rudd was open about his faith when he was elected by the majority of Australians.

Why is his Christian faith a threat to you?

RobJ says:

01:01pm | 10/03/10

Well, that’s what fielding claims, I take everything he says with a pinch of salt. I mean he claimed that Rudd was a creationist? On what evidence? Fielding cannot be trusted, it might not be because he’s dishonest though, just out of touch with reality.

the apologist says:

07:34pm | 15/03/10

@iansand:
Well, I did accurately predict you’d think me ignorant. Regrettably.
I didn’t claim that the Bible was a scientific source (I’d argue it’s consistent with science truly understood, but that is another matter).
But you have rejected something without understanding it – the epitome of ignorance as you say.
I claimed that I knew something that precluded evolution from being possible (on top of the scientific inconsistencies with the theory…). Then of course the question becomes necessary: how do we know anything? It seems that you would claim that empirical deduction is the only method (and thereby you have made it your god). I (and philosophers of just about any persuasion) think it’s a somewhat more complex problem than that. Perhaps you’ll read some work on epistemology? I’d recommend ‘The death of meaning’ and the ‘The word of flux: modern man and the problem of knowledge’ by R. J. Rushdoony.
If Dawkins arguments were so convincing, you should easily be able to rip mine to shreds using it here. Is it not a fact that reducing cellular structures in the way I described causes them to cease functioning? Please say it’s possible, it will prove the willful ignorance of the evolutionary position.
I thought you didn’t like referring people to books… Nonetheless, perhaps I’ll read it as I find time (although I really must say that I’ve got far more profitable things to be engaged with). I hope, but don’t expect – and highly doubt, that you will show the same courtesy in my recommended reading.
Perhaps your problem is that you’ve never truly looked for God? If you did, you would find Him.

iansand says:

03:57pm | 15/03/10

The Bible is not a legitimate scientific source.  Unless your level of scientific knowledge is that of a bronze age nomad.  Perhaps that is your problem.

As for development of various structures I commend to you a book called Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard “The Antichrist” Dawkins.  Fascinating stuff.

the apologist says:

06:27am | 15/03/10

@iansand:
Ian, I’m tempted not to post again, as you seem to be quite willfully ignorant and closed minded on a number of points yourself. If I didn’t care about you, I probably wouldn’t.
I have a non-scientific layman’s grasp of evolution (which is inevitably as far as it can go to different degrees for non-scientists – presumably including yourself), I’ve admitted that already. Does one need a comprehensive scientific grasp of evolutionary process to understand? That’s out of reach for most. I think my grasp is accurate for what it’s worth, and I think the reason you think I don’t understand it is because I don’t have the same view as you.
From there, I think you’ve got IC wrong (and is a legit argument).
You said:
“Generally (not always) it works by adding stuff, not taking it away.” That’s precisely my point. It had to start somewhere to be adding things on. If it’s always adding ‘stuff’, one should be consistently empirically able to trace the path of ‘add-ons’ seeing exactly how and where it was added - using a process of ‘taking away’ so to speak. Now, given that evolution would logically trace to a cellular level – regardless of whether one understands how – (and that is presuming it’s possible to legitimately trace the reduction path back to that level – I don’t think so) you’re still left with cellular structures that have an immensely complex and inter-related structure of reliant components. You start taking away, and the cell ceases to function. But evolution inevitably requires that it should be possible to further reduce life even on a cellular level. That’s not even to mention the possibility of an exact starting point or how life could possibly have originated.
You said: “I cannot comprehend how someone can not believe in something they do not understand.” I could say the same to you about Christianity perhaps…
Of course understanding is necessary for believing in or rejecting something. Perhaps you meant to say you can’t comprehend how someone can reject something without understanding it. It’s quite simple. If you know something to be true which precludes the possibility of something new, you can reject it without necessarily understanding it.
Re. God’s decision to allow the possibility of lions and tigers reproducing. Actually, the possibility of lions and tigers reproducing makes perfect sense Biblically and is not miscegenation (although the dictionary defines miscegenation in terms of supposed inter-racial breeding of homo-sapiens, but I’ll leave that). Genesis 1 v 24 says that God set the earth in order so that all creatures produce according to their ‘kind’. I would think that lions and tigers are of the same ‘kind’, i.e. they are each a form of what is broadly understood to be the big-cat family. Within a ‘kind’, I think it is clearly evident that there is immense scope for genetic variation and change (thus my earlier perspective on the possums). Thus lions and tigers can reproduce, but not elephants and tigers (they are not of the same kind).
I presume you understand miscegenation to be inter-species reproduction? This is why I think your definition of species needs work. I don’t think the ability to reproduce is a sole determinant for recognition of species (certainly a strong component). I think it is possible for the genetic pool within a species/kind to degenerate to the point of infertility. The evolutionary necessity for the merging of species (in the Biblical sense of what a species/kind is) I think is sheer nonsense. Surely this is a key aspect of evolution? Even the simplistic ‘walking man’ diagrams go from fish through to man.

