Tuesday, April 20, 2010

God Damned Gobbies


[secular satire of religious Christians]

Atheists frequently call monotheists "fundies", slang for "fundamentalists". However what is the monotheistic slang term for atheists?

Could this be an idea: Gobbies, standing for "Godless Bastards" or if female "Godless Bitches"?

For example "Christopher Hithchens is a radical Gobbie." or "Evolution is a Gobbie myth."

77 comments:

Anonymous said...

Gobbie. Hmm...sounds like you can't escape your fetish for sexual fluids.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't get it. Is that something British?

Anonymous said...

Worst. Post. Ever.

jewish philosopher said...

So says a Gobbie.

Anonymous said...

Atheists frequently call monotheists "fundies", slang for "fundamentalists".

Notice the lack of vulgar insult in "fundamentalists".

jewish philosopher said...

Perhaps monotheists aren't so vulgar.

Anonymous said...

Bastard, eh? Takes one to know one.

jewish philosopher said...

But not Godless, God-filled.

jewish philosopher said...

It's always fascinated me that atheists are such fragile flowers.

They ridicule God, God-believers and our religions without limit, however if anyone ridicules them in any way they are so shocked and hurt. They can't believe anyone would have the gall.

Anonymous said...

Richard Dawkins did say that theists are worse than child molesters, and that questioning evolution is evil. He recently shut down his own forum because of the incivility of his followers. And if you want to see real rudeness, just go to Pharyngulia and say something that Assisstant Professor Myers disagrees with.

Kevin Burkhoff said...

"Richard Dawkins did say that theists are worse than child molesters, and that questioning evolution is evil. He recently shut down his own forum because of the incivility of his followers. And if you want to see real rudeness, just go to Pharyngulia and say something that Assisstant Professor Myers disagrees with."

He never said that. Let me say what he actually did say. He said people who label little children with their parent's religion are comparable top child abusers. Get it right damn it!

You forgot to mention that Dawkins was planning to shut the forum anyhow, to build a new, more fit forum to replace the other. Incivility broke out, so he shut it down 3 weeks early, and then apologized in the most humble of ways, and responded to individual concerns.

Myers only bans you if you are trolling. If he makes a post about a local news story and you write "GOD IS TRUE. EVOLUTION IS A MYTH". You sir, are trolling. Remember, PZ tolerated "Lion (IRC)'s trolling FOR 2 YEARS.

Anonymous said...

"Once, in the uestion time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely published cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replide that as horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably lees than the long-term psychologocal damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place."

Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion" 317.

And I didn't say Myers bans you. He puts a little picture of a troll near your posting. That's rude. And his followers call you nasty names.

Abe said...

Dawkins notwithstanding, the incidences of chareidi coverups of pedophelia continues to be exposed.
At least the Catholic church is now owning up to its sins and admitting its guilt. No such confession of sins by the chareidi world.

http://seforim.blogspot.com/2010/04/marc-shapiro-r-kook-on-sacrifices-other.html
Professor Marc B. Shapiro writes:
"There is another theory as to why the sectarian hasidic world in particular has had so many cases of covering up and defending child sex abusers. It is that they simply do not regard these people as so terrible. The evidence for this appears obvious, in that in case of after case we see that they continue to allow sex abusers to teach and refuse to turn them over to the authorities and warn the parent body. Had they caught the rebbe eating at McDonald’s, you can be sure he would have been fired, but not so when it comes to fooling around with kids. The question is why do they have this outlook, and how come they don’t regard child sex abusers as so terrible? Here is a possible answer (which a wise person suggested). Look at where these societies get their information about human nature, the information that they regard as authentic and true. It does not come from modern psychology, but from Torah sources and folk beliefs. If you look only at traditional rabbinic literature, you won’t conclude that child sex abuse is as terrible as modern society views it. Yes, it is a sin and the person who commits it must repent as he must do with all sins, but there is nothing in the traditional literature that speaks to the great trauma suffered by the victim. How do we know about this trauma? Only from modern psychology and the testimony of the victims. Yet this type of evidence does not have much significance in the insular hasidic world (unless it is your own child who has been abused). Certainly modern psychology, which is often attacked by figures in that community, is not given much credence, especially not when they are confronted with an issur of mesirah. This theory makes a lot of sense to me and I am curious to hear what others have to say."

jewish philosopher said...

