101. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193426 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 3:07 pm

ketch22

I would like to know how you come to this conclusion... if you wish to share.

I would like to share, but somehow I don't think you would really listen. That's because when you came back from church you said:

because God created us, He is outside any man made logical prose and debate

It is clear that in your mind, no matter how logical my prose, how convincing my debating points, God made us and that is that. If you really would like me to explain why the world makes more sense without god, please first confirm that your statement quoted above might not be correct and does not trump all discussion. If you are not prepared to do so I will have to conclude you are not here for the purpose of reasoned discussion.

102. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193308 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 8:31 am

Perhaps he got his 72 virgins early.

Ah, I was wondering why he hadn't responded.

103. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193297 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 8:17 am

ketch22

I find it interesting that when a person, such as I, has had an experience with God, I tend to know/believe that a creator has to be involved

Does your experience involve anything more than strong conviction, regularly reinforced by worship, prayer and mutual assurance from other believers?

104. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193295 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 8:11 am

ketch22
On your substantive point, I (and I imagine Border Collie also) am well able to conceive of a creator. Indeed, I often do. And each time I do so, I conclude that the world makes a great deal less sense with a creator than without one.

105. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193292 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 8:04 am

ketch22
When you disagree with someone in a discussion, may I suggest you stick to the ideas expressed, rather than using rhetorical putdowns like 'You sound bitter'. They don't help and are likely to alienate others by your presuming to know something you clearly cannot.

106. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #193285 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 7:54 am

Clearthinker
So you haven't come back to me on my entirely reasonable requests for clarification last night. You make high-minded and moralistic claims elsewhere, suggesting people on this site are abusive and not as rational as they would claim. But what do you do: make a drive-by post unjustifiably tarring people with a rather nasty brush, and when given the opportunity to clarify signally fail to do so.

Sad.

107. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193282 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 7:37 am

ChristiansTogether
It seems to me most likely that what you are doing is trying to bring a version of the American 'Teach the Controversy' strategy over here. Can you deny this is not the case? Why would either an atheist or an 'evolutionist' want to help you? What could possibly be in it for them?

108. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193277 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 6:49 am

Was Behe telling the truth about Richard Dawkins here, when he claimed that Dawkins would not consider a waving statue a supernatural event?

A waving statue would be just that, a waving statue. Interestingly, most 'professional theologians' distinguish between amazing events and 'true miracles', the latter being ones which have an accompanying message (explicit or implicit) from the divinity and tending to do good. Behe might have been better picking something like an amputee 'miracled' a new leg.

109. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193077 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 2:31 pm

txpiper has given us a date for the flood, and thereby a date for the creation of Adam and Eve, at (I think) around 4,200BC. So has tx or his like done the maths? Death is the result of sin, right? And god didn't intend Adam and Eve to sin. But god did create them with replication apparatus. So presumably he expected them to have sex and their descendents to have plenty of sex and replicate at average rates. As none would die, the earth would gradually fill up with humans. It must be possible to calculate the date at which god expected the earth to fill up. I wonder what tx thinks god expected us to do at that point. Perhaps god was planning to hand out condoms?

110. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #193026 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 1:08 pm

clearthinker

Surely the desperation to prove that the more intelligent you are the less likely you are to believe in God, should not lead one to post an article by such a racist?

"Christians are on average stupid, as are many ethnicities.
The truth is hard and not always compatible with political ideals. "

Please tell me that does not mean what it seems to mean - that white atheists are the top of the intellectual tree?

Is this a request for clarification from the person that posted the comment you quote? If so, can I suggest you preface the quote with their name, particularly bearing in mind it is way back in the thread. If you aren't talking to that person specifically, please clarify what your point is.

[Edit - seems to me you might be trying to tar people here with the same brush; perhaps suggesting we are elitist and racist?]

[Edit - you haven't come back since my earlier response to your post. Makes you seem like a drive-by poster, without ever any intention of debate]

111. Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God'

Comment #193001 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 12:24 pm

I have no wished to get involved in this particular thread

Clearly you do want to get involved, or you wouldn't have written the post.