Ultimately, Ian, I think we can parry and thrust with various degrees of incompetency on scientific matters – but when it comes down to it, we’re worldviews apart. I don’t think it would make a difference how much ‘science’ we threw at one another (although we really haven’t thrown any science at each other), our respective presuppositions are already determining how we view the science.
It really comes down to a rejection of God. Romans 1 says this: “For the invisible things of God are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; because, when they (humans) knew God, they did not recognize him and glorify him as God, neither were thankful. But they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
I think you know there is such a thing as right and wrong, that there is such a thing as beauty and order in creation, that naturalistic scientific perspectives cannot adequately explain the richness and diversity that is human experience. And I think this passage explains why you’ll probably be immediately offended and enraged at my supposed ignorance.

iansand says:

08:12am | 13/03/10

The IC argument is just silly.  It looks at evolution from a top down perspective, not bottom up.  Generally (not always) it works by adding stuff, not taking it away.  Perhaps you should actually try to understand evolution.  You obviously don’t.  I cannot comprehend how someone can not believe in something they do not understand.  It is the epitome of ignorance.

Can you explain why god decided to let lions and tigers produce offspring but not lions and elephants?  I would have thought miscegenation would be against something in the bible.  Fortunately for rationality, it makes perfect sense in evolutionary terms.

Where are the observations and experiments that establish creationism as a legitimate alternate explanation for the diversity of species?

the apologist says:

04:18pm | 12/03/10

@iansand:
Well despite the appearance of your mocking my arguments without actually addressing them, I’ll assume the best of you (that you merely skim read it all - at best) and restate the IC argument.
It was the first reply I made to you on this post and read as follows:

“To briefly exemplify one of the arguments raised: the argument of irreducible complexity (IC). IC is (simply, and unscientifically put) the argument that the mutual reliance of all the complex parts present in even the smallest of cells (not to mention the human body) makes it necessary to draw the conclusion that all of those parts needed to be present from the point of first existence/for the entirety of the given organisms existence. You may have heard of the illustration of the mousetrap, it is made up of a number of components, and if you remove one, it ceases to function. So it is with, not just cells, but the human body in its entirety which has staggering amounts of components that rely on one another to function as what we know to be life.
Evolution posits that things started at a cellular level. Even cells require a minimum of many many components to exist – or they cease to function.
This does not necessarily argue for creationism, it is a scientific observation (unscientifically observed here – granted). But, it suggests that all of the mutually reliant components necessary for life needed to be present together since the beginning in order for them to function. A scientific observation in and of itself that is consistent (not a comprehensive case…) with the creationist perspective, and inconsistent with the evolutionist perspective.”

Further down I said:

I simply observed that when you start removing components on a cellular level (much less on a higher level), life ceases to be sustainable. That is a fact. Your argument is the equivalent of arguing in favour of an impossibility (i.e. life sustaining itself with less complex cellular structure – necessary to evolutionary process) and defending it by saying no-one knows. Given the observation, I would have thought mine was the logical position, to my mind, it’s got to be proved that life is possible when you start removing the inter-related components before you can start hypothesising on the possibility of evolution. That is to say, I would have thought that given life doesn’t function when you start taking out the components (it is irreducibly complex), it is more logical and rational to start with the presupposition that this is the way it has always been, as opposed to putting forward a theory that requires an impossibility.”

And:
“Your analysis of IC is inadequate, read some of my other comments on it to clarify why that is the case (particularly the latest to Matt). In essence, it is a fact that life ceases when you reduce the components necessary (which are immensely complex and numerous). Evolution requires this reduction, and is therefore inconsistent with that fact.”

I also mentioned a number of other arguments above, but lets start with IC.

Re. your further comments on my comments – how about you actually address my comments instead of laughing at them. I did give reasons why the definition of species you posited has problems.
Mine was a fair observation, strictly speaking, your definition of species meant that the possibility of interbreeding between species was an impossibility – and yet it happened. You said: “But if the chain was broken by taking out every possum north of Sale and south of Cooktown there would be, without doubt, two distinct species.” Based on your definition of species, what grounds do you have to claim that they are ‘without doubt’ two distinct species?
Your supposedly irrefutable example of evolution poses no problem from my creationist perspective. Frankly, you haven’t clearly connected it to your evolutionary perspective at all either.
I don’t think you’re comments really deserve further reply, seeing as how you are so staunchly opposed to actually addressing mine.

the apologist says:

03:25pm | 12/03/10

Just as an aside - by your definition of species - does that mean that lions and tigers are the same species given they can interbreed?

iansand says:

02:52pm | 12/03/10

You are going to have to help me out with your “IC argument”.  I can’t find it anywhere.