Abe, the problem with Gobbies like you is that you are so ignorant. Jews don't have sex with children, we eat them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel_against_Jews

This Passover, my chicken soup had that extra dash of young Christian blood added - perfect!

Abe said...

jewish philosopher said...
<<>>

Of course you do both, but only with the proper halachic imprimatur. Like the one that permits pedophelia as long as it doesn't involve actual anal penetration. Rav Pinchus Scheinberg must have been be your av bes din and mashgiach.

http://nymag.com/news/features/17010/index3.html
"...The group, along with parents and former campers from Camp Agudah, then tried summoning a beit din to rule on Kolko. They demanded Kolko not be there so the victims would feel comfortable telling their stories. But when the proceeding began, he was there, so they left. Then Margulies is said to have started a second beit din. According to Framowitz’s lawsuit, Pinchus Scheinberg, the powerful rabbi who was close to Margulies, contacted several of Kolko’s alleged victims, listened to their complaints, and told them that what happened to them was not abuse—that there needed to be penetration and that because there was none, their claims were not actionable...."

Dumb Too said...

"It's always fascinated me that atheists are such fragile flowers.
They ridicule God, God-believers and our religions without limit,"

They. They. They. Do you have percentages?

jewish philosopher said...

"Of course you do both, but only with the proper halachic imprimatur."

Abe, are you just trying to distract attention from the crimes committed daily by secular Jews? Check this out.

http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=59

"Do you have percentages?"

Based on my blogging, about 100%.

Abe said...

jewish philosopher said

>>>Abe, are you just trying to distract attention from the crimes committed daily by secular Jews? Check this out.<<<

Not at all. The more they're publicized, the more of an opportunity we seculars have to condemn them.
OTOH, you don't seem to castigate any of the gedolim that facilitate pedophelic outrages by their aquiesence to their crimes. You conveniently ignore the great Gadol, Rav Pinchus Scheinberg's invitation to molestation with his assertion: "...that what happened to them was not abuse—that there needed to be penetration and that because there was none, their claims were not actionable...."
I bet he'd make wonderful principal in the yeshiva your children attend. Doesn't he exposit your torah values so extraordinary well.

jewish philosopher said...

Condemn them; what a joke.

"Israel denies Gaza war crimes in report to UN"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/israel-war-crimes-un-report

So keep yourself busy Abe hunting for non-existent pedophiles, while you yourself kill Palestinian babies. Very impressive. More Gobbie self righteousness.

Abe said...

<<>>

Well, I'm glad you've left no doubt that molesting children is OK, as long as you don't penetrate them. Sh'tika K'hodoa. Nice torah you've got there.
Your son's rebbe will be happy to absolution.. Too bad your son might not.

jewish philosopher said...

For every magazine article that brings up ludicrous stories about rabbi pedophiles I can find ten articles about secular Jewish baby killers. Israeli diplomats are worrying about being arrested as war criminals.

So I don't see how you Gobbies are so great, actually. He who lives in glass houses..

Abe said...

<<>>

You still havn't condemned Rav Pinchus Scheinberg for tolerating pedophelia. Perhaps you don't because you fancy similar perversions. Can the apple fall far from the tree?

jewish philosopher said...

I doubt he said it.

jewish philosopher said...

I'm just pointing out: If you want to pick up on every bit of media slander about Jews, secular Jews have a lot more to answer for.

Anonymous said...

It is very possible that what Rav Sheinberg said wasa that since the only thing that the alleged victims remember is beng touched thirty years ago, that maybe they are misinterpreting a perfectyl innocent action, e.g. a pat on the back. There is not enough evidence to take action. Apparently,in the Kolko case, the DA agreed. He allowed Kolko to plead to a lesser charge and avoid all jail time.

Anonymous said...

Now the people who really have a hard time keeping their hands off the children are the public school teachers. I am one (a public school teacher, not a pedophile.) If a teacher is accused of abuse, the union sends lawyers to help with the legal problems, and advocates to help the teacher keep his/her job.

Kevin Burkhoff said...