Did you mean to say something like, 'I would rather not have got involved in this thread, but I felt I needed to save you from your incipient racism'?

112. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192992 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 12:00 pm

tx

all you have is evidence that retroviruses know where in the genome to go, and what to do when they get there, which can either be beneficial or destructive to the host, more unexplainable deliberation at the molecular level

You are apparently suggesting that there are entities at the cellular level which are capable of intelligence/thought. I challenged you on this before, comment #190214 which you didn't answer, to the effect that you are equivocating between the appearance of intelligence and actual intelligence. If you genuinely think that such things really have intelligence please say so. And then go on to explain the mechanism for this intelligence.

113. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192985 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 11:38 am

tx
You haven't responded to my post #192194, as to why you think we are unable to see the truth you are explaining to us. Would you mind doing so please? It is an important issue.

114. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192897 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 6:49 am

How will the creationists react when we find out for sure, you ask? Oh, I think we can hazard a pretty good guess at that. At that point they'll argue that THAT has no meaning, because we still can't say what caused Big Bang.

They will also say (and some already do) that the conditions had to be set up right in the first place for the DNA (or whatever) in ice (or whatever) to get there. I.e. some version of fine tuning.

115. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192849 by Mark Smith on June 14, 2008 at 3:53 am

Mphil
Virus v meme: Can I take you up on your distinction? You seemed to suggest a virus (at the cellular level as opposed to say in computers) is a real entity, whereas

"memes" are a metaphor for structures/processes - and are as such not entities.

But even at the cellular level, isn't 'virus' just a word we use for describing various similar processes that take place? I can see how the individual 'bits' that inject themselves into cells are real entities, but that seems to be a different matter.

116. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192235 by Mark Smith on June 12, 2008 at 3:16 pm

fizhburn
In the circles tx probably moves in they often buy in to St Paul's ideology of the gentiles/unbelievers having been given over by god to 'futile thinking' and 'darkened minds' (Romans 1:21). They love to apply v22, 'Claiming to be wise, they became fools', to scientists and philosophers. The ideology is often not made very explicit (witness tx's reluctance to explain the point), but it is there nonetheless.

[Edit - by the way, couldn't get your link to work]
[Edit edit - now found a link that did work, on the previous page.]

117. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #192194 by Mark Smith on June 12, 2008 at 2:32 pm

txpiper
There has been some speculation on why you remain so confident in your beliefs despite such extensive and consistent opposition from others. I notice at #191395 you said:

But I have to say, that my theological and doctrinal views are very developed. One of the fine details, which I will not discuss here, is about why some people get it and some don't.

Would I be right in suspecting that you think some or all of our minds have somehow been, or are in the process of being, rendered unable to see the truth, and only the action of the Holy Spirit on us will counter this?

If you do hold this sort of belief it no doubt enables you to remain secure in your own beliefs despite all apparently-sound arguments offered to you by the non-believers.

If I have misunderstood you, please will you explain what the fine detail is of why some people 'don't get it'.

118. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #191237 by Mark Smith on June 10, 2008 at 12:48 pm

txpiper
You clearly have quite an appreciation for the natural world and for science. I want you to know that if you will only take your 'Genesis glasses' off you will be able to appreciate them all the more. You will set your mind free to enjoy them properly. For a time I thought I had to be loyal to Genesis in a similar way to you, and I have to tell you the sheer joy and relief when I gave it up was immense. Go on, let yourself see the world as it truly is. It can be a frightening prospect, but it is worth it.

119. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190771 by Mark Smith on June 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm

There are a great many things which humans look at and think 'That must indicate intelligence'.

Yes, and they really should. That is a reasonable, rational conclusion to draw.

No it isn't. One trait we appear to have evolved is the tendency to perceive the presence of other intelligences where there is none. No doubt this served our ancestors better than a tendency not to perceive the presence of such beings, enabling them to take action to protect themselves. But now rationality enables me to explain to my sons that despite their instincts to the contrary, the shadows in their rooms are just that, shadows, and for them thereby to overcome their fear.

By the way, is your selective quotation of me to try and prove a point opposite to the one I was making symptomatic of a general approach?

120. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190753 by Mark Smith on June 9, 2008 at 1:52 pm

read Prof. Mark Ehrman's books

Its Bart, not Mark, if anyone is looking him up

121. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190214 by Mark Smith on June 8, 2008 at 2:39 pm

txpiper

If soma cells are "intelligent" enough to direct germ cells, it does not logically imply that an intelligent supernatural agency is needed to direct the "intelligent" soma cells to direct the germ cells.

Of course it does. Purpose and intent don't just imply or suggest the need for an organizing agent. They demand it.

You are equivocating between activity within individual cells which you think appears to be intelligent and actual intelligence (and then you further equivocate between this and 'purpose and intent'). There are a great many things which humans look at and think 'That must indicate intelligence'. Ancient Egyptians apparently thought the sun's movement through the day was evidence of a being pulling a chariot across the sky. Your inability to perceive a non-intelligent cause for the soma cell activity does not mean there is not one.

122. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189147 by Mark Smith on June 5, 2008 at 2:33 pm

txpiper, you said

Tiktaalik (which after all is said and done, was still a fish)

This could well be at the heart of your misunderstanding. You want to see 'fish' as some sort of 'thing-in-itself' that god defined at the start and which a creature must be or not be. No doubt this is in some sort of misguided attempt to be faithful to Genesis 1:21, creatures made 'according to their kinds'. But the category 'fish' is just that, a category (like all others) imposed by humans to help us make sense of things. It could be defined differently, in which case different creatures would be in and others out.

We might, for example, define 'birds' simply as 'creatures which fly in the air'. Then bats would be birds. (In fact this is what the creation poem that is Genesis 1 seems to do: splitting all creatures into 3 categories according to whether they live in water [being 'the great sea monsters' or things 'with which the waters swarm, v21] or in the air ['the birds', v22] or on the earth [v24].)

The point is that, in contrast to Genesis, there is no absolute, 'god-given' type to which a creature must conform. Instead there is a continuum. The classic example being the herring gull (quoting Wikipedia):

The taxonomy of the Herring Gull / Lesser Black-backed Gull complex is very complicated, different authorities recognising between two and eight species.

This group has a ring distribution around the northern hemisphere. Differences between adjacent forms in this ring are fairly small, but by the time the circuit is completed, the end members, Herring Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull, are clearly different species.

So when people talk about one 'species' evolving into another, what they are actually talking about is a continuum of creatures with small differences between parent and offspring, such that with each birth it makes no sense to say the parent is species A and direct offspring is species B (or indeed that offspring is 'transitional form'). But on the other hand, it does help us make sense of the world to say that the group of creatures with such and such features are species A, while those with certain other (perhaps similar, but nevertheless different) features are species B.

If you can come to terms with the way our need to categorise things can sometimes mislead us you might begin to understand evolutionary theory better.

123. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #188777 by Mark Smith on June 4, 2008 at 2:12 pm

txpiper, you said (quoting me first)

They also know that there are nevertheless enough helpful ones to bring about tiny changes which add up to significant changes over time, such that the whole of the diversity of life is explained.

This is just what some biologists, and you, believe. They do not know any such thing.

Ooh goody, semantics and epistemology! Quite often the last resort of the desperate. Knowledge, for scientists, historians and anybody who is at all reasonable, is always somewhat provisional. I like to think of knowledge as well-justified belief. It is always open to the possibility that such belief may become less justified in the light of new evidence and better interpretations. Presumably you are working with some other definition of knowledge, something which allows for assertion without evidence and also allows the discounting of other peoples' well-evidenced assertions.

Currently, biologists hold the well-justified (by all criteria accepted in scientific and academic disciplines) belief that the whole of the diversity of life is explained by evolution by natural selection (though undoubtedly there are certain other 'sub-mechanisms', e.g. genetic drift, that have caused some diversity to some degree). You, on the other hand, appear to hold the highly unjustified beliefs that (a) natural selection causes diversity within species but cannot cross some mysterious ill-defined boundary to bring about new species, and (b) every species which ever existed was created intact by a supernatural and ill-defined force using a mysterious and entirely undefined mechanism. I consider neither of these beliefs should be regarded as 'knowledge' in any useful sense.

124. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187109 by Mark Smith on June 1, 2008 at 9:51 am

epeeist

Is it really growing or does it only appear so because the CofE and the like are becoming irrelevant and all we are left with are the vociferous nutters? Alternatively, could it be growing in response to and increasing Islamic presence or influx of money and lunacy from the States?

My understanding of the statistics, admittedly a few years old (unfortunately I don't have up-to-date ones to hand) is that it is growing both inside and outside the CofE. I assume it is most successful because it fits best in the modern situation (ie is the type of religion that is more likely to appeal to certain modern sensibilities than, say, liberalism). As a result, it has gained converts, but on the other hand, other kinds of Christianity have lost people at a greater rate, with the overall result that Christianity is declining in the UK.

I don't want to generate complacency, but I wonder whether we are actually seeing some final, violent death throes.

Let's hope so.

125. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #187087 by Mark Smith on June 1, 2008 at 9:26 am

Hypothesis h: Appleby is a troll.

implies p: lots of troll-like posts.

I would say h is becoming more probable all the time.

126. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187076 by Mark Smith on June 1, 2008 at 9:13 am

My school was a 'bog-standard comprehensive' and evolution was taught as part of the biology O-level course in the early 1980s. I was a recent convert at the time, so spent my time thinking how I might be able to convince the teacher he had got it wrong! Poor guy, he was very patient.

127. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187064 by Mark Smith on June 1, 2008 at 8:53 am

Cartomancer
Evangelicalism is the strongest and fastest-growing force in Christianity in the UK. I was part of the movement for some time. There are lots of normal and intelligent people in the movement. And there are a lot of them about. I wouldn't think there are many workplaces, for example, where they aren't represented. Part of the package of beliefs is that the Bible is 'true'. For most, this means some version of creationism must be correct no matter what the evidence might say. However, this isn't talked about much, because there is a general awareness that anti-evolutionism isn't intellectually credible. Those who accept evolution tend to remain quiet about it because they consider other things are more important.

As far as I am aware, there is a similar sort of thing in some parts of catholicism.

[Edit - I should also have mentioned the movement is particularly strong among the middle-classes and among professionals, including many doctors and lawyers]

128. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #187043 by Mark Smith on June 1, 2008 at 7:50 am

txpiper

The facts about mutations are in. I won't bother repeating them, but the ratio of neutral/deleterious mutations to the necessary helpful ones is exponentially lopsided. There is no way to hide from that, no matter whose numbers you choose to use.

There you go again, making a mathematical-sounding claim but without doing the maths. Biologists know that there a very large number of neutral/deleterious mutations and a comparitively much smaller number of helpful ones. They know that. They also know that there are nevertheless enough helpful ones to bring about tiny changes which add up to significant changes over time, such that the whole of the diversity of life is explained. They have written peer-reviewed paper after peer-reviewed paper to prove it. If you disagree, then actually do the maths to prove it. Alternatively, stop making the pseudo-scientific claims and say instead 'I just can't believe it'.

129. Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition'

Comment #187041 by Mark Smith on June 1, 2008 at 7:18 am

David Robertson, aka Clearthinker, if you really are open-minded and have a reasonable level of intelligence then you will see that evolution by natural selection is an extraordinarily well-founded, evidentially-backed and powerful explanation of the diversity of life on this planet.

You could also theorise an alternative explanation, namely that a god of some sort brought it all into being last Saturday at 11am. Is your mind open enough for the latter explanation? If it is, you will presumably also agree that the latter explanation is just as good as any specifically Christian one you may currently hold to? Is your mind open enough to accept this massive threat to your faith?

130. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #186541 by Mark Smith on May 30, 2008 at 2:40 pm

txpiper

What you are saying here is that selection will make a decision on behalf of the progeny to the detriment of the individual organism, if necessary.

How can you have read all the biology you claim to have read and all the explanations you have been given in this thread, and yet still show such woeful misunderstanding as displayed in this quote?