The problem is with the definition of “species”?  I laughed so hard the tears ran down my legs!!!

Where are the observations and experiments that establish creationism as a legitimate explanation for the diversity of species?

the apologist says:

02:06pm | 12/03/10

@iansand:
No need whatsoever to get derogatory.
To start with, you’ve completely avoided my IC argument whilst claiming that I’m not offering any arguments (IC is an argument based upon a scientific observation, and is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolutionary theory).
You haven’t even thought about looking at the book I pointed you in the direction of (which is an excellent introduction to a number of main arguments and further scientific work), which says something about your mindset. Emphasis on the set. And you’re calling them lying and cheating without looking at it.

Re. the possums. First - your non-scientific comments don’t mean all that much outside of a scientific analysis. Let’s get that clear. Same rule applies to mine. Ok, so you say they can’t interbreed – and then you say that they can in one regional population. Correct? Well, all you’ve demonstrated from the scenario is that, based upon your definition of what constitutes a species, there is a problem with your definition of what constitutes a species.
You said: “But if the chain was broken by taking out every possum north of Sale and south of Cooktown there would be, without doubt, two distinct species.” Not by your definition of species there wouldn’t.
Again, your definition of species is the problem.
As you say, there is an argument that they are all the same species (or at least a variant of the same species) – that would be my stance. I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with there being such a radical variation within a species that two strains of the species from different areas are no longer capable of interbreeding. In fact, that would be consistent with my position that genetic mutations and variations are generally regressive as opposed to progressive (which evolution supposes).
All that the example of the apparent enigma of the line of interbreeding possums in your example does is demonstrate that they were not so far removed as the initial chasm (which your faulty definition of what constitutes a species created) suggested.
As I said before, I’ve got no problems with (sometimes severe) variations within a species – but a possum is a possum. Jumping from one species to another via variation (e.g. possum to octopus – admittedly, not consistent with evolutionary theory, but I trust you see my point) is another thing entirely, and is pure nonsense in my relatively uneducated but commonsensical estimation.
Please endeavour to maintain civil communication should you choose to comment further. Thank you.

iansand says:

10:21am | 12/03/10

the apologist - The Cape York possums cannot breed with the Wilsons Promontory possums.  Do you understand that?

Every definition of what a species is contains a requirement that members of the species be able to produce fertile offspring.  It is pretty damn fundamental.  By that measure, the Cape York possums and the Wilsons Promontory possums are separate species.  The problem is that there is a continuous chain of possums up the east coast where neighbouring populations can all interbreed.  There is no dividing line, so there is also an argument that they are all part of the same species.  But if the chain was broken by taking out every possum north of Sale and south of Cooktown there would be, without doubt, two distinct species.

Speciation demonstrated.

Where are the observations and experiments that establish creationism as a legitimate alternate explanation for the diversity of species?  Are you seriously telling me that none of your lying cheating creationist web sites has even attempted this?  How can they call it science?

the apologist says:

07:36am | 12/03/10

@iansand:
Well, I think I gave a fair non-scientific summary of IC and it’s implications above (which you didn’t address), just as you were attempting to give a non-scientific summary of your possum example. You must admit it was hard for me to “don’t, or won’t, understand it” when you didn’t even argue the implications of your statement, or even define what you perceived to be ‘it’.
But in reply to the possum example, I think there’s a difference between the observable variation within a species (which I’ve got no problem with – and which at this stage I would presume the possum example to be), and the prospect of a complete shift from one species to another. I’m not sure any further comment on it outside of scientific analysis would be at all profitable.
Given your comments on the use of websites, I would have thought that you would have also realised that there’s no scope for a meaningful scientific exchange (which is where all these claims ultimately need to be tested) on this website – which is what you seem to be demanding from me, and yet are not doing yourself.
My purpose in mentioning the book was to point you in the direction of material that provides just such meaningful scientific exchange. If you were genuinely interested in testing scientific truth with an open mind, you would not have dismissed it without a second thought. If you or I wish to make any progress on this, the hard yards need to be done in places like ‘books’, so have a look before you judge.

iansand says:

03:12pm | 11/03/10

The possums are a demonstartion of speciation - the creation of two species from one.  I’m not surprised that you don’t, or won’t, understand it.  If you did you would have to accept evolution.

Where are the observations and experiments that establish creationism as a legitimate alternate explanation?  Not a book.  Summarise their arguments (or, if you are a typical creationist, cut and paste some bullshit argument from some flaky website).