JP,

Secular Jews condemn their fellow secular Jews when they committ crimes. Did the Center for Secular Humanistic Judaism defend any cold-blooded murderers recently? No. Agudah can't say that for themselves (Martin Grossman)

And many of the so called "secular Jews" you mentioned throughout the years had not been secular Jews. People such as Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky despised all religion and associated as much with Judaism as you and I associate with the flying teapot.

jewish philosopher said...

I'm just pointing out: If you want to take seriously every bit of media slander about Jews, secular Jews have a lot more to answer for than Orthodox Jews.

As they say, he who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Anonymous said...

If evolution is a myth, how do you explain the human genome? In the mid-1990s, the genome was first sequenced, and since then it has become much less difficult and expensive. The genome is mostly inert viruses. If viruses were the mechanism for altering the genome over time, then that is exactly what we would expect to find. It provides the most obvious mechanism for mutations and even genome additions as viruses carry genes. It is fully consistent with punctuated evolution and confirmed by the cambrian explosion. It also brings to question why a creator from scratch would fill the genome with inert vestigial viruses.

Why is that so difficult to comprehend? Genetic doctors can examine a genome and tell what part of the world the specimen comes from based on what mutations and viruses exist in the genome.

None of this engineering would work if the underlying assumptions about evolution were not true. While it is amazing to think that simple organisms can turn into complex beings over time, we now understand the triggers behind it better than ever. Even arguments that you make from personal incredulity are becoming difficult to defend, as the mechanisms become more clear and visible.

Anonymous said...

I have never liked the term "fundies". I prefer "mentals",

jewish philosopher said...

" It also brings to question why a creator from scratch would fill the genome with inert vestigial viruses."

A century ago, vestigial organs were the big proof of evolution. Today we know that those organs are actually useful, so the new proof is vestigial DNA.

I think this is simply an Atheism of the Gaps. Anything we don't yet understand is explained by "Evolution did it."

Anonymous said...

"Today we know that those organs are actually useful,"

Sure, like body hair and piloerection, toenails, and the elongated canine teeth and wisdom teeth, and muscles connected to the outer ear.

Anonymous said...

No vestigial structures, hmm, let's see.

1. Canine teeth-- long and hooked to latch on to prey.
2. 3rd molars (wisdom teeth), for grinding raw material and meant for a much larger jaw then in humans. Frequently have to be removed.
3. Body hair-- for warmth, gender identification, protection. Hair stands up from little muscles, in response to fear and cold, to increase insulation and make the animal look larger. Hmm, in humans, not too useful.
4. Little tiny muscles around the face that are unused, such as those connected to the scalp and ears.
5. Claws on hand legs (toenails) for defense, climbing, capturing prey.

To name a few. To anybody with eyes in his head it is clear that these structures evolved from other species.

jewish philosopher said...

It appears that the vestigial organ idea, once a pillar of evolution, has pretty much gone done the tubes.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/vestigial.asp

As did the whole embryo thing "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

Darwin devoted most of a chapter to these two proofs.

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-13.html

So evolutionists are trying to find other supports, now from DNA, which will also certainly fall apart once DNA is better understood.

It's Atheism of the Gaps. Anything we don't yet understand is explained by "Evolution did it."

Anonymous said...

I understand that many of these ERV'sperform critical functions in the organism. That is why they are there. If some of them perform functions, maybe all of them do. Anmd the reason they arer like viruses is becuase they perfomr similar functions. And I understans that they mostly resemble viruses because they have lots of AT sequences and long terminal repeats. But this is becuase they perform various control functions.

And there used to be 180 vestigal organs. Now there are just a handful. The pattern seems to be movibng in the direction of finding functions for all of them.

Kevin Burkhoff said...

JP,

We are not slamming Orthodox Judaism in of itself. We are slamming the so-called "leadership" of the likes of the OU and the Agudah, who have been acting despicably over the last decade or two.

Anonymous said...

Vestigial organs do not have to be useless. It just means that it used to have a different more critical function and now we do not need this anymore. The tailbone and appendix are examples. The tailbone is a junction for a few muscles, but only because it used to be a junction for the tail muscles. The appendix may have some benefit, but it is not the second part of the stomach as it once served. This would be like saying that my car had a crank on the front and it is not a vestige of the cars of old because it happens to be aerodynamic and gives me marginally better gas mileage.

