When theocracy comes back to western civilisation it might begin with three young women protesting in a church and being jailed for two years. Or it will ride in on a wagon outlawing same-sex marriage. Perhaps it will come from small fundamentalist religious schools keeping their students isolated from any other thoughts, including Darwin’s dangerous idea. Or maybe it will come from leaders who pray to an imaginary being for guidance before making decisions on war.
Maybe “witches” being burnt will provide a spark. Or the loud voices demanding that women cover up their bodies, and art work be destroyed which depicts nakedness. Could it be hiding under the cloak of those who called a young Olympic runner a “prostitute”? Or of those who are certain that women must never be allowed to preach to men?
Perhaps it’s coming in that mob of wild-eyed young men brandishing AK 47s in the air and screaming “god is great” in triumph at having slaughtered other young men. Or in the ones screaming abuse about homosexuality at people attending soldier’s funerals. Or in the hands of the ones screaming at young women attending family planning clinics, or blowing them up or shooting “abortion doctors”. Or maybe it’ll be riding in a plane being flown into a tall building, or a truckload of explosives smashing into a girl’s school.
Maybe theocracy will begin on old battlefield sites being labelled as “sacred ground”. Or on pieces of burnt toast with an imaginary face. Or in a row of fence posts imagined as a woman’s figure. Or in the ancient monuments blown up as impure. Or perhaps in those places where gullible sick people are prayed upon and preyed upon by those promising miracle cures in return for a little money.
Its arrival will be speeded up by those determined to smash science. By those who preach the dominion of man over nature. By the tax exemptions for religious institutions. By the prayers at the start of parliamentary sessions. By the growing role of religious cadres in schools, in hospitals, in military memorial ceremonies, in political lobby groups. By the politicians flaunting their religious beliefs as an incentive to vote for them. By the preachers blaming a drought or a tornado on people behaving “sinfully”.
It will come from the children indoctrinated, and sometimes mutilated, at ages far too young to give consent. It will come from cults shielded from scrutiny by threats of legal action, shielded from criticism by laws limiting free speech. Will come from the poor devils refusing medical treatment in favour of prayer. Will come from big businesses with religious fundamentalist owners using their power. Will come from fearful people, made afraid by shock jocks serving political masters. Will come from the deliberate conflating of religion and race by unscrupulous leaders. Will come from words written by deluded people hundreds, thousands of years ago, believed by deluded people now to have come from one imaginary being or another.
It is enabled every time the media calls it a “miracle” when someone is saved by the full application of five centuries of western science and medicine. Every time tv channels run “serious” programs about “psychics” or “near death experiences” or “ghosts”. Every time someone is said to have “passed” instead of died. Every time someone says they will “pray for you to get better” and you don’t say “how about donating to medical research instead?” Every time someone wears a “power band” or a “healing crystal”, or recommends homeopathy.
Brought nearer every time someone says “Oh, those New Atheists, so aggressive and rude, they really should respect the beliefs of religious people”.
The bible will arrive, everywhere, wrapped in the flag and carrying a gun. Theocracy is coming to a country near you, soon, and it will take you back to the Dark Ages. The only thing needed for religion to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
“Things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade the sphere of private life” (William Lamb, on hearing an evangelical sermon)
You have nailed most of the symptoms David – it is “Gott mit uns!” as the various sects of multiferous religions gear up for war (psychological and physical) against each other and heathens of whatever persuasion.
Other than Islam Colin, which religions are gearing up for war against the “heathens?”
A powerful piece. And I agree with it unequivocally,
I’m not sure what gives you the impression “theocracy” is on the way in any Western cultures with the possible exception of Islam attempting to institute Sharia Law into the West. The West, by most indicators, seems to becoming more secular.
Atheism is becoming much more visible in the US. As it does, its adherents file law suits, courts rule, and changes are made in our gov’t, our courts, our schools, and other public places. So, logically, it would seem to me that atheism is enjoying an increasing presence and influence in Western Culture.