You do realise that those websites are not about convincing people like me.  They are about providing nonsense to convince the gullible (that would be you).

the apologist says:

10:33am | 11/03/10

@iansand:
Re. your last 4 posts:
Not exactly sure what your point was with mentioning the possums. But it was interesting anyway.
Well, if you’re actually interested in looking at some real creationist observations and experiments a good place to start is here: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-Scientists-Believe-Creation/dp/0890513414
The book is not a scientific document per se, but is an excellent starting point for looking at serious creationist arguments. It compiles 50 essays from PhD holding creationist scientists from a variety of disciplines giving some of their essential arguments as to why they hold their position. It has a multitude of references that will set you in the direction of the observations and experiments that you’re asking for.

the apologist says:

08:16pm | 10/03/10

@DG:
You mistake my intent, I’m not arguing for a ‘God of the gaps’ as you put it. I’m not trying to justify a conclusion due to a lack of knowledge. I’m raising points that are indicative of a creationist position, as opposed to the evolutionary position. I’m not trying to make a watertight, positively stated case for creationism. It’s not that simple. I don’t believe in God as a result of some scientific problem, and use Him as an excuse to explain away things I don’t understand. It’s the other way round. The problem poses no problem for me because of my belief in God.

Your analysis of IC is inadequate, read some of my other comments on it to clarify why that is the case (particularly the latest to Matt). In essence, it is a fact that life ceases when you reduce the components necessary (which are immensely complex and numerous). Evolution requires this reduction, and is therefore inconsistent with that fact. Point v) is a serious problem for naturalistic evolution, but is not a problem for the creationist position. It doesn’t prove it, but it is consistent with it.
Re. your point on ii) see my comments to Alice to clarify my thoughts.
Re. missing link, you’re mistaking me again. It’s not at all the ‘therefore God’ argument. I simply observed that there is a lack of credible evidence documenting the evolutionary path of humans. This is against evolution but, again, does not pose any difficulty for the creationist position. I’m not trying to prove creationism by it, but just that it is a consistent observation for the creationist perspective, and a problem for evolution. In fact, I’ve seen no evidence for the evolutionary journey of humans.

Does a creationist have the courage to say here is the positive evidence supporting our hypothesis, however “this would disprove our assertion”?
Can you please clarify your challenge? At any rate, it sounds like one that needs to be dealt with in terms of a more scientific analysis than what I am capable of.

iansand says:

08:08pm | 10/03/10

Where are the observations andd experiments that establish creationism as a legitimate alternate explanation?

the apologist says:

08:05pm | 10/03/10

@Alice: What I was referring to by the term new genetic material was simply this concept: simpler life forms contain simpler/less genetic information. More complex life-forms contain ‘more’ genetic information. To suggest that blind naturalistic/evolutionary forces and processes introduce ‘new’ genetic information into a given gene pool has not been empirically proven. Obviously your genetics degree makes you somewhat more competent in this field than me, please refrain from engaging in resorting to the temptation of assaulting me with un-meaningful communication via jargon ?
Re. Irreducible complexity – you’re trying to tell me that if I start taking away the inter-related and connected components of a biological system that life is sustainable? This is not even a viable proposition on a cellular and atomistic level, much less more complex systems. You’re computer analogy is in no way related to the biological processes we’re talking about here (unless you wish to clarify further).
And you’re admitting the possibility of God? That’s thoroughly anti-naturalistic (not that you claimed to be thoroughly naturalistic, although I would have presumed you to be).
You call the ideas I’m espousing absurd and misguided straight after you’ve admitted the potential legitimacy of one of them. If you’re going to rubbish them, please do so via direct refutation and argumentation, not write-off statements.

the apologist says:

07:59pm | 10/03/10

@Matt:

Well it’s certainly settled if you can’t respond to my argument with better lines than those. Your scorn discredits you, I never claimed to be a scientist.
Your argument of my lack of understanding is misguided. I simply observed that when you start removing components on a cellular level (much less on a higher level), life ceases to be sustainable. That is a fact. Your argument is the equivalent of arguing in favour of an impossibility (i.e. life sustaining itself with less complex cellular structure – necessary to evolutionary process) and defending it by saying no-one knows. Given the observation, I would have thought mine was the logical position, to my mind, it’s got to be proved that life is possible when you start moving the inter-related components before you can start hypothesising on the possibility of evolution. That is to say, I would have thought that given life doesn’t function when you start taking out the components (it is irreducibly complex), it is more logical and rational to start with the presupposition that this is the way it has always been, as opposed to putting forward a theory that requires an impossibility. I’m not attacking you personally, I’ve got no interest in that. But think about the idea at least.

iansand says:

04:03pm | 10/03/10

the apologist - There are brush tailed possums along the whole eastern seaboard of Australia.  For some reason, the possums in Cape York are 4 times the size of the possums at Wilsons Promontory.  Each population of possums can breed successfully with the neighbouring population.  The Wilsons Promontory possums cannot successfully breed with the Cape York possums.  If, for some reason, all the possums in NSW were wiped out we would have two distinct populations that could not breed together successfully.  The ability to breed successfully is a universal factor in deciding whether two populations are separate species.  Are the brush tailed possums different species or not?  It is hard to say.