As far as the genome is concerned, as I said, we can tell using common viruses and mutations where a specimen originated, since it share mutations that occurred in a particular population. We have many of these inert viruses in common with apes, and many that are only simian or only human.

I do not see why this flies in the face of the Biblical account, frankly. It does not say HOW G-d created man. In fact, the Malbim comments on parshat Shmini that the hyrax (Shafan) has an evolving foot. That is why it says parsa lo yafris in the future tense, because one can see that it is progressing toward being split. The Malbim lived (oh my!) roughly in the time of (guess who!) Darwin. He seems to have no problem with evolution.

Gobbie said...

"It appears that the vestigial organ idea, once a pillar of evolution, has pretty much gone done the tubes."

Rather than quote myself or other creationist websites, I just bring the facts and point out logical fallacies.

"Proving" a negative, that something has no function is like "proving" the God or FSG doesn't exist. It can't be done.

Rather, you just need to observe the obvious functions of these structures in animals, see how they have changed or atrophied in other animals or humans, and draw conclusions.

Vestigiality is present not just in humans. For example, the wings of flightless birds or "eyes" on a mole rat. This doesn't mean that the animal can't use it in some fashion, it just means its an unnecessary leftover from evolution.

jewish philosopher said...

"We are slamming the so-called "leadership" of the likes of the OU and the Agudah, who have been acting despicably over the last decade or two."

First of all, I think that's not true. Secondly, which community's leadership do you feel is perfect? The United States for example probably has one of the better governments in the world. How many government officials resign in disgrace or are imprisoned each year?

Regarding "vestigial" organs or "junk" DNA, living things are so poorly understood I think it's clearly ridiculous to say "God would never have created that; it must be evolution did it." Before Darwin, no one ever considered speculating like that. If we didn't understand something, then of course that's our ignorance.

Anonymous said...

"it's clearly ridiculous to say 'God would never have created that; it must be evolution did it.'"

This is a ridiculous thing to say, and in the context of a scientific paper almost no one says this. In the context of scientific method, there's no need to invoke God at all.

As a general observation, however, it is OK to notice that the anatomy of many life forms seems inconsistent with the idea of a designer who knows what she's doing.

Gobbie said...

"living things are so poorly understood I think it's clearly ridiculous to say "God would never have created that; it must be evolution did it."

So you are saying that if we don't understand everything, we understand nothing.

"If we didn't understand something, then of course that's our ignorance."

You choose to not understand.

We understand why these structures exist quite clearly, with a logical explanation. If you prefer to leave it a mystery, fine.

"Before Darwin, no one ever considered speculating like that."

So? Was Darwin the only scientist to revolutionize thinking about nature?

"it's Atheism of the Gaps. Anything we don't yet understand is explained by "Evolution did it."

The difference between you saying, "its a mystery" and me saying, "its evolution" is that I have logic and evidence behind the explanation. Its not a gap at all. Behind yours is faith, or at best, ignorance. Evolution is not parallel to the "god of the gaps" as you claim.

Anonymous said...

Just a test

jewish philosopher said...

As I have pointed out, the problems with evolution are overwhelming

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/03/evolution-science-hijacked-by-atheism.html

while the evidence for it keeps shrinking. This is truly an "atheism of the gaps".

Kevin Burkhoff said...

JP,

If this were a few bad apples, I would understand. But these are entire organizations defending criminals like Rubashkin and Martin Grossman.

Anonymous said...

I think Jerry Coyne takes you apart nicely.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100510/coyne/single

Evolution: 1
God: 0
Religidiots: -1

jewish philosopher said...

Regarding Martin Grossman in the days before his execution, there were a large number of appeals for clemency, ranging from petitions to pleas, as well as a request to halt the execution from Pope Benedict XVI. Grossman received strong support from national and international Jewish organizations for his death sentence to be commuted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Grossman

So it wasn't just OJ.

Regarding Rubashkin, I think that the concern is only that his punishment should not be exceptionally excessive, not that he should be unpunished.

"I think Jerry Coyne takes you apart nicely."

Does he support global warming?

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/03/climate-change-and-evolution.html

Anonymous said...