Natural selection works at the level of the replicator and does not 'decide' anything. Simply, the replicator which makes more copies of itself than others will 'out-replicate' and therefore prevail.

I can only think the reason for your woeful mistunderstanding is a prior commitment to contrary beliefs (aka creationism).

[Edit: also, since you clearly don't understand the underlying mechanism, it is not surprising you find the theory difficult.]

131. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #184983 by Mark Smith on May 26, 2008 at 4:06 pm

fanusi, I'm struggling to understand what you are advocating. You define Islam as a religion, not a race, and you state 'we' (presumably everybody who isn't a muslim?) should not be tolerant towards it and should 'show muslims the door'. So are you saying there should be laws to eject all who profess certain religious beliefs from their countries? This seems to be contrary to almost everything many people (me included) in free democratic societies stand for.

132. In God's Name

Comment #183244 by Mark Smith on May 21, 2008 at 3:28 pm

fanusi

That's a sweet thought, except for one thing: it's not about you. It's about them. These are real human beings, who have their own ideas and ideologies, and act upon them. Whether or not you are seen as a member of their group is absolutely, and entirely up to them. Not you.

And they will not admit a Kafir to their group. Count on it.

Trusting that those who hold absolute power over you will treat you fairly when they do so, is a fool's hope.

You are implying that their idealogy is insurmountable. I presume you don't take the same attitude to white supremacist idealogy?

More importantly, you are ignoring the possibility that their religious and cultural beliefs are not the only factors. It is my view that humans are evolutionarily predisposed to in group-out group attitudes. Once people spend time together and get to know each other they tend to start treating people who were 'out' as 'in'. No doubt some muslim (and other religious) beliefs militate against this. But they don't make it impossible.

[Edit - it would be helpful if you didn't patronise so much, with remarks like 'that's a sweet thought' and suggestions I am a fool]

133. In God's Name

Comment #183240 by Mark Smith on May 21, 2008 at 3:12 pm

al

I have tried to rationalize to Muslims, I have tried to reason.... It cannot be done...

I support reasoning with them, but that doesn't last long because they begin the emotive wailing and hollering almost immediately. They will do anything to avoid the issues.

This seems rather sweeping. There are fundamentalist Christians who are similar. On the other hand, there are people who were brought up as muslims who are thoroughly reasonable. I wouldn't deny though that people with muslim backgrounds in largely non-muslim countries feel all sorts of emotional ties and loyalties to those backgrounds.

134. In God's Name

Comment #183235 by Mark Smith on May 21, 2008 at 2:54 pm

Fanusi
We are not at war yet. And where I live, the UK, democracy prevails. In my situation at least, I believe the best way forward is to try to prevent and/or reduce 'us versus them' mentalities taking over. If I treat people who happen to hold muslim beliefs as members of the same group as me they may be encouraged to reciprocate and I may be able to continue to live in peace.

135. In God's Name

Comment #183232 by Mark Smith on May 21, 2008 at 2:47 pm

and don't even think about mentioning the whole Aisha issue

eh?

136. In God's Name

Comment #183221 by Mark Smith on May 21, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Nope. Look at what Muslims have to say about you

But you are buying into a rhetoric which sets up 'muslim' as 'their' identity. I prefer to think in terms of there being a large number of people who hold false beliefs which tend to set them in a dangerous way against people who don't share those beliefs. I prefer to think they are nevertheless humans like me who can potentially be brought around to a better way of thinking and acting. I don't want to be dragged into the 'us versus them' mentality which just tends to divide further. (Not to say that there aren't occasions in practice when people don't have the luxury of such ideals.)

137. In God's Name

Comment #183200 by Mark Smith on May 21, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Those who are expressing fear about 'muslims outbreeding us', don't you think you are buying in to an irrational 'us versus them', in group-out group mentality?

138. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183192 by Mark Smith on May 21, 2008 at 1:54 pm

al

Look at the rest of the post, that is only true if they support the right to life for other people. Instead evangelicals spend their time figuring ways to kill more people all over the world. They are murderers, they support murderers and vote for murderers, but when it comes to a woman's right to determine what goes on in her body, they suddenly turn all soft and give a shit what happens to a baby.