There is a species of gull spread around the Arctic Circle with a similar distribution.

DG says:

03:59pm | 10/03/10

Phaedrus:
Apostrophes? The inverted commas were a bit much, and horribly used), but I thought that the apostrophes were OK.

The apostrophe in “photo’s” is one that I was taught in error as a child and for some reason it still haunts me. I was told that I needed the apostrophe because it is an abbreviation of photographs - clearly the apostrophe is unnecessary.

DG says:

03:45pm | 10/03/10

Phaedrus:

Regrettably, I’ve not yet read the God Delusion. It is near the top of my to read list along with a few of Hitchens books. But at the moment I am reading things that are a little less intellectual.

As for the arguments, I’m not sure that “Someone else shot this argument down for the same reasons” is really a defence of the original assertion.

The flying spaghetti monster retort was actually inspired by a colleague who insists that “Pastafarianism” is a valid religon, I had originally used leprechauns as my example (as I had in a discussion on this site just the other day), but this colleague happened to stick their head in my door at the right moment and I changed my mind.

I do find it ironic that someone clinging to their 2000 year old book accuse other of not having original thoughts.

Finally, if there is an effective counter arguments that someone else has come up with, why not use it? You use the wheel that was invented by someone else long ago, and so on and so forth…

Meanwhile, I’m not sure what part of your post actually addressed any of the points raised.

Alice says:

03:20pm | 10/03/10

@the apologist

What on earth do you mean by “new genetic material”?

DNA is comprised of 4 coding bases - adenine, thiamine, guanine and cytosine. Different combinations of the base pairs (A-T, G-C) make up “genes” (together with a lot of non-coding guff). Mutations of these combinations make new “genes” (and new sequences of non-coding guff, too). Where, exactly, does the “new” part come in?

As to the so-called irreducible complexity “argument” - on the contrary, most seemingly “irreducibly complex” systems can be sensibly and persuasively explained in steps of less complex precursors. Much like, say, the first computer that took up a room as compared with an Ipad.

You are right about one thing - that is that there is no really viable explanation for the creation of life. Obviously. And that is why the theory of evolution in itself is not wholly inconsistent with some form of belief in a greater being.

I have a genetics degree and whilst I am not a spiritual person, I know plenty of geneticists (and indeed evolutionary biologists) who are.

I just fail to see the need to throw around all of this other absurd and misguided rubbish.

the apologist says:

03:07pm | 10/03/10

@ Patrick:
Patrick, you’re resorting to petty personalised attack discoloured by your own prejudice, unsubstantiated claims, and you’re trying to put words into my mouth. I shouldn’t even keep responding after that.
My quote was referring to life resulting from non-life, not evolution as you said.
The gist of my argument in this instance is that there are a number of empirically observable phenomena that are inconsistent with evolution and consistent with creation, as well as there being some serious hurdles for evolution to jump before it’s taken as fact (unfortunately society at large is happy to be blind to them and assume it as synonymous with science).
Evolutionists can replicate evolution in a lab? I don’t think so. As I’ve said above, there are no scientific observations that can actually prove that a given genetic pool is capable of evolving into something new via new genetic information. Changes in it? Certainly. But the new material that is required to shift from one species to another via mutation and other processes has never been demonstrated. 
Rest assured (or ‘rest agitated’ for you probably), there are many PhD carrying creationists working in the secular scientific environment. You should actually look at what they’re saying and the science they’re producing before accusing them of demonising science or inaccurately practicing it. You’re confusing scientific practice with scientific testing of a hypothesis in your last para.
Creationist arguments with no weight? At least attempt to refute my argument to iansand above.
Ps. I think DG has got you and I confused above!

iansand says:

02:57pm | 10/03/10

the apologist - Where are the observations and experiments that establish creationism as a legitimate alternate explanation?

Phaedrus says:

02:33pm | 10/03/10

@DG I like your arguments, and your approach to antitheism is mildly amusing. But your use of apostrophes is intolerable. Please take a look at http://www.deakin.edu.au/current-students/study-support/study-skills/handouts/apost.php before you make another posting. Please.

Matt Stewart says:

02:20pm | 10/03/10

@ the apologist

Well if we have your observations, I guess he matter is settled.  I’ll let science know, so they can all go home and stop wasting their time.

But seriously, I look forward to your peer reviewed paper.  Until then, evolutionary theory remains undevastated.

Do you think it might be possible that just because YOU don’t understand how cells evolved, doesn’t mean no one will ever understand how cells evolved?

Phaedrus says:

02:18pm | 10/03/10

@DG - your submission is such a slavish photocopy of your Holy Book, The God Delusion. Right down to your “The Flying Spaghetti Monster” retort. You couldn’t even be bothered to come up with your own mythical beast. Honestly, will you Antitheists ever come up with an original thought?