Thje agruement form vestigal organs goes like this. "God would have never created something that has no purpose." Otherwise why are they proof? The answer is that they do have a purpose. We might not currently konw what it is. Same thing with junk DNA and ERVs. If "we hope to have an answer for you someday" works for atheists it should work for theists as well.

And if poor design means there is no creator, then it follows that really really good design means there is a Creator. There is a growing field called bimimickry. Engineers are studying organism to get ideas for designing stuff. Some examples are the perfectly streamlined boxfish, the bumps on the flippers of the humpback whale that make it a very efficient waterfoil, a desalinization plant based on a beetle's carapice, the self cleaning surface of the lily, etc.

Anonymous said...

According to this:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/04/embryos_why_darwinism_is_false.html

Jerry Coyne defends the use of Haeckel's embryo drawing which were an outrageous fraud that Haeckel confessed to in his lifetime.

Abe said...

Rav Pinchus Scheinberg's invitation to molestation with his assertion: "...that what happened to them was not abuse—that there needed to be penetration and that because there was none, their claims were not actionable...."

jewish philosopher said...
>>>I doubt he said it.<<<
Yeah, right. And Hitler didn't author Mein Kampf.


>>>I'm just pointing out: If you want to take seriously every bit of media slander about Jews, secular Jews have a lot more to answer for than Orthodox Jews.<<<

All those pedophile Rabbeim are being slandered by the secular media. And I suppose all those pedophile Catholic priests were libeled by that same nefarious secular press. Not a single one is culpable, eh?
You are just guilty as the apathetic and cruel "gedolim" for the massive pedophelia coverup in the chareidei community. If there is a hell, there will be a very special place reserved there for you.

http://thejewishstar.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/new-square-appoints-vaad-to-deal-with-sexual-abuse/
New Square appoints Vaad to deal with sexual abuse

...“Dealing with reports of sexual abuse through even a well intentioned communal “Vaad,” serves one purpose, the cover-up of the crime,” said Hirsch. “Usually with catastrophic results, when the pedophile strikes again. Only when the residents of New Square realize that the only way to deal with the crime of sexual abuse is to report it directly to the sex crimes division of the police department, who are trained and equipped to investigate these crimes, will their community will be safe for their children.”...

jewish philosopher said...

Based on some blog, you're ready to condemn all Orthodox Jews.

How about just condemning all Jews based on some anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist blogs?

Anonymous said...

I understand that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach said that a molestor is like a murderer, and they must be reported to the police. The problem is determining if a person really is a molester. IT is very possible that Rav Scheinberg meant was that since the only evidence is memorier of being group decades ago, this is not sufficient evidence to take action. The person may be misinterperating innocent behavior. In the Kolko case, the DA felt this way, and allowed Kolko to plead to a lesser charge and avoid jailtime.

gobbie said...

"The argument form vestigal organs goes like this. "God would have never created something that has no purpose.""

The argument says no such thing, evolution says nothing about god or what he does or doesn't do.

The argument simply shows why we have structures that are parallel to ones seen on other animals which have no apparent function. It supports evolutionary mechanisms, that's all.

Evolution says nothing about god, just as the germ theory of disease says nothing about god.

That is why many people who accept evolution also believe in god, such as Francis Collins.

Anonymous said...

Nah. Condemn OJ for the evil and harm it actually does, not the made-up crap of the anti-semites.

jewish philosopher said...

How exactly do you know that the anti-Othodox are honest and the anti-Semetic stuff is crap? Why not believe it all or reject it all?

Anonymous said...

So how are vestigal structures proof of evolution, which means that one species changes into another? How does it support evolutionary mechanism which are random change and natural selection? At most it supports common descent, which is not Darwinism. And I don't know if its possible to extrapolate from the loss of functions that a it is possible for an organism to gain a function, or organ or other structure. And maybe the organs lost their function after God created the organisms separately. And Darwin's books do contain a great deal of theological reasoning, e.g., God would have done things differently. So a lot of the arguements for are based on theology.

gobbie said...

Evolution has come a long way since Darwin, who was wrong about some things. So don't take some quote from "Darwinism" as a straw man argument.

Vestigial organs do not prove evolution, and I said no such thing. Evolution explains them, that's all.

Anonymous said...

It has nothing to do with anti-Orthodox. Citing hypocrisy and bad reasoning is not anti-Orthodox. Rather, it's pro-Orthodox.