As always, I’d like to distinguish Christianity from “religion” although I recognize that the dictionary definition is religious. I prefer to compare truth to error when considering the “spiritual” influences around us. For example, “religion” in some cases may want to “smash science” but true Christianity most certainly does not. Werner Von Braun was a dedicated Christian and creationist. Kepler became a serious Christian during his youth. Galileo was a Christian and fought against deceitfully applied Bible passages in favor of truth. Sir Robert Boyd, Christian pursuing truth. Weizsacker, concerned Christian. John Polkinghome. And this is just to name a FEW. There are many many more and they are thinking, rational, productive scientists whose pursuit of truth has benefitted much of humanity. They don’t oppress people, they set them free from foolish ideas. They don’t start wars, many are pacifists working to resolve conflict by peaceful means.
I’m fairly confident “Truth” will lead us into the future as open minds consider how we feed the hungry mouths on our planet, how we educate the youngsters, how we bring dignity to the lives of the weak and disadvantaged, how we practice medicine, and how we relate to and treat one another. Christians have made serious contributions in all these areas and I’m not seeing the benefits to our culture that atheism has provided.
“Christians have made serious contributions in all these areas and I’m not seeing the benefits to our culture that atheism has provided”.
Hello Eric
Have you read the article “Atheism a Personality Profile”
http://www.ibcsr.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=440:atheism-a-personality-profile&catid=25:research-news&Itemid=59
In the light of what this article has to say, it would be an interesting exercise to try to find out the religious beliefs of all past Nobel Prize winners in Medicine. I have no idea what the outcome would be (even were it possible to search out the information) but I’m sure there would be a good percentage of atheists among them, who will have made powerful contributions to the humanity’s welfare.
I did read the article Trev and my point was not that atheists, themselves, have not made any significant contributions to the welfare of humans but, rather, atheism itself. For example, where is AMC (Atheists Medical Center), AO (Atheist Orphanage), or AU (Atheist University)? I haven’t seen the atheist rescue mission feeding and clothing homeless people, mentally ill and addicted folks. They may exist, just havent seen them.
Of course people can choose “unbelief” just as easily as they can choose belief in a CCreator God. But, reason dictates that when you observe “creation”, there must be a Creator
Thank you for your reply Eric.
But have you asked yourself why there are so few charitable organisations set up and run by atheists? It’s an interesting “mind game” to try to list possible reasons.
Your final paragraph invites a response, but I know from past experience that someone who makes a statement like ‘reason dictates that when you observe “creation”, there must be a Creator’ has a very different mode of reasoning to mine, and that neither individual is likely to budge from his long-held views.
Yes, I have considered the question. My answer, right or wrong, is that there is minimal motivation and no transformed heart. Serious Christians, on the other hand, are motivated by an “eternal perspective”, ie rewards for being obedient to the principles set forth in God’s Word. Also, the transformed heart that changes your outlook to be more “others-centered.”
Because David (and many other folks on this blog) is so well educated and desiring to approach things from a “scientific” perspective, I like to approach his comments from that very same perspective; scientifically. And, the scientific method does utilize the principle of “observation” as a valid approach to constructing a hypothesis. So, you’re right, I’m not likely to budge, from my point of view until it can be disproven. But, I will change my point of view with sufficient evidence. I am of the opinion we should all take that approach. So, if you’re walking down the beach and see a sand castle, what is your first thought? I’m guessing it’s NOT “Look what the waves and sand did!” At least, it SHOULDN’T be. You & I shouldn’t have different “modes of reasoning” in situations like this. Reason (as well as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics) says something doesn’t come from nothing.
Thank you for your reply Eric. In reference to the lack of atheistic charitable organisations, do you think it may be a question of “momentum” (by which I mean the sheer number of adherents) as much as it is anything else? I don’t subscribe to the notion that atheism is a religion, but I suspect that today, atheists represent around about the same fraction of people (planet wide) as would have identified as Christians, say 100 years after the death of Christ. I don’t imagine that the large Christian charitable institutions were around at that stage either – even in embryonic form.