Patrick says:

02:04pm | 10/03/10

So, theapologist, the general gist of your argument is because evolution isn’t COMPLETELY proven, creation science must have it right? And you are so wrong, creation “science” is EXACTLY about demonising science, the religious nutters have worked out you need to be on the inside to truly sabotage it. Problem is they’re too dumb to get on the inside.

“[evolution] has never been even remotely proven as scientifically possible.” - But the creationist’s arguments have never held any scientific weight whatsoever. Therefore, evidence points to evolution, since we can recreate it in miniature, like with a few other scientific models that are accepted because we cannot play out billions of years worth of experiments in a laboratory, and their theory is the most likely. I don’t think any scientist who is not on the salary of a religious organisation would say Creation is the most likely course we took.

Ultimately, the creationists argument is always false because they lack regard for proper scientific method, that is, they cannot pick apart evolution because of a few tiny indiscrepancies in our knowledge, when their version is fundamentally flawed from the beginning.

the apologist says:

02:04pm | 10/03/10

@MattS:
Re. the first point – you use the term variation, but do you deny that the introduction of new genetic material into the gene pool (by mutation or any other means) is fundamental to evolutionary progress in the theory?
Re. IC – given my previous comments on IC, it seems we have a different understanding on the concept. A genuine case has not been found? It’s a self-evident observation of the nature of biological entities and cellular existence (by my observation). I’m firmly convinced that it is devastating to evolutionary theory.

the apologist says:

01:41pm | 10/03/10

@iansand:
That’s a fine judgment you’ve made given you didn’t address any of the issues raised on said list.
To briefly exemplify one of the arguments raised: the argument of irreducible complexity (IC). IC is (simply, and unscientifically put) the argument that the mutual reliance of all the complex parts present in even the smallest of cells (not to mention the human body) makes it necessary to draw the conclusion that all of those parts needed to be present from the point of first existence/for the entirety of the given organisms existence. You may have heard of the illustration of the mousetrap, it is made up of a number of components, and if you remove one, it ceases to function. So it is with, not just cells, but the human body in it’s entirety which has staggering amounts of components that rely on one another to function as what we know to be life.
Evolution posits that things started at a cellular level. Even cells require a minimum of many many components to exist – or they cease to function.
This does not necessarily argue for creationism, it is a scientific observation (unscientifically observed here – granted). But, it suggests that all of the mutually reliant components necessary for life needed to be present together since the beginning in order for them to function. A scientific observation in and of itself that is consistent (not a comprehensive case…) with the creationist perspective, and inconsistent with the evolutionist perspective.

DG says:

01:33pm | 10/03/10

Patrick:
Firstly the arguments i), ii), and v) are “God of the gaps”. Also known as an argument from ignorance. The absences of knowledge can not justify a conclusion. “I don’t know how this could have evolved, therefore God” is, not to put too fine a point on it, nonsense. It is no more valid than “I don’t know how this evolved, therefore Flying Spaghetti Monster”. Irreducible complexity proves nothing beyond the fact that there are limits of human understanding - I can’t imagine a humanist or atheist denying this point.

Secondly, evolution doesn’t rely on “new material”. I don’t know where you got that idea from. I can’t really rebut that any further than to say that it’s simply not true. Without any basis for your statement I can’t really address it any further. Evolution does not require “new” material,changes to the existing material is sufficient.

As for your missing link, we have a long trail of bread crumbs, I agree. How does that disprove evolution? I agree that it doesn’t prove evolution but it does support the suggestion that life changes over time. We have snapshots over time of various creatures changing over many generations, the fact that one or two photo’s are missing from the collection does not disprove the whole collection (nor does it prove it). You have fallen back to the ol’ faithful “I don’t know, therefore God”.

and for iv) absence of evidence is not proof of absence. If we found things that we didn’t expect to see, such as a Giraffe in the pre-Cambrian era, then we would have a problem. As it is we have a few photographs and we are trying to picture what happened, so long as those photographs are consistent with the theory (as opposed to a hypothesis), the theory stands as fact.

Does a creationist have the courage to say here is the positive evidence supporting our hypothesis, however “this would disprove our assertion”?

Matt stewart says:

01:20pm | 10/03/10

@ the apologist

I won’t bother with all your points (I have work to do) but I want to address two of them because they are common fallacies.

You say “iii) there is no evidence to suggest that new genetic material can result from biological mutation (the centrepiece of evolutionary progress)”

You are dead wrong.  No one, except creationists, claim that mutation is the centrepiece of evolutionary progress.  Whilst mutation is a major cause of variation, it is natural selection that in the centrepiece of evolutionary progress.  Other issues like genetic drift are at play too.