I didn't hear one Evangelical squeak when Palestinian women have been forced to give birth at an Israeli check point, denied medical care, and forced to watch their new born die. Not one... So they can stick that in their pro-life pipe and fucking smoke it.

I think this might be an American perspective. UK evangelicals (and other types of Christians) are rather more diverse. (To be fair, they also tend to be less vociferously anti-abortion.)

139. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183186 by Mark Smith on May 21, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Fides

having looked at the two sets of rights, I don't understand how the mother's right to non-motherhood overrules the child's right to life. I also agree with the poster who says that this needn't be a question of theist versus athiest, though I think it says much for Christians that they are willing to be so vociferous about it.

Since you are predicating the whole thing on some sort of spiritually imposed 'right to life', presumably at the moment of conception, it appears you are making it a theist versus atheist thing

140. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183179 by Mark Smith on May 21, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Al Rawandi
You state Christian opposition to abortion is always about control of women. I'd have to say that I have known a lot of Christians (though definitely not of all types) and I don't think many if any of them were opposed to abortion for that reason. They may well have been unconsciously influenced by paternalist structures etc, but I think their genuine up front reasons were (a) it is wrong in the sight of god, (b) sympathy for the foetus.

141. In God's Name

Comment #183163 by Mark Smith on May 21, 2008 at 1:21 pm

I do agree with the fundies view on Islam

Which bit? That Allah is Satan? That they are going to take over by 'outbreeding us'? Or do you mean that, like fundies, you are concerned about Islam, but for very different reasons?

142. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181873 by Mark Smith on May 18, 2008 at 2:27 pm

txpiper
I admire your tenacity

About repeatable experiments you said:

I think you are kidding yourself about supposed inherent objectivity, particularly now since evolution is both nearly sacred and state-sanctioned.

You misunderstand the nature of experiments. They can be repeated regardless of who is carrying them out. So whether you believe in the theory they support or not, you will get the same results. If you don't get the same results, they don't support the theory. That is the whole point.

I know you are kidding yourself about the experiments. What, for instance, would you use as an example of a repeatable experiment

Calilasseia gave examples of experiments demonstrating evolution by natural selection earlier. You brushed them off.

that illustrates punctuated equilibrium?

Illegitimate request. The mechanism which can be repeated by experiment is natural selection. Punctuated equilibrium is not a mechanism. It is a name for what evolution may or may look like looking back.

By the way, you are still doing pseudo-maths:

... thoroughly accidental formation of proteins ... staggering probabilities against the accidental formation

Either do the maths to prove these claims or don't make them.

143. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181740 by Mark Smith on May 18, 2008 at 5:51 am

txpiper

No, I think they are just reflections of the culture they have been taught to think in.

Scientists are taught to think in ways which deliberately avoid cultural influence. That is why they do repeatable experiments, publish peer-reviewed papers etc. If you believe there is pervasive cultural bias in there nevertheless, then you should be able to go to the published papers and demonstrate its presence. If you can't do this, don't make the claim. Further, wherever science is praticed, agreement on evolution by natural selection crosses all (as far as I know) cultural boundaries. It is also worth pointing out that the pioneers of the theory were going against cultural bias, yet the science was so strong it became accepted.

There are lots of very bright people who do not tow that line.

'that line' I assume is the imaginary cultural bias you are proposing. But in any case, by 'lots of very bright people', I assume you are not referring to scientists, among whom the number disagreeing with evolution by natural selection is vanishingly small. I agree there are plenty of bright non-scientists who may agree with you, and this no doubt is where a version of your 'reflections of the culture they have been taught to think in' theory has value.

144. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181608 by Mark Smith on May 17, 2008 at 4:20 pm

Ahem. 616 actually (Some monk or other screwed up it seems. Christians don't have a good record with maths.)

Absolutely. But I think tx is a Hal Lindsey fan, and those folks prefer 666, it has more of a ring to it.