While you may not think of atheism as a “religion,” it certainly is a unifying “belief system” for folks who choose to reject any evidence of a Creator.
I know that atheists comprise a small % of people but whether or not the atheist population is similar to the 1st century church is anybody’s guess. But, in the book of Acts you can read about collections being taken for the poor in Jerusalem and then delivered by Paul. So, while there were no “large Christian charitable institutions” in existence at that time, there were charitable Christians. They were charitable because their hearts had been transformed from selfishness and pride to generosity for those in need.
Eric, In reference to your views on Creation. It seems to me that Creationists (count me in that cohort until I undertook tertiary studies in the biological sciences) face the ever-present problem of being painted into a smaller and smaller corner.
To take one example: I may be wrong, but is it the case that the capacities of living things to adapt to changing conditions in their environments is now accepted on many Creationist websites? Once this is accepted as a reasonable thing Eric, then it is surely only a matter of time before populations (of the same species) that become geographically separated will diverge and diverge until they are so different that they will constitute different species?
The implication of all of this is that Creationists can’t afford to give an inch because, once they do, the little bit of “corner” they’ve painted themselves into becomes too small to exist in! Yes?
I don’t think any reasonable person would disagree about creatures adapting to changing conditions in their environment; I certainly don’t. There are too many examples in nature demonstrating just such adaptation.
But, no matter how many geographical separations a lizard takes from its homeland, it never becomes a bird (at least I’m not aware of any evidence). It may very well develop some “bird-like” features but it always remains a reptile. You have to come up with a “hopeful monster” idea (punctuated equilibrium) in order for a lizard to become a bird. And, this type of thinking is not supported by the fossil record.
So, I honestly don’t think there is any concern about “corners.” But, as always, I have an open mind and am willing to learn because I don’t want to be a corner dweller!
So basically what your saying Eric is that atheists have to get themselves a world dominating organization or two [like the Catholic church], get tax deductions from governments for their hundreds of thousands of employees [millions?], run schools that indoctrinate kids in atheism, have atheist buildings [again tax deductible] in every population centre staffed by evangelists of atheism who are not allowed to mention other world views, start wars against countries that dare to speak out against atheism [heard of the Crusades or the 'troubles' in Ireland?].
That the trouble with those atheists, they don’t own churches!
You misunderstood my comments Fred. Serious Christians were/are feeding hungry, clothing people in need, and establishing medical facilities apart from any church affiliation or tax deductions. You’re confusing Christian schools (which educate) with Madrassas. Christian schools consider evolution along with creation, they DO teach other world views, they are not “anti-science”, and the pupils are taught (you might consider it indoctrination) to value & serve others even if their world view conflicts with your own. I just don’t see evidence of atheism, as a societal force, doing any of these things.
Yes, I am familiar with both the Crusades (a response to a near complete hostile takeover of Europe by Islam) and the Irish “troubles” (a political struggle for power), neither of which have much to do with following biblical principle instead of atheism.
“Christian schools consider evolution along with creation, they DO teach other world views, they are not “anti-science”, and the pupils are taught (you might consider it indoctrination) to value & serve others even if their world view conflicts with your own”.
Fine words Eric, but may I recount my own experience? I retired from teaching some years ago and after a while, decided to seek part time work in the same field.
My first interview was at a Christian school (Lutheran denomination) and the opening question from the Principal was “How do you view this fellow Jesus Christ – as your personal saviour or as an interesting historical figure?” I answered honestly that I saw Jesus as an interesting historical figure.
The Principal’s next question was “What are your views on evolution, as opposed to Divine Creation?” Again, I answered honestly. I told him that, as a teacher of biology, I accepted the Theory of Evolution as the overarching theme in the subject. I described the evidence as totally convincing. I was pleasantly surprised to hear that if I wanted it, I had the job – despite professing atheism and a belief in the Theory of Evolution. The Principal’s proviso though was that I had to keep my views to myself – “or the parents will down on me like a ton of bricks.” I could be honest in the Principal’s office, but not with my students in the classroom. Needless to say, I did not take up the offer of work.