I guess you think the OJ are above any and all criticism.

Anonymous said...

Didn't someone site vestigal organs as proof of evolution above. I guess I'm mistaken. Sorry, my bad. "God did it" also explains them.

Anonymous said...

It seems that you have completely dodged the fact that the flaws in Darwin's concept of evolution have been clearly answered, by DNA sequencing. Virus interactions explain the mechanism for major changes in the genome, the punctuated nature of the process, shown in fossil record, and virus mutations follow a course expected by evolution, sharing specific similarities in mutation with each species to which the organism is related. Secondly, there are already engineering applications galore which we have used to eradicate diseases and increase the average lifespan, and to sequence the genome and identify specifics about an organism based on this genetic study. This engineering clearly works and would not work if evolution were false.

Also, Torah sages 150 years ago explored Darwinian evolution and had no problem with it theologically. Were these sages, like Malbim, not up to your religious snuff?

jewish philosopher said...

"Citing hypocrisy and bad reasoning is not anti-Orthodox."

What I'm referring to originally was the comment of "Abe" Friday, April 23, 2010 5:37:00 PM.

He essentially seems to be claiming that there is a massive pedophelia coverup in the chareidei community based one remark allegedly made by one Skverer chossid that people in his community would not necessarily report an alleged pedophile to the police. If you want to use that type of logic, why not accept all the anti-Semitic stuff on the web too?

jewish philosopher said...

"the flaws in Darwin's concept of evolution have been clearly answered"

Do you have an sources for these amazing revelations?

Joseph said...

If they call themselves "Brights" maybe the rest of us can call them "Glares."

Anonymous said...

A lot of the things you are atlking about are minor changes that might involve one or two mutations. But when an adaptation requires more than that you run into problems of probabilities. This is why malaria has not been able to find a way around sickle cell disease.
Accrding to this study:


http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/180/3/1501

It would take >100,000,000 years for an adaptations that requires two mutations to work its way through a population of organisms. that reproduce at the rate humans reproduce.

And a lot of the things that you mentioned, like antibiotic resistance are actually the result of the loss of some structure or function. This is evident when antibiotic resistant bacteria are placed in the same environment as the original strain, without the antibiotic. They don't survive when in competition.So these adaptaion is really a case of devolution, with a side benefit. Same thing with sickle cell disease. Its the result of damage to the hemoglobin molecule. But it has a side benefit.

Anonymous said...

And saying that horizontal gene tranfer solves all the problems isn't a complete answer either. It means that a virus invades an organism. For some reason, the viral DNA doesn't produce a virus. And then it changes in purely random fashion in ways that just happen to provide a benefit. And all this happened over and over again in the history of life. We just keep on getting really lucky. Its like saying that I'll make random chnages to my car, and if a change improves performance, I'll keep it. If it hurts performance I junk the car and start over. This process will eventually turn my car into a truck.

And I rellay don't understand what genetic engineering ahs to do with evolution. Medicine, agricultural science, botany, etc. all were well under way and developing without evolution.

Anonymous said...

And evolution held up the acceptance of genetics for a long time. Mendel discovered that heredity is controlled by discrete units that are transfered intact from parent to offspring. This makes it hard to account for the variation that evolution needs. IT wasn't until the development of the modern synthesis that they accepted genetics. And the evolutionists were content to let junk DNA remain junk DNA. Tunrs out they were wrong.

Anonymous said...

And my problems with evolution are primarly scientific ones, not theological ones.

gobbie said...

Anon-

Rather than debate every sentence you wrote, suffice it to say that you are "mining" for problems due to confirmation bias error. You don't cite the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and common descent.

(BTW,in the paper you mentioned the authors specifically contradict Behe's calculations. They specifically state that their calculations involve predicting 2 PRESPECIFIED mutations).

Having said that, I strongly argue against people making any theory into a "religion", in which opposition is silenced and whose beliefs are adhered to at all costs. I refer to Melonie Phillips recent book, "The World Upside Down", which makes blistering criticism of liberal society in Britain for making secular liberalism, multiculturalism and political correctness into a religion.

Anonymous said...

Michael Behe actually corrected several mathmatical errors and logical errors in s series of letters. For instance the paper assumes that the mutations won't change back.