Irreducible complexity - this is a cool argument, and a genuine case of irreducible complexity would be absolutely devastating to evolutionary theory.  Fortunately, a genuine case has neer been found.

iansand says:

12:35pm | 10/03/10

tjhe apologist - That is a fine list of things you do not understand.  Where are the observations andd experiments that establish creationism as a legitimate alternate explanation?

the apologist says:

12:17pm | 10/03/10

@ Patrick:
Your comments demonstrate your ignorance of the creationist position. Creationist science, strictly speaking, is merely empirical scientific conclusions and observations that are consistent (not a full-proof case necessarily) with the creation account of Genesis, although also with a theistic creationist perspective more generally.
Although I don’t claim scientific credentials, I am familiar with some creationist scientific claims/science/observations (which you claim don’t exist). Some of these include:
i) that the order/information contained in creation can not be the result of blind physical force as naturalism posits – that this is possiblt has never been empirically proven; ii) the irreducible complexity argument; iii) there is no evidence to suggest that new genetic material can result from biological mutation (the centrepiece of evolutionary progress) – observed mutations are only the re-arranging/or minimalising of existing genetic material; iv) lack of empirical proof observing an accurate documentation of the transition from lower life form to homo-sapien (thus the aptly named ‘missing link’). To my knowledge, there is none that is even close to convincing or in the required volume that would suport evolutionary theory; v) the possibility of life resulting from non-life (another fundamental problem – or at best untouched aspect - of the naturalistic evolutionary approach Dawkins was parading) has never been even remotely proven as scientifically possible. There are others.
Quite the contrary to your claim, creationism is not about demonising the use of science, which you should know if you’ve ever looked seriously at the work of creationist scientists.

@DG: DG, you say “While I am not an expert, as I understand it elements of evolution can, and have, been proven in a laboratory.” It has never been proven empirically that new genetic material has been introduced into a given gene pool through gene mutation. Changes? Yes. New material? (which evolution fundamentally relies upon to explain the development of species). No.

Patrick says:

09:36am | 10/03/10

@the apologist - Have you heard the (practically only) example so-called “Creationist scientists” give for the support of their theory?

The Grand Canyon. OBVIOUSLY, it was made in one day by the flood, and Noahs Ark was there and stuff, that’s like totally true. That’s really all they’ve got. They don’t have any real scientific evidence, mainly because science is the thing they would most like to demonise, so we can go back to accepting everything from a bloody 2000 year old human-edited and written book.

It’s amazing, because the one principle that almost suggests a helping hand in creation is the testing they’re doing right now at the LHC, to find the “God Particle”, the Higgs-Boson. And creationists have distanced themselves from this one piece of evidence that MAY lead to it being proven that something started the Big Bang, be it a God or a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s only a very small number of scientists that think this may be the case, I believe there were two or three CERN employees behind the press release for the article I read on this, but at least they’re not trying to say the Grand Canyon was made in a day by God flooding the world.

So yes, creationism is inaccurate and uninformed, because it refuses to accept any actual scientific evidence, it creates Dreamtime stories (rainbow snake making all the rivers, anyone?), and tries to pick apart any real tests / studies that try to find the truth, because they prove God wrong.

Religion’s stranglehold on politics has been around for a VERY long time though, it’s still going to be a while until they all die out from STDs.

the apologist says:

09:13am | 10/03/10

Good comment Castro, at last an evolutionist (at least you appear to be - forgive me if i’ve miss-classified you) who does not intrinsically equate evolution with the empirical practice of science. It is a theory.
And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Rudd has made different claims about his beliefs at different times. We seem to get the mask of Rudd consistently (which shifts according to political expediency), with little that expresses his true personality. Cynical, but that’s what I observe.

DG says:

09:12am | 10/03/10

“nor is it possible to retest the hypotheses of evolution in a laboratory”

While I am not an expert, as I understand it elements of evolution can, and have, been proven in a laboratory. DNA sequencing and the like can demonstrate evolution and, while it is presently impossible to replicate the whole multi-million year process in a laboratory, simple changes in short lived creatures such as fruit flies, as well as work with plants, have been used to demonstrate evolutionary principles.

I appreciate that this is not the same as proving the whole tree of life, but I just thought that the process of passing on genes and, in particular, gene mutations is well established. This is the basis of evolution.

Castro says:

07:53am | 10/03/10

Thanks for clearing that up Persephone.  I would like a journo to pursue Fielding to ask him about his claim.  Could it be that Rudd has given different claims about his beliefs in different situations?  Does that sound like him?

Either way, your quote also shows that the PM does not understand what the word empirical means.  It is very hard to measure evolution with data, nor is it possible to retest the hypotheses of evolution in a laboratory.