This is a bit more than “fine words.” My personal experience with Christian education is just as I described it.
I appreciate your personal experience Trev but your atheism views would put you in complete contradiction with the school’s basic philosophy. It kind of surprises me that they would consider you for a teaching position even if you did agree to keep your views to yourself.
The fact they were concerned about “parents… down on you” indicates to me this was probably an elementary school and I can completely understand that the principal didn’t want atheistic influences on the children. Children do tend to trust adults and can be easily led into areas the parents wouldn’t appreciate. I know I wouldn’t!
Now, having you speak at a high school venue and put forth your thoughts and Ideas in a debate type of discussion; well that’s another matter. I’d be fine with that going on at my kid’s school.
Thank you Eric. I taught at both Junior and Senior High School levels. My main field is actually chemistry, with biology as a second string. The Christian school I speak of had children from 12 to 17 years.
The Principal felt that he would be the target of parental criticism if at any time I expressed my own views to the children.
There is a very obvious reason why I found myself unable to teach in the school, and that is that its curriculum required me to teach non-science within a scientific discipline. I’d have reacted in just the same way if asked to teach something on astrology.
The nature of children is to be curious and it’s inevitable that one day one of the children would have asked me my honest opinion on Creation “Science”. I just couldn’t work in such a place.
Interesting you’re in chemistry; I own a chemical compounding business specializing in R&D and production of specialty cleaning compounds, lubricants and specialty protectants. I am a strong believer in science!
I both understand and appreciate your commitment to not teaching “non-science.” And, I’m assuming you consider creation/intelligent design as non-science within the scientific discipline of cosmology. I am assuming, from your comment, that you would classify creation in the same realm as astrology.
But, doesn’t the concept of “something” coming from nothing basically violate the 1st law of thermodynamics? I THINK it does. And if it does, then that teaching falls within the realm of “non-science” because it requires “faith” to believe that something did, in fact, come from nothing. So, I’m not so sure the evolutionist’s position is on a very sound foundation.
Respondents are too kind to Eric Snyder. The statement – “But, no matter how many geographical separations a lizard takes from its homeland, it never becomes a bird (at least I’m not aware of any evidence). It may very well develop some “bird-like” features but it always remains a reptile.” – shows that Eric Snyder is not in a “corner”, but a cupboard. The verbal gymnastics of such outpourings remind me of the days of the broadcasts of Garner Ted Armstrong. It’s amusing to listen to the Garner Ted “sound-alikes”, or to have discussion with the various religious faithfuls who come to the door, but when I am grumpier, like this morning, my advice would be to go and study more closely how evolution works. Or perhaps ask David to resurrect (nothing intended by the word) one of his previous explanations, but that might spoil his coffee for the day.
I’ve appreciated the kindness Don!
Not sure why you came up with the Garner Ted Armstrong parallel but I’m simply saying one species never becomes another species. At least, there is no fossil record of such a thing. And, if it happened there ought to be any number of “transitional” species.
But, the argument still boils down to something coming from nothing. And, true “science” says that doesn’t happen.
I suspect that you’re an excellent dancer Eric! A quick-footed move on your part (your last paragraph) to try to redirect the conversation away from biological evolution to the realms of theoretical physics.
Well, actually, I challenged “grumpy Don” with the absence of transitional species (for the most part) in the fossil record.
I really wasn’t trying to redirect. But, prior to biological evolution, you still have to deal with the true science of where things came from.
Eric, do you realise what you’re saying?
“I don’t think any reasonable person would disagree about creatures adapting to changing conditions in their environment; I certainly don’t. There are too many examples in nature demonstrating just such adaptation”.
Adaptation must of necessity involve changes in gene frequencies – otherwise no species could adapt as its environment changes. I could use your description (quoted above) as my opening to a lesson on evolution. Evolution on a larger scale just requires enormous periods of time.