The 616 versus 666 thing is a good example of textual indeterminacy. Scholars think 616 is most likely (from memory, because it is the value of the Roman emperor Nero's name according to certain numerological systems) but no one can be completely sure. Which means no one can be completely sure what number the original author wrote. Yet according to some Christian thought that number is absolutely vital, because it will be the 'mark of the beast' in the end times.

145. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #181599 by Mark Smith on May 17, 2008 at 3:51 pm

txpiper
You are continuing to do pseudo-maths. You mention 1 in a million, 1 in a billion, 3 billion nucleotides, etc etc. If you are going to continue to use big numbers, claim things are statistically highly unlikely and so on, then you need to set out some actual maths. Without this, it is empty, and in my opinion rather dishonest, rhetoric.

Also, I understand you believe in the antichrist and other end times crapola. It strikes me that your reasoning about evolution is disturbingly similar to the convoluted 'logic' and esoteric thinking that goes with that sort of thing. Do you by any chance think that the vast majority of scientists who consider evolution by natural selection to be fact have been deluded by the devil and have the number 666 stamped on their foreheads?

146. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180701 by Mark Smith on May 15, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Artful

Is everything included in his definition of "nature"? If so, then there can be nothing IN nature that he can possibly invoke do give us either the inclination to "overreach" our selfish genes or the wherewithal. If his definition of "nature" does not encompass everything, then we are appealling to some quality or property that transcends nature, which is clearly dualistic and even mystical.

There is nothing clever in (deliberately?) misinterpreting Dawkins to try to prove a point. If I say 'Nature made it impossible for humans to fly' and then I say 'We rise above nature every time we take off in an aeroplane', are you going to say 'Ha, that proves it, you are a dualist'?

You are being ridiculous.

147. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178567 by Mark Smith on May 11, 2008 at 3:44 pm

By Jove I think he's got it! Treat the bible as you would any other example of its literary genre. Most sensible thing he's ever said on here.

Of course, the thing about historical writing is that when it makes fanciful claims without any corroborating evidence (or in the face of the evidence) then it positively behoves the historian to dismiss what it says as fabrication or misrepresentation. It also behoves him to treat it as a product of its own time and culture, rather than trying to pretend it has any relevance in modern society.

Absolutely. But just as important is the question of how you treat the metaphorical parts. Genesis 1 is clearly poetry and so, prima facie, metaphor. So why do believers say that its main character, god, is real? Surely he is metaphorical too! etc etc

148. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178552 by Mark Smith on May 11, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Artful

I really can't get over the fact that nobody on this site is willing to challenge Dawkins on the glaring inconsistncy here. The obvious question is this: if we get everything from natural selection, and natural selection "selects" for individual and group survival, where do we get the idea that we must transcend this natural impulse? If all nature is "red in tooth and claw", how on earth can human nature be exempted from that, from where on earth does it derive the inclination to fight against nature?

There are numerous reasons why your reasoning here is wrong. But that aside, your basic argument is 'If everything is caused by [natural selection], you must accept everything humans do is caused by [natural selection] and it is wrong to say we can get away from it'. Do you see where I am going with the square brackets? Just substitute with a certain three letter word that rhymes with cod. Now tell us why, if your reasoning above is valid, you don't accept god is to blame for every nasty thing humans do.

149. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177730 by Mark Smith on May 9, 2008 at 3:04 pm

fides
Again, listen to the interview: John Humphrys accepted that he (and by implication other journalists) does not question believers as to the evidence for their belief in god when he interviews them. You are attempting to shift the argument on to whether there are programmes etc that are critical of religion. This no doubt is an area for discussion (if a short one) but it is different from the point RD was making.

150. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177719 by Mark Smith on May 9, 2008 at 2:40 pm

fides

The evidence for his thoughts is well substantiated

Again you miss the point. It is evidence for god, not the archbishop's thoughts, that is at issue. John Humphrys understood the point when RD challenged him to put it to the archbishop. Listen to the interview again if you still don't get it.

Presumably most things the archbishop says when he is speaking in a public capacity are predicated on the assumption that (a particular) god exists. It follows that he should be challenged on why that assumption is valid.