The evidence for common descent is basically ERV's and the nested hierarchy. ERV's I discussed above. Nested hierarchies is actually contradicted by the genetic evidence. Species that are similar might have very different DNA. Species that are different might have very similar DNA. And the proof is a theological one anyway. It is based on the assumption that G-d would not creat life in nested hierarchies because He didn't have to. And then there's the fossils. But a series of special creations as per Midrash Rabba actually fits the pattern better. Y'know ,mass exticntion events, punctuated equlibrium,etc.

Anonymous said...

And Darwinists do like to silence all desent. A scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory was recently demoted for discussing ID.

gobbie said...

ANon-

I agree with you than any argument that one would make about God in the context or evolution is theological, not scientific. Science does not answer why the fundamental laws of the universe are the way they are.

However, it does contradict the BIBLICAL version of creation.

The theological problems with the "special creations" idea is that (a) it directly contradicts the Bible (there was null and void before the 7 days of creation) and (b) it contradicts the idea of a perfect God, who would have to repeatedly create and destroy his worlds.

Scientifically speaking, even the advocates of punctuated equilibrium assume evolutionary change and common descent. So I don't understand how that helps "creationists".

Physicist David Deutsch explains how we distinguish between a good theory and a bad one in explaining what we observe. A good theory is 1. specific and detailed enough to explain what we see (in a detailed way), and 2. able to predict future findings, and 3. hard to vary (see his talk on TED).

With criterion 1, an important distinction is made between an observation NOT CONTRADICTING the theory and being EXPLAINED by the theory. For example, the DNA similarities between species does not conflict with the creation story, but it is not explained by it. It IS explained by evolution. Same with vestigial organs, morphological changes in fossils, mutations, etc.

Criteria 3 means that a theory can be refined in the course of observations, but the narrower the explanation that has success making predictions the closer that hypothesis (theory) is to objective reality. If you have too many variants available, the explanation is probably a bad one.


Creationism or "special creations" meets none of these criteria.

Evolution meets all these criteria.

Deutsch explains that it was this shift in scientific reasoning in the 1800s that allowed the explosion in science.

gobbie said...

To follow up my previous comment--

regarding criterion 1: Why do we reject the "Greek God" theory of cosmology and nature? NOT because observations contradict it. They don't. We reject it because it explains almost nothing of what we have observed in the past 3000 years of observation.

jewish philosopher said...

The theological problems with the "special creations" idea is that (a) it directly contradicts the Bible (there was null and void before the 7 days of creation) and (b) it contradicts the idea of a perfect God, who would have to repeatedly create and destroy his worlds.

I don't see it that way.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/how-i-understand-genesis.html

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-god-created-earlier-worlds.html

Anonymous said...

The series of special creations found in Midrash Rabba and Chagiga is based on a very careful reading of the Torah, so it really does not contradict the Torah. This is how Midrash works.

And DNA often contradicts, what we would expect from evolution. Species that are close morphologically are often very different genetically. And and vise versa. But the evolutionists explain that away by saying things like horizontal gene transfer.

Punctuated equlibrium is an attempt to explain why the fossil record does not show species to species change which is evolution.
Its almost an apologetic.
The fossil record actually more closely matches the The Midrash than it does evolution.


And evolution does not have a very good record of predicting things. There's junk DNA, the archaeopteryx, not being a bird ancestor after all, there's titaalik not being a tetrapod ancestor, etc.

And who gets to make the rules about what constitutes a good theory, anyway?

gobbie said...

"And who gets to make the rules about what constitutes a good theory, anyway?"

Those whose method actually brings progress. That which works.

As far as I know, Torah/religion has not added any knowledge to the world in thousands of years.

Anonymous said...

But, as I mentioned above, evolution does not bring much progress.

And why should the Torah contribute knowledge if that is not its purpose? The Torah's purpose is to serve as a guide for living a good life. It seems to be fulfilling its purpose fairly well, as it has been for thousands of years.

Anonymous said...

I find it funny that the use of such generalization is okay with you. Atheists don't think all monotheists are fundies any more than thinking all Jews are orthodox. Any kind of sweeping statement across a large segment of population is no argument for or against anything.

jewish philosopher said...

I just thought that the English language was missing something.