This is what I mean by “painting yourself into a corner” Eric. To accept (as you obviously do) that evolution occurs on a micro scale but not over the very long term, then places you in the position of having to deny the enormously long history of the planet.
Gene frequencies may very well change as in the case of the spotted moth study. The black moths survived more than the spotted moths because their camouflage was better. So, the genetic info for black expressed more frequently than the spotted but the moth never evolved into anything other than a moth. And it never will no matter how much time is provided.
The “amount” of genetic information never changed. It obviously “shuffled” around a bit but the amount of information never increased as would be necessary for true evolution to actually occur.
Someone or something has to input information for complexity to develop. Maybe you’re right about finding myself in a corner. But, the corner I’m in is supported by the facts and not the amount of faith that you have.
You have my permission to reproduce my statement!
Adaptation and mutation are certainly 2 different things. Reptiles don’t “adapt” into birds. No matter how long the time period, it doesn’t happen. If it did, the fossil record would be rife with examples; it isn’t.
Eric, it’s most interesting that you should choose birds and reptiles as your faux-example.
There are of course several examples in the fossil record of creatures that have all the characteristics of birds, but which in each case possess additional features not found in birds.
Archeopteryx is but one example. Are they perhaps birds with teeth?
This looks to me to be more “painting the floor from a cornered position” on your part Eric.
I simply chose reptiles to birds because of the “hopeful monster” theory. How about the fish that left the water, became a mammal, and returned to the sea to become a whale? Should be quite a few transitional fossils for all of that.
Darwin himself said there would be numerous examples in the fossil record and yet only a few highly disputable examples are there. And, yes, archeopteryx is a true bird. Would you really have taught your students that it was a “transitional species?”
Ah, the old “the science isn’t settled” argument Eric. The last refuge. My students will have already learned the characteristics of birds and those of reptiles. They could easily work out for themselves the implications of finding several examples from the fossil record in which the characteristics if both classes appear.
And you accuse me of “excellent dancing” Trev! True science IS settled and I never implied anything to the contrary. You put those words in my mouth.
You say my example of reptiles becoming birds is a “faux example” and yet it is the very example evolutionists use to demonstrate one species becoming another. Faux science.
You say archaeopteryx is an example of a transitional species in the fossil record. It is not; it is a bird. Faux science says differently.
For someone committed to “true science”, you surely are willing to swallow a lot of the faux variety and call it true. Truth stands the test of science and does not require constant modification to conform to new findings of science. In true science, the “experiment” is repeatable under the same circumstances and will consistently give the same results. But, you already know this.
Thank you for your reply Eric.
“Truth stands the test of science and does not require constant modification to conform to new findings of science. In true science, the “experiment” is repeatable under the same circumstances and will consistently give the same results”.
Eric, you must know that we’re not discussing repeatable experiments here. We’re talking about the slow and painstaking accumulation of evidence.
As a person with science training you’ll also be aware that scientists never claim to have “proven” anything; in fact this is one of the great strengths of science (and something that also leaves it open to attack by those with vested interests; I do not include you in that number by the way Eric).
As you know Eric, it takes but one piece of contrary evidence for a whole scientific edifice to come crashing down and (within the limited scope of my knowledge) there is no credible evidence to suggest that science has it wrong when it comes to alterations in gene frequencies.
You even admitted yourself that populations of living things have the capacity to adapt to changes in their environments (which I pointed out earlier was simply evolution on a micro scale).
Interesting reply Trev! I disagree that we are not discussing “repeatable experiments” here. In many respects, we certainly are. When chimps reproduce, chimps are the result; repeatable, observable, every time.
Of course scientists prove things. Water boils at 212 F at sea level every time. It’s proven to do that. Life does not come from “non-life” ever. It’s a scientific law; proven. I’d be out of business if I didn’t get the same results under the same circumstances every single time.
As far as the gene frequency “science” goes, the genetic info does not increase with time, temperature, or any other variable. You don’t evolve from a microbe to a human with LESS genetic info, you must have MORE. You don’t get more code into a program without having someone outside the program do the input. Without the data enterer, the code remains unchanged every single time you examine it.
Micro vs macro evolution is not the issue, information is. Somehow or other, information MUST be put into the code to increase the complexity of the organism. Doesn’t that make sense?
Surely we just measure (rather than prove) the boiling point of water at sea level don’t we Eric? I don’t imagine the first person to demonstrate this property of water set out with the hypothesis that “Water boils at 212 F at sea level”.
It would be much easier for scientists to be able to say “the science is settled” on an issue, but of course they must always take into account that a single experiment (or even a single repeatable observation) could overturn what appears to be “factual”.
Working with probabilities rather than in indisputable facts means that groups like the tobacco lobby can make statements such as “the science is not settled” and hence delay action to ameliorate the damage their products are known to cause. As you would no doubt agree Eric, in the case of cigarette smoking it’s the steady accumulation of data over many years that makes the science more and more “settled”. So it is with evolution.
There are mechanisms proposed for the accumulation of genetic information Eric. Serial endosymbiosis (mitochondria, chloroplasts) is one of several pathways.
You have me scratching my head here. How is macro vs micro evolution “not the issue”? Is that perhaps code for “I have no answer to the logic of your position”?
Of course WE just measure the BP of water but Kelvin actually settled and PROVED that water boils at 212 F at sea level every single time. It is a scientifically settled fact that will never be overturned. When someone comes into the room and says water boils at 100 F we can pretty much assume they’re either joking, ignorant or trying to deceive & mislead us.
In the ’50′s, the science wasn’t “settled” about tobacco being carcinogenic. Today it is. So, if someone visits your class room and says there are no health problems with tobacco you could pretty well assume they were either joking, ignorant or trying to deceive and mislead you.
Endosymbionts have a reduced genome. There is NO increase in information but, rather, a decrease. This is a logical explanation why information is the real issue.
I did not mean to imply that you were trying to deceive & mislead. I’m enjoying this discussion with you Trev and do not want you to get the impression that I was personally attacking you.
Thank you Eric. You always remain the perfect gentleman.
“I disagree that we are not discussing “repeatable experiments” here. In many respects, we certainly are. When chimps reproduce, chimps are the result; repeatable, observable, every time”.
Eric, you must surely understand that we’re talking about changes in gene frequencies in populations here. I fail to see how the observation that “chimps have chimps” advances the discussion at all.
In my previous post, by the way, I should have said that the constant boiling temperature of water at sea level is simply a matter of observation.
Well, with evolution as the mechanism by which the diversity of life has come about, at some point the chimp, the bird, the lizard or whatever must have something other than a chimp, bird or lizard. Am I wrong here?
Yes Eric, I’m very much afraid that you are. If your last post encapsulates what you believe then I’m not surprised that you keep trying to refute the evidence that is all around you.
If I am wrong, then I guess you must be in my camp and we agree. I was always under the impression that at some point in evolution, one life form became another.
The overwhelming majority of evidence in the fossil record indicates abrupt change and not the wealth of transitional forms that Darwin posited.
As always in nature Eric, things are never “black and white”. As I understand it, populations of living things are likely to adapt rapidly to exploit new ecological niches (Darwin’s finches) or where there is a sudden change in their conditions (the development of drug resistant tuberculosis for example).
Then there’s the sudden “adaptive radiation” of mammals as the dinosaurs exited the scene. Mammals were able to occupy roles previously held by the dinosaurs.
And how would you define “abrupt”? Given the enormous length of time that living things have occupied the earth, I think that paleontologists would have a very different view of “abrupt” than the rest of us. The Ediacaran fauna (not far from where I live) may be worth a look-up on Google.
In none of these cases though Eric, would individual organisms (your chimps, for example) parent a new species. We’re always talking of changes in gene frequencies in an entire population.