I am not saying that evolution is not a viable theory; it is.  However, it has been described incorrectly in this quote.

the apologist says:

07:24am | 10/03/10

Yeah, you’re right. Dawkins (unfortunately) was the most competent thinker there. Fielding did no justice to his position - he was scared stiff of actually defending his beliefs and more or less made a mockery of the Christian position on this occassion by backing down and compromising. He represented it without defending it in the least. If only there was a competent creationist or Christian theologian to call the bluff on some of Dawkins outrageous comments and claims.
ps. David, your comment ‘scientifically-bereft fantasy that is creationism’ strikes me as inaccurate and uninformed too. You could do with a serious investigation yourself.

persephone says:

07:26am | 10/03/10

Castro

Rudd:

“I have always believed in evolution. The reason is it’s an empirical science,” he told Channel Nine.

“It’s been established. It has been, therefore, fundamental to the great innovations in science and technology for the last two hundred years since Darwin was around. And that’s my view - always has been.”

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/6742772/rudd-believes-in-evolution/

I’m told there are similar quotes in his biography (which I haven’t read).

Castro says:

06:41am | 10/03/10

Fielding made the claim that Rudd believes in Creationism.  Why didn’t Jones or subsequent reviewers pick up on this?  Penbo, can you please ascertain if this is indeed true?

the apologist says:

12:38pm | 11/03/10

@David:
you said:
“This approach to shutting down the discussion suggests very strongly they lack the capacity to defend their beliefs when they are laid out and critiqued.”
Actually, his ‘laying out’ of the Christian position was entirely inadequate. Any serious Christian Theologian would have picked him up on that easily.

Robert Smissen of Rural SA says:

10:19pm | 10/03/10

Only a fool is 100% sure a scientist is always open to new ideas

David says:

04:14pm | 10/03/10

I am sick of people expecting respect for beliefs. Ideas, notions, concepts, beliefs, etc do not warrant respect. People on the otherhand do. I find it entirely disrespectful to insult someone’s intelligence by assuming they can’t handle the possibility of someone disagreeing with them.

Religion and faith are special in this regard. Very rarely does someone get upset simply because someone else supports a different sporting team or political party/ideology. But when it comes to God we have to suddenly avert our minds. Dawkins was hardly rude, he didn’t once drop an ad hominem or insult he merely stated his logic and rational for each position. Sadly, the politicians couldn’t defend themselves so they got upset and took offense.

This approach to shutting down the discussion suggests very strongly they lack the capacity to defend their beliefs when they are laid out and critiqued.

Nathan H says:

03:04pm | 10/03/10

You’re close in your assesment, but not quite on the button. Dawkins doesn’t disrespect other people’s beliefs, he disrespects the very concept of ‘belief’ itself. Belief stands apart from reason. A conclusion can change, when the evidence does, belief does not need evidence in the first place. He rightly ridicules people’s beliefs because belief itself is nonsense. Conclusions are a far worthier goal, and should always be questioned, instead of blindly ‘respected’.

TheEnd says:

11:41am | 10/03/10

I expect Dawkins is just tired of having the same old nonsensical arguments over and over.

He isn’t paid to placate people, since they can’t vote him out.

Godfree Gordon says:

10:55am | 10/03/10

Dominic, you miss the point of Dawkins…and Harris and Hitchens and Dennett and co…why assume that being religious automatically qualifies you for respect?  Would you accord the same respect to a Mormon or Scientologist or Wotan/Thor worshipper? And because he frankly admits, as any thinking person would, that belief in leprechauns, unicorns, living Elvises or any number of gods is delusional it is not being rude, just honest.

matt says:

09:39am | 10/03/10

Fielding is, indeed an idiot, but he’s preaching to his constituency of idiots.
As for Julie’s death stare, my testicles shrivelled up and are still too scared to come back.

Imogene says:

08:43am | 10/03/10

Castro I watched PM Agenda last night and they said Rudd is on the record as believing in evolution. they further commented that Feilding had verbaled Rudd. I can’t understand in this day and age why anyone would not believe in evolution. I don’t know who elects Steve Feilding but gee you have to question their sanity. the guy is a nutter. Julia Bishop glared angrily into the audience and someone needs to tell her its not cute anymore for a 53year old woman to glare she just look hard faced.

Luke says:

08:33am | 10/03/10

Let’s compare Scientology. That gets criticised relentlessly by pretty much everyone who aren’t beleivers. Nobody complains that people “[pay] no respect to the other ... personal beliefs”. Why is it not allowed to pick apart Christian beliefs?

Also, take the time to follow Razor’s advice and read why Dawkins has such contempt for religion.

Razor says:

07:31am | 10/03/10

Aaaah, that’s because he doesn’t respect the beliefs of those who believe in God.  Read his books and you will find out that it is a very well argued position.  It isn’t just based on a whim.  It is deeply considered position.

He might be a dork, but someone has